MTP Transcript for Feb. 18, 2007

John Bolton ought to know that the president he served is the same guy who’s been doing these negotiations. And our conservative brethren, we’ve been walking them through, and a lot of them say, “OK, we get it.”

Here’s the deal: When you’re, when you’re doing a negotiation with somebody like North Korea, you have to make sure that they’re going to perform. In the old days, it was just us vs. the North Koreans and they could pit us against the rest of the global community. Now, what happens? We’re not giving oil to them, the South Koreans are. They’ve got to perform for the South Koreans. The Chinese have an important role when it comes to energy and economics. They got to perform for the Chinese. They’ve got to deal with the Japanese. They’ve got to deal with the Russians. All of a sudden they have multiple layers of accountability, and they don’t get the benefits until they have taken the steps. I think there were—there were assumptions that they were getting something for nothing. Not true. This time, the North Koreans, it’s trust but verify time.

MR. RUSSERT: And they will give up their entire nuclear capability?

MR. SNOW: Yeah, that’s where this is to lead.

MR. RUSSERT: For seven years you were host of “Fox News Sunday.” Do you like being on that side of the table or this side?

MR. SNOW: You know what, this is the best job I’ve ever had. I love doing what you did although I’m glad I’m not getting thumped by you in the ratings anymore. But I really love this job.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, we thank you for coming in and sharing your views.

MR. SNOW: Thanks, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, two senators who disagree with the president on Iraq. From his own Republican Party, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. And former Army Ranger and paratrooper, Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Hagel and Reed, they’re both here next on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, Democratic Senator Jack Reed on Iraq after this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator Hagel, Senator Reed, welcome both.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE): Thank you.

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: The House over—the majority, solid majority, said no to president’s troop surge in Iraq, 56 Senators on record, including you, Senator Hagel, one of seven Republicans, saying the president should not do this. What message does that send to the world? What message does that send to the troops?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, first, this is a democracy, and the Congress not only has a constitutional responsibility to engage in matters of war, but also a moral responsibility. We’ve been at war for four years. It has taken a heavy toll on this country in both American lives and treasure. I think we have a situation in Iraq that is far worse today than it was a year ago, four years ago. I think the Middle East today is the most combustible it’s ever been. It is time for the Congress to be part of the decision making process. The American people want it that way, that’s why you have a Congress. We’re Article I of the, of the Constitution. We tried a monarchy once, it didn’t work very well. So we have an obligation to those, first of all, servicemen and their families, the ones we ask to make the sacrifice. They deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifices. And I don’t believe that policy is now in existence. So the Congress must be part of this debate now.

As far as supporting our troops, our troops understand this. I was in Vietnam in 1968, I would have welcomed, in 1968, the Congress that held hearings, that looked at what was going on in 1968 in Vietnam. They understand what this is about. And I, I think it’s really scurrilous for those to try to divide this country and say we don’t support our troops, or we’re less than enthusiastic, that’s just not true. I, I get e-mails, I get conversations through phone calls, personal relationships from people who were there, their parents, their spouses. This is not a matter of either you just continue to stay the course, which some want to do, or take another look at it. These troops deserve better, and I think the American people expect better and will demand better.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Reed, let me bring up a point that was raised by Tony Snow, and by John McCain in the Armed Services Committee hearing with General Petraeus. You voted to confirm General Petraeus to head the unit—oversee our troops in Iraq, along with Senator Hagel. Senator McCain asked this question: “Suppose we send you over to your new job ... only we tell you that you can’t have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?” Lieutenant General Petraeus: ‘No, sir.’” Why would you vote to confirm him and then oppose giving him the troops he says he needs to get the job done?

SEN. REED: Well, this issue is about the president’s plan, not General Petraeus’ plan. General Petraeus is a competent officer. And frankly, he was confirmed because of his competence, his experience, his ability. But this issue, this debate is about the president’s plan. I think the president’s plan is wrong, I think it’s been wrong since the beginning. I voted against the operation in October of 2002. I think we have to get the president to change course, to adopt a strategy that’s consistent with long-term goals and values of the United States. So to raise the issue, I think it’s just absolutely illogical that well, you can’t send a competent military officer over there, it misses the point. The point is the president has to change course. We have to have a strategy involving diplomacy, involving more than just the military.

The president’s talked from—for years now about standing up the Iraqi security forces, getting the economy of Iraq going, making the Iraqi government make hard, political decisions. One component of that is military. He fails miserably on many other components: the reconstruction, the political decision making of the Iraqi government.

MR. RUSSERT: What does the Senate do now? The filibuster has worked, preventing this vote of a nonbinding resolution. Congressman John Murtha of the House side said this:

“His plans for placing conditions on how President George W. Bush can spend $93.4 billion in new combat funds would effectively stop an American troop buildup. ‘They won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work.’ ...

“As the chairman of a House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, Murtha plans to advance legislation next month attaching strings to the additional war funds Bush requested on February 5.”

Senator Hagel, will you support Congressman Murtha’s approach that say no one can spend more than a year in Iraq, and they’re not going there without the proper training and equipment, which in effect—in Murtha’s words—would stop the surge?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, first, I think Congressman Murtha makes some very valid points. Many of the points that he makes in what I assume, as you note, he is going to propose, were the result of questions that some of us asked four years ago. For example, the tempo of troops. How can you continue to have that kind of rotation schedule? Not many people listen. Now, when the House passes whatever they’re going to pass, it will come over to the Senate, as you note; we’ll take a look at it, and we’ll have that debate. That debate will be forced on us. We need to have that debate.

This debate, partly, is not about supporting the troops there. Now, of course we’re going to support the troops. There isn’t anybody in the House or Senate that would vote otherwise. What this debate is about right now is a continuation and an escalation of American military involvement in Iraq, putting young men and women in the middle of a sectarian, an intra-sectarian civil war. That’s what this debate is really about. So, yes, I’m going to look very carefully at Congressman Murtha’s points. And again, when you...

MR. RUSSERT: And you may be open to them?

SEN. HAGEL: And I’d be open to it. Just one other thing on this. When the outgoing chief of staff of the United States Army testified before Senator Reed’s Armed Services Committee this week, and he, in his words, said that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The damage that we’re doing to our force structure because of these third and fourth rotations in Iraq, we’re decimating our National Guard here in this country. What we’re doing to the equipment of the Marines and the Army. Somebody better get a hold of this, and Murtha’s right, I think, in a lot of the points he makes.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Reed, would you be open to Congressman Murtha’s taking funding down unless the troops met certain requirements of training?

SEN. REED: Well, I, I noticed Tony Snow agreed with that, saying that the president’s not going to send troops in without training, without equipment, etc.

MR. RUSSERT: But the president’s going to oppose Congressman Murtha’s attempt to limit funding. Would you support limiting funding for the troops involved in the surge?

SEN. REED: Well, I think the critical issue here is getting the mission right and to fund those, those missions appropriately. The missions that we should concentrate on are going after al-Qaeda, security, building up the Iraqi security forces, maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. But conducting an operation in the midst of a civil war in Baghdad is one I don’t think is going to help us in the long run. I think we have to look, as Senator Hagel suggested, about funding. But I think we have to focus most critically on the missions, and guaranteeing to our troops that those missions with—that are in the interest to the United States will be funded.

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: