Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Meet The Press

By:
Date:
Location: Unknown

SHOW: Meet the Press (10:00 AM ET) - NBC

HEADLINE: Lindsey Graham and Tom Andrews discuss war with Iraq

BODY:
MR. RUSSERT: And joining us now, Lindsey Graham, United States senator from South Carolina...

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-SC): Good morning.

MR. RUSSERT: ...Tom Andrews, former Democratic congressman and leader of Win Without War. Let me turn to the war in Iraq.

Congressman Graham, there are reports that Saddam Hussein is now destroying the Al Samoud missiles, that the United Nations told him to do so. Is that an indication that he's disarming, and therefore, there is no need for military involvement?

SEN. GRAHAM: Not at all. That's an indication that you can make him do certain things and he does it very reluctantly. December the 7th was a critical date in this whole process. That was the date, under Resolution 1441, he was required to declare all of his weaponry. He says, "I really have none. I don't have any weapons of mass destruction." He failed to account for 26,000 liters of anthrax that we knew he was in possession of in 1998. He failed to account for 1.5 tons of VX nerve agent that could kill millions of people. He failed to account for 550 artillery shells with mustard gas. He has not accounted for things that we knew he once had. He is playing a game. The game is up, in my opinion, and we need to get on with the idea of disarming him and having a regime change, because it's in our national interest.

He has, in my opinion, Tim, housed al-Qaeda murderers. The man who was killed in Jordan, the American Embassy worker, one of the operatives involved in that killing says that one of his cohorts went to Baghdad after the killing, is being hid there. Zachoui, one of the operatives of al-Qaeda, a close associate of Osama bin Laden, went in May of 2002 to have his leg amputated in Baghdad. I believe that Saddam Hussein has been giving aid and comfort, training and assistance to al-Qaeda murderers, that he has weapons of mass destruction, he is lying when he says he doesn't, and he will never voluntarily disarm. Five hundred inspectors, 5,000 inspectors is not going to make him disarm. He is a danger to our country and the world. He has killed his own people, and you are not going to disarm him by diplomacy. It's going to take force.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Andrews, let me refer to the Win Without War Web site. This is what you say. "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction..."

"We can achieve the valid U.S. and U.N. objective of disarming Saddam Hussein through legal diplomatic means."

First of all, do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?

MR. TOM ANDREWS: I don't know, Tim. But I'm certainly not going to trust Saddam Hussein. And the point is this. To invade Iraq and commit this country to a multiyear, hundreds of billions of dollars occupation of one of the most volatile regions of the world, a standing Arab state, putting hundreds of thousands of our troops at risk, killing untold numbers of civilians, creating a humanitarian disaster, according to the United Nations, all on the basis that we can't trust Saddam Hussein is unacceptable. One of the things that most of us don't know—I didn't know it at the time—was that our inspectors, the U.N. weapons inspections program, took out more weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s than our entire military did in the Gulf War.

Hans Blix, who is the chief weapons inspector, is telling us now that we're making significant progress toward identifying and destroying weapons of mass destruction. Tim, if we can contain Saddam Hussein, if we can disarm Saddam Hussein, if we can take out his weapons of mass destruction, as we are doing now, we're destroying missiles literally as we speak on this program, missiles are being destroyed over in Iraq, why would we want to risk the lives of our young people in uniform? Why would we want to put this country at such serious risk and inflame this entire region when no one has to die?

MR. RUSSERT: You say that we could disarm Saddam through legal diplomatic means.

MR. ANDREWS: That's correct.

MR. RUSSERT: In 1991, Saddam signed a surrender after the Persian Gulf War, promising to withdraw from Kuwait, and to turn over all his weapons of mass destruction, and identify where they are, if they, in fact, had been destroyed. It is now 12 years later, and he still hasn't done that. Why do you think he would start now?

MR. ANDREWS: Tim, he has no choice. As long as we are standing firm, looking Saddam Hussein in the eye, and saying, "Look, you have no choice. Whatever weapons of mass destruction you have, we are going to find them and we are going to destroy them." Any resistance, Tim, that we get from Saddam Hussein, we should address that resistance with direct, but strategic, military approach. We destroy those weapons of mass destruction when we find them. We don't invade the country. We don't occupy the country for as much as 10 years.

You know, one economist at Yale was projecting the cost of that occupation of Iraq—and that's what the administration is talking about—at $1.3 trillion. He says that that's going to throw this country into the deepest recession we have seen in some time. Do we want to take that risk with our economy, with our young people, with inflaming that region, when we can take out his weapons of mass destruction, disarm Saddam Hussein, and contain that threat without taking those huge risks?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, is it possible, in your mind, to disarm Saddam Hussein through the inspection process?

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, after 12 years and 17 resolutions and a lot of effort and Hans Blix telling us they're just doing the minimum, that they really are not credible in terms of reporting the truth about their weaponry—He is lying, Tim, when he says he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years now, we've been playing this game, trying to get this man to part with his weapons of mass destruction. He is not going to do it voluntarily. And what is the risk to sit on the sidelines and play this inspection game for another year or two years, three years? The risk is that he empowers terrorists far beyond their own ability.

When you're in a cave in Afghanistan, there is limited ability to hurt this country. But when you have a nation state like Iraq providing you aid and comfort and training and assistance, and could turn over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, that is something that can no longer be ignored. The politics of diplomacy has turned into the politics of appeasement. Herr Schroeder in Germany, a valued ally—I served in Germany 1984 to '88 as a military officer, helping protect Germany and Western Europe against communism, helping protect our way of life. Herr Schroeder is the chancellor of appeasement.

History will look upon this period, will look on the United Nations, as making itself virtually irrelevant. In September our president went to the United Nations and said you need to act, you need to act now. Twelve years is enough. Make this man part with the weapons of mass destruction. It is not going to happen through Hans Blix. It will only happen with an international coalition led by the United Nations that has a regime change. What will happen after the regime change is that 22 million Iraqis will understand and taste freedom the way we understand it. There is no show this morning in Iraq. Is the Saddam Hussein policy correct? There is no MEET THE PRESS in Iraq. This is a brutal dictator who's killed his own people. Would kill us if he could. He needs to go. Twelve years is enough. No more diplomacy. Act decisively, act now for the sake of this country.

MR. RUSSERT: Appeasement is a big word. Would you suggest the French are appeasers, too?

SEN. GRAHAM: Absolutely. I would suggest that the policy of the French, the Germans are out of sync with the Europeans in general. I was in Munich three weeks ago at an international security conference. The odd people out are the French and the Germans. The former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe are with us. Spain's with us. Portugal's with us. People who've been oppressed understand what we need. Yes, this is appeasement, 18 resolutions, 12 years. What would you call it? Thorough? I would call it appeasement.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator Graham, if, in fact, you decide to end inspections and go forward with military action, what happens on the ground after the invasion? Are we conquerors or liberators? What happens to the oil fields? What happens to the flooding of the terrain? What happens in the Arab street in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan? What happens in Pakistan? Do people rise up against Musharraf? What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Israel? How long are you prepared to stay in Iraq and at what cost? How do you answer all these questions.

SEN. GRAHAM: Here's what I would say. One thing that happens, if Saddam Hussein's regime is ended, that his people are free and this arrogance that we possess in the West, that there is multifactions, there's ethnic and religious differences in Iraq and they can't handle it, is the height of arrogance. We believe that we're the only people that can take different opinions and different religious groups and live in peace? A dictator is preventing his country from being a democracy. Whether or not they emerge in a democracy, I don't know, but if he's gone, there's one less person to give money to Hamas and Hezbollah. There's one less person to fund suicide bombers. There's one less regime to give weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. There's one less place for al-Qaeda murderers to go to hide. The upside is far greater than the downside. Will it be tough? You better believe it.

In the Time magazine article I read last week, the GIs over in Kuwait and other places have a joke. They call this Operation Desert Justice, Just Us. My friend here has a right to say anything he wants to about American policy, but when you read the newspaper and you watch TV, a lot of GIs think that they're the odd guys out and there's not much support for them. I want them to know this, that if you go into Iraq and if your president directs you to replace this terrible regime and you go in, you're not seizing their oil. You're not going to take their oil fields. You're not an adventurer. You're not going for an unworthy cause. You're going for a just cause. You're going to make your country more secure. You're going to make the world more secure, and the American public's behind you. I am in the majority opinion here, I believe.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Andrews, let me show you something that you said after the first testimony by Mr. Blix, the weapons inspector. "Secretary Powell proved what we all knew and expected: Iraq is trying to deceive U.N. inspectors." Do you believe that Iraq is trying to deceive the inspectors and we're playing this cat-and-mouse game? I ask you to consider this. After the Persian Gulf War, the inspectors went in and for several years could not find any remnants of a nuclear program. They concluded that there probably wasn't one until Saddam's son-in-law defected. He then was enticed to come back to Iraq when he was shot. David Kay, the chief weapons inspector at that time, has sat at that table six weeks ago and said but for that defector, Saddam would have 20 nuclear bombs today. How do you know that over the last four years when there have been no inspectors in Iraq that Saddam has not built up his weapons of mass destruction, put them on mobile carts, as the administration has suggested, and you'll never find him through the inspection process?

MR. ANDREWS: I don't know that, Tim. Nobody knows that. But the fact of the matter is the weapons inspection process works, and those defectors are part of this process. We interview those who we know can provide us with information. We follow those leads. We seek out those fissible materials, we destroy them. Yes, Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted.

And something that's very, very important for people to understand: What Senator Graham was just saying a few minutes ago, that's not what this debate is about. No one is talking about appeasing Saddam Hussein. I believe that we should get as tough as we can possibly get with Saddam Hussein.

SEN. GRAHAM: Tom, I hate to interrupt, but where did the VX nerve agent go?

MR. ANDREWS: No, please, let me finish. The fact of the matter is, Tim, that we have been extremely successful in containing Saddam Hussein and taking out his weapons of mass destruction. He is not a threat to his neighbors. He is not a threat to the United States. And it seems to me that if we can achieve that kind of aggressive, focused standing up to Saddam Hussein and not put our people at risk, not kill innocent Iraqis, it seems to me that that's an important thing, an objective that we should be following.

But this very important part of this risk/benefit analysis that we, as American citizens, are not privy to, and that is the administration, Tim, has not told us what the costs of this invasion is going to be. They haven't told us what the cost of a 10-year occupation is going to be. They haven't told us how much we're spending in trying to buy off allies to come into the coalition. We gave—offered Turkey $26 billion, and it wasn't enough. The Turkish parliament rejected this yesterday. If we're going to invade an Arab country and hold it in one of the most volatile, hostile regions of the world for up to 10 years, you bet your life we better have some support. And you bet your life we better have an international community who is going to work with us, and you also better expect that the American people are going to support you through the long run.

Secretary Powell has issued: Don't go into a war unless the American people understand the risks and support the mission. Well, we don't understand the risks because we haven't been told what those risks are. And I think the American people deserve to have this administration and, quite frankly, and with all due respect, I think we deserve to have a Congress that will stand up and hold this administration accountable and give us the facts. Let us decide whether we want to go to war or not, but at least let us have and insist upon the administration telling us the truth.

MR. RUSSERT: You had a question?

SEN. GRAHAM: Basically, the Congress has spoken, Mr. Andrews. The Congress has overwhelmingly given support to the president to do what he needs to to protect the Congress. The cost...

MR. ANDREWS: But what about the answers to these questions?

SEN. GRAHAM: The cost of the Cold War was trillions. For 50 years, we stood up and spent the money, went to faraway places, whatever it took to defend our way of life against Communism. Will it cost a lot to win the war on terrorism? You better believe it. If we replace Saddam Hussein's regime, will there be a cost? Yes, there will be a cost, but there will be a benefit. If you look at this in terms of you can't afford it, we will lose our freedom and our way of life. We can't afford to let a dictator go 12 years amassing weapons of mass destruction, hiding al-Qaeda murderers right now, as I speak, and do nothing about it but pass resolutions.

In World War II, there was all the evidence in the world that death camps existed, but nobody wanted to act. And when they did act, thousands and eventually millions died. Let's don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator Graham, you yourself have raised these concerns. This is in an interview with the Associated Press. You said you want to—you—"agrees with President Bush's handling of Iraq, but believes the president needs to explain to the American people 'why we as Americans should shoulder the burden—the money burden, the human sacrifice.'"

Senator Daschle, your colleague, weighed in with this: "There isn't any budget. Now, the president hasn't come forth to give us any indication of what he thinks the war should cost or will cost. He has low-balled it ...Our estimation is that this could cost anywhere from $200 to $300 billion. But that will all be borrowed money, all money taken out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds."

Should the president come forward and lay it out to the country? In 1991, the Persian Gulf war cost $80 billion; 80 percent of those costs were reimbursed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, other countries. The president says, "This is what the invasion will cost. This is what it will cost per year to occupy Iraq. This is what it will cost to rebuild Iraq. But it's all worth it, but this is the price tag."

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, that's been done, Tim. Secretary Powell...

MR. RUSSERT: What is the number?

MR. ANDREWS: What is the number?

SEN. GRAHAM: The number in terms of the occupation? The...

MR. RUSSERT: The total cost.

SEN. GRAHAM: Nobody knows because what is the total—what is the war about? I think the big debate here...

MR. ANDREWS: Of course someone knows.

SEN. GRAHAM: We are in the Philippines now. We are in the Philippines for a reason. We are not going to the Philippines to conquer the Philippine people. We are in the Philippines to go after al-Qaeda cells. We are engaging Iraq not because we woke up one day and wanted to get the oil in Iraq or that we just didn't like Saddam Hussein. Post-9/11, the president had a job at hand, and that's to inventory the threats to this country, post-9/11.

What did it cost to go into Afghanistan? Nobody asked, can we afford it because everybody understood that that's where al-Qaeda was at. We are still there. We have an international coalition helping secure Afghanistan, to build a democracy out of a place the Taliban ruled. Two years ago, a little girl couldn't go to school in Afghanistan; today she can. We will be in Afghanistan for a while.

The reason we are approaching Iraq is because the evidence through Secretary Powell—he has made amazing transformation from "Let's wait and see" to "We need to get on with it." He is a good man. He went to the U.N. and explained to the world, "This is the threat Saddam Hussein presents. He has an al-Qaeda connection."

Post-9/11, any country, President Bush has told us, who harbors, aids or assists a terrorist is part of the problem. Saddam Hussein is part of the problem. He has weapons of mass destruction that can fall into the hands of terrorists. He has killed his own people. He would give those weapons to al-Qaeda members. We know that to be a fact, that he has supported al-Qaeda. The costs are our freedom.

MR. ANDREWS: Tim.

SEN. GRAHAM: I can't tell you what the costs will be, but the cost of doing nothing and doing two or three more resolutions is too risky for me.

MR. ANDREWS: Tim, let me make it clear, our side believes very much that we will pay any price to defeat terrorism and secure this country. There is no doubt about that. Senator Graham is absolutely right about that.

SEN. GRAHAM: And that's what I am trying to say.

MR. ANDREWS: But listen to the experts. Listen to the CIA, listen to British intelligence. They tell us that at the point of invasion of Iraq, that is going to be the biggest recruitment boom for Osama bin Laden that he can even imagine.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, but both...

MR. ANDREWS: Hold on. Bringing a whole generation...

MR. RUSSERT: But both the United States and Great Britain have seen that intelligence data and have still concluded that military action is necessary.

SEN. GRAHAM: Tom, can I say...

MR. ANDREWS: This kind of military action—no, let me have the floor...

SEN. GRAHAM: I'm sorry.

MR. ANDREWS: ...for just a moment, sir. Listen. Osama bin Laden poses an enormous threat to this region, to this country, to every American citizen. Our first priority should be dealing with terrorism and dealing with Osama bin Laden. If we focus on Iraq in such a way that it inflames that entire region of the Middle East and allows Osama bin Laden to bring in a whole new generation of suicidal terrorists, Tim, that is working against our interests, it's working against the interests of the region and it's putting us at risk. What I'm saying is we go after Saddam Hussein, we neutralize him and take away all weapons of mass destruction, but we do it in a way that does not serve the interests of Osama bin Laden. We do it in a way that does not further inflame a volatile region and take suicide terrorists and inflame the rest of the world and put us at risk. That's the point.

MR. RUSSERT: But after 12 years of inspections, we still don't know where the anthrax, the VX or the mustard gas is.

MR. ANDREWS: Tim, read the news just yesterday. We're destroying the missiles as we speak. We found mustard gas, and we're destroying it. During the 1990s, we took out more weapons of mass destruction than our military did during the Gulf War.

MR. RUSSERT: So you are 100 percent confident inspections will disarm Saddam?

MR. ANDREWS: I am not. I am 100 percent confident that it's in our interests to give those inspections and the destruction of weapons of mass destruction every chance to succeed because the alternative, Tim, is going to wreak havoc in that region and put us at greater risk than we're at right now.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you from the Los Angeles Time, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an op-ed piece, and give you a chance to respond, Congressman Andrews: "...the corrosive effect of the worldwide antiwar rallies of Feb. 15 lingers. Saddam Hussein's mouthpiece, the newspaper Babel, which is run by his son, Uday, has praised the demonstrators for inflicting 'humiliating international isolation' on Britain and the United States and for ushering in 'a new chapter in the global balance of power.' Seeing this his enemies are divided, Hussein has continued to not fully cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. ...The demonstrations are thereby making war more—not less—likely."

MR. ANDREWS: Well, obviously, Babel—and I think that's an appropriate term for it—has no idea what democracy is all about, doesn't understand that people can stand up, dissent, express their point of views, and hopefully in this case, Tim, prevail. The fact of the matter is that we're not providing aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein. To go in and invade Saddam Hussein in the way that the administration is calling for and to occupy this country for as much as 10 years is going to provide aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden and those terrorists. And I think...

MR. RUSSERT: Why did half the Democrats in the Senate and more than a third in the House vote to support President Bush last November, gave him a blank check?

MR. ANDREWS: Tim, why don't you have them on the next show and ask them that. I'll be tuning in to hear what they have to say. I don't know. In fact, I think that we need a debate in that Congress, and I think the Congress has an obligation to the American people to stand up and ask the president and Secretary Rumsfeld the very questions that you have been asking on this program. But they haven't. When Secretary Rumsfeld was asked those questions—he was asked last Thursday—they said, "Look, can you at least give us a projection of the possible costs and risks of this war?" And he looked and said, "It's not necessary. I'm not going to do it." Listen, it is necessary. The United States of America deserves to know exactly what we are getting into, exactly what the risks are, exactly what the costs are. And, you know, the thing is, of course, Senator Graham, we would pay any price, but not when it's unnecessary and not when it plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden.

SEN. GRAHAM: Just one quick comment, that something he said, I think, is quite ridiculous. The idea that replacing Saddam Hussein empowers Osama bin Laden and helps his recruitment ignores the fact that on September the 11th, we were not engaged in any action with Iraq. He was able to recruit people on September the 11th to fly planes into buildings. His hatred for us is not dependent on what we do in Iraq. Replacing Saddam Hussein weakens the ability of al-Qaeda to get 1.5 tons of VX because we'll control the country. If we control the country, we will find out where all this material is at that he is lying about. He is able to recruit people, apart from what we do with Saddam Hussein. That is a ridiculous argument, I think.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, do you believe that the demonstrators in this country are making war more, not less likely?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think they're exercising their constitutional right and I would fight to my death to make sure they could. But let me tell you, those Americans that go to Iraq and become human shields are, in my opinion, engaging in an act of treason. You can say and do anything you want to in this country, and that's the great strength of this country, but we are on the verge of a war now, not because we asked for it. September the 11th came to us and now it's time to be decisive. No more appeasing. No more appeasing dictators like Saddam Hussein who house al-Qaeda murderers. No more letting him get off the hook by not declaring where his weapons are at that we know exist.

MR. RUSSERT: Turkey, a democracy...

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...you'd offered them $6 billion in aid, $20 billion in loan guarantees. The parliament said...

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...no to the United States basing operations in that country. How big of a blow is that militarily and diplomatically?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think that hurts. General Myers says that we can have another front, a front in the north. Hopefully Turkey will change. But it doesn't help. This is an amazing weekend. This weekend is pretty illustrative of what the country would face for years. Tom, you asked me a question how much it costs; I can't tell you. Where is it going to take us? I don't know. But I know Saddam Hussein is a threat to my country. He's a threat to our way of life. And 12 years is too long to appease him. Turkey, what they do—their democracy depends on the democratic process in Turkey. We will have the resources to have a two-front war. I am confident that our military planners can act decisively; that we will win quickly in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Next week the United States and Great Britain will move a second resolution in the United Nations.

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: If it does not have the nine votes...

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...the U.N. Security Council does not authorize another resolution for military action, and the United States goes forward alone...

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...should it go forward without official U.N. sanctions?

SEN. GRAHAM: We will never go forward alone. We will have a coalition of the willing. If the United Nations next week, if somebody vetoes the resolution, we don't get nine votes, it has been my opinion for over a year now that we have a self-defense right to act to replace a dictator who is housing al-Qaeda murderers. We believe that to be true. Secretary Powell is convinced that there is an al-Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection, that the weapons of mass destruction that he lies about not having do exist, that it is in our national security interest to go in with willing partners to replace that regime and, hopefully, hopefully, rebuild the country in a region that doesn't know democracy with the seeds of democracy. And this domino effect, about "Oh, what will happen?," here's what I think is most likely to happen: the demonstrations you first see on your TV screen are Iraqis saying, "Thank you for delivering us from a tyrant."

MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, you expect war within the next two or three days?

SEN. GRAHAM: Bottom line, post September 11, to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power much longer is irresponsible. I expect force to be necessary to have a regime change.

MR. RUSSERT: How soon?

SEN. GRAHAM: Very soon. A regime change is part on the war on terrorism. You cannot win without war when your enemies are set upon killing you.

MR. RUSSERT: It looks like war is inevitable, according to Senator Graham.

MR. ANDREWS: There is not a single country in this so-called coalition of the willing, Tim, that has a majority of people who support this war. And in most of those countries, they're bitterly opposed...

MR. RUSSERT: But they're ruled by...

MR. ANDREWS: Hold on.

MR. RUSSERT: ...governments, and more than 20 countries have aligned themselves with the United States.

MR. ANDREWS: Right. After we've given them several billion dollars and made them all kinds of trade promises and basically have coerced or coopted them to some extent. But here's the point. If we're going to get into an adventure where we're going to be 10 years in an Arab country, take over and control a sovereign country, taking hundreds of thousands of our troops and putting them at risk, and calling upon the rebuilding of that region in a very hostile area, then we have got to have the support and cooperation of the international community. And if we're going to defeat terrorism and protect our citizens, we have to do it with the international community. And, Tim, you just have to look at those numbers to realize that the international community, the people of this world, are vehemently against this invasion and occupation. And you can't go the distance and take on all the problems and risks that we're surely going to face, and have a divided world, and not have an American people who are aware of those risks, aware of those costs, and fully supportive. This government owes the American people these facts.

SEN. GRAHAM: But Congress is aware, Tom. Congress has voted overwhelmingly to take a different path than you are suggesting.

MR. ANDREWS: It's been denying the people of—Well, let us know, Senator. Let us know what those costs are. Let us know what those risks are.

SEN. GRAHAM: It's on the record.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued.

MR. ANDREWS: OK.

SEN. GRAHAM: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: I have no doubt this discussion, debate will continue all across the country.

SEN. GRAHAM: As it should.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Andrews, Senator Graham, thank you very much.

SEN. GRAHAM: Thank you.

MR. ANDREWS: Tim, thank you.

Skip to top
Back to top