Transcript for March 26
MEET THE PRESS NETCAST & PODCAST |
Get Meet the Press when & how you want Click here to see Sunday's MTP netcast. (After 1pm ET each Sunday) |
SEC’Y RICE: Of course, Tim, this was a single source among multiple sources, and the problem was that Saddam Hussein was unwilling, after multiple resolutions in Security Council, to account for his weapons programs. We all remember that the accounting of the U.N. mission that was supposed—the weapons inspection mission that was supposed to look into its weapons programs could not account for large stockpiles.
We all thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He certainly had a very healthy appetite for them, and he had used them before, both against his own people and against his neighbors. He was a threat. This was someone flying against our aircraft—or, or shooting at our aircraft as they flew the no-fly zones. He’d invaded his neighbors. But the point is that now that he is gone Iraq has an opportunity to be a different Iraq in a different kind of Middle East.
I know it’s hard, and I know that the numbers that you put up are difficult to see, and I know that the violence on TV is difficult. But I would ask people to, to look at the perspective here of what is really going on in Iraq. Under this, the violence—under the specter of this violence, you have Iraqis now—Sunnis, Shia, Kurds and others—determined to form a government of national unity. That’s extraordinary in Iraq’s history where they’ve always settled their differences by violence, not by politics. And when they succeed in that, you—they are going to have the basis for a very different kind of Iraq, and I think they’re going to succeed.
MR. RUSSERT: But people are being asked to take your judgement on this, as we sit here this morning, and refer to previous judgements the administration made: weapons of mass destruction, there were none; we would be greeted as liberators, this is three years later; that it would not take hundreds of thousands of American troops to occupy Iraq. Tommy Franks, according to the book “Cobra II,” said we’d be down to 30,000 troops in November of ‘03. The cost of the war: the budget director of the White House said it’d be $50 billion dollars, it’s now over $350 billion dollars. Each judgement has proven to be wrong.
SEC’Y RICE: The judgement that has not proven to be wrong, Tim, is that the region is changing in fundamental ways and the region is better without Saddam Hussein. Yes, it is true that everyone thought he had weapons of mass destruction; he did not. It is, by the way, the case that the Iraqis are delighted to be rid of him. And some Iraqis, most Iraqis, in fact, are willing and want to keep coalition forces there until they can take care of this themselves. But we do have to keep things in historical perspective. These people are doing something that is quite unknown in the Middle East, and one has to ask, “What was the alternative?” Was the alternative to leave Saddam Hussein in power, continuing to threaten his neighbors, continuing with his windfall profits from the Oil for Food scandal, continuing to repress his people and build mass graves, continuing to use those Oil for Food profits to, again, build the infrastructure for his weapons of mass destruction?
MR. RUSSERT: But many will say he was contained by the no-fly zone.
SEC’Y RICE: I don’t think that there is anyone...
MR. RUSSERT: He was in a box.
SEC’Y RICE: I, I do not think that he was in a box. It, it—the Oil for Food program alone shows that the billions of dollars that he was collecting, he was not just going to build palaces. This was someone who had an insatiable appetite to dominate his region.
Now, without Saddam Hussein, you can look across the region and see that a lot is changing, thanks to the president’s democracy promotion and the hard work of people in those countries. You have Syrian forces out of Lebanon, you have Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. The people of the Middle East are taking on authoritarian governments across the Middle East. Kuwait has given women the right to vote. I’d be the first to say that these big, historical changes are turbulent and they’re difficult. But the notion that somehow there was a placid Middle East, that if we’d just left it alone, if we’d just not invaded Iraq, if we’d just not overthrown dictators, if we’d just not challenged Syrian power in Lebanon everything would be just fine, is simply not true. It was that Middle East, the malignancy of the Middle East, that we “disturbed” that led directly to the 9/11 event.
MR. RUSSERT: The president said this week that whether there’ll be troops in Iraq for the unforeseeable future will be determined by the next president, meaning we’re going to have troops in Iraq at least through January of ‘09.
