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

---

December 31, 2006

Richard Lugar, Tom Vilsack, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. The public comes to the U.S. Capitol to pay final respects to Gerald Ford, next on "Fox News Sunday."

Iraq after Saddam: What does the execution of the former dictator mean for the future of that country? We'll get the latest from Baghdad and talk with the Republicans' point man on foreign policy, Senator Richard Lugar.

Also, on the last day of '06, the race is already on for '08. We'll discuss the presidential campaign with one of the Democratic contenders, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.

Plus, as America honors President Gerald Ford, what is his political legacy? We'll ask our panel: Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And we'll have a special tribute to the late president -- all right now, on "Fox News Sunday."

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington, where we are following two major stories.

First, at this hour, the U.S. Capitol is open for people to say goodbye to former President Ford. The public viewing today and tomorrow began last night after a state funeral was held in the Capitol Rotunda. We'll have a report on the ceremonies and talk with our panel about the former president later in the show.

But first, our other top story: reaction to the execution of Saddam Hussein. Fox News correspondent Greg Palkot joins us live from Baghdad with the latest.

Greg?

GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, it is a day after the execution of Saddam Hussein, and we are still getting more views of the hanging. Now, we won't show you all of the latest; it's a big too graphic. But I had a chance to see it on a mobile phone. You see the body actually drop, the body dangle lifelessly, the head still in the noose.

Interesting, though, Chris, also we get a soundtrack with this piece of video, and we hear the executioners taunt Saddam Hussein with a variety of curses. They also use the name of the Shiite rebel Muqtada al-Sadr against Saddam Hussein. Saddam has a few quick retorts, some political comments. He also offers a Muslim prayer, which is cut off abruptly in mid- recitation.

Following that, Chris, probably the strangest funeral scene in a long while -- funeral procession, actually. Under cover of darkness, overnight, Saddam's body was flown by U.S. military helicopter up to his home region of Tikrit, north of Baghdad. There was a service there, said to be attended by hundreds. And then his body was brought to be buried and interred in the village of Ouja, where he was born, where his sons Uday and Qusay are buried. They were killed in a shootout with the U.S. military.

It is fitting because that village is not far from where Saddam Hussein was nabbed some three years ago, cowering in a spiderhole underground while U.S. troops and special force officers searched overhead to snatch him out of that hole -- a hole, Chris, which, by the way, I visited one day after he was captured. It was not a nice place, not a nice end three years ago, not a nice end this weekend.

Back to you.

WALLACE: Greg Palkot reporting live from Baghdad.

Greg, thanks.

Joining us now to discuss the situation in Iraq and what it means for U.S. policy is Senator Richard Lugar, the Republicans' top man on the Foreign Relations Committee.

And, Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday." * SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R), INDIANA: Thank you very much, Chris.

WALLACE: What is the significance of Saddam Hussein's execution? Is there a way to make this a turning point for Iraq?

LUGAR: It appears that much of Iraq was impressed by the fact that the trial occurred, although it was a first trial and later trials were coming and some Kurds, for example, felt that all the problems, the atrocities against them and against others in the country had not been revealed.

But, same time, ultimately, after the cheering in the streets or the curses, not much change; feeling that this all occurred three years ago and has played its way out.

WALLACE: Given that this is clearly a final statement to Saddam loyalists, the so-called dead-enders, that he really is not coming back, how important is it now for the Shiite government to take concrete steps to reach out to the Sunnis and try to bring them into the political process -- real, national reconciliation?

LUGAR: Tremendously important. And the political side of this really has to be overemphasized all the time -- that is, how the constitution can have amendments so that, as Iraq divides up into various local governments -- Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds -- which they're allowed to do, that this does not lead to the Sunnis feeling being left out.

Ditto with the oil distribution. To his credit, Prime Minister Maliki has started the conversation on the oil; likewise, on the devolution of the country.

But the Sunnis believe that the central government has to be reasonably important or they won't get their share of the oil and they won't get their share of the governance. So the reaching out and the success of the reaching out are of the essence.

WALLACE: How much confidence do you have that Prime Minister Maliki and his ruling coalition, all of those other Shiite parties, are capable and willing of taking the steps necessary to have this real national reconciliation?

LUGAR: I have very limited confidence, despite the effects of our ambassador, Dr. Khalilzad, who I think has done a tremendous job trying to push this.

This is one of the facets of the Baker-Hamilton commission that needs to be taken seriously, the so-called contact group of the nations surrounding. A lot has been made about negotiations with Syria and Iran, but equally important are contributions by the Jordanians, by the Saudis, by the Turks, for that matter. In other words...

WALLACE: But as for Maliki himself?

LUGAR: Well, we have to at least bring pressure in addition to whatever our ambassador is saying to him. In other words, some people in our country are saying, "Give Maliki three months, six months. If he doesn't make it, why, school's out, we come home."

But that's unlikely to really get the job done. Maliki is under great pressure within the Shiite community -- the militias of the young Sadr, for example. And so we can offer all sorts of advice: make sure that militia disappears. Somehow or other, get the oil money divided correctly. And that's a tough job given the players that he's got there.

So what I'm suggesting is that the diplomatic aspects -- that is, our diplomacy plus everybody else who has a stake in an Iraq that works, and maybe a greater stake sometimes than some of the Iraqis who keep asking, "Is there really an Iraq, as opposed to a situation of three different groups?"

WALLACE: Would you bring Syria and Iran into that conversation?

LUGAR: Yes, of course. They're neighbors. But I think that's why it's important to have the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Turks, others in the conversation, and including ourselves. It's not like anybody has veto power on the situation. It's just that everybody else sizes up what the others are doing, so there are not mistakes.

For example, the suggestion has been made, if we were to abruptly withdraw, the Saudis might be impelled to come in on behalf of the Sunnis. Well, the Syrians, perhaps, although they have a minority Shiite government, conflicted in itself -- in other words, this is a very complex situation.

And what we have to be thinking of is stability in the region, where our forces, both diplomatic and military, can be placed to try to hold the region together. WALLACE: Senator, let's talk about what the U.S. does next. It seems pretty clear that President Bush is leaning toward some kind of surge, of sending additional U.S. forces into Iraq.

Do you support sending in more troops?

LUGAR: Well, I don't know whether I do or not. And I say that because my prayer is that President Bush will take the advice that has come frequently, and that is with people being there on the takeoff, they have to support you on the landing.

Now, in the past, the administration has been inclined not to disregard Congress but to not take Congress very seriously. I think this time Congress has to be taken seriously. There's been an election; Republicans lost the election. There's going to be a change in leadership in my committee and likewise on the House side.

What I would advise would be maybe a retreat -- it could be right here in Washington -- but for several hours, in which the Foreign Relations Committee, just to take our group, really studies what is the president's plan, understands specifically who is to be trained, how would the politics affect what we've just been talking about, the devolution of the country, the oil money or anything else, the contact group.

In other words, that there be at least some study of this by all of this before, suddenly, we are all asked to comment, "Are you in favor of surge? Are you in favor of withdrawal? Six months? Three months?" -- all the cliches. These are not going to be relevant.

WALLACE: But you're saying do this before the president addresses the nation.

LUGAR: Yes, that would be advisable, so that...

WALLACE: And what if he doesn't do that? What if, basically, you know, he calls a group of you in, has the meeting around the Cabinet Room...

LUGAR: Which is the usual course.

WALLACE: Yes. Then what?

LUGAR: Then he can anticipate, not endless hearings, but a lot of hearings, a lot of study, a lot of criticism. In other words, as opposed to having a Foreign Relations Committee that really now is well-informed, understands, may not agree but understands how you get from place to place, we have an assortment of invitations, demands for subpoenas, all sorts of situations in which administration figures perhaps reluctantly come to the committee or don't come to the committee or various other experts discuss...

WALLACE: You're saying this could get ugly.

LUGAR: Yes, it could. And it need not. You know, I wrote just one book, "Letters to the Next President" -- this was before the president's father came in -- and suggested precisely this: You need to have as many allies as you can co-opted. Co-opt the leadership of the Congress before you act. And if you do, you're likely to have some reverses, but you may have some friends who will help you really throughout that process.

WALLACE: But let me pursue this, Senator. General John Abizaid, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, testified just last month before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that he had asked every divisional commander in Iraq whether it would help to have more forces sent in. This was just last month. And they all said no. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID: I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: How do you feel about the fact that it appears the president is now prepared to go against his commanders on the ground in Iraq?

LUGAR: Well, this is why I won't get into hypotheticals -- what the president's prepared to do, what he's reported to do. Senators have already advised the president to do this or that or so forth.

What I'm hopeful the president will do is to lay out a plan before congressional leadership to get some understanding of what is involved. Because I'd like to know precisely, if we have more people and they're going to train other people, who's going to be trained? Will this be a national police as opposed to militias or local people who turn into militias?

In other words, is the very surge that's being suggested -- and that involves a lot of training of Iraqis -- likely to lead to Iraqis who are better prepared for civil war against each other?

We really have to begin tracing this carefully. It's not a question of more people. It's what specifically these people would do, what kind of training our people have to deal with the Iraqi political situation.

WALLACE: Well, you keep talking primarily about training. There's a lot of talk that what the administration is talking about is more combat troops...

LUGAR: Yes.

WALLACE: ... not for training, but to settle the security situation on the ground.

LUGAR: All right, very good. Now, then the administration needs to identify precisely where the battle lines are, who is it we combat. I haven't seen any such lines.

The Iraqi casualties each day are bombs in cars or roadside bombs. Now, we are getting much better at getting rid of those. Although the car bombs that killed the Iraqi civilians each day are at random. Conceivably, if you had many more people, you could go house by house, interview everybody, rout out, one by one, persons. But this is a very different kind of situation with this kind of insurgency.

WALLACE: Are there any circumstances under which you could support a surge? If it was primarily for increased combat? Are there some questions that could be answered to your satisfaction?

LUGAR: Well, if the military people or the president are able to describe to me who it is that we're going to be combating and physically how you find them.

Now, I understand that there are probably some Al Qaida terrorists, there are probably some old friends of Saddam, individual persons or maybe cell groups. But specifically, how are these persons found? How is this combat to be conducted? And what kind of personnel are required?

It would appear to be much more of an intelligence feature. It might require many more people who have the language skills and some idea of the mores of the people that they're dealing with.

WALLACE: We've got less than a minute left. There are a bunch of polls out over the last few weeks that show basically somewhere between 12 and 18 percent of the public supports the idea of sending more troops in. Here you can see: the Los Angeles Times, 12 percent; the Washington Times, 17; CBS News, 18 percent.

From your long experience in Washington, can a country sustain a war policy when there is so little public support for it?

LUGAR: Not very long. This is why I get back to the thought that the president needs some well-informed friends. He really needs to make certain some of us have some idea what the plan is, as opposed to suddenly saying, "Here is the plan, and, by golly, we're going to win," or some such verbiage of this sort. Those figures we just saw will go down even further.

If they're going to go up, they have to be because there are strong advocates that our country is on the right course. And even if there are people who differ, the hearings then in Foreign Relations become well- informed, sophisticated situations, rather than a lynching party.

WALLACE: And you think there's the possibility of a lynching party?

LUGAR: Well, not exactly. It won't be that bad. Senator Biden is a good friend...

WALLACE: He's already against it. LUGAR: ... and we're going to have, however, four Democratic presidential candidates on the Democratic side there, and this is a season that you've already described.

WALLACE: Senator Lugar, we're going to see whether or not the president takes your advice over the course of the next couple of weeks. Thank you so much for joining us.

LUGAR: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: And Happy New Year, sir.

LUGAR: The same to you.

WALLACE: Up next, as we just said, 2006 isn't over yet but the presidential race is already on for '08. We'll talk with Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, who's already announced he's running. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Even though the first primaries and caucuses are more than a year away, there's no shortage of candidates running for president. One Democrat who's already in the race is Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, who joins us from Idaho.

Governor, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, what should we do in Iraq and what should we press the Iraqis to do?

GOV. TOM VILSACK (D), IOWA: You know, Chris, I don't think we should look backward. I think the execution of Hussein basically ends a chapter in Iraq, and we need to look forward.

I sincerely hope that we don't make a big mistake even bigger by suggesting a surge of troops in some way, shape or form is going to make Iraq safer or better. I believe that the generals are right. We've got to put responsibility where it belongs, in the Iraqis.

I think we have to encourage a political settlement of the differences. I think America has to get out of the middle, and it basically has to require the Iraqis to do what only they can do, which is to determine whether or not they want a stable and secure country.

WALLACE: Governor, you say that you oppose a timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, something that's favored by some of your potential rivals. But, on the other hand, as president, you say you would pull our troops out of places like Baghdad, out of the front lines, and put them in enclaves up in the northern part of the country.

What would that do to stop the violence, and what would that do to create a stable Iraq?

VILSACK: Well, the reality, Chris, is the violence is going to stop when the Iraqis themselves make the decision to stop it. No matter how many troops we have there, it just isn't going to work.

I was over there in March, and I was struck by the fact that there is a dependency on America. There is a transfer of responsibility to America in terms of safety and security. It is an Iraq responsibility.

The troops in the north would basically be there so that we would send a message to Iran that we do, in fact, have a military option. We'd make sure that things in the northern part of that country remain stable. And we'd be in a position, potentially, to work with the international community if things got completely out of hand.

But at the end of the day, it is about the Iraqis accepting responsibility.

There are two other issues here, Chris, and that has to do with the reconstruction plan. You know, you had an interesting conversation with Senator Lugar, and I agreed with a lot of what he had to say.

I hope that the Senate and I hope Senator Biden and the Foreign Relations Committee looks into the reconstruction plan. Where did all those billions of dollars go, and what are we going to do in the future?

We're going to see another appropriation of $100 billion. Where is that money going to go? What are we getting for that money?

And are we engaging the countries around the region in a reconstruction plan? And are we building local governing capacity? Because, at the end of the day, security is going to be assured by local governance. It's not necessarily going to be assured by an Iraqi national government.

WALLACE: Governor, all of this raises the question, do you really believe that for the first president that this country chooses after 9/11, the first new president that it chooses, that we should pick someone who has basically no foreign policy experience?

VILSACK: You know, Chris, this is not about experience. We had all the experience in the world in the White House when the decision was made to pull out of Afghanistan, for all intents and purposes, at a time when we had a mission and a job to do which was not yet finished and we had international support, and we made the mistake of going into Iraq.

This is not about experience. This is about judgment.

And Senator Lugar made a very good suggestion to President Bush, and that is to surround himself with individuals who can provide him advice and counsel different than what he's getting today. It is obvious that there have been very poor judgments made by this White House. And they're going to continue to be made because they're not listening to anybody.

Congress has a responsibility here, and I sincerely hope it steps up to the plate. I believe it will. I'm looking forward to that. They need to be an equal partner in this process, and they have not been at this point.

WALLACE: But, Governor, I mean, do you really believe that foreign policy experience isn't helpful when dealing with the foreign policy problems of a post-9/11 world?

VILSACK: Chris, I think it's about making sure that you understand America's place in the world. We are the only superpower, and, as a result, we have a unique responsibility. It is about reclaiming moral leadership. It's not about walking away from international treaties. It's about working with other nations, creating alliances and friendships and isolating enemies, precisely the opposite of what this administration has done.

Sure, I've traveled all over the world. I've been to 22 different countries. I've been to eight countries this year. It isn't just about experience. It's more about judgment.

Contrast and compare prior experiences in prior administrations. The Kennedy administration, for example, and the Cuban missile crisis -- compare and contrast how they made the decision to prevent war versus how this administration made the decision to go to war.

It is about judgment, at the end of the day.

WALLACE: One area where you have had experience -- in fact, it's been one of the centerpieces of your term as governor and one of the platforms that you're using in running for president -- is this issue of energy independence, reducing our reliance on foreign oil. And one of your mottoes of your campaign is "Courage to change."

Question: Do you have the courage to take on the Democratic interest groups when it comes to this area of energy independence?

VILSACK: I think this is the central issue of this campaign and of this time in America. If we truly want to be a safe and secure nation, we have to stop funding both sides of the global insurgency we face. We want to reclaim moral leadership in discussions of climate change. We want healthier communities. And we want a more stable and secure economy which really expands the middle class.

All of that can be done through a very massive and comprehensive energy policy.

We need to be energy-secure. We need to conserve more energy. We need to rely more on renewable fuel. And we need to challenge ourselves to figure out what barriers exist to the traditional materials to create power in this country and reduce and remove those barriers.

This is the issue, Chris.

WALLACE: But with respect, sir, you're not answering my question, which is, would you take on the Democratic interest groups?

I talked to a blue-ribbon panel, including Fred Smith of FedEx and former Marine commandant P.X. Kelley. And they said, "Look, you've got to do some things that the Republicans won't like; you've got to do some things that the Democrats won't like." And specifically on the Democratic side, they talked about greater drilling, domestic oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf, from the ANWR, Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge.

Would you be willing to take on some of the Democratic orthodoxy in this area as part of this, what you say is the central issue?

VILSACK: To be honest with you, Chris, I'm not sure that necessarily drilling is the answer. And it's not because of special interests. It's because of the situation involving oil today.

Ninety-five percent of the oil that we know of in the world today is going to be extracted at very high cost. We're going to have competition for oil from India and China and other expanding economies. Twenty-three nations produce oil. Fifteen have basically peaked in their production.

We should not be relying on oil. We should be looking for alternative sources. We should be aggressively promoting alternative sources.

The courage to create change comes in embracing new ways of producing fuel, in changing the way in which we use our fuel and power in this country.

We have done this in Iowa. We've begun the process of becoming a renewable fuel leader. We've seen our economy expand.

I have no doubt that America can do this. But doing it the traditional way is not going to get the job done. It's not going to put us in a competitive circumstance, in my view.

WALLACE: Governor, in the time we have left, let's talk about the 2008 campaign. The Iowa caucus is the first contest. You, of course, are a two-term governor of that state.

Let's take a look at the polls in Iowa. Here they are. The Research 2000 poll shows you trailing Edwards and Obama. You're in third place in your own state. Another poll by the American Research Group also shows you in third place, behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Now, Governor, these are the people who know you best, and yet most of them are saying they don't want to vote for you for president.

VILSACK: Well, you know, Chris, those same polls also show that if you include individuals who may become Democrats for purposes of going to the caucus, reaching out and expanding the base of the Democratic Party, that I actually will win Iowa. And I expect to win Iowa.

I, obviously, have to do a job of convincing Iowans that I have a vision for this country. They're not going to give me a free pass, and they shouldn't give me a free pass. I should earn this.

So I've got work to do. But I am convinced and confident that I will win Iowa.

WALLACE: Where do you fit -- well, let me ask you very briefly, do you have to win Iowa? I mean, as the two-term governor of a state, if you can't win your own state, wouldn't that finish you?

VILSACK: Well, you know, Chris, I'll leave the judgment up to all of you folks. I just know this: I'm going to work hard. I'm going to make my case to the people of my state and the people of a number of other states. And I'm going to be very, very successful in Iowa. WALLACE: All right. We have about a minute left.

Where do you think you fit in a Democratic field with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards? Do you see yourself as being the most moderate candidate in that race?

VILSACK: Well, I see myself with the most executive experience and the person that I think has the greatest chance of reaching across and expanding the base of the Democratic Party in order to be victorious in 2008. That's where I see myself.

I think I can reach out to rural states, to states where the party has not done as well. And I think that's important and key to winning the election in 2008. We've got to expand the base. I believe I can do that.

I believe I have more executive experience than anyone else who's considering this race at this point in time.

WALLACE: Governor, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for joining us today. We'll see you along the campaign trail. And Happy New Year to you, sir.

VILSACK: Happy New Year, as well, Chris.

WALLACE: Thanks a lot.

Coming up, our Sunday panel on the execution of Saddam Hussein. What does it mean for Iraq, and what does it mean for U.S. policy? Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN HOWARD, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: I believe there's something quite heroic about a country that's going through the pain and the suffering that Iraq is going through. It still extends due process to somebody who was a tyrant and a brutal suppressor and murderer of his people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Australian Prime Minister John Howard, talking about the execution of Saddam Hussein.

And it's panel time now for Fox News contributors syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

Let's talk about Saddam's execution. Bill, can it be made into a turning point for the situation in Iraq, or is it too late for that now?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: No, it's not too late. It's really a remarkable thing for -- I think he's the first Arab dictator to be dealt with by his own people -- not just killed so another dictator can take over, but killed after a reasonably fair due process trial before judges of his own country. It's a very heartening thing. Just as Mussolini's death and Ceausescu's death in Italy and Romania laid the groundwork later for democratic governments there, I think this could be the beginning of -- not the beginning -- this is part of a process -- but I think it could be a milestone on the way towards a more decent and democratic regime in Iraq.

WALLACE: Juan, do you think that there's the possibility that we -- and is what I really brought up with Senator Lugar, the fact that this is a final, firm message to anyone who had doubts, this guy's really gone, is there a way that the Iraqi government -- is there a way the U.S. can capitalize on that?

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: I think there's a tremendous opportunity, in the sense that while seeing here in Washington we may not feel it as much, but I think in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's influence, fear of Saddam was so great that there are lots of people who thought, you know what, somehow the Baathist Party, somehow Saddam is going to return some day, and he's going to seek vengeance.

And so now with his death, I think the idea is that that era is past, it's gone, and it's time to move on exists more -- in a more pronounced fashion than ever. So there's a real opportunity here for al-Maliki, for his government to really try and take control. And part of that, of course, is what you discussed with Senator Lugar, is making sure that the Sunnis don't feel that this was simply somehow getting even with them, but somehow that this now is an opportunity for them to join in the process.

WALLACE: Charles, what needs to happen? And more specifically, to bring the Sunnis into accepting the new political reality, and how likely is that to happen?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It requires a Shiite generosity, and that hasn't been shown in the last three years. That's what's so disappointing.

I disagree, though. I think that his execution is too late to have any effect. Three years too late. The trial was botched. I think the fact that all of us have this slightly queasy sense about the actual carrying out of that sentence, the stealth of the haste with which it was done, is in part a reflection of the fact that even though this was a man who got justice -- there's not a man on the planet who killed more and tortured more than Saddam -- there's a sense that the catalogue of crimes was not adequately demonstrated in a trial.

That trial was hijacked by Saddam. It became a demonstration of his presence and arrogance and control of that courtroom, and the fact that the central government was weaker than advertised. He succeeded in the trial and the evidence of his crimes was -- became a footnote. What you saw was his speeches and bombast.

As a result of that, I think the moral case for our invasion, for deposing him and for executing him was diminished. And that, I think, we're going to suffer on account of that for a long time.

MARA LIASSON LIASSON: You know, I agree. If Saddam Hussein had been kept alive longer, he could have stood trial in more trials -- not necessarily the particular one that he was condemned, but we would have found more about what he did to the Kurds.

However, I think that if this is going to be a milestone, as Bill and Juan are suggesting, there certainly is no evidence of it at the moment. I mean, what you've got now is this horrific legacy, really, of Saddam Hussein playing itself out. You saw it in the scenes of the execution themselves when his -- the hangmen are chanting the name of Muqtada al- Sadr. It's almost a complete reversal of the kind of Sunni dictatorship that he had imposed. Now there's no rule of law, but the Shiites are in charge. And until that can be changed, I don't know how this really becomes some kind of turning point.

