‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Aug. 5, 2007

MR. RUSSERT:  Is there a possibility we could draw down troops by the end of this year?

SEC’Y GATES:  A possibility.

MR. RUSSERT:  A good possibility?

SEC’Y GATES:  There is a possibility.

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you bet on it?

SEC’Y GATES:  I think I’d just leave it at that.

MR. RUSSERT:  There was a dustup involving your department regarding Senator Hillary Clinton.  She wrote a letter asking whether the Pentagon was planning for an eventual troop withdrawal and just what the operational look of that may be.  And a letter was written by the under secretary of state, Eric Edelman, that said “Premature and public discussion of the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

You wrote a letter back to Senator Clinton saying, “I emphatically assure you we do not claim or suggest otherwise, believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone’s motives in this regard.”

Vice President Cheney said on Thursday that he thought that Edelman’s letter was a—he, he agreed with the letter and thought it was a good letter.  Do you, do you think that Edelman’s letter was a good letter, and do you agree with it?

SEC’Y GATES:  I’ve been at this business a little over 40 years, and I think Eric Edelman is one of the most professional people I’ve ever worked with and one of the most talented.  I’ve come to rely on him heavily.  Senator Clinton reacted to his letter.  I looked at it carefully and believed in some ways it could have been a little clearer, and wrote her back basically saying what you quoted.  I certainly agree with the vice president that we are not going to share contingency planning with the Congress.  We never have.  Truth of the matter is we don’t share contingency planning even in the executive branch, because the plans change all the time and not to mention leak if they were to be shared widely.  And also I believe the, the vice president and I are on exactly the same page in terms of the appropriateness of the role of, of the Congress in terms of oversight of the defense department.  So I think, I think, I think there’s really no daylight there.

MR. RUSSERT:  But the part of the letter about enemy propaganda could have been left out.

SEC’Y GATES:  Well, I just—I think people are a little on edge.

MR. RUSSERT:  Before you go, if we had actionable intelligence about Osama bin Laden or high level targets in Pakistan, and General Musharraf—President Musharraf did not act, would we act unilaterally?

SEC’Y GATES:  Musharraf has been a very strong ally.  The fact of the matter is, if we had actionable intelligence that Osama was in Pakistan, I think—my view is that President Musharraf would work with us to make sure that we could go after him.

MR. RUSSERT:  But if he didn’t, would we act unilaterally?

SEC’Y GATES:  I think we would not act without telling Musharraf what we were planning to do.

MR. RUSSERT:  Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.  I hope in the future you’ll come back and allow us more time.  We have a lot to talk about.

SEC’Y GATES:  Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT:  Thank you, sir.

Coming next, what attributes should we be looking for in the next president of the United States?  Carl Bernstein, David Brody, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David Mendell—Obama, Clinton, Thompson, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney and more—the race for the White House coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  Our MEET THE PRESS roundtable, the race for the White House. What should we be looking for in our next president?  Clinton, Obama and a lot more after this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  Welcome, all.  We have a lot to talk about.  The race for the White House 2008 fully engaged.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, you’ve been thinking and writing and talking about attributes, traits that we look for in our commander in chief, our presidents. And this is the list so far, a work in progress:  They have withstood adversity, they have diverse perspectives around them, they have a sense of loyalty, they’re not afraid to admit mistakes, they know how to manage their emotions, they can define the goals for the country, and they know how to relax.

MS. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:  Correct.  I mean, I think when we go through this campaign, instead of talking, as we too often do, about things like cleavage, things like sighs and shrugs, who gets the better in a debate, we should look at the past, look at history, see what have made the great presidents great. What were their strengths?  And look for the past of these people to see have they revealed these strengths and what weaknesses, and are they able to compensate for their weaknesses.

MR. RUSSERT:  Give me a sense in history of people who have taken on adversity, who have surrounded themselves with people of different opinions, who have not been afraid to admit mistakes.

MS. GOODWIN:  Well, when you look at FDR, for example, he was considered somewhat smug and arrogant before polio struck him down.  After that they said he was much more compassionate, much more able to understand other people to whom fate had dealt an unkind hand.  You look at Abraham Lincoln, he lost almost everything before the presidency:  two Senate races, his, his first love, his mother, his sister, and yet was able to move forward.  You look at Teddy Roosevelt, and he lost his wife and his mother on the same day, and yet said the only way to beat the black dog of depression was to move forward. You look at Abe Lincoln putting a team of rivals into his Cabinet, diverse opinions.  FDR, reaching down to get Marshall, who had disagreed with him on—number 34 on the list, bringing him to chief of staff.  You look at Lincoln, continually able to acknowledge errors, learn from his mistakes. He’d say, “I’m smarter today than I was yesterday.” You look at Lincoln able to have the enormous ability to relax.  At the theater, he’d go 100 times during the presidency.  FDR playing poker and stamps.  These guys knew how to relax and replenish their energies to face the struggles of the following day. That’s the qualities we need to look for.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let’s talk about the current crop.  David Mendell, your soon-to-be-released book, out next week, on Barack Obama, “From Promise to Power,” you write this:  “Obama, without argument, is imbued with an abiding sense of social and economic justice.  He’s an earnest, thoughtful, occasionally naive man who has a strong sense of moral purpose.” You go on: “It is his easygoing public temperament and ingenious lack of specificity that perhaps have most abetted his career in politics.  Whatever setting Obama steps into—a black church, the Senate floor, a rural farmhouse—he blends comfortably into the atmosphere, as if he” had “spent a lifetime there.”

MR. DAVID MENDELL:  Yes.  Well, looking through Doris’ list there, I think Senator Obama possesses several of those qualities.  I don’t think he’d be where he is right now if he didn’t.  He, he grew up in Hawaii.  He has this extraordinary sense of calm around him.  He, he presents a, a calm, cool and collected presence in, in public.  And in, in private occasionally he can have a short fuse or a short temper.  But I think he—I think he possesses several of those qualities, and it—calmness being the, the key.

MR. RUSSERT:  Carl Bernstein, in your highly acclaimed “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” you write this:  “Hillary is neither the demon of the right’s perception, nor a feminist saint.” Here “is a story of strength and vulnerability, a woman’s story.  She is an intelligent woman endowed with energy, enthusiasm, humor, tempestuousness, inner strength, spontaneity in private, lethal (almost) powers of retribution, real-life lines that come from deep wounds, and the language skills of a sailor (and of a minister), all evidence of her passion—which,” deep down, “is perhaps her most enduring and even endearing trait.”

MR. CARL BERNSTEIN:  She’s, she’s quite a lady.  She—one of the amazing things is what a terrific politician we’re watching her become.  She has never had a political temperament on the public stage until she got to the Senate. She’s running a very smart campaign.  The question goes back to the—her history, and what’s real and what’s not.  She has an awful lot of trouble with grudges, with enemies still, but she’s much better at masking it.  She still has an awful lot of acolytes around her who were known in the West Wing of the White House, Bill Clinton’s wing, as the “Kool-Aid drinkers.” They are not very good at saying, “Hillary, you know, you really screwed up today.” But she has one person who will say that very gently, and that’s Bill Clinton, which is perhaps the great asset that, that she now has as a candidate.

MR. RUSSERT:  The Democratic candidates have been at the Daily Kos, the bloggers’ convention out in Chicago.  Yesterday there was discussion amongst Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards about lobbyists.  And this is an interesting look into this campaign.  Let’s watch it.

(Videotape, August 4, 2007)

MORE FROM TODAY

Today Section Front

Sad development: The last Kodachrome film lab Mom of boy set afire: ‘His courage is incredible’ Ho-ho-ho! White House Christmas tree arrives Murder, he wrote: Al Roker pens mystery novel Gasp! Babies’ fat rolls being airbrushed away? Your shopping type: Black Friday? Cyber Monday? Stars are out at White House state dinner Once again, first lady’s fashion sense dazzles It's down to the final four on 'Biggest Loser' 60 years of White House meals for India Today Section Front   Add Today headlines to your news reader: