>>>
he's still our
republican national committee
chairman. and bob shrom is a democratic strategist. do i hear the voice and chuckle worthy of mr.
michael steele
?
>>
you do. how are you doing, chris?
>>
it's great to have you, bob. this is one of our great ones of our time. here's
newt gingrich
supporting a no-fly zone and then disagreeing with what he said he wanted done. let's listen to both of these guys both
newt gingrich
. let's listen.
>>
exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the
libyan military
that
gadhafi
was gone, and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive. provided help to the rebels to replace him. the
united states
doesn't need anybody's permission. we don't need to have nato. who frankly won't bring much to the fight. we don't need to have the
united nations
. all we have to say is we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and we're intervening.
>>
slaughtering is unacceptable over there. he can't go over benghazi, we've got to go in with a no-fly zone. now check out what he said later.
>>
the standard has fallen back of
humanitarian intervention
could have been applied to sudan,
north korea
, zimbabwe, syria this week, yemen,
bahrain
. i mean, this isn't a serious standard, this is a
public relations
conversation. i would not have intervened, i think there were a lot of ways to affect
gadhafi
, a lot of allies in the region we could've worked with. i would not have used american and european forces.
>>
blah, blah, blah.
michael
, i don't know how you can begin to defend this opportunist who attacks the president and when the president takes his advice, if you will, he then attacks them for doing that, being humanitarian. what do you make of this argument in principle between his two principles that contradict each other?
>>
i don't think there's so much of a principle contradiction or contradiction in principle you're trying to make out, chris.
>>
oh, okay.
>>
i think exactly what newt is saying in the first instance was, let's go forward with the no-fly plan, everybody come together, the no-fly zone, have the plan, and let's do it. here we are now some weeks later without a
real plan
. you know the washington talk as well as the national talk is what's the plan? where's the strategy? so we're going into this country, we've got this process underway, we don't know what the
exit strategy
is, we don't know what the ground game is. and so, yeah, in light of that, this is not the best way and best approach without the structure in place to do it.
>>
michael
, you speak the truth and you've got nuance and intelligence behind it. newt said go in to avoid a slaughter. and when the president went in to avoid a slaughter, he opposed in principle of what he said to do.
>>
i think, again, i'll go back to that point. i think because when the president finally went in, finally went in, in without the structure and the strategy necessary to justify the humanitarian argument that you're going to make. at the
end of the day
, we don't know, is this humanitarian? military? is the goal to take
gadhafi
out, to leave him in? what is the strategy here? and if you're going to put life and limb of our
u.s. soldiers
and military personnel as well as the people there in
libya
in harm's way, you've got to have a little bit more than what the president's given. i think that's all newt's saying.
>>
michael
, nice try, by the way. you obviously didn't watch the
lone ranger
like i did growing up, or maybe you did. remember how tonto would say he speak with fork tongue. that's my view,
forked tongue
. your view, bob?
>>
well, i was a little surprised
michael
defended him. i think what he did was indefensible. you can't turn around and say i wouldn't intervene in
libya
, we could've relied on our allies. those are an absolute contradiction no matter how you try to square them. the truth of the matter is, the president does have a plan here, i think it does involve
regime change
. he can't say it because that's not what's in the u.n. resolution. and by the way, i think that's how the president will be judged. in the meantime, we have a lot of
white noise
, partisan opportunism. this is about opportunism and people jumping on the president.
>>
that wasn't me.
>>
but in the end, in the end, this will be judged by the results. and i think in the end
gadhafi
will be gone.
>>
bob --
>>
let's get away from
partisan politics
for five seconds here,
michael
. you raised a good point, the president hasn't announced a plan. but is bob right? is bob correct here in saying the reason he hasn't been forthcoming is because we're using the u.n. in this case to get done what we want done, get rid of
gadhafi
, but we can't say so?
>>
i find that a little bit disingenuous --
>>
it is, but it's appropriate.
>>
it's called diplomacy.
>>
after all the noise they raised, the democrats raised about
president bush
and his approach and strategy to the wars in iraq and afghanistan. so i just -- i, you know, i think that's a little bit crazy when you go down that road. the reality of it is, the president should've done as
president bush
did. go before the
american people
, go before the
congress
, lay out the argument, lay out the evidence, make the case. and then -- and then get the votes you need with our
congress
and not with the u.n. first.
>>
okay. let me tell you. is there a difference between b.s.ing the
american people
, which your guy did, and b.s.ing the chinese, germans, and russians to get a resolution -- that's how we disagree.
>>
by the way, this whole analysis on going to
congress
is historical. we haven't had a
declaration of war
since
1942
against bulgaria when they joined the nazis. two republican presidents, one democrat went without even consulting the
congress
.
>>
let's go to speaker
boehner
's concern. it's a well-written letter to the president. yesterday, "i and many other members of the
house of representatives
are troubled that
u.s. military
resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the
american people
the
congress
and our troops what the mission in
libya
is and what america's role is in achieving that mission. it is my hope that you will provide the
american people
and
congress
a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in
libya
and how it will be achieved." by the way, samantha gurthrie said the other day, she never wants to see the word robust again in politics. what do you think of that letter,
michael
?
>>
three cheers to the speaker. it's really refreshing to see the leadership come square to the table with the president and say, okay, this is the partnership you should really have right here. between the
white house
and the leadership in
congress
. let's talk this thing through, let's understand and go to the
american people
together, bravo, speaker
boehner
, thank you for putting the points on the table. thank you for asking the right questions that the
american people
want answers to. and back to something that bob said a little bit earlier, you know, you're absolutely right. this exercise could take place in a whole host of other parts in africa and the continent right now from yemen to
bahrain
. why aren't we -- if we're talking
humanitarian intervention
, why aren't we being consistent in that philosophy, in that principle in doing that? and i think that's something that speaker
boehner
wants to hold the president's feet to.
>>
did you secretly vote for obama,
michael
? you're the only other guy besides him that says a host of other -- you are imitating -- you did vote for him, i know you did.
>>
that did not happen.
>>
your chance, bob.
>>
well, listen, if all republicans have been as loyal to
michael
as
michael
is to them, he'd still be head of the rnc. the fact is that if this had gone to
congress
, we would've had rand paul filibustering while benghazi burned. we actually do have a vital interest in
libya
, five
american presidents
have said this guy has to go. if he stays in power, he's going to be a terrorist haven, he's going to do everything he can to disrupt the
arab world
. and it's utterly simplistic to say we're going to intervene in
bahrain
if we're going to intervene in
libya
, because it's a balance of your ideals and interests. we have vital interests in
libya
, we can't let iran expand the influence there. obviously we're not going to intervene there. in
libya
, our ideals and interests coincide. it's time for
regime change
there. i think it will happen.
>>
how do you rationalize the condemnation of going after
saddam hussein
and members of the
democratic party
now elevating obama as the savior --
>>
you didn't really just ask me that question.
>>
i sure did.
>>
i'll give you the answer. because your guy lied and
vice president cheney
lied and said there were
weapons of mass destruction
. there were no
weapons of mass destruction
.
congress
never would've approved that resolution --
>>
going back to
bill clinton
--
>>
come on. it was a war based on a lie.
>>
oh, please.
>>
and thousands and thousands and thousands -- hundreds of thousands --
>>
talking points
now on this.
>>
what?
>>
i thought you guys would be a past the
talking points
.
>>
those kids were buried all over america are not
talking points
.
>>
let me just make this point. going back to clinton, we all know -- and the democrats, again, sided with
president bush
. they looked at the same evidence he did.
>>
a lot of them didn't, actually.
ted kennedy
didn't.
>>
they voted for something --
>>
no,
ted kennedy
voted against it. a lot of democrats voted against it. and that doesn't settle the issue.
>>
a good number of them voted for it.
>>
that's a fair statement.
>>
and the reality of it is that you're trying to draw a hair's distinction between
saddam hussein
and
gadhafi
because you like this setting.
>>
no.
>>
your guy's in charge. if that's what you're telling me --
>>
if he didn't have
weapons of mass destruction
, it was against our
national interest
to remove him because he was a counterweight to iran, and we've now created the possibility of a --
>>
let's get back, gentlemen. by the way, bob's right, you're wrong,
michael
, because they did lie about the war. rumsfeld's book lays it all out about that war saying we knew there was no nuclear threat. in fact, he got it back from the director of the top of intelligence from the joint of chiefs.
>>
there's more than the nuclear threat.
>>
i know.
>>
a lot more than a humanitarian, you know, issues, related to what --
>>
that's not why we went to war.
>>
michael steele
. sir, you're always welcome on this program.
bob shrum
, you know you are
“ ”