Wampum

MR. RUSSERT: What do John Edwards and Jack Kemp think about Iraq, foreign investment in American ports, poverty and the growing tension in U.S. Western relations? After this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back.

Want-to-be-vice presidents, welcome.

FMR. REP. JACK KEMP (R-NY): Former.

MR. RUSSERT: Jack...

FMR. SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): Can you find another way to describe us?

MR. RUSSERT: ... Jack Kemp, how much trouble are we in Iraq?

REP. KEMP: Well, we're in serious trouble to the extent that there is such a split between the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites, and then you've got added to that an incredible pressure from the Syrian border and the Iranian border. I've long felt we didn't have enough troops on the border of Iran and Syria to wall off the insurgents coming in from outside.

My most serious problem is that there is no economic component to the war on terror. In other words, there's no 21st century Marshall aid plan to - I think we should be building on President Bush's idea of a trade zone in the Islamic world, but there has to be aid and some type of hope that life can be better for women, their children, families and, as the general pointed out, some economic component that will lead to jobs and an opportunity to better one's life, one's condition in life.

MR. RUSSERT: Were there some fundamental misjudgments, obviously about weapons of mass destruction, but what about the intensity of the insurgency and the number of troops necessary?

REP. KEMP: Absolutely. Fundamental misperceptions, misconceptions, and as I said earlier, there has been little reward to those who want to bring peace. Sixty-five percent of the people, according to all the polls in Iraq, are very happy, very glad that Saddam is gone, but 80 percent of the people want the United States to set a timetable to make sure that - unambiguously, we tell the people of Iraq and the Islamic world that we're not going to have bases in Iraq. I think there's a very important consideration that we have to announce, that we have absolutely no plans to leave bases in Iraq as - and in my opinion, it's very important to set some type of a timetable. Not '06 or '07, but they have to know that by '08 or '09 at the latest, we're going to be - totally be out of Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, in November of 2005, you wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, and said this: "I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told - and what many of us believed and argued - was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake." Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: I don't think I was the only one who was wrong, but I'm the one who had to make the judgement about how to vote on this resolution about Iraq. I listened to the information we got on the Intelligence Committee which I served on. I talked to former Clinton administration officials. And it turns out that the very premise for voting for the resolution and for the invasion of Iraq, which was the presence of weapons of mass destruction, was inaccurate. It was wrong. I had an independent responsibility to make a judgement and cast this vote. It turns out that the vote was wrong and my judgement was wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: In February of '05, you praised the turnout in the election as a wonderful, extraordinary thing. And then back in November of '03, you were on MEET THE PRESS and I asked you about your vote then. Let's listen to your response in November of '03.

(Videotape, November 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret your vote in giving George Bush, in effect, a blank check for the War in Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. I voted for what I believe was in the best security interest of the American people.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That was after the war had begun considerably. We hadn't found WMD. What, what caused the change in your thinking?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, the truth is I was, then, I was still trying to defend my vote. When the election was over and I had time to think about this and reflect on it, it became increasingly clear to me that I talk a great deal about the need for moral leadership in America and for America to provide moral leadership for the world. Well, the foundation for moral leadership is the truth. And for me, saying that my vote was wrong is the truth. And so I thought it was important to say it.

MR. RUSSERT: In October - I’m sorry, in February of '‘02, you said, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." Do you believe that was accurate?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. No, it's not accurate. I was wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: Just dead wrong.

SEN. EDWARDS: I was wrong. Absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Based on faulty intelligence.

SEN. EDWARDS: Based on the information. It wasn't just me - the information I got, the information that the Congress got.

MR. RUSSERT: What do we do now?

SEN. EDWARDS: It’s hard. I mean, I - no pie in the sky. You know, I'm worried that, I'm worried that Iraq is beginning to slip away. You see the ongoing violence. The stalemate and then the formation of the government. It's absolutely critical for success that there be a representative government formed where every group in Iraq feels like they're being represented and their voice is being heard. I also think that our footprint, the size of our presence there now is still way too big. It sends a signal that we're going to be there forever, that we're not going to let the Iraqis protect themselves, that we're not going to let the Iraqis govern themselves. It suggests that we're there for oil. All those things are bad.

I think we have to reduce the size of our footprint. I said months ago that I think 40,000 troops should be redeployed. There's a way to do that. Secondly, I think we have to intensify the training of Iraqis so they can provide their own security. There's not a single battalion that's ready to operate on its own in the Iraqi Security Force. And then - and this is the hardest and may not be successful - if we reduce our footprint, we need to intensify our efforts to bring others into this so that it's not just us.

MR. RUSSERT: If a civil war breaks out when we withdraw because there’s no way there to secure each- one side against another, what do we do then?

SEN. EDWARDS: At the end of the day, we can’t do this for them. The Iraqis are going to have to do this for themselves. They’re going to have to form their own government. They’re going to have to decide whether everyone in Iraq will be represented in that government. And they’re going to have to protect themselves. America cannot continue to do this for them. They have to do it themselves.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let me turn to the whole issues of the ports. Six American ports being operated by a company from Dubai. Jack Kemp, you wrote in The Washington Times, "It was disappointing to witness the pessimism, cynicism and hypocrisy of some left and right who have been using a rather straightforward, commercial port operations contract to rant against the friendly United Arab Emirates, a country that chose, post-September 11, 2001, to stand with the West, (and the United States) in the war on terror. ... To turn down this contract would further weaken our relationships with moderate Arab allies and I believe ultimately, our own national security and our chances for peace and liberalization throughout the Middle East and Africa." You're very against public opinion.

REP. KEMP: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Very much against Congressional opinion.

REP. KEMP: It’s the right thing to do. First of all, as you quoted, after 9/11, President Bush said to the Arab world, “You’re either with us or against us.” And the UAE from Abu Dhabi to Dubai said, “We’re with you." There are U.S. Naval ships in Dubai ports. The United States Air Force is operating in Abu Dhabi and al-Jafra. They have made a decision to support the United States in the war on terror. General Tommy Franks said they're a valued ally of the United States. They have said they want to be with us, they want to invest. And 80 percent of all the ports in the United States of America are operated by companies with ties to governments from communist China to Denmark to Taiwan to Singapore, and in this case Dubai. So I think it would be a mistake for us to turn our back on a friendly Arab country that’s supporting us in the war on terror.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards:

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I don't think we should discriminate against anybody, including Dubai, the UAE, but I have a different view about what we should do.

I think that this is sufficiently important to the safety and security of America that American companies should be doing it. I would start by saying companies that are owned by foreign governments should not be operating or providing security for our ports.

I'd like to go further than that and say foreign companies shouldn't be doing this. We ought to be doing it ourselves. I think there's a practical issue with that, which Jack just made reference to, that they're already doing so much. So I - that's the starting place.

I also would like to see us use this as a vehicle to talk about what's actually happening in our ports. Five percent of our containers are inspected. We can do much better than we're doing right now. Number one, we ought to be moving toward the goal of screening all containers. We also ought to make sure that we have a tracking system so that we know what's happened to them in transit.

We also - we need to be - and by the way, these ins - these screenings - screening process, the use of that technology, we need to be careful, because some of these containers have lead around the outside of them, so it's difficult to see what's inside. And if the screening doesn't work we may have to physically inspect them.

And then last, we need to figure out a way, and there is - there are seals available that will do this - to make sure that these containers have not tampered with. So they're very specific practical things that have not been done by George Bush and this administration that very much need to be done.

MR. RUSSERT: You attended two conferences in the United Arab Emirates in 2005.

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: In 2000, President Clinton authorized sale of 80 F-16 Lockheed fighter jets that you did not object to.

SEN. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you not trust the UAE?

SEN. EDWARDS: Oh, no. The UAE actually has done a lot of good things, and American's relationship with the UAE is a good relationship. I don't think this is about UAE, I don't think it's about Arab countries, I think this is - this is about whether America is going to operate and provide security for their own ports.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't think that being an Arab country and hijackers from—some of them came from that country has - is a factor?

SEN. EDWARDS: But at the end of the day there's a simple solution. The simple solution so that we don't discriminate against Arab country - countries, which I think is a terrible idea, the simple solution is America and American companies need to provide this - operate the ports and provide security.

REP. KEMP: That is just at odds with the reality on the ground. That, as I said earlier, 80 percent of all the ports in the U.S. are operated - not the security, not the control, not ownership, but operated. The flow of goods in and out of the United States ports. We have the recognition that the UAE was the first country to sign the container security initiative. They have been a valued ally. And very frankly, in a global economy, as Tom Friedman points out, as the world is flattening how can the United States withdraw from the type of trade and commerce that we do, not only with Asia, but with the Arab world? So it's a big mistake, and this is pointed at an Arab country, and I think it would weaken the United States security to say the UAE, "We're going to let you out of - we're going to put you out of our commerce in our ports."

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to a domestic issue. The two of you have gone to the University of North Carolina and the University of Southern California to talk about poverty. Katrina: Jack Kemp, when you were in the Republican administration, you were seen as the outreach person to the African-American community. Do you believe that the Bush administration response to Katrina, has created an image problem with African-Americans?

REP. KEMP: There's an image problem, no doubt about it. And government at every level failed the Katrina victims. And they are victims. This was a horrible mismanaged at every level of government, and it uncovered not only a level of poverty that is unacceptable in the 21st-century America that we live, in, but a level of racism. I'm not accusing anybody, Republican or Democrat of racism, but the generic attempt by government to handle this problem has led to, I think, a very big image problem for both political parties - and my party, which it should be thinking big time about what could be done. Abraham Lincoln had a Homesteading act, Franklin Roosevelt had the FHA and GI Bill. We- I think the president has attempted to do the right thing. I think we need to go further. I think we need a total enterprise zone for the whole Gulf region. I think we need to bring Habitat for Humanity into this, and the president’s talked about urban homesteading in the Gulf region. We need a massive effort, dramatic effort to build housing, schools and create job opportunities for people in the Gulf Coast region.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, after Katrina, you heard a lot of discussion about the racial divide, the economic divide. Do you believe either party has stepped up to deal with that issue?

SEN. EDWARDS: America hasn't done what it needs to do. This is the great moral issue of our time. Thirty-seven million people who live in poverty every day in a country of our wealth is wrong, and we have responsibility to do something about it. I - over the course of the last year, you know, I've had a little time on my hands. I've been moving around the country and meeting with families who live in poverty, and the - the most striking thing to me is they don't feel like anyone speaks for them, they have no champion, they have no advocate. Katrina gives us, because of the window that opened with Katrina and the aftermath, gives us an opportunity to do something about poverty in America, and they're such obvious things that we can do. Part of it's financial, part of it's not.

On the financial side, we can do something about raising the minimum wage, we can do something to expand the earned income tax credit, particularly to make it more applicable to single workers. Get rid of the marriage penalty in the earned income tax credit. These families need assets. We saw these families on our television screen for the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. They didn't have a car, they didn't have bank accounts, they didn't have credit cards. We need to help these folks be able to - to accumulate some assets. We can set up an account for them, match what they're able to save, they need access to college, you know, and so many young people would - the government's cutting funding for financial aid for kids who want to go to college. We - we started a program in a small county in eastern North Carolina where we make college available to every young person who graduates, qualified to go and is willing to work while - during the time that they’re in college.

And then, finally, and this is a critical component, responsibility matters. You know we, the American people, our country, we expect people that we're helping to help themselves. And where we - we have to address things like teenage pregnancy. One - one of the things I find when I sit at these tables with families who live in poverty is the mother of four or five children has kids who are having kids. We have to do something about that. We have to do something about the hopelessness of the young African-American men who live in the inner city. But this is something we can do if America makes a commitment to do something about it.

MR. RUSSERT: The two of you, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kemp, join authors of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, “Russia’s Wrong Direction, What the United States Can and Should Do."Let me read a little bit for our viewers:

"U.S.-Russian relations are clearly headed in the wrong direction. Contention is crowding out consensus. The very idea of ‘strategic partnership’ no longer seems realistic." And then this: "The Task Force recommends the United States pursue ‘selective cooperation’ with Russia rather than seek a broad ‘partnership' that is not now feasible."

Many observers say Russia invites Hamas to visit with them. Russia cuts off natural gas to the Ukraine. Russia clamps down on the free press. Putin centralizes power. Why should we have any kind of relationship with a country like that?

REP. KEMP: A good question, except you can point to many contradictions in our relations with Russia post-Cold War and here in the early years of the 21st century. But as John and I have discovered in our Task Force, and we don’t speak for all 15 or 20 members, but there is a consensus that without Russia’s cooperation, all of the great issues of the day from nuclear proliferation to terrorism, to dealing with Iran and North Korea, to dealing with HIV-AIDS or education and the problems of poverty in the Third World, we need the cooperation of Russia. So it is a pragmatic relationship with Russia that has to be nurtured, and, in my opinion, I come at this from—as a congenital optimist and a believer, that economics is extremely important to the future of our relationship. We believe that we must work with Russia, and here we are on the eve of the G8 in July, the...

MR. RUSSERT: Industrial nations.

REP. KEMP: ...seven industrial democracies of the world plus Russia are going to meet, with Putin as chair. We think, and I don't know that I speak for everybody, but I really believe that our nation should call the administers of foreign affairs together in a G7 to remind the Soviet Union - I'm sorry, the Russians, that the G8 is not a perpet - not a perpetual organization.

MR. RUSSERT: That Russia - Russia risk being taken out of that.

REP. KEMP: I don't want to take them out. But I want them to know, and I think we believe - we believe that they should know the we can go back to the G7 if they don’t cooperate on things like Iran, North Korea, nuclear proliferation, and the war on terror.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, John McCain, your co - former colleague in the Senate, said we should not go to the meeting in St. Petersburg in July, that - until Russia starts changing its behavior.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, we came to the conclusion in the task force that that's not our recommendation.

I want to add one thing to what Jack just said. If you step back and look at this thing from altitude, there is the real potential in the world, if we do what we should and we have a smart foreign policy, that we can live in a world where the great powers attack the problems that face the planet, and that includes all the things that Jack just made reference to: HIV/AIDS, terrorism, proliferation, all the huge issues that the world’s faced with. The reason our relationship with Russia matters is we want them working with us, not against us, to solve the world's problems. So it matters what our relationship with Russia is, it matters how we deal with Russia. The question on the G8 specifically is - and Jack just suggested it, it’s a good idea- that we have a meeting of the G7, at least at the ministerial level, before anybody goes to St. Petersburg.

But the question on the G8 is, is it better to have Russia on the inside, or is it better to have them on the outside? At least for now, we believe it’s better to have them on the inside, and the reason is we need their cooperation on issues that really matter to us, and the most glaring one of those issues is Iran. You know, we need the Russians to do what they’ve been doing, to cooperate, to continue to negotiate with the Iranians, to try to provide enriched uranium, control the fuel cycle in the dealings with the Iranians. And then at the end of the day - you know, the IAEA is meeting tomorrow, if they are - if Iran is referred to the Security Council, which a lot of us believe is what’s going to happen, we’re going to ultimately need Russia. We’re going to need them in the Security Council. We want Russia, for example, if this - Iran continues on the track they’re on now, we want Russia to stop helping them build this nuclear facility at Bushire.

We need Russia in this process, but we have to recognize all the things that are going wrong in Russia. Their economy has improved dramatically under Putin, but at the same time, the de-democratization is powerful. And on top of that, they’re meddling, constantly meddling, and bullying the old Soviet states that are on their periphery.

MR. RUSSERT: Five years ago when President Bush first met with President Putin, the president was asked whether or not he trusted Mr. Putin, and this was President Bush’s response.

(Videotape, June 16, 2001):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: I’ll answer the question. I looked the man in the eye, I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; he’s a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Jack Kemp, “straightforward and trustworthy," are those two words you'd describe for Vladimir Putin?

REP. KEMP: I don't think the president would say that today. Albeit, we want Putin’s cooperation in the things that John and I have alluded to earlier. When they shut off in January natural gas supplies to Ukraine, it absolutely affected Europe to a great degree. Twenty-five percent of all the gas going into Europe comes from Russia, in 10 years it’ll be 75 percent. So that was a big mistake. But they backed off, and now they need to sign the European energy accords. When I was in Israel when Hamas was invited to Moscow, and then we saw yesterday, I think, or Friday, Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia, said to Hamas, “You have to recognize Israel." So there's these contradictions in our relationship, and I think it was reflected in President Bush’s comments.

MR. RUSSERT: John Edward, before we go, you've been traveling around a lot. I noticed these three states on your schedule the last 24 months: Iowa five times; New Hampshire four times; South Carolina two times.

SEN. EDWARDS: I can’t imagine where this is going.

MR. RUSSERT: I'm asking you.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I've actually been traveling all over the country, not just into the places that you mentioned. And everywhere I go, I'm preaching the gospel about...

MR. RUSSERT: But you're thinking about running for president in '08?

SEN. EDWARDS: It is something I'm considering, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Fair enough. It's nice to have a Democrat and a Republican sit here together.

John Edwards, Jack Kemp.

REP. KEMP: Pleasure. Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: We'll be right back.