another government shutdown avoided and a senate band-aid for extending the payroll tax cut. you can tell the holidays are just around the corner. today, payroll tax politics and the fate of the keystone pipeline. with the assistant to the president for economic policy, gene sperling. unfinished congressional business with senators robert menendez and roy blunt. jon huntsman on his 2012 bid and conservative credentials. and the future of a post-war iraq with three experts that know the terrain well -- paul bremer, james cartwright and robin wright. i'm joe johns in for candy crowley, and this is "state of the union." the white house has led a

very public campaign for the payroll tax cut extension which would save average and working americans $1,000 in higher taxes next year. after weeks of negotiations, a break-through. the senate yesterday voted to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits for just two months. the house still has to act. president obama seems satisfied but he let congress know he is not backing off a full-year extension. >> it would be inexcusable for congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year. it should be a formality, and hopefully it is done with as little drama as possible when they get back in january. >> but he made no mention of the keystone xl pipeline compromise. to get republicans onboard, democrats agreed to a provision which says the president must make a decision within 60 days on extending an oil pipeline from canada to texas. the president had initially

threatened to veto any payroll extension bill that included the pipeline. so what changed? some democrats, like senator carl levin, have a theory. "the president is apparently just going to use the option given to him not to let it go forward." so, gene sperling, is the president going to pass on the keystone xl pipeline project? >> look, what the president put his essential principle for december was that congress could not go home and allow taxes to go up on 160 million americans or to let millions of americans who are out there pounding the pavement every day for a job see their unemployment benefits cut off. this overwhelming bipartisan vote yesterday met that core principle of the president. you were right that the president did make clear that he was not going to allow congress to tie to that vote something that would mandate or force him to accept the keystone permit

when there was not adequate time to do a health and safety environmental review. because nothing in this bill mandates the president to do that. this was, whether wise or not, did not go against his veto threat or his core principle of making sure that we do not see taxes going up on 160 million americans when the economy still needs to strengthen much further. >> are you of the opinion that the president needs more than 60 days to make a decision on that? and is it likely then that the president will say no? >> well, the state department -- the experts at the state department who are authorized for our government to make that very serious and complex review made clear before this legislation was even voted on that if they were only given 60 days to look at the alternative routes in nebraska, and to do the serious environmental and safety and health reviews, that that would be enough time and it

would make it almost certainly impossible for them to extend that permit. but i can't add or subtract from what the experts at the state department said. >> but likely that he'll say no. >> well again, i just referred back to what the state department said. they said it was very unlikely that 60 days would be enough time for them to be able to guarantee to the american people that an adequate safety and health and environmental review had been done. >> waking up this morning, hearing from people on the house side, they're saying they're not so sure this two-month deal is good enough. they'd like to see a 12-month deal, and i've even been told it is unlikely this bill that has been passed by the senate is going to pass the house. do you feel as though there is time for the white house and the congress to work out a 12-month deal between now and january 1st? >> you know, the president proposed the american jobs act more than 100 days ago.

and that was a plan that if fully passed would add 1.3 million to 1.9 million jobs. it had many more additional measures, some with great bipartisan support such as cutting taxes for 6 million small businesses employing 56 million americans. so of course, the president would like more, but here's what was significant about the vote yesterday -- it had 89 votes. the compromise to extend the payroll tax on unemployment for 60 days into next year had 90% support. the only things that get 90% support in the united states senate these days are mom, apple pie and chocolate ice cream. so i really think it is very unlikely that the house would disrupt this compromise, overwhelming compromise, six days before christmas, especially when, as the president said, once congress speaks with such an overwhelming voice of the importance of extending payroll tax relief for 160 million workers, the chances

are very small that we would not come to, as the president said, a no-drama compromise to extend it for the full year. and our economy so needs this. this will affect not only those working families, but it will increase jobs by hundreds of thousands. >> the difference between a two-month deal and a 12-month deal apparently was how you pay for it. how close were you with the senate? or the house of representatives on how to pay for a 12-month deal? what's the hold-up? >> i think the majority leader, harry reid, who did a tremendous job in getting this compromise, was working together with the republican leader mitch mcconnell. my understanding is that they'd made a lot of progress, but understanding the importance of what the president said about nobody going home and not coming back until mid-january when taxes would have already gone up on 160 million americans when hundreds and hundreds of thousands of workers would have lost their ui was unacceptable.

and i think they realized that if they could come together with an overwhelming bipartisan compromise to extend this for two months, it would, as the president suggested, make it a virtual certainty that we would all work together to extend this unemployment insurance and the tax relief for 160 million working americans, as you said, up to -- averaging $1,000 per family, that this would be extended for the full year. >> can you categorically rule out then that there will be a 12-month deal before the beginning of the year? >> well, this is washington, d.c. don't categorically rule out anything. but as i said, this had 80 -- this compromise in the senate passed 89-10. 90% compromise. and i think the reason why i think this will go forward is because, what i think everybody understands is that it is not hard for one side to pass a bill. what would give us -- what gives

you confidence that the payroll tax cut will be extended for a full year and that 160 million americans will get that tax relief next year when they and our economy need it is the fact that there was a bipartisan compromise. so i think if somebody cares deeply about ensuring that the tax -- payroll tax cut is extended for the year, the best thing they can do to give confidence of that is support this overwhelming bipartisan compromise in the senate. >> the speaker himself of the representatives was saying on another program this morning that he doesn't agree with this two-month extension. it doesn't sound like this is going to be so easy to do. no way to go back to the drawing table. >> well, as i said, of course this president would like a full year. he'd like much more. he'd like to see everyone agree to the full measure of his american jobs act which, as you know, included saving hundreds of thousands of teacher and first responder jobs, including hundreds of thousands of

construction workers putting them back to work rebuilding our roads, schools and businesses, giving 6 million small businesses tax relief. so weed all like more. what we can do to get a win for the economy and jobs and working families is find that bipartisan compromise. so again, by supporting this bipartisan compromise, i think that's the best way to send a clear signal to the american public we are going to put the economy first, jobs first, and politics last for a chance. >> gene sperling, thank you so much for coming in. great to talk to you and happy holidays. hopefully we'll be talking to you again soon. >> thanks for having us. appreciate it. we'll get perspective from the senate with roy blunt and robert menendez after the break.

here to talk about the work of the senate and that payroll tax extension, democratic senator robert menendez of new jersey and senator roy blunt of missouri who was recently elected to the senate republican

leadership. senator blunt, start with you. house passage of this payroll tax deal is just not a done deal yet. we're hearing from the speaker of the house on another program saying he's not happy with this two-month extension. did you all in the senate leadership communicate with the house leadership on this, or how did all this get messed up? >> well, you know, i don't know. i really don't officially become a member of the senate leadership until we start the year next year. it is my first year in the senate, trying to figure the senate out still, but i do understand the house pretty well. in fact, i had a couple of calls from some of my buddies in the house this morning saying we don't want it do this, we like the one-year extension that the house voted for, and that was bipartisan, too. not as bipartisan as the senate vote but several democrats joined republicans, said let's do this for a year, let's include the keystone pipeline, let's pay for it so there is no tax increase. of course the senate bill also

was a paid-for bill so, no tax increase, a paid-for bill, some job creation added to it. i guess we'll just have to work this out. i heard gene sperling say it is washington and you can't determine for sure -- anything could happen, and it still might, but i think our friends in the house are going to have to work through this. >> so senator menendez, are you playing on coming back to town here? how likely is it that the senate is actually not out of here for the holidays yet? >> well, look, in 24 hours, middle-class families in this country went from relief that they had a continuing payroll tax cut and $1,000 in their pockets to seeing republicans in the house, because in their own words, they're itching for a fight with democrats and the white house, to undermine that relief. you know, i'd love to see a year, too, but i want to see a year in which we pay for it in a way that doesn't take money from the middle class to give it to the middle class.

i mean in the house version, they take money from middle class families in medicare, they take money from middle class families in health care, they take money from middle class civil servants. so, you know, the question is, yeah, i'd love to see a year, too. we had proposals for a year. if they're willing to stop fighting for millionaires and billionaires and finally start fighting for the middle class, we could have a full-year extension which we all want. but there's no wonder that the republican -- key republican pollster has said the public doesn't trust you on the middle class. this is the latest example. >> i'd just ask you to respond to that, senator. >> i don't know that republicans in the house say they're itching for a fight. i think they're saying they wanted the one-year extension. they paid for it. there was no tax on anybody in the senate bill, either. i know bob menendez would love to increase taxes as part of any package, but this package in the

senate didn't do that. they were both paid for, and they both had this huge job creator. the keystone pipeline is a big thing if it could happen. the shortest path to more american jobs is more american energy and more jobs that relate to american energy. the keystone pipeline's 20,000 of them without a single tax dollar involved. republicans in the house and the senate and apparently a bunch of democrats in the senate as well would like a situation where we get a decision on that and can move forward. >> do you think you've just sort of given the president of the united states a way out if the house were to take this bill, that he could simply say, well, 60 days, not enough time, i'm not going to sign off on this, end of story? >> no, i think he would sign off ton, though a week ago he said he wouldn't sign a bill that wasn't for a year and he wouldn't sign a bill that was for the keystone pipeline. i think the president would sign this if it got to his desk and we'll see in the next week whether it gets to his desk or not. i think the house has to deal

with it and look at the fact that it was paid for, it extends not just the payroll tax but also the unemployment insurance and there is a doctor issue that's been out there since 1997 that's always been a phony pay-for that would be taken care of as well so that doctors don't have their medicare reimbursement cut back to ten-year-ago levels on january 1st. nobody wants any of these things to happen, so i believe this will be worked out in a way that doesn't raise taxes, that hopefully helps create some additional private-sector jobs, as well as just spending tax dollars. >> i have to ask you both, you've seen, i'm sure, the polls that talk about congressional approval ratings. they're really at historic lows right now. we have a graphic we can show you. this is a cbs news poll that shows 11% approval of the united states congress right now. and i just asked the staff to go back and look at the approval ratings of the only president

who ever resigned his job in disgrace. this is richard nixon's job performance approval ratings -- 24%, actually higher than the united states congress right now which seems to be extraordinary. start with you, senator menendez. why don't people like the congress? >> well, look, people are hurting in the country. and that is very clear. i see it in my state of new jersey as i travel throughout the state and listen to people who sometimes with tears in their eyes tell me, senator, this is the first time in my life that i've been unemployed and for a long period of time, and the fundamental american promise has been shaken for them. that's why we as democrats are trying to restore that promise. that's about getting people back to work. that's what the president's job package was about. that's what this payroll tax that we have been leading the fight on and that republicans have largely fought us tooth and nail. i know roy made the comment that i would want to increase taxes. the bottom line is i don't want to see a greater pound of flesh being taken out of the middle class.

that's what the house republican do. they do it in so many different ways. it will go to the question in the next elections, whose side do you stand up for? do you stand up for millionaires and billionaires who got some of the biggest tax cuts, or are you going to stand up for the overwhelming middle class? that's why every economist says to us you need to extend both the payroll tax and the unemployment compensation because not do so, as mark zandi said, would throw us back into recession. amare prize says the extension of the payroll tax would create a million jobs. that's far more than giving a tax break to the millionaires and billionaires. >> senator blunt, just go ahead. i'm sure you want to talk about that. >> i don't know who the 11% are. congress is almost totally dysfunctional right now. all we've done this year and my first year in the senate -- i'm in the minority in the senate -- is barely keep the doors open. of course people are not satisfied with that. i do think the president's obligation to lead has not been met.

his numbers are lower than any president in the history of the country at this point in his presidency. they're not nearly as low as the congress, but the congress as an institution will not be on the ballot next year. the president of the united states will be. >> senator blunt, let me ask you, the question of the tea party in congress, the tea party movement. a lot of controversy there and some people would blame the tea party for at least partially bringing down the numbers of the approval. but you also defeated a tea party supported member of the senate for your leadership position. do you think we're in a zone now where the tea party bubble is about to burst? >> no, i don't think that at all. i think the tea party has brought important issues to the table. i think their concern about fiscal responsibility, about paying the bill is a concern that they keep building that fire under and ron johnson, my opponent in this recent leadership race, is a great member of the senate. i look forward to working with

him. i think that the focus on where are the private sector jobs and why is the federal government spending so much money was the focus of the tea party in 2010. it will be a big focus of voters in this election as well and the tea party will continue to drive that message. >> senator blunt, senator menendez, good to see you both again. hope to talk to you again soon. coming up -- jon huntsman on his conservative credentials and his strategy in new hampshire. ♪ boom, boom, boom, gotta get-get ♪ ♪ boom, boom, boom, gotta get-get ♪ ♪ boom, boom, boom, gotta get-get ♪ ♪ boom, boom, boom it's like looking into the sun. ♪ boom, boom, boom we're rocking the beat, kids! wow. [ male announcer ] get low prices on this season's hottest games. like the black eyed peas experience for kinect for xbox 360. rated t for teen. backed by our christmas price guarantee. save money. live better. walmart.

