PBS's The Charlie Rose Show-Transcript

PBS's The Charlie Rose Show-Transcript

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Yesterday, the Senate did not vote on any non-binding resolution on Iraq. Instead, debate was shut down because Democrats and Republicans could not agree on how to proceed. Sixty votes were required to start the debate, and the Democrats were 11 votes short.

It was almost a straight party line vote. So the Senate did not address an issue that 70 percent of the country says is of paramount concern.

There were four resolutions involved. One was long anticipated. Republican John Warner, the esteemed former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, sponsored it. It said that the Senate disagreed with President Bush's plans for a surge in Iraq.

John McCain had sponsored the Republican leadership's alternative, with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. It supported the surge, but set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

Meanwhile, another resolution, sponsored by New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, talked only about supporting the troops.

Then there was a fourth option in the mix put out by Democrats.

The GOP said that any resolution should have a 60-vote threshold, not a simple majority, and the Democrats were worried that only the one supporting the troops would meet that requirement. So nothing happened. And no agreement to have the debate was reached today in the Senate.

Joining me now from Washington, Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. We called more than 10 Republican senators, and none were available for this program.

I am pleased, very pleased to have Senator Reed here to give us a sense of the Senate and what is going on and what is likely to happen.

First of all, welcome, Senator. Thank you for doing this.

SEN. JACK REED, D-RI: Thank you, Charlie, very much.

ROSE: Tell me where we are. Has anything happened? Is anything going on in the cloak room that might set it in motion, the possibilities of the debate? Your Democratic Senate leader said that, in fact, you can run but you cannot hide, suggesting that one way or the other, there is going to be a debate about Iraq.

REED: Well, there has to be a debate about Iraq. As you point out, 70 percent of the American public are opposed to the president's proposal to escalate the forces there in Iraq. And I'm disappointed that the debate didn't take place yesterday.

We have to look for another opportunity as soon as possible for a debate. We have a constraint, though. We must also pass a continuing resolution before February 15th. If we don't do that, then the government is in danger of shutting down. So we're now back into a situation where we have to move to the continuing resolution.

I hope we can get that done quickly and then move to the debate on Iraq, but I'm afraid the Republicans will engage in delaying tactics, try to stretch out the debate until at least the 15th of February, leaving us with not enough time to take up the debate on Iraq in the next few days.

ROSE: Tell us what you mean by the continuing resolution.

REED: Well, a continuing resolution would fund the government from now until the end of the fiscal year, which would be September 30th.

As you probably know, the last Republican Congress did not pass most of the appropriations bills. They didn't even pass the budget. And so when this Congress, the Democratic majority came in, we were faced with a difficult fiscal situation: Either do an omnibus appropriations bill encompassing all the departments, or simply adopt a continuing resolution, basically funding most functions of government at the same level as last fiscal year.

It was decided that that would be the most appropriate way to proceed, so that we can get that out of the way and begin to work today. In fact, we had the secretary of defense up for the next budget. So we're already working on the 2008 fiscal year budget.

ROSE: Will that provide any kind of space to have this debate on Iraq?

REED: Well, we have to get the continuing resolution completed by February 15th because....

ROSE: Right.

REED: So after that, I would hope that we could turn as quickly as possible to a debate on Iraq. I would hope, frankly, that we could move this week expeditiously to consider the continuing resolution. We know we have to pass it. We've adopted basically the budget guidelines this year of the president. Those shouldn't be controversial, so we would have time, if not at end of the week then part of next week, to renew the debate.

I think it's essential to get back into this debate, which is on the minds and troubling the hearts of every American, regardless of how you come down on the ultimate issue. ROSE: These are some of the arguments that people are expressing. Senator Lieberman, independent, votes with the Democrats, says we cannot vote -- but not here. "We cannot vote full confidence on a general, and then have to confidence in the strategy that he needs for success. If we do, we are disavowing the mission that we completely voted for the man."

REED: Well, I respectfully disagree. First of all, it's not General Petraeus's plan or strategy. It's the president's plan for strategy. And in fact, it's not a strategy that just has a single military component that he will implement. It's a strategy that has a diplomatic component, an economic component, a political component. And, frankly, one of the shortcomings of this -- the past Congress, the Republican Congress, is they failed effectively to question the president, to look closely at his operations in Iraq.

I opposed the invasion in 2002. I thought it would be not in our best interest in the long term. And I think grossly, the administration underestimated the resources necessary to carry it out. But I was taken back that in the course of many months after the invasion, there was no serious inquiry by the Republican Congress in the occupation, what we were doing, what was working and what wasn't working.

I think it's time now to bring these issues to the floor, to debate them seriously. And the notion that a serious debate in the halls of the United States Congress somehow is going to impede the mission of our soldiers in the field I don't think is a valid criticism at all.

ROSE: This is the other argument that's presented, and John Edwards, a presidential candidate in your party, makes it. It is that this is a non-binding resolution. They should be voting on something real and substantive, not a non-binding resolution.

REED: Well, if this wasn't real and substantive, you would not see the White House working so vigorously to prevent a vote at all and a debate. This has consequences. It has significant consequences. And it is, as many people suggest, a first step. And it's a very important step.

I think it's important to get senators and members of Congress on record. Do they support this increase in forces and the president's new strategy or new proposal, or do they oppose it? I think that's critical.

ROSE: Allow me to interrupt you then. Why can't you find something to vote for which will allow the Senate to go on record, I mean, in terms of some specific piece of legislation, not a non-binding resolution that will affect the military, whether it is - and Senator Levin is very careful to say we are not going to vote not to fund the troops.

REED: Well, I think, again, you can see the difficulty we're having getting this non-binding resolution to a vote. But I think it's important to take this step and go forward. It does not preclude -- in fact, it should not preclude discussion and legislation that would be more definitive in trying to create or change the policy of this administration.

But this is a very good and I think appropriate first step. We should do it, I believe.

ROSE: What's going to happen?

REED: Well, I think the pressure will build up so significantly among the American public to at least have this debate, open debate, and then a vote. And I think that pressure will eventually get us a vote.

I would hope that it would be sooner rather than later, that we could go ahead and dispense, as I said previously, with this budget debate, the continuing resolution, move right back into the debate on Iraq, and have an up-or-down vote on the proposal of Senator Warner, and also an alternative proposal, if there's an alternative proposal that the Republicans want to advance.

ROSE: Is that likely to happen?

REED: I don't know if it's likely to happen in the next week or two. There is a potential to use procedural rules with respect to the budget debate to slow this down until the very last minute, February 14th, February 15th. Then I think, you know, there are other ways I think that you can slow this down.

And clearly, I think behind all of this discussion of the Republicans about, well, we want two or three different proposals -- what's clearly driving this is the reluctance, the extreme reluctance of the administration to put their policy to the test, a clear test in the Senate of an up-or-down vote on whether you support the president or don't. That's what's driving this.

But I think eventually, public opinion, public opinion will have a debate and have a vote.

ROSE: What do you think the American public wants?

REED: I think the American public wants, first, and it's demonstrated I think in the polling numbers you cited, as a clear response to the president in terms of his proposal he made in his speech now about two weeks ago, and I think that is strongly negative in terms of further enlargement of our forces in Iraq. And I think their sense is a very good sense. Policy experts and many others have made the same case.

I think one of the things the president did in an ironic, perhaps, way, is not only outline a policy to the American people are not comfortable with, but he probably lost the last chance he had to rally public support. Not only what he said, but his tone and the impression he gave that, one, he hadn't really learned a lot from the Iraqi Study Group. Two, if he did, he was going to disregard it. And three, it was basically his way or the highway.

And I think the American public not only sort of substantively but also in terms of looking at that speech have sort of stepped away from support. And one of the realities of any major policy, particularly an international policy, is without significant public support, you can't sustain it. So the president is in a very difficult position of having a policy which the public has essentially rejected, and it would be hard, I think, to get them back.

ROSE: As you know, there is much talk about all kinds of proposals that are there. Which one of the ideas has the most attraction for you?

REED: Well, the one I think that is most attractive and one that has been based, as best as I can, not only on my experience but also nine trips to Iraq and a significant immersion in the issue, is the one that I proposed along with Senator Carl Levin months ago, in which we would call for the policy of the United States being a phased redeployment of forces, beginning in a reasonable amount of time -- not a deadline to get out, but certainly a date to begin a redeployment.

The redeployment would probably begin initially within Iraq, getting outside of some of the major areas of contention, and also redefining the missions that are most critical to the United States. The first, of course, is to maintain our pressure on those international terrorist elements within Iraq, and there are perhaps 1,000 or so of these individuals, but they're dangerous and they should be hunted down as we continue to do that.

Second, to continue training and supporting the Iraqi security forces. And third, maintaining a presence in the country so that the neighbors of Iraq will not take advantage of the instability.

In the longer term, I think that's an appropriate military approach. That has to be complemented by active diplomacy in the region. And I think that was at the heart of the Baker-Hamilton study group. That proposal, I think, is one that has the ability to not only try to manage the complications in Iraq today, but also I think will be supported and could be supported and sustained over several months, which you need for any policy.

ROSE: Republican senator from Texas said this today. Not Senator Hutchison...

REED: Senator Cornyn.

ROSE: Senator Cornyn, exactly, her colleague. Said, "are we simply going to give up and see a regional conflict? Are we going to see ethnic cleansing occur and allow Iraq to become another failed state or a future launching ground for terrorist attacks against the United States?" That is the specter that the president has raised all along, that if in fact the United States troops even redeploy and leave Baghdad, where the civil war is raging, that you will have a catastrophe, and the United States will have to come back later.

REED: Well, in my proposal, in my discussions, in terms of the phased redeployment, I think you recognize the fact that not only what you do but how you do it, and the timing of it is absolutely critical.

But those arguments about our role in Iraq I think seriously misunderstand that the chief role in Iraq is that of the Iraqi government. That they have to be the ones who make tough, decisive choices that will help stabilize their country, minimize the violence, prevent the ethnic cleansing that we all are concerned about.

And the question is -- and I think it is a principled question -- is what policies can the United States pursue that will help them, encourage them to make these tough decisions? I think by making it clear to them that we're not there forever, that we have missions there that are more central to our security and that it's their responsibility to step up with respect to preventing this potential ethnic cleansing, develop some time of at least -- some type of at least rudimentary reconciliation, I think that's the answer. And we have to make that Iraqi government do that.

ROSE: My impression is that's exactly what Senator McCain and Senator Graham are recommending in their resolution.

REED: Well, I think what they're recommending is a series of measures for the government, but what always seems to be lacking is consequences. Because on the one hand, they're saying we can't abandon Iraq, we can't move one troop out. In fact, we have to move more troops in. But we want this Shia government to do this, this and this.

Frankly, my impression, from traveling there and trying to be engaged in this discussion, is that that Shia government feels that they're winning and that the strategy they're pursuing and the consequence of that strategy are something they're not likely to change. If we make it clear to them that their presence, their, you know, position might be threatened, if we decide to withdraw our forces, then I think that might make them more cooperative, more willing to change. And I think that's the critical point, the critical lever we have.

ROSE: Senator Jack Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island. We thank you very much for taking the time.

REED: Thanks, Charlie.

ROSE: Pleasure to have you on the broadcast.

http://reed.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=268691