Tim Russert Today: part 2 of 2....
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn--and I think a lot of the American people are wondering why is the—are the campaigns debating Vietnam and not Iraq? Mr. Mehlman, this week Congressman Doug Bereuter, from Nebraska, someone who's been on the Intelligence Committee, been on the International Agents Committee, wrote to his constituents and said this, "In a dramatic departure from the Bush administration, Congressman Bereuter says he now believes the US military assault on Iraq was unjustified. `I have reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed that, all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action.' That's especially true in view of the fact that the attack was initiated `without a broad and engaged international coalition.' `Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial weapons of mass destruction arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified.' As a result of the war, `our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened.'"
MR. MEHLMAN: I disagree, respectfully, with what the congressman says, and frankly, so does Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry, as you saw last week, reaffirmed that he felt going into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. He said that after spending a year winning the Democratic nomination as the "anti-war candidate," which is what he called himself.
But, Tim, here's the bottom line. The world is safer. America is safer because Saddam Hussein was removed from power. And the result of the effort that we've made in the Iraq War has been to make sure that going forward, we're safer as we face the threat of terrorism around the world.
And when you opened, you hit the nail on the head. From our perspective it ought not be about Vietnam. We have 73 days before the election. We ought to be, over the next 73 days, talking about how we make America more safe over the next four years and what we've done over the last four years to make America safer. We ought to talk about whether we think that we grow more jobs in this economy by keeping taxes low, which is what the president wants to do, or raising taxes, which is what John Kerry would do. We ought to talk about if we need more intelligence, which the president supports, or if Senator Kerry's approach, which is to cut intelligence and weaken the Patriot Act are the right things to do.
MR. RUSSERT: Another Republican, Chris Shays of Connecticut says "I think President Bush has to be willing to be very candid about the mistakes he made in Iraq, disbanding the Army, the military, the police, ...not being more culturally sensitive."
Will the president at the Republican convention, acknowledge mistakes in Iraq and lay out a specific plan for the return of American troops?
MR. MEHLMAN: The president at the Republican convention will talk with specificity about how we keep America safe, and that includes victory in Iraq. And he will also talk about how we keep prosperity going forward in this country, which includes tax relief, which includes regulatory relief, it includes fewer lawsuits. But one of the things that you'll see at the Republican convention that you did not see at the Democratic convention is a focus on what we will do based on what we have done. There was a 20 years missing at the Republican convention, the missing years. And those years were John Kerry's
service in the United States Senate. You heard nothing about his propensity to raise taxes, nothing about his proposals to cut defense, nothing about his proposals to slash intelligence funding and the intelligence hearings he missed. George Bush will talk about the leadership he's given this country and what he intends to do over the next four years.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Devine, isn't part of the problem this: "Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,"--John--"Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and `in all probability' would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview."
Is there any difference in position?
MR. DEVINE: Tim, John Kerry does not regret his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. What he deeply regrets is what the president did with that authority. The president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. And today American troops and American taxpayers are baring the burden almost alone because of the president's mistakes.
MR. RUSSERT: But Jamie Rubin said in all probability John Kerry would have launched a military attack.
MR. DEVINE: Tim, again, the authorization was the right vote, it was the right choice. In fact, in 1998, John Kerry supported regime change in Iraq. And the fact of the matter is that this president said he would go to the United Nations, exhaust every remedy, build a broad international coalition. He failed to do so and the result of that president's failures is what's going on today in Iraq. It is a huge problem being paid for by American taxpayers and American troops.
MR. RUSSERT: But why launch an attack if there were no weapons of mass destruction?
MR. DEVINE: Well, Tim, listen, it's a--you know, hypothetical is always impossible to deal with. I mean, the fact--this is the reality. We can deal with the reality. Saddam Hussein needed to be held accountable. There was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. Every step along the way—once the president got that authority, he chose the wrong course. And today, as a result of that choice, of the president and the vice president, the decisions they made, American taxpayers are footing a bill of $200 billion in Iraq. John Kerry has said there is a way to win the war on terror, to be tough and smart to do it, and that we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down here in America.
MR. RUSSERT: But if he voted to authorize the war and his foreign policy advisers said he would have launched an attack on Saddam, what's the difference between John Kerry's position and George Bush's?
MR. DEVINE: Well, listen, the president--the difference is the president made mistake after mistake in this country and our troops are paying for it today. John Kerry would never have pursued the course of action that the president of the United States has pursued. John Kerry would have built a true international coalition to shoulder the burden with America. He would have put it together the right way. Unfortunately, the president has cost this nation with his costly mistakes and we're paying the price every day.
MR. RUSSERT: Who would have been in the coalition that was not?
MR. DEVINE: Tim, I think a number of countries, potentially, could have been in that coalition. But that's unknowable.
MR. RUSSERT: France and Germany?
MR. DEVINE: What we know, Tim--all we can know is this, that John Kerry would have kept his word and not broken it. The president promised to build a true, broad international coalition and he failed to do so. And the result of that failure is the cost being paid by America today.
MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry told NPR two weeks ago that he would "significantly reduce American forces in Iraq" within a year.
MR. DEVINE: That was his goal.
MR. RUSSERT: Can he do it?
MR. DEVINE: Well, I think if we build the right international coalition we can. Let me tell you how, Tim, because he's outlined the steps. First, we have to stop doing what the president is doing, and reserving all of the contracts in Iraq for companies like Halliburton, the vice president's old firm. In fact, what the president wants is a blank check in Iraq so that they can reward their friends. We need to stop that practice. We need to let other countries come in and participate in the rebuilding of Iraq and the rebuilding of the oil industry in Iraq. We also need to name a U.N. high commissioner in Iraq so that the United States is no longer seen as the sole center of real authority in that country. Until we take real steps and have a regional press conference to ensure the security of the borders of Iraq and do this the right way, Iraq will continue to be the problem it is today.
MR. RUSSERT: You say a goal. Kerry said, "Absolutely we can reduce the numbers." Is it a goal or a promise?
MR. DEVINE: Right. It is something he can do if we have the exercise of presidential leadership. One of the great failures today in Iraq is the lack of the exercise of presidential leadership. This president has done nothing.
MR. RUSSERT: Is it a goal or a promise?
MR. DEVINE: He has stood on the sidelines. If he can--it's something he feels he can do. And I think the exercise of presidential leadership, the depth of experience that he would bring to this, 19 years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, his understanding of the world, which the president, obviously, lacks, would allow him to approach this in the right way, to build an alliance of nations. John Kerry's goal is for America to lead strong alliances of nations in the war on terror.
MR. RUSSERT: Is there a difference between the Bush and Kerry position on Iraq?
MR. MEHLMAN: There is, Tim. They agree on some things. They both agreed about the threat. They both agreed about authorization for war. And as Jamie Rubin pointed out, they both agreed about sending our troops to war.
Here's the difference. Once our troops were at battle, George Bush believed they needed all the equipment, all the support and all the body armor they needed to be successful. And today George Bush believes we'll do whatever it takes to finish the job. For John Kerry, supporting those troops was not the bottom line. Politics was, which is why he took a position which two weeks before he himself said would be irresponsible, which was voting against the body armor, against the ammunition, against the equipment that our troops need. And then after a long period of saying, "Our troops need to stay in to
finish the job," in a political speech, he said, "Try to get them back there in six months." That's the worst thing you can say to try to get them back after six months. You know why? That's a signal to the enemy. It's a signal to the terrorists to wait six months and one day and to our allies who are making a big sacrifice, more than 30 nations today in Iraq. It's a signal to them that we're not willing to stay the course if there's a political interest at stake.
There is a difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Bottom line for George Bush is victory in Iraq. Bottom line for John Kerry is victory in politics.
MR. DEVINE: Ken, there's only one commander in chief in the United States to send our troops to Iraq without the body armor they need to survive and his name is George W. Bush. And if he had spent one day on the front line of a war, he never would have done it.
MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, another example of unfortunately the Kerry campaign approach which is to time after time after time bring up--divide Americans over the issue of Vietnam. We honor John Kerry's service. And you heard this morning...
MR. DEVINE: I didn't say Vietnam.
MR. MEHLMAN: ...attack the president three different times about his service. We shouldn't be talking about Vietnam. We should be talking about the issues America faces going forward. And the Kerry campaign once again this morning has displayed a propensity to say one thing and do another.
MR. RUSSERT: Is the president going to the Olympics?
MR. MEHLMAN: The president is not.
MR. RUSSERT: Guaranteed?
MR. MEHLMAN: I'm the president's campaign manager not his scheduler. But I know of no plans to go to the Olympics.
MR. RUSSERT: The Iraqi soccer team...
MR. DEVINE: Kerry's not going either.
MR. RUSSERT: The Iraqi soccer team and the Olympic Committee have both expressed misgivings about the president using the Iraqi soccer team in his political advertising. Is that appropriate to, in their words, "exploit them" by using them politically?
MR. MEHLMAN: We're very proud of that ad. The ad points out something that all Americans need be proud of. In the 1972 Olympics, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, there are 140 and there are two new democracies over the past few years that have come forward--one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. That's something all Americans should be proud of. It's not about politics. It's about the fact that our nation has been successful in helping spread freedom all around the world.
MR. RUSSERT: Is the president going to debate John Kerry three times?
MR. MEHLMAN: The president will debate John Kerry. We look forward to the debates. There's a big difference on the issues, and we look forward to discussing it.
MR. RUSSERT: There are three debates scheduled by the commission. Will he appear in all of them?
MR. MEHLMAN: The president looks forward to debating. We look forward to debating the debates after the Republican convention, and there's no doubt about the fact that the American people are going to understand the clear differences between the president and Senator Kerry on November 2 when they vote.
MR. RUSSERT: What are the next 72 days going to look like?
MR. DEVINE: I think it's going to be intense. I think they're intense because the issues are so big. We're facing an economy in deep trouble. We've facing a very difficult situation in Iraq. I think the American people want a real debate on the issues. I agree with Ken on that. We are prepared to offer that debate. John Kerry and John Edwards have a real plan to make this nation stronger at home and respected again in the world, and we're prepared to debate that. I hope they'll join us.
MR. RUSSERT: You win by how many points?
MR. DEVINE: Well, more votes this time than the popular votes, and more votes in the Electoral College. We're going get them both this time.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you win both the popular and Electoral College?
MR. MEHLMAN: Happily we do.
MR. RUSSERT: And how many points do you win by?
MR. MEHLMAN: I don't predict on that.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Tad Devine, Ken Mehlman, thank you very much. |