anything? no. ♪ how about now? nope. ♪ [ dog barking ] ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] the chevy silverado. ♪ [ male announcer ] with best-in-class 4x4 available v8 fuel economy. finally! ♪ [ male announcer ] from getting there... to getting away from there. chevy runs deep.

jon huntsman is pinning all his presidential hopes on new hampshire. he moved his campaign headquarters there a few months ago and he's held well over 100 events. and while the latest new hampshire poll shows a slight boost for huntsman, he still trails mitt romney by 25 points. he did make a rare trip to iowa this week to participate in the latest debate. a former ambassador for the obama administration, huntsman was asked to persuade his critics that he could energize the republican base. >> i am the consistent conservative in this race. they are coming around to find that i'm not going to pander, i'm not going contort myself

into a pretzel to please any audience i'm in front of. >> jon huntsman joins me now from new hampshire. and, governor, a lot of people say you send mixed messages. you're also openly courting independents while you say you're conservative. which side are you on? >> joe, first of all of, it is an honor to be with you and i'm putting you on early notice that we're going to win the new hampshire primary. things are very, very exciting in the state and it is great to be here, once again. i am who i am. i have a track record. i have a history as governor. i've lived overseas four times. i've served three times as a u.s. ambassador. my record is what it is so i'm not going to pander, i'm not going to sign pledges. people can look at what i've done and make their own decision on who i am. but let me just tell you early on i think there were a lot of people who may have glossed over me as a candidate because i'd crossed a partisan line to serve as u.s. ambassador to china which, by the way, is just part of my world view. i believe in putting my country first and i always will.

and now a lot of those folks are coming around and they're giving us maybe a legitimate first look and they're saying, they forgot to take a look at my record, my history as governor, and as they reflect upon that, they're saying, he's kind of the conservative we were looking for. he's the consistent conservative as opposed to some of the others in the race who have been on both sides of the major issues of the day, who are running for panderer in chief more than they are anything else. so that puts us in good stead, joe, because with weeks left as we approach the new hampshire primary, we're picking up ground game here. we're now in third place. we've just overtaken ron paul for third place, while at the same time we've got a lot of folks in the party who are now looking at us, i would argue, giving us the first legitimate look, and i think those two elements combined put us in a very, very strong position as we move toward january 10th. >> that's my next question. it seems that a lot of other candidates have really gotten their day in the sun. they've been, if you will, the

flavor of the week or every two weeks or so. why hasn't it happened to you, at least so far? >> well, maybe because i don't light my hair on fire. maybe because i don't sign pledges. and i'm just not going to do that. what you're going to see happen, joe -- and if this fails i'll come back on your show and explain why -- everyone gets their war holly and 15 minutes of fame. they go up and they go down. i'm getting whiplash watching all of my friends go up and down. i don't want that to happen to me. i want a steady, consistent substantive rise, which is exactly what we are seeing here in new hampshire-. we've gone from zero now to number three, which is a great place to be and i think at the end of the month we'll be in an even stronger position. that speaks to sustainability. it means when the cameras are on and when you're ready to do what needs to be done to carry over a victory in this primary state, you will have the ability to sustain that momentum as opposed to just going up and down. i don't want the up and down. i want sustainability. we will prove the point that we

are the electable republican who can go on and beat barack obama. >> among those comments that some might characterize as hair on fire, the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, has talked about the courts and he's gotten a lot of attention for that recently. he said he wants to subpoena certain judges for controversial decisions. he wants to abolish courts for certain decisions or what have you. what do you think about that? do you agree that the courts are out of control, as some conservatives would suggest? >> well, listen, that's going to be debated and argued for a very long time. as for me, this takes our eye off the ball of the core issues that are at hand and that will ultimately allow us to win the election. whenever we talk about that, it kind of takes the energy out of our economic deficit, which i think is the issue of this election cycle. it takes our eye off the trust deficit which is, i believe, a

driving issue of this election cycle. i'm not going to spend any time talking about court reform. that will be debated and discussed for a long time. as for me, when people see me and when they consider supporting me, i want them to remember two things. one, i'm going to attack this economic deficit because we need to start looking at it as a national security problem. when you've got 70% debt to gdp, your economy just doesn't grow much anymore. and i want people when they look at me to know that we're going to deal with the trust deficit in this country, because as you mentioned in your earlier segment, joe, nobody trusts congress anymore. everybody knows they need term limits. everybody knows we've got to shut that revolving door that allows members of congress to go into the lobbying profession, and everybody knows we need to dock their pay until they can balance the budget. nobody has any trust in our tax code. people don't have trust in our wars abroad. they don't have trust in wall street because we've got banks that are too big to fail. i'm going to focus on all of

those because i think longer term they are absolutely critical to allowing us to pull together as americans based on trust in tackling the issues that really do matter for the next generation of americans. >> but just to put a finer point on it, do you agree, as many conservatives do, that activist courts tend to rewrite the laws written by congress? >> listen, i don't like legislating from the bench. i don't think that is good. there is an impeachment process for those who are caught up in ethical violations. at the end of the day these judges are appointed by people who were elected officials. i say if you don't like who's in there, then start at the grassroots level and elect the kinds of representatives, governors and presidents who will get the kind of judiciary that will do what needs to be done for this country longer term. >> i have to ask you because you were the former ambassador to china. governor romney has made some statements that people have seen as controversial.

he's talk about currency manipulation and how china should be handled. if we could just listen to this sound bite, and isle come back and talk to you about it. >> i will designate china as a currency manipulator. under our law, that allows the president to apply tariffs where the president believes that chinese currency manipulation has cost american jobs or is unfair. >> now you, governor, have said you don't agree with that notion. however, what would you do -- are we just to allow china to continue to do what it wants and hope the situation gets better? how would you resolve the issue of currency manipulation by china? >> like with all things dealing with the chinese, you got to sit down and you've got to negotiate your way forward. you slap a tariff on china for currency manipulation, it's an egregious problem. no doubt about it and we've got to deal with it. but the way you deal with it isn't by slapping a tariff on goods coming in from china because they'll take the same tack and put tariffs on our products.

that sends us into the kind of environment that's exactly what we don't need when this economy is trying to get on its feet again. it punishes small businesses, it punishes exporters, and that longer term is a price that i don't think this country ought to be paying. instead, you sit down at the negotiating table, you put the issues before the chinese, whether it is currency manipulation, whether it is ipr violations, whether it's north korea, whether it is iran, whether it is burma, whether it is pakistan, whether it is the south china sea related issues and you negotiate your way forward. that's just the way the relationship has run for 40 years, and it is the way things are going to be handled going forward. >> former governor john huptsman of utah out in new hampshire right now campaigning. i'll probably see you out there real soon. >> joe, we'll look forward to it. thank you. up next, what will iraq look like without a heavy u.s. military presence? when a moment might turn into something more.

and when it does men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ [ man ] tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

joining me is paul bremer, general james cartwright, retired, former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and robin wright, a frequent visitor to cnn. she is the senior fellow at the woodrow wilson center. i guess when you look at this tape, the overarching view is, did we get it right, general? >> that's going to be a question historians will probably debate for a lot of years thp there are things here that are not finished. there are activities in the region that are still sitting on the edge of potential conflict. and so, how these issues inside of iraq, the size of our presence or the lack of our size of presence, affect the region probably is the biggest question that's out there. >> we get it right? >> i think in the broad sense, we did. the iraqis are immeasurably

better off today than they were before. their per capita income, for example, is six times what it was before the war. but i think the general is right to issue a cautionary note. i think the president has basically placed a very big bet with this decision to pull out, and it could put at risk vital american interests in iraq and in the region. >> robin. >> i suspect history will look back on iraq as arguably the worst foreign policy mistake united states has made. it's not the military's fault. the military did very well. there were a lot of political miscalculations. but today you find in iraq there's still very serious unemployment, higher crime, electricity limitations, that there are a dozen militias left behind, that several of the politicians are aligned with iran, that iran is one of the strategic winners out of our u.s. intervention at a time we're now concerned about whether iran gets a nuclear capability, that there are an extraordinary number of challenges that we still face.

and with these dozen militias, there is no one kind of overseeing or as a psychological presence to put -- keep them in their place. >> one of the things that we talked about for years, quite frankly, is the definition of winning. when will we know if we've won in iraq or not? and that's something i imagine we might continue to debate. in fact, we have a little sound bite we'd like to play for you from 2007, i think, and talk about it on the other side. >> my sense is that we find a government that observes the rule of law, number one. number two, that we have an economy in that country that is improving. number three, we have security. number four, it sits in a strategic location geographically. >> general, you know that guy. so, when you look at those metrics that you sort of laid out there, did the united states fulfill those metrics of

winning? >> i think the united states probably fulfilled them, but there is still more to do. as you look at the region -- again, i go back to the region. that's really the important part here. can you in fact set the conditions that the region is comfortable, that issues like iran and its nuclear ambitions, and issues between the historic conflicts that have occurred in iraq relative to its neighbors, relative to israel, can those be managed now in a way that the region feels comfortable and safe and that iran is actually -- i'm sorry -- iraq is actually integrated into regional activities. >> so i have to ask you, paul bremer, there's been a lot of questions about the de-baathification, your role in the beginning and sort of disbanding the iraqi army. is there anything you'd like to

take back? >> i said that i thought the de-baathification degree was the right thing to do and the mistake was putting in the hands of the iraqi politicians and not in the hands of iraqi judges. let me make a point the general made. i think he is exactly right. the definition of victory actually was given by the president when he made the announcement we were pulling out. he said a democratic iraq can be a model for the region. that's right. that's what president bush also said. and the question is, can a democratic iraq survive if america pulls out before the job is done. and i think that's the risk. risk is now to american interests, not just in iraq, but as general cartwright pointed out, you have a waxing iran seeking nuclear weapons, and it looks at the vector of american engagement, we're pulling out of iraq and we're going to draw down substantially in afghanistan. those are not good signals. >> robin wright, we'll go to a

break, but that's obviously where we want to go with you in the next segment, where do relations between the u.s. and iraq go from here? more with our panel after the break.

back now talking about iraq with our distinguish panel, paul bremer, james cartwright and robin wright. you of course have a new book out. "rage and rebellion across the islamic world." when you look at the position we are in right now, there are many, many questions as to whether iran is going to sort of fill the void in iraq and eventually lead the united states to an adversarial relationship. if you will, with iraq as we walk out the door. how do you see the united states avoiding that scenario and putting itself on the right track, if you will, with iran? >> well, iran's clearly one of the strategic winners out of this. the united states managed to eliminate one of the two arch rivals that iran faced. and so iran has had -- has gained a much stronger position. at the same time, i think that once the united states withdraws, that the historic tensions between arabs and

persians along the strategic border are likely to resurface and that the iranians will have influence with many of the top leaders in iran, but -- in iraq, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the iraqis are going to become the next iranian province. i think the united states' role right now is largely diplomatic in trying to help the iraqi government sort out its differences. and those are very severe. you talked about the rule of law. and the tragedy is that you find 90 members of parliament who are boycotting because the shiite prime minister is using many of the tactics that saddam hussein, a sunni muslim, used against his adversaries. that these old sectarian divides are in many ways deeper than they were even under saddam hussein. and the united states can play a certain kind of role in that, but it ends up, again, kind of confronting iran in terms of who its allies are in iraq. >> you talk about the diplomatic role, we're leaving a lot of people behind who are civilians.

presumably many state department employees and of that ilk. what are they there to do? are they there for iran, or are they there to be eyes and ears and watch for the next problem and decide, for example, whether we need to bring some more of those troops who are right over in kuwait back into the country? general? >> i think the answer's yes. to both of them. the reality is that they'll probably play both roles. the question is, is it significant enough to actually change the calculus in the region, and it's going to be hard to predict that given what's going on in syria and the arab spring activities and whether they start to recede or whether they continue to build. and knowing that and understanding that and understanding america's position in iraq and then in the region, is it enough? is it enough to convince people to stay metered in their aggression or not? >> ambassador bremmer, i can't let you all go without asking you a political question. and is it's a question that's been raised again and again very recently.

at least by senator mccain in a speech. let's listen to what he had to say and come back and talk about it. >> unfortunately, it is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of the united states troops from iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests. i believe that history will judge this president's leadership with the scorn and disdain that it deserves. >> you know, it's kind of divided out there in the country, 50% say, yeah, we achieved our goals. just a little less than that disagree. at the end of the day, do you think that the president is going to be able to claim this as a real victory at least going up to the next election? >> i think it will be too soon by the next election.

i mean, he obviously has placed a very big bet with american interests there. i was disappointed with the decision. i think he made what he thought was the best decision. i think we would be better served by having troops there. i hope that one of the things the diplomats who are staying behind will do is reengage the iraqis. we have a strategic agreement with them signed by bush that would allow us to find ways to bring some more troops back in, basically as a marker to the region that we're still engaged and to the iraqi people that we still care about how they organize themselves. >> do you think the president gave george w. bush credit or should have for -- >> i think it would have been nice to have heard a grace note congratulating president bush on his very courageous decision to surge in 2006, which after all is what led to the point where we were able to withdraw the troops. >> general? >> i tend to agree. it will be interesting to see -- i think the opportunity is there for us to bring forces back in. they may not be in a combat role.

they may be in a training role. the iraqis have bought 36 f-16s, so a training role. those types of activities. the question is, how do we do it, and are there protections afforded to the sources? >> the bottom line is the united states wanted to keep troops there, and the iraqis weren't willing to give troops immunity. and trying to figure out a way to get troops back whether as training or deploying because of some other threat just doesn't seem feasible. >> right. thank you very much. all three of you, appreciate you coming in. and let us stay in touch because this isn't over yet. after the break, a check of arwa damon live from baghdad on the iraqi perspective.

joining me from baghdad is cnn's arwa damon. with the large u.s. military presence out, are the iraqis viewing this as a victory? >> reporter: for the iraqis, it's not that simple, not black and white or a yes-or-no answer to that question. most iraqis will tell us what the u.s. has done in iraq has been anything but success, irrespective of how they felt about saddam hussein. many celebrated the fall of

saddam hussein, but few anticipated what would be coming next. one cannot forget the country had huge chucks controlled by al qaeda, sectarian bloodletting, neighborhoods ripped apart by long sectarian lines, and a lot of the iraqis blame the u.s.' mistakes directly for this along with the mistakes made afterwards by their own politicians. you'd be hard-pressed, joe, to find a family in iraq that has not lost someone that they love, and it is because that, the blood that has been shed, they cannot look at this war as a success or victory. their unfuture is uncertain. their government appears to be falling apart at the seam, and this began even before the last u.s. soldier departed. we now have a split within the iraqi government, a bloc that has suspended its membership from parliament. there are great concerns about iran's influence over the country. many iraqis will tell you what we hear from president obama, nuri al maliki, this is not a

democracy or a power-sharing government. the deputy prime minister wants to call his boss, iraqi prime minister al maliki, a dictator. when you combine all of those factors put together, iraqis are most certainly not looking back at what america did here as being a success. many of them had dreamed that america would bring them prosperity, that the capital would be thriving, and they say the reality they've been left with, well, it's anything but that. >> a very valuable perspective at the end of our program. thanks so much. arwa damon for that reporting. up next, our "sunday of sunday" highlights from the other sunday morning talk shows. then "fareed zakaria: gps."

now time for today's "sound of sunday." you heard the two-month extension of payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits is not a done deal yet. house speaker john boehner seems inclined to hammer out a deal, not rubber stamp the senate's bill. >> what i'm suggesting is is this -- the house has passed its bill, now senate has passed its bill. you know, under the constitution, when we have these disagreements, there could be a formal conference between the house and senate to resolve our differences. but our members really do believe we have to do our work.

the president said we shouldn't be going on vacation without getting our work done. let's get our work done. let's do this for a year. >> the house meets tomorrow. republican candidate mitt romney wrapped up his week of appearances on fox with yet another appearance on fox. he told "fox news sunday's" chris wallace he's prepared to go the distance if there's a long primary season. >> i hope we don't have that, but my guess is that's certainly a possibility. we are prepared, if we go on for months and months, we will have the resources to carry a campaign, to each to the states who decides who gets delegates and who becomes a nominee. with the end of the year in iraq, some criticism from newt gingrich's envoy to iraq in the early war years. >> in december of 2003, both in mete the press and in news week, that he'd gone off the cliff, ambassador bremer gave us an assignment we