'Meet the Press' transcript for Sept. 27, 2009

MR. DAVID GREGORY:  This Sunday:  The president on the world stage at a time of growing danger.  The U.S. says Iran has a secret underground nuclear facility capable of weapons production.

(Videotape)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA:  Iran is on notice that, when we meet with them on October 1st, they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  What now?

And Afghanistan; military commanders want more troops as the White House considers a new strategy.  With us, former President Bill Clinton on this president's hard choices.

(Videotape)

FMR. PRES. BILL CLINTON:  I think what the president is saying without saying it, because he hasn't issued--said yes or no yet, is that an American surge in Afghanistan may be a necessary condition for success.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  And the growing GOP opposition.

(Videotape)

PRES. CLINTON:  Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Plus, a special debate on the way forward with Iran and Afghanistan with Democratic senator from Virginia, Vietnam veteran Jim Webb, and Republican from Arizona Jon Kyl.

Then, the White House intervenes in a high-profile race for governor in New York, urging fellow Democrat Governor David Paterson not to seek re-election. What will he do?  And what does this race say about the political mood of the country?  Speaking out live this morning in an exclusive interview, Governor David Paterson.

But first, breaking news overnight.  In a new show of force, Iran test-fired several short-range missiles; the head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force telling reporters that a multiple-missile launcher was tested for the first time, and that Iran would test medium and long-range missiles during further drills in the next few days.  This, of course, just two days after strong condemnations from the U.S. and allies over the existence of the secret underground uranium enrichment facility in Iran.  We'll get reaction in just a moment to these latest developments with two key Senate voices, Democrat Jim Webb and Republican Jon Kyl.

But first, news of the nuclear enrichment facility was the first of many topics we covered when I sat down in New York with Former President Bill Clinton.

I'd like to start by asking you about these latest developments on Iran and the discovery of an underground facility.  The bottom line is, from the administration's point of view, is this the time for engagement, or is it the time to get tough?

PRES. CLINTON:  Well, I--my answer is both.  That is, you know, I know what I read in the newspaper, but my impression is that the United States knew about this for some time and then a couple of days ago, you know, Iran gave a kind of half-hearted notification to the International Atomic Energy Agency about this site.  Then the U.S. must have shared what they knew, because you got the very tough statement from President Medvedev from Russia at the U.N., then the British and French leaders, Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy, joined with President Obama in issuing his statement.  The Chinese, I'm assuming, have been notified, because they've been working closely with the Russians and the Americans on the North Korean nonproliferation issue to constrain the ability to spread whatever technology they have or to allow the North Koreans to add to their stock.

So I think when the secretary of state kept saying, "Iran's got a choice to make, Iran's got a choice to make," it now looks, reading in the newspaper, that what they were saying is, "We want to talk to you.  You can't avoid talking about this.  We have to resolve this." And I believe the president has now said by the end of the year, and I think Hillary had said something like December.  So my view is this is the very time to talk to them, because we're in a difficult situation now.  And it's not a question I want to emphasize about whether we trust them or not, because we've demonstrated that we have the ability to verify.  And I think, I think the U.S. wanted to talk because they knew about this and they knew that Iran was about to get in a position where they might be irreversibly putting themselves on a conflict course not only with us but, as you now see, with the Europeans--the Germans endorsed a statement with the Russians--and presumably with the Chinese.  Just because they haven't said anything, we shouldn't draw any negative conclusions.  They normally take a little longer.

MR. GREGORY:  But is this a moment where the president says to Iran, "We got you, and now it's time to act or you're going to face serious consequences"?

PRES. CLINTON:  Well, I think that's what they want to communicate with them. And I think the reason they want to have talks is if they have talks and they don't just hurl assaults in the, in the press about it, they can more explicitly lay out things they may not be prepared to say in public yet about what the options are if Iran continues down this path, and they can also talk about where we might go together if they reverse course.  So I always think it's a good idea, if possible, to look somebody in the eye and have a chance to have a conversation before there's a total breach.  But I, I think this is actually healthy that this has broken.  I--the, the Iranians must have known that the Americans knew, somehow they must have found out that, or they wouldn't have voluntarily notified the IAEA about this.

MR. GREGORY:  From Iran to Afghanistan and the bottom line question there: Will committing tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan make America safer?

PRES. CLINTON:  The answer to that is maybe.  That's why the president hasn't answered yet.  That is, I think what General McChrystal has said is that we have to have an Afghan version of the Iraqi surge in Anbar that worked well there.  I think what the president is saying without saying it, because he hasn't issued--said yes or no yet, is that an American surge in Afghanistan may be a necessary condition for success to make America safer; that is, to constrain the al-Qaeda, to keep the heat up on them, to keep the Taliban from taking over ever more of Afghanistan and giving the al-Qaeda more freedom to roam and more options to plan out-of-area terrorist attacks against us, the Europeans or anybody else.  But it won't be enough.

And my guess is, is what the president wants to do is to see how this Afghan election is resolved.  And if President Karzai is adjudged the victor without having to run in a run-off election with Mr. Abdullah, whether he will then turn around and include Mr. Abdullah in the government and maybe even one or two of the other candidates for president there--at least one other person that's supremely qualified on the merits to be a part of a modern functioning government.  So I think that what the president has done here is not to dis the general or say--but he, he's saying, "Look, my responsibility is not just to win military battles, but to see that at least it's something bigger, not--for ourselves and our security and for the people of Afghanistan.  And I got to decide whether we got a partner there," which means there has to be a functioning Afghan government.  He also--he and the secretary of state have said on more than one occasion, and Mr. Holbrooke has, that we, we have to have a development strategy there and a political strategy that works at the grassroots level.  In, in Iraq, when that surge worked, you had Iraqis who were sick and tired of the al-Qaeda in Iraq who were willing to, to, you know, hitch up with us and risk their own lives.

There are a lot of people now who are bringing up the ghosts of Vietnam.  What really happened in Vietnam was--all these things are, as I say, they're away games for the American military.  We're not on our home turf, which means to succeed there has to be a partner.  And the definition of partnership is someone willing to risk their lives in their home area to prevail because they think it's necessary to build a decent life and a better life for their people.  The South Vietnamese army was the fourth biggest army in the world; it collapsed 10 days after the last helicopter left with Americans and however ]any Vietnamese we could take.  And I, I just don't--we're not there yet.  We may get there, and that's what the president's trying to determine.  And we should give him some time to make the decision.

MR. GREGORY:  What specific threat does al-Qaeda pose to the United States?

PRES. CLINTON:  They have proven that alone among all the nonstate actors they have the power to organize and execute lethal assaults far from their home base.  Since we've basically driven them into the mountains of the territories in Pakistan and the ill-defined border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, their movements have been constrained, their communications have been constrained and they've not been nearly as free to organize and mount such attacks.

More from NBC News broadcasts   Did Nobel speech reveal 'Obama doctrine'?   Steele reacts to Reid's slavery comment   Afghan exit not a ‘drop-dead deadline,’ Clinton says Knox’s father: Verdict ‘a travesty of justice’ Now on msnbc.com: Real-time news Follow on Twitter: Making a Difference

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Dec. 6: Clinton, Gates, McCain, roundtable Nov. 29: Rick Warren, Bill & Melinda Gates Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton 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 Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: