SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Senator Feingold is in Madison, Wisconsin, this morning. Senator McCain is here in the studio.

And we begin this morning with some terrible news from Iraq. A twin car bomb went off in Baghdad this morning, killed at least 136 people and wounded more than 500, at least at last count.

This is the worst bombing in months. The first reports are that this is part of an attempt to reignite the conflict between the warring factions struggling for power in Iraq.

And of course it raises the question, now, of just how stable Iraq is, as U.S. troops continue their withdrawal.

We're going to go first, this morning, to Senator McCain.

Thank you for being with us, Senator.

Senator, isn't this going to raise doubts in the minds of a lot of people about whether the Iraqis can enforce security in their own country?

MCCAIN: I think it's a terrible tragedy. I think it's also significant that they have a ways to go. But I agree with General Odierno that -- that these attacks will continue, but they're not sustainable. The majority of the people are opposed to them. And the Iraqi military will be able to handle this transition. But it's not going to be without tragedies such as we've seen just today.

SCHIEFFER: Are we going to have to rethink, do you think, whether or not we can continue to draw down our forces there?

MCCAIN: No.

SCHIEFFER: No?

MCCAIN: No. But there will continue to be outbreaks of this sectarian violence that -- it's extremists trying to ignite sectarian violence is what's going on. But it's -- they've still got a ways to go, but it's not going to require any delay in withdrawal of U.S. troops.

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about Afghanistan. We're coming down to the point where the president is going to have to make a decision on whether to put more American troops into Afghanistan.

Our commander there says he needs 40,000, but he still can't say that will guarantee success.

Now, Senator Kerry was there last week. And he told us here on "Face the Nation" that the president should not make a decision about whether to put more troops in there until Afghanistan has a government. And what he meant was until after this run-off that President Karzai has now agreed to.

Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-MASS.: I don't see how President Obama can make a decision about the committing of our -- additional forces or even the further fulfillment of our mission that's here today without an adequate government in place or knowledge about what that government's going to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIEFFER: So do you agree with Senator Kerry?

Because that's going to be next month before we have that run- off. Should the president delay this decision until then?

MCCAIN: No, I don't -- he certainly should not. We are not operating in a vacuum now. Americans are still -- 68,000 Americans are there already. Eight young Americans were killed in a firefight -- one of the reasons is they didn't have adequate support -- just recently.

You know, one thing -- a funny thing about insurgencies, it's usually governments that are not credible that breed insurgencies.

We have a lot of work to do on governance. We have a lot of work to do in motivating the Karzai government, if he is indeed -- wins the run-off, which it appears that he's going to, in eliminating corruption.

But the sooner we get the people over there -- the sooner the decision is made, the sooner we get people over there and are able to implement the strategy that will succeed.

SCHIEFFER: Do you go as far as former Vice President Cheney did the other day? Because he said -- well, here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger.

CHENEY: Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy endangers them and hurts our cause.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIEFFER: Pretty strong language there. Do you agree that we're endangering our troops and that this is dithering?

MCCAIN: I don't use -- I wouldn't use that language. The fact is, as I said before, we already have men and women who are in danger there now. The sooner we implement the strategy, the more we will be able to ensure their safety or the best way for them to pursue...

SCHIEFFER: What did you think of the way Mr. Vice President put it?

MCCAIN: Well, I understand the vice president. I have a great respect for him. But I think we ought to look forward, and that is, to support the president, I intend to, when he makes the decision -- which I believe he will -- to implement McChrystal's strategy agreed to by Petraeus, Mullen. I believe that Secretary Gates is also supportive, or otherwise I don't think any of the defense ministers of NATO would have endorsed the McChrystal strategy just a couple of days ago.

SCHIEFFER: Because they did that at a meeting where Secretary Gates was in attendance.

MCCAIN: Yes. And I'm heartened by that, to see that kind of expressions of support. But we will still have to lead and we'll still be doing the bulk of the fighting.

But I think the president will make the right decision. I want to support that decision. It's going to be hard and tough. And every day we delay will be a delay in this strategy succeeding.

And again, I talk about the vacuum and not being a vacuum. General McChrystal has stated that the situation is deteriorating, so it argues for a rapid decision as possible and move forward.

But let's look forward. Let's -- I want to support the president. I want this strategy to work. I know it can work, and I know it will work if we -- if it's properly resourced. But I also just want to briefly add, there's a lot of other areas, now that we are moving forward, when we move forward, for the proper security environment. There's governance. There's some problems within our own civilian side as to how we are going to be partners in implementing this strategy. And a lot of other issues that need to be addressed as well. But without security, none of the other aspects of a winning strategy can succeed.

SCHIEFFER: The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the administration may be moving towards some sort of what it called a hybrid strategy, which is a combination of sending more troops like General McChrystal wants and not sending more troops, but using drones and so forth to fight it kind of from offshore, as Vice President Biden is advocating.

MCCAIN: Well, it may be a matter of semantics. I don't know. But there has been this ongoing public debate between the so-called Biden counterterrorism strategy and the counterinsurgency strategy.

I don't know how you make them hybrid. There are elements of counterterrorism in counterinsurgency, but fundamentally, counterinsurgency will require the implementation of the strategy that General McChrystal has recommended, in my view. And the counterterrorism strategy, killing people and then returning to base, has been proven to be a very disastrous strategy in Iraq and in other places.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just go back to Vice President Cheney. He has not at all been reticent about speaking out, and very quickly. Generally, do you think he is helping or hurting the Republican Party with his comments?

MCCAIN: Well, the vice president of the United States is (ph) very well credentialed. He has a long history of service to the country. He has the right to speak out, in my view, however he wants to.

Having said that, I think we should as much as possible say -- and our message is, we want this strategy and we want to support the president and unite the country behind it.

Let's face it. The president, when he makes his decision-- and again, I believe that he will-- will have trouble with the base of his own party. And so the more united we can be behind him, I think the more the chances are of success and American public support.

SCHIEFFER: I don't believe I heard you say whether you thought that was helpful or unhelpful.

MCCAIN: I don't know. I would leave that to others to judge, really.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about health care quickly. It looks like that's coming finally to a head in the Senate. It looks like that the majority leader, Harry Reid , is going to put the government- run insurance option in there, the so-called public option. Do you think at this point that that will pass the Senate?

MCCAIN: I think that the Democrats have the votes. I think that Blue Dogs bark but never bite. So I don't think they have a problem over in the House side.

MCCAIN: In the Senate, I think that the Democrats are very aware that they don't want a repeat of the Clinton failure in 1994. So I think it's likely they will get something through. But it's not clear to me what it is.

But let me just tell you what I'm offended by. Candidate Obama said he was going to have the C-SPAN cameras in, the Republicans in, and the American people would be able to watch these negotiations to find out who was on the side of the pharmaceutical companies and those who were on the side of the people.

The fact is there's been no change. There's a room with a few Democrats in it and some administration officials. And they are writing this entire bill. I don't think the American people like that very much.

SCHIEFFER: Could you support health reform that included a public option?

MCCAIN: Not any -- not any proposal that I have seen. I think that a fundamental difference we have is whether we think government does a good job at administering health care in America or providing health insurance for the American people. I don't think they do.

SCHIEFFER: All right, Senator McCain, thank you so much for coming by.

MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on.

SCHIEFFER: Great to see you.

We'll be back in a minute with another side of this story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: And we're back now with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold , who is in Madison this morning.

Well, Senator, let me ask you about the first thing that Senator McCain said. He said, if he does take the advice of General McChrystal and sends those 40,000 troops, or at least a large contingent, into Afghanistan, he's going to have trouble with the base of his own party. You're the base of his -- is he going to have trouble with you?

FEINGOLD: No, it's not about me or any political party. He's going to have trouble with the American people.

You know, when I did town meetings in August, where people were extremely agitated about aspects of health care and other issues, very conservative people, everybody was supportive of my view that it's time to start thinking bringing troops out of Afghanistan or reducing our commitment there.

So it's not about one party. In fact, I'd say there's a broad majority in this country that thinks it's a very bad idea to put in 40,000 new troops on top of the 60,000 or 70,000 we have now.

So that's the issue. It's what the American people and frankly what the Afghan people feel about this policy that I think needs to change.

SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain, sort of, danced around it a little bit, when I asked him if he thought former Vice President Cheney was being helpful in this debate and -- when he says that we're putting the lives of American troops in danger by delaying this decision.

What's your take on the vice president's part in this?

FEINGOLD: It's too early on Sunday for dancing. So let me just say, I think what the...

(LAUGHTER)

... vice president said was terrible. The notion that President Obama is dithering? He's doing his job. He's being thoughtful. He is wrestling with, frankly, one of the toughest decisions I've ever seen a president have to make.

He is listening to the military leaders. He's listening to experts. He's listening to his own vice president and others. He's trying to get this right. And I don't know if he's going to end up agreeing with me. But I thank God that we've got a president that's thinking about this, instead of getting us into a further mistake, such as President Bush did with Iraq.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, Senator. If we do not put more troops in there -- General McChrystal says the situation is deteriorating badly. If the Taliban somehow comes back into control or plays a more prominent role -- it's playing a very prominent role now -- isn't it going to follow that Al Qaida is going to come back?

That's, after all, where they were making a safe home for themselves, there, when they -- you know, when we went through what we went through.

How can -- how can you argue that it's not going to make a difference if we draw our troops down there for our own security?

FEINGOLD: Well, this whole argument is based on some very false assumptions. I mean, remember, Al Qaida didn't begin in Afghanistan. It came over from having been in Sudan and other places. And after the heat came down on them, they went to Pakistan. They have a presence in places like Somalia and Yemen. So the idea that somehow Afghanistan is the key to this is a wrong-headed view of an international criminal syndicate that we should be going after.

And the idea that the Taliban is the same as Al Qaida, and they're going to welcome Al Qaida back with open arms into Afghanistan is questionable. I understand they let them come there earlier. The Al Qaida came with lots of money, Saudi money, and it looked like a pretty good deal for them. But you know, they've seen that movie before.

I'm not at all sure that the Taliban is going to be able to take over Afghanistan. I don't want them to. But the idea that the Taliban is going to see it as in their interest to have the world headquarters of Al Qaida back in Afghanistan I think is very dubious. And to send our troops, men and women, to their deaths in some cases, to terrible injury, to send huge amounts of money into Afghanistan when the leaders of Al Qaida are in Pakistan and likely to go other places as well, strikes me as a very odd response to what the president and John McCain and everybody agrees-- and I agree-- is the number one issue, is going after Al Qaida, not going after the Taliban.

SCHIEFFER: If the president does, in fact, order a large number of American troops to Afghanistan, will you be prepared to try to stop that in the Senate? Will you take steps to try to prevent him from doing that, Senator?

FEINGOLD: Yes. I'm already working with people like Representative Jim McGovern , Republican Congressman Walter Jones, Barbara Lee and others to prepare for that possibility. I have already voted against various spending bills that support this policy. I didn't even think the addition of the troops earlier this year made sense. So there will be resistance to this if necessary.

But our hope is that the president will see that this is not consistent with what he said about the role of Pakistan in this situation, not consistent with the goal of going after Al Qaida.

So if necessary, we will act and we will do what we can to prevent this mistake, but I'm hoping the president will listen to us at this point and consider what we're saying. SCHIEFFER: So you are prepared to try to block it. Are you also prepared to try to enforce your idea that we should begin a drawdown now, not only not put more troops in but begin to bring home the ones that are already there?

FEINGOLD: What I have said is that I would like the president to consider announcing a flexible timetable by which time we would begin to bring the troops home and give the Afghan people and the American people a sense of how long we intend to continue this. That will help stabilize Afghanistan, make it look less like we're a foreign occupier. It will certainly help support in the United States. And I think that's the way to go.

You know, people said when I first announced the idea of an Iraq timetable that this is a terrible idea, it will signal to our enemies that we're -- when we're leaving. Well, that's exactly what we have in Iraq right now, and even my friend John McCain is supporting the timetable.

So it is not a bad thing to give some vision, with flexibility, about when we intend to leave. That is what I would like to see the next step be.

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about health care. Where do you think health care reform stands in the Senate right now? I know you want the public option, the government-run insurance program, like Medicare for older people. The majority leader now seems inclined to include that in the bill that he's going to bring to the floor. Do you think that has any chance at this point of passage? Because for a while now, people have been saying the votes are just not there in the Senate.

FEINGOLD: Well, I want to give my majority leader, Harry Reid , credit for seriously considering putting this public option in there. I think it's very important. It's a sign of strong leadership on his part that he has the guts to do that. The American people are for some alternative that will create some competition for the abuses of the insurance industry. So I believe that there's a good chance it will be in the bill that comes before us in the Senate. I think we have some chance of prevailing in the (AUDIO GAP) will come through the House. So I'm becoming (AUDIO GAP) that we will have a health care bill that will not frighten (AUDIO GAP) take over health care, but will provide an option for those that don't have health care or are unhappy with their health care (AUDIO GAP) frankly getting excited that we may have some momentum for something very positive.

SCHIEFFER: As I understand it, the liberals want the (AUDIO GAP). The conservatives don't. Do you think there's a possibility that this thing may just end up in a log jam, that liberals won't vote for this plan without the public option and the conserves won't vote for it if it includes the public option, and so we wind up with nothing instead of something?

FEINGOLD: Well, that could happen, but the truth is, what liberals want is a single-payer system. Medicare for everybody. So the idea of a public option is really a very moderate idea.

FEINGOLD: Within the current context of a continuing private system. It's a tough one to swallow for many people who want a single-payer system.

It's a very reasonable approach that I would think people who are conservative and liberal and in the middle would say, let's try this; let's see if this can control and bring under some reason of measure that the insurance companies could finally improve their act.

That is exactly what -- what this is. It is not a liberal or left-wing concept at all.

SCHIEFFER: But could you yourself vote for health care reform that did not include the public option, if it came to that?

FEINGOLD: To me, that would be a very serious gap. There would have to be a very strong reason not to support it. We need a public option. We need something that will cause some control over the abuses that have occurred in the insurance industry.

SCHIEFFER: Would we be better off without anything if it did not include a public option?

FEINGOLD: At this point, I think we need to do something fundamental. When people start talking about having a trigger that we might have a public option in two or three years, to me, that's just an invitation to the insurance industry to manipulate the situation for a couple of years just so they can avoid the trigger and so they can convince members of Congress to delay it again.

We need to do something now. These costs are overwhelming people. They are -- the actual -- the current system is actually a system of rationing through the insurance industry. We need to take action now.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator, thank you so much for joining us this morning. A very enlightening discussion.

FEINGOLD: My pleasure. Thank you.