Dodd is my copilot

Turning to Iraq. In a Dodd administration, what kind of residual forces would be in Iraq, three months or four months after you take office?

If you're going to have an embassy there, you'd have to have something to protect your embassy. And [troops] in Qatar, maybe Kuwait and obviously Afghanistan in the region. But I really believe that our continued military presence at the size that we are talking about is a huge mistake. So beyond what is necessary for embassy personnel and the like, I am of the mind that this is the only way to have any hope that the Iraqis may decide to be a nation-state -- even one that Joe [Biden] advocates that will be a three-part confederation.

But in the absence of that, I just think that we are just delaying the inevitability that this is going to break down into a continued chaotic situation. I also believe that's a possibility. But the status quo is unacceptable.

I had a long meeting with [Syrian leader Bashar] Assad in December. And I had to fight with the State Department, who didn't want me even to talking to him ... I said to Assad, what do you want Iraq to look like? And he said, "The last thing I want is a Shia-dominated, Iranian-dominated, fundamentalist state on my border. Syria is 98 percent Sunni. I'm an Alawite. I wouldn't last six months."

So the assumption that chaos is going to reign if we leave fails to take into consideration both the Iranians' historical concerns about chaos in Iraq and the Syrians' political concerns about what it may be ... The moderate Arab states, I think, are deeply worried about what Iran's intentions may be. Hence, I think there may be a unique opportunity for the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli issue. The events recently in Gaza and so forth. [King] Abdullah in Jordan tells me that the Israelis may have been a problem, but it dwarfs the Iranian emergency.

We're so bogged down in this situation that our flexibility to deal with other multinational issues has been severely hampered. We basically give [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez a free run of the Americas. The Russians are basically playing us like a harp. The Chinese couldn't care less about what we say about the Sudan. So our ability to have influence on these other issues has been severely curtailed and hampered by our inability to move ourselves out of the Iraq situation.

So the numbers [of troops] are the ones that I would accept about an embassy -- if you had an embassy to sustain there -- that you could keep safe.

I heard numbers like 5,000 Marines to protect an American Embassy in Baghdad. At that level, is there any point?

I know it isn't a scientific survey, but when you talk to the kids [soldiers who are recovering] at Walter Reed, they tell me that [the Iraqis] are "nice people. But they know where the IEDs are. They know where the enemy guns are." How frustrating that must be. To know that you're over there trying to make a difference and the very people you're trying to give a chance for a future -- and whether it's fear or whatever else it is -- [won't help]. When the other side gains the ability to recruit to a larger extent than you can, it's over. And right now, they're recruiting and we're not.

Given that you only got 11 votes against Iraq war appropriations without a timetable attached, how can you master the politics to get a veto-proof margin in the Congress to change Bush's conduct on the war?

I never got a veto-proof margin to defeat John Bolton [for U.N. ambassador.]

But you also had Bolton at the U.N. for nearly two years on an interim appointment.

I disagree with Joe [Biden] on this that it is pointless to try anything unless you have the presidency or [67 Senate votes to override a veto] ... Baloney. The people who are more worried about Iraq policy are people like [New Mexico Republican Sen.] Pete Domenici, who just comes out and says that it is a failed policy. And [GOP Sens.] Dick Lugar and John Warner and others. And they're just the beginning of this, believe me.

The idea that the president is not going to change his policy until you have a veto-proof margin, I don't think so. People are looking at him and saying, "We'll come up with [the votes] unless you change this thing." The fact is that you're building this thing [support for mandating a withdrawal plan] is incredible on the face of it. People don't understand that nobody is going to abandon our military -- it's a silly argument ... Of course we're going to provide the resources.

But that's not the issue when you're talking about the supplemental [Iraq appropriations bill]. I think you have some people who have been intimidated that somehow they're going to be branded as abandoning our troops on the field, so they're skittish. Again, the general public is so far beyond where people [in Congress] are now. Others think that they will wait until September to deal with this.

"They" being the administration?

Senate Republicans and Democrats. I don't know what the Democrats will come up with in the next few weeks. I suspect it will be closer to what we had offered [before] without quite the teeth. They'll try to get closer to it.

But the point is that you don't have to win these things. Even though you're in the majority, it's a majority by one. Standing up for something with conviction and purpose can be more valuable in the process than winning 51 votes. There are moments when that's more important than producing a majority. So don't define victory in every case as winning the vote count. This is a time when victory on this issue -- in terms of changing this issue and making a real correction in the mission -- can be won by something a lot less than 60 or 50 votes.

You mean, it's the right Republicans going to the administration to push for a change in policy?

It's where the public sees you getting close to this thing. Where it builds and you get closer. All these are factors. You can have victory with 40 votes. So I don't think there is enough appreciation that when you're in the majority, doing the right thing, though you may lose the vote, you may win the issue. It will get you to a conclusion of this much more rapidly.

When you just try to get to 51 [votes], you compromise to such an extent that you end up with something meaningless. And you make everyone upset.

Speaking of that one-vote margin, let's talk about one vote you know well -- [Dodd's Senate colleague from Connecticut now identifies himself as an independent, though he voted with the Democrats to elect Harry Reid as majority leader.] Could a Dodd administration guarantee that Lieberman wouldn't vote with the Republicans in organizing the Senate?

I'd be very surprised if Joe was ever to become a Republican. We're very good friends.

Next page: "Why aren't you winning this thing hands down? Why is the door still open?"