April 09, 2007
Hotline After Dark Special: A Sunday Snapshot
TO FUND OR NOT TO FUND?
Sens. Arlen Spector (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared on "Late Edition" together:
Lieberman: "Putting a timeline on is always a mistake in war because it says that a bunch of political people in Washington know better than the generals in the field what's going to be happening four months, six months, a year from now. That's why I repeat: Unless you are prepared to say we have lost in Iraq, we have no chance, and we're prepared to accept the consequences of withdrawal, which I think would be terrible for American security. Terrible for the people of Iraq, who will be the victims of ethnic slaughter beyond what we can imagine. And terrible for the entire Middle East. ... This is particularly wrong to call for a withdrawal now as the new plan under the new general with new troops is beginning to show encouraging signs."
Specter: "There have not been sufficient efforts at discussions between the Congress and White House to try to work it out. We cannot leave the troops unfunded in the field. That just can't be done. And Congress is not in a position to micromanage the war. But we do not have any good alternative. ... I'm not prepared to withdraw funding at this time. But my patience, like many others, is growing very thin" (CNN, 4/8).
Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) also discussed Iraq in a joint appearance on "This Week":
Kyl: "I was over there about a month ago. We saw the reaction of the Iraqis. They are cooperating with us, so that's old news that they're not cooperating. That's one much the reasons this new surge strategy is working. ... If you listen to those who have been over there and come back with reports that there is progress being made, why would you want to pull the rug out from the troops just as that progress has begun?"
Levin: "We don't know if the strategy is working unless the political commitments of the Iraqis are kept. That's the test. There is no military solution to this problem. There's only a political solution. Everybody says that. All of our military leaders say that. The Iraqis have not kept any of the benchmarks that they set themselves so far." [KATHERINE LEHR]
More Levin: "We're not going to cut off funding for the troops. We shouldn't cut off funding for the troops, but what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement" (ABC, 4/8).
Newt Gingrich appeared with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on "Fox News Sunday":
Schumer: "We have two goals throughout. One is to fully support our troops. In this resolution that we will send the president, we are giving actually even a little more money for the troops than the president has requested. And nothing -- nothing -- will stand in our way of supporting the troops in every way. But, second, at the same time, we believe very deeply that we need a change in strategy in Iraq. We are now basically policing a civil war."
Schumer, on Pres. Bush: "Should he veto this bill, which means he will be vetoing the money for the troops, we will try to come up with a way, by talking with the White House, trying to compromise with the White House, that both supports the troops and yet changes the strategy in Iraq, which we feel is misguided."
Gingrich: "There's a huge difference between a domestic fight over appropriations and a war in which young men and women are risking their lives. Here we are on Easter Sunday with young men and women risking their lives for America, and it's interesting. You know, Abraham Lincoln opposed the Mexican War but voted for the money, made a very clear distinction in his speeches -- I disagree with the policy; I am going to make sure we have the money. And so he really distinguished it" (4/8).
"Meet the Press" guests:
NBC's Gregory: "This is the same kind of rhetoric that this administration has used going back to the '04 election cycle which is to say to Democrats, 'If you support the troops, you will show it by giving us the money to fund the war.' And that’s the litmus test for this White House. And Democrats are saying, 'No, you can support the troops by saying there is no good to come of this war and the troops should come home.' This is the fight over the endgame of the war now."
National Review's O'Beirne: "Congress is perfectly free to cut off all funding for this war in Iraq. They were free, obviously, to not confirm General Petraeus, who’s leading the new strategy. What they’re not permitted to do is to appropriate funds and then tie the commander in chief’s hands with respect to how to deploy those troops and how to conduct those military missions. And that’s, of course, what they’re doing."
NBC's Todd: "Every time Democrats propose something that allows them to potentially take co-ownership of the war, Bush actually stops them, and politically it actually puts the Democrats in an advantageous position because they can sit there and say, 'Well, you know what, we've tried to take some responsibility for this war. The president won’t do it. He’s vetoing this legislation. This is still Bush’s war. his is still a Republican war.' And that’s sort of the frustration that I’m sensing from some Republicans, not inside the White House, but on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail."
More Todd: "We’re going to have nine months of what I call three presidents. The one in office, and two nominees. And if there is a divide, a real huge divide between the Republican Party’s nominee and the president, it’s going to destroy the entire Republican Party. So I think that that’s why congressional Republicans are sticking with him because they have to. Because if Bush doesn’t lead them out of Iraq and doesn’t at least sort of make progress ... it’s going to put them potentially in a wilderness of 25 years on national security issues the way the Democrats were put in the wilderness after Vietnam" (NBC, 4/8).
MO MONEY, MO PROBLEMS
Mike Huckabee appeared on "Face the Nation":
Asked about him saying Christian evangelicals will owe ex-Pres. Clinton a "a great, big, public apology" if they do not hold GOP canidiates to "a standard of personal accountability and responsibility for their personal lives": "I'm really not talking about the candidates so much as I am about Christian leaders who were very vocal in speaking out about Bill Clinton's personal life and his behavior. And if those same standards don't apply to Republicans, then it's just a matter of sheer hypocrisy. Principles have to be applied to all of us, and it shouldn't be applied differently to Republicans or Democrats."
On whether those comments were directed to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain: "We're going to be evaluated, all of us who run for president. ... I'm just saying that those who claim that they represent a certain branch of our party, primarily the Christian evangelicals, got into politics because of adherence to certain moral principles. Now if those moral principles no longer are the driving force, they render their whole purpose for being in politics irrelevant."
On Hillary Clinton: "I think that's why I'm the best candidate on the Republican side. I know her better than anybody else on the Republican ticket running, and I know ... frankly, how dangerous she can be as a candidate. That's one of the reasons that I believe my candidacy offers the clearest contrast, and an opportunity for America to have maybe a real, solid choice."
On Mitt Romney saying he was a life-long hunter when he had only been hunting twice: "I think it was a major mistake. ... It would be like me saying I've been a lifelong golfer because I played putt-putt when I was nine years old and I rode in a golf cart a couple of times. The best thing to do is just say, look, here's who I am. I support this issue, but I'm not particularly close to it. Let me say that I have a great respect for Rudy Giuliani, who I thought made a real gutsy move in South Carolina this week when he said that he still supports federal funding for abortion. Now, I disagree with him ... but I thought it was at least a statement of extraordinary honesty and candor on the part of Giuliani that he would go into South Carolina, a very pro-life environment, and just say, look, this is who I am. I'm not going to change just to get your votes."
On the 1stQ fundraising figures: "I think the word obscene is a great word to use. This is a time when people are talking about $100 million before the end of the year. If that's the case, do you really want someone in charge of the federal treasury who burns $100 million before the first vote is cast?"
More: "I've only been at this about six and a half weeks. We started from ground zero. Didn't have a capacity to transfer money from a Senate account. We've met our rather modest fund-raising goals for the first reporting period because we got a late start. The question is not how much I raised in the first quarter but how much am I going to continue to raise over the next two and three quarters. And that's where we feel like it's going to happen."
On Iraq: "We've got to win. It's simple as that. ... I think it's a wrong-headed decision on the part of some of the Democrats who want to set a firm timetable and announce it. That's like playing football and saying we're only playing through the middle of the third quarter, and then we're leaving, regardless of the score" (CBS, 4/8).
STEP BY STEP
Tommy Thompson was on "Late Edition":
On Iraq: "I have four positions, four propositions, that enable me, I think, to put out a very visionary Iraq policy. First, we have to protect our troops who are in harm's way. ... Beyond that then, I believe that it is absolutely necessary for the al-Maliki government, which is a duly-elected government, to have the responsibility of voting, as a parliament, as to whether or not they want the United States in their country. If they vote yes, which I think they will, that immediately gives the United States a legitimacy they don't have right now. And, secondly, if they vote that we should leave, we should leave. Third, I really believe we have 18 territories in Iraq, just like we have 50 states in America. Why not have those 18 territories elect their own leaders?"
CNN's Blitzer: "Let me interrupt for a moment, because I know your fourth point involves the oil revenues. Let's talk about the notion of these independent or autonomous regions of Iraq. The Iraq Study Group rejected that notion."
Thompson: "They are ominous fears by individuals in America that really, I don't think, have spent much time in Iraq."
Blitzer: "They did make at least one visit to Iraq, members of the Iraq Study Group. I guess they would come back and argue, Governor, did you go to Iraq?"
Thompson: "Yes, I have. I've been to Iraq. And I've studied Iraq just like a lot of people have."
On his fourth proposal involving oil: "One-third of the oil proceeds go to the federal government, one-third go to the 18 territorial governments, and one-third go to every man, woman and child. We do that in Alaska and it works out very well."
More: "How do you build a country? And that's where my plan differs from the president and all the other candidates. It looks beyond just trying to defend Baghdad or some of the major cities in Iraq. This is trying to build Iraq, make it really a functioning democratic country, as well as states, just like we have in America. And that's why I think my plan is far superior than anything else that's out there."
Asked about Giuliani supporting public funding for abortions: "I disagree with Rudy Giuliani on abortion. I'm pro-life. I've advocated that. I signed a partial-birth abortion bill into law when I was governor. And I'm pro-life and I'm proud of it."
On wanting to make nicotine regulated: "FDA should regulate it. It regulates everything else as it relates to medicine and drugs. I think nicotine needs to be regulated" (CNN, 4/8).
MOVING ON
John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry were on "This Week" to discuss their new book on the environment, but conversation turned to WH '08.
ABC's Stephanopoulos: "You said that one of the reasons you chose not to run for president this year was to focus on this issue and the war. You're about three months away from that choice. Still feel good?"
Kerry: "I think it's important to be candid and candor requires me to say there are mornings when you wake up ... and you see the fray going on and you miss it, in a sense, because it's a different platform. But on the other hand, this book, for instance, would be viewed exclusively through the prism of a presidential race. I think people would discount it. Hopefully, now I have a chance to talk about these things and people know it's coming from my heart and my gut, not from a political strategy."
Asked if he will endorse anyone: "I probably will at the right point, but I just made 100 percent commitment to that and I haven't certainly decided who or when" (ABC, 4/8).
THE PELOSI PROBLEM
There was also talk of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria:
Specter, on Pelosi: "She has a very prominent constitutional role in determine what's going to happen in the Iraqi war. Syria is very much involved with respect to the funding. I think had she been just a little more precise in her statement about Israel being willing to negotiate with Syria on what the conditions were, I think that there would not have been so much criticism against her. But I don't think it is helpful for top officials to exchange insults."
Lieberman: "I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. ... After Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria, the Syrian foreign minister said the Pelosi visit ended the international isolation of Syria that began after the Syrians were implicated in the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri. That's a terrible result" ("Late Edition," CNN, 4/8).
Levin, on whether Pelosi overstepped her bounds: "No, she didn't. And what the Iraq Study Group, as a matter of fact, urged people to do, which is to have discussions with Syria."
Kyl: "I don't think the Iraq Study Group said that ... Pelosi should go over and conduct discussions ... of course, we do have discussions, but what we're not doing right now is negotiating with the Syrians, because negotiations imply a quid pro quo. We have to decide what we want to give them in exchange for what we want from them" ("This Week," ABC, 4/8).
Gingrich: "What I found amazing about Speaker Pelosi's visit to Damascus was, first of all, the exact opposite of what's happening with Governor Richardson. Governor Richardson has been encouraged to go to North Korea by the Bush administration. Speaker Pelosi was publicly asked not to go to Damascus and rejected it. ... I wish she would just relax, say in the future she's going to go on trips in coordination with the executive branch. I think it's very important not to have two foreign policies. And I think it's very dangerous for America to do what Speaker Pelosi did" ("Fox News Sunday," 4/8).
Posted at 09:23 AM
Comments
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