SEC’Y RICE: Well, the president was asked this question in a particular way, and he answered that some American troops may well be there for the next president. But I would just point to what the president has said continually, which is that American forces are going to come down commensurate with the need as Iraqi forces stand up, and they are indeed standing up.
General Casey has talked about a significant reduction of American forces over the next year, and that significant reduction is because Iraqi forces are taking and holding territory now. Because during this most recent uptick of sectarian violence, the Iraqi Army behaved very, very well. So Iraqi forces are getting better, American forces are ceding territory, and I think it’s entirely probable that we will see a significant draw-down of American forces over the next, next year. That’s what General Casey believes.
MR. RUSSERT: This year.
SEC’Y RICE: It’s all dependent on the ground, but this is—on, on events on the ground. But as General Casey has said, “We see the progress of the Iraqi forces, we see the progresss of the political process, and there’s every reason to believe that American can start to draw down.”
MR. RUSSERT: Is the insurgency in its last throes?
SEC’Y RICE: Well, the insurgency politically is certainly in, in danger because the Sunnis who stood outside of the political presence...
MR. RUSSERT: But in terms of violence, is in its last throes?
SEC’Y RICE: Well, the insurgency is still able to, to pull off violence and kill innocent children, or kill an innocent school teacher, yes, they’re able to do that, and they might be able to do that some—for some time. But what they’ve not been able to do is to disrupt the political process, what they’ve not been able to do is to set Iraqis one against another in the political process, they’ve not been able to stop free elections, they’re not able to stop the formation of the government. A few violent people can always grab headlines and can always kill innocent people.
MR. RUSSERT: It’s more than a few.
SEC’Y RICE: Well, it’s a few in terms of the population of Iraqis.
MR. RUSSERT: But it could not exist without being enabled by the population.
SEC’Y RICE: Well, the population is less and less enabling. Every day there are reports that Zarqawi and al-Qaeda meet stiff resistance, indeed violent resistance, from Iraqi tribes. Sunnis are now a part of the political process. And I know that people wonder when will the government formation finish. It, it seems to be dragging on after the election. But I would just note, I read the other day someone said, “Well, they’re dividing up the spoils of the offices.” That’s not what they’re doing in this process. They are writing a government program on which the national unity will govern. They are writing the rules by which they will govern, and they’re determining who will take key positions. So, this is an extraordinary matter, an extraordinary scene with Iraqi Sunni and Shia and Kurds all working together toward a unity government.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Afghanistan. There’s a story moving on the wires that the Afghan court has just dismissed the charges against this gentleman who had converted to Christianity. Are you aware that was going to happen?
SEC’Y RICE: I can’t confirm that particular report, Tim. I know that the Afghans are working on it. They’ve been very aware of the issue and of the concerns about the issue. This is a young democracy that is working with a Constitution that, like many constitutions when they’re first born, that the conflicts have to be worked out. We have our own history of conflicts that had to be worked out after a new Constitution. And so, the Afghans are working, working on it, but America has stood solidly for religious freedom as a bedrock, the bedrock of, of democracy. And we’ll see, but I can’t confirm that specifically.
MR. RUSSERT: Should American Christian missionaries be encouraged to go to Afghanistan?
SEC’Y RICE: Well, I think that Afghans are pleased to get the help that they can get. We need to be respectful of Afghan sovereignty.
MR. RUSSERT: Including Christian missionaries?
SEC’Y RICE: We have to be respectful of Afghan sovereignty. And, Tim, respectful of the fact that this is a country that is coming out of 25 years of civil war, a country that’s going to have to find its own way, and a country that is going through one of the most difficult debates that any society goes through, and that is the proper role of religion in the politics of the state. It’s a debate, by the way, that all of us went through at some point in our history.
MR. RUSSERT: But Madame Secretary, we talk all the time about spreading democracy, and your own State Department report on human rights abuses said Afghanistan says that Christianity is punishable by death, that missionaries, Christian missionaries, are not welcome, that women cannot get a passport or leave the country without permission of a man. This is a far cry from the responsibilities and rights given to most people who live in a democracy.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
- Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS |
| Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: |

