MTP Transcript for Jan. 7, 2007

SEN. BIDEN:  I am running for president.

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you filing exploratory committee?

SEN. BIDEN:  I am.  I’m filing exploratory committee before the month is out.

MR. RUSSERT:  This month.

SEN. BIDEN:  This month.

MR. RUSSERT:  And you’re going to take on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and all other comers.

SEN. BIDEN:  I’m going to be Joe Biden, and I’m going to try to be the best Biden I can be.  If I can, I got a shot.  If I can’t, I lose.

MR. RUSSERT:  Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, thanks very...

SEN. GRAHAM:  He plays well in South Carolina.

MR. RUSSERT:  Is that an endorsement?

SEN. GRAHAM:  I don’t want to hurt his chances.

MR. RUSSERT:  Coming next, will congressional hearings and presidential politics limit the president’s options on Iraq?  Our political roundtable:

Michael Gordon of The New York Times, John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal and CNBC, and Judy Woodruff of PBS are next, coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  Our MEET THE PRESS roundtable:  Iraq, the new Democratic Congress, and 2008, after this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  And we are back.  Welcome all.

Michael Gordon, let me start with you.  Here are pictures of Lieutenant General David Petraeus, he’ll be replacing General Casey in Iraq; Admiral William Fallon, who’ll be replacing General John Abizaid.  In your book, “Cobra II,” you write a lot about America’s military generals.  Tell us about Petraeus, tell us about Fallon and why are they going in?

MR. MICHAEL GORDON:  Well, I think they’re going in because they believe in the president’s new strategy.  I mean, a lot of people think that the military’s a monolith, but really there’s been a number of opinions within the United States military about how to proceed in Iraq.  General Casey had one view that emphasized transferring responsibility to the Iraqis, but I think General Petraeus, he’s presided over the drafting of the new counterinsurgency manual that the military just put out last month.  It’s an approach that is essentially troop intensive.  It requires clear hold and build.  And I think he’s going in to supervise and really energize and drive this new strategy in Baghdad.

MR. RUSSERT:  Of a surge.

MR. GORDON:  Of a surge.  He’s, he’s very much committed to it, and including a substantial surge of about five brigades.

MR. RUSSERT:  On Wed—Tuesday, excuse me, you wrote in The New York Times the following, and I’ll read it for you and our viewers, “Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in ‘06, Bush Team Says.  President Bush began 2006 assuring the country that he had a ‘strategy for victory in Iraq.’ He ended the year closeted with his war cabinet on his ranch trying to devise a new strategy, because the existing one had collapsed.” And he went on to say this, this year, “Decisions on a new strategy were clearly slowed by political calculations.  Many of Mr.  Bush’s advisers say their timetable for completing an Iraq review had been based in part on a judgment that for Mr.  Bush to have voiced doubts about his strategy before the midterm elections in November would have been politically catastrophic.” That’s an extraordinary admission.  Bush policy advisers saying politics played a central role in policy towards Iraq.

MR. GORDON:  Well, I don’t really think there’s anything surprising about it.  I mean, when did Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld leave his office?  It was after the election.  When was the decision made that he should leave?  It was before the election.  I mean, an unfortunate fact is that the review that the administration has done should have been carried out six months earlier, perhaps a year earlier.  They didn’t adequately resource the mission in Baghdad economically, they didn’t do enough politically, and, in my judgment, they never really sent enough troops.  Now they’re getting around to it, but they’ve lost a lot of time.

MR. RUSSERT:  John and Judy, we have Bush advisers saying to Michael Gordon in The New York Times, “Yeah, if we had gone forward with a review during the midterm elections, it could have been a political liability.  So we didn’t do it publicly.” What does that say?

MR. JOHN HARWOOD:  Well, it says that they were trying to hold onto the Congress, because they know that they’re, they’re now walking in with this new Democratic Congress into a very rough patch.  Joe Biden’s going to have hearings, as he told you, after the president makes his speech.  And the president’s position has only eroded, but he thought he had a chance to hold the Congress.

MR. RUSSERT:  You said in The Wall Street Journal on Friday, John, that John McCain said these words to you:  “There are still people around [Bush] who think things aren’t that bad.” Well, give us the context.  What was McCain trying to point out?

MR. HARWOOD:  Well, John McCain has been an advocate for a troop surge for some time, and his concern right now is that Bush is going to rhetorically adopt his policy but not do it all the way, not commit enough troops.  McCain says if Bush sends 20,000, you know, we might need 30,000, 35,000 or 40,000.  And John McCain, as he gets ready to run for president 2008, knows that the longer this debate about a surge goes on, the more controversy there is, the more the president sticks with it.  And if it doesn’t work, it’s going to be hung around John McCain’s neck.

MR. RUSSERT:  We have a new Democratic leadership in Congress, Judy Woodruff.  Here’s an interesting national poll, what new—what the new Congress should concentrate on.  Look at these numbers, the war in Iraq 45 percent, economy/jobs 7, health care 7, immigration 6.  Focus on the war by the American people.  And Harry Reid, the leader of the, the Democrats in the Senate, joined with Nancy Pelosi, as was discussed in this last segment, urging the president not to go forward with a surge.  His hometown paper in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review Journal, wrote this, that “Two days after saying on national television last month that he would be open to sending more U.S.  troops to Iraq, Sen.  Harry Reid posted a message on a ...  blog changing his comments.  On Dec.  17, Reid [said] ...  ‘If it is for a surge - that is, for two or three months - and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure I’ll go along with it.  ...  If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that.’ Two days later, on Dec.  19, Reid posted a message to the contrary on his blog, ‘Give ‘Em Hell, Harry.’ ...  ‘Frankly, I don’t believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq,’ Reid told bloggers.  ‘I do not support an escalation of the conflict.’” And now sending a letter to the president, saying “Start withdrawing troops.” What’s going on?

MS. WOODRUFF:  Well, for the Democrats, Tim, if, if this is a big problem for the president, it clearly is, and we see that because the administration is taking its time to make a decision.  It is also a huge problem for the Democrats.  their base wants the United States out of Iraq yesterday.  That’s politically impossible.  So they’re going to—and they’re going to be breathing down their necks, breathing down their backs every day for the next weeks, months, as long as this war goes on.  But, you know, there are two potential upsides for the Democrats.  Number one, those Democrats who were against the war—for the war in the first place now have an opportunity to say, “Hey, I was for it, but this is wrong and I’m changing my position.” Top of the list, Hillary Clinton, running for president in ‘08.

The other thing the Democrats can do, Tim, is they can take some very—a very hard look at the spending that the administration is going to be asking for as they up the number of troops in Iraq.  They’re going to want more money for infrastructure, more money for jobs.  This is a chance, and the Democrats say, “We’re going to use this chance to ask hard questions.  Where’s the money gone that’s been spent?  We’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars.  You’re asking us for a lot more money.  Where is it going to go?” Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, says he’s going to talk about parity, he’s going to say when the administration doesn’t have the money to spend on education, schools in the United States, health care in the United States, law enforcement in the United States, he’s going to say, “Well, how come we’re spending money on those things in Iraq?”

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: