Top GOP senator calls on Bush to start bringing troops home by Christmas David Edwards and Nick Juliano

Published: Thursday August 23, 2007





Print This Email This On his return from a trip to Iraq, a top Republican senator called on President Bush to take the "first step" in a withdrawal from Iraq start bringing US troops homes before Christmas. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), formerly Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee during Republicans recent control of the Senate and now the most senior Republican on the committee, said a troop drawdown would be the best way to show the Iraqi government that US troops will not be there to provide security forever. There is "no clearer form of that, than if the president were to announce on the 15th (of September) that in consultation with our senior military commanders, he's decided to initiate the first step in a withdrawal of our forces," Warner said. Warner had just spent two days in Iraq with Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI). "I say to the president, respectfully. Pick any number you wish," Warner said. "You do not want to lose the momentum, but certainly in 160,000 plus (troops in Iraq), say 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later than Christmas of this year. That's the first step." Warner said Bush, not Congress should decide the details of the drawdown, but he encouraged the president to establish a timetable for withdrawal. "Let the president establish the timetable of withdrawal, not the Congress," Warner said. The Virginia Republican has grown increasingly critical of the war in Iraq in recent months. Last month, Warner teamed with fellow Republican Richard Lugar to draft a plan calling on President Bush to narrow the mission of US troops in Iraq. Warner's eighth term expires next year, and he has so far not announced whether he will fight to keep his Senate seat. Political observers suspect he may be planning to leave the Senate when his term expires, and reports that his political fundraising committee brought in only $500 in the first quarter of this year have only fueled retirement rumors. The following video is from MSNBC's News Live, broadcast on August 23. Transcript of Warner press conference: # SEN. WARNER: Good afternoon, everybody. I have a bit of a raspy throat from hot air and dust. Let's get a little water going here before I get started. So if you'll bear with me. Are we about ready? Thank you very much for joining. Senator Levin and I finished a -- basically a four-day codel to the region. (To staff) Have we got some water here? Because this is a dry -- thank you -- a dry throat. Senator Levin and I finished a four-day visit to the region. I took a day in advance and went into Kuwait to study the base which will facilitate such redeployments as they may and when they occur, and also to consult with our embassy team and intelligence establishment in that country. Senator Levin then joined me and we went into Iraq. I must say our time was so short. We're only allowed, codels, to spend one night, so we put as much as we could into each and every day. And we got up at 3:30 in the morning after flying most of the night to get into the region and start. I felt that every consideration was accorded us by the administration, especially an excellent team we have on the ground in there, military leadership, General Petraeus, General Odierno. Ambassador Crocker is a man I've known very well through the years. He's a superb diplomat. Those of you who may have been around in the buildup to the Iraq operation recall that the Senate leadership every morning at 8:00 would have a briefing up in S-407, and I at that time, as -- on the -- senior man on the Armed Services Committee, would conduct those briefings, and Crocker was the State Department representative. And Colonel Canio (sp), who's here, was the representative from the Department of Defense. Anyway, so much for that history. The NIE came out today, and incidentally, you may recall that in the amendment that Senator Lugar and I put forward -- it's not become law -- but we required in that amendment that an NIE be filed in this time frame. And I'm very appreciative of it. I feel in general that the key judgments -- and I hope that you've had copies of this -- the key judgments in there track very closely the findings that Senator Levin and I made and set forth in our joint statement. Now, Senator Levin and I have worked together for some 29 years on the committee. Curiously, I've been chairman three times; he's been chairman three times. Obviously some of those periods were short. But -- we have strong philosophical differences, but we do work together as a team and have worked effectively. So at the end of these four days, we sat down and put together in this report those items on which we could agree, and recognizing that there were aspects of this trip in which we had varied opinions. For example, in the last paragraph of our report -- and I'd like to read to you such one paragraph -- "We believe that the recent high- level meetings among Iraqi political leaders could be the last chance for this government to solve the Iraqi political crisis. And should it fail, we believe the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the government of Iraq's record and determine what actions should be taken -- consistent with the Iraqi constitution -- to form a true unity government to meet those responsibilities." I stand by that statement. Carefully crafted -- I wrote it, and I specifically put in there "consistent with the constitution." That statement was one that I think most of us had thought about before the trip to Iraq, and indeed much of what I say today is a culmination, yes, of the trip but of thoughts and ideas that I've been sort of assembling in my mind for some time. The NIE itself said that the Iraqi government is precarious, in their judgment, for the next six to 12 months. As Senator Levin left early the next morning -- he proceeded on into very important visits he had in Israel, and I proceeded to the United States -- he told me he was going to have a press conference, and he did, and he made the statement to the effect that he hopes the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office. We discussed that earlier in the evening. I said that I could not go that far, freely understanding that there was a basis of fact and opinion which had been given to us both here in CONUS before we left and on this trip, which laid a foundation for his remarks. But I felt at this time I had the following obligations. One, that I had offered an amendment in the Senate which got 54 votes, did not become law, but nevertheless, with the help of Robert Byrd, our senior member of the Senate, we got that amendment almost verbatim, almost not a word changed, into the appropriation bill. And that's the amendment that created the Jones Commission. I met with General Jones earlier today. He's going to complete his work and have it before the Senate very early in September; and laid down the benchmarks, and specifically, called on Petraeus, Crocker to come before the Congress and the United States and relevant committees and the president to make a report on the 15th. Now, for that reason, I felt that I did not want to go quite the last step that he did and in no way do I criticize him. The second reason I didn't go is rather an interesting one. The final night in Iraq the president of Iraq, President Talabani, gave us a small dinner attended by Levin and myself, Crocker, and the deputy prime minister and our United States ambassador. Somewhat to our surprise in the course of that evening he produced several documents, and he raised them up and he said, "Here are documents which I hope will be approved by the Group of 5" -- now, that's Prime Minister Maliki, the president, Talabani, the two vice presidents and Barzani. They had been meeting, and they were going to meet again in the coming days to determine whether or not these documents, which purportedly represents resolution of issues like de-Ba'athification, the carbon laws, that is the energy, oil monies distribution, and a series of other very important benchmarks. So I felt given that hope, faint as it may be, I felt we shouldn't -- I shouldn't go the step with regard to Maliki that Senator Levin took. Today in my consultations at the White House, and I've since been advised twice since I've returned, that those documents which we saw are being, as we speak this afternoon, considered again by the Group of Five, and that it could well be that they would be acted upon in some degree of formality by segments of the Iraqi government, hopefully the legislature but indeed the funnel by which matters proceed up to the legislature, prior to September 15th. So there's a flicker of hope of some of the important issues, which reflect reconciliation between Sunni and Shi'a and Kurd, could be achieved by the 15th. Now back to Iraq itself, the security situation again, as said by the NIE -- it's measurable but uneven, and I agree with that. And as I said, our findings pretty well parallel what was done by the NIE. I mentioned the superb team. Also we had several trips out into the field with our military, our tactical commanders, the troops. And I've had a privilege through much of my lifetime to be associated with the U.S. military. And I tell you, I've never seen finer, more dedicated individuals than those in uniform today in our armed forces, and particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraqi forces, somewhat to my surprise, we got very favorable reports. Again, measurable improvement, particularly, for example, in the Baghdad operation. As you recall, the president on January 10th said our forces will work with the Iraqi forces. He even used the words that they will take the point. Well, to some degree they have taken the point. And their losses, their casualties number three times as many as we have the misfortune to lose ourselves. We did learn another disturbing thing, and that came from General Petraeus. Constantly, General Petraeus and others in his command are urging and moving forward with the Iraqi training and encouraging them to take an even larger role. But surprisingly, they're not receiving the arms that they need, the equipment that they need to perform those responsibilities jointly with our forces. And that was brought to the attention of Secretary of Defense Gates when he preceded us by a week or so. And General Petraeus said, go back, senators, and help the Department of Defense and the Department of State to expedite the Foreign Military Sales program by which the Iraqi government, in as early as January this year, put over a billion and a half dollars in a bank in the United States and entrusted to the Department of Defense to negotiate contracts with U.S. suppliers of armaments and to facilitate the rapid transportation of those supplies to the forces in Iraq. Well, the process just had stalled out, and Secretary Gates asked Secretary England to take personal responsibility, and yesterday Secretary England's team came over and briefed me, and there are corrective measures being taken at this time. But it was distressing to learn that here in our own federal system was an impediment to the Iraqi forces as they begin to take on greater responsibility, an impediment in the form of the shortage of the basic things like rightful ammunition and body protection and the rest. I want to now go to another section in here and talk about President Bush's speech on the 10th of January. President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki in a sense formed a partnership. I remember that chapter ever so well, because I had come back just months before from Iraq and said things were going sideways, and that remark of mine, coupled with remarks similar in text to other -- from other colleagues, really urged the administration to do a top-to-bottom reassessment of the strategy, and the rest is history. That was done, and on the 10th, the president made his announcement. Now, the surge was four parts. It was a security part, which we largely to perform together with Iraqi forces; it was an Iraqi political part, and that was a pledge by Maliki and his -- and the partnership to go forward with reconciliation measures; a regional part, which is -- had some progress on our part -- we've had two meetings now with the neighboring nations; and an economic part. But I want to address that Iraqi commitment that they made with our president on January 10th, because I really firmly believe the Iraqi government, under the leadership of President -- Prime Minister Maliki, have let our troops down. Our troops, fighting with the Iraqi forces, delivered on that commitment. And the NIE confirmed that the Iraqi government continues to struggle in trying to meet any of those commitments, and that struggle, in accordance with the NIE, could exist for the next 10 or 12 months. Now, what's the future course of action? (Pause.) We have the reports, as drawn up in the law, for Crocker and Petraeus, General Jones, the GAO, chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others to present to the president and the Congress their own findings and recommendations. Then the president will make his statement, but I want to call your attention to the following. The president said in that statement on the 10th, "If members of Congress have improvements" -- I judge that to be suggestions -- "that can be made, we will consider them and possibly make them." Well, I have a recommendation today, and I do it with a deep sense of humility and respect. Yesterday the president said -- in a question, I think, to Congress, he said, "Will the elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under our troops as they are gaining momentum?" Now they are gaining momentum. Certainly I've indicated, measured the momentum in Baghdad, Anbar province, up in the Mosul area, where we visited, and in other areas. And I can assure the president that this senator in this recommendation that I have for him is not in any way trying to pull the rug out from under the troops, troops that I've had an association with, privileged -- and learned from over a half-century of my life. I also firmly believe that the goals the president has set in terms of the vital nature of this area -- i.e., Iraq -- not only to the region but to the security interests and the economic interests of this country, I support the president in that. I don't for a minute advocate any rapid pullout or any other type of action of that nature. My record is consistent. While I have given some criticism by way of this previous January 10th announcement, successfully (sic) thereafter I have supported the president and voted against any timetable for withdrawal. But I come and bring your attention again to the January 10th statement. The president said the following, a quote out of the January 10th: "I made it clear to Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended." And the president has continued to make similar statements to that effect. On July 12th the president said, "The Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their cities forever, any more than the American people want them doing that." It seems to me that we've got to look at those statements. And I conclude with one attributed to Ambassador Crocker which appeared yesterday in the press. Crocker called the political progress in Iraq, quote, "extremely disappointing," and warned that the U.S. support for the Maliki government did not come with a blank check. Now those are powerful statements of yesterday and in the past but, it seems to me, the time has come to put some meaningful teeth into those comments, to back them up with some clear, decisive action, to show that we mean business when those statements and others like it have been made. And so therefore I make a recommendation to the president. I respectfully say to them, in his consultation with the military here in the coming weeks -- actually that consultation is going along quite steadily. Excuse me, bit of a cold. That consultation is ongoing. Take into consideration the need to send a sharp and clear message throughout the region, to the United States and one that people can understand it. I think no clearer form of that than if the president were to announce on the 15th that in consultation with our senior military commanders, he's decided to initiate the first step in a withdrawal of armed forces. I say to the president respectfully, pick whatever number you wish. You do not want to lose the momentum but certainly in 160,000- plus, say, 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later than Christmas of this year. That's the first step. Let the president establish the timetable of withdrawal, not the Congress. Under the constitution as commander-in-chief, he has that authority. He need not lay out a totality of a timetable. I would advise against it. Take each step at a time, then make an evaluation of the impact of that step that it did not lessen the momentum, did not lessen the ability of our forces to continue to supply a greater degree -- provide a greater degree of security, be it Baghdad or where else we can do it, and to determine what is the reaction of the neighboring countries in the region. Perhaps they've all been sitting there waiting to see what we would do. And given the NIE, which says, "Mr. President, it's up to 12 months before we can expect any particular degree of reconciliation," we simply cannot as a nation stand and put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action which will get everybody's attention. That simple announcement of a (single ?) redeployment of some several thousand individuals under the military tradition first come, first serve in Iraq, first to depart -- got to be careful how those selections -- they can pick them from various units to put together a group and send them back -- then evaluate, re-evaluate how successful it has been. Then, perhaps, at the president's discretion select a second date and time for a contingent to be redeployed. Now, in my humble judgment, that'll get everybody's attention, the attention which is not being given to us at this time. I got on the airplane and I picked up the Jordan Times, and it just -- this is the type of thing that's written in periodicals, and each and every one of you have read it. And they say in the Jordan Times, the Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. That's got to be dispelled. Our president holds the key to any U.S. withdrawals, and I think a step, as I've outlined, will make that eminently clear. And from that point, we'll just have to evaluate each and every decision the president makes with regard to further withdrawals. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll take your questions. Q Senator Warner -- SEN. WARNER: Yeah? Q Have you expressed -- SEN. WARNER: All right. I'm going to try -- I'll just sort of go from the right. Yes? Q Have you expressed those views to the president personally? (Off mike.) SEN. WARNER: I have not had that opportunity. I did spend an hour-plus at the White House this morning with senior advisers. I likewise have been in telephonic communication with senior advisers once I left Iraq. Q But Senator Warner -- SEN. WARNER: Yes? Q -- General Petraeus and other senior generals have already said that the surge cannot continue beyond April. The troop -- the manpower levels are not there. Are you suggesting there should be a deployment of another unit beyond the troops involved in the surge or troops that are already scheduled to redeploy back to the U.S.? SEN. WARNER: Well, I'll leave to the Department of Defense to determine how they compose the first redeployment. I said those individuals that have been in Iraq the longest -- it seems to me they're the most eligible. I do not suggest they pick a unit and bring it back. It's just the fact that we will start an orderly, carefully planned, thought-out redeployment. We'll start with the first step -- take each step and evaluate it, another step and evaluate it. What's the response of the bordering nations? Will this get their attention to begin to step up and take on more of the responsibility? Will other nations in the world begin to think, "Aha, the United States means what it says, as the president says on January 10th; we didn't come to stay." So I think it sends a strong signal. Yes, sir? Q Senator, you've made this as a recommendation to the president. SEN. WARNER: That's correct. Q Back in January you recommended that the surge be done in small steps, so we could see if it works. SEN. WARNER: Correct. Q The president chose not to take your advice. If he doesn't take your advice this time, should the Congress step in and force certain steps? SEN. WARNER: It -- the last -- I'd -- the Constitution is very explicit as to the president's authority, as to Congress's authority. In reality, we have but one tool, and that is to terminate funding. And having served in the Pentagon for five years during Vietnam and witnessed what the Congress did, I do not want to see a repeat of that. This is an opportunity to show the president is going to take the initiative; the president will set his timetable; the president, in consultation with military advisers, makes the decision if a deployment such as I recommend is feasible, and any subsequent redeployments after that. Yes? Q Senator Warner, I have a twofold question, and it has to do with the -- (off mike) -- pretty supportive of the Iraq Study Group recommendations. SEN. WARNER: Yeah. Q You talked about, in the Warner-Lugar amendment, a change of mission from combat to support. Are you at all advocating today a change in the mission in any way, not just the numbers -- SEN. WARNER: To an extent, this type of action could result in a change of mission. I'd draw your attention to the NIE, which cautioned in its -- I think it's the last finding -- that we would have to be very careful as to the timing of any strategy by which we would go to some of the basic elements of the Baker-Hamilton report. So at this point, I -- this does not embrace that. But it seems to me that we could take what we call a strategic overview posture. In other words, in no way are we going to flick a switch and the lights are off and our troops are going to be pulled out of there. No, I think it has to be done very carefully, thoughtfully, planned out and orderly. But we also -- the forces that are left there would -- could be used where the commanders feel they could make a difference if a security situation were to arise. And most specifically, I think that this sort of strategy has in the future got to focus on what we do best. And our forces are well- trained in issues of border security, we have a lot of equipment that can make those borders, I think, more secure, and to begin to eliminate the ever-increasing, really, threats from Iran in infiltrating people and armaments in, and to some extent the increasing threats of Syria in allowing people to come in and join the al Qaeda. So I think there will be a change of strategy if we move in that direction and focus more on what we know how to do best and let the Iraqi security forces handle the domestic insurgency. Q Senator? SEN. WARNER: Yes? Q (Off mike) -- SEN. WARNER: What's that? Q (Off mike) -- the NIE, then, negates any Warner-Lugar -- SEN. WARNER: Well, I don't know that it negates it. If you look at the NIE, it talks specifically about the timing of that. Now remember, in Warner-Lugar we just said give a plan, put it in place and show us before December. So it seems to me that gives sufficient time to make an evaluation. Yes, sir? Q Senator Warner, I just wanted get clear on one thing, and then I have another question. SEN. WARNER: Yeah. Q When you went to the White House today -- (off mike)? SEN. WARNER: I'm very careful about the opportunities I have to go to the White House; I, frankly, just don't comment. Q Okay. SEN. WARNER: Thank you. Q My other question is, how can you reaffirm to the president and the American people, when the president says he doesn't want moves to pull the rug out, in his words -- SEN. WARNER: That's correct. Q He would not do that. Do you put more -- do you put the onus squarely on Minister Maliki -- (off mike) -- his inability for the government to -- (off mike)? SEN. WARNER: Whoa, back up. I said, as a preamble, I thought through this very carefully. I do not consider this recommendation to the president to be tantamount to any pulling the rug out under the troops. I wouldn't be a party to that. As to the Maliki situation, I made it very clear. No disrespect to my colleague Senator Levin, but I decided not to go as far as he had. But I did say, just draw the attention to the last paragraph, the provisions in their own constitution by which the people of Iraq through their elected representatives can make changes in their government. That's all. Yes. Q Senator, with regards to your experience during the Vietnam War when you were in the Nixon administration -- SEN. WARNER: Yeah. Q Do you think the president's parallel yesterday -- (off mike) -- Killing Fields -- (off mike) -- Vietnam aftermath -- is that accurate? And does it help us at all? SEN. WARNER: I looked at it; I read it very carefully. I was there for five years, four months and three days. Privileged to be undersecretary, secretary of the Navy, and made a number of trips to Vietnam and the region. I feel that there are no parallels really. It's a different type of situation we were in, a country many, many miles away, a country that really did not pose a threat to the internal security of the United States as these conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq do. But the president was correct to observe the really sad way in which we finally departed that country. I was privileged to work with Secretary Laird, and as a matter of fact, Secretary of Defense Laird talked to me today. And he said -- kind of somewhat concerned about the chapter of history and to make sure it's accurate because he gave months of his career to it. In terms of the way we terminated, we do not want, and I think that was the president's point, a repeat of that disorderly withdrawal in this conflict. And I guarantee you, as I've come to know the president, he would not permit any withdrawal program to become disorderly. It'll always be carefully thought-out and planned together with superb military advisor team and the secretary of Defense he has in place now. Q Senator? SEN. WARNER: Yes? Q Two questions. First, have you talked to any Republican colleagues about your recommendation, and do you feel you have support from them for it? And second, what makes you think that sending this kind of signal would really jump-start the Maliki government to some kind of political reconciliation? SEN. WARNER: Number one, I take total responsibility of this. I did not consult with my colleagues. Secondly, when I see an NIE which corroborates my own judgment, that political reconciliation has not taken place -- the Maliki government has let down the U.S. forces and to extend his own Iraqi forces, which have fought bravely to restore a measured improvement in the security in Baghdad -- I say to myself, what will it take to get his attention, the attention of the Iraqi people, the attention of the bordering countries to come in and take a more active role in bringing about a reconciliation between the three basic divisions, ethnic divisions in that country. And wherever we went, people talk about "your withdrawal." Wherever we went, people would talk about the withdrawal and the schedule. Well, it doesn't exist, because the administration, I think very consciously, has said that's not an option on the table. But we're coming up to this summit of all of these converging reports, and I say to the president, with great respect, consider that you initiate the withdrawal, and no longer -- I would hope that there would be calls from the Congress and attempts to do it -- if we can see in your actions a building of confidence that you're taking in consideration a phased withdrawal, which you and you alone established, together with your military commanders, and do it a step at a time, very carefully, evaluating each redeployment, its impact on the ability of our forces to continue to perform a role. But I'm hopeful that this could lead to more emphasis on the Iraqi forces taking the major responsibility as it relates to the internal insurgency in that country. Q Sir, are you saying that the president should do this because if he doesn't, the Congress will do it with him? SEN. WARNER: I'm not putting this thing out as a threat, my friend. I simply -- he invited on January 10th suggestions from members. I am putting forward respectfully this suggestion. In the back. Q We hear a lot about -- (off mike) -- SEN. WARNER: Beg pardon? Q We hear a lot about Iran training extremists inside its border. In parts of the NIE that you mentioned, they focused on Iran meddling in Iraq. I would like to ask what's your assessment on -- SEN. WARNER: I'm missing a word or two. "I would like to ask" -- Q I would like to ask you what is the likelihood of a U.S. attack on Iran in order to stop Iran -- SEN. WARNER: In no way today do I want to deal with that issue. Our security apparatus in this (country ?), from the president on down through the secretaries of State and Defense, take those matters into consideration. I've always been of the assumption that this nation will be protected, our security interests would be protected, and that this president and his security team will take such actions as to protect us. And I don't take anything off the table. Yes? Q Chairman Warner, you mentioned that -- (off mike) -- SEN. WARNER: Beg pardon? Q You mentioned that this suggestion is an attempt to put more of the responsibility on the Iraqi armed forces, but the NIE stated that -- (off mike) -- six to 12 months that the Iraqi security forces won't be able to conduct major operations independent of the coalition. And now if this suggestion is taken on, are you, in a sense, pulling the rug out from under the Iraqi troops there when they're not quite ready? SEN. WARNER: It's not that intention. As I said, take 5,000. Now, 5,000 is not going to be a destabilizing number of armed forces. That's not going to be destabilizing. It's not going to in any way denigrate the ability for us to continue to train and work with the Iraqi forces. But it will send a very clear signal to support what the president said on January 10th -- we're not there to stay forever -- and what Ambassador Crocker said yesterday -- we're not giving you a blank check. I just feel those statements, it's time to come and put a good, strong, clear bite on them. Yes? Q Can I just clarify one thing? You're not setting a specific date for this to begin. SEN. WARNER: I just said first redeployment, hopefully, where the troops would get home by Christmas. Q Right. SEN. WARNER: Now, that's a great symbolism -- Q You're not saying -- SEN. WARNER: Beg pardon? Q You're not saying it should start at a specific time. SEN. WARNER: No, it's up to the president. Q And is this going to find its way into some sort of resolution or sense of the Senate? SEN. WARNER: I couldn't -- I can't answer that. In other words, I'm not in any way saying what my next step would be, except I've tried to work and be respectful of the Office of the Presidency in this situation. And after the full report by the president on September 15th, I, like, I think, almost all of our colleagues feel we're free to voice our own -- our own opinions with regard to what he does on that date. And I won't try and chart the future. I think we should wait until the reports made by those individuals and the president. Yes, sir? Q For those who support the president's war policy at this point, do you worry that your new position now could cost you support from some Republicans back home? SEN. WARNER: I -- you know me well. You cover me. For those here in this room -- your two colleagues here -- I'm not concerning about the political aspects of this. I think the American people just want strong, decisive leadership, both from the president and the executive branch and the Congress. This, I say with a sense of humility, is one way that I can show leadership that I'd like to bring to this very important time, when all these options are being considered. Q Senator, from your discussions with the Iraqi leaders, do you get any sense that withdrawal of, say, 5,000 or 10,000 would really get their -- I mean, 180,000 minus 5,000 still leaves an awful lot of troops there. Would that really get their attention? SEN. WARNER: Well, I did not discuss it with them. But I simply say to you, that headline that the president -- when he said, we don't want to patrol the streets; Iraqi people don't want to do it; we don't want to do it. When he said these things, this is what we meant. There will come that time when we have decided to begin an orderly, I repeat, orderly and carefully planned withdrawal. And, say, 5,000, whatever number the president takes, will send a signal but it will not in my judgment change materially any of the military situations now emplaced in the immediate future. All right, who wants to wrap it up? Start with you. You can wrap it up. Q If the Iraqi government did not respond to that withdrawal of 5,000 troops, then you said that the president should set a second date, is that right? SEN. WARNER: No, I didn't say that. I said -- no, no, I said, do the first withdrawal; make an evaluation. Let's wait until that time comes. I don't want to speculate. Thank you all. Yes, all right. Q The senior intelligence officials, this morning when they were briefing on the NIE, they said there's no direct evidence that the Iranians are actually directly involved in the attacks inside the Iraqi border. They said, they're sending in weapons, but there's no evidence -- (off mike) -- doing anything within the border. Did General Petraeus give you any different sense? SEN. WARNER: I'd have to reflect on hours of conversation with many. I wouldn't attribute it to any specific person like Petraeus or others. But I felt that we had received information to the effect that Iran is in some way not only allowing -- I'll put that down -- allowing weapons which are devastating to our troops -- these shaped charges -- to come in, but it's likely that there's some measure of infiltration of other people. I feel that one of the problems here is with the Maliki government is that they just cannot help but be so sectarian. This is not a unified government. We've got to get away from this sectarian business, and I think the Iranians are doing everything they can to foster the sectarian interests from the viewpoint of the Shi'a to the disadvantage of the Sunni. Thank you all very much. Q (Off mike) -- Prime Minister Maliki? SEN. WARNER: I'm not going to get into anything like that, no. Thank you. Q Senator, before you leave, could we just ask a -- (inaudible) --question about -- SEN. WARNER: Yeah. Q -- given your own observations from your trip, given the NIE, where do you see Iraq in, say, five or 10 years from now, as a free Iraq -- (off mike) -- SEN. WARNER: Well, I -- all I can say -- and I reiterate and I concur in the president's observation and indeed many others -- that the future of Iraq is absolutely a matter that will affect our own national security and national interests and the interests of the bordering countries in the region and indeed many other countries. And therefore, it would be my hope that together with our efforts and our enormous sacrifices to date and such further sacrifices as we must make not to let this country simply implode. Q Are you optimistic or pessimistic? SEN. WARNER: You know, I don't have either. I just say we've got to take some decisive steps. I've given an idea at what I think is a decisive step, and more (than) (a) consequential and decisive step, it is a very decisive signal that these statements that have been made by our president and Ambassador Crocker have a meaning in them. Q Senator Warner? STAFF: Thank you. SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much. Q Senator Warner, one more question? SEN. WARNER: Nope, I'm -- my old voice -- (inaudible). #



