INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”

Guest: Dr. Ali Al Dabbagh, Chief Iraqi Government Spokesman

Reporters: Anne Gearan, Associated Press & David Wood, Baltimore Sun

Moderator: C-SPAN

TAPE DATE: Thursday, October 18, 2007

AIR DATE/TIME: SUNDAY, October 21, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET

Please use with attribution to C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*

* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network

Please contact Amy Spolrich in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at

202-626-7958 or aspolrich@c-span.org for questions

© NCSC

Copyrighted material: use with attribution only

PETER SLEN, HOST: Dr. Ali Al Dabbagh is the chief Iraqi government spokesman. He is in Washington this week to meet with President Bush and others about the Iraq war and the situation there.

He’s our guest this week on “Newsmakers.” Dr. Al Dabbagh, thank you for being with us.

Two experienced, working reporters are here to question him – Anne Gearan of the Associated Press and David Wood of the “Baltimore Sun.”

Anne Gearan, why don’t you start?

ANNE GEARAN, DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Wondered, given the vote in the Turkish parliament, if you could talk a bit about what you expect to happen next. Does the Iraq government expect some sort of incursion or offensive from the Turkish side?

What’s your response to the vote? And what are you talking to people in Washington about with regard to Turkey and the PKK?

ALI AL DABBAGH, CHIEF IRAQI GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN: Prime Minister Maliki had a telephone call yesterday with Erdogan and the vice president, as well. He was in Ankara.

We did – the Iraqi government its most in order to ban the activity of PKK. And this is clearly mentioned to the Turkish, our friend in Turkey. But we are always urging Turkey not to take military steps against the PKK and what is called in (ph) PKK in Iraq.

This is a mountainous area. It’s not easy for Turkey to get rid of this. They tried 15 years coming inside with the approval of the Saddam regime by that time. But they couldn’t get rid of PKK.

So, we thought that there is another measure should be taken. It is up to Turkey. This is the internal affair of Turkey, but in order to not to allow the PKK their terrorist activity there. Terrorist organization, we had defined them, would not allow them to destroy the relation with Turkey, and at the same time we are calling Turkey not to allow such devil (ph) enemy, their enemy, to destroy the relation.

Turkey is a very major, important partner with Iraq. We are working to have a good relation with Turkey. The prime minister visit to Turkey two months back. It was part of the intention of Iraq to have good relations with Turkey. We are edge (ph) in Turkey.

I think most of the countries in the world, even the United States – President Bush yesterday – calling the Turkish government not to take such an offensive and crossing the border to Iraq.

DAVID WOOD, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, “BALTIMORE SUN”: What do you suppose – obviously, there’s a lot of politics here involved on both sides – but what do you suppose is Turkey’s real aim here? Because some have suggested that their strategic interest is to prevent Kurdistan from becoming economically powerful and politically viable.

Do you buy that?

DABBAGH: I don’t deny that there is a problem between the Turks and the Kurds. And this is a history. It cannot be solved in just an offensive crossing the border.

In the end, Kurds – they are humans, and they’ve got the right to be recognized at the end. They are part of the – part of the Iraqi government now.

The Kurdistan region and Mr. Barzani – he’s the president of Kurdistan – he should be recognized as part of the government. He is no more a leader of militia, of peshmarga. The Turkish should understand this. This is important.

At the same time, it is not wise for the Kurds to do the protection for the PKK because they are Kurd. We do understand that they have been in sympathy with their, you know, Kurd co-partner, Kurd in Turkey, the other Iranian Kurd, the Syrian Kurd. But this didn’t entitle them to threaten the relation.

We do understand that the PKK is also threatening Iraq, because they did a lot of things in Iraq, as well. And we (inaudible) them, so they had fight them. They had fought them earlier at the time of Saddam, because also there is creating instability in the north and north Iraq.

So, at the end, we feel that they, Turkey, should review their vision to Kurd in Iraq. Kurdistan is a part, and it is a region in Iraq, and Iraq is recognizing Kurdistan to be a region.

We are calling Turkey to recognize Kurdistan in this way.

WOOD: You know, I guess the thing that’s hard for Americans to understand is, why can’t Iraq just close the border and prevent Kurdish insurgents from crossing over into Turkey?

DABBAGH: We can’t close it. We can’t close such border as there. There it is mountainous. It is a very rough area. It is not just a gate that could be closed. And this is one of the problems, which even Turkey cannot do it.

Turkey cannot also get, you know, those PKK from escaping from south of Turkey toward Iraq, and then going back and forth. This is a very rough area, as we all know.

GEARAN: But if Turkey is prepared to try a military offensive against the PKK – you just said a moment ago that the PKK is also a threat to Iraq in addition to Turkey – I mean, if they’re prepared to try it, might there not be ultimately some benefit to Iraq from sort of looking the other way and letting them go after the rebels?

DABBAGH: Well, we – yes, we understand that this is not the – you cannot get rid of the problem of the PKK. It makes it more complicated, because there will be casualties. There will be – villages will be destroyed. And then it will create an anger; it will create instability.

GEARAN: Among the Kurds.

DABBAGH: Among the Kurds. At the same time, Iraq is a sovereign country. It is not in the way that anyone who has been threatened, that they just are crossing the borders. But then, we will take the right also to then cross the border with Syria, cross the border with Iraq.

This is not a way of solving the problem. We feel that there is another measure that should be taken.

Fifteen years of struggle with the PKK of crossing the border didn’t solve the problem. I don’t think that in one crossing the border will solve the problem.

SLEN: What will be the Iraq government’s response, if there is a cross-border incursion by Turkey?

DABBAGH: We are not in a position to fight with Turkey, definitely. This is one of the basics.

But we are looking for the United Nations resolution which entitles all the multinational forces to protect the border of Iraq. Definitely, we are not. Not the Turkish intention, as well, to confront with the Iraqi army.

But we are most of the world with us, that they are calling Turkey not to cross the border. That is what we can do, and we are calling Turkey that this won’t help promoting a good relation with you. So you should think it twice before you take such a decision.

We do understand (ph), they got an approval from their parliament. But at the end, the government of Turkey, we do know that they are not willing to have a military action. They are also under pressure from their military. But we are thinking that the wisdom of the prime minister of Turkey will end at the end, and will rule at the end.

GEARAN: One quick follow-on to that, and then I want to turn to Blackwater, if we could.

But was Prime Minister Maliki satisfied with the conversation he had with Erdogan? I mean, you said “we’re urging Turkey.” Well, what did they say in response?

DABBAGH: Yes. Besides that, we are going to send a delegate from Iraq, security and political delegate. They might go on Thursday. And they will be negotiating to have that, a trilateral committee, will have a trilateral committee between us, as well as the United States.

And we had signed an agreement on the 26th of September, which regulates this issue of a cross-border terrorist and the cross-border smuggling, and all this. I think that we are calling Turkey to have that one and negotiate in this.

We are satisfied that we did our job, and we feel that there is a good response from the Turkish government to behave in a good way to maintain the good relation.

GEARAN: Turning to Blackwater, is the Iraq government investigation of the September 16th incident complete? What are your recommendations coming out of that?

And could you sort of comment more broadly on whether you think the use of personal security details is a good idea going forward for U.S. government officials in Iraq?

DABBAGH: I had the list (ph) two weeks back on the final report of the Iraqi government, what we had. We end up with what is a crime. Blackwater did the crime of killing 17 civilians, innocent people, and 27 being wounded.

They used excessive force unnecessarily, and randomly, and there was no threat, whether direct or indirect, to Blackwater. So, we are calling that the Blackwater should be subject to accountability, to justice. And they should be following the rule.

Now, the Iraqi government is trying to take all the measures and the steps to have all the security companies accountable to Iraqis. We cannot allow that the security – no country in the world allows such a security company to move freely.

We do understand that the security companies in Iraq, they do a good job of protecting diplomats, of protecting the contractors, as well as they are subject to a high level of threat. But this will not entitle them to be immune from the law. This is what we are calling.

GEARAN: When you say “accountable to Iraqis,” is it your formal recommendation then that – or demand – that security companies operating in Iraq be subject to Iraqi law and prosecution under Iraqi laws?

DABBAGH: Definitely, yes. But the Blackwater – I think Blackwater, because they are connected and they have a contract with the State Department, they have been treated in a different way, as per the Order 17.

But at the end, they should be subject to law. This is what we are calling.

But from now on, I think the Iraqi government are calling that everyone should be subject to Iraqi regulation.

WOOD: And how do you muscle the U.S. government into accepting that kind of a demand, that all American contractors working in Iraq be subject to Iraq law?

DABBAGH: I think this is the normal – this is the normal anywhere. This is part of the sovereignty of the country. Even the American government, they – I think they support. We had met President Bush when we had been in New York, and he showed the (ph) terrorists (ph) that the administration won’t allow any violation of the law.

And that means that the rule of law should be implemented. And rule of law, part of it, they are living there in Iraq, and then they should be subject to law. They cannot be out of law.

They are a contractor at the end. They are not the military. They are not the forces, which has been under the United Nations resolution or a bilateral agreement or arrangement (ph). They are a contractor, and they should be subject to the law of the country which they are operating in.

WOOD: But as a practical matter, how do you make that happen? Because the U.S. government’s position is that the military – and, by extension, military contractors – not be subject to Iraqi law.

DABBAGH: Well, part of them, they are not by extension. They are not a military contractor. They are a civil – with a civil contractor.

But at the end, I think that this needs to be negotiated with the administration, with the people that are in the embassy, how to regulate the presence of – they should be regulated. They should be moderated in a way, in order to be subjected, to be transparent, to know who is in and out, what sort of people they have.

GEARAN: Would it be acceptable to you, then, to have personal security contractors subject to U.S. law? Prosecution in civil court in the United States – criminal court, rather.

DABBAGH: Well, I don’t think that, because this will be applicable on every other contractor – Australian and the British and others. They should be subject to Iraqi law.

I think this is good for all of us, that they should be subjected to one law, and they’re not each one – each one is subject to his country. This is, I think, is not accepted by Iraqis.

WOOD: Could I turn to another difficult problem? And that’s your neighbor, Iran.

DABBAGH: Yes.

WOOD: As you know, U.S. officials increasingly are making the case that Iran is meddling in Iraq, that it’s sending weapons, training teams, money, various other kinds of assistance to some of the insurgent groups.

What’s your understanding of the level at which that kind of activity is approved in Iran, whether that goes all the way to the top, or whether these are somehow sort of outlaw groups operating on their own?

And what’s the Iraqi government plan to deal with this problem?

DABBAGH: We don’t deny that there is interference of Iran in Iraq. This is fact. We cannot deny it. Nobody could hide it, even.

We are calling Iranians during the last visit of the prime minister. He had met the supreme leader in Iran. And they have made all (ph) (inaudible).

And it was one message for them: You want to support Iraq? There is one to support it, through legitimate government, not through other parties. This is sort of aggression when you are supporting those who break the law or out of law, or any militias. This is not a support for Iraq.

I think we had noticed a good and positive signs from Iraq during the last two months. And we need to encourage that one.

But it’s still – it is not – it is below our expectation from Iran. We do need the Iranian leaders to respect their commitment to their promises that whatever they told us, it should be – we should be seeing that one.

At the same time, we feel that the good relation between the United States and Iran will improve the situation of the interference of Iran.

At the same time, vice versa, that any bad relation will, you know, escalate that negative interference which we are – we had experience during the, after the month of May and June. We had a very hard time with the Iranians and the interference and sending the weapons. And this, for (ph) sure (ph), this is anti-explosive things which is, you know – it is not usually available in Iraq, but we know from where it is coming, for we know its origin.

WOOD: So, they deny that they’re sending in weapons across the border. Are they lying?

DABBAGH: There is a different lines and different hardliners in Iran. And each one, you know, they had – there might be a circle of authority to deal with certain groups in Iraq.

We – definitely, we don’t have evidence that the supreme leader that is involved in this issue. But definitely, we do understand that the intelligence and the intelligence people there in Iran, they are involved in a way or other.

GEARAN: Is the United States doing enough to engage Iran on your behalf? Should – and what should Iran do in response to the conditional offers extended by the United States so far?

DABBAGH: We are not happy with the slow movement of negotiation between the Iranians and the Americans. We had the last meeting in August, in early August. Until then, there is no sign that when will be the next on a technical level, as well on a high level meeting.

Still, I think this is the reflection of the issue of – the nuclear issue of Iran is reflected on Iraq.

Also, the other issues is being reflected. We are always calling that let Iraqi issue be separated. It’s not easy to separate this issue from the others.

But definitely that we are – we will be happy if the negotiation with the Iranians.

We have an idea – if you will allow me – we have an idea that all the measures being taken by the United States against Iran since 28 years didn’t lead to Iran in its border. Iran now in Lebanon, Iran in Palestine, Iran in the Gulf, and Iran heavily influencing Iraq.

So, 28 years of policy of confronting with Iran didn’t lead to a good policy, to a positive policy.

There should be a new way of dealing with Iran. Iran is the – we are the biggest loser of the interference of Iran in Iraq. And this is a history.

Since 500 years, there is struggle between Iran and the area, with Ottoman, with Arabs, during the Saddam the regime. We are paying. We were paying in Iraq all this.

So, we are calling that to have a better understanding, a better way of dealing with Iran, so that we will not pay that one.

SLEN: This is C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program. Dr. Ali Al Dabbagh is our guest. He is the chief spokesman for the Iraqi government and for Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Anne Gearan of the Associated Press, David Wood of the “Baltimore Sun” are our reporters.

Next question.

WOOD: Dr. Dabbagh, let’s talk about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, something that is very much on the minds of Americans.

What do you foresee in perhaps five years down the road in terms of a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq? Anything at all?

Or is it possible that you would see the need for, say, a division, perhaps 20,000 troops to be stationed somewhere like Balad as a quick reaction force, or a stabilizing force?

DABBAGH: Let me say that this end of this year there will be the last extension for the multinational forces. So it will go a bilateral arrangement between us and the United States. We’ll regulate the presence of the United States troops in Iraq.

We don’t deny that Iraq is subjected to a high level of threat, in Iraq. And this needs, till we build our forces, in order to get – in order to be capable of confronting such a threat – we would not be able to protect our border. We would not be able to defend Iraq for many years.

Definitely, we do need help. Now, this help, how it comes? It comes the presence of bases, presence of some bases in the neighborhood, and just in the Gulf and somewhere else.

This is a – we are discussing now with the people there in Baghdad. There is a team of Iraqis, which they are preparing a vision – an Iraqi vision – how are going to be a long-term relation and strategic relation with the United States. Definitely, it’s of interest for Iraq to have a strategic connection with the United States. We are working for that.

Now, part of it, whether there is a presence, the numbers, the location – all this one it comes in between. We don’t have yet like what you call a vision how to come, because this is being subjected to approval of the parliament, approval to political parties.

It’s not just approval of one man or the prime minister. It’s going to be a debate, a national debate in Iraq, how it will be the presence of the United States.

Presence – is (ph) it like Qatar, like Jordan, like Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait? How is it going to be for the long-term arrangement? Definitely, it is for the Iraqi interest that we should have a certain arrangement with the United States to get a proper support in our war against terrorist group (ph).

WOOD: Would it be profitable, do you think, from your point of view, to have more of an international force in Iraq? Security force I’m thinking. And perhaps made up of some of your neighbors, for example – maybe not Iran, but I’m thinking some of the Gulf states, for example, as opposed to a purely American force?

DABBAGH: No, definitely not. We are against having any international force – any United Nations force, even, the peacekeeping forces, the blue caps. Definitely not.

Iraq is against having any sort of international forces in Iraq.

Whenever the United States troops will leave, none of the other countries’ troops will be in Iraq. We will take the lead. We are not at all with this idea.

GEARAN: What do you think of this discussion – the recent discussion in Washington, largely – of soft partition of Iraq? And the – I mean, I know that the Maliki government is opposed to it in principle.

But do you think – do you see it as an idea that’s gaining currency internationally, and something that has any sense of inevitability to it?

DABBAGH: Let me say that before we had this one, Senator Joseph Biden was with us in Iraq, and we were together, always with them, in al Anbar. And he saw how the things improving in al Anbar.

Let me say one thing, that the – how we do receive this message from the Senate house, it was really against – everybody was against this idea, simply because it is an Iraqi decision.

And the end is not a – we are working in order to create means, how Iraqis will make their future. They will decide what type of Iraq do they need. Is it federal Iraq? What is the sort of federalism?

It is not the people who vote for the future of the others. This was, you know, a sort of feeling, of national feeling, that somebody else is deciding and they are voting for our internal issue, which is our right. We should vote for it, not you should vote.

But I do understand that, due to the – probably they are taking a model of former Yugoslavia, and they want to implement it in Iraq. This is not – it’s not going to operate.

But there is a risk – there is a risk of disintegration Iraq, if the situation, security situation continues. But this is, again, Iraqi people they had proved that they are overcoming the civil war. Because a lot of people, they said Iraq will slip down to civil war.

But Iraqis showed how restrained, how brave they are. They couldn’t slip. They didn’t slip, even though the devil – horrific causalities are being created by al Qaeda, Iraqi people, they show this restraint, and they didn’t slip down.

So, there is a good and positive remarks that Iraq will not be partitioned, will not be disintegrated.

Iraqi tribes, they are mixed – half Sunni, half Shia. We have four or five biggest tribes in Iraq. They are families (inaudible). A lot of marriage – thousands of marriages between Shia and Sunni. It’s not easy for Iraq to split it. If you want to split it, you should go split the bedrooms, as well.

SLEN: Time for one more question each.

WOOD: One of the things that – very encouraging things I’ve seen in my travels through Iraq this year, is the rise of provincial government and local governments. I think they’re really starting to take hold and govern in a way that that hasn’t happened before.

One of the things I kept hearing, though, is that there’s a need for what’s called the provincial powers law, which will sort of regulate and encourage that kind of local government.

Why has that been so hard to pass in Baghdad, that law?

DABBAGH: This is part of the problem which we are facing. We are in a political problem. We don’t deny, again, that we do need to work to have better reform, political reform in Iraq.

Part of it is passing this legislation. Many pieces there. The oil law, the revenue sharing, the de-Baathification (ph). And part of it is governing (ph).

It’s very important. Important in the sense that it will give a better structure, and it will restructure the representation.

The current representation, nobody could say that it is real representation of the people, because the last election, everybody knows how it comes.

So the provincial election could give an idea that better representation and a new – people will be, emerge, as the real representation. Then you could – you know, you could have different from what we have now.

And then there will be no domination of a certain few parties. They said we do represent Sunnis, for example. No, we are not – no more representing Sunnis. There are others also representing. You should not keep monopolize the way of representation. There is the others.

This is – the government is working in order to get the, you know, together, in order to have all this legislation passed from the parliament.

And I think that the oil law is in the way. And also, the revenue sharing, the (ph) Baathification.

Hopefully, that within the last two months the thing will be improving.

GEARAN: Following on that, the oil law has been repeatedly promised. And U.S. officials have smiled upon leaving meetings with Iraqi officials and said, “We’re going to get an oil law right away.”

Are you saying you think you’ll have an oil law by the end of the year?

DABBAGH: I’m optimistic, because we had solved the technical problem. The callers (ph) were objecting on a language, on a drafting, the draft which we have.

We went back to the older draft, which has been approved already on 26 February. And now it is on the agenda of the parliament.

GEARAN: Do you feel that the pressure is off at all since the benchmark legislation in – or the discussion of the benchmarks in Washington have (ph) gotten (ph) underway (ph)?

DABBAGH: Well, we do have our benchmark, but I think that we are achieving, we are progressing.

SLEN: Dr. Ali Al Dabbagh is the chief spokesman for the Iraqi government. He is here in Washington this week to consult with President Bush and others.

He was born in Karbala, went to school in Baghdad. Left Iraq in 1977 and returned in ’03. He’s also a member of the Iraqi National Assembly.

Thank you, sir, for being on “Newsmakers.”

DABBAGH: Thank you.

(BREAK)

SLEN: We are back with Anne Gearan of the Associated Press and David Wood of the “Baltimore Sun.”

We just talked with Dr. Ali Al Dabbagh, spokesman for the Iraqi government.

To both of you, what did you hear?

GEARAN: Well, I think that the newsiest issue probably beforehand during this visit, is what’s going to happen with Turkey.

He didn’t say a lot on that – certainly, nothing that was really new. But it was interesting to hear him talk about the possible threat that the PKK poses, both to Iraq and to Turkey, and to continue to press basically the same thing that the United States has been saying, which is, we’re urging Turkey not to do anything rash.

I suspect that he’s spending a good bit of time in Washington this week strategizing about that with the U.S. government. But it is an open question. I mean, they Turkish parliament has authorized cross-border action. And neither the Iraqis nor the Americans like it.

SLEN: David Wood, he talked about the fact that the Iraqi government is not capable of responding if Turkey goes across the border.

WOOD: Well, that’s the thing. I mean, nobody can really control that whole border area. And it’s a little bit of a misnomer to talk about cross-border, you know, putting up security perimeters and all this kind of thing. It can’t really be done.

And the thing that I kept thinking about as we were talking is, you know, here’s a guy who’s grappling with enormous issues and intractable ones – you know, dealing with Iran, dealing with the Turks over the PKK thing.

I’m trying to figure out what is the future of U.S. military presence there. How do we stand up government to deal with all these political problems?

I mean, I thought he was extraordinarily sort of pleasant …

GEARAN: Sanguine?

WOOD: … in the middle of dealing with problems which – you know, if the rest of us were facing these problems, we’d just say, you know, “Can’t do this. Going to Canada.”

(LAUGHTER)

GEARAN: Yes.

WOOD: So, you know, one thing that particularly struck me when he was talking about – when I asked him about Iran and the whole problem of Iranians sending weapons into the country to attack Americans. And he was – very politely said, you know, you’ve been confronting Iran for 28 years and it’s gotten you not only nowhere, you’ve gone backwards …

GEARAN: And to no effect, yes.

WOOD: … and they’ve spread out all through the region. And it’s time to try a different tack.

GEARAN: He said quite interestingly, we’re the big loser as a result. And it – you know, Iraq is now the point of friction between the United States and Iran, which have been adversaries for 28 years. And now they really have something to bump up against each other on.

I mean, he said we’re suffering because of the confrontation over the nuclear problem, and that is probably the case. I mean, it’s – but it still – you know, the U.S. invasion means that now there are U.S. – there’s a U.S. presence and there are U.S. targets much closer to Iran.

SLEN: Well, Anne Gearan, you’re the diplomatic reporter for the Associated Press. You cover Condoleezza Rice. What’s the attitude over there toward Iran?

GEARAN: The attitude at …

SLEN: At State.

GEARAN: … the State Department?

It’s a two-track approach. And some days one side’s up, and some days the other. But they’re doing two things at once. And there are a lot of people who have been urging the Bush administration to engage Iran, who say, hey, any talking is better than no talking. But the longer that any attempt at talking produces no results, the less popular and sustainable that approach may be.

She’s going to see probably her Iranian counterpart at the end of the month – interestingly enough, in Turkey. Turkey is hosting what they call an Iraq neighbors conference, which basically is a chance for the regional countries surrounding Iraq, who would have the most to lose or gain, depending on what happens in Iraq, and the interested parties like the United States and the European Union, to get together and say nice things and pledge money.

But it’s also an opportunity for the United States and Iran to edge around each other, look each other in the eye, or actually have a meeting.

SLEN: Would that be cancelled if there was a cross-border incursion?

GEARAN: No word yet. But it is scheduled to be in Turkey, so we’ll see.

WOOD: One of the things that struck me about when we were talking about Blackwater, that military contractors and this very knotty question of, do they come under Iraqi sovereignty or not.

But he was very plaintiff when he’s saying, look. We’re a sovereign country. We should be able to control what goes on in our country under our own laws. But it seemed to me he was – just the tenor of the way he was saying it, it seemed to me saying, but, of course, you know, you can’t deal with the mighty United States. We can’t make them do that, and so we’re probably going to have to go along with whatever they suggest.

GEARAN: He has a good practical point, which is that there are security contractors based in a number of other countries. And it becomes sort of unwieldy if those contractors are responsible, then under – accountable then – only under their home law.

But there’s a move in Congress now, and it may gain some traction with the administration, to, as a way to increase management and oversight of U.S. security contractors, to make them formally subject to U.S. law. And if the recommendation of the – there’s a joint commission investigating the September 16th incident. And if it’s the recommendation of the Iraqi government that they be subject to Iraqi law and the recommendation of the United States government that they be subject to U.S. law, it’ll be interesting to see how they resolve that.

WOOD: I know how it’ll get resolved.

GEARAN: Yes.

WOOD: We’ll win and they’ll lose.

(LAUGHTER)

SLEN: We’ve been talking here with two longtime Washington observers and reporters – David Wood of the “Baltimore Sun,” and Anne Gearan of the Associated Press.

Thank you both for participating in “Newsmakers.”

WOOD: Thank you.

GEARAN: Thank you.

END