MSNBC "Nightly News with Brian Williams" - Transcript Part II

Interview

MR. WILLIAMS: I have to begin by getting your reaction to a piece in this morning's International Herald-Tribune. It's by Elisabeth Bumiller and it reads, "Senator John McCain and his campaign have sharply stepped up criticism of Senator Barack Obama as a craven and naive traveler to the Middle East who, as McCain put it at a raucous town hall-style meeting, quote, 'would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.'" That's tough language.

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, I was disappointed by that language. You know, John McCain and I disagree on policy. You know, we disagreed on going into the war in Iraq. We disagreed, until recently, about the need to get more troops into Afghanistan. But I've never questioned that he wants to make America safer. And for him to suggest that I don't, for him to suggest that somehow I'm less concerned about the safety of my wife and daughter than he is, I think was unfortunate.

MR. WILLIAMS: Forty-five minutes in Ramallah; no electoral votes in Berlin. Is the trip worth it?

SEN. OBAMA: It is, because I have firmly believed since the beginning of this campaign, and for the last several years, that we can't solve the problems we face in the United States alone. We can't solve the problems of terrorism without support from the international community. We can go after al Qaeda, as we have and we must. We can hunt them down. But we are going to be more effective if we've got an international coalition.

If we want to pressure Iran, something that has to be at the highest priority to back down from nuclear weapons, then we've got to impose very tough sanctions. And the fact is, we don't do much business with Iran compared to many of these other countries. We need their involvement. Climate change and energy policy, all these things that affect Americans' security and their daily lives, are going to be impacted by our ability to forge these coalitions. And so what this trip has done is allowed me to talk about some of the critical issues that we face.

It's also allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I've made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer. So when I go to a trip to Afghanistan and we talk to military commanders who confirm the need for more American troops and that this is a central front on the War on Terror that right now is not going the way it should, then I think people can feel confident that when I'm back home and talking about the need for us to shift focus to Afghanistan that it's consistent with what I've been seeing on the ground.

MR. WILLIAMS: An outdoor speech in Berlin. What's the takeaway?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, we're going to have to, I think, persuade not just European leaders but also the people of Europe that America is a critical ally for them, that we are making enormous sacrifices in Afghanistan, that Iran is a threat not just to us but to them. And so for me to be able to speak to a broad public audience in Europe about the importance of strengthening the alliances and bonds that we've established will, again, help me, if I'm president, to deliver for the American people.

MR. WILLIAMS: Back to Iraq for a moment, is it not time to say that the surge you opposed has worked?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, Brian, it's interesting how many permutations various reporters have gone through on this. I have consistently said that, as a consequence of us putting more troops in and the awakening in the Anbar Province, where Sunnis turned against al Qaeda and the Shi'a militias standing down, that violence is significantly down and that there is significant improvement in Iraq.

But what I have also consistently said is that not only was us going into Iraq in the first place a mistake, but that for us moving forward, what we have to focus on is the need for political reconciliation, that that's what's going to make the ultimate difference.

That does not detract in any way from the great work that our troops did. But that's not the argument that's being made by John McCain. You know, the argument that's being made is that somehow his judgment on issues of war and peace is better than mine.

Now, you know, I am happy to have a debate about whose Iraq policy has been more sensible, because if we had followed my approach to Iraq, we would not have been there. We would not have spent what will be over a trillion dollars. We would not have lost the American lives that have been lost. And we would have done a much better job dealing with what should have been our central focus, and that is Afghanistan. If that's the debate, then let's have it. But let's not focus narrowly on one aspect of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: But what if that's the question? Respectfully, Senator, your answer lumps it in with other components.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: But if the question has to do -- break it out; strip all else away. Would the component that led to greater numbers of U.S. troops -- let's take Baghdad specifically, compartmentalizing the city, locking it down --

SEN. OBAMA: These are a lot of caveats to the question, Brian.

MR. WILLIAMS: -- it is safer today, no?

SEN. OBAMA: (Laughs.) What I said, even at the time of the debate in the surge, was that when you put 30,000 American troops in, of course it's going to have an impact. There's no doubt about that. The question is, does it solve our larger strategic questions, and are the costs involved, do they outweigh the benefits?

We don't know what would have happened had we not put those 30,000 in. We're speculating, which is fair enough. But keep in mind what I do know. Those 30,000 troops could have also been in Afghanistan during this time, and we might have done a much better job of going after al Qaeda and the Taliban and stabilizing the situation there than we are right now. And that is part of the calculation that has to be made when we're having this broader debate about how to keep America safe.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm told your discussions with General Petraeus were animated. Is that a good term to use to describe it?

SEN. OBAMA: It is -- very friendly and very animated. You know, we were both very engaged. And, you know, I don't want to characterize his perspective, although it was perfectly consistent with what he's said publicly. He wants maximum flexibility in terms of dealing with Iraq. And I've said this before; if I were in his shoes, I'd want the same thing, because his job is to focus on Iraq until he becomes CENTCOM commander, and then he's going to have to focus on a set of broader issues.

My job, or at least the job I'm applying for, is to be commander in chief. And I have to have a broader focus. And so, in the same way that two-star and three-star generals may come to General Petraeus and say, in that segment of the war in Iraq, they need more troops or they need more resources or they'd like to do this or they'd like to do that, obviously General Petraeus is going to listen to them, but he then has to make his own judgments based on the fact that he's got a limited set of resources at his disposal.

The commander in chief is in the same position. So I deeply respect General Petraeus. I think he's done an outstanding job. I pay close attention to the arguments that he's made. And I think it's important to recognize that, from my perspective, the issue is not -- there are two different issues involved here in terms of a drawdown of troops. One is, do you want a specific timetable? There's no doubt that General Petraeus does not want that. There are many who argue that, well, that is going to give a time certain to the terrorists and so forth.

I am completely unpersuaded by that argument. I think that us setting a timetable, a clear time frame within which we're withdrawing troops, will put more pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility.

They are now eager to take that responsibility.

The second set of issues has to do with whether or not you're taking into account conditions on the ground. So, for example, if things drastically worsen as we're drawing down, do you adapt? And I've always said that I would reserve the right to intervene to prevent genocide, for example. And I've always said that we would leave a residual force there that would allow us to continue to pursue counterterrorism activities, to continue to train Iraqi troops.

So that on that front, there's not as much disagreement there as I think people may perceive. I want to make sure that we are successful in Iraq, although my definition of success has to take into account all these other threats that we face as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: You've talked on this trip about how you would handle the Joint Chiefs on a question of deadlines. How do you handle the families of the 4,000-plus Americans who never made it home if they somehow define the mission as going on past some deadline?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I have such a profound gratitude and thanks for all our troops, and that gratitude is immeasurable when it comes to those who have given up their lives. You know, so when I talk about Iraq policy, it's always based on what I think is the way to honor those troops, and that is to make sure that I'm moving forward on the basis of the best possible judgment I can apply. And I think, frankly, that my judgment on this set of issues has been right -- not perfect, but right.

I think I was right to oppose the war in Iraq. That's not a debate, by the way, that we've been having recently, because I think the broad consensus is that it was a strategic mistake. I think I was right in terms of the need to put more troops into Afghanistan. I said that a year and a half ago. John McCain disagreed. Recently he now wants to put more troops in, and I think that's a good thing, because I think anybody who talks to folks in Afghanistan will concur that we need more support.

I suggested that we need to engage in direct talks with Iran because it's important for us to send a clear message to the international community that we're not the ones standing in the way of resolving the issue of them possessing nuclear weapons.

MR. WILLIAMS: Anything about your visit to Israel change that?

SEN. OBAMA: No. In fact, I had very fruitful conversations with all the major leaders in Israel. And I think they came away, and said so publicly, that I am gravely serious when it comes to dealing with the situation in Iran. And what I explained to them is the same thing that I've said publicly on many occasions, that the rationale for direct talks is not some naive belief that Iran suddenly gives up its nuclear weapons just because we're nice to them.

It's that by probing their interests, presenting big carrots and big sticks, we can potentially change their calculus. And if they don't respond to big carrots and big sticks, we are in a stronger position to mobilize the rest of the international community to go ahead and apply those sanctions to make sure that they understand the consequences of their actions.

MR. WILLIAMS: What would you say to or ask Ahmadinejad, were he in this chair?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I'm not sure Ahmadinejad necessarily would be the best person to talk to, because the clerics in Iran have more power than he does. But to the Iranian leadership generally, what I would say to them is that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to us from a security perspective, not only because Iran would possess a nuclear weapon but because a whole host of countries at that point would feel it necessary to get nuclear weapons. It would shred what's left of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It would put the possibility of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists in a much more likely situation.

And so what I would say to them is, "We recognize your desire to defend your country and we respect that, and we are more than happy to talk about a range of security concerns, both for you and for us, as well as economic concerns. You want to be more integrated into the international economic system. But what we can't do is to permit a situation in which our national security is gravely threatened. And so if you are willing to work with us, then there are a whole host of benefits that you can get. If you are going to oppose us on this issue, then we are going to have to apply a set of sanctions that will exact a great cost to the nation of Iran."

MR. WILLIAMS: An NBC News poll we released just last night -- 55 to 35, you against Senator John McCain, American respondents are telling us they view you as the riskier choice for president. Do you understand that? To what do you attribute that?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I do understand it. I'm new to the scene. John McCain's been around 25, 30 years in public life. I just recently emerged in terms of our national politics. And so it's not surprising that people would say that "the guy we're more familiar with is the less riskier choice."

That doesn't answer the broader question, though, which is what do Americans think we need right now? And can we afford to have four more years or eight more years of the same types of policies that we've had for the past eight? And in some ways I guess that would be safe; it's the devil you know versus the devil you don't.

But I think the American people understand that we're in a time of profound challenge and that we've got to make some significant changes in how our economy works, in how our tax policy is structured, in our energy policy and our foreign policy, if we're going to meet those challenges.

MR. WILLIAMS: When Condoleezza Rice says, as she did this past week, "We are there," meaning Iraq, "at the invitation of the Iraqi government," how do you react to that statement?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that it is accurate that, up until recently, the Iraqi government has recognized the importance of an American presence after Saddam was removed and the fact that there was no functioning army or police force; the economy was in shambles. I think that Prime Minister Maliki is feeling more confident. I think the fact that he was willing to go after Shi'a militias in Basra and Sadr City is a promising sign. And so when he says publicly that he believes American combat troops should be withdrawn by 2010, I think that should offer us a welcome opportunity to start giving more responsibility to the Iraqis and start moving our troops out.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about the American contractors in Iraq? You don't hear much about them. In huge numbers, what would happen to them?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, presumably we would draw them down at a similar pace to U.S. troops being drawn down, because a lot of them are there in support of our troops; you know, everything from folks in the mess halls, who presumably are feeding fewer troops -- we need fewer of those folks working -- to people who are providing supplemental protection. If Iraqi security forces are doing more of that work, then they're less needed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your message from America, from Senator Obama, to the people of Europe, especially in light of a two-term Bush administration?

SEN. OBAMA: The message I hope to deliver is that America needs Europe and Europe needs America; that sometimes on both sides of the Atlantic we tend to caricature the other. The Europeans, I think, have been caricaturing America as these cowboy operators on the world stage who don't listen to anybody and we're the aggressors, the cause of a lot of conflict and tension, and not -- and they don't sufficiently acknowledge the very real threats that have to be dealt with when it comes to terrorism.

On the other hand, I think Americans have a tendency to characterize Europeans as effete or unwilling to shoulder the necessary burdens for freedom when you've got a lot of coalition forces in Afghanistan who have taken serious losses.

And so hopefully we can move beyond some of those stereotypes and recognize that we remain bound together by a set of values, a belief in freedom, democracy, markets, rule of law, human and civil rights, that that coalition of ideas and values is what's necessary for us to solve transnational problems of the 21st century, like climate change, terrorism, genocide and poverty, and that we're going to have our differences -- there are going to be challenges and tensions in the relationship -- but that the transatlantic relationship will remain a cornerstone of both common prosperity and common humanity.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just two more questions. As president, would you use the pulpit to change anything about the way Americans view themselves on the world stage, how they behave, their stance as far as how Europe and the rest of the world sees them?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, one of the things that I've been very encouraged about during the course of the campaign is the average American, I think, cares much more deeply about our international relationships than politicians give them credit for. I think we tend to sell Americans short and think that somehow they think all this stuff is a waste of time. They don't.

When I go to towns in my home state of Illinois or Ohio or Missouri, people will say, "Why can't we restore respect in the world?" We recognize that our safety and security and our economy are dependent on how we get along with other folks. And so I actually think the needed change is not so much among the American people as it is in how we talk about our foreign policy in Washington.

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, the Chrysler Building sold to Abu Dhabi. Budweiser still has ads on the air calling itself the great American lager, sold out to a firm from Belgium.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: After a while, do Americans have a right to be angry about that kind of thing? Does it concern you? And should something be done?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, any particular transaction doesn't concern me. I mean, you remember when the Rockefeller Center was sold to the Japanese back in the '80s and everybody was sure that the Japanese were taking over America, and it turned out actually it was probably a pretty good deal for the seller and not so good a deal for the Japanese. It did not signal somehow that American economic preeminence had been destroyed. It just meant that Japan was getting stronger and we were going to have to make some adjustments to meet these new competitive challenges.

I think we're in that same position today. I'm less concerned about a particular piece of real estate or a particular asset in America being purchased than I am what it signifies, and that is that we've got some underlying weaknesses in our economy that we've got to deal with. We can't keep on with an addiction to foreign oil that sends close to a billion a dollars overseas. It's bad for our economy. It's bad for our national security. It's bad for the planet. That policy has to shift.

We can't keep on pursuing tax policies where we fight two wars and provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and provide almost no relief to ordinary working Americans who are struggling day to day. That has to change. We can't have a financial system where the special interests are able to push back sensible regulation around things like predatory lending and not expect to pay the consequences.

So my concern is getting the fundamentals right on the economy. If we do that, if we have a serious energy policy, if we shore up our financial system and make sure that the housing market is stable, if we are doing what we need to do to fix our health care system and reinvest in science and technology and innovation, then our economy is going to do well. And if our economy does well, who knows? The folks in Abu Dhabi may decide to sell back what they've just bought in a fire sale.

MR. WILLIAMS: And before we let you go, you've said on this trip that you're probably able to fall asleep standing up. While an elective trip, it's been a grueling schedule. How often do you have to remind yourself that if you get this job you want, it's going to push you beyond the limits you thought you had?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's a good trial run. And that's actually how, during the course of this campaign, I've been able to find that fifth or sixth gear is just reminding myself that we've got some big problems and we're going to need the next president to have the energy and the enthusiasm to roll up his sleeves and take these things on. Those problems are not going to go away.

Source