'Meet the Press' transcript for Jan. 13, 2008

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. You brought it up. President Bush had talked to General Petraeus the other day. General Petraeus is to report back to Congress in March. If General Petraeus says the surge is working, that reconciliation started in a big way yesterday when the Iraqi parliament said that former members of the Saddam government can participate in new government, don't pull 35,000 troops out now, keep them there for at least the remainder of the year, would you be open to that?

SEN. CLINTON: No, and here's why, Tim. The surge was certainly explained and rationalized as giving the Iraqi government space and time to make the hard decisions that they needed to make. 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops, and, you know, from my perspective, part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don't have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up. I have said that as soon as I become president, I will ask the Joint Chiefs, secretary of defense, my security advisers to give me a plan to begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days.

The reason I have to do that is because last spring, I asked for a briefing on what the planning was. Secretary of defense and the Department of Defense basically said "We're not going to tell you." And I said, "Well, yes you are." We had such a briefing. It was classified. I can't talk about it, but the bottom line is it was cursory. I don't think that the Bush White House wants there to be much planning. So starting on day one of my presidency, we will begin that planning. We will begin to withdraw our troops within 60 days. I think we can take out one to two brigades a month. At the same time, I will put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government. I will engage in a full diplomatic effort to work with the countries in the region and others who have an interest in the stability of Iraq.

But Tim, I think that the large part of the reason that we're seeing the Iraqi government do anything is because time is running out. And yes, I believe President Bush will give them the rest of this year no matter what we try to do, and we don't have the votes to reverse course. But as of January 20, 2009, we will begin to bring our troops out of Iraq. Therefore, I certainly believe it's in the interests of the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq that a lot of this reconciliation that I've been calling for going back four or five years start and actually get implemented now.

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"--let me finish--"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."

SEN. CLINTON: Tim, I'm going to go back to what the whole point of the surge was, and the testimony that we heard last fall. The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices. Now, if we put in 30,000 of our finest young men and women, who are going to go after the bad guys and quell violence in certain parts of Iraq, there's no doubt that can be done. The partnerships that have been created by the tribal sheiks in Anbar province and elsewhere gave us an extra advantage. But that doesn't in any way undermine the basic reality. The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me bring you back to October 10 of 2002, when the Senate had to vote on the authorization to go to war. This was Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate.

(Videotape, October 10, 2002):

SEN. CLINTON: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Who had the better judgment at that time?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, let's put this in context. You didn't show my entire speech--of course, you don't have time to do that--because I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war. I said that on the floor, I said it consistently after that. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose. And in Senator Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in. But I said I was against preemptive war, I spoke out against it.

But let's look at the--let's look at the...

MR. RUSSERT: But...

SEN. CLINTON: Wait a minute, let me finish.

MR. RUSSERT: It's, it's import...

SEN. CLINTON: Let's look at the entire context.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let's just...

SEN. CLINTON: Because by 2004, Tim, by the summer of 2004, Senator Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted. And when you asked him about that, he said, well, he didn't want to say something that could have hurt our nominees, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards. Well, the fact is he's always said he doesn't take positions for political reasons. That is a political explanation. If he was against the war in 2002, he should've strongly spoke out in 2004. He should've followed what he said in his speech, which was that he would not vote for funding in '05, '06 and '07. That is inconsistent with what he is now running his campaign on. The story of his campaign is premised on that speech.

MR. RUSSERT: Viewers can read the transcript from November 11 when I did talk to Senator Obama about this. He also added that from his vantage point, the administration had not made the case, but let people read it and make up their own minds.

I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The [Levin] amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.

Number two, I have the greatest respect for Senator Levin. He is my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I--immediately after we did have the vote on the authorization, went to work with him to try to make sure that every piece of intelligence we had was given to the U.N. inspectors. And Senator Levin and I sent a letter to Secretary Powell, we pushed that position very hard because we both had the same view that we were going to put inspectors back in and we needed to let the inspectors do the job that they were asked to do.

Number three, I actually joined with Senator Byrd on an amendment that would limit the president's authorization to one year. I was very strongly in favor of limiting what President Bush could do. Unfortunately, that amendment did not pass.

Fourth, it is absolutely unfair to say that the vote as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution, has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.

MR. RUSSERT: The title of the act was The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution.

SEN. CLINTON: But, you know, Tim, that was exactly what would happen if we weren't successful with the diplomacy and if we weren't successful in persuading Hussein to do something. And let me just add here that when we were moving toward the preemptive war that George Bush decided to wage, the inspectors were in Iraq, we were getting information, finally, that would give us a basis for knowing. I believe if the inspectors had been allowed to do their work, we would've learned that what Saddam Hussein had constructed was a charade. It could've very well brought him down by his own people.

Now, we can sit here and argue about 2002 or we can say what has happened since and what needs to happen going forward in the future. And I think that you have two different story lines here. You have Senator Obama's story line, the speech he gave in '02, to his credit, which then was not followed up on. By '03, it was off his Web site. By '04, he was saying he didn't know he would vote and that he basically agreed with George Bush on the conduct of the war. There were others, Tim, who voted against it, spoke out against it and never wavered over that period of time.

MR. RUSSERT: But you voted for all the funding for the war.

SEN. CLINTON: I did. I never--I'm not premising my campaign on something different.

MR. RUSSERT: And then until '06 was against the timetable.

SEN. CLINTON: But I did what I--my principle concern has always been doing what I thought was best for our country and what I thought was best for our troops. I'm not here saying anything different than that. I'm not giving you a story line that does not hold up...

MR. RUSSERT: But did he have better...

SEN. CLINTON: ...under the facts and the times we were in.

MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.

MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it's important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama's going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07. I voted for the authorization...

MR. RUSSERT: I asked him those very questions...

SEN. CLINTON: And his answer was very political.

MR. RUSSERT: ...in November.

SEN. CLINTON: I mean, his whole point is that he doesn't make political decisions.

Print this Email this Blog this  IM this

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

May 11: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Terry McAuliffe, political roundtable May 4: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) April 27: Howard Dean, political roundtable April 20: David Axelrod, Geoff Garin, political roundtable April 13: James Carville, Bob Shrum, Mary Matalin, Mike Murphy April 6: Sen. Bob Casey, Gov. Ed Rendell, Tom Brokaw, Michael Eric Dyson, Amb. Andrew Young March 30: Gen. Michael Hayden, political roundtable   Slideshow: A look back at 60 years of 'Meet the Press' 60th anniversary party photos Find ‘Meet the Press’ in your area Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: