MTP Transcript for Jan. 21, 2007

SEN. KENNEDY: If that is going to be the case. I hope that that is not the case. But if that is going to be the case, if the president is going to defy the military leaders, the American public, and a bipartisan is going to be contemptuous of those actions, I think we have a constitutional duty, a constitutional duty to take those steps. Now...

MR. RUSSERT: Is he doing that now?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I’d say we’ll have the opportunity now, won’t we, to judge. He initially invited the Congress to come on in and be a part of this. Then he indicated that he is not going to take this judgment. But we have to take that judgment with the—you can take it with a nonbinding, and then we will have an opportunity—we’ve gotten the assurances of Harry Reid in the Senate that we will—those of us who believe in, in a—in a resolution that is actually going to be binding, we’ll have an opportunity to vote on it. Then we’ll find out what the president is going to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But, senator, if in two or three months there are 20,000 new American troops on the ground in Iraq, will you then say, “Let’s cut off funding”?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, let me just say, I hope that’s not the case. What I expect is that we’re going to have either the non—what you call the nonbinding and then binding resolutions, we’re going to find out what the attitude of the president, because I think it’s going to be very clear. As I mentioned before, you’re going to have the generals, the American people and others that are going to be opposed. But at the end of the day, we can—we are a constitutional democracy. All power is not just with the executive. We have a power in the Congress as well. And if this president’s going to defy the military, the public and a bipartisan majority in the Congress, then we have a responsibility at that time to have what—let me just mention this, because it’s been so abused, the statements about what—what would happen. We would have an orderly departure. We would set a time and have an orderly departure. We would make sure that our troops had the armor and had the bullets, not like the administration has when we went in, when we didn’t have the armor, we didn’t have the bullets, we didn’t have the up-armored humvees. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but we have to be prepared to do it.

MR. RUSSERT: “The Iraqis seem to be asking for one last chance. The Iraqi government’s need for American troops would ‘dramatically go down’ in three to six months if the United States accelerated the process of equipping and arming Iraq’s security forces, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.” And Maliki went on to say that “Iraqi security forces this week had detained 400 Shiite militiamen affiliated with Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric whose followers constitute part of Maliki’s political base.” The Iraqis saying give us one last chance. Why not help them?

SEN. KENNEDY: We should help them. And the best way to help them is to de-escalate. I’ve listened to my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, say “Well, we don’t—the Democrats don’t have a policy.” We haven’t tried a policy of de-escalation. They all say, “Look, let’s just have escalation, let’s have surge, let’s increase. Because if we don’t, we haven’t got a policy.” The fact remains, as we heard from General Abizaid before the Armed Services Committee, after consultation with the General Dempsey and military officials, that they didn’t believe that they had any additional troops. They thought that this would increase the cycle of violence. They point out that we’re a further crutch for the Iraqi government. Let’s have a—the policy that we haven’t tried, which is de-escalation. That’s a policy which I believe then will require the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for their security, rather than now sending additional troops which will be an additional crutch for the Iraqi government in delaying their judgment decision in order to take the security.

Look, our servicemen have been over there for four years. We had the best military in the world at the start of this conflict in the war. They’ve been over there for four years. They have fought and won every kind of battle. They have been over there longer than we’ve served in World War II. They have done everything that any serviceman or woman could possibly been asked, and they’ve done it courageously, they’ve done it valiantly. And what we owe them is a policy that is as good as their valor and their bravery, not sending them into the conflict of a civil war. That is what this policy is all about. And it is a disaster, and it’s going to be a continued disaster for these servicemen. The best way you can serve their interests is not put them in harm’s way. And you ought to re—we ought to require this president, who’s been wrong on every important decision on Iraq, to come to the Congress and the American people to get approval to go in that direction.

MR. RUSSERT: With the lack of security that exists in Iraq and the lack of the capability of the Iraqi army, to withdraw American troops now, in the estimation of the intelligence community, would put Iraq into total chaos and anarchy. Are you for that?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well—no!  I’m not for, for that. That’s the—that is the line that is given from the, the administration. What we have been, been for is certainly an orderly kind of redeployment, the training of, of Iraqis, the supply of the equipment. They can have a continued training program. Diplomacy in that region, which is nonexistent, nonexistent, a refusal to talk to the countries that have a direct interest in this. None of this is tried. So we have a choice of either a continuation of a bankrupt policy that is going to put Americans in the midst of a civil war over there, or an alternative policy that has the real opportunities for success. We know that policy is going to be a policy for disaster, and we think that the American people don’t want to be sending Americans into the midst of this civil war...

MR. RUSSERT: The director of national intelligence appeared before Congress about two weeks ago, was asked a very direct question about troop withdrawal. Let’s watch that question and answer.

(Videotape, January 11, 2007, congressional meeting)

SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO): What would happen in—if we pulled out now from Iraq?

MR. JOHN NEGROPONTE (Director of National Intelligence): We’ve looked at that question, and we’ve, we’ve tried to assess it, senator, and I, I think the, the view pretty much across the community is that a precipitate withdrawal could lead to a, a collapse of, of the government of, of that country and a collapse of their security forces, because we simply don’t think that they are ready to take over to assume full control for—of their security responsibilities.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: If we pulled out, the Maliki government would collapse and we would create a situation some say analogous to Afghanistan where terrorists would live there as a haven and plot the destruction of the United States and other countries around the world.

SEN. KENNEDY: This is a precipitous withdrawal without the kind of framework which I and other Democrats have described. You can ask that question, if they all were getting on a train this afternoon or a bus or something out of that. That isn’t—we’re talk—we’re talking about an orderly redeployment over a period...

MR. RUSSERT: How long—how long would you take for withdrawal?

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: