TONIGHT
E-mail a friendSen. Evan Bayh
airdate November 15, 2006
Sen. Evan Bayh
Tavis: Pleased to welcome Senator Evan Bayh back to this program. The Indiana Democrat sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which this afternoon held hearings on the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. He joins us tonight from Washington. Senate Bayh, nice to have you back on the program.
Sen. Evan Bayh: Good to be back, Tavis, thank you.
Tavis: I wanna start with a clip, if I might, of an exchange earlier today between you and General Abizaid. He, of course, is the Army general in charge of the U.S. central command in the region. Here now, an exchange between Senator Bayh and General Abizaid earlier today in Washington.
Tavis: So Senator Bayh, did you buy his answer?
Bayh: I think the question remains to be answered, Tavis. The General gave me a sincere opinion. But look, some Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country. But my impression is the majority of them, including some of the top government leaders, still think first as members of a religious group or of an ethnic group or of a tribe rather than as Iraqis first. And it's that common identity, Tavis, that they need to establish.
They need to reconcile their differences. We can't do this for them. And I think this is very much an open question.
Tavis: Your query, Senator Bayh, notwithstanding, the news that really has come out of these hearings today is that the military has not yet moved and said, as you and others would like for them to say, that we need to and can, in fact, establish a timetable for withdrawal. So that said, how disappointed are you about what happened, or for that matter did not happen, as it were, in these hearings today?
Bayh: Well, it's just a difference of philosophy about what it's gonna take to try and get enough stability in that country so that we can get on with the more important things facing us, like Iran and Afghanistan, and other issues that we have. I personally believe that the Iraqi have been put off making the hard decisions too long. And it's only when we tell them, 'Look, we're not staying forever. You need to get on with this.'
And we let them know that we're serious by establishing some sort of flexible schedule, that they will find the determination to do what has to be done. As long as we do what the president did a couple weeks ago, which is to call up the prime minister and say, 'Don't worry, we're with ya, we're staying,' takes the pressure off, Tavis.
We can't afford to be a crutch for them. So it's just a difference in approach. After three and a half years, I think we need to get a little bit firmer and say, 'Look, enough already. You gotta get on with this.'
Tavis: Your angst notwithstanding, and your query notwithstanding, what do you do, for that matter, what do Democrats do, even though they now, or certainly shortly, will control both Houses of Congress? We'll come back to that, and Indiana's role in that in just a moment. But what do you do when the guy on the other end of Pennsylvania says, as you've just suggested, 'We ain't going nowhere' to the Iraqi people?
He says, 'You do have our support.' And then his military personnel, given that he's the commander-in-chief, come to you today and say, as he said, 'We're not gonna establish a timetable for withdrawal.' Sounds to me like you ain't got many options.
Bayh: Well, Tavis, we can push; we can question; we can demand accountability and responsibility. But you're right. George Bush will be President of the United States for two more years, and he's the commander-in-chief. So look, we gotta find some common ground on this, and work together. But there are at least a couple of reasons for hope, in addition to the elections.
Number one, Don Rumsfeld's resignation. It just clearly was not enough willingness to consider alternative approaches, better ways of trying to bring closure to this, as long as he was Secretary of Defense. Bob Gates, different man. Different perspective. There's some reason to think he might take a little bit different path. We need to focus on that when he comes back before our committee for his confirmation.
Second thing, the Baker-Hamilton Committee that was appointed by Congress a few months ago, to consider all the different options out there. They're gonna be reporting back next month, and I hope they're gonna call it the way they see it. And it could very well be, Tavis, they're gonna be for talking to the other countries in the region, trying to get them involved in resolving this.
And it could be that they say, 'Look, we've gotta announce some sort of flexible schedule to put the pressure on the Iraqis, so that they can get on with the tough decisions, and we can begin to redeploy our troops to deal with other problems.'
Tavis: As I mentioned at the top of the show, you were not on the ballot just a few weeks ago for re-election this time around, but we all know Democrats, as I said earlier, have taken back the House and the Senate. They did so in large measure by not putting forth, necessarily, a bold agenda of what they were going to do. That is to say, they ran against the White House.
They knew the president was in trouble. Perhaps - well, not perhaps. It was, in fact, a very shrewd and obviously successful strategic strategy to run again against what this White House is doing. That's one thing when you're running against it trying to win. When you get in, you now have to lead. You're in charge in the Senate; you're in charge in the House. So what will Democrats have to say about what must happen in Iraq?
Bayh: Well, we started today, Tavis. Look, the vast majority of Democrats believe that the time has come to begin the process of bringing closure to our commitment in Iraq. To set out a benchmark for progress and a flexible timeline. And to withdraw the first group of troops, so that the Iraqis know that we're serious. To say to them, 'We're not staying forever. You need to get a grip on this.'
So, I think you will find a very clear agenda by us for dealing with Iraq, and Tavis, I need to make clear it's not because we're for cutting and running. It's not because we're for a weak America. It's because we believe that Iraq is detracting from our security, and keeping us from dealing with things that are more closely related to winning the war against terror, like Afghanistan and Iran, than Iraq is today.
So, I think you're gonna find us stepping up, as we began to do today, after the first of the year, when we do have that majority, because you're right, it's not enough to be 'against.' It's what you're 'for' that matters.
Tavis: I'm not asking you to get inside the head of the president, but help me understand, from your perspective, at least, how it is the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld notwithstanding, 'cause I don't believe that a change of guard necessarily means a change on the ground. But that said, how does a president, given what happened just days ago with regard to the elections and the message sent, not get it? How do you - how could you be president and not get it at this point?
Bayh: Tavis, I don't have a good question for you for that. Perhaps he just doesn't get it. Perhaps he's getting bad advice. Maybe Bob Gates will give him a better take on what's actually going on there. Look, the President of the United States, with all that has gone wrong in Iraq, said that he believes that we're winning in Iraq; that things are going well in Iraq. Our intelligence community almost uniformly will tell you that they don't believe that is the case.
And you have someone like the vice president, who said a few months ago that, even knowing what we know today, he'd make the same decisions all over again. So, we just need a more realistic assessment of the facts, more accountability for progress, not dealing with illusions, but dealing with the reality. And so we gotta get in better facts.
And you know what, Tavis? If he can't get a grip on the reality of the situation, well, that's why you have checks and balances. That's why you have a Congress. And now we're in a better position to provide some guidance of our own.
Tavis: Let me ask you quickly here what, for you, constitutes victory in Iraq, and is that possible at this point?
Bayh: I think we may be past the point of creating some sort of idealistic democracy that the rest of the Middle East would look to and say, 'We want to be like Iraq.' That may have been accomplishable. Some profound mistakes were made. So that may be a bridge too far right now. But a more stable Iraq that doesn't threaten its neighbors, that doesn't have the level of violence that it has today; that doesn't harbor terrorists or seek weapons of mass destruction.
That is, perhaps, still doable. But Tavis, only if the Iraqis want that. We cannot do this for them. Three and a half years now we've been trying to do this for them. It's finally up to them. I think that's where we need to put the pressure, see how they react, and then we need to behave accordingly.
Tavis: In the two minutes I have left, let me shift gears right quick here. On this very stage on election night, I was covering the elections live here with PBS, and kind of tickled to see that Indiana factored early into the evening into the Democrats taking back the House. What'd you make of it?
Bayh: Your home state was coming through, Tavis.
Tavis: Yeah. (Laugh)
Bayh: Well, look, as you know, our state is sometimes a more challenging place for Democratic candidates. But we had good candidates, and I'll tell you what the secret was. They were for progress, not partisanship. They were practical, not radical ideologues of some kind. And you know what, Tavis, they said, 'Look, we'll work with Democrats, Independents, and reasonable Republicans to try and move this country forward.'
And I think that's what people are looking for. They look at this city where I am here tonight, Washington, and they think it's just broken. It's dysfunctional. And so they voted to throw everybody out, and now, as you were pointing out, it's up to us to do better. To make this process work. To take up the unfinished business of the American people. That's what we have to be about now. Otherwise, they'll vote the new rascals out the next time.
Tavis: I just got about 30 seconds here. There are some, your point notwithstanding, who believe that these results mean that the Democratic Party is gonna be pulled more to the right, given that there were more centrist Democrats, more conservative Democrats who helped give the Democratic Party their majority in the House.
Bayh: Well, I don't think it's an ideological thing. Left, right or center. I think it's a practical thing. People wanna move forward, and so - but look, I'll say this. People voted against what they viewed as being the Iraq policy, the president's unpopularity, the radical ideology and the partisan extremism of this administration. We've got to be better than that.
We cannot be equally partisan and ideological in the opposite direction. We've got to do the practical business of this country that will make a difference in people's lives. That's what they're looking for, regardless of what kind of label you happen to put on it.
Tavis: You running?
Bayh: (Laugh) Only off your set. You gotta ask me back so I can answer that question.
Tavis: I will ask you back, and I will ask you that question. All eyes on Evan Bayh.
Bayh: You've got it.
Tavis: All eyes on Evan Bayh, who may very well be making a run for the White House in '08. Senator Bayh, nice to have you on.
Bayh: Good to be back.
Tavis: Up next on this program, Oscar-winning actor Adrien Brody. Stay with us.
Back to November 15, 2006