Transcript for Aug. 6

DR. RICE: I’m not going to try to judge each and every Israeli operation. I do know that Israel has the right to defend itself; the president’s made that very clear. We’ve been also constantly saying to the Israelis that their war is against Hezbollah and not against Lebanon, and not against the Lebanese people. And I think they understand that. And they, now, are in a position—as is Lebanon—to have a cessation of hostilities that will allow a rebuilding of the political ground so that we can begin to rebuild Lebanon.

The United States was one of the first countries to respond to the humanitarian needs of Lebanon. It was the United States that worked with the Israelis to get humanitarian quarters in place so that people could be helped.  We’ve been paying tremendous attention—detailed attention—to the humanitarian circumstances of the Lebanese people, and we continue to do so.

MR. RUSSERT: Many have suggested that the way to bring a permanent resolution to this crisis is to peel off Syria from Iran. Syria, a secular, Sunni country, Iran, a Shiite country. And the way to do that is for the United States to talk directly to Syria. Richard Armitage, who was the top deputy to your predecessor, Colin Powell, at the State Department, said this—and he was the last senior official to talk to—from the U.S.—to talk to the government of Syria in 2004.

He said he “completely disagreed” with Secretary Rice’s description of the conflict as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” He said: “The administration has an irrational fear that talking is a sign of weakness.  It’s the best way of gathering information and influencing events.” Why not go to Syria and talk directly to the Syrians?

DR. RICE: Well, it’s ironic. Rich Armitage was actually the last U.S.  administration official to go to Damascus, and he went to Damascus to say to them—senior official—he went to Damascus to say, “You know, it’s about to be a new day, the president had just been re-elected, it’s really time for Syria to make a strategic choice. And here are some things you could do to demonstrate that you’ve made a strategic choice.” They didn’t do them. The problem isn’t talking to Syria. The problem is that Syria doesn’t act when people talk to them.

Now, I want to correct the misconception that somehow we don’t have contacts with Syria. We have an Embassy in Syria. We have a charge in Syria. But the...

MR. RUSSERT: But we withdrew our ambassador. Madame Secretary, we withdrew our ambassador.

DR. RICE: Yes, we did. We withdrew our ambassador when the Syrians refused to cooperate with an international probe that at least implicated Syria in the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. And to talk to Syria about Lebanon is a very interesting strategy since Syria—we’ve spent a lot of time now, and a lot of energy trying to get Syria out of Lebanon over the last—they occupied Lebanon for the last 30 years. And I think to suggest that somehow Syria is somehow a part of the equation for a stable Lebanon, after they occupied the country for 30 years, after they created the conditions that permitted Hezbollah to become a state within a state, after they have repeatedly intimidated and perhaps even contributed to the assassination of Lebanese officials—it’s a rather odd strategy to say that Syria’s somehow going to be a part of stabilizing Lebanon.

But we do talk to Syria, and I want to, I want to just correct that misconception.

MR. RUSSERT: The president referred to the conflict of the Middle East as “a moment of opportunity.” And another Bush—former Bush administration official, Richard Haass, had this to say—he is now the head of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Mr. Haass made these comments: He “laughed at the president’s public optimism. ‘An opportunity?’ Haass said with an incredulous tone. ‘Lord, spare me. I don’t laugh a lot. That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what’s Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?’” These are former Bush administration officials.

DR. RICE: Yes, and I, I know Richard well, and I’m very fond of him. Known him for a long time. But it’s short-sighted, extremely short-sighted analysis. And I would think that if people look back on the history of how things have changed, they will recognize that opportunity very often comes out of crisis.

You know, Tim, the Chinese have a character for crisis. It’s weiji—danger and opportunity. I think they have it right. Every crisis has within it danger, but every crisis also has within it opportunity. And this president is determined to seize opportunities, to bring about a different kind of Middle East. Anyone who wants to argue that the Middle East that has been left behind was one that was stable, that was good for the people of Iraq with 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves, that was good for the people of the Palestinian territories with Yasser Arafat stealing them blind, that was good for the, for the Lebanese with Syria occupying the country and stoking the kind of sectarianism and the kind of conditions that have led to a state within a state that is Hezbollah, I think they’ll have to make an argument that that was a good Middle East that should have been left untouched.

MR. RUSSERT: Well...

DR. RICE: Yes, it is a time of tremendous turbulence in the Middle East, it’s a time of change in the Middle East, and the United States has an obligation to—now to try and, on the basis of the work that has been done, construct and help those in the Middle East construct a better Middle East, there’s no doubt about that.

MR. RUSSERT: You talk about a...

DR. RICE: But the notion that there is, the notion that there is not opportunity within crisis is ahistorical.

MR. RUSSERT: You talk about a different kind of Middle East, this was the scene that Americans watched on Friday, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis demonstrating in favor of Hezbollah, and burning American flags. And the Associated Press reporter on the scene wrote it this way: “Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ marched through the streets of Baghdad’s biggest Shiite district in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon. ... The demonstration was the biggest in the Middle East in support of Hezbollah. ...  Demonstrators, wearing white burial shrouds symbolizing their willingness to die for Hezbollah, waved the group’s yellow banner and chanted slogans in support of its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who has attained a cult status in the Arab world for his defiance of Israel. ‘Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah,’ the crowd chanted.”

Have we created another Iran in Iraq, another fundamentalist Islamic extremist regime where hundreds of thousands of people in a country of just 25 million show up and burn American flags?

DR. RICE: Well, first of all, the notion that somehow Iraq, under Prime Minister Maliki and his government, is something akin to Iran is just not right. I mean, it’s just erroneous. What you have in Iraq is the beginnings of a—it’s a very young democratic system, it is a system that has produced a unity government after a number of elections in which people went out, despite terrorist threats, and put their lives on the line to elect this government, and it’s a young government. And, yes, it has to get its, its feet under it.

But, Tim, it’s an emotional time, particularly for Shia in the Middle East, and that people would go out and demonstrate and say what they feel is one sign that perhaps Iraq is one place in the Middle East where people are exercising their right to free speech. No, I don’t like what they said, and I believe that when you have an Iraq that is more stable and more democratic and moving toward bringing these groups together that you won’t have demonstrations of that kind.

MR. RUSSERT: When, when...

DR. RICE: But to suggest, to suggest that this is the start of a new Iran I think is just erroneous.

MR. RUSSERT: When Prime Minister Maliki was here, he brought his foreign minister. I spoke to his foreign minister, I said, “Do you believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?” he said, “I cannot make a value judgment on that.” President Bush has said, “Either you’re for us or against us.” Do you believe that the Iraqi government should publicly state that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?

DR. RICE: The, the European Union hasn’t even stated that, Tim. I think the Iraqi government ought to concentrate on governing Iraq, that’s what they’re trying to do. This is an extremely young—a young democracy in a very difficult circumstance, and what they need to concentrate on is building their security forces, rooting out the terrorists among them, rebuilding their interior ministry in a way that will not stoke sectarian violence. They need to concentrate on building the confidence of their people in their reconciliation efforts, their reconstruction efforts, and in bringing security to Baghdad. That’s what we want them to concentrate on.

I have no doubt that this is an Iraqi government and an Iraq that is going to be a fierce fighter in the war against terrorism, because they themselves are experiencing the effects of terror on their population. I have no doubt that this is going to be a government that is going to be on the—that is on the right side in the war on terror.

MR. RUSSERT: I asked the foreign minister how long could his government maintain the, the respect of its people with 100 deaths a day due to sectarian violence, and he said, “By the end of this year it must end.” Do you agree with that?

DR. RICE: Well, I certainly have talked to a lot of Iraqi leaders who believe that that’s their test, is to deliver for the Iraqi people a better future, a less violent future in the next several months. It’s remarkable to me, and I think indeed heartening that they take it upon themselves to make that pledge to the Iraqi people.

But let me just note, Tim, the person about whom you’re speaking, Hoshiyar Zebari, the foreign minister, is a Kurd. the president of Iraq is a Kurd.  The prime minister is Shia. The speaker is Sunni. The defense minister is Sunni. These are people who are working together for a non-sectarian unity government in ways that has been unimaginable and indeed unprecedented in the Middle East. And so, yes, we’re going through a period of turbulence and difficulty, but great change doesn’t come without turbulence and difficulty.  It is a far better Iraq today, despite its many difficulties, than an Iraq that relied on repression to resolve differences between their various groups.

MR. RUSSERT: You say far better. General John Abizaid testified before Congress this week. This is he—how he described the situation. “The top U.S.  military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that, ‘Iraq, could move toward civil war’ if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped. ‘I believe the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it.’”

And the former ambassador to Baghdad from Great Britain, William Patey, had this to say. “Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain’s outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo. William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines... Mr. Patey wrote: ‘The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt.’”

Those are two men on the ground who say that Iraq is, if not in a civil war, close to one, and will most likely break up along ethnic lines.

DR. RICE: Well, first of all, I think it’s important not to misquote John Abizaid or to, to take him out of context, Tim. What John Abizaid said is, yes, the sectarian violence is as bad as he has seen, and he has said if not arrested, then there could be a slide to civil war. But he also said that he believes that we have the forces in place and the plan in place to, to prevent that. The tense if very important here. He didn’t say “sliding towards civil war.” He said “the dangers are there.” Of course the dangers are there when you have sectarian violence.

I simply disagree with the analysis of, of the former British ambassador. I respectfully disagree. But the important point here is that Iraqis haven’t made a choice for civil war. Iraqis have made a choice for a unified government that can deliver for all Iraqis, and when I say Iraqis I mean not just their leadership, which clearly has not made a choice for civil war, but their population.

Yes, there are violent people who want to use sectarianism and sectarian violence to stoke a sense of insecurity. They are going right at Baghdad because they recognize that that has a special significance to the country.  There are large parts of the country that are stable and functioning. But the government, the, the new leadership, has focused its efforts very heavily on Baghdad. They have been improving electric—electricity services to the population. They’re focusing on jobs programs for Baghdad, and they’re focusing on security for Baghdad. That’s why General Abizaid, General Casey have given more forces to be involved in the security plan for Baghdad. It’s clearly a crucial time for the...

MR. RUSSERT: So if those military—excuse me.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

July 12: McCain, Schumer, roundtable June 28: Axelrod, Romney, Graham, roundtable June 21: Netanyahu, Nunn, Thompson, Easton, Todd June 14: Biden, Murphy, Scarborough May 31: Leahy, Sessions, Owens, Schmidt, Mulcahy, roundtable May 24: Durbin, Gingrich, political roundtable May 17: Kaine, Steele, Haass, Noonan, Brownstein   Slideshow: A look back at 60 years of 'Meet the Press' Find ‘Meet the Press’ in your area Take Two: Web only video from 'Meet the Press' Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: