MTP Transcript for Jan. 7, 2007

MR. RUSSERT:  Another political adviser, Judy, Charlie Cook of the National Journal, wrote this about the, the Democrats, and he’s very straightforward, “Obviously, the situation is bad for Bush.  But it is also awkward for Democrats.  Voters expressed displeasure with the war, yet haven’t amended the Constitution.  The president remains commander-in-chief.

“Congressional Democrats and party strategists generally agree among themselves that they should avoid anything that smacks of being unsupportive of U.S.  troops, such as cutting off funding for the war.

“An alternative approach would to pass legislation putting a ceiling on the number of U.S.  troops in Iraq, eliminating Bush’s surge option.  The White House would inevitably get the Pentagon brass to defend the surge strategy, and Democrats are loath to take on the military.

“So Democrats must find some way to be responsive to voters while not taking ownership of Bush’s war.  That’s no easy assignment.”

You heard Joe Biden saying, “Well, we can’t cut off funding, we can’t limit troops...

MS. WOODRUFF:  Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...we’re going to have hearings.”

MS. WOODRUFF:  And that’s why I think what Senator Biden does is significant.  That’s why I think what goes on in the House, if they do what they say they’re going to do, which is hold the administration accountable, ask tough questions in some of these hearings, whether it’s Henry Waxman or some other—domestic committees and international oversight committees can ask tough questions about where this money has gone.  And, you know, there were the stories in The Washington Post, Tim, just over the last few weeks about the administration deciding to, to choose people to go to Iraq based on their political views.  They were asked, for example, “Do you believe that Roe v.  Wade should be overturned?” That was one of the questions they asked as they determined who was going to fill important slots in Iraq.  I think much more of that is going to come out, and I think that is going to be part of how the Democrats are judged.

MR. RUSSERT:  Michael Gordon, when John Murtha was here with us several months ago, outspoken against the war, he made a comment that when he broke with the president, he received a lot of calls from the Pentagon saying—inside the Pentagon, “Go for it, Senator—Congressman Murtha, you are articulating our view.” How much division is there within the Pentagon about the war in Iraq?  Do some people express to you that they’re concerned about what this is doing to our Army, Marine Corps, Navy?

MR. GORDON:  The Bush administration made a big mistake a couple of years ago when it didn’t act in 2004 to enlarge the size of the military, and we’re paying the price now.  And there are those concerns.  But I have to tell you, when I was in Iraq in, in July and when I was there in October, on the ground, you know, at that level, I heard a lot of people say, “We don’t have enough troops.  We’re putting too much stress on, on the Iraqis being able to, to shoulder the burden for the security.  We need to do more.” So there is a body of opinion within the American military that more assets are needed and that some positive outcome can still be salvaged from the Iraq operation.

MR. RUSSERT:  If that was the recommendation of the generals on the ground, it had to be—it was signed off on by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the president.

MR. GORDON:  Well, I didn’t say this was the recommendation of the generals on the ground, I said this is the view from the soldiers on the ground.  And there’s—I’ve noticed over the past year a difference between some of the statements made by General Abizaid and General Casey and some of the perspective of the troops on the ground.  What you generally hear, and I think we saw it when Secretary Gates went to Baghdad, he sat down with a soldier in a mess hall and asked him what that soldier thought was needed, and that soldier at that level said, “More troops.” So there, there is that element.  There is that opinion within the American military.

MR. RUSSERT:  Is there a suggestion that the generals pulled their punches on troop levels because they wanted to give the right answer to Secretary Rumsfeld or the president?

MR. GORDON:  No.  I think General Casey and General Abizaid are honorable people who genuinely believed in the strategy they were pursuing.  I think they concluded the insurgency couldn’t be beaten in the short run, that the best proposition we’d had was to transfer our responsibilities to the Iraqis, let them fight the insurgency forever.  The problem is they put too much stock in this program to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis that quickly, and it just didn’t work.  And, and the result is, if you look at the Pentagon’s report to Congress, you see an increase in Iraqi forces and an increase in sectarian violence.  What it suggests to me is there has to be more of a U.S.  role.

MR. RUSSERT:  John:

MR. HARWOOD:  Two quick points on this.  One, John McCain told me the other day, however stressed the U.S.  Army is, there’s nothing worse for an army than to be a defeated army.  That’s part of his rationale for why we need more troops.  Second, the president’s speech on its own, his credibility with the American public is not very high right now, his number in the CBS News poll, his job approval was 30 percent.  But if this strategy actually works and he has the ability to see it through for some six to nine months, a year—if it actually works, that could affect public opinion and change the, the dynamic in the Congress for the Democrats as well.  Nobody’s very optimistic, but if it happens, we’ll see some change.

MR. RUSSERT:  Judy Woodruff, you have been working on a special project for PBS this Friday night at 9 p.m.  called “Generation Next,” young people 16 to 25.  I want to show a clip from that and come back and talk about it.  Let’s watch.

(Videotape, “Generation Next”):

MS. WOODRUFF:  Almost 900,000 members of Generation Next are currently in the military, including the National Guard and Reserves.  Some volunteered in the wake of 9/11; others joined for different reasons.  The war in Iraq was a key issue for young voters in the 2006 midterm election, nearly two thirds said it was very important or extremely important in deciding their vote.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  The young Generation Next making up the majority of the young people fighting in Iraq, also making up the majority of young people voting for or against candidates for or against the war, what did you find in talking to the Generation Next?

MS. WOODRUFF:  Well, for one thing, they are a generation that hasn’t been examined in any depth.  But, Tim, very quickly, they are the most diverse generation ever.  More of them were born outside the—one in every eight of them born outside of the United States, one in every five has a parent born outside the United States.  This is a generation that is taking a different approach.  You saw that in, in, in one—in part of one of those clips.  What they believe—what most of them believe is that the war in Iraq is wrong by a higher percentage than voters overall.  More of them believe that troops should get out of Iraq.  And the reason, I think, Americans will listen to them is that they are, as you say, making the greatest sacrifice.  They are tending, at this point in their lives, to vote more Democratic.  They are more willing to identify themselves as liberal than Americans overall.  The question is, is that going to stick or is that going to change as they grow older?

But they are fascinating, Tim, and they are—they are a generation who is defined by technology.  They’ve grown up with computers, MySpace, Facebook.  They’re on their cell phones all the time.  They’re, they’re using Yahoo!  and Google, and they—they know how to use technology.  They are closer to their parents than any generation.  There’s a lot about them that I think the rest of us don’t about...(unintelligible).

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: