'This Week' Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney
June 22, 2014— -- Below is the rush transcript of "This Week" on June 22, 2014. It may contain errors.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Right now on ABC's This Week. Crisis in Iraq: hundreds of U.S. troops are moving in as advisers, a jihadist army digging in. Will President Obama give the order for air strikes? This morning, Martha Raddatz in Baghdad leading our coverage.
Then, tax man take down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't believe you.
ANNOUNCER: New outrage in the IRS scandal. How did the agency lose thousands of crucial emails?
And Justice Sonya Sotomayor on the future of affirmative action.
And that surprising Costco run in with Hillary Clinton.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was not planned, I can assure you.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: Promise.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I promise you.
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos begins now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARTHA RADDATZ: Good morning. I'm Martha Raddatz in Baghdad where the battle for control of Iraq has taken a dire turn. The jihadist group ISIS gaining new ground in the last 48 hours, capturing four key town near the Syrian border, and now threatening not only this country, but the entire region and the U.S. homeland with its growing strength.
We have team coverage of the latest developments, including breaking details on those U.S. special forces preparing to advise the Iraqi army.
But we begin here in Baghdad where Shiite militias took to the streets this weekend in a show of force.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RADDATZ: Members of the Mehdi Army, who once led the fight against Americans in Baghdad's Sadr City now vowing to stand up against ISIS, the jihadist fighters threatening Baghdad's borders.
But ISIS gained critical new ground this weekend. After wiping out an entire Iraqi brigade, ISIS now controls al Qa'im on the Syrian border, giving the terror group the ability to move weapons into Iraq from Syria.
And in the north this week, ISIS forces surrounded Iraq's largest oil refinery, a portion seen here in Satellite images burning.
If it's overtaken, the militants would gain control over a significant portion of Iraq's gas and power supply.
And Iraq's security forces have little ability to regain control of all that has been lost. They have no offensive capability and no real air power.
And now a growing fear, more westerners joining the ranks of foreign fighters descending on the country.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will go to Iraq in a few days, and we will fight them.
RADDATZ: This flashy new propaganda video showing British and Australian recruits.
In response to the terror group's march, young Iraqi men are scrambling through Baghdad's marketplaces to fight body armor and uniforms left behind by the American military, vowing to defend their city.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have to fight for my family, for my country, for everything.
RADDATZ: And if they can't find uniforms, they go anyway. We saw thousands and thousands of young Shia men, no training, no weapons lining up to serve.
The men have all just shown up spontaneously. They are anywhere from about 12-years-old and up, some have already lost family members to the jihadi fighters.
And behind this battle, everyday citizens who have already been through so much. This family moved to Syria during the worst parts of the war in Iraq, now with war raging in Syria they are back.
11-year-old Iba (ph) and the other children all have the same nightmares.
What do you worry about most?
"The explosions," she said, "the explosions."
A reality that these children have now lived with most of their lives.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RADDATZ: And when we left that family that night, just outside that restaurant were truckloads of armed Shiite militias patrolling the streets taking the law into their own hands.
And now to Washington where the U.S. is still struggling with how to respond to the escalating crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry is now in the region as are U.S. military advisers to train the Iraqi forces. Here's chief White House correspondent Jon Karl.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JON KARL, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This morning, the first two teams of those military advisers the president has decided to send to Iraq are already in Baghdad preparing to work following this promise from the commander-in-chief.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.
KARL: The decision to send special forces to help train the Iraqi army comes after a week of tense deliberations with his national security team.
But perhaps the biggest question the White House now faces, should the president give the order for air strikes.
Aside from obvious targets of opportunity, two things could trigger a larger military operation. Intelligence showing a direct threat to U.S. interests or progress by the Iraqi government finally overcoming the sectarian divide now tearing Iraq apart.
OBAMA: If we don't see Sunni, Shia and Kurd political support for what we're doing, then we won't do it.
KARL: And back home, his policies under fire from both sides.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 300 Americans is not going to solve the problem of stopping the advance of this group that is more extreme than literally core al Qaeda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the objective of these up to 300 military advisers that he's proposing? What will they be able to accomplish that has not already been tried and failed before?
KARL: All of this comes at an especially difficult time in Obama's presidency. A new poll shows his approval rating has sunk to 41 percent and a mere 37 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy. The very issue second term president often rely on to stay relevant.
For This Week, Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RADDATZ: And we'll have much more from Jon later in the show.
But right now, we want to turn to the former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General James Cartwright, and Colonel Stephen Ganyard, a former F-18 pilot and also a former deputy assistant secretary of state for political military affairs. Thanks for joining us, gentleman.
General Cartwright, I want to start with you. This situation in al Qa'im, the bordertown with Syria. This is a very serious turn of events.
GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT, FRM. VICE CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: It is, Martha. It represents the opportunity for ISIS to establish safe havens and escape pursuit by either Syrian forces or Iraqi forces, should they decide to be able to muster that kind of effort.
It also creates the opportunity for ISIS to move further -- to move forces in to Iraq. They now occupy about, oh, 300 to 400 kilometers along the Euphrates River. They are in a very commanding position. It is likely that this is somewhat of a defining moment for them in that if they can hold these positions and lock them down it is unlikely Iraq, as we envisioned it, will ever return.
RADDATZ: And Colonel Ganyard, about ISIS, Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in 2006. ISIS has been described as Zarqawi on steroids.
STEPHEN GANYARD, FRM. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it's interesting to use the Zarqawi analogy, because ISIS is very much the follow on organization from Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq that the United States battled in 2006 and 2007.
But this is a much more capable military outfit. If we want to anticipate what's next, we ought to think about when the U.S. killed Zarqawi in 2006, they found on his body a hand-written drawing that showed encirclement of Baghdad that came to be called the Baghdad belts.
So we know that ISIS is not going to stop. We think that Baghdad is the goal. And so what we ought to look for next is the potential encirclement of Baghdad by ISIS to choke off the city and bring down the Maliki regime.
RADDATZ: And 130,000 U.S. troops had a hard time handling them then.
General Cartwright, how on earth are 300 military advisers from the U.S. going to make a difference?
CARTWRIGHT: The vulnerability for ISIS right now is that it's extremely stretched. 300, 400 kilometers is a long ways to move men and equipment to encircle Baghdad. And if there is to be some offensive on the part of the Iraqi forces as they exist today, those advisers will help try to create some sort of a scenario in which those lines of communication can be cut off and supplies can be withdrawn or at least hindered from making it down to an encirclement around Baghdad.
RADDATZ: And I want to turn to Colonel Ganyard, what about the possibility of air strikes.
GANYARD: The air strikes are difficult is because we're not going to have U.S. eyes and boots on the ground to be able to pick out targets. That said, out in the west where we see the supplies coming in from Syria, there may be places where U.S. air power can hit supply convoys, where you find ISIS out in the open.
But once the fight comes closer to the city and we get into urban areas, it's going to be very tough to pick out those targets. And we need to be very careful, because as soon as we drop that first bomb or shoot that first hellfire, we have picked sides. And we need to make sure that we're picking sides for an Iraqi government that's inclusive and that we aren't making a broader determination of Sunni versus Shia within the regional perspective.
RADDATZ: Thanks very much to both of you.
And for more of what's happening on the ground here in Baghdad, I'm joined by Matt Bradley of the Wall Street Journal and Alissa Johanssen Rubin of the New York Times, both seasoned correspondents in this region. And you have been covering this story all week.
I want to start with you, Matt. You were with those Shiite militias yesterday in Sadr City, a wild scene. Some mock suicide bombers calling themselves the Peace Brigade.
What did you see and what does it mean?
MATT BRADLEY, "WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, it was a -- it was a scary sight in Sadr City and it was repeated in cities throughout south and west Iraq, where we saw just, you know, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of mostly young men parading through the streets, armed with sometimes fake weapons, sometimes riding on trucks that had fake anti-aircraft guns.
And all of this was a bit of theater. It was aimed at intimidating and -- and trying to -- to send a message to the Sunni part of Iraq that they were -- the Shiites would not be yielding, especially Baghdad and the shrines in some of this major -- major pilgrimage cities of Iraq that ISIS has directly threatened.
And, you know, this was -- this -- this move toward Shiite militias, toward civilian engagement, is really quite threatening, because what it says is that we're headed back toward the kind of sectarian conflict that really almost tore the country apart in 2006 and 2007.
RADDATZ: And, Alissa, you have been with the Sunnis this week. And they -- they have to feel threatened, the minority.
ALISSA JOHANNSEN RUBIN, "NEW YORK TIMES": I think they feel particularly threatened in Baghdad. There are fewer Sunnis here than there were in 2005, 2006, 2007 because of the civil -- the civil strife during that time. And so now their communities are a little more isolated and the people in them feel that the -- the rising of these militias is a very dangerous moment for them.
RADDATZ: How did this happen so quickly?
I think the rest of the world wasn't really paying attention to Iraq and suddenly ISIS, this group probably people haven't paid much attention to either, is sweeping through Iraq.
BRADLEY: Well, U.S. policy-makers and the Iraqi government were -- were very well aware of the growing power of ISIS. And we saw areas in especially Mosul, where all of this started off. ISIS and some of their -- some of their al Qaeda-inspired partners were shaking down local businesses. They were intimidating tribal leaders. And they were starting to exercise the kind of troubling influence that they did during the height of the sectarian civil conflict in Iraq back in 2006 and 2007.
And also, there were signs that the military just wasn't up to snuff.
RADDATZ: And, Alissa, I want -- I want your thoughts on what happens now. Everyone is on edge. It seems the threat to Baghdad has receded.
But quickly, just what do you think happens now?
JOHANNSEN RUBIN: Well, I think, clearly, there will be an effort to somehow strengthen the army. And that will come from many sources. I think, you know, we know that the Iranians are here. Iranian advisers are trying to work with the Iraqi Army and improve them. But they're also working very much with the militias. They -- they've trained some of the militias to a fairly high level.
The Americans are sending in advisers.
I think the question is, is that -- is it -- is it too late for a really significant military solution?
The larger question is to -- to what extent will Iraq's de facto borders or the -- the borders of the central government be redefined by what ISIS has done in these last few months.
RADDATZ: Thanks for joining us today.
And thanks for all of your great reporting.
We'll have much more from Baghdad later in the show.
But now we return you to Washington and my colleague, Jon Karl.
RADDATZ: Thanks for joining us today.
And thanks for all of your great reporting.
We'll have much more from Baghdad later in the show.
But now we return you to Washington and my colleague, Jon Karl.
JONATHAN KARL, HOST: Thank you, Martha.
And now to weigh in on all of this, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who, with his daughter Liz, just launched the new group, The Alliance for A Strong America.
Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us.
Now, you made...
DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning, Jon.
KARL: -- you made a big splash this week with an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal" under the headline, "The Collapsing Obama Doctrine." Some very harsh criticism of the president.
But what I didn't read in your op-ed is what is your solution, your plan right now, for Iraq?
What would you be doing?
CHENEY: Well, first of all, Jon, I'd recognize that Iraq is not the whole problem. We've got a much bigger problem than just the current crisis in Iraq.
The Rand Corporation was out within the last week with a report that showed that there's been a 58 percent increase in the number of groups like al Qaeda, Salafi jihadists. And it stretches from West Africa all across North Africa, East Africa, through the Middle East, all the way around to Indonesia, a doubling of the number of terrorists out there.
The first thing we have to do is recognize we've got a hell of a problem and it's not just in Iraq. I worry about Pakistan. Just a couple of weeks ago in Pakistan, the Taliban, the same group that we just released five of the leaders of from Guantanamo, the Taliban raided Karachi Airport.
Why do I care about that?
Well, Pakistan is unique in that it has a significant inventory of nuclear weapons. We have evidence that the man who built the Pakistani program, AQ Khan, offered up recently and that was that the North Koreans have bribed Pakistani officials for sophisticated technology for enriching uranium and that the North Koreans now have some two -- 2,000 centrifuges operating to enrich uranium.
We had North Korea try to provide Syria with a nuclear reactor.
The -- the difficulty, the spread of the terrorist organizations is not recognized by the administration. The proliferation of nuclear capability and the possibility that it could fall into the hands of terrorists is not really being addressed at all.
And I appreciate the problems we've got in Iraq right now.
KARL: But -- but...
CHENEY: But what I think we need is a broad strategy that lets us address this whole range of issues. And that involves reversing a number of the policies of...
KARL: But...
CHENEY: -- the Obama administration.
KARL: But let me -- let me ask you specifically on Iraq, because that -- that's the crisis confronting us right at this moment.
Would you in -- would you take war -- you know, air strikes against ISIS?
Would you move Special Forces into Iraq?
What would you do in Iraq?
CHENEY: Well, I -- what we should have done in Iraq was...
KARL: No, no, what would you do now?
CHENEY: -- leave behind a force -- well, what I would do now, John, is, among other things, be realistic about the nature of the threat. When we're arguing over 300 advisers when the request had been for 20,000 in order to do the job right, I'm not sure we've really addressed the problem.
I would definitely be helping the resistance up in Syria, in ISIS' backyard, with training and weapons and so forth, in order to be able to do a more effective job on that end of the party.
But I think at this point, there are no good, easy answers in Iraq. And, again, I think it's very important to emphasize that the problem we're faced with is a much broader one, that we need to -- an administration to recognize the fact that we've got this huge problem, quit peddling the notion that they -- they got core al Qaeda and therefore there's no problem out there.
KARL: Now, you...
CHENEY: They've got to rebuild trust and relationship with our friends in the region.
KARL: Do you...
CHENEY: It's very important to take a broad gauge approach to it.
KARL: You wrote in your op-ed, "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."
But a lot of your critics...
CHENEY: Right.
KARL: -- left and right, say that you are the one that has over and over and over again been wrong on Iraq. And they point to statements like these.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: And I think they're in the -- in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Now, Rand Paul, pointing to things like that, wrote in "The Wall Street Journal" also, "Many of those clamoring for military action now are the same people who made every false assumption imaginable about the cost, challenge and purpose of the Iraq War. They have been wrong for so long, why should we listen to him -- listen to them again?"your response?
CHENEY: With all -- all due respect, John, I was a strong supporter then of going into Iraq, I'm a strong supporter now. Everybody knows what my position is. There's nothing to be argued about there.
But if we spend our time debating what happened 11 or 12 years ago, we're going to miss the threat that is growing and that we do face. Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist. He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world.
I think it's absolutely essential.
One of the things I worried about 12 years ago and that I worry about today is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time, it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters.
And when we have a situation developing in Pakistan, for example, where there are nuclear weapons, where supposedly that technology has been sold to the North Koreans, at the same time, the president announces the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan right next door, that we're -- we're missing the boat. We don't understand the nature of the threat and we're unwilling to deal with it.
KARL: Do you -- in your op-ed, you have a broader critique, which you're -- you're making now, as well, of the president's foreign policy. And you write, "President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring that he has taken America down a notch."
In this op-ed, you also suggest the president is a -- a fool -- that was the word you used -- only a fool would -- would take the -- the approach he's taking in Iraq right now.
It almost seems like you're accusing the president of treason here, saying he's intentionally bringing America down a notch.
CHENEY: No, my reference didn't refer just to Iraq. It referred to the fact that we've left a big vacuum in the Middle East by our withdrawal from Iraq with no stay-behind agreement, by the commitment he made just a couple of weeks ago, that we're going to completely withdraw from Afghanistan with no stay-behind agreement.
We create a vacuum and it's being filled. And today, it's being filled by ISIS -- by Sisi (ph) from Syria. It's being filled by their attempt, obviously, to take over all of Iraq, but it's also being filled by places like Pakistan, where the Taliban have just launched a major attack on the Karachi airport.
The -- the scope of the problem, in part, is based upon an unwillingness by the president to recognize we have a problem. They're still living back in the day when they claimed we got bin Laden, the terrorism problem is solved.
That wasn't true then. It's even less true today. The threat is bigger than it's ever been. The danger of nuclear proliferation in the hands of terrorists is bigger than it's ever been. We need to dramatically reverse course on our defense budget. We are decimating the defense budget, not al Qaeda. We need to go back to a two war strategy, not the one war strategy that he's put in place.
We have 40 brigades in the United States Army, only four of them are combat ready. He is dramatically limiting the capability of future presidents to deal with crises by virtue of the policies he's taken.
Now, I don't intend any disrespect for the president, but I fundamentally disagree with him. I think he's dead wrong in terms of the course he's taken this nation and I think we're in for big trouble in the years ahead because of his refusal to recognize reality and because of his continual emphasis upon getting the U.S. basically to withdraw from that part of the world.
KARL: On virtually everything you just mentioned, it seems you also have a debate within your own party. Rand Paul -- and many see him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016, given where he stands, again, in opposition to much of what you just talked about, could you support a Republican nominee, Rand Paul, for president?
CHENEY: I haven't picked a nominee yet. But one of the things that's right at the top of my list is whether or not the individual we nominate believes in a strong America, believes in a situation where the United States is able to provide the leadership in the world, basically, to maintain the peace and to take on the al Qaeda types wherever they show up.
Now, Rand Paul and -- by my standards, as I look at his -- his philosophy, is basically an isolationist. That didn't work in the 1930s, it sure as heck won't work in the aftermath of 9/11, when 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters came all the way from Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
KARL: Mr. Vice President, we're just about out of time. But I want to ask you about something you told me back in 2008, just after Senate -- President Elect Barack Obama said he was going to make Hillary Clinton his secretary of State.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: I think it's a pretty good team. And while I would not have hired Senator Clinton, I think she's tough, she's smart, she works very hard. And she may turn out to be just what President Obama needs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: So, my question is were you right or were you wrong?
Did Hillary Clinton turn out to be just what President Obama needed?
CHENEY: Well, I was impressed with Secretary Clinton in terms of her potential going in. The problem was, she was working for a president that has a fundamentally different philosophy than most of the presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have had for the last 70 years, since World War II. We've believed, we've had a national consensus, the world works best when America is strong and is prepared to use that strength when necessary.
She has not operated in that kind of an environment.
I also think she's been a disappointment with respect to things like Benghazi and other problems that have arisen while she was secretary.
KARL: All right, Vice President Dick Cheney, former vice president, joining us from Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Thank you very much.
CHENEY: You bet, Jon.
Good to talk to you.
KARL: Up next, much more from Martha in Iraq.
Plus, George's revealing interview with Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor.
Does she think affirmative action's days are numbered?
And new outrage in the IRS scandal -- how could the agency lose months worth of crucial e-mails?
Back in just two minutes.
KARL: Now our closer look at Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
She wrote about her remarkable life story in a best-seller that's now out in paperback.
And just last weekend, she caught our attention again with a surprise run-in with Hillary Clinton at Costco.
So what does she reveal about one of the hottest issues before the court?
George sat down with her earlier this week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: The book is so personal. It's not what you would expect from a Supreme Court justice.
(LAUGHTER)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said when you wrote it, you wrote it to hold onto the real Sonia.
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: So did you succeed on your own terms?
SOTOMAYOR: I think so. I've told my friends that if I get too full of myself, I wrote a really thick book so you could hit me over the head with it. And...
STEPHANOPOULOS: The hardcover one.
SOTOMAYOR: -- with the hardcover one. Exactly. And they've promised me they will.
But you should know something about my friends. They would have anyway, because...
STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): She's been called the people's justice, one who throws out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium, hangs out on "The View."..
SOTOMAYOR: Call me Sonia.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- and just last weekend, here's Sonia Sotomayor shopping at Costco.
(on camera): And you run right into Hillary Clinton.
SOTOMAYOR: It was not planned, I can assure you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Promise?
SOTOMAYOR: I promise. Everybody is telling me there were signs out front. And I went through the side door, so there were no signs at the side door. Hence, I didn't know. And a nice lady at the pharmacy counter recognized me and we started chatting.
And she says, are you here with the other lady?
And I said what other lady?
And she mentioned Madam Secretary. And that's how I found out.
STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): One more surprise on a remarkable and riveting journey, the girl who soared from the Bronx projects to Princeton, a young prosecutor, federal judge and then the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations and welcome to the court.
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS (on camera): Every case, almost by definition, 0 dealing with, is a matter of great national importance.
SOTOMAYOR: Absolutely. It's a horribly big question. We are not doing things that make everyone happy. For every winner, there's a loser in a court case.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said one of the first times you realized that things break down is when people lose the ability to imagine the other person's (INAUDIBLE)...
SOTOMAYOR: The other side. And I try very hard not to lose that here, because you have to understand, every justice is passionate about the same thing. We're passionate about "The Constitution." You see it in our opinions and in moments where we're sort of sparring with each other in writing.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It seems like you're getting more sharp.
SOTOMAYOR: That's what everybody is saying. I think that's a little bit a product of style. Some of my colleagues have a more pugnacious writing style than others.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Justice Scalia?
SOTOMAYOR: Well, no, I -- we've got others, too.
(LAUGHTER)
SOTOMAYOR: And it can be fun, sometimes, to spar.
STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): Fiery, too.
(VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Especially on the hot button issue of affirmative action. When the court recently upheld a ban on racial preferences for college admissions, Sotomayor spoke out from the bench in dissent for the first time.
(on camera): Just a couple of months earlier, you had said you didn't think that was a very good practice.
So what changed?
SOTOMAYOR: Linda Greenhouse pointed me...
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Supreme Court reporter.
SOTOMAYOR: -- the Supreme Court reporter who pointed me to an article that argued for the pros of speaking dissents from the bench.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what was the argument that convinced you?
SOTOMAYOR: The argument was that it signals to the public, in a way that nothing else does, that the question is different than what the majority has thought. And I realized that in this fast-paced intranet world, reporters are no longer reading about cases before they comment on them.
STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): For this justice, it's deeply personal. She knows affirmative action made a difference for her and believes it's still necessary today.
(on camera): There's been a lot of scholarly work now that now say you know what, it's just not the best way to ensure diversity in schools. So maybe if you focus on where people live and how much money they make, you can get the same results in a way that is less fractious.
SOTOMAYOR: Well, the problem with that answer is that it doesn't work.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You just don't believe it works?
SOTOMAYOR: Oh, I -- it's not that I don't believe it works, I don't think the statistics show it works, just doesn't.
If you start from the proposition that advantage inures to a background that is privileged, and it does. Look, we have legacy admissions. If your parents or your grandparents have been to that school, they're going to give you an advantage in getting into the school again.
Legacy admission is a wonderful thing because it means even if you're not as qualified as others, you're going to get that slight advantage.
But what does qualification mean in an academic setting? A place like Princeton could fill their entire beginning freshman class with students who have scored perfectly on undergraduate metrics.
They don't do it because it would not make for a diverse class on the metrics that they think are important for success in life.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I remember talking to President Obama about this a few years back. He's a supporter of affirmative action. He conceded that, for example, his daughters shouldn't get any special consideration for their race because they've had so many other privileges.
SOTOMAYOR: I agree. But even privileged people will show you dramatic accomplishment that doesn't go just to grades.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You also write in your book about some of the sexism you face even as a prosecutor. Any as a Supreme Court justice, or does it go away?
SOTOMAYOR: It hasn't happened in a while where someone called me "honey."
(LAUGHTER)
SOTOMAYOR: But, you know, people did when I was on the federal bench for...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: On the federal bench.
SOTOMAYOR: Oh, yes. And I'm sure that the marshal who called me "honey" thought it was a term of endearment, but I'm equally sure that he would not find a term of endearment or use it for a male judge.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And on a Supreme Court dominated for generations by men, she is now one of three female justices.
We talked about the difference a woman judge makes -- justice makes. Do you think a woman president would make a big difference?
SOTOMAYOR: Oh, probably at least in some little girl's perceptions of herself. And that's important enough.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you've seen that as a justice?
SOTOMAYOR: I've seen it as a justice, I can't tell you the letters I've gotten from children talking about the impression that having me on the court has made on them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Part of a legacy still being written.
You write at the end of the book: "There are many more stories to tell before I can begin to say definitively who I am as a judge." You've been a judge for more than 20 years. You can't say who you are?
SOTOMAYOR: But it's changing every day. My colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, who I adore and think the world of, talks openly about the many opinions he has issued that he would write differently today.
I hope that I will be able to point to things that I got wrong and felt over time with experience and greater knowledge that I was flexible enough to admit that I was wrong then, and that I've gotten a better opinion today.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is for later. I would love to come back and talk to you about that.
SOTOMAYOR: In 20 years, you might.
(LAUGHTER)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Justice Sotomayor, thank you very much.
SOTOMAYOR: Thank you. And I hope I'm here 20 years from now. Thank you, George.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Our thanks to George and Justice Sotomayor. See much more of their conversation on abcnews.com/thisweek.
Coming up, surprising revelations that could shake up the 2016 field. Plus, the IRS scandal is heating up. See why the top taxman came under fire. But first, the powerhouse "Roundtable's" big "Winners of the Week."
Back in two minutes.KARL: Senator Rand Paul, plus former Vice President Dick Cheney just moments ago. The "Roundtable" is here now: Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison; Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger; ABC's chief foreign correspondent Terry Moran, who is just back from Iraq; and Greta Van Susteren from FOX News.
So, Congress Kinzinger, I want to you, Republican, are you a Cheney Republican or a Rand Paul Republican when it comes to foreign policy?
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R), ILLINOIS: Well, I'm a defense Republican. Look, you know, I don't agree with Rand on a lot of his foreign policy positions. I think a few years ago he put out a budget proposal that cut our military in half, which is something very frightening to me as a military guy myself.
And I know that this is a significant thing. So I would consider myself a defense Republican.
KARL: But some say he's the frontrunner for the nomination.
KINZINGER: Oh, I don't think he is. I mean, look, he represents a very important part of our party, kind of that libertarian viewpoint. But there are a lot of different parts of our party.
And one of the things that has made us very strong, and I think is our defining issue, is the fact that we understand that a strong United States of America stops things like a Russian incursion, stops things like global terrorism, and fills a vacuum that would otherwise be filled by bad actors.
KARL: So, Congressman, what was your take on Cheney?
REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: Well, you know, quite frankly, I mean, why don't we go get the guy who wrecked the Exxon Valdez and ask him about, you know, how to run an oil tanker.
I mean, there couldn't be a worse person to offer views on what to do next. And, by the way, he didn't offer views on what to do next. There is one very slight sliver that I think Cheney had something going.
And that is broadening this thing. But I think diplomatically we've got to widen it. We've got to get the Gulf countries, and I believe Iran, in some sort of a conversation about how to pull their proxies back, which I think is the key to this thing.
Personally I think if we just go using military power right off the bat, there is a real...
KARL: Are you OK with what the president has ordered now, sending over those 300 -- or up to 300 special operators?
ELLISON: I don't know what they're going to do. If I knew more about it, I might be for it. But at this point I just -- it's just weird, I just don't get it. But my point is, here's the real thing. Without the diplomatic engagement, if you use military power, you run the risk of driving ISIS and the Sunni population together.
We -- our goal should be to separate them, to isolate ISIS. And to do that, you've got to have those Gulf countries, and you've got to say -- understanding that the Sunni population is somehow going to be cut into government, somehow going to have a role.
KARL: And, Terry, you were just over there. I mean, it's already happening.
TERRY MORAN, ABC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: It is.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: Now ISIS doesn't have much of a military force itself, they have some support out in the...
MORAN: Well, they're actually a very wealthy and well-organized jihadist extremist group. But after spending 10 days up in northern Iraq, every single day the overwhelming feeling I got talking to people was, they've given up.
They've given up on Iraq. They've given up on each other. The army won't fight for the nation. The government won't govern for the nation. And increasingly, I have the feeling that the people don't believe in the nation as it is currently constituted anymore.
They believe in their groups.
KARL: Greta?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX HOST, "ON THE RECORD": Well, you know, the problem that we have here is that, I mean, everyone admits this is a huge mess. But none of our leaders have told us what we're going to get. You know, with these 300 advisers, what are we getting?
You know, are we starting a mission creep? I mean, look, when JFK was president, we had 12,000 advisers, five years later we had half a million troops in Vietnam.
And I don't think we've really identified, you know, what we're going to get, which is our national interest in this. And I think that's got to be so over the American people, so that the American people get behind whatever we do.
Right now, we just look like we're flailing.
KINZINGER: Jonathan, you asked me what kind of a Republican I was, let's talk about what we ought to do in Iraq. I was at this table in January when ISIS took over Falluja. And I said we have to begin air strikes. This is going to grow. This is dead serious. And everybody at the table kind of chuckled, because they thought that was just war monger talk.
The reality is, what we're watching in Iraq right now is the worst-case scenario. I can't imagine much worse happening in Iraq. And so I look at this and say advisers and special ops will stiffen the spine of the Iraqi military units. Air strikes for ISIS units in the open to button them down where they're at now and work the political solution in Iraq, which we have to work, but give them the opportunity to get that taken care of and then begin to push out and push ISIS out.
And by the way, this also goes into Syria. So I think ISIS camps in Syria ought to be free reign targets to.
ELLISON: But Adam, if you are right, you've got to focus on the political reality that you just...
KINZINGER: I agree.
ELLISON: ...because you know the thing is these folks have got sponsors here, right. There are proxies fighting from the Gulfies and the Iranian regime that we've got to make sure -- we've got to get in there diplomatically to say, look, if you guys can get Maliki -- or tolerate Maliki leaving, we could try to stabilize this country. You cut the Sunnis in, and before you know it you can have some stability.
If you start blasting in there, I think that you just exacerbate the civil war.
So, you could be right, but without a strong diplomatic effort to try to manage the regional partners...
KARL: Let me tell you, this...
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: ...been trying to do this for years.
MORAN: We have. The political elite in Baghdad has failed. And the feeling throughout the country is those guys -- not just Maliki, those guys can't do it. If the United States launches air strikes or military operations without some very dramatic restructuring of the leadership of Iraq, we will be the Shia air force.
VAN SUSTEREN: How do we do that, though? How do you do that, though? I mean, how do we change their leadership now?
MORAN: We tried. And we failed.
They have to realize that...
ELLISON: Well, wait a minute, Grand Ayatollah Sistani has already started to signal that Maliki is not the guy. There are a lot of people who are coming to the realization that there's got to be a change, you've got to have a more inclusive government. Iraqis are saying this. We should support that effort and help a more stable political environment.
KINZINGER: Why are we starting this right now? We're acting like this ISIS thing is brand new. I mean, this started, as I said, in January.
ELLISON: Got to go with what you've got, man.
VAN SUSTEREN: But that's like -- that's like with Vice President Cheney said, though, is that we're looking backwards. We have this problem now. We can all go back...
KINZINGER: ...six months back.
VAN SUSTEREN: Or six months back, whatever. No matter what, we should have done before, we've got to deal with what we have now.
KARL: We've got to take a quick break. Coming up, the surprises that could shake up the 2016 field. But first, our powerhouse puzzler.
This week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor does the honors.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Which president first nominated me to the federal bench?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Back in two minutes with your answers. Bonus is you get the right year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Justice Sotomayor to the federal bench?
Let's see the white boards. Congressman Ellison.
ELLISON: I would have got the bunch point. Here we go.
KARL: Clinton, '98 is your guess.
KINZINGER: I said Bush, but I didn't really know it.
KARL: Terry.
MORAN: I said first Bush, 1991.
VAN SUSTEREN: I said Bush, but then I put my source here is Terry Moran.
KARL: All right, here is the answer from Justice Sotomayor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SOTOMAYOR: George H.W. Bush in 1991.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Oh, Terry Moran nailed it!
MORAN: Nailed all the way.
KARL: Now this week, ghosts from the past came back to haunt some of the biggest potential 2016 candidates. Here is ABC's senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF ZELENY, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Four 2016 hopefuls, four obstacles to overcome.
For Hillary Clinton, it was an old audio recording this week that went viral from her time as a young Arkansas lawyer. She defended a rape suspect in 1975 and she explained how she helped him get a light sentence, even though it seemed she believed he was guilty.
HILLARY CLINTON, FRM. SECRETARY OF STATE: He took a lie detector test. I (inaudible), which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.
ZELENY: Fresh fodder after the 12-year-old rape victim who is now 52 criticized Clinton.
"Hillary Clinton took me through hell," the woman told The Daily Beast.
For Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a more recent case is making headlines. Documents unsealed this week show prosecutors were trying to prove he was at the center of an illegal fundraising scheme during his 2012 recall election.
Walker's not been charged and says the claims are politically motivated.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The media jumps on this, some on the left spin this, you get our detractors out there trying to claim there's something more than there is.
ZELENY: And for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Bridgegate still seems to hang over everything, even at this gathering of conservatives Friday.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: I'm called lots of different names, but indirect has never been one of them.
ZELENY: And then there's Texas Governor Rick Perry, dogged again by his own words, this time comparing homosexuals to alcoholics.
GOV. RICK PERRY, (R) TEXAS: I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that and I look at the homosexual issue as the same way.
ZELENY: He stopped short of an apology, but back peddled this week.
PERRY: I did. And I readily admit I stepped right in it.
ZELENY: For Clinton, Walker, Christie, Perry and all potential candidates, how they contend with the ghosts of their past is a critical part of the roadmap for their future.
For This Week, Jeff Zeleny, ABC News, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: All right, thanks to Jeff.
And now back with the roundtable.
Greta, you were one of those that interviewed Hillary Clinton as part of this rollout. How has it gone?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, first of all this whole thing about this rape victim. I think one of the lousiest reporting I've seen in a long time both sides of the political spectrum -- Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Republican, and Hillary Clinton, Democrat. Because what she wrote in this affidavit was not her feelings about the victim, but she was seeking to get a court appointed psychiatrist and she said she was told this, totally routine.
Likewise, Scott Walker, the headlines says that he's accused of a crime by a prosecutor. That's what prosecutors do, they accuse you of a crime. And if the prosecutor really thought he committed a crime he would have charged him with a crime.
So you've got lazy reporters who don't look at the court file for Hillary Clinton and you've got lazy reporters who don't understand the system in Wisconsin.
KARL: But Terry, hearing that tape and hearing Hillary Clinton laughing about how the guy was -- she knew the guy was guilty, basically, or she believed he was guilty.
MORAN: Look, there's no question that that's going to be politically damaging for the people who already don't like her. We're such a polarized society right now. You know, the person you like could have done something horrible and you're still going to like them. I mean, there's really not that much in the middle.
That said, she was clearly zealously defending her client and that is what she's ethically obligated to do as a lawyer.
ELLISON: Well, absolutely.
I mean, look, the people who call themselves constitutional conservatives -- I mean, the sixth amendment to the U.S. says you have the right to counsel and that counsel must fight for your interests. If you don't like that, then take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
But I mean, the bottom line is, you know, there is a judge, there is a prosecutor, there is a jury. Your job as a defense attorney is to go after it and get your...
VAN SUSTEREN: She also wasn't laughing at -- at the victim. I mean this is important. They actually...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, she was.
VAN SUSTEREN: (INAUDIBLE) -- she was laughing at this polygraph...
ELLISON: At the polygraph.
VAN SUSTEREN: -- which is very different.
ELLISON: The polygraph.
VAN SUSTEREN: And that's why...
ELLISON: Absolutely.
VAN SUSTEREN: -- this reporting was so sloppy about her and very sloppy about Scott Walker, too.
ELLISON: And polygraphs are a joke.
KINZINGER: We're going to have-- We're going to have plenty of time to debate the 2016 election. She had a terrible rollout on the book. I mean I'm -- I'm hearing today it's just dropped and -- in the -- in the sales. But I don't think something that...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're claiming they're doing fine on...
(CROSSTALK)
KINZINGER: But I don't think something she did...
KARL: -- but we'll see.
KINZINGER: -- when she was 27...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
KINZINGER: -- at the end of the day. I mean, look, we've all changed. I was different. I'm only 36 and I was totally different at 27. So I don't think this is going to end up being a big damaging thing for Hillary Clinton. I think there's going to be a lot on both sides that we can -- we can run on and have a good, spirited debate.
KARL: OK, I want to turn to the other -- one of the other big stories this week, which was the IRS.
We had a very contentious hearing with the IRS commissioner about those missing emails.
Listen to Paul Ryan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: I am sitting here listening to this testimony. I just -- I don't believe it. That's your problem. Nobody believes you.
You asked taxpayers to hand us seven years of their personal tax information in case they're ever audited and you can't keep six months worth of employee e-mails?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: All right, look, it looks horrible for the IRS, Greta.
But let me ask you the reverse of this.
Do you really think that somebody at the IRS intentionally destroyed six months of e-mails to cover up something?
VAN SUSTEREN: They...
KARL: Do you really believe there's a cover-up that big?
VAN SUSTEREN: Based on the time line, no, because apparently, the complaint was made before there was an investigation.
However, I certainly think there's an awful -- I don't think this is a phony scandal, like the president does. Neither does Secretary Hillary Clinton, when she spoke to us in an interview think it's a phony scandal. And I think it's terrible that it's dragging out this long and I think it's terrible if the IRS tells the panel in -- the committee in February that the e-mails are going to be produced and it will take two years and they don't even exist and they know about it.
And there's a lot of smoke there. And we need an aggressive investigation.
But do I think someone deliberately did it ahead of time?
I don't think anyone is that smart or clairvoyant.
KARL: And that's clearly the implication from Paul Ryan here, right?
MORAN: Absolutely. And it's another on reflection that there is absolutely no, zero, trust across the partisan line. Absolutely none. The -- the notion that this may not time out correctly or that it is far-fetched will not be accepted as a legitimate explanation by half of the country.
And it would be the same if the situation were reversed.
KINZINGER: See, but this is a -- I don't think this is just about a lack of trust. This is about a real issue. The IRS is supposed to be most independent organization coming after Tea Party conservative groups, in essence, by their own admission, and then finding out that, oh, goodness, we lost all these e-mails. I mean this is a lot of not just smoke, this is fire. And this is something that, you know, maybe there was no scandal behind this, but that's what we absolutely have to get to the bottom of. It's not a partisan issue as much as it's just reality.
ELLISON: Well, there -- there is no scandal here. They went after the left and the right, arguably. But here, what this is about is distraction, just like the whole Benghazi thing they don't want to talk about how they won't...
KARL: But let me...
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: -- let me question that...
ELLISON: They don't want to talk about...
(CROSSTALK)
KINZINGER: -- aren't you a little concerned about six months worth of e-mails...
(CROSSTALK)
ELLISON: There is an e-mail that -- where she said my computer crashed. I think it doesn't time out right...
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, but...
ELLISON: No, no, no. Let me just say...
VAN SUSTEREN: -- but I think you're ignoring the...
ELLISON: -- this is about distraction.
KARL: We're almost...
ELLISON: This is about refusing to extend unemployment, raise unemployment...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, right.
ELLISON: -- the minimum wage.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think you make a huge...
(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: I think you underestimate...
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: -- out of time.
We'll pick this up.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: We'll pick it up next week.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, everyone.
Now, let's get back to Martha in Baghdad.
RADDATZ: Thanks, Jon.
Coming up here in Iraq, we all remember this dramatic scene from the war.
So what does this plaza look like today and what does it say about the crisis this country faces now?
We'll show you in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RADDATZ: Finally this morning, we're back in Baghdad, where the situation is truly heartbreaking, knowing the sacrifice that Americans made here and remembering the decision to invade this country in the first place.
The military did not choose this war. That is always a decision made by civilians. But they took on the task they were given, losing nearly 4,5000 men and women on the way, hoping that some day, it would be worth it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RADDATZ (voice-over): It is perhaps this image that is most iconic to Americans -- that day shortly after the invasion when Iraqis tore down that statute of Saddam Hussein.
(VIDEO CLIP)
RADDATZ: Today, the site is just a weed-covered traffic circle, known only for the numerous bombs planted nearby in recent months. For me, it is the northern city of Mosul that leaves some of the most powerful memories -- walking through the market as U.S. troops gained control of the volatile city.
In 2005, an historic election -- long lines of voters risking death to cast their ballot.
Iraqi forces celebrating.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a good friend of mine.
RADDATZ: And the U.S. general in charge so proud of what the Iraqi people accomplished.
GEN. CARTER HAM (RET.), U.S. ARMY: There are some great people. And there are some very brave people. And the opportunity to -- to see them stand tall on their own was very, very rewarding. It was, certainly in the -- in my life, the most important day that I've ever personally been involved in and a proud day for all Americans, and certainly a proud day for all Iraqis.
RADDATZ: Today, it is impossibly dangerous to get anywhere near Mosul. It quickly fell to ISIS militants after those Iraqi security forces, of whom General Ham was so proud, dropped their weapons and ran.
And Al-Anbar Province, where the corpses of Americans working for Blackwater were hung from a bridge, where the risk of snipers was so fierce, we would have to run from building to building to stand a chance and where Americans waged a major assault to push out the militants.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our goal is not to -- to take the town or seize the town of Fallujah, it's to return the town of Fallujah back to the Fallujan people.
RADDATZ: They did, at great cost.
Today, Fallujah, too, has fallen to the jihadists.
And then there is Baghdad, the city that for so many years, the U.S. military feared would fall. A decade ago, General Peter Chiarelli was determined to make life better for the people here, better electricity, a riverside park.
GEN. PETER CHIARELLI (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Three weeks ago, this was all rubble, garbage. And it's going to be beautiful when it's done.
RADDATZ (on camera): This is that park today. It is beautiful, a tiny oasis of hope for families amid so much that has been shattered.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RADDATZ: Of course, there is no guarantee that Baghdad will not fall, but the people here say they are determined to hold this city, no matter what the cost.
But after this terrible week in Iraq, we do end with welcome news from Afghanistan. There were no deaths of U.S. service members reported this week.
That's all for us today.
Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us.
Check out "WORLD NEWS WITH DAVID MUIR" tonight.
So long from Baghdad.