WALLACE: I have to ask you -- I have a feeling you and I are sharing the same skepticism. Are you outraged by the way the trial and the execution of Saddam Hussein were carried out, Bill? KRISTOL: Not at all. Justice was done. And as these things go, was done with pretty -- in a pretty fair and impressive way. Ceausescu, executed Christmas Day after, you know, a one-hour sort of rump trial by people who had found him. Mussolini hanged upside-down on a meat hook. We think -- Eichmann, the most recent horrible mass murderer brought to justice in the Middle East, kidnapped by Israeli agents in Latin America.

Do we think those things -- those deaths were somehow less just?

LIASSON: I don't think those deaths were unjust...

KRAUTHAMMER: But in the Eichmann trial, what you had was a man who did not interrupt his proceedings. His might was controlled. The case was laid out relentlessly. It was the first exposition of the Holocaust after the second world war. It made it a fact of history. And that did not happen in this trial.

What you saw in the clips, on television every night, were harangues by Saddam and judges losing control. And the fact of the evidence was hardly ever presented. And, secondly, as Mara indicated, the bigger canvas of the crimes, the massacre of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds, was left for the future, which is now not going to happen because he's dead.

WILLIAMS: I think he looked like a loon. You say his microphone was open, he was able to make -- I think he looked out of control. He looked like a desperate man arguing to try to save his life. And not believing that he was going to get any kind of fair trial.

Now, the next trial that would have started...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... would have been about Kurds and about the chemical attacks and all that. But you know, Charles, when you say that it somehow weakens the moral case, the moral case for going into Iraq, I don't believe -- I mean, obviously, the reason we went in there was weapons of mass destruction. Moral case, unless you want to advance the idea that we're somehow going in there to spread democracy -- look, it's good to get Saddam Hussein out. That was important. And I think that the idea that he was tried and convicted on these crimes is sufficient evidence to the world that we did not go in there and act willy-nilly. We went in there and implored that justice be done, and turned him over for execution to his own people.

KRAUTHAMMER: The moral case is unambiguous and irrefutable. The problem is that in much of the world, and even in the U.S., people are skeptical and have a sense that America breached international morality in deposing and in invading, and it's that sentiment, which we had a chance to refute and to actually end in a good trial that would lay out that case, and the trial did not succeed.

(CROSSTALK)

KRAUTHAMMER: And that's the opportunity lost. KRISTOL: The only way that could have been done is if we'd done the trial, or there had been an international trial in The Hague. Because obviously the Iraqis, you know, it's a fledgling government with a lot of emotions, weren't going to do a totally wonderful trial.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: Any more than the Italians were for Mussolini or the Rumanians were for Ceausescu. It was better that the Iraqis did this, though, than we did this with perfect order and with him muted. So I think it has a real moral legitimacy and power -- let's hope it does -- in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, you know? The motto of the state I live in, Virginia, is sic semper tyrannis -- thus always the tyrants. But unfortunately, in the real world, it only rarely happens, the tyrants are dealt with as they deserve to be. And I think it's really, honestly, a wonderful thing that this has happened. I think it's being much too easily deprecated here.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask Mara about that. I mean, does the Saddam execution -- we talked about its impact in Iraq -- does that send a broader message across the Middle East, quite frankly, to other dictators and to other repressed people?

LIASSON: I don't know. I think his capture was the big moment. I think right now, the chaos in Iraq and the fact that there's no rule of law and the fact that there's no basic security is so much more the overwhelming fact that -- although I think there are many Shiites who are rejoicing today that Saddam Hussein is dead, and I think he did get a basically fair trial. I think his sentence was just. I just think that put against the backdrop of everything that's happening there, this has less of an effect than it might have in other circumstances.

WALLACE: Juan? Do you think that tyrants across the Middle East may sleep a little less easily tonight?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think there's an interesting message here, which is, you know, if he had opened the door and said, you know, come in, take a look around, let's have some discussions, let's make some efforts to end evidence of torture and let's have some steps towards democracy, that would have given him the opportunity not to end up at the end of a hangman's noose.

So if you look at Jordan, if you look at places ranging from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and, of course, Iran, Libya -- Libya, the one country that decided it had some expressions of concern about Saddam Hussein -- I think all of these countries are ruled by dictators, and it's time for us to -- I mean, I think for them, it's an opportunity to say, hey, that's what could happen to me, and hopefully they'll get the message.

LIASSON: I think none of those dictators feel worried that that's what's going to happen to them, because America isn't going to invade any other countries.

WILLIAMS: Well, we didn't think we were going to invade Iraq. And I mean, I certainly don't think it was justified to invade Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. We went in there because of our own national interests with weapons of mass destruction, but that's another argument.

WALLACE: All right. And we'll have another argument in a moment. We have to take a break here. But when we come back -- the nation remembers former President Gerald Ford. We'll discuss his life and his legacy when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORD: My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will not shirk it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Gerald Ford speaking to the nation in August of 1974, just moments after being sworn in as president.

The public is now waiting in line to pay final respects to Mr. Ford, filing into the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, where a state funeral was held Saturday night. Fox News correspondent Megyn Kendall is standing by outside the Capitol -- Megyn.

KENDALL: Chris, indeed, the crowd here is already starting to gather to pay tribute to President Ford. His official state funeral took place last night, the start of a four-day good-bye to the 38th president.

The ceremony itself was somewhat understated in its own way. The family foregoing a military flyover and a horse-drawn caisson.

The casket arrived at the Capitol after a stop at the World War II memorial, and was carried up to the House chamber.

Ford's wife of nearly 60 years looked on.

Mr. Ford was given the unprecedented honor of lying in repose outside the House chamber, a tribute to his service there. The casket was then placed in the Capitol Rotunda.

He was eulogized by Vice President Cheney, his former chief of staff, who praised Mr. Ford's decision to pardon President Nixon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will never know what further unravelings, what greater malevolence might have come in that time of furies turned loose and hearts turned cold. But we do know this -- America was spared the worst, and this was the doing of an American president.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KENDALL: Betty Ford looked composed as she placed her hands on the flag-draped casket. Dignitaries from outgoing House Speaker Denny Hastert to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were there.

Mourners continued to file in today. They have until 6:00 p.m. as well as all day tomorrow to pay their respects. Among those expected on Monday, president and Mrs. Bush, who spent this weekend in Crawford, Texas.

And Chris, a bit of good news this morning. Former Representative Bill Broomfield, who collapsed at last night's ceremony, is said to be in good condition at George Washington Hospital -- Chris.

WALLACE: Megyn, thanks so much for that.

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

Well, Charles, I know you watched the state funeral last night on television. What were your thoughts?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, like Ford, it was quite understated, very elegant and moving.

I thought the Cheney speech was particularly eloquent and moving. He spoke about the Ford era as being a time of great malice and great hurt and a taste for both. And he also said that in politics, it often takes a generation or more for things to settle and for passions to cool.

And he was speaking of the Ford era, but in a way also it was an evocation of our time, also a time of sort of endless and very unpopular war, a time of distrust for institutions. And I think he was saying that history will judge who was right in taking these difficult decisions.

And speaking about Ford, of course, he praised his decision on the pardon, which, as we all know, cost Ford not only his presidency, but a place in history. I mean, had he been reelected, he would have had a term as long as Truman's. He might have had a presidency as distinguished as Truman's. Instead, he ended up as an accidental president, a footnote, the only who was never elected either on a national ticket.

A great man, a good man, but who didn't have a chance to demonstrate anything beyond that small bit of history he occupied.

WALLACE: Speaking of passions. During our hours of coverage, I made the terrible mistake of saying that John Philip Sousa had once been the head of the Army band. I got a lot of e-mails from angry Marines, because, in fact -- and I've actually covered this story -- he was the head of the Marine band, and I don't want the Marines unhappy with me, so I want to apologize for that.

Let me ask you, Mara, though, what has struck you about the way the week has played out, and also the news coverage of Gerald Ford's death?

LIASSON: I think the news coverage has been interesting. I mean, yes, he only served for 896 days, and you could call him an accidental president, but I think history has really changed its mind about Gerald Ford, particularly the pardon, which I think was not just a small thing. I think it was a big thing that he did. And at the time, of course, it was tremendously controversial, and history has changed its mind about that, that he was a president who was a healer, who did put an end to the kind of roiling aspect of Watergate -- long national nightmare, as he put it -- and I think people see Gerald Ford as somebody who was a kind of a decent, calming influence. Exactly the right thing at the time.

KRISTOL: 1976, I remember it well, it was such a confusing year for a lot of us. I mean, the country was in such turmoil. One forgets. I remember voting for Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford personally in the Massachusetts Republican primary, going to New York in the summer to work for Pat Moynihan, who had been Gerald Ford's U.N. ambassador, running for the Senate seat. He won the primary against Bella Abzug, a big fight for the future of the Democratic Party, where we thought Moynihan's victory would shape the future, but in fact, I think it's fair to say his version of the Democratic Party didn't win.

And I mentioned this last night when we were on together, I remember - - I went back to vote then -- I voted on Election Day for Gerald Ford, I'm proud to say, against Jimmy Carter. And then I flew down to New York to be with Moynihan on election night, since I've worked for him in the summer, and I remember saying to Pat, you know, I guess our votes canceled each other out. I voted for Ford, you must have voted for your presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter. And Pat looked at me and smiled and said, well, you know, there's a secret ballot in this country.

WALLACE: Don't be so sure.

KRISTOL: And he gave me a long lecture, very Moynihan-esque on the Australian origins of the secret ballot. I'm absolutely convinced that Pat Moynihan voted for Gerald Ford, and I was struck when you would talk to Pat later how much he respected President Ford. He had his fights with Henry Kissinger during the Ford administration. He wasn't, I don't think, that close personally to Gerald Ford. But I'm struck, anyone who worked for Ford -- Dick Cheney, Pat Moynihan, Alan Greenspan, many other people -- had a kind of personal respect for him as an individual. That's not always the case when one works for some political leader.

WILLIAMS: I think what strikes me, Chris, about the coverage this week is that everybody's sort of been very respectful, but sub rosa there's been this fight about exactly what Gerald Ford's legacy amounts to. Is it a repudiation of conservative Republicans at this time? Because remember, Gerald Ford is not only pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action, he's a guy that got involved in the Michigan case to try to help to preserve the idea of affirmative action in his home state. But then you think about people who say, well, you know what, we heard a little bit of this on the panel this morning, not sufficiently pro-communist, not sufficiently strong on tax cuts, not sufficiently embracing of evangelicals, opened the door therefore for Ronald Reagan.

But I think that if you look back and look at Gerald Ford as kind of a center, and look at Gerald Ford as someone who then in these interviews with Tom DeFrank and Bob Woodward this week that were unveiled after his death suggest, hey, wait a second, we have to occupy ourselves in terms of our national interest when it comes to war issues. Bill Coleman, his former secretary of transportation, wrote me a note and said, you know what, why don't we talk about national interest? Exactly the words coming from President Ford. National interest. And that's what distinguishes him from President Bush at this moment in terms of the Republican side.

WALLACE: Well, you know, Charles, as Juan was talking about the debate, the fact is that Gerry Ford has contributed to that debate, because all these interviews that he gave during his life that he specifically demanded not be released until his death are now coming out. We're finding out that he was quite critical of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and in an interview in Newsweek, he's quite critical of the way the party, he says, lurched to the right under Bush's father, Bush 41.

It's kind of an interesting insight into some of the battles within the Republican Party, isn't it?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it's a battle he had with Reagan replayed 30 years later. He always was the moderate Midwestern. As you say, national interest, perhaps with a touch of isolationism in that history, against Reaganism, which was much more active.

Remember, the foreign policy debates of that era mirrored the debates of this era. Ford famously refused meeting with Solzhenitsyn. Reagan attacked him on that. It was about the moral essence of American action in the world.

It's a classic, old debate among conservatives. Ford represented the one side, Reagan the other.

I believe Reagan won that argument, but again, it's being replayed today in Iraq as a result of our difficulties in Iraq. But the basis of foreign policy lying in American action and belief in freedom I think is something generally accepted, even though it's now under attack as a result of the Iraq war.

WALLACE: Mara, is this in a sense a time capsule? Is Gerry Ford the last of the moderate Republican presidents, or could we see a return to that?

LIASSON: I think we could see a return to something like that. Not exactly Gerald Ford's type of moderate Republicanism. But look, after the defeat in November, the Republican Party is doing a lot of soul-searching. And I don't know if there are -- yes, there are some strains of isolationism. I don't know if they're actually questioning the foreign policy foundation of the party. But I do think there's some questioning about how far to the right the party needs to be on social issues, and there might be some kind of an adjustment in that area, which might resemble something a little bit closer to Ford...

WALLACE: Bill....

LIASSON: In a modern way.

WALLACE: ... do you think this argument is settled, or can you see it being played out again in 2008?

KRISTOL: No arguments are ever settled in American politics. And you know, if the war in Iraq continues to go badly and goes worse, there will be a repudiation, I suppose, of the kind of Reaganite vision that I think did lead or was part of the Bush vision with respect to Iraq. I think that would be unfortunate, but there's always that temptation, and it's a temptation that's very strong among the foreign policy establishment in both parties, that somehow -- as with -- I think this is very comparable, as Charles says, to the Cold War years, that one could avoid some of these tough decisions, that we're not in a global war, and if we're just more prudent and moderate, we could avoid having to take on our enemies.

WILLIAMS: One last thought, though, as we say goodbye to Gerald Ford, I think he was a tremendous leader for our country at a time of such crisis -- Watergate everybody knows about, but also Vietnam. And you know, don't forget that he was the guy who stood in there with the Warren Commission, as the last survivor of the Warren Commission.

WALLACE: I want to thank you all for today, for all of this year. Happy new year to all of you. Many more conversations in 2007.

---

Sponsored Links

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