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

---

December 24, 2006

Lynne Cheney, Donald Wuerl, Anne Graham Lotz, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace with a special Christmas edition of "Fox News Sunday."

Celebrating America during the holiday season: We'll talk about the state of our country and get into some current news with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president.

A time for faith: We'll examine the role of religion in our culture with the archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham and founder of AnGeL Ministries.

And what's the latest on the president's review of our policy in Iraq? We'll ask our Sunday panel: Fred Barnes, Nina Easton, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

All right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. We begin, on this Christmas Eve, with a check of the latest headlines from my colleague Brian Wilson.

BRIAN WILSON, FOX NEWS: Thanks, Chris.

After two months of negotiating, the U.N. Security Council moves against Iran's nuclear program. The Council adopting a resolution ordering all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to a nuclear weapons program. Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad firing back saying the Security Council will regret voting for sanctions. He claims the West has lost the chance to make amends with Iran, and vows to push forward with efforts to enrich uranium, insisting sanctions will not harm his country.

Meanwhile, after a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel agrees to release $100 million in frozen funds to help ease the Palestinian financial crisis caused by an international boycott of the Hamas-led government. Olmert says he plans to meet again with Abbas to build on the achievements of this, their first meeting.

Government Arnold Schwarzenegger takes a tumble while skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho. An aide says the governor broke his leg and will need surgery on his right femur. He plans to remain in Idaho for the rest of the holiday before returning to L.A. for the operation. It's Schwarzenegger's second accident this year. In January, he needed stitches after a motorcycle mishap.

And good news for holiday travelers. Denver International Airport will finally have all six runways up and running today. It's the first time since last week's huge snowstorm hit that things are operating at 100 percent. And those are a look at your news headlines. Back to you, Chris.

WALLACE: As we head into a new year, we want to get some insights from one of Washington's most original thinkers, Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president.

And, Mrs. Cheney, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

LYNNE CHENEY, DICK CHENEY'S WIFE: Well, thank you, Chris. I appreciate that compliment.

WALLACE: Well deserved.

As 2006 wraps up, I was thinking the other day that you and your husband and the Bushes all have just two years left in these very powerful positions that you have. Do you all feel a sense of mission to get as much done as possible before you leave office?

CHENEY: Well, you know, I think there's a sense of mission that's been there from the beginning, and particularly since September 11th, to keep this country safe, to set this country on a path for a very long struggle -- you know, we're just at the beginning of what's going to be a very long struggle -- but to set this country on a path to keep our children and our grandchildren safe.

So I think that mission has been there for a very long time and continues still.

WALLACE: Do you feel, though -- I mean, are you aware of the fact two years left and time is running out in this lifetime to do things?

CHENEY: You know, I've discovered, too, that as you grow older, time passes so quickly; it is just unbelievable to me that Christmas is almost upon us and 2007. And so, of course, you have the idea of time growing short.

But I don't think that there's a fundamental change in mood. I think the sense of mission has been there all along.

WALLACE: Well, let's talk about that, because obviously the big issue now is to come up with a new strategy for Iraq.

Knowing that some of the decisions that have been made have not worked out, does the vice president feel any extra pressure, knowing that this may be the last chance that he and the president get for a course correction in Iraq?

CHENEY: You know, I think Dick wakes up every morning -- and I suspect the president, too -- determined to do the job he has to do as well as he can. And I certainly, living close to the vice president, don't have any sense that he feels under pressure. But he feels the same commitment and determination that he always has to do this really important job as best he can.

WALLACE: How do you feel about the challenge of working with a Democratic Congress for the next two years? CHENEY: Well, you know, the president has said -- and I know the vice president agrees -- that the idea is to go forward and to cooperate, to reach across the aisle, to make common cause in as many ways as possible.

That's clearly what the American people want. They don't like the idea that there are these huge problems out there and that all we do in Washington is fight about them.

But, you know, I, personally, have the sense that there are also some bright lines that we have, over the past five, six years, as a country, set in place some policies that have kept us safe. I'm thinking of the terrorist surveillance program and the Patriot Act and the detainee policy. We've begun to set in place policies, we've begun to develop instruments for ourselves to keep this country safe.

And I suspect there are some bright lines there. You have seen the Democrats consistently batter these programs and argue against them, and I think that it's not probably in the nation's interests, and I'm sure it is not on the president's agenda or the vice president's, to let any group in this country strip those tools away that have kept us safe.

WALLACE: Do you worry that the new Democratic majority might try to undo some of those things?

CHENEY: Sure. I think that that will be part of the ongoing effort in Congress, as we move forward, to come to grips with that, but to be sure that those things are kept whole so that we are safe and secure.

WALLACE: You used to be -- before you became the second lady, or whatever you title is, of the land -- on this side of the chair. Why do you think the Republicans took a thumpin', as the president put it, in the election? What do you think the American people were trying to say?

CHENEY: Well, I think Iraq was part of it.

But I also think that you had some extraordinary ethical failures. They were bipartisan, but I do think the Republicans paid a great price for that: the Mark Foley scandal at the end, things like the Duke Cunningham scandal at the beginning. I think those exacted a terrible price.

And you've also got the fact that in the sixth year of an administration, this is pretty typical.

WALLACE: You were nice enough to invite my wife and me to one of your Christmas parties -- and thank you very much for that -- and I couldn't help but notice that one of the other guests at the party was Scooter Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff.

What is the Cheneys' relationship with Scooter Libby now?

CHENEY: Oh, Scooter is a friend. He is someone that we admire. He is someone who has served the country very well. He's a fine man.

WALLACE: What about all his legal problems?

CHENEY: Well, the legal problems are there. I don't want to comment on anything in specific because there is a trial coming up.

But Scooter is a fine man. And we continue to support him and his wonderful family. He has a terrific wife, two great kids.

WALLACE: And those legal problems, it seems, have not changed your opinion and your admiration of him.

CHENEY: That's exactly right.

WALLACE: I'm going to ask you a question; you can answer it or not answer it.

Given the fact that it now turns out that Libby wasn't the one who first leaked the name of Valerie Plame, the CIA officer, what do you think of the fact that he's the only person who's being tried?

CHENEY: It seems bizarre to me.

WALLACE: In what way?

CHENEY: Well, that's the -- I did answer your question.

WALLACE: I'm surprised you answered it that much.

CHENEY: Let's just stop there. I think it's bizarre.

WALLACE: That he's the only who's being tried?

CHENEY: Well, I just think -- I think that we're seeing an instance of a man who spent a great deal of his life as a dedicated public servant - - he's done an awful lot of good -- in a situation that does not reflect well on our judicial system.

WALLACE: In addition to everything else you do, you have written five books about American history for children and families. And the latest one, which we just happen to have right here, is called "Our 50 States" which is written -- and I love this about it -- as a kind of family road trip across America's 50 states. And I hate to admit it, but I learned a lot in looking through it.

Why do you think it's so important for young people to have what you call historical literacy? And do you push that yourself, and have you pushed that yourself, with your children and your grandchildren?

CHENEY: Well, I think it's important for one reason: They need to understand what a great and good country this is.

We spend an awful lot of time flailing ourselves, in the media particularly, finding our sins, finding our errors, finding our flaws and faults, and those are by far the smaller part of the story.

This is a great and good country. And we need to show our kids that. We need to teach them that.

You can do it by, you know, going to some place close by that might tell the story of the pilgrims, or the Puritans, or I think of the pioneers in Wyoming, you know, the heroic story of those people who came across the plains, taking the Missouri trail, you know, in ox carts. It was -- it's an amazing story. And we have many stories like that.

And I certainly do push it with my own grandchildren. Just this last week, I went to Mount Vernon with the three older grandchildren. They have a new educational center there that's quite spectacular.

The story of Washington is one that they should all have engraved on their frontal lobes. And taking them to Mount Vernon is a good way to start that.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that, because how do you make it fun and not like eating spinach?

CHENEY: Well, one of the ways you do it is you connect it with the time. And the story of Washington is such a good one to tell now, because one of his most amazing accomplishments was crossing the Delaware.

WALLACE: Which happened on Christmas, I remember.

CHENEY: Exactly. Everything is lost and Washington decides to go on the offensive, and on Christmas night crosses the Delaware, defeats the Hessians, goes on to Princeton and defeats the British.

He really lifted the souls of everyone across America with these heroic deeds.

WALLACE: Well, speaking on grandchildren, we -- it's been well publicized that you're going to have an addition to the Cheney family. You're daughter Mary is going to give you I think your sixth grandchild?

CHENEY: That's exactly right.

WALLACE: What do you make of all the fuss about this?

CHENEY: Well, I think that it's just very lucky for me that I enjoy being a grandmother and I get to do it for the sixth time. And we're very much -- Dick and I both very much looking forward to this new baby.

WALLACE: And your thought about Mary being a mother?

CHENEY: Well, she'll be a great mom. She really will.

WALLACE: The last time that you were here, two years ago, we talked about the whole issue of Christmas and political correctness. And the debate continues on two years later. This year we have the controversy over putting up Christmas trees in Seattle airport; as I'm sure you know the department store chains are taken to task as to whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy holidays."

What's the right answer, here?

CHENEY: You know, I personally look for those messages in my Christian faith that are pretty universal, and try to wish those to all my friends during Christmas.

One of the aspects of the Christian holiday, Christmas, is the message of the angels, "Peace on Earth, goodwill to men." What message could be more fitting for people everywhere than that? So the president -- the vice president and I have that on our Christmas card this year.

WALLACE: But this whole issue of saying, "Merry Christmas," or being -- conversely, being embarrassed to say, "Merry Christmas" -- what's right?

CHENEY: Well, you should say, "Merry Christmas," if that is what feels good to you. However, if you're talking to somebody Jewish, it seems to me that "Happy holidays" is probably more appropriate.

And when you have a large audience, as the Bushes do, or as we do when we send out our Christmas cards, I think you try to find something in your faith that has universal meaning that will touch every heart, and to make that the basis of your Christmas wishes.

WALLACE: As something of a social commentator, you've certainly heard people talk about the war against Christmas. Do you think there is a war against Christmas?

CHENEY: I do think that's true. I do think that's true.

You know, it's something we have a little trouble with in this country: We talk about diversity, but sometimes we seem completely brain- dead to the fact that you can be diverse, that you can have a menorah and you can have a Christmas tree. You don't have to quit having the Christmas trees, quit having the creches, in order to honor a Jewish holiday, in order to honor people of other faiths.

WALLACE: So celebrate it all?

CHENEY: Exactly.

WALLACE: Finally...

CHENEY: We had a menorah at our Christmas party.

WALLACE: I didn't notice -- I noticed Scooter Libby, I didn't notice the menorah.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Finally, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans this Christmas -- as there have been for many Christmases -- serving around the world defending freedom. Mrs. Cheney, do you have a message you'd like to send to all of them? CHENEY: Oh, my goodness: Just such complete gratitude.

It's been one of the most inspiring things that I've had the opportunity to do, being married to the vice president, is to visit our troops at various places around the country. And I want to thank those that are serving overseas for their service. I know they do it as volunteers. I know they do it because they feel as though they're serving a larger cause.

And it is such an important one. It is a cause that we've always needed to have defended. We've had great warriors from the beginning of our history, brave soldiers that we've honored. And I honor those who are serving today.

WALLACE: Well, Mrs. Cheney, we thank you so much for joining us. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and all the Cheneys, including that new grandchild on the way.

CHENEY: Thank you very much, Chris.

WALLACE: Thank you so much for coming.

CHENEY: Merry Christmas, to you.

WALLACE: Thank you.

Up next, we'll talk with two special guests about religion in America during the holiday season and all year long. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: At this time of year, many of us reflect on the spiritual side of life. For more on that, we turn to the archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and from Raleigh, North Carolina, Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham and founder of AnGeL Ministries.

And merry Christmas and happy holidays to both of you.

ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ, ANGEL MINISTRIES: Merry Christmas.

DONALD WUERL, ARCHBISHOP, WASHINGTON, D.C.: Well, thank you very much and the same to you.

WALLACE: Let's start with the big picture.

Ms. Lotz, as you look across America, what is the spiritual health of this country?

LOTZ: I think Americans are very caught up, for the most part, in spirituality. The concern that I would have is that it's a spirituality many times devoid of God; and maybe involving a god they make up, but devoid of the one, true living god.

And I think, you know, this is Christmas Eve, the day before Christmas, and it's a wonderful time to celebrate the fact that God loves us and has sent us his son, Jesus, as a baby in the manger at Bethlehem.

And I find that Christians, we talk a lot about things, and Americans, we are very spiritual and have a lot of faith, but it's the object of our faith that concerns me, because, you know, I can have a lot of faith in this chair. I sit down in this chair and it collapse under me. And nothing wrong with my faith, but what's wrong is the object of my faith.

And I think Americans -- you know, we're a people of faith, but my concern is on what our faith is placed and the object of our faith. And it's very important to examine the object of your faith, because, you know, when the pressure comes on and when we go through national crises or personal crises, it's not our faith that carries us through so much as the object of our faith and our trust in, I believe, the person of Jesus Christ.

WALLACE: Archbishop Wuerl, we see a coarsening of society. We see, quite frankly, especially at Christmas, a great deal of materialism.

What is the state of our spiritual union at the end of 2006?

WUERL: I think where we are is where, probably, we have always been. There's a struggle between the spirit and the world in which we live.

The constant challenge is not to allow the spirit, not to allow that spark of the divine within us to get overwhelmed by all of the life and all of the activities and all of the energy that are a part of simply living today. But it's always been that way.

Christmas provides us a time to reflect, not just individually but as a society, a culture on how important is it to have relationship with God.

And Christmas simply says to all of us, even in the midst of all of the commercial aspect of it, at the heart of Christmas is the recognition that God has come into our lives, into our world, and that God has offered us a relationship -- a living, personal relationship.

Out of that can come a whole new way of looking at life. We can transform this world. We can transform it by the spiritual energy, by the power that is the gift of God's spirit.

I think that's what Christmas is all about.

WALLACE: Even on Christmas Eve this is still a Sunday morning talk show, so let's discuss some political issues that have a heavy moral component.

One of the subjects that's been discussed a lot this year is the best way to treat immigrants who come into our country illegally.

Archbishop Wuerl should we send them home? Should we build fences to keep more from coming into this country? Should we create a legal path to citizenship? How do we treat these 11 million immigrants who've come into this country illegally?

WUERL: There are two things that I think have to be looked at when we address a problem of this magnitude that already has a long history in our culture.

I think we want to make sure that we respect and follow the law, because we're a nation of laws.

But, secondly, when we're dealing with a concrete situation that already exists, don't we have to look at people with a full awareness of their human dignity? Don't we have to address the human dimension of the situation today?

Whatever we come up with, whatever solution we have politically, whatever solution we come up with socially has to take into consideration the human quality, the dignity of all of the people who are now in our country.

We, obviously, have to devise a better way of regulating who and how people come into the country. But when we're dealing with people who are already here, we have to treat them with that human respect and dignity to which every one of us has a claim.

WALLACE: Ms. Lotz, let me ask you the same question, because I'm sure a lot of people are going to say, "Well, yes, we want to treat them with dignity, but they did break the law and they didn't wait in line as the law would have it. They crossed our borders."

What is the moral way to deal with the 11 million people who are in this country illegally, and the millions more who would like to come?

LOTZ: You know, Chris, if you don't mind, I'm going to address it more as a religious leader.

And one of the things I try to do when I go to the polls to vote, I vote for people that I believe have character, who have moral values based in the Scripture. And then I just pray for them and pray that they will have God's wisdom to know how to handle some of these incredible problems.

So for me, if you don't mind, I'd rather not come down on a political side.

But I would say that for myself each one of these people that comes into this country, I don't know where they've come from, whether it's Central America or someplace in Africa, but I wonder if while they're here, if God would allow them the opportunity to hear what we call the good news of Jesus Christ.

And so as a religious leader, I'm more concerned with their souls and that while they're here they have the opportunity to hear about what sometimes they describe as America's god, and they think of Jesus identified with America, which to me is a privilege and a blessing.

And so, I want to tell them that God loves them -- every single one of them. It doesn't matter if you live in the White House or if you live in some immigrant's shack next to some tobacco field, that God loves you. And he loves you so much that he sent his own son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to take away your sin; that if you placed your faith in Jesus, you would not perish but have everlasting life.

And that's a message that I would be concerned that I would get across to everyone that I come into contact with, whether the person is an illegal immigrant or a legal immigrant or an American born and bred. And it's a message that I want to try to keep my focus on.

And then, at the same time, pray for our leaders who handle some of these incredible problems that there's just no easy solution to this.

And you would say, "Send them back because they haven't, you know, obeyed the law." At the same time, you see their individual history and their individual family situation, and I don't know how we can tear up people's lives like that.

So I really can't give you a clear answer. I just know that God loves every single one of them.

WALLACE: Ms. Lotz, I want to ask you about another political question with a lot of moral implications. And before I do, how are your mom and dad, who so many Americans have such admiration for?

LOTZ: Chris, thank you for asking.

And I think my daddy's doing well. He's just returned from Mayo Clinic, where he's had some procedures for macular degeneration. And my understanding is that they've arrested the progression of it. So we're rejoicing over that.

I believe in few days he may once again be able to read a large- print Bible, which he's not been able to read for a while.

My mother has not been doing so well. She's very weak, but actually very feisty and her mind is sharp and clear. And they're both looking forward to celebrating Christmas -- all of us looking forward to once again -- as Archbishop Wuerl said, that we just need to keep our focus at Christmas and not allow some of these other things to distract us, and keep our focus on Jesus.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that -- to pick up on that. Because I know one of the diseases that your dad suffers from is Parkinson's disease. If we -- and I want to talk to you about stem cell research.

If we could take some of these embryos that are just thrown away and use them to help your remarkable father and so many others who suffer from these terrible diseases, why wouldn't that be a wonderful outcome?

LOTZ: Actually, because an embryo is a tiny human life. And, actually, my husband has diabetes and now he's in kidney failure. He has diabetic retinopathy, so he's going blind. My son has cancer. My mother has degenerative arthritis. My daddy has Parkinson's.

And so if I made a decision like that based on my personal feelings, I can tell you, I'd be all for it.

But I can't, because I can't get away from the fact that embryos are tiny, little human beings. They're tiny little people. And so it doesn't matter if an embryo -- whether you've collected it for some other reason or whether it's still in someone's body, an embryo is a tiny human person. And you cannot take human life to make somebody else's human life improved.

It's just -- to me, morally that's not right.

And I would -- I'm for stem cell research, not embryonic stem cell research.

WALLACE: Let me bring Archbishop Wuerl into this as well.

As you know, this was a big issue in the campaign. And I think many people find it hard to understand why it's wrong to take frozen embryos, which are in many cases -- thousands of cases -- are simply going to be thrown away, and not to use them to try to cure people from pain and illness.

WUERL: Well, I think Ms. Lotz framed this very, very well.

What's at the heart of the issue is are we ever going to so disregard the intrinsic integrity of the human life and come to the position that we would want to use one life for the benefit of another.

We have to -- we have to start with the recognition human life is a gift from God. We -- we're the stewards of that great gift. It's a wonderful gift. And what a great time, at Christmas, to reflect on that, the great gift of Jesus, God come among us, was to reinforce how important it is that we would recognize we have a soul; we have a relationship with God; we're different than any other form of life.

Every human life has this wonderful value because it has the possibility, the potential of living forever with God.

So we never want to get to the point where we say, "Well, let's weigh what would be a value to me if I destroy that human life; what would be a value to the culture if we were able to eliminate certain lives, even if they have some sort of commercial value?" No, the life is a gift, and it's that life we want to always -- we want to always lift up for everyone to recognize its worth and value.

WALLACE: We have about a minute left, and I'm going to ask both of you to engage in a Christmas miracle, because I know it's hard for preachers to say things quickly when they have a microphone.

(LAUGHTER)

Can you talk, about 30 seconds.

Let's start with you, Archbishop Wuerl: What is the good news? What's the message of the Christmas season?

WUERL: The message of Christmas is God loves us. And God has sent his son, his word, to be with us. And that word is a transforming word. And it says, "Take my love, and with that love, re-create this whole world. You can transform this world into a kingdom of grace and peace and love and justice and compassion and understanding."

This is the great Christmas gift. It's in the Lord Jesus. And the Lord Jesus has been given to us as one of us. And he says to us, "Bring peace and love to the whole world."

WALLACE: And, Ms. Lotz?

LOTZ: I just would say amen to that, Chris.

And I would also say that Bethlehem and the Christmas story is not just about a baby. It's about the incarnation of God. And when you look at the little face of the baby in the manger, you're looking into the face of God. Jesus is God made flesh.

So if you want to know what God is like, you just look at Jesus, because he's exactly like Jesus.

And he has come to express God's love for you and God's love for me that, through God, it's not just our whole big world, but my personal, private world can be transformed through my faith in Jesus, because God loves me and when I invite Jesus to come into my heart to take away my sin, I have peace; not just on Earth, peace in my heart with God, peace with my fellow man, I have a purpose to live for.

And that's wonderful good news in our world of uncertainty.

And I have hope for the future; I know where I'm going when I die.

WALLACE: Ms. Lotz, Archbishop Wuerl, we want to thank you both so much for sharing part of your holiday with us. And merry Christmas to both of you.

WUERL: Merry Christmas.

LOTZ: Merry Christmas. Thank you.

WALLACE: Thank you both for being here.

Coming up: On the debate within the Bush administration, if more troops are to be sent to Iraq, what exactly will their mission be?

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The advance of liberty has never been easy and Iraq is proving how tough it can be. Yet the safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not let up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was President Bush this week vowing to finish the job in Iraq.

And it's panel time now for "Fox News" contributors Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, Nina Easton from Fortune magazine, Bill Kristol also of the Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams from National Public Radio.

Well, the president held his year-end news conference this week and he made it clear that for all the talk in the past about deferring to the commanders on the ground when it comes to troop levels that this time he may overrule their concerns about whether or not to send in more troops.

Bill, why do you think in this particular case he may go against the generals?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Because the war hasn't been going well, and he's deferred to General Casey and General Abizaid for a couple of years. They had a theory, a light-footprint theory, that American troops could cause more trouble than they solved.

I think that theory turns out to ignore the absolute primacy of providing security to the Iraqi people: that unless you provide a minimum of security, you can't make political progress. You can't even train the Iraqi army in such a way that eventually we win the war and we do get out.

So the president, I think, has decided to take a fresh look with the departure of Secretary Rumsfeld.

General Odierno, the new commander of the actual forces in Iraq -- I'm told that he's in favor of having more troops there.

And it was very striking that when secretary -- new Defense Secretary Bob Gates had that town hall meeting this week with the enlisted men in Iraq and they asked what was on their mind, they said, "We need more troops. We go in and clear these areas of insurgents and terrorists, and then we leave and they come back and intimidate anyone who's isn't willing to work with us. And we need more troops on the ground."

WALLACE: Before I bring Juan in, General John Abizaid, the top -- the U.S. commander in the Middle East announced this week that he's going to retire this spring. Coincidence or was he forced out?

KRISTOL: I don't know that he was forced out. His tour had already been extended.

But I think he had a theory of the war and he conducted, obviously, himself honorably and a good-faith effort. It just turned out not to be the right way to fight this war.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, you know, I think that it's not the case that the military can do it all. And I think that's the suggestion here, that somehow that you can turn this around by simply increasing the number of people that we have on the ground in Iraq.

And I think there's a wider consensus here that you need a political solution and you need politics as well as military possibly. But certainly the military shouldn't be the lead in any sort of prescription the president's going to bring forth in January.

To the contrary, when you hear from Carl Levin, who's going to be the new head of the Senate Armed Services, he said more troops could simply mean we got ourselves in a deeper hole and into more trouble. And you hear people saying, you know, "Wait a minute. What is the mission? Exactly what is it that these additional troops are supposed to accomplish?"

Certainly, if you say the commission is stanching the violence -- stopping the violence for a moment, is that really going to have long- term impact? Is that really going to settle things down and allow us to say that we have had a success in terms of our war in Iraq? I don't think so.

WALLACE: Well, let me pick up on that, because even the president this week in -- and as you say, he may be going against his generals, but he acknowledged, Fred, the critics' concern that if you're going to send them, there has to a specific mission.

What is the mission?

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, it's a pretty obvious mission. I don't know why there's all this wonder about what it might be.

In the short run, it's to secure the capital of Iraq, Baghdad.

You don't need to go to Kurdistan; it's perfectly orderly. You don't need to go to most places in the south of Iraq where the Shiites are, because they're pretty much violence-free as well, most of that area.

But Baghdad, which is a quarter of the population, is where all the violence is. And you can't -- if you don't have a secure capital in a country like that, or any country for that matter, you can't have a stable, democratic government succeed.

So the troops would go there, starting in -- and I think the president is inclined to do this. I mean, he talked at his press conference this week about victory being achievable. And it's clearly not achievable under the current strategy, as Bill talked about it, and with the current number of troops.

So you bring more into Baghdad. You, first, go after the mixed areas where Sunnis and Shiites live and secure those, and hold them.

This is why more American troops are needed, because in the past they have secured those areas and left them to Iraqi troops who haven't been able to hold them, but American troops can. They are much better. They're the best fighting force in the world, ever.

And they hold them. And then you move into Anbar province.

First you have to -- here's where Juan's wrong. First you have to destroy the Sunni insurgency, and then you can have a political solution. But if you have the insurgency having all that violence, then all you get are militias in response to it.

WALLACE: Nina?

NINA EASTON, FORTUNE MAGAZINE: Well, I think we should add that this comes this week amid two major confessions by the president: First, he said we're not winning the war in Iraq; and secondly, that the war has put such a strain on the American military that we may need to expand U.S. military worldwide.

I think it is -- it does reflect -- the surge strategy does reflect a sense that things aren't going well and that there isn't -- the White House lacks confidence in any on-the-ground progress, whether you're talking about these newly minted Iraqi security forces and whether they're up to speed; whether you're talking about whether Maliki, the prime minister, can actually rein in the Sadr militias.

But it reflects -- it's a very -- it's a short-term solution. Not even a solution, it's a short-term fix.

It was not recommended by Rumsfeld in his memo. It was not recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

It's a short-term fix so that they can deal with getting some progress on the ground.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about the duration of this fix, Bill, because some Democratic leaders in the Senate -- Harry Reid and Dick Durbin -- talked this week about, yes, they could support a short-term surge if it's part of a bigger plan to pull U.S. troops out.

Is that likely to be a compromise that the -- yes, a short-term surge, but a long-term pullout? Or are we headed for open warfare in this town on this issue of Iraq policy?

KRISTOL: No, there's no point having a short-term surge, especially if it's proclaimed ahead of time that it's just short term. They go into hiding for three, six months, we pull back, and we're back in the same situation.

This has to be -- Bush will commit -- I believe when he speaks in a couple of weeks -- to doing this, that this is a strategy for victory and he's willing to do this for the two -- remaining two years of his presidency.

WALLACE: As long as it takes. Open-ended.

KRISTOL: Yes. Yes.

If it goes well, if you look at the military plans that are being developed and the ones that are public, such as General Keene's, it looks like, after a year, if things go reasonably well -- not utopian, but just reasonably well -- they might be able to begin to draw down.

But I don't think the president can or should commit to that. And I think he will say, "We can win, we have to win, we're going to increase troop levels as part of a new strategy, for the sake of victory," and so it will not be a short-term surge.

The criticisms that have been launched against the short-term surge to some degree are true. What's needed is a sustained and large surge.

WALLACE: Well, among other things, the insurgents and the bad guys could simply fade into the woodwork and wait the short-term surge out. And then...

KRISTOL: Right. So it has to be a sustained, large surge to establish security gradually, expand the zone of security, take care of the Sunni insurgency first, then turn against the Shia militia when that becomes possible, when the violence has begun to subside from the cities.

This is a remarkable moment, though. I think the people -- I came to Washington over 20 years ago. How often does a president go against what Juan referred to as -- what'd you say? -- the wider consensus in this town that a military solution is impossible?

It's a very broad consensus of the establishment, and I think that's why there's so much anger among some of the establishment types.

"Gee, the Baker-Hamilton commission pronounced its verdict. And how dare the president make up his own mind and decide that he's not just going to gracefully accept defeat with this nice, bipartisan patina of the Baker- Hamilton commission? How dare he decide that he might win in Iraq?"

WALLACE: But wait a minute. It's not -- it's not just the consensus of the establishment or the gray beards. I mean, it's the American public...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: And how often does a president decide -- well, the American public is complicated. I think a lot of them turned against the Republicans in November because we weren't winning.

WALLACE: No, no, no. According to the polls, it's fewer than 20 percent want more troops sent in. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: Anyway, it's nice to see a president showing leadership and courage. It reminds me of -- the only time I've really seen this is Reagan at Reykjavik in 1996, when he turned down Gorbachev's -- what was thought to be a very generous offer -- you'll remember this well...

WALLACE: I was there.

KRISTOL: Yes. To get rid of so many weapons. And Reagan said, "No, we're not getting rid of SDI." He went against the bipartisan consensus, the conventional wisdom. He was right. And this time, Bush is going to do it. And it is impressive...

WILLIAMS: Let me tell you...

KRISTOL: It is impressive for a president to take charge in this way.

WILLIAMS: So you can dress up to the fact that he might be wrong?

That he might be wrong, and he's been wrong in terms of -- I mean, one of the theories here is if you wanted a troop increase, it should have been done several years ago.

And we have tried it, Fred. You're saying I'm wrong, but, Fred, this has been tried to secure Baghdad. This is not a new idea. We tried it and it didn't work.

BARNES: I thought I explained to you...

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: ... what was done wrong in those earlier efforts, actually, this year. We didn't hold the area. Look...

WILLIAMS: And it wasn't a matter of we didn't have enough people there, but...

BARNES: I'll tell you...

WILLIAMS: Wait a second. Let me finish this point.

Last December, what did we do? We had a political process in place. We did it.

Now we're talking about more troops. And in addition to that, we're talking about increasing the size of the military altogether.

The secretary, you know (OFF-MIKE) well, you know, "It's a good idea. We're going to try it and see. Maybe we should have a draft in two years. We'll see if the mechanism work."

How's that going to play with the American people?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: So in other words, (inaudible) the National Guard, everybody's...

BARNES: Juan, I'm sure glad you were not advising Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, because that -- there were a lot of defeats he had, but he didn't give up. He kept going.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: But let's define what we want to do.

BARNES: He found out the generals were following the wrong strategy. They were losing. They didn't fight aggressively. And he finally got a general with a strategy -- this was Ulysses Grant -- and he won.

Now, I think President Bush is looking for the same thing in Iraq: a strategy that will work. In Baghdad, they have failed in the past, just this year.

He's going to have a new strategy. He's going to have new generals. And as he believes, there's a chance to achieve a real victory there. I think that's possible as well.

WILLIAMS: I'm not going to blame the military.

WALLACE: All right. We've got to go. Got to take a quick break. But we'll have more with our panel in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: I like that little choo-choo train.

And we're back now with Fred, Nina, Bill and Juan.

Well, President Bush is ending this year talking about the possibility of bipartisan cooperation with Congress -- at least talking about it.

Nina, what do you think are the real chances that the president and the new Democratic leaders up on Capitol Hill will be able to work together and get some serious legislation passed?

EASTON: Well, I think, absolutely at first we're going to see a flurry of activity that makes with this bipartisan sheen.

The Democrats want to look like responsible governors. They have some things they want to get through, like minimum wage and ethics reform, lobby reform that the president is likely to sign.

But I predict that this will all come to a screeching halt a month out, when we start seeing oversight investigations into national security policy as its pursued by the president and, going back to Iraq, budget process over Iraq. They're going to use the budget process to go after the president on Iraq. We've got a $100 million supplemental request coming up to the Hill which will put this war above Vietnam in terms of costs. We will now surpass the cost of Vietnam. The Democrats will use this to go after the White House and all this bipartisanship will come to a screeching halt.

WALLACE: All right. But it being Christmas Eve, let's talk about the positive, not the negative...

(LAUGHTER)

... screeching to a halt, that choo-choo train.

Fred, let's talk some specifics.

The president said this week that he would agree to raise the minimum wage, but he wants to see it linked to tax breaks and regulatory relief for the small businesses that would be most affected.

Senator Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the committee in the Senate that would handle this, says, "No, no, I want a clean minimum tax increase."

In the immortal words of the game show host, deal or no deal?

(LAUGHTER)

BARNES: I think there's going to be deal. I think this is a test of Bush's manhood in this new -- political manhood -- in this new world with Democrats in control of Congress.

I mean, it's perfectly reasonable for him to ask for something to go along with his minimum wage that isn't extraneous. You know, he's not asking to end the estate tax, he's asking to give some relief to small businesses who may be affected by this rather hefty hike in the minimum wage, $2.10.

So I think he needs to hold out for that and will get it, even though Ted Kennedy may not like it, organized labor may not like it. But they're really testing Bush on this to see how far they can push him.

WALLACE: Bill, let's talk about another area of possible reform: Social Security.

Treasury Secretary Paulson and White House officials have talked about opening negotiations with the Democrats, everything on the table, no preconditions. And a lot of conservatives are concerned that that means that the president would be willing to make a grand bargain in which he would agree to raise payroll taxes, either raising the rate or raising the cap on how much of your income is taxed.

Deal or no deal?

KRISTOL: I've been concerned about that based on some of the public signals. But someone in the White House told me this week, "Don't worry. No tax increase." So I always believe people in the White House.

(LAUGHTER)

I think no deal on Social Security and a big deal on immigration early on.

I actually have the opposite view from Nina. I mean, I remember after 2004, Bush won, Republican Congress, he had all this political capital, he was going to get all this stuff through. Nothing happened.

Life often works out sort of the opposite of what you expect. I think they could have a pretty productive next six months. I don't think a Social Security deal, but I do think a big deal on immigration.

WALLACE: Which brings me, Juan, to immigration reform. The president clearly got nowhere. He spoke to the nation. He called for comprehensive immigration reform. Got nowhere with the Republicans in control of -- particularly the House. Possibility for a deal with the Democrats now in control of the House.

WILLIAMS: It's a deal. And the deal is largely based on the idea that he needs a legacy and that he has got -- remember, the president is at a disadvantage going in these last two years -- you know, the lame duck, that whole analogy.

But if he can show the American people that he is purposeful, that there's more to his legacy than Iraq and the possibility of occupying Iraq for all time, as Fred would have us do to protect the neighborhood, then what you're going to see is an effort, I think, to say, "OK, it's immigration."

The Republican right wing that ran hard on immigration that wants to build a wall, hey, they lost. So that energy is gone. The Minutemen that the president has called vigilantes, the Tancredos, those people are on the run.

And so the president has got to take advantage of this moment, and I think he will. I think he sees this as the key to his legacy, in fact.

Social Security, I might add, is another legacy issue. He'd love to be able to say, "I was the president that saved Social Security for future generations."

So, again, you can see some impetus there. But these are issues...

WALLACE: You think he's going to be willing to increase Social Security taxes, which would probably be part of any compromise the Democrats would sign on to?

WILLIAMS: I don't think that he's willing to increase it by a lot, but I think he's willing to increase it by some.

And, you know, Bill says that the White House bargaining position has got to be, coming out of the box, "No, we're not going to increase taxes." It would be foolish to say anything but that.

But I think they are willing to make a...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I want to bring Nina in.

You can talk about Social Security reform or immigration.

EASTON: The signals I hear coming out of the White House are that he wants -- the president wants to make Social Security reform part of his legacy, which does raise this tax question if you're going to get a deal with the Democrats.

And it's all a very politically dangerous situation for him, because if he does do immigration reform with the Democrats -- and, of course, they're closer on the same page than he is with conservative Republicans -- he's going to anger conservative Republicans. Then if he did a Social Security reform that involved any kind of tax hike, I mean, it's politically -- yes, he's not running for reelection, but it's a politically dangerous position for him to be in.

It would break his final tie with conservatives. I mean, this is what holds up all conservatives and Republicans together with Bush is no new taxes, really -- and tax cuts.

But you forget, there's something else missing in this whole debate over Social Security, and that's personal investment accounts. Everything is not on the table. Democrats have refused to put that on the table. I think you could get a deal if Democrats accepted that and Bush would give them somewhat of a tax increase and you could wind up with a deal.

But that's not going to happen because Democrats...

WALLACE: Do you think that the Democrats, having campaigned against that when they were in the minority, are now going to go for personal accounts when they're in...

BARNES: No, I don't. But don't pretend like everything's on the table. Bush may have put everything on the table. Democrats haven't.

KRISTOL: Here's the big difference between Social Security and immigration.

On immigration, Bush happens to agree with a lot of Democrats. He's for a comprehensive immigration reform. Getting a good immigration bill is consistent with the principles on immigration that President Bush has articulated for six years.

Giving way on a tax increase is contrary to what he has -- to the principles and the policies he's followed quite successfully for the last six years.

So stick with tax cuts, make a deal on immigration, win the war in Iraq, he'll have a very good...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: ... he'll have a very good last two years.

WALLACE: What about (inaudible)

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: This is the Christmas spirit. What about the notion of sacrifice for our future -- for our children to save Social Security? Is that something he'd like to claim?

BARNES: You can't save it by just raising taxes.

You were in Washington in 1982, '83. Remember when they did that? They raised taxes, they raised the age at which you're eligible to -- 67 -- which will come in...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... Social Security problem for 20 years.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

BARNES: No. But it was going to save it for 75 years. Remember that?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Actually, this is going to be -- what? -- 40 years?

BARNES: Oh, come on. The only way you can do it, you have to have the private accounts. If people can get some of their retirement savings through the market, and not from the Social Security system because it's going to run out.

Look...

WILLIAMS: The American people will never buy that...

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: Here's the other thing, though: Bush is not only going to deal with Democrats. He's going to deal with a hoped-for coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans on things like...

WALLACE: Say "Good-bye," Fred.

(LAUGHTER)

BARNES: Good-bye.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Good-bye, everybody. Thank you panel. See you next week.

---

Sponsored Links

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