Analysts Discuss Iraq War Views, Upcoming Elections

Read the Full Transcript

• RAY SUAREZ:

  Which brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

  And, David, early in the week, we had the release, the declassification — first the leak, then the declassification — of the intelligence estimate, which at its core implied the war in Iraq has worsened the terrorist threat. Does that have any legs as a sort of pole to build a debate around? Is that going to carry us through the next month or so?

• DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times:

  Well, I'm not sure the NIE, the intelligence estimate, is going to do that. I think reality is going to do that.

  I think most people understand that the war in Iraq has made us less safe. Frankly, I think most people in the administration now understand how badly it's going. I think we're learning that from the Bob Woodward book that's coming out, that even within the administration there's been a recognition of what's going on.

  The NIE, the report did make two other points which I think were important. The first is that Iraq, while going badly and hyping up the amount of terror in the world, is also the central battleground. And I think the report made clear we're either going to give a lot of credence to the extremists or where they will be defeated.

  And then the second thing the report makes very clear is that the only way fundamentally to defeat the extremists is through a process of democracy and pluralism. So, to me, which is the essential truth of all this, is that Bush was absolutely right in his understanding of the problem, the breadth and depth of it. He was right that democracy and the Middle Eastern culture and political climate is the only way to the solution, but that we've screwed up the implementation.

• RAY SUAREZ:

  What do you take away from both the leak, the reaction to it, then the declassification, and the ensuing debate?

• MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

  I thought the reaction to it among many of my colleagues was fascinating. "Well, there's nothing new there." I mean, that was sort of the — everybody who's seen everything, including the Dallas fair (ph) twice, sophistication.

  It was pretty blunt. These were the 16 basic intelligence agencies and entities that the president relies upon. And when the president released it — you know, I was struck by this, Ray — this president is the only one I can think of who will not and has never acknowledged any mistakes. I mean, Ronald Reagan, to his everlasting credit, Iran-Contra, he took full responsibility. He said this was wrong. Jack Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs. Even Bill Clinton, in that ill-starred interview on FOX, said, "I failed, I failed."

  But I think Bob Woodward's book is perfectly entitled, "State of Denial." I mean, there's a state of denial about what has happened and where we are. I mean, yes, David's right about the prescription for democracy, and just governments, and uncorrupt governments, and that that would be an antidote to this, but there we are embracing Kazakhstan, you know, which is just the antithesis of that, I mean, a destroyer of democracy and a corrupt place.