Transcript for April 23

MR. RUSSERT: How does that square with this, Senator, what you said in July of ‘03. “As a nation with honor, responsibility, and the vision of a better world for the oppressed, America cannot invade, then cut and run from Iraq.”

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, the fact is, what we are talking about, we have been there now. We have been there as long as we’ve been there in the Korean War, and we’ll be there as long as we’ve been in World War II. And if we can’t get a military solution in that period of time, what is crying out is for a political solution. And this is the best way to get a political solution.

Let me just say with regards to cutting and running, the people that are cutting and running are the administration when it comes to truth about Iraq and about their policies in Iraq, about the misguided information, the lack of intelligence, and the misinformation that they gave the American people as a basis for the invasion of Iraq, and the continued misinterpretation. That, I think, has been more damaging to the United States and the United States’ interests there.

MR. RUSSERT: You said this is August of ‘05, “History teaches that creating the institutions essential for democracy takes many years of broad and continuing political engagement and enormous patience. The difficult work of creating a viable democracy in Iraq might well become even more difficult after the adoption of a constitution and the election of a permanent government.” It sounds like you’ve lost patience.

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, the fact is I was opposed to the war. That was the best vote I cast in the United States Senate, and I made speeches about the build-up to the war. In January of last year, I said that we ought to move for the substantial reduction and removal of American troops by the end of 2006. So that is a consistent. I don’t know how much longer we have to have there for these parties to come together. This is an encouraging sign that we have seen, but we’ve seen other encouraging signs as well. The real question, “Will the Iraqis take control over their own destiny?” It’s time for them to do it, the military’s done their job, and it’s time to have them come home.

MR. RUSSERT: If we got out and there was a civil war, chaos, and you saw al-Qaida moving in record numbers and Zarqawi exerting great control over the country, would you go back in?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, first of all, I heard the same kinds of suggestions at the time of the end of the Vietnam War, the great blood bath, we’re going to have over 100,000 people that were going to be murdered and killed at that time. And for those of us that were strongly opposed to the war, heard those same kinds of arguments at the time. The fact is that the Iraqis have to win their own country, they have to be willing to sacrifice for their own country as Americans have been prepared to sacrifice, they have to stand up for their own country. And they have to be convinced that we’re not going to just have a permanent presence in Iraq. That’s what I think they believe today, and we have to disabuse them of it. The time has come, we have seen Americans do what they could do militarily, and the time has come for them to come home.

MR. RUSSERT: If it became a terrorist state, like Afghanistan, you would just leave it alone?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, there’s other dangerous areas of the world, Bangladesh is an area—dangerous area of the world, we’ve got other dangerous areas of the world. The question is what is the limitation of American troops there? What are they going to be able to do? We can’t be in every trouble spot in, in the world. We’re going to have strategic interests in there, but the fact remains that we need other countries in those areas to participate. There are other political actions that a president can take similar to what President Clinton took in the Dayton conference. We could bring other countries together in terms of stability in those, in those regions. And I think that that can, that can be done and should be done and it ought to be done now.

MR. RUSSERT: General Zinni, the former head of CENTCOM, on this program three weeks ago, spoke out against Secretary Rumsfeld, called for his resignation. One, do you think it’s appropriate that these former generals are doing this? And two, should there be Senate Armed Services Committee hearings into the views expressed by the generals?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, the—first of all, I think they have certainly a right to be—to do it. These are distinguished, battle-hardened officers that have had distinguished careers. The case on the other side says, “Well, why didn’t they do it at other times and resign?” I don’t—I think one of the always impressive pictures that I see is when General Pace is there with Secretary Rumsfeld and said, “All of these people have the opportunity to speak at our conference. We always welcome differing views.” I said, “What Army has he been in?” As someone who was just a private first class, that is not the way the United States Army runs. These are distinguished officers, they’re talking about substantive policy judgments and decisions. And what the military understand is accountability—our services are built upon accountability, we haven’t had accountability with Don Rumsfeld. His removal—I’ve called for it after the Abu Ghraib.

What is more important, I think if the president had spent half the time this past week in refocusing on a new policy in Iraq rather than just defending Don Rumsfeld, we’d be better off. But it’s important that we understand the lessons of, of the history of this involvement. These officers can get—can help us understand that. I think it’s appropriate the Armed Services Committee has some time to hear them.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned about people questioning the civilian leadership of, of the Pentagon?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, it seems to me that it’s more related to tactics and strategy, information intelligence, the, the miscalculation in terms of the total number of troops, the withdrawal of troops at certain periods of time, the disarming of the military, the series of judgments that were made over there, virtually unilaterally, over military objections at that time. Those are some of the, the charges that have made in this—in these reports.

MR. RUSSERT: In your book, “America: Back on Track,” you write this: “Our actions in Iraq may also have had the consequence of accelerating the nuclear development programs of Iran and North Korea.” How can you say that?

SEN. KENNEDY: I don’t think there’s any question that that’s been the, the case.

I think the — we went — after we had the brilliant actions against the al-Qaida in Afghanistan, the political judgments, as the record is showing now, was made, “Well, we can clear out Iraq just as quickly, and we can go in there.” Military judgments or political judgments were made of that. And that, basically, the fact that we have been weighted down with Iraq all these years - $10 billion dollars a month, the 140,000 troops that we have had in there, and the, the stretching that our military has had in terms of Iraq — has emboldened Iran, has emboldened Iran, there’s no question about it. Iran is providing the support from Hamas and many of the terrorist organizations. They have accelerated their whole program in terms of nuclear capability. I think a nuclear Iran would be enormously dangerous for that region and for the world generally. I welcome the fact that the United States is working internationally with our international neighbors, and that we’re also having direct contacts with the Iranians.

But there is no question that the fact that we have been weighted down in Iraq has emboldened the countries, Iran, and also in North Korea. And also for the development of their nuclear capability. That is part of the, the spin-off in terms of the Iraq war. I think it’s a very regrettable one. Hopefully, we may, if we’re talking about Iran, try to develop—if we can’t get sanctions at the Security Council level, that we can develop bilateral sanction on any of the countries that are going to be transporting nuclear materials or, or technology to these countries. Sanctions have worked against South Africa very, very effectively. Sanctions worked against Libya. Sanctions were working, off and on, even against Iraq. Sanctions could work in this case. And I think it’s imperative that we are going to be aggressive in pursuing them.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were the president, you’d go for sanctions against Iran before the U.N., and if that didn’t work you’d apply them unilaterally?

SEN. KENNEDY: I would to—I’d go to the U.N. first. If we can’t—it does appear that Russia and China will probably exert a veto, I think that we have to go to a bilateral sanctions, and I would certainly think that that’s absolutely necessary, and I think they ought to be working on that at the present time.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you keep the military option on the table?

SEN. KENNEDY: Not the nuclear military option. I think that that is not a constructive or positive discussion. Other military options ought to be kept on the table.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would say publicly, we would not use tactical nuclear weapons?

SEN. KENNEDY: I would not rattle the nuclear saber with regards to Iran. I think that’s counterproductive, it’s dangerous, and we don’t need to have that at the present time, and I think it’s counterproductive. The other military options are clearly—would be left on the table.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Sept. 13: Durbin, Cornyn, Dean, Gingrich, roundtable Sept. 6: Axelrod, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: