|
Trent lott felt betrayed by white house and frist Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to the White House role back in 2002 when you ultimately stepped down as majority leader. You had indicated that there was a sense that you picked up from your staff that essentially the White House was trying to undermine you and that they wanted you out as majority leader.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/
Transcript for August 21
Trent Lott, Russ Feingold, Larry Diamond and Reuel Marc Gerecht
NBC News
Updated: 11:29 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005
*****************************************************
EXCERPT WITH TRENT LOTT:
MR. GREGORY: Former Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi after this brief station break.
(Announcements)
MR. GREGORY: And we're back.
Senator Trent Lott, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.
SEN. TRENT LOTT, (R-MS): Glad to be back, David.
MR. GREGORY: Are we winning in Iraq?
SEN. LOTT: Yes, we are winning in Iraq. When you look at the reports on a daily basis, you can be concerned or disappointed , but we have had a plan there. We are still working on it. It's one you have to change. I mean, when you're involved in a situation like Iraq, which is war, you have to be prepared to acknowledge you've made some mistakes and move to a different approach. But when you look at the fact that Saddam Hussein is out of there, they have had elections--I mean, will we ever forget the purple fingers and millions of Iraqis took a chance, went to the polls and voted? They have leadership. They're working on a constitution. Police are being trained. Soldiers are being trained. Do we have a way to go? Absolutely. But we are winning, and we have to continue to push forward.
We have made such a huge commitment and sacrifice in treasure and more importantly, in casualties and human life. We have got to make sure that that investment pays the dividends that we are looking for, for the American people, not just the Iraqi people.
MR. GREGORY: You heard Senator Feingold talk about not a deadline, he says, but a target date for withdrawal by the end of next year. Is he right that it's important to tell the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that American forces are not there for good, that they do have to stand up on their own and stop the violence?
SEN. LOTT: Let me first say that I certainly respect the sincerity of Russ Feingold, and I know he's reflecting what he's hearing from some people around the country. I hear it even in my state. People want to know: "What's the plan? What's the exit strategy? How long is this going to be?" There are 4,700 Army Reservists and Guardsmen from my state there right now, and they're asking those legitimate questions. But I think that the reverse is true. If you say, "Look, here's a schedule, here's a deadline or even here's a plan to be out of there by a certain date," it's more than telling the American people or telling the Iraqi government is you're telling the insurgents, "Just be calm. Just wait. We'll be out of here, and then, you know, you can have your civil war and chaos can ensue."
Here's what I think we should do. And I talked in my own state this past week about the need for an exit strategy, a plan. I used to talk to President Clinton about that with regard to Bosnia and Kosovo, and by the way, we're still there. A lot of people forget it, but we're there with a course of coalition force, but we have U.S. troops in both of those places till this day. But it should be based on conditions, not on a calendar. Are we doing what we set out to do? Are we taking out the insurgents? Are they making economic progress? Are their schools and their infrastructure being rebuilt? Are they moving forward with a constitution and elections? Are the police capable with the soldiers of doing the job? There's 171,000 of them now. So I think it should be based on conditions that you see and the progress that you're making that you plan to eventually turn it over to the Iraqis.
MR. GREGORY: But your view is, as the president has stated, that we need to effectively stay the course, let the political process move forward and not withdraw until the mission is complete. Is that your view?
SEN. LOTT: That is my view. And I let--you know, I question myself. I question the experts. I even question the men and women that are on the ground, the soldiers who are doing a great job. I was speaking on Friday night to a Bronze Star Army, non-com, and I asked him specifically about what he did, how did he feel about it, was it worthwhile, are we making progress, and he said yes.
MR. GREGORY: Despite those views, this is something that you said this week. Let's put it up for you and our viewers to see. In your words, "At some point, Lott said, the United States will have to tell the Iraqi people, `we disposed of Saddam Hussein. We've given you a chance to be free and democratic and worship as you see fit. ... Bring all the difference religions and sects in your country together and rule and govern yourselves, or you can go on killing each other like you have (in the Middle East) for 2,000 years, but you've got to make the choice.'"
Does that sound like a senator who believes that we have to stick with this till the very end?
SEN. LOTT: I believe it does, but I don't think we're there in perpetuity. We are being helpful. We're assisting them as they move toward a constitution and a free and democratic process. We're trying to help them train their people, but I do think that they need to know--and in fact, they do know--that we cannot do this for them forever. In the end, what we're seeing is freedom and democracy for them, and a part of true freedom and democracy is to govern yourself and to be able to protect and defend yourself. It does, David, raise the specter of: Are we doing enough? Are we making progress? I am responding to the questions of my own constituents who, by the way, are, you know, very pro-military and very strong red state. They still believe very strongly in President Bush. But they have a right to ask their elected officials, you know, "What is the plan?" And I think we've got to be prepared to give them a serious, thoughtful, coherent answer.
MR. GREGORY: The question really for the president is whether he's done that. Has he effectively communicated to the people of Mississippi the strategy and the challenges?
SEN. LOTT: I don't want this to be interpreted as a criticism, because always we can do a better job, and I think he, based on the atmosphere now and the questions that I was hearing myself, he needs to get out there and lay it out more. And I think he plans to do that. He started with his radio address this past Saturday. He's going to be around the country talking to different groups, to units that have been there from Idaho and to the VFW.
I remember when we were getting ready to go to Iraq, just about this time, I made a call to the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, and I said, "Mr. Vice President, I think I see what we're getting ready to go. The predicate has not been laid. You-all have got to get out there, you and the president and Secretary Colin Powell, go to the United Nations, explain what's going on, make the case." I think that we're at sort of a juncture of that type now. I do think we, the president, all of us, need to do a better job, do more.
MR. GREGORY: Of explaining to the American people...
SEN. LOTT: Yes.
MR. GREGORY: ...why a prolonged U.S. presence may be necessary?
SEN. LOTT: Of why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process, and yes, why it's going to take more time.
MR. GREGORY: The vice president said in a speech this week that--when speaking about a drawdown, he said that we will hunt down the insurgents, "one at a time if necessary." General Casey, America's top commander on the ground in Iraq, however, said this week that the average life span of insurgencies in history is nine years. Must the United States and U.S. troops, 138,000 strong, remain on the ground in Iraq until the insurgency is defeated?
SEN. LOTT: Well, I don't guess we could plan on staying there till every last one is dealt with, but I do, again, repeat what I said at the beginning. I think it should be condition-based, circumstances-based, not calendar-based. How much progress have we made? Are they better able to defend themselves? I think we've got to be committed to see this through. I've heard the term used the last couple of days, including this morning, about "cut and run." You know, we can't do that. And I can remember, again, talking to President Clinton about, "OK, what's the exit strategy? What's the plan? What's the date?" And I remember him saying back, "We can't do that." He was right then, and for the most part, I was supportive of that. The worst thing you could do is say, "All right, by X date, we're out of there, regardless." It will depend on the circumstances.
MR. GREGORY: You hear our ambassador, widely respected, in Iraq now, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has told Newsweek this week that, "Indeed, there is a danger that if we don't build Iraq, we're going to have a civil war." Do you believe, and what leads you to believe this, that democracy is possible in Iraq?
SEN. LOTT: I believe democracy is possible anyway. It is--I think it's a visceral thing with people that want to be free and democratic and to be able to participate in a system where they elect their leaders and where their leaders represent them. It can be in different forms. But whether it's, you know, in Georgia, Bulgaria, you know, in the Middle East, in the narrower sense, or even in Iraq, and, I believe, someday in Iran, that people do want to have democracy and that people are willing to make sacrifices for that.
Now, if you live for hundreds of thousands of years under oppression, dictatorship, communism, you're uncertain about what does this mean. Look at what's going on in the Soviet Union and in Russia. And when you talk to the Russians or their leaders and their people, they're still laboring with, you know, private property rights and who owns the mineral rights and, you know, how much should the government do for us or to us. It's not easy, but I believe that, frankly, the president is right, that the magic, the appeal, of freedom and democracy is very strong.
MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to something that you wrote in your book about Iraq and put it on the screen: "In the summer of 2002...the president began lobbying for an open-ended resolution empowering him to wage war on Iraq.... Bush had made clear his intentions to wage war on Iraq in several of our private meetings."
What are you speaking about precisely, Senator?
SEN. LOTT: Well, beginning in August that year and into the fall--in fact, beginning not too long after 9/11--as we had leadership meetings at breakfast with the president, he would go around the world and talk about what was going on, where the threats were, where the dangers were, and even in private discussions, it was clear to me that he thought Iraq was a destabilizing force, was a danger and a growing danger, and that we were going to have to deal with that problem.
MR. GREGORY: He has described going to war in Iraq as the last resort that was a war of necessity. Are you suggesting here that, in fact, before much of the diplomacy had begun, that the president thought or believed in his mind that war was an inevitability?
SEN. LOTT: How can I say what was in his mind? But I..
MR. GREGORY: Based on your conversations.
SEN. LOTT: I think he was very much concerned about Saddam Hussein and the--what he was doing to his people and to his neighbors and the threat of, you know, weapons of mass destruction. And, by the way, the intelligence that he was getting, I was getting much of the same. So if there were errors there, we should look to the--you know, where that intelligence came from. But I--but the short answer to your question--I think that he felt like we were going to have to deal with the problem before some of the diplomatic efforts occurred, and I don't mean that critically. But it was my impression.
MR. GREGORY: Was there a singular focus on weapons of mass destruction in all of your conversations?
SEN. LOTT: It was clearly a part of the discussions, you know, both in leadership meetings and intelligence briefings and in meetings with the president. We had every reason to believe that they had weapons of mass destruction. There were other factors. I mean, we did feel like, and he felt like, they were being counterproductive, certainly, you know, destructive in the Middle East, when he's giving awards to suicide murderers, you know, they're killing innocent men, women and children in the Middle East and Israel and Palestine. Some...
MR. GREGORY: But it's clear that the focus of the lobbying of you and others had to do with weapons of mass destruction and not terrorism or not the goal of democracy.
SEN. LOTT: I think that there are--obviously those other things were discussed, the concern that terrorism would be fed directly or indirectly over a period of time by Iraq and Saddam Hussein. But weapons of mass destruction clearly was a focus, not in lobbying, but intelligence. The briefings we had- -and I remember from the CIA and from the administration officials, we looked at evidence that we had. We were concerned about a number of things. And it wasn't just that you would do it on the basis of this, evidence of that. The collage was extremely scary, frankly.
MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to another issue in your book, your controversial involvement and remarks that eventually led to your resignation as majority leader in December of 2002. The scene was this: the 100th birthday party celebration for Strom Thurmond at the Capitol. This was December 5, 2002. And these were the remarks that you made that created such a controversy.
"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him, we're proud of it, and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
What ensued, as you well know, was a political firestorm. You said that this was intended as an off-the- cuff remark. What did you mean by that?
SEN. LOTT: It wasn't intended, because it went in my prepared remarks. It was really intended just to make a 100-year-old man at his birthday party, a party that was sort of a mini roast, to try to make him feel good. We had joked over the years about the need--that he, you know, should have been a good president, would have been a good president. It was innocent, but it was insensitive and, frankly, indefensible. I shouldn't have done it, and I've obviously apologized for it and feel badly about it.
But remember, I didn't vote for him. I was six or seven years old. When I got to the Senate or when I knew him as a House member, he was already an older man. But what I saw was a man that was very strong on national defense, was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that was very strong on how--that deficit spending was not a good idea; we should move toward balanced budgets and surpluses, which we did in the late '90s. And I say in the book, working with President Clinton, you can't take that fact away. And a man that took to the floor of the Senate and talked about the need to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities and talked about how horrible crime was against all people, particularly those people that were poor and living in oppressive areas.
That's what I saw. And when, you know, you think of a man that you want to be president, you want somebody strong on national defense, strong on fiscal matters, strong on, you know, trying to help people lift up in education. So, you know, that's what I really saw in him, a man that had changed from what he apparently was like in the '40s and was very much reconciled.
MR. GREGORY: You indicated during various incarnations of an apology and during an interview on BET that your hope was that this was a wake-up call and this was an opportunity...
SEN. LOTT: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...for you to do a positive thing...
SEN. LOTT: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: ...to really turn things around. In the three years since, what have you done?
SEN. LOTT: Well, first of all, I went back to work. And I prayed about it, meditated on it, and then I concluded, look, the people of my state elected me to do a job as a senator. You don't have to be the leader to be a constructive force. I have worked with our leadership team. I've worked with Majority Leader Bill Frist. I've worked with President Bush. I have tried to do some positive things for minorities in my own state, to help them have, you know, better access to quality education and better infrastructure and more jobs and better paying jobs.
I have supported an effort to make sure that when we go back and try to bring justice to cases that were mishandled back in the '60s, that they have the information and professionalism they need to do the job. And I do still believe that you have to have an aggressive, proactive, yes, affirmative action, try to find good people of all kinds of backgrounds, races, religions, nationalities, and bring them into the process. It takes an affirmative action to do it. You have to work at it. Particularly, you know, to attract minorities to the Republican Party, you have to find men and women that are willing to work with you and willing to help you.
MR. GREGORY: You say you've done more in the three years to address the needs and the concerns of African-Americans and other minorities...
SEN. LOTT: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...in your state. This is a headline from your hometown paper from this summer. The headline: "Our senators missed a chance to speak for racial reconciliation." It says the following, "...Trent Lott had an ideal opportunity to make a statement on behalf of a new day of racial reconciliation in Mississippi, and [he] blew it. ...the U.S. Senate adopted a bipartisan resolution apologizing for that body's refusal, largely because of filibusters by Southern senators to enact anti-lynching bills during the 1930s, '40s and even the '50s. But adoption of the formal apology to lynching victims and their descendents came without the votes of Mississippi's two senators. ... When the Senate apology measure came up, Lott simply got out of Dodge... Finally, cornered for a comment, Lott made some banal statement, `Where do we end all of this? Are we going to apologize for not doing the right thing on Social Security?'"
Senator, isn't this the kind of remark that earned so much criticism and got you in so much trouble three years ago?
SEN. LOTT: First of all, we didn't vote against it. Any one senator could have blocked that action. Because you don't co-sponsor a bill doesn't mean that you are opposed to it. It could mean--in fact, I don't sponsor most bills that I do work on, which I have a direct involvement in or come out of my committee.
You know, again, my effort, my attention is to try to, instead of passing a memorial, which I supported, I didn't oppose it, I didn't co-sponsor it, I went on legislation where I could actually help us do something about what happened back then by the cold case bill that Senator Cochran both are on. I generally don't go into supporting these resolutions that go back and apologize for things--mistakes, by the way, I don't mean to leave any impression other than the fact that was a horrible thing. That's murder in any words. You're a--you know, we should all be opposed to that for any reason at any time. But what I'm trying to do to make up for the past mistakes that we have made in our state and our nation by doing something about people's lives and their conditions today, and I work on that, and I'm accessible to people of all backgrounds and races and religions to do that.
MR. GREGORY: Wouldn't this have been a simple but powerful symbol and message to send by signing on to this?
SEN. LOTT: Perhaps it would have been, and--but I tried to send an even more powerful system--signal by doing something about it with the cold case legislation.
MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to the White House role back in 2002 when you ultimately stepped down as majority leader. You had indicated that there was a sense that you picked up from your staff that essentially the White House was trying to undermine you and that they wanted you out as majority leader. And then on December 12, the president, speaking in Philadelphia, said the following:
(Videotape, December 12, 2002):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. He has apologized, and rightly so. Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Senator, do you believe the president was responsible for you losing your leadership position?
SEN. LOTT: I do not. As a matter of fact, I knew what he was going to say, and I had specifically said to Andy Card, "That sounds fair to me." Look, I was disappointed in how it evolved, but in the end, I shouldn't really be blaming anybody else. I was disappointed, obviously, in how it played out, but I caused this. And the thing for me to do, like all of us do in life when we make a mistake, is to apologize where it's due, brush off yourself and get back up and try to do some good things for your state and for the people in this country. Like I said, you...
MR. GREGORY: But you don't blame the president?
SEN. LOTT: No, no, no, I don't. And in fact, I said to him specifically, while I was disappointed and that, you know, I thought they could have helped me more than they did, in the end, what we're trying to do for our country is more important than any one man, me or the president, and the cause is bigger than who is leader. And if you become a negative, you've got to confront that.
MR. GREGORY: But you were resolute at the time and since in saying that you would have survived, as Senate majority leader, had this gone on a little bit longer, if this was beginning, in your words, "to burn out. " And you write in your book about a conversation. The president called you, concerned...
SEN. LOTT: Right, right.
MR. GREGORY: ...about the rumors that he was trying to undermine you...
SEN. LOTT: Right, right.
MR. GREGORY: ...and you write the following, and you said to him, "Thank you, Mr. President, but the rumors did hurt me..."
SEN. LOTT: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: "...and you didn't help me when you could have." Sounds like you recognized then and now that had been the president been a little bit more supportive, you would still be majority leader.
SEN. LOTT: I think that's probably true, but not necessarily so and I've come to terms with that. We've talked about all that, and I've talked to others that were at the White House and I've talked to my colleagues in the Senate. I've come to terms with it. I have, you know, thought it through, and I've tried to turn my efforts into a positive vein. I mean, I think the record would show that I've continued to work aggressively to help this president in his own re-election. Some of my own people said, "Well, why would do you that?" And I said, "Because I think he's a good president and I think he'll do the right thing for our country."
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask...
SEN. LOTT: So I put all that behind me. But I did feel--I wanted to tell the story of the--about the experiences I had and show the instances where, throughout my lifetime, I have reached out to people. But also, the other part of this book is to show what I have seen and witnessed through 37 years in Washington, as a staff member with the Democrats, as a congressman, as a leadersh--leader in the House, and in the Senate. And for those people that are interested in the history of what actually happened on the impeachment trial, what actually happened on our efforts to get a balanced budget and why tax cuts mattered, I think they'll enjoy this perspective.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you briefly about the man who replaced you as majority leader...
SEN. LOTT: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: ...Senator Frist. And he, of course, ascended to that position after you resigned. You write this in the book: "I considered [Sen. Bill] Frist's power grab a personal betrayal. When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing ... He was my protege, and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions. ... When I learned of his move, I felt, and still feel, that he was one of the main manipulators of the whole scenario. No other senior senator with stature would have run against me. ... If Frist had not announced exactly when he did, as the fire was about to burn out, I would still be majority leader of the Senate today. But Bill Frist did not even have the courtesy to call and tell me personally that he was going to run."
According to reports, initially in the book, before its final publication, you had described Frist as an ingrate.
SEN. LOTT: That may have been in there way back, but it was not in any of the later revisions and certainly not in the final version. Again, obviously I did feel betrayed by that, but Senator Frist and I have talked that through. He was considerate of trying to help me get into positions where I could still be, you know, involved and helpful. I think he would say, as he has said, that I've tried to be supportive and make suggestions and be helpful to him. I don't think we should dwell on how he got where he is or where I got where I am. The important thing is he's the leader, we've got a job to do for our states and for our country, and we got to find a way to work together. And I must say right at the end of the session when we produced a highway bill, an energy bill, a trade bill and some tort reform, pretty good production, and I think it deserves some credit for that.
MR. GREGORY: Without dwelling on that, you write about it in your book. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Senator Frist has the character to be president?
SEN. LOTT: I think I'd have to think about that. I haven't made a decision on who I'm going to support for the nomination. There are a lot of good people out there. I probably would lean towards some of the others. Let me just put it that way.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you finally about your own future. Do you think after the period of time that's passed, you're prepared to try to regain your post as majority leader of the Senate?
SEN. LOTT: You've always got to keep your options open. You never know what will happen. I doubt that would happen, partially because the people that are working to be in those leadership positions are good friends and capable people. And, generally speaking, I run for different positions when I feel like maybe I could do more or have something to offer than the other candidates. I think we've got good people looking for office, and I'm not inclined to do that, but there is speculation because I stay involved. People say, "Well, why is he working on these different things unless he's got an ulterior motive?"
I must say, having been in Washington for years and, you know, seeing how it's like to try to herd cats, I kind of enjoy the process of being involved. And speculation sometimes gives you even, you know, more ability to affect the result. But my ultimate goal, David, is to try to do my job for my state, help my state and help our country and my party.
MR. GREGORY: We'll leave it there. Senator Lott, thank you very much.
SEN. LOTT: All right. Thank you, David.
|
|
