Shields, Lowry React to Iraq Study Group Report, President’s Response

RAY SUAREZ:

And to the analysis of Shields and Lowry, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review editor Rich Lowry. David Brooks is off.

Well, Rich, there's been reaction to the Iraq Study Group and reaction to the reaction. And I guess we're getting down now to the reaction to the reaction to the reaction, but looking at this very big week in…

RICH LOWRY, Editor, National Review:

And you want me to react to that, I assume?

RAY SUAREZ:

I do. I want to hear what you have to say.

RICH LOWRY:

Well, I think that the report has some useful ideas for President Bush probably around the edges, but the two primary recommendations I don't think are terribly constructive or workable.

The diplomatic outreach, let's take that one first. Even the report doesn't really hold out much hope for engaging in Iran. In fact, it predicts that Iran will probably rebuff a U.S. diplomatic outreach. And the report just says, "OK, well, that will convince people that Iran is rejectionist so there will be some use in that." But there's not much hope there for Iran really helping us in Iraq.

And Syria, I think, is really a ridiculous bank shot. The report says, "OK, let's broker this peace between the Israelis and the Syrians, where the Israelis give back the Golan Heights, and then that will cause all these sorts of changes in the regime's behavior in Syria, and that will somehow help the situation on the ground in Iraq."

And it's totally unrealistic. It's not going to happen. And the key thing — we've heard this from the commanders on the ground; we've heard this from our ambassador in Iraq — the next four to six months in Baghdad are crucial. And unless you have something intelligent and constructive to say about how to help that situation in the here and now, I'm just not sure how useful it is.

RAY SUAREZ:

Mark, what do you think?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

Well, I think, first of all, the report, Ray, its substance was a relentless, unsparing indictment of the failed policy. It robbed the White House of its baseless optimistic projections and pronouncements, and it just laid out the case.

And the fact that it came from a bipartisan group that included, not simply Ronald Reagan's chief of staff, but his attorney general and his first nominee to the Supreme Court, George Herbert Walker Bush's two secretaries of state, and came unanimously.

And what Rich talks about I think is a fundamental difference in worldview between Condi Rice and George W. Bush on one side, and Jim Baker and the Iraq Study Group unanimously on the other side, that Baker believes — you can argue with him — that diplomacy and leverage go together.

And you reach out to — you make peace with your enemies. You demand as part of the negotiations that Iran or Syria do certain things. If they don't, there are consequences to it.

At the same time, President Bush and Secretary Rice divide the world into friends and enemies, and the friends are with us. And those who are with us, those are the ones we negotiate with.

Well, the world has changed profoundly in the past six weeks. Don Rumsfeld is no longer secretary of defense, and the Republicans are no longer on Capitol Hill. And I would say right now that the United States' prospects of success in Iran are recognized as close to nonexistent by an overwhelming majority of the American people.