MTP Transcript for Oct. 8

SEN. TALENT: This mission is worth finishing. That’s what the national intelligence estimate says. We’re going to complete it and we’re going to continue fighting on all the fronts on the war on terror at the same time.

And she did support the release of classified information. She said The New York Times was right to do that. She said, “It’s OK because the terrorists knew about it anyway.” But you can’t—I mean, if you’re in the Senate, you know classified information, you can’t release it saying, “Well, the terrorists know about it anyway.” I mean, it’s just...

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, the American people were asked whether the Iraq war was helping or hurting the war on terror. And by 48 percent to 32 percent, the American people said it’s hurting the war on terror. Do you believe now, in hindsight, the $300 billion spent on the war in Iraq could’ve been better spent in Afghanistan or on airline safety or on port security?

SEN. TALENT: No. I think this is an important front on the war on terror.  That’s—what we’ve spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in total is 1 percent of the GDP. Now in return for that we’ve already removed Saddam and the threat he represented. Look what Iraq is not doing, OK? They’re not competing with Iran to sponsor terror in the region. They’re not threatening Kuwait. We don’t have to station troops in Saudi Arabia. They’re not trying to restart the nuclear weapon program. All that would be happening under Saddam. The same people who would be complaining, who are complaining now, would be complaining if we left him in power. And when we complete the mission—and the part of it that requires large numbers of American troops is, is finishing the training and seasoning of the Iraqi army so they can do for themselves what they’re now doing in combination with us. This is the part of the mission that’s been progressing because we know how to fight and we know how to train people how to fight.

MR. RUSSERT: Same question.

MS. McCASKILL: Senator Talent, I think, just said the $300 billion was not a lot of money. Clearly, he’s been in Washington too long if he doesn’t think $300 billion is a lot of money. Obviously, you know, we, we have failed in—you know, General Eisenhower had a plan. We have spent more time in Iraq—at Thanksgiving, we, we completed World War II, if we’re there until Thanksgiving, which clearly we’re going to be. To compare those two wars, one war had a plan. Both of them had brave troops that we support. Both of, both of them, our military was doing a wonderful, magnificent job. But to say that, that General Eisenhower couldn’t have worked under a timetable, General Eisenhower had a plan and Senator Truman was asking questions, unlike now, where this administration is not being held accountable for its mistakes. No one is asking the questions, no one is holding them accountable.

SEN. TALENT: Tim, her positions, with all due respect, are what they are and they’re comprehensive positions of weakness in the war of terror. Not just in Iraq, but also with regard to the terrorist surveillance, with regard to interrogation of foreign terrorists, with regard to the release of classified information, and now I suspect, based on what she’s telling supporters which she was talking to in Paris, with regard to habeas. And we’re talking about giving—she’s talking about giving habeas rights to captured terrorists. I don’t want captured terrorists suing our people.

MR. RUSSERT: So bottom line, stay the course as long as it takes.

SEN. TALENT: No.

MR. RUSSERT: As long as it takes and your position is you have two years to get your act together and we’re getting out.

SEN. TALENT: I would say...

MS. McCASKILL: We need to give them notice. We need to tell the Iraqi government that we’re not going to build democracy at the barrel of a gun.  It’s time for them to stand up and begin taking responsibility for their country.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to turn to domestic issues, because they’re important in your race. It’s interesting reviewing the literature and coverage of your race. Stem-cell research has emerged as a big issue and a big point of departure between your two candidates’ positions. And I want to read from The Kansas City Star. It’s a bit lengthy, but it’s important because it takes us through the—Senator Talent, your position on this and history on the issue.

SEN. TALENT: I’m going to get a drink of water while you read.

MR. RUSSERT: Please.

“Talent’s stand on stem-cell research has taken some confusing twists. For four years, he voiced support for federal legislation that would ban all human cloning, including that used in early, or embryonic, stem-cell research. The legislation was sponsored by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a fellow Republican.

“That stand, however, put him at odds with some Kansas City and St. Louis Republicans, including former Senator Jack Danforth, who wants to turn the cities into life science research centers. ...

“Then, on February 10 [2006], as his re-election fight heated up, Talent stunned Missouri’s anti-abortion leaders by renouncing that support. ... The change generated denunciations by a host of leading Missouri conservatives, including the Missouri Catholic Conference. ‘Flip-flop,’ fumed Larry Weber, the conference’s executive director. ...

“[Then on May 1, 2006], breaking weeks of silence ... Talent said he opposed a November [state] ballot measure aimed at safeguarding early stem-cell research in Missouri. ... Talent said, ‘I personally cannot support the initiative because I’ve always been opposed to human cloning and this measure would make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right.’

“A spokesman for the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures ... took exception to how Talent described the proposed constitutional amendment.

“Most Missourians do not believe that making life-saving stem cells in a lab dish is the same thing as cloning a human being ... And the Missouri initiative will strictly ban any attempt to create duplicate human beings.” Why are you opposed to having embryonic stem cell research in Missouri?

SEN. TALENT: Well, the—I’m opposed to human cloning and the ballot issue would create a constitutional right, an unqualified constitutional right, to clone the earliest stages of human life, which I can’t support. I support stem cell research, and the problem, until recently, Tim, was that there was one particular kind of stem cell that science believed it could only get by cloning a human embryo. Now, the good news is that there are alternatives that science is developing which will allow us to get all the stem cells that we want without having to clone an embryo or destroy an embryo. I strongly support the development of those alternatives. That’s what my speech was about in the Senate. And I want a world where in 10 years if you go into a hospital you know you get the best possible treatment that you could have gotten and you know you got it in a way that didn’t violate the conscience, and I think that we can get there.

MR. RUSSERT: When do you believe life begins?

SEN. TALENT: I believe it begins at the beginning, at, at conception.

MR. RUSSERT: So that embryo is a human being?

SEN. TALENT: Yeah. I think whatever it is that makes—if I...

MR. RUSSERT: And so, and so to use that for research is taking of a life?

SEN. TALENT: Yeah, it’s the, it’s the use—instrumental use of a person for some purpose, other than the, the value or the benefit of that person, which is something I’m not comfortable doing.

MR. RUSSERT: Then why do you favor exemptions in abortion law for rape—exceptions for race—rape, incest or, or life of mother? If it’s a human being, why are you allowing the taking of that life?

SEN. TALENT: OK. Well, I’ve, I’ve supported those exemptions over the years. It’s a situation where the pregnancy was not voluntary, and I think the law ought to draw a different balance under those circumstances. But as I said before, I mean, I support...

MR. RUSSERT: But it is the taking of a life under your...

SEN. TALENT: That’s, that’s right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...under your moral code.

SEN. TALENT: I—whatever it is that makes a person a person, Tim, attaches at the time the genetic code is complete. This is a personal judgment I’ve made. All these things involve personal moral judgments. And I’ve said to people in Missouri, “Look, go back, look at it, look at the technology, try and understand the underlying science and then make a decision on your own.”

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Danforth, who held a Senate seat, said if you had to go into a fire—a house with fire and yet a—save a three-year-old or a petri dish with cells, you’d save the three-year-old?

SEN. TALENT: That’s a, that’s a choice that’s between two different—that’s a choice that’s between two different people. That doesn’t mean, though, that you would, you know, you would sacrifice, you know, actively sacrifice the one for the other.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you have a three-year-old with juvenile diabetes, people believe that research on the embryonic stem cell may in fact bring about a cure.

SEN. TALENT: That’s right. The research—I’ve said I think the research is promising, I think it’s speculative. And the good news, Tim, is we’re not in a position where we have to make this kind of choice, we have alternatives that science is developing. At MI...

MR. RUSSERT: Right now?

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: