If you find it, it would be great if you would post it, here or on its own. I always go over this thread later for things I missed or want to mull over. I think I am not alone.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/michael_chertoff_rep_pete_hoek.html
About halfway down the page:
WALLACE: Of course, your big issue is your opposition to the war in Iraq, and you've pointed it out again today. You think that it's a distraction from the war on terror.
Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July.
Mr. Lamont, what do you think happens to Iraqis who trusted us to protect them from the insurgents? What do you think happens with all the sectarian violence if we pull all of our troops out in less than a year?
LAMONT: Look what's happening now. We've been there three years. We've gone from greeted as liberators to just a few dead- enders, to some sectarian violence, to civil war. You know, unlike Senator Lieberman, unlike President Bush, I think we've got to look at the facts on the ground.
Things are getting worse, and our very visible front-line presence is making the situation worse in many ways. So let's be clear with the Maliki government. Let's say we have no permanent intentions upon your military bases. We're going to not be here on a permanent basis. It's not unconditional. We're going to start bringing our troops home, and we ought to have them home within a year.
I think that's reasonable, gives them time, their 200,000 troops to step up. But it's a basic message. I mean, President Bush says we'll stand down as soon as the Iraqis stand up. I turn that on its head. I think the Iraqis won't stand up until we stand down.
So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.
WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?
LAMONT: There is a blood bath. What if it keeps getting worse? What if it gets even worse? No, I don't think I want to have 132,000 troops back in the middle of a civil war. I think only the Iraqis will be able to solve this for themselves.
We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief. But I think the big difference between the president and I, the senator and I, is I think it's now time for the Iraqis to step up and take control of their own destiny.
WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.
LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever. But right now I think our policy ought to be let's be clear with the Maliki government. We're going to have our troops out within a year. We'll be there for reconstruction, training, everything else in the background. But yes, I think let's set the record straight.