Shields and Brooks Debate Political Impact of Iraq and GOP Legislative Push

Read the Full Transcript

• RAY SUAREZ:

  But first, Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

  And, Mark, when Saddam Hussein was captured, when his sons were killed, Uday and Qusay were killed, even when elections were successfully held, there was a spike in — a bump, at least, in public opinion at home. Does the killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi carry that possibility?

• MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

  I don't think so, Ray. I mean, I think, in a sea, an uninterrupted sea of bad news, it's good news. It's an island of good news, but I don't think it's going to provide that lift.

  I thought just the contrast for the way the administration, particularly the president, handled it, there was no flying out to the aircraft carrier; there was no self-congratulatory. It was very measured, very restrained, I thought.

  And, plus, I thought it showed a certain willingness to share the credit with the Iraqi government, which didn't exist.

  But you'll recall at the time of the capture of Saddam Hussein, Howard Dean, now the Democratic national — candidate for president said we are not more — Americans are not safer as a consequence of his being captured. He was savaged, not only by his Democratic opponents, John Kerry, and Dick Gephardt, and Joe Lieberman, but by every conservative, every Republican, major newspapers and everything else. And he was absolutely right.

  I mean, since that time — and Americans understand that — the violence has grown in dimension, and extension, and, apparently, in intransigence.

• RAY SUAREZ:

  David, what do you think?

• DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times:

  I think we're safer without Saddam organizing and we're safer without Zarqawi. That doesn't mean the cycle of violence he set off is going to continue; there seems to be consensus about that.

  I think one of the thing — the things he introduced to this war was, first, the understanding that you could build on aspects of racial superiority to really stir up a sectarian war between the Shia and the Sunni, he really self-consciously tried to set that off and very successfully did set that off.

  And then the second thing was the awareness that, with a certain sort of really horrible killing, you could destroy a civil society, make violence pervasive.

  And so, his death doesn't end the violence. He set off forces which now are rampant in Iraqi society. Nonetheless, it's an opportunity. And, as Khalilzad was saying, more specifically, the creation of the interior minister is an opportunity, but nobody is expecting anything dramatic to change quickly.