Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC throws hat into 08 Pres. Race

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 03:32 AM

Anyone see Meet the Press yesterday? I don't think Graham could have distanced himself any further from bush, positioning himself for a run in '08. If you looked closely, you could see a faint outline of Michael Moore in the background mouthing what Graham was saying. Also, Madeleine Albright talks about what was really in Sandy Berger's socks.

Watch here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Transcript to come. (Note to Len, let's only post what Russert really says this time, not what you wish he had said)

Swift boat away!

Rodeo · 12-12-2005, 04:58 AM

It was nice to finally hear a Republican tell the truth. I thought he did an excellent job of doing that, at the same time supporting the overall administration policy in Iraq. People realize that they have been "spun" on Iraq, and the poll numbers clearly reflect that.

Grahm is doing what the president should have done three years ago -- level with the American people.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 05:08 AM

Some copy and paste fun:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, what's going to happen Thursday?

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hope we have a larger turnout. We're about to democratically elect a parliament. We haven't done that yet. These are people who actually are running for office that will write laws for the Iraqi people. It will be a chance for the Iraqi people to chart their own destiny. That is a huge sea change in the Mideast. I hope it goes well. Speeches by the president have been helpful. They've been long overdue. Senator Lieberman believes there's been a change in the policy for the good. I do, too.

But here's the problem. When you tell people it costs $50 billion is all it's going to cost to rebuild Iraq, as Mr. Wolfowitz did, when you tell people that the insurgency is 1/10th of 1 percent and it still goes on after four years, there's a price to pay for underestimating how hard this is, and I think that's been the president's problem. He has made some policy statements in speeches recognizing problems. And as Senator Lieberman has found, we are doing better. We're cleaning, we're holding and we're building cities that have been reoccupied by the terrorists. And I don't think we're going to have any major troop withdrawals any time soon if we're really serious about protecting this infant democracy.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't think any significant troop withdrawals in 2006?

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hope it's not politically motivated. I hope it's based on what's going on on the ground. The Saddam Hussein trial is the best evidence yet of where we're at in Iraq. You've got a dictator standing trial for the crimes against his people. That's a wonderful thing. But the trial is being conducted in an atmosphere that you can't run a country. You can't have the defense attorneys assassinated, the judges attacked, the courtroom shelled. So that shows two things, that we're doing better, the dictator is now facing his crimes, but the security environment in Iraq is so tenuous that there's no way, in my opinion, we can leave any time soon. How can you have a legal system where people in the legal system are getting killed?

MR. RUSSERT: Has the Saddam trial been a negative for the U.S.?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think it's been a very positive experience for the people in Iraq because they can see the benefit of what happened with our involvement. They're getting to chart their own destiny by voting Thursday. And they're getting to bring a guy to trial who's oppressed the people and killed their family members. That's a good thing. But for us to deny the fact that we're a long way from a secure Iraq needs to stop. How can you have a secure Iraq when the defense attorneys and the judges are being killed?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 05:09 AM

A man of integrity speaks here:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, back in June you startled a lot of people with this comment. "The public support in my state"--South Carolina--"has turned...in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question. ...And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen. I think we have a chronic problem on our hands."

SEN. GRAHAM: You just have to be blind not to understand what's going on in the country. The truth is that people in South Carolina are doing what they're doing all over the nation, they're wondering why it's taking so long. We've undersold how hard this would be. Without violence it took years to get Germany and Japan from dictatorships to democracy. Yet, at every turn we've underestimated how hard it would be. We've underestimated the actual economic cost, how hard it would be to build an economy up after the fall of Baghdad. We've never had enough troops. We've paid a price in the past for our missteps. We've assumed the best and never planned for the worst and it's hurt us. It's hurt us with our own people, it's hurt us internationally.

Things are changing for the better. The worst thing we could do, in my opinion, is to leave this infant democracy behind, without the ability to have a reasonable chance to develop in the future. It could turn into a regional war if they fail in Iraq. It does matter what happens in Iraq in terms of our own national security. Have we made mistakes? Yes. The biggest mistake would be to leave because of '06 politics.

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of the tone of the debate, the Republican National Committee has put on its Web site a new advertisement and here it is in part. Let's watch.

(Videotape, RNC Web site):

DR. HOWARD DEAN: The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Waving a white flag, is that appropriate?

SEN. GRAHAM: The '06 election is going to come and go. Iraq will be still a problem after '06. I don't think it's appropriate. Howard Dean is wrong when he says we can't win. It doesn't mean he's not a patriot. Murtha wants to leave the region and deploy outside of Iraq. I think he's wrong, doesn't mean he's a patriot. John Kerry wants to cut the force by two-thirds. I think he's wrong, doesn't mean he's not a patriot. Lieberman says stay the course.

The--there is no a political consensus in this country. Democrats and Republicans are struggling. We've lost our national unity when it comes to Iraq. What happens in Iraq will matter to this country long after '06. I wish we would quit running ads against each other and try to find consensus. Maybe this would be one of the things we could agree on. What happens in Iraq matters to the region and to our own national security. Come up with a plan that will allow us to leave honorably and give these people who are dying in droves in Iraq for their own freedom a reasonable chance to be successful.

MR. RUSSERT: So it is your opinion that you would prefer the Republican National Committee to pull that ad down?

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes. I don't want to have a campaign about who's a patriot. I want to have a campaign that would unite the country, find consensus on Iraq and talk about our political differences in terms that make us stronger, not weaker. And we're going to drive a wedge among ourselves that will make the world less safe, including ourselves.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 05:12 AM

Neocons, here's how a real American takes responsibility for his mistakes.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, I want to clean something up, from The Greenville News, February 24, 2003, this is Lindsey Graham talking. "[Lindsey Graham] cited `direct, substantial and unequivocal evidence that (Saddam) is supporting the al-Qaida murderers who plotted the September 11 attacks ... Saddam is an imminent threat.'"

Do you still stand by both of those comments? That Saddam supported the al-Qaeda murderers who plotted September 11th, and, two, he was an imminent threat?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think the evidence that shows about the aluminum tubes, I authored a resolution before I went to the Senate, in the House, saying that he was an imminent threat. And one of the pieces of evidence that was presented to me was the aluminum tubing. And I can tell you about it now, we went to a secure room in the Capitol and they made the case, this could only be used for a nuclear centrifuge, to make a nuclear weapon. I...

MR. RUSSERT: But the State Department and the Department of Energy dissented.

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah. I was wrong. I think it's OK to say that you were wrong, as long as you-- something good comes out of it. I think it's wrong to assume that the sanctions were working. I think the U.N.'s effort to control Saddam Hussein was a joke. I think they were being bought off. I think he was going to get stronger over time. And if we've learned nothing, let's don't turn our national security over to the U.N. until it's reformed.

MR. RUSSERT: But you no longer believed he was an imminent threat?

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, in terms of the weapons of mass destruction, they seem not to be available. But here's what I do believe. I believe within that dictatorship, that he thought he had them. We've had generals tell us that they assumed the general across the way had the weapons, even though they didn't have it. He wanted us to believe that he had these weapons of mass destruction. And he probably believed it himself.

MR. RUSSERT: But he was not an imminent threat to the U.S. at the time we went to war.

SEN. GRAHAM: In the sense of possessing a weapon of mass destruction, that appears to be wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: What about his support of the al-Qaeda murderers who plotted against September 11th?

SEN. GRAHAM: That...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you--is there a linkage between September 11th and Saddam Hussein?

SEN. GRAHAM: That seems to have fallen apart, Tim. It really does. And in that regard, I'm glad he's in jail. I'm glad he's on trial. The world's better off without him. It would be a huge event in the Mideast if this could become a functioning democracy, where a woman would have a say about her children based on a constitutional right, that you could enforce in a courtroom with a fair judge. That's where the consensus ought to be.

Did we make mistakes? Yes. Did we poorly plan the fall of Baghdad? You'd better believe it. Shinseki was right. We should have had more troops. We need more troops now, in my opinion. This idea that it's a bunch of dead-enders is totally wrong. The insurgency's got to be larger than 1/10th of 1 percent because Zarqawi's been able to survive this long. So, yeah, we've made tons of mistakes.

Rodeo · 12-12-2005, 05:13 AM

"SEN. GRAHAM: Yes. I don't want to have a campaign about who's a patriot."

God forbid! What would Mul and fint do all day?

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Shaun, I'm confused. I thought you were against the war? Yet you seem to agree with what Senator Graham says (I wholeheartedly agree with him as well). Senator Graham is clearly for the war in Iraq. He says as much several times in that transcript. Do I have your position on the war wrong?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 05:28 AM

Good morning Rick. Can you please pull a few quotes for me to respond to directly?

NOte: I've posted several times in the past as a McCain plan supporter. I was and am against the war, but since we are there, we need another X0,000 or even X00,000 troops to get the job done. Months ago I posted about securing the borders since day 1 with a combination 24/7 Hummer Desert Patrol and Chopper Support.

Some here have questioned my significant military background and strategy-making abilities, but for the life of me I don't understand why the borders weren't secured since day 1 of invasion victory.

Rodeo · 12-12-2005, 05:41 AM

When's the last time you heard a Republican say this? How refreshing.

"SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah. I was wrong. I think it's OK to say that you were wrong ..."

Tell fint to call of the search for the "really small" WMDs, and the elusive Iraq-Al Queda connection:

"MR. RUSSERT: But he was not an imminent threat to the U.S. at the time we went to war.

SEN. GRAHAM: In the sense of possessing a weapon of mass destruction, that appears to be wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: What about his support of the al-Qaeda murderers who plotted against September 11th? *** Do you--is there a linkage between September 11th and Saddam Hussein?

SEN. GRAHAM: That seems to have fallen apart, Tim. It really does."

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Good morning to you as well Shaun! I would be happy to cut and paste a few quotes:

And I don't think we're going to have any major troop withdrawals any time soon if we're really serious about protecting this infant democracy.

The Saddam Hussein trial is the best evidence yet of where we're at in Iraq. You've got a dictator standing trial for the crimes against his people. That's a wonderful thing.

Without violence it took years to get Germany and Japan from dictatorships to democracy.

Things are changing for the better. The worst thing we could do, in my opinion, is to leave this infant democracy behind, without the ability to have a reasonable chance to develop in the future.

The biggest mistake would be to leave because of '06 politics.

Howard Dean is wrong when he says we can't win.

Murtha wants to leave the region and deploy outside of Iraq. I think he's wrong

John Kerry wants to cut the force by two-thirds. I think he's wrong

I find Senator Graham's comments refreshing. He is being honest and open and isn't treating the war like a political football. I think Bush should have talked like this 2 years ago, he wouldn't be in the spot he is now if he had. But I don't think anyone can read that interview and think that Graham is not for the war in Iraq.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 06:36 AM

I agree with all of this. But nowhere does he say he is for the war. He says we have to take responsibility for our actions, but that's different than being for the war.

In over 5 instances, he says in fact, he is against the war.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Sorry Shaun, you gotta back that statement up. I read the transcript and didn't see one instance where I thought he said he was against the war. Quotes please?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 07:05 AM

Let me clarify: He's completely against how the war was sold and how it is being administrated.

There's his whole exchange on the validity of WMDs, tubes, etc.

Did we make mistakes? Yes. Did we poorly plan the fall of Baghdad? You'd better believe it. Shinseki was right. We should have had more troops. We need more troops now, in my opinion. This idea that it's a bunch of dead-enders is totally wrong. The insurgency's got to be larger than 1/10th of 1 percent because Zarqawi's been able to survive this long. So, yeah, we've made tons of mistakes.

But here's the problem. When you tell people it costs $50 billion is all it's going to cost to rebuild Iraq, as Mr. Wolfowitz did, when you tell people that the insurgency is 1/10th of 1 percent and it still goes on after four years, there's a price to pay for underestimating how hard this is, and I think that's been the president's problem. He has made some policy statements in speeches recognizing problems.

But for us to deny the fact that we're a long way from a secure Iraq needs to stop. How can you have a secure Iraq when the defense attorneys and the judges are being killed?

I guess, Rick, we can both read what we want in his statements. I see a man who says that the whole thing has been oversold and bungled from start to finish and that we need to learn from that and take responsibility and do the right thing, finish the job with strength, something the admin is unwilling to do.

In my logic, that summation says he regrets that we got into the war, mismanaged the war, but supports a *possible* positive outcome and says we need to step up to the plate for that outcome to be a reality.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Ah, ok now I see what you are saying. But let's be clear. Murtha is against the war, Pelosi is against the war, Mother Sheehan is against the war...Graham is NOT against the war.

He is admitting that we made mistakes in the planning for the post-war period. I don't think many people are left who would say there were not mistakes made. But he clearly is for finishing what we started, not pulling out (or redeploying in Murtha terms) immediately or setting a Kerryesque timetable to let the insurgents know there is light at the end of the tunnel.

If you really agree with what Graham is saying, perhaps you should rethink your current position on where we go from here in Iraq.

RallyJon · 12-12-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Let me clarify: He's completely against how the war was sold and how it is being administrated.

Isn't hindsight wonderful? It's not particularly adventurous to say today that we had bad info about wmds and that we misunderestimated the Iraqis. If the election is based on that, he'll win 80% of the vote. Of course, it's not that simple.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by RallyJon
Isn't hindsight wonderful? It's not particularly adventurous to say today that we had bad info about wmds and that we misunderestimated the Iraqis. If the election is based on that, he'll win 80% of the vote. Of course, it's not that simple.

There were plenty of us saying that in 2002. We just had a hard time getting you guys to listen.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 12-12-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad

If you really agree with what Graham is saying, perhaps you should rethink your current position on where we go from here in Iraq.

My plan is principally based on a set of clearly defined milestones for the build-up of the Iraqi military. I believe Iraq is just another U.S. entitlement program...we are giving Iraqi's democracy rather them having them earn it. Also, as posted in the past, more troops to specifically seal the border.

Jon, I was in NZ hiking around in the weeks before going to war. I met prolly 40 Europeans, Australians, Russians and Chinese and everyone thought the build up was entirely concocted.

You can make a case for the war today, bush just changed it (again) in his Philly speech today to a war against foreign terrorists inside Iraq (see my plan abbove), but there simply was no case for "we have to go in RIGHT NOW back in 2002-2003." Why people bought it is beyond me. Nothing the admin said seemed to have any real credibility...still the case today.

RallyJon · 12-12-2005, 09:21 AM

Yep, nobody believed it except Bush, most of congress and Sadaam himself. I'd have to go back and check the votes, but my recollection is the EVERYONE of any weight was on board, including all likely presidential candidates.

I really wonder how much mileage these pols will get hoping the "I'm not particularly bright and I'm easily fooled--Vote For Me!" message resonates with the voters. I would think it wouldn't go very far with you, since you knew better.