had to deal host: our guest is a professor at the university of new orleans. thank you for being here this morning five years after hurricane katrina. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time and 4:00 for those of you on the west coast. we will be joined by the national security correspondent to look at foreign policies issues on the meeting this week between the palestinians and the israelis as the president talks about the middle east. he will also talk about the war in iraq. we'll also talk about the upcoming midterm elections. we will talk with the publisher of the cook political report. that is all tomorrow morning and

later in the week, we will look at political ads, the role of independence and the tea party movement and campaign fund raising this week leading up to the 2010 midterm elections. live coverage of the president's speech at xavier university is getting away past 3:00 eastern time, the past 12:00 on the west coast, his speech and the five- year anniversary of hurricane katrina. thank you for being with us on this sunday. enjoy the west -- enjoy the rest of your weekend. .

>> our guest has long been one of the senate's leading voices on foreign policy issues. senator lugar of indiana, thank you for coming back. guest: thank you. host: let me introduce our two reporters. matthew lee, warren strubele. i think you're going to start us off. >> thank. we have a busy week up ahead. i think the first thing on the agenda is president obama's speech to the american people at 8:00 p.m. on tuesday, nt change in the mission in iraq from combat to advise and assist. if i could, two questions.

do you think we're pulling out too early? is the country ready to take security and other matters in its own hands? and as the military presence goes down, the state department is going to expand. i'm curious whether congress is ready to fund billions of dollars in civilian efforts in iraq. >> well, congress is probably not ready to fund the billions that are going to be asked for. i would just say that the president's speech comes, it seems to me, as a response to those in the democratty party who some time ago questioned why we were staying in iraq this long. i remember a meeting at the white house shortly after the president came into office, and he had people, bipartisan around, and announced that we would be leaving iraq in mid 2010. without naming names, some folks said, mr. president, get a sharper pencil out.

meaning, you've just been in a campaign in which people wanted this war over. but the president relied upon the military people that he had around the table that day, the intelligence people. but still, i think he feels the need to speak to a commitment that he feels that he made. having said that, it comes at an unfortunate time because, obviously, the political situation in iraq has been unsettled now for three months or so without a prime minister, with no prospect really of negotiations reaching leadership, with the problems of the oil law and the kurds and all of that still unsettled. and the problems likewise for just regular iraqi citizens of pottable water. 80% of it is suspect, 70% sewage difficulties. about 70% of the power off at various times in most of the cities. so the demands of that

government or of us, whoever, is responsible to pay for all of this, are enormous. now, on the good side, iraqi oil is back up to 2.5 million barrels a day, about what it was before the war. and there are other companies in biddle for it. but the question likewise comes down to whether people from iran or even kurds from turkey or others interested in the country will leave all of that alone. so you get to the costs to the united states that congress is going to be asked to fund very complex set of measures which are not really at all clear right now. aside from the fact that we will have still troops in the country, they will be in fact on the borders, i understand, where the cuds might come across from turkey just to keep

the integrity of that situation going. but in the background for training exercises, for apparently a stopper if iran were to have a sudden move into the territory. so there's expense there already of maintenance of those troops. and although they're all supposed to be out under the agreement the president has reached by the end of 2001, there -- 2011, there will be questions even then, is it too soon? in other words, what are the ambitions that the united states has for iraq or the iraqis themselves. what is the the understanding? >> do you see the president trying to end this war on a schedule that doesn't meach the reality? >> yes. i think that he feels that having made this commitment to many people in congress or the public or the parties, the case may be, that he doesn't proclaim victory, exact lifplt i'm not certain what the terminology will be in the speech. but he says this is my

agreement and i'm fulfilling my pledge. >> do you think, senator, that that's a mistake? >> probably. because people will still say, well, what about the government? where is the government? in other words, if we were to provide money to the iraqi government, to whom? well, you can say there still is surely some sort of bureky there. the fact that the parliament hasn't been able to come to a prime minister selection or there's been no legislation, no oil law, none of this. that will come along after ramadan or after whatever the space may be, maybe. but the irony is that there had been three relatively good elections. the election that arrived at this impass was relatively trouble-free. but the results finally come to an impass. now, that's all a problem in democracy as opposed to

dictatorship where there is no impass, there is no problemcal bargaining. but, nevertheless, most iraqis and certainly the united states is pleased that iraq has moved toward democracy. we saw that as a model for the area. but having come to that point, still, somebody needs to be in charge. >> as warren mentioned, it is a big week. because immediately after that speech, the day afterwards on wednesday, the president is going to be hosting the israeli prime minister as well as kim abdullah of jordan and the president of ejipt to get these direct talks started. that will happen on thursday at the state department. how do you assess the prospects for these discussions given the fact that there haven't been any talks in about 20 months, almost two years, and the two sides seem as divided as ever? >> initially the prospects are not good for the same reason they have not been good for a

long time. on the other hand, i don't fault the president or the secretary of state or others for taking the initiative. and the fact that the invited guests are going to come is significant. this has led to considerable discussion in israel. the prime minister facing a good number of israeli parliamentarians and leaders who are saying -- now, there are certain thing that is you are not authorized to give away in this process. so don't move too rapidly. likewise, the prime minister and others on the other side are saying there are certain withdrawals from territory that are the sin quanom of success here. and the others coming in sort of as friends of the family, as not referees but to show that the rest of the middle east takes interest in this. >> the palestinians are coming into these talks threatening already to walk out if this freeze on jewish settlements in

the west coast is not extended -- west bank is not extended. how critical do you think it is for the administration to convince he and his team that some sort of an extension of that freeze is absolutely necessary for these talks to not only succeed but just to continue to get to a second round? >> well, i'm not going to enter into the bargaining session that clearly would have to be intense to get movement on that, because the fact is that my prediction of some pessimism to begin with is the fact that movement would be very difficult for either party. if either party simply says there are certain pred cats that have to be there before we even talk, why, then we're not going to talk very long. but at the same time, the president has set a goal or maybe a deadline of a year for this to go on, so the initial

situation might not be promising but on the other hand there are many people in israel and in palestine, and for that matter in the middle east who would like to see some greater permanence in the arrangement. not, maybe not a final settlement but something at least gives assurance that the ongoing battle that we now have will not continue. >> very briefly, you mentioned that the goal or the deadline of a year. this administration seems to be very fond of setting deadlines or goals, where as the bush administration was more willing to let things be open-ended and judge things by progress. how realistic or how smart do you think it is for the president and his top advisers to lay out these kind of deadlines or goals? >> perhaps, the idea of a year was something that was demanded by some of the parties that are involved either overtly or covertly as the case may be,

i'm not certain why. it could be, as you say, that a year has been set simply so that the thought is we don't go on and on forever. in fairness, the administration started the process at the beginning of this administration as opposed to the last six months. that has been a habit which then leads to the administration being over, a whole new group coming in. so the obama administration still has a lot of time relatively to get something done in this area. and it's very important that it get done. and i think maybe a majority of people in both palestinian sides and the israelis know that. but, getting to that point is very, very difficult. i admire the folks that are coming. i hope that they will do well and at least have more than a day before we proceed again. >> senator, i want to draw you into a debate that's been raging here domestically over the past couple weeks and

that's the debate over the new york mosque. was the sept be -- dr with the september 11 anniversary ahead of us, it seems the pitch of this debate is going to continue. what will ultimately put it to rest in this country? and my second is, do you have concerns about the reporting of the u.s. debate and how it might affect allies in muslim countries around the world, the people on the streets and what thank thinking about america? >> on the second question i think sadly enough regardless of what the reporting was, it will not be either helpful or hurtful at this stage. the two poles that ask do you approve the united states or do you like americans or what have you, in most of the muslim countries in the middle east are so negative, it is hard to think of how they might descend further. now, i think this is an unjustifyible finding. for example, even in pakistan

where american aid is central presently to the resurrection of the country after the floods, but it has been central really throughout the last two or three years, there still may be less than 20% of pakistanis who have a favorable view of the united states. this is just a fact of life which is very unfortunate. now, the debate over the muslim mosque doesn't help this, but i would say that essentially the debate ought to be centered for the moment in new york city with local officials who try to work out on a zoning local basis what is going to occur. now, i appreciate people throughout the country want to enlarge this to a much larger debate, do you like muslims or do you like muslims, or how should muslims be favored or not favored. people who have in various other cities are saying, well, we might have this problem. let's even have the argument in

advance. what if muslim population wanted to build a mosque in our community? very clearly we have constitutional dicta here that's going to inform the debate. but, at the same time, a local the local persons really have to come to conclusions. now, the press has to report but debate is bound to ensue given the sensitivity of 9/11, the people who died there, some of whom were muslims. as a matter of fact. but most were not. and the desireably, in the country right now, to want to keep this issue alive during a political campaign, we still have several weeks to go. >> you were just down in indiana, which is the heartland, if any state is the heartland. are people talking about this at all or is this a debate that is essentially washington and

new york cent rick? >> there is some discussion but it is pretty small. the question is why do we have 10.2% unemployment in indiana? why hasn't that change ds? more fundamental, why are schools under stress? because, in part we decided we want to limit property taxes, so the state government is left with more of the burden. but the state government revenues are down. so it doesn't matter where you turn, the fact is there is less money for civic purposes. some that are very fundamental and important. and that is what grips hoosiers. and i think properly so. this is what we need to be discussing. at the federal level or the state level or local level, to make any difference in terms of our economy. if creating new businesses, new jobs, new innovation, new

anything, new capital that may come into the situation. there are some very good stories in indiana. so that's heartening. there are parts of the state in which unemployment is coming down. so it's not a situation of gloom. and gin the surrounding states of illinois, michigan, ohio, indiana is a bright spot. if you take a look comparatively at the industrial midwest hit by problems of decline in steel production, auto production, rv production, a good number of things of this sort. >> senator, one of the things you mentioned just in answer a little while ago is pakistan. this has been somewhat of a signature project for you, along with senator kerry and representative burman, your name is attached to the bill which provides billions and billions of dollars to pakistan for long-term medium and long-term development. and i'm just wondering, the other day, two days ago, what

would be last week when this airs, some of that money from your bill, $50 million, was moved from this development work to emergency flood assistance. is that something that you support? and how concerned are you about the situation with the floods in pakistan and the potential effect on the political stability in the country? >> gin the emergency, i do support that money going there. i would say that the kerry-lugor-bermen bill is sometimes debated in pakistan has been up and down with many pakistanis feeling that this is great news that the united states first of all has a five-year plan, not a five-week in and out, but five years of commitment. having said that, the question is what sort of interference does monitoring of how the money is to be spent mean? so this comes along at a time that the money has not been

spent very rapidly because trying to find institutional u.s. for education, for rule of law, for things that we would like to see this used for have been hard to come by. and, therefore, the money is there and the emergency is very clear. now, the emergency as i read it in press accounts is so large that this is going to engulf more money than the five years of the kerry and lugegar and berman business, which is going to be five years. as a matter of fact, people are saying with 2500 miles of roads ruined completedly, the cost of just build 500 of that, with 500 million or so you could use up several million just repairing the roads apart from the human need of housing and medical care.

>> are you concerned that the flooding may damage what was hoped, what you had hoped in promoting and sponsoring this bill? >> yes. i think it's such a devastation to the economy that the setback may not be the decay as some are predicting but it may very well come to that. it is huge at a time when the growth of many areas of pakistan were deminmuss to begin with. and it comes at a time that the taliban in pakistan are saying that to foreign aid workers including our own, stay out. so here we have a predicament. so here we get back to the public opinion in pakistan in which the dislike of the united states or of others outside is so great, the taliban would say let those people suffer rather than anybody else coming in. so we're going to have to fight in order to get the aid to the people in order to save them.

>> senator, we would be remiss if we didn't ask you about the new stark treaty. you're sort of lonely in your own caucus in terms of supporting that treaty. almost every other republican senator has come out against it or not said that they support it. do you think you'll be able to, along with senator kerry, turn the tide? and what does it say about where the republican party is on foreign policy these days that most of the caucus opposes a treaty that admirals, general, former skects of state, defense, have said is in the national interest? >> i think possibly a majority in fact do favor the treaty nomly and will eventually vote for the treaty. however, many have supported and i'm among them, the thoughts of senator john kyle, for example, who believes that we need to mod rpize our own nuclear situation at oak ridge,

loss almose, and other points, that we need to make certain that we are prepared and that our allies can count upon the fact that our nuclear war heads would work if called upon. some would say this has nothing to do with the star treaty and they're correct. but some republicans have said this is the time to get a commitment from the administration to follow through on these things. the administration appears to be willing to make that commitment. the president, vice president have spoken to it. senator kyle has felt not as explicitly and they like. the house of representatives has cut some money that they're asking the president to boost. so we have that going on in another room while we're discussing the star treaty. on the 15 ds and 16 ds of septier we'll have a markup in the foreign relations committee. my prediction is that the markup will lead to the committee sending to the floor

the new star treaty. the question then will be, in a lame duck session and given the mood of whoever returns, and however long they want to stay, will senator reid be able to devote the time on the floor that it will be required to have ra good debate and to pass the treaty? i hope so. >> but you're not predicting it will pass this year? >> i'm not predicting anything beyond the fact that i think it will get to the floor and we will have a chance to vote upon it or debate it in the lame duck session. ultimately, as i say, i believe that a very large number of republicans will be in favor of the treaty. but not all. in the past, starting clear back in the beginning of the nun-lugor act 19 years ago, we had some republicans who argued that we just don't want to deal with the russians, period. it's not a question of new star treaty. just we don't like the russians, don't trust them and don't want to have anything to

do with them. and further more, if we had our drutsdzers, we would like to build a missile defense system that would be so large and comprehensive, it should shoot down anything that was ever shot at at us. they want want to proceed in a very different way. this is an argument clear back with ronald reagan and that administration who decided that was not a very good path to follow. but it doesn't mean that the argument is over. so each time arms control comes up, we have some of these. >> how concerned are you that this is going to be turned into a political football ahead of the mid-terms in november and particularly with the former presidential candidate governor romney saying that passage of this would be the worst political foreign policy that president obama could make? you don't agree with that but it has brought it into the realm of domestic politics. how concerned are you that politics, partisan politics

could crater this? >> i don't think that it will. i think essentially there is a knowledge, at least among senators generally that this is very serious. that dealing with nuclear weapons, the being able the have boots on the ground to sow call verify, visualize what the russians are doing is critically important. for the moment, we have a little suspense here. the agreement between presidents obama and the russian president have allowed the nun-lugor program to continue. contractors on the ground in russia now still taking war heads off of missiles, taking missiles down, destroying submarines just as we have been doing for 19 years. but this will continue only so long as the russians have some faith that we will take this treaty seriously. i think most senators understand that. for the most moment this is not

a crucial situation because we are still involved in reduction of arms in russia with americans working with russians. now, i'm one who wants to continue that. on that basis, i think a large majority of republicans agree with me, applaud the nun-lugor program, vote for the appropriations each year for it, but i'm hopeful, to get to your point, that we will not get into a political situation in which republicans say this is a treaty that president obama and his folks negotiated. therefore, ipso facto, it must not be a very good treaty. that would be very unfortunate. but i think we will not deal with the treaty on the floor until after the election. then, perhaps passions may have cooled. >> speaking of passions and cooling, we have one minute left, and i want to use it to talk about domestic politics. in indiana you gave a speech and the reporting said you raised concerns about the house

g.o.p. leadership and their ability to lead. mr. boehner gave a big speech this week. did it change your position or raise any concerns? >> the question raised by my provocative thoughts that the republicans needed to have programs, to have alternatives and we needed to have spokes perns able to enunciate this. and one reporter asked, do you believe that mr. mcconnell and mr. boehner can do this? i said not for the moment. and all i heard right away from my friend mitch mcconnell who said you don't know but we are planning, we are putting together plans. and i said, well, this is good news. maybe mr. boehner is, too. the speech this week did not indicate too many thoughts about the future, much more centered i think upon the rather poll rised political situation currently, and i don't excuse anybody necessarily, but i would say many people in the country are hopeful if we do have republican majorities we will

also have some republican ideas and programs and be able to articulate those. i'm among those who feel that's important and so we'll continue to work with senator mcconnell, at least in our party, to do that. >> you also mentioned the possibility of mitch daniel putting his hat in the ring for president. i wonder if you've heard from him. >> well, i've had a good conversation with him in indiana just a week or so ago, and he has made no commitment and this will not be the time in which we make an announcement that he will need to make at some point. i have encouraged him to run. i think that he would be an outstanding candidate and a great president. but he will have to make that decision himself. >> thank you for your time this week. >> thank you. >> matthew lee covers the state department. we just finished a wide-ranging conversation with the lead republican on the foreign

relations committee. i'm wondering if you mentioned this is a big week coming ahead for foreign policy issues. i'm wondering what you learned from the senator recaps the hope for the middle east peace process or the president's speech. >> i hauth he had some fairly interesting points to make about the president's speech on iraq and saying that it was probably a mistake to effectively declare victory or perhaps not declare victory in as many words, but to say, ok, plan is achieved and we're out. we're out on schedule. i thought it was interesting that he disagrees with the president on that although there has been a bubbling sentiment to that effect not just in iraq but also in terms of afghanistan and potential beginning of the drawdown of combat troops next year on that. both timelines, that this