The Today Show

On CLOSE UP this morning, the politics of Iraq. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a Fox News analyst. Richard Holbrooke served as Ambassador to the UN in the Clinton administration. And now he’s advising the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Gentlemen, good morning to both of you.

Former House Speaker NEWT GINGRICH (Fox News Analyst): Good morning.

COURIC: All right, let me start with you Ambassador Holbrooke. President Bush on Monday, as you know, claimed his administration has made the world a safer place. Let’s listen to what he had to say.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.

COURIC: Do you believe America and the world are safer?

Former Ambassador RICHARD HOLBROOKE (Former US Ambassador To The UN): I wish it were true, Katie, but the fact is that, although getting rid of Saddam was a bipartisan objective, it started under the Clinton administration, and something that a lot of us, myself, Newt Gingrich, all supported, it has been carried out in such an incompetent way, such an ineffective way, that Iraq itself has become ground zero for international terrorism, particularly the Fallujah area where everyone is pouring into. And, meanwhile, we fail to put all our resources against al-Qaeda. So I think–I read that speech very carefully. And I think that it is a campaign speech, not an actual statement of fact.

Mr. GINGRICH: Well…

COURIC: Speaker Gingrich, on Monday, before–we’ll let you comment on that in just a second, but on Monday, Senator John Kerry responding to President Bush’s speech, talked about the proliferation of nuclear materials and growth in the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, saying the Bush administration hadn’t done enough to secure those materials and weapons. Let’s listen to that, and then we’ll talk in general.

Senator JOHN KERRY: In the two years since 9/11, less nuclear materials have been secured than in the two years prior to 9/11. The facts speak for themselves. North Korea is more dangerous today than it was before this administration came into power.

COURIC: Is that a valid criticism in your view?

Mr. GINGRICH: Well, I think Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up it’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted, by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United States is participating in. Five other–five countries, the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea are pressuring North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian and French intelligence agencies 10 day ago reported once again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while Saddam was dictator, some notes have been disputed by some people. And A.Q. Kahn, the Pakistani physicist who was the leading proliferater in the private sector worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation, and the Pakistani government has clamped down. And so…

COURIC: All right, so Richard…

Mr. GINGRICH: …I think on balance–I think on balance, you have to say, ‘Well, the world is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken.’

COURIC: I was going to say, Richard, those sound like a lot of positive byproducts of the invasion of Iraq. Do you buy it?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Well, we’re not going to have time to debate everyone of Newt’s statements right now. But if you want to start with North Korea, the North Koreans have had the last two years, and Newt knows it very well, because he’s been critical about this in other context, to do whatever they want. The six power talks are simply a discussion about where and when to meet next. Nothing has happened. Libya was an unconnected bipartisan policy.

COURIC: How do you know?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Because it started under–under Clinton and Bush Sr. This is not about the issues Newt raised. This is about Iraq. The president went into Iraq with a valid goal, one many of us–myself, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards–we all supported: Get rid of saddam. It was a policy articulated first under President Clinton in 1994. Newt and I both supported it. But a good objective badly carried out becomes a bad policy. Iraq has become a disaster area for American national interests. It is impossible to say that our strategic and national and vital national security interests are better off today than they were before the invasion.

COURIC: Well…

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Well, let me just ask you and your viewers and Newt just to reflect on the following question: If President Bush could do it all over again, there is no question he and his team would do it differently. They arrived in Baghdad after a brilliant military victory which we all applauded. And after that, Katie, they had absolutely no plan. And from the day that statue came down last year on, it has been a tragedy. Americans have died in a situation they didn’t anticipate.

COURIC: Well, then, why didn’t John Edwards and John Kerry, why didn’t they examine that more carefully before they voted to support the war?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Because…

COURIC: They must have known there was no plan in place.

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Because the vote–because the vote–no, how could they know there was no plan in place?

COURIC: Well why didn’t they determine that?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Katie, I–I testified in favor of that resolution. But none of us who supported it–Kerry, Edwards, myself, Newt Gingrich, himself–none of us could have anticipated the disaster that followed. And the last time Newt and I debated, he conceded that.

Mr. GINGRICH: But Katie…

Mr. HOLBROOKE: But this is simply not a policy that anyone could have expected and the administration has admitted this.

COURIC: Newt, do you think the administration would do it differently if it had to do it all over again?

Mr. GINGRICH: Sure, absolutely. I think they’ve learned a lot. But this is like complaining about Abraham Lincoln in 1863 or complaining about Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1942. Let’s look at the facts. It is a fact that George W. Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored replacing Saddam Hussein, it is George W. Bush who had the guts to replace him. Now what’s Kerry saying, is Kerry saying he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: I want…

Mr. GINGRICH: A lot of talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea? If you are not willing to invade Iraq, if you don’t think invading Afghanistan was right, what would you do in North Korea–not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. GINGRICH: Right.

Mr. HOLBROOKE: The…

Mr. GINGRICH: And got them under the Clinton administration.

Mr. HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration. The 1994 agreement put a pause on it when the North Koreans were caught cheating. The administration had already broken off the talks.

Mr. GINGRICH: So–so what would you do, Richard?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: And they–they spent–look, Newt…

Mr. GINGRICH: What would you do?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six power talks but make an all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea. The administration’s…

Mr. GINGRICH: And how would you do that?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: …the administration’s refusal to talk directly to North Korea, even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go ahead and do it, is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance.

Mr. GINGRICH: OK, so–so you would put pressure by talking with them. You’d put pressure by meeting with them.

Mr. HOLBROOKE: No, no, no.

Mr. GINGRICH: Is this pressure?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: No, it’s a complete–you–you know it’s a complete package.

Mr. GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea or is this just more rhetoric without any substantive action?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Are you…

COURIC: Gentlemen, let’s get off North Korea for a moment and just let me close by asking you, is Iraq going to hurt or help President Bush? Obviously, you think it’s going to hurt him. But, clearly, still many Americans support the invasion.

Mr. HOLBROOKE: I think the answer to your question is not going to be decided by rhetoric, it will be decided by the events in the next 100 days. If the, on Election Day, the situation in Iraq is still as messed up as it is today, it will be, in my view, the defining issue of the election. And President Bush will have to defend not the goal of getting rid of Saddam, which we all agreed with, but the performance in carrying out of that goal. If it’s better, it will help him. And, frankly, despite politics, I hope and pray that it will be better.

COURIC: And even President Clinton says if a nascent democracy is successful in Iraq, it will portend really good things for the Middle East and it may take several years.

Mr. HOLBROOKE: We’re not talking yet about democracy. We’re talking about stability, security, and the absence of the external threat which chaos causes.

COURIC: And Newt, in closing?

Mr. GINGRICH: Well, I think Richard’s exactly right. If the new Iraqi interim government works as it seems to be starting to, if people watch the trial of Saddam and decide he really was an evil man who shouldn’t be in power, the president will end up winning. But he should have to defend his policy. I think it’s perfectly fair for the Democrats to make the president defend a policy that risked American lives and that cost America money, and that was a real gamble in the right direction for safety, I agree with it totally. But I think Richard is right, he has to be able to defend and explain Iraq. If he does, I suspect he will be re-elected.

COURIC: And we are hearing more about a possible threat to the conventions, a possible attack on US soil. Where is Osama bin Laden? And what is going on with al-Qaeda?

Mr. HOLBROOKE: Where is Osama bin Laden is the real question and the administration should have focused on him earlier. But we’re going to have to go on with our lives. We cannot be intimidated or frightened by these threats. We’re not going to–we should go on with the conventions. They’re going to be well protected. Talk about postponing the election is irresponsible. The nation cannot be paralyzed by terrorist threats.

Mr. GINGRICH: And…

COURIC: That has to be the last word, Newt. Sorry.

Mr. GINGRICH: Thank you.

COURIC: We’re out of time. But come back soon. We appreciate your time, Newt Gingrich and Richard Holbrooke. Gentlemen, thanks so much.