‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Nov. 11, 2007

The only troops I would have in Iraq would have a very limited mission. Number one, to protect our embassy and our civilian, diplomatic corps.  I don’t want Blackwater to be providing that security; I want our U.S. military to providing—to provide that security.  I’m very skeptical about the use of private contractors when it comes to our national security.  The only other mission, and this is a very narrow one, would be to engage in counterterrorism activity.  If al-Qaeda in Iraq is reforming bases there, we should have the capacity to strike them.  That would be it.  Those would be the only troops that we would deploy.

MR. RUSSERT:  How many would that be?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, you know, I’m going to leave that up to the, the commanders on the ground, because my job is to set a clear mission for them. Their job is to then tell me, “This is what we need to achieve that mission.”

MR. RUSSERT:  But, but—yeah, but we have 165,000 there now.  Are we talking 150,000?

SEN. OBAMA:  There, there—here’s what I’ll say, Tim.  We will have the vast majority of the troops who are there gone.  This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases.  So when I hear, for example, others say, “I will have all troops out,” well, the fact of the matter is who’s going to protect our embassy?  Who’s going to protect our civilian forces?  Are these folks suggesting that we’re just going to leave them to wander around the streets and rely on the Iraqi military to do that?  Obviously not.

And in—there is a difference, though, between myself and Senator Clinton on a couple of these issues.  Number one, she hasn’t given a firm timetable in terms of executing the withdrawal, and I think that’s a problem.  I think we have to provide certainty to the Iraqi leadership, so that they know that we are serious about changing course.  She’s also suggested that the mission on the ground would be more expansive than the one that I’ve envisioned.  And that includes, by the way, at least in an article that she—an interview that she gave in March, that, for example, dealing with Iran and making sure they don’t have influence in Iraq would be one of the missions of our military.  I think that is a mistake, and so—because what, what happens is that then presents the possibility of a mission creep, an expansion that would involve more troops than I think is necessary.

MR. RUSSERT:  I want to talk about Iran, because there’s been a discussion about a vote she cast that you mentioned earlier.  Back in March there was a resolution in the Senate, and here’s what it said:  “The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.” And you voted for that.  Now, The Washington Post analyzed your position and Senator Clinton’s, and this is what they editorialized:  “So is there any real difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton on Iran?  Mr. Obama contends that one distinction lies in Ms. Clinton’s acceptance of language in the September 26, ‘07” “resolution that ‘it is’” “‘critical national interest of the United States’ to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq.  Mr. Obama claims that such language is ‘saber-rattling’ that could be used by the Bush administration to justify an attack on Iran.  This is hard to fathom.  Not only is there no mention of the use of U.S.” forces “in the resolution, but last year Mr. Obama gave a speech in which he said it ‘is in our national interest to prevent’ Iran or Syrian from using Iraq as ‘a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries.’”

So if you have the same concern about using—Iran using that as a staging area, you would have a position very similar to Senator Clinton’s.

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, the, the previous quote was directed specifically at the issue of Israel, and I make no apologies for making sure that we are thinking about our security interests in Israel.  The primary difference between myself and Senator Clinton is that she believes that our force structure inside Iraq should, in part, depend on how we can prevent Iran from having influence inside of Iraq.  And I think that is a mistake, particularly at a time when we know this administration has been itching to escalate the tensions between Iran and the United States.

Look, the—there’s a broader issue at stake here, and that is how do we approach Iran?  I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran.  I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems—them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas.  That does not mean that we take other options off the table, but it means that we move forward aggressively with a dialogue with them about not only the sticks that we’re willing to apply, but also the carrots.  Are there inducements that we can put on the table—joining the World Trade Organization, over time normalizing diplomatic relations—giving them some sense that if they make the right decisions, if they change their behavior, then we will be willing to work with them as we would any other nation in a way that is mutually beneficial.  That has not been tried.  Not only has it not been tried, but reports indicate that it has been explicitly rejected by the Bush administration.  That is a policy that I intend to change as president of the United States.

MR. RUSSERT:  This is what you said on Iran.  “Senator Barack Obama says he would ‘engage in aggressive personal diplomacy’ with Iran if elected president,” “would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek ‘regime change’ if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”

If Iran did not stop meddling in Iraq, did not cooperate on terrorism issues, and did not stop development of their nuclear program, would, then, regime change be on the table for you?

SEN. OBAMA:  I have repeatedly said I would not take military options off the table.  I don’t think any president can in any circumstance.  What I have said is that until we have exhausted those efforts, then we are not doing what’s right for the American people.  And this—look, part of the reason it’s important for us to talk to countries we don’t like and leaders we don’t like, it’s not that I think that in a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad that I’m going to somehow change his mind on everything, but what we do is, we send a signal to other leadership in Iran, to the Iranian people and to the world community that we are listening and that we are willing to try to resolve conflicts peacefully.  That’s the kind of work to repair our standing in the world that I believe the next president’s going to have to engage in. We have to have a clear break with the Bush-Cheney style of diplomacy that has caused so many problems and has actually weakened our ability to deal with a very real terrorist threat.

MR. RUSSERT:  You’ve said this about Afghanistan and Pakistan:  “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance involving civilians.  Let me scratch that.  There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons.  That’s not on the table.” If Iran insisted on building their nuclear capability, you had your discussions, you had your negotiations, and they said, “Sorry, President Obama, we’re going forward,” would you then have a use of tactical nuclear weapons on the table?

SEN. OBAMA:  Tim, I think it would be a mistake for me to talk about clear red lines.  Here—here’s what I can say, is that I will do whatever’s required to keep the American people safe.  That’s my job as president, that’s my job as commander in chief.  Military tools are part of the tool kit that the president deploys.  We have not been using the other tools that are available. That’s what I intend to do as president of the United States.  I will make certain that we are doing everything we need to do, not only to deal with Iran, but also to deal with the instability that we’re seeing all across the region.  And I think it’s very important.  I, I give Joe Biden credit in the last debate that we participated in to point out that you can’t look at Iran in isolation from critical problems like Pakistan, from the problems that we’re having in Afghanistan.  We not—we know now that 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops not just in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan.  We have seen a tremendous rise in suicide bombings.  We have seen that al-Qaeda has strengthened itself in the borders along Pakistan and Afghanistan.  We’ve also seen the Taliban resurgent.  And those are all issues that involve the kinds of complexity and effective diplomatic work that we just have not seen from the administration.  I intend to provide it.

MR. RUSSERT:  In July, you were asked if you were willing to meet separately without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez.  You said yes.  You stand by that?

SEN. OBAMA:  I do.  The—now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them.  I said I’d be willing to.  Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation.  Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won’t meet with people unless they’ve already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about.  And obviously, when we say to Iran, “We won’t meet with you until you’ve agreed to all the terms that we’ve laid out,” from their perspective that’s not a negotiation, that’s not a meeting.  Preparation means that we are sitting down ahead of time, various lower-level diplomats and envoys, are sorting out what’s the agenda going to be?  Nuclear weapons has to be on the table.  The issue of terrorism needs to be on the table.  Incursions into Iraq that are affecting the safety of our troops, that needs to be on the table. Joining the World Trade Organization, that needs to be on the table.  Once those items are on the table, then, yes, I would be willing to have a meeting to see if we can make progress on these fronts.

MR. RUSSERT:  You’re not afraid of being used in a propaganda way?

SEN. OBAMA:  You know, Tim, I—I’ve got to say I’m afraid of losing a propaganda war to somebody like Ahmadinejad.  You know, strong countries and strong presidents speak with their adversaries.  I—I always think back to J.F.K.’s saying that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we shouldn’t fear to negotiate.  We remain the most powerful nation, by far, on earth.  Our military capacity is unequaled.  We should not hesitate to go ahead and initiate the kinds of discussions that are required.  Look at the progress we’ve made with North Korea.  It’s still uncertain.  It still has to be verified.  We shouldn’t be trusting Kim Jung Il, but if you look at the kinds of progress we’ve made in terms of them being willing to stand down on their nuclear program through diplomacy and dialogue—and I will say, by the way, Chris Hill, the envoy from, from our side is, is one of the best diplomats out there—and you compare it to the lack of progress, in fact, the acceleration of their nuclear efforts during those years when the Bush administration was unwilling to talk to them, it’s night and day.  And we have to continue to apply the kind of intelligent foreign policy that, by the way, historically, has been bipartisan.  I mean, this is not something unique to Democrats.  You know, people like Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel in the Senate, who I think are excellent senators and really understand foreign policy, they, too, oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and, and they are the kinds of folks that I think represent a tradition where, you know, our foreign policy differences end at our borders and, and we are projecting the kind of strength, but also intelligence, that makes ultimately American more safe.

MORE FROM TODAY

Today Section Front

Ruling disappoints MySpace victim's mom Michelle Obama bringing glamour to Moscow Jermaine Jackson: ‘I wish it was me’ To-die-for pie is testing Obama’s discipline James Frey turns to teen science-fiction novels Publisher releases S.C. governor from book contract McDonald’s to debut $4 Angus burgers Poo brew: Premium coffee is dung to a turn Looking at Lady Liberty from fresh perspectives July 4 is about more than fireworks — Ask Kitty Today Section Front   Add Today headlines to your news reader: