Late Edition-Transcript

Late Edition-Transcript

BLITZER: All right, Ryan, thank you very much for that comprehensive update. Whatever President Bush does decide to do in Iraq, it's certain to get some intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Joining us now to discuss that and more, two guests: California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer -- She's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- and Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the number two Republican in the U.S. Senate.

Senators, thanks very much for coming in. Senator Lott, let me start with you. Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate, the new one, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, they wrote to the president on Friday, among other things saying this: Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror."

I know that you're not yet 100 percent on board with this notion of a so-called surge, sending thousands of additional troops into Iraq.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY WHIP: I think it makes sense to wait and see what the president actually proposes, what he says. I want a plan. I want to know how this surge will occur, what will be the numbers, what will they do? What do they hope to achieve? And how does that fit with the continued training of Iraqi forces to do the job? What does that do to change the politics and the economic situation there?

See, I think we should begin by saying, what do we agree on? We all agree that status quo won't do. We've got to change the dynamics here. Then the question is, how do you do that? A lot of people say, we want a different political situation, the economic situation, infrastructure's not what it should be.

All right, the question is, how do you achieve that? I think you've got to have people secure or feeling more secure in order to make the political and the economic progress that you seek.

BLITZER: So you're going in with an open mind on both sides.

LOTT: I want to see what the plan is. I think it makes sense to wait. I think a lot of people are anticipating everything the president may propose. They may be surprised.

BLITZER: Do you have an open mind on what the president may say?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: I don't know what he'll say. But what I know from the reports, looks like this has been done before. And also, it totally contradicts what our generals on the ground said to us in Senate testimony to the Armed Services Committee in November, when General Abizaid said he checked with every single commander on the ground, and to a person, they didn't think it was right to escalate the presence of American troops.

But I do agree with Trent, and maybe I'm reading too much into it. But he says he wants to look at this. And that's what John Warner said. John Warner is now the ranking member of Armed Services. He says, look, it's taken the president weeks and weeks to come up with this. The Congress ought to have a chance to look at this. And frankly, I'd like to have a vote on this, you know, whether we want to escalate the number of troops in there. My own view is, that's the wrong way to go. But we ought to have a vote. I hope the president comes to us.

BLITZER: But when you say have a vote, he's the commander in chief. He makes these decisions. You can decide whether to fund -- whether you can appropriate the money to pay for it, but as far as I know, you can't make that kind of a decision in the Congress. You can have a sense in the Senate resolution.

BOXER: That's not my understanding.

BLITZER: It's non-binding.

BOXER: My belief is, the president's coming to us. He's going to ask for billions and billions of dollars. He's going to send more of our people into harm's way. I think it would be best for the country if we got to vote on that surge or escalation. And there's nothing against that in the constitution. We do have the power of the purse.

BLITZER: So you want to use that power of the purse?

BOXER: I want to use it in terms of whether or not we should fund this escalation if, in fact, that's what the president does. I think it's an appropriate time -- and I believe John Warner has basically said this -- to come back to the Congress. Let us take a look at this, as Trent says, and I think let us vote. Let us vote.

BLITZER: It's going to cost another hundred billion dollars or so over the next year to continue this operation, about $2 billion a week. That's been the cost of this war. Does Senator Boxer have a good point, vote on this and use that as a referendum on whether the president should go forward?

LOTT: Obviously, Congress has the power of the purse, but I think we should be very careful about how we do that. We need to support our troops. We need to make sure they have the equipment they need to perform their duties, to protect them. If we say we want progress politically and economically, we want their infrastructure to be improved so that they can do a better job of governing themselves, then we have to come to terms with how that's going to be paid for.

I don't think we should give just a blank check. I think we should, for instance, stop the practice of supplemental appropriations for Iraq being used to fund things that are not really emergencies.

BLITZER: And put it as part of the overall budget...

LOTT: Yeah. Part of the overall budget. But here's the thing. You know, I do think we need to continue to look at our goal. If redeployment is another word for just let's get out of there, I'd have to question about how you do that. We do want to still have a success as we leave Iraq.

And we, in my opinion, should leave Iraq in a responsible period of time.

But how you change the dynamics, how you set it up where you don't leave total chaos, and that all of our effort is for naught, that is a critical question.

BOXER: Wolf, can I just say...

BLITZER: Sure.

BOXER: There isn't one Democratic or Republican senator that I know -- maybe Trent knows somebody; I don't know -- who won't vote to support the troops who are there.

What I'm saying is, if, in fact, the president decides to surge or escalate America's involvement over there, rather than have the Iraqis stand up, finally, and defend their own country, then there ought to be a pause, as John Warner says. There ought to be a look at what this proposal is.

And I think we ought to decide if we want to spend additional funds on additional troops while giving the troops there every single thing that they need.

BLITZER: Can you envisage a case the president that would convince you it would be appropriate to send thousands of additional forces into Iraq?

BOXER: At this point, I cannot. Because I look back to what General Abizaid said. Not one person on the ground said it was a good idea.

I look at the Iraq Study Group, a very amazing group of people. Democrats, Republicans, all quite moderate, and I would say right of center, if I might just categorize them.

And they said we ought to be changing, now, from a combat role to a support role. What the president is envisioning, unless he changes his plan at this point, is the opposite, more combat troops.

And you know, in California, we've lost 10 percent of the dead. And we also, if you count those who were actually sent from California bases, it's more than 20 percent. And our people just say, redeployment is the thing to do.

BLITZER: Redeployment meaning withdrawal? BOXER: Redeployment out of Iraq in the next four to six months. Even the Iraq study group said, '08, that ought to happen. And let the Iraqis stand up. And we should train them.

And one of the great things about General Petraeus, who I met with when I was in Iraq, is he's an expert on training the Iraqis. He said, when I was there, they are a good force. Well, let them prove it. And we can be support rather than combat.

BLITZER: Senator John McCain, your Republican colleague from Arizona -- he wants thousands of additional troops to be deployed. He says that's what's required to win in Iraq.

But he says, if it's half-hearted, if it's only a relatively small additional number, it's not going to work and better off not even sending them. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ: The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We tried small surges in the past, and they've been ineffective because our commanders lack the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You tend to agree with him?

LOTT: I tend to agree with him. But that's why we need to look at the specifics. Exactly how quickly is this so-called surge going to occur?

How many numbers are we talking about?

And here's a critical point that Barbara was just referring to: What are the Iraqis going to do?

Now, in your lead-up into this, they were talking about -- what was it -- six to one Iraqi over U.S.?

I didn't realize that they had the capability to do that.

BLITZER: Well, a lot of those guys never show up.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And then they're AWOL.

LOTT: They're talking about bringing in Kurdish forces to do that.

But I do think that's part of it, too. What will be the Iraqi role?

And you know, what difference are they going to make? Al- Maliki, their leader, has got to come to terms with the Shiites and the insurgents, all the insurgents. They have got to do a better job in getting troops in there.

If we send in whatever the number is, one brigade, three brigades -- if it's 20,000 plus others in other areas of Iraq, what are are the Iraqis going to do?

And I think it is time, now, where we say to the Iraqis: This is what we expect you to do and, quite frankly, you must do it this time.

They've not performed their role in many instances. I think the president's patience is beginning to wear a little thin on that, too.

The Iraqis, at some point, are going to have to say, OK, this is our country. We have a constitution. Saddam is gone. Do we want freedom and democracy or do we want continued chaos and death and destruction of people on all sides for reasons I don't even quite understand?

BLITZER: Hold on a second because I want to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about with our senators when we come back.

What will it be, real bipartisanship or a return to the bitter political confrontations of recent years? We'll ask both senators.

And later, it looks like more troops will be going over to Iraq. What will that mean for morale? We'll ask a panel of military experts.

And in case you missed it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke out on the question of funding any additional U.S. troops to Iraq this morning. We'll give you the highlights of that and the other Sunday morning talk shows here in the United States.

Don't go away. "Late Edition" will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We're continuing our conversation with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and the number two Republican in the Senate, Senator Trent Lott.

Senator Boxer, I interviewed the national security adviser to Iraq in the first hour of "Late Edition," Mowaffak al-Rubaie."

And when I pressed him to explain why Iraqi troops weren't capable of getting the job done in earlier so-called surge operations, he offered this explanation. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL-RUBAIE: These Iraqi security forces were recruited and employed and trained and armed by the coalition forces. So I don't think it's -- it's very unfair to blame whatever infiltration happened in these Iraqi security forces on the Iraqi government.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: So he's basically suggesting it's the U.S. and the coalition's fault that the earlier efforts to secure the Baghdad area didn't work because they were responsible for training the Iraqi military and police force.

BOXER: Wolf, I'm so tired of these excuses. When I was in Iraq, I went with General Petraeus. He showed me what they were doing to train...

BLITZER: And he's going to be the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq?

BOXER: Yes. And by the way, he was very high at that time -- this was about 18 months ago -- on how the troops were doing.

BLITZER: The Iraqi troops?

BOXER: Yes. And they have gotten the training. The fact is -- and this is where I may disagree with my good friend Trent Lott here a little bit -- you send in more troops, you're sending the wrong message yet again.

Now, remember, for years the president said, they stand up, we stand down. Now they stand up, we stand up?

You know, this is just going backwards, and I'm tired of hearing the excuses. The fact is, as Trent did say, I thought quite eloquently, this is their country. The Iraqis have to take control of it just like we did over our own country and every other country takes control of their own country.

BLITZER: The outgoing U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, who's going to become the next Army chief of staff, assuming you confirm him in the U.S. Senate.

He was quoted in The New York Times on Tuesday as saying this, General George Casey: "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems."

I thought that was a remarkably candid statement from General Casey, basically saying, you know what? The U.S. can't do this for the Iraqis forever.

LOTT: General Casey is a good man, and comments like that have to be weighed very carefully. I do think that this opportunity, this surge, if you will, coupled with the other things, is their last chance to show that they...

BLITZER: Iraq's last chance...

LOTT: Iraq's last chance...

BLITZER: ... but let me ask you this sensitive question.

LOTT: ... to do their part. Yeah.

BLITZER: Is he being replaced now as the U.S. commander in Iraq by General Petraeus because he wasn't on board with this so-called surge option?

LOTT: Well, he's not being removed from military.

BLITZER: He's going to be the Army chief of staff.

LOTT: He's getting a promotion. I think he was due for rotation. There's no question the president wanted to get somebody in there that had a plan, had a commitment to try to change the dynamics. General Petraeus fulfills that role.

BLITZER: General Petraeus certainly does support an increase in the number of U.S. troops.

BOXER: Well, I have to tell you this: I don't see it the way Trent does. Just looking at it from my perspective, it looks like the president went shopping for a general who agreed with him. You know, Abizaid retiring all of a sudden. He said every single commander on the ground there in November disagreed with the idea of a surge or an escalation.

And now Casey, who also said very clearly -- and I never will forget this because he looked right at me and said, Senator, he said, the larger our footprint is in Iraq, the worse off we'll be. And what is the president probably going to suggest? A bigger footprint when 60 percent of the Iraqi people, who we're supposed to be liberating, say it's OK to shoot and kill an American. I think we're going about this the wrong way.

BLITZER: Let me talk a little bit domestic issues before I let both of you go. Can you work with this Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate on such sensitive issues as taxes, for example? The president saying in the Wall Street Journal this week saying, "The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people."

You think you and the Democrats can get along in trying to come up with a tax policy?

LOTT: Well, I think there are a lot of issues we can work together on. Mitch McConnell, our leader, Republican leader in the Senate today, talked about his relationship with Harry Reid, a number of issues that we can work together on.

And I have a history, a record, of working with Democrats. I was the majority leader in the Senate when Bill Clinton was the president. You go back and look at some of the tough things we dealt with. We got the job done. Welfare reform, a lot of things like safe drinking water, balanced budget. I mean, the list was pretty long, and we did have some military conflicts that were difficult for both sides. We got it done. But I -- in the past, in the '80s and '90s when I was working with the president of a different party and the leadership, we found a way to get the job done. I can work with Harry Reid.

BLITZER: On the issue of taxes, though, are you ready to accept the president's demand not raise taxes? In other words, if you let some of these taxes lapse, that's in effect raising taxes. Do you think you can work this out?

BOXER: Well, I like to cut taxes for the middle class. I'd like to cut taxes for the families who are struggling with the kids with college tuition and the rest. But I certainly don't think we should extend tax cuts to people earning over millions of dollars.

Ridiculous. They don't want it. They don't need it. We have deficits as far as the eye can see, debt that we've never had before. But I do believe we have some common ground here. We can do this.

But there are differences in the parties. We know that. And we respect those differences, and we'll battle it out. But Trent is right. We can work to -- look, we have to work together. Our majority is hanging by the slimmest of threads. BLITZER: You're suggesting they don't want it, the rich people, maybe they do want it.

(LAUGHTER)

LOTT: (inaudible) don't want to leave any ambiguity.

BOXER: Well, they would rather have fiscal responsibility.

LOTT: I think to start raising taxes...

BLITZER: Pardon?

LOTT: I don't want to leave any ambiguity. I think the idea of raising taxes...

BLITZER: Even on the wealthy.

LOTT: Look, it's in the eye of the beholder. For instance, let's begin by seeing if we can't give some additional incentives to small businessmen and women who create a lot of these entry-level jobs as a part of the package to raise minimum wage. That's what we did in 1996.

I put the package together. President Clinton signed it. There is a clear example of where we can do something that would be good for the entry-level people and small businessmen and women of America. Let's begin with that and go forward.

BLITZER: It's 51-49, not a great majority you have, but you do have the majority, and it's a lot better than being in the minority, Senator Boxer. Thanks very much for coming on. BOXER: Well, I know. (LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Senator Lott, thanks to you as well. Appreciate both of you coming in.

BOXER: Thanks, Trent.

LOTT: OK.

BLITZER: Nice to see them shaking hands.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/07/le.01.html