MTP Transcript for Jan. 7, 2007

MR. TIM RUSSERT:  Our issues this Sunday:  Is the president on the verge of sending tens of thousands of more American troops to Iraq?  How would this so-called surge change the situation on the ground?  With us, for the Democrats, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware; for the Republicans, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.  Biden and Graham square off on Iraq.

Then a new Congress begins with Democrats now in control.

(From videotape)

REP. NANCY PELOSI:  Nowhere were the American more—people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq.

(End videotape)

Taking control, Democrats in Congress

plan to prod Bush to bring U.S.

troops home from Iraq

MR. RUSSERT:  How will this affect the conduct of the war?  And how will presidential politics influence the debate over the war.  Insights and analysis from Michael Gordon of The New York Times, John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal and CNBC, and Judy Woodruff of PBS.

But first, all indications are that President Bush will address the nation this week and call for escalating number of U.S.  troops in Iraq.  The idea’s already sparked controversy all across the country.  Here to talk about that and more, Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina.  Welcome, both.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC):  Thank you, sir.

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE):  Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Biden, let me start with you.  If President Bush calls for more American troops to Iraq, the so-called surge, Joe Biden will say...

SEN. BIDEN:  No.  But there’s not much I can do about it.  Not much anybody can do about it.  He’s commander in chief.  If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, “Mr.  President, stop.”

MR. RUSSERT:  Why not try it?

SEN. BIDEN:  I’m going to try it after the hearings.  Here—there’s three things I’m going to try to do, Tim.  Speak out as loudly as I can as to why I think repeating this mistake—we’ve tried it twice before—why it will not work, and why we need a political solution first, not a military solution.  Secondly, I’m going to be holding extensive hearings as chairman, incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for the next four weeks, bringing in experts from every, every perspective to talk about what options are remaining in Iraq.  And thirdly, I have, I’ve, I’ve drafted a resolution of disapproval that is just hortatory, it’s a—to send to the Senate to try to convince the president that there are significant numbers and members of the United States Senate who think this proposal is a mistake, and hopefully force him to reconsider it.  Because every two months he’s going to have to reconsider this, every two months.  It’s not just surging once and that’s it.  He’s not surging for a year.  Every two months he’s going to have to decide, “Do I continue to extend the tours of duties of those who are there?  Do I bring more people in?” And hopefully make the case to him that this is a mistake.

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Graham, Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, who’s a pretty good head counter when it comes to the Republicans, he wrote this on Monday.  “President Bush ...  will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators.  ‘It’s Alice in Wonderland,’ Sen.  Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge.  ‘I’m absolutely opposed to sending more troops to Iraq.  It is folly.’” How politically uphill is this for the president?

SEN. GRAHAM:  Well, all I ask of my Republican colleagues, Democratic colleagues, and the nation is just to hear the president out.  I think there’ll be a lot of support by Republican members.  And I hope some Democrats will understand the following:  Where do we agree as a nation that a failed stay in Iraq is a disaster for this country?  If Iraq fails and you have open civil war and it creates a regional conflict that would follow us for decades, that’s something every American should hope never happens and work together to prevent.  I hope we can agree with this, that the current strategy is not working, hasn’t been working for quite a while.  I think the president has looked at it from that point of view, “I cannot let Iraq fail because our national security interests are very tied to what happens in Iraq.” And when you talk about withdrawal, somebody needs to answer the question, what happens when we leave?  And he’s also very much focused on the idea that we’ve got to give the Iraqi people the ability to find a political solution.  A surge of troops is a result of the current strategy not working, and it, by itself, will not lead to a successful outcome.  But a precondition to political stability and economic recovery is security.  So I will support the idea of putting more American troops on the ground in Iraq with a purpose, to join up with Iraqi forces to bring about security in Baghdad that is missing, try to stop the sectarian fighting in Baghdad to give the political leadership in Iraq a chance to do the things they need to do to bring about a stable government.  To me, it is a strategy that is based on the needs of the moment.  Even though it may not be politically popular for the moment, I think it is in our best interests long term.

MR. RUSSERT:  What’s wrong with that, Senator Biden?

SEN. BIDEN:  Tim...

MR. RUSSERT:  Secure the country to allow a political reconciliation?

SEN. BIDEN:  Tim, look, this is a good guy, smart guy.  We’ve been to Iraq together.  I’ve been there seven times, he’s been there six.

SEN. GRAHAM:  Don’t oversell.  I’m, I’m a good guy.

SEN. BIDEN:  No, no.  No, but, but the truth of the matter is we, we agree on two basis premises:  A failed state would be a disaster to the United States of America, and two, the current strategy isn’t working.  But nobody’s calling, that I’m aware of, for pulling all of our troops out.  That’s a red herring, number one.  The question is do we continue with a policy that is failing?  We’ve tried this policy twice in the last 12 months, surging troops into Baghdad.  Unfortunately, my friends have got this backwards.  We need a political solution before you can get a military solution.  What has changed from three years ago when I sat on this program with you and said we need to surge 60,000 troops then is we now have a civil war.  All the king’s horses and all the king’s men will not put Iraq together again absent Maliki making some very hard decisions about what he’s going to do.

Think of this, we’re going to surge 20-, 30-, whatever the president says, thousand troops into Baghdad again, a city of six million people, six million people where civil war is raging.  We’re going to have our troops go door to door in 23 neighborhoods.  We’re going to keep them out of Sadr City where, in fact, we are not—we’re told hands off because Maliki is dependent upon Sadr, the Mahdi army.  This is a prescription for another tragedy.  If we want to make sure we don’t lose Iraq, don’t use the last bullet in our gun here, prove ourselves to be impotent, and embolden every sector of the Iraqi population to conclude we are incapable of affecting outcomes there.  That’s my worry about doing the same thing again.

MR. RUSSERT:  I think Senator Graham has confused a lot of people.  Is the opinion of military generals—John Abizaid, general, US Central Command, came before you, your committee in November, and this is what he said:  “I’ve met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey.  We all talked together.  And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?  And they all said no.  And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more.  It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work.  I believe that more American forces prevent Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.” And remember the president, repeatedly during the midterm elections, said over and over again, “I listen to the generals.” Here he is, President Bush.

(Videotape, July 7, 2006):

PRES. GEORGE W.  BUSH:  General Casey will make the decisions as to how, as to, as to how many troops we have there.  He’ll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so.  I spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels, and I told him this, I said, “You decide, general.”

(End videotape)

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton 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 Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: