Analysis:

This story is a lengthy interview with US Congressman Vern Ehlers, who represents Michigan's 3rd Congressional District in the House of Representative. The interview aired on WOOD TV 8's half hour Sunday morning program "To the Point." Albin focused the discussion on two areas, Iraq and global warming.

With regard to Iraq, little was said about Representative Ehlers' voting record. Aside from asking Ehlers if he thought the war went how he expected it would following his vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002, there was no mention of how Ehlers' has voted on legislation relating to Iraq. Even when discussing the recent debate over funding the war, the program never informed viewers of how Ehlers voted. The omission of Ehlers' voting record on Iraq is significant because it allowed him to position himself as a moderate critic of the war despite the fact that he has voted for every funding request and has supported the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Similarly, Albin never pressed Ehlers for specifics when he asserted that aspects of General Patreaus' new Iraq strategy are working.

As part of the Iraq discussion, Albin and Ehlers discuss President Bush's April 20 policy speech in East Grapids. However, rather than discuss the policies that the President defended, the interview focuses on how President Bush does what he thinks is right without regard to opinion polls. Albin aired a lengthy excerpt from President Bush's speech in which Bush elaborates on this point, and Ehlers responds by saying that he admires Bush for this reason. At one point, Albin also claims that a lot of people had some "pretty upbeat" things to say about the speech, although he does not provide specifics. Was focusing on the President's willingness to ignore opinion policies the best way to inform viewers? Would viewers have been better informed had the program looked at what the President had to say rather than how he said it?

The comments on global warming were admittedly brief and Albin did say he would have Ehlers on again to talk about the issue, but there was once again nothing about how Ehlers has voted on the issue.

Story:

Host Rick Albin: Good morning and welcome to "To The Point." On this Sunday morning we are very happy to welcome back a frequent visitor to the program and a friend to the show for a long time, Congressman Vern Ehlers. Thank you for being here.

Representative Vern Ehlers: It's a pleasure to be here, Rick.

Albin: I know it has been a busy week for you in Washington. Not that they aren't all interesting, but this one may be a little more interesting than some because this has been a contentious issue. And that is the funding of the war, the money that's needed to continue the operations in Iraq. The new majority in Washington, the Democrats, both in the House and the Senate, wanted timelines put into that funding mechanism, which they got. They were passed, mostly along party lines; it will go to the President, by the time this airs he may have already vetoed it and he has promised that he will. Let's start with first, the vote. As I was watching on CSPAN I noticed that the floor stayed open for a good long while as people continued to cast their votes. Was there a lot of arm twisting going on down there? Were the parties trying to keep their members in line so that when that vote tally finally showed up it created, at least the illusion of, harmony within the parties?

Ehlers: The Republican Party was not worried about harmony on this. There was no arm twisting going on on the Republican side. We clearly were all voting our consciences and what we thought was best. Also, it was not a particularly interesting issue, but a very important issue and it was high time that the Congress got in and started addressing their concerns about Iraq. The Democrats were the ones doing the arm twisting because they wanted it to pass and they were having trouble getting their members, particularly those from areas that are very supportive of the war, to cast their votes. They finally reached 218, which is the magic number, with the help of two Republicans who also voted that way.

Albin: When you talk about some of those Democrats that are in areas that may be supportive of the war, some of those are some new members because some of the Republicans that lost were defeated by what was described as conservative Democrats. Votes like this can be difficult for them when they go back for reelection.

Ehlers: Very difficult. In fact, quite a number of them did not vote for this and so it was only the question of which of them could be persuaded to vote for it.

Albin: What is the net result? Now, the President is going to veto this, he promised it, he promised it last week when he was here in Grand Rapids--East Grand Rapids--and he has promised it for some period of time. Is there already another bill that is being put together so that funding for the troops, funding for the military, will continue and will that happen relatively soon?

Ehlers: It would depend on what you mean by "relatively soon," but I would guess within the next four weeks, at most six weeks, we will pretty well have another bill together. But the bone of contention is the one you mentioned, the timelines. And I don't have a military background, but it seems to me absurd to be conducting a war and to tell the enemy "no matter what happens, we're going to pull out by a certain date." And what do you think the response is going to be from the enemy at that point, you know? They'll just wait us out, watch us leave, wave goodbye, and do their mischief. I think the basic issue is what is our responsibility to Iraq and to the Iraqi people. As far as I am concerned, we have gone in, we have made a huge mess, we've put a lot of people in danger, I think it is immoral for us to just say "ok, sorry, we've made a mess, your life is in danger but we're going to leave, we can't deal with it." I think we have a moral obligation to try to stabilize the country, try to get a government established before we pull out.

Albin: Do you believe that the President's and General Petraeus' plan, the so-called "Surge," moving more troops in and trying to integrate those troops with Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police within the country, is--right now it is the only plan on the table--do you give it high chances for success?

Ehlers: It is in a sense the only plan, at least in Baghdad, not in the rest of the country. And, I, I did talk to General Petraeus this week. He did come to Washington and he presