Democracy In Albany

McNulty: I don’t remember. I thought there was pretty strong support based upon the belief…

MS: Politically, amongst politicians, support was there. You know, the Saxby Chambliss/Max Cleland…

McNulty: based upon the belief that the President was giving us the correct information - that there were weapons of mass destruction. And the part that really got me was the contention that Saddam was within a year of nuclear capability. Now I look at that situation - if you believe that - here’s the situation you are in: Saddam Hussein - you know I’m always fond of quoting Al Smith - “let’s look at the record” - regardless of what existed at the time, back earlier in his career, he had developed WMD - there’s no question about that - he killed, literally, hundreds of thousands of people… and so, my conclusion was Saddam Hussein, under no circumstances, could ever be allowed to possess a nuclear capability because based upon the record, he might just use it. You know a lot of governments have nuclear capability today, unfortunately too many. But none of them have used them except… in this case…the weapons of mass destruction… and that was my concern at the time…

Now, ya fast forward to today on that issue. The 9/11 commission does an exhaustive review of all of these issues - and their conclusions? No weapons of mass destruction. No nuclear capability. No ties between Saddam and the events of September 11th. Now this is a panel - one of the most distinguished panels I’ve seen put together in my time - six democrats, six republicans - all highly respected - the chairman is a republican, appointed by the president himself - and the votes weren’t eight to four or seven to five - they were twelve to nothing… Bush was wrong on weapons of mass destruction… wrong on nuclear capability… wrong on his suggested ties between Saddam and 9/11… and so the very basis of the war never existed.

MS: Who should be held responsible and how?

McNulty: Well, where does the buck stop? The President - from the very beginning, is the one that promoted this effort.

MS: A lot of your colleagues still support the effort. Why do you think that is? In fact, I would say probably the majority - even of your democratic colleagues still support the effort…

McNulty: That is not correct.

MS: That is not correct? I…

McNulty: No. It was pretty evenly split in the very beginning, but a slight majority opposed the war from the very beginning, so you are not correct on that. So… well, I’m not going to try to get into the heads of anybody else that still feel the way they do, but I think the support in the House was a slight majority against the war in the beginning, but now there are several like me who have decided to support the Abercrombie Resolution, which I’ll mention in a second.

So the basis for the war, the basis on which I made my decision - particularly that nuclear part - didn’t exist.

Now you fast-forward - where are we today? Some people say to me, “Well Mike, maybe you and the 9/11 commission are right and we shouldn’t have done it in the beginning. But we are there now. You know, what do we do now? And you know, I know some people want to just pull out tomorrow - pull out all the troops at once - which I don’t support… but I support something pretty close to that which is to start right now, supplanting the United States forces with Iraqi security forces.

Now it’s two and a half years since we invaded that country and supposedly have started training the security force. It is time that they assume the security function. And the Abercrombie Resolution says that the President, by December of this year, should outline a plan to do that and by October of next year - which will be three and a half years after the invasion - has to implement it. And so at some point in time what we are saying is that Iraqis have to begin assuming responsibility for their own security.

Now some people have said to me, “That violates one of the most basic rules of military engagement which is that you never signal to your opponent in advance what you are going to do or not do.” I generally support that notion, but there are exceptions to every rule and the exception to this rule is that the leaders of the insurgency are using the argument that we have absolutely no intention of leaving - ever - and that we are going to steal their oil - as a recruitment tool to get new people into the insurgency. And it’s working. It’s working very effectively. And as a matter of fact, I had predicted that the military would have to admit this at some point - but I didn’t think it would come as quickly as it did - but about two weeks ago, General Casey - who is now the commanding general on the ground over in Iraq - in testimony before Congress basically said our very presence there is fueling the insurgency. So we need to make it very clear that we are not going to be there forever for two reasons: number 1) that question of fueling the insurgency, and the other is) the Iraqis who are supposedly our friends - which I hope is most of them - but the ones who are participating in the formulation of this new government -they seem to be very content so far to keep moving forward with the new government and the new way of life and so on - and to have us out on the front lines taking the ammo. And that’s not acceptable. So we need to let the enemies know that we don’t intend to stay there forever - we need to let our friends know that need to stay there forever because they have to step up to the plate and provide the security for their own people and their own government. This insurgency will not be put down by United States forces or any other outside forces - it has to be put down by an Iraqi security force - and the sooner we do that, the better.

MS: How is the Abercrombie plan different from what has been espoused by the administration already - with the exception of the date - I know the Abercrombie plan includes two very specific dates…

McNulty: That’s it. That’s it, Mike, because the Bush plan is “Trust me. I’ll do it when we are ready.” That’s not good enough anymore.

MS: This adds some accountability.

McNulty: And if you listen to his speeches, including the one he gave two days ago, it’s basically, “We’ll stay in Iraq until hell freezes over, if that’s necessary.” And that is not acceptable.

MS: Sure. Now, what affirmative steps will you be taking in order to advance that new position. I know you are in the minority, but what can you do - and what can we do - to bring some change to the policy?

McNulty: What we are doing in the Congress - those of us that signed the resolution…

MS: How many are on it?

McNulty: When I signed on in early September, there were 45 co-sponsors. And I think there are 56 or 57 now on the resolution and I hope that grows. What people can do - particularly people who live in districts where members haven’t taken a firm position one way or another on how we move towards an exit strategy - is to lobby their members of Congress and their Senators to say that we need to figure out how we disengage. You outlined the old Bush Doctrine… one of the key elements - the last part of it was the exit strategy - there has to be an exit strategy… this administration is in violation - direct violation of the Bush Doctrine. We need to have an exit strategy and the Abercrombie Resolution is an exit strategy.

MS: That’s it on the war, now I want to switch to the 2006 elections… Kirsten Gillenbrand is running against John Sweeney. Will you support her if she wins the primary? Will you campaign with her?

McNulty: Yes, yes… I’ve know Kirsten and her whole family for three generations. Yeah, she’s a friend.

MS: Hilary Clinton and Chuck Schumer have both decided that they are standing in staunch favor of the war. A lot of us would like to vote for these people again, but have taken a principled stand that we will not be voting for anyone that comes out with unqualified support of this war and doesn’t come out with a plan for ending this war. What can we do to pressure our NYS Senators to come up with some kind of evolution in their position?

McNulty: Well first of all, I don’t think it is accurate to say that they have given their unqualified support for the war. I think both of them have been very, very critical of the way the President has conducted the military engagement over there. I think both of them are concerned about this issue that I talked about earlier about signaling to your opponent what you are going to do or not do in the future and, as I said before, I generally agree with that proposition. My view is this case is different because that position that we are in right now is fueling the insurgency. I think it helps us to very from the norm on that one issue, this time - to make it clear to the insurgents first of all - and to potential new insurgents - we don’t intend to stay there and take over their country and steal their oil - and number two, to make it very, very clear to the Iraqis that are forming this new government and who are our friends that we are not going to put our soldiers on the line there - on the front lines there forever - they have to start taking over that security function and they have to begin doing that, now.

MS: Very good - thank you very much.