MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Rep. Schiff's official site
• Article on Rep. Schiff
• The Blue Dog Democrats

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Congressman Adam Schiff is a member of the House International Relations Committee, and a co-founder of the Democrat study group on national security. He and other Democrats are seeking to make the issue of national security one they can win on in November. Congressman, nice to have you here, sir.

Congressman Adam Schiff: Great to join you. Thanks for the invitation.

Tavis: Glad to have you. When, where? Take us back. When, where, how did this notion that Republicans are better on national security, when, where, how did that happen?

Schiff: Well, I don't know how it happened, because it's certainly not justified by events. The Bush administration's national security strategy just isn't working. When you look around the world, Iraq, regrettably, descending into a civil war. North Korea is building missiles and building nuclear bombs. Iran is thumbing its nose at the international community, moving ahead with its nuclear program.

The Middle East has been spiraling out of control. We're more dependent on fossil fuels than ever. Osama Bin Laden's still loose. Almost every index. If you asked the American people five years ago in the wake of 9/11, would they want a course that would lead us five years hence to the situation we're in now, where Osama Bin Laden is still at large and we have all these problems around the world, there's no way we would pick this course, and this country can't stay on this course, it's too dangerous for America.

Tavis: When I heard that you and some of your fellow Democrats had come up with a plan that you all think Democrats need to talk more about, to take back the issue of national security, and make it no longer a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee, three thoughts came to mind immediately. Let me put them out and see if you'll respond to each of them, in no particular order.

The first thought I had was, how do Democrats sell their own national security plan and criticize the President for the mess that we are in, as you just did a moment ago, when the mess that we are in was done with Democratic support? You know the votes as well as I do. The President couldn't have gotten the authority that he received to get us in this mess one, had it not been with Democratic votes.

Number two, history is replete with examples of an American public that does not like changing direction in wartime. That's how Bush got reelected the second time. We're skittish about changing direction, presidents, parties, at a time of war. And thirdly, John Kerry couldn't sell this thing a couple years ago because, back to my original point, it's hard to say I was for it, but now I'm against it.

I was for it and against it. So you can take them in any order you wanna take them, but those thoughts just kind of came to me when I read Democrats have something to say about national security.

Schiff: Well, I think you'll find that over the last many years, the Democrats have been very outspoken in criticizing how the Bush administration has handled the war in Iraq, how it's handled our policy and the change in policies vis a vis Iran and North Korea. Our inattention to the problem of loose nuclear materials. Now yes, it's true that the authorization to use military force if diplomacy failed, passed with Democratic votes including my own.

But of course, it was the President's decision to actually use that authorization to go to war. Now I felt, as many did, that without the credible threat of force, we couldn't get Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. But the President made the decision, and the administration had the strategy for the conduct of that war. And that strategy and the prosecution of the war has been disastrous.

And there's been no accountability within the administration for all of the failures in Iraq. During one of the hearings that our committee had, I asked administration witnesses, the deputy secretaries, who has been held accountable for the decision to stand down the Iraqi military or the failure of the reconstruction program, or the billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq.

Who's been held accountable? And there was, Tavis, this long, painful silence where no one had an answer because no one has been held accountable. Yes, the American people don't like changing horses in the middle of the war. But the American people also recognize that when the President clings tenaciously to failed policies and the Congress and the majority in the Congress support the President in those failed policies, you have got to change leadership or this country is gonna continue marching in the wrong direction, and we just can't afford that anymore.

Tavis: You talk about accountability, Congressman, and I'm glad you raised that, because one of the things that has been disturbing for me, no matter what side of this war you're on, I think that what leads to good public policy, ultimately, is having some dialogue. Not monologue but dialogue. If we can (unintelligible) and mix it up, then maybe we can come out with a public policy that's more comprehensive and that's better for the greatest number of Americans.

That said, to your point about accountability. One of the things that disturbs me is that we have not seen an aggressive set of hearings about this so-called Bush doctrine. This wholesale change in how we engage the world militarily. If we think, think you got something that you're gonna use to hit us, we hit you first. We hit first, ask questions later.

That's a dangerous way, one could argue, to engage the world, this so-called Cheney one percent rule. This one percent doctrine. If there's a one percent change we think you're gonna do something, then we come after you. So this Bush doctrine has changed how we engage the world. It's no wonder that people have questions about why we are not so beloved the world over.

Is it your sense that there ought to be aggressive hearings on this so-called Bush doctrine? And if it bothers Democrats, why have we not seen the kind of push for those hearings on this so-called Bush, this wholesale change, this Bush doctrine?

Schiff: Well, we do. We're in desperate need of oversight in the Congress. If there's any area where the Congress has fallen down on the job, it's that it hasn't done any oversight of the administration. Now, you can understand we're a one-party government right now. The Republicans control everything, the House, the Senate, the White House, some would say the Supreme Court, as well.

And there's been a reluctance, which I think has really not even bordered on but crossed the line into abdication to, a responsibility to oversee the executive, because it's of the same party. And so, these untold billions that we can't account for, there's no investigation into what happened to them. The failed policies in Iraq, there's no real tough hearings asking the questions why has the reconstruction failed.

Why is the military strategy failing? How are we changing our strategy, because the problem is no longer, the paramount problem is no longer the insurgency, but the civil war. So how are we changing the strategies? The Bush administration doctrine that you mentioned of unilateral and preemptive war has never been scrutinized. But there's a separate unilateral doctrine that also hasn't been revealed, and that is the administration not only acts unilaterally in the world, but it acts unilaterally vis a vis the Congress.

It wants to set up the tribunals at Guantanamo without working with Congress, initiate new surveillance programs without working with Congress. In the Congress, the majority party has its own unilateral program. Speaker Hastert won't pass things with a bipartisan majority, only with a majority of Republican votes. So here we have, I think, a failure at all levels, in terms of leadership.

And when you have 10 years of one party rule, you're gonna have these abuses. And I think that's why there's such a strong fervor to change direction in the country, and I think we're gonna see that played out in November.

Tavis: To your point, prior to that 10 year rule by Republicans, there was, like, 40, 50 years of Democratic rule. And one of the things that Republicans argued, Gingrich and company back then, was that we've gotta stop being against everything. We gotta tell the American people what we're for. And what came out of that, as you'll recall, was the Contract with America, or some call it the contract on America, but at least they had a document of what they were for.

So I ask with the, I'll close our conversation with this all-important question, I guess, which is now that the Democrats have to say what they are for, and not what they are against on the issue of national security, what's the message?

Schiff: We are for a new direction across the board in national security. We're for a new direction in Iraq, which we think given that it is now a civil war, the answer is far more diplomatic and political, far less military. And we need a responsible redeployment of our forces, both within and outside of Iraq.

Tavis: Is it redeployment inside of Iraq, or get out of Iraq?

Schiff: Well, it is a redeployment within Iraq and outside of Iraq. Ultimately, we're gonna have to phase out our military force in Iraq. We didn't go in to be the buffer between warring sects, and I'm very skeptical of our continued military ability to influence the conflict in a positive way. But outside of the war in Iraq, we've gotta be much more aggressive in dealing with Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in dealing with the loose nuclear materials around the world that some Democrats have been very aggressive on.

We need to work with the rest of the international community to contain Iran and North Korea, and turn back their nuclear programs. Just because the Bush administration has failed with North Korea and Iran doesn't mean you have to fail. We can succeed. The alternative isn't simply bombing Iran. It's having more successful international, strong, muscular diplomacy.

Unfortunately, this administration has so undermined our credibility in the rest of the world that they don't have the standing to bring the world together to crack down on Iran and North Korea. This crowd, Tavis, can't get the job done. But the job can be done with a different strategy, with different people at the helm, with accountability in the Congress, with a new direction.

And one of the key principles, I think, overarching all of this, is we have got to, as a nation, wean ourselves off of foreign oil. The Republicans won't do it. They're too much in the bed with big oil. Democrats will. And the day that we can say to the oil-producing nations of the world that we don't need their oil is the day that we will strengthen our national security in a way that all Americans can celebrate.

Tavis: He's a California Democrat. He is Congressman Adam Schiff. Congressman, thank you for your insight. Nice to have you on.

Schiff: Tavis, thank you.

Tavis: Enjoyed talking to you. Before we say good night, a quick note about the passing of a civil rights pioneer. Victoria Gray Adams. Certainly not a household name, but in 1964, along with Fannie Lou Hamer and others, she made history by attempting to unseat the all-White Mississippi delegation at the Democratic National Convention. She was also a founding member of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party.

In 2004, Mrs. Adams and others were recognized at the Democratic convention in Boston for their trailblazing roles. Victoria Gray Adams was 73 years old. That's our show for tonight. Catch me on the weekend on PRI, Public Radio International. Check your local listings. I'll see you back here next time on PBS. Until then, good night from Los Angeles, thanks for watching, and as always, keep the faith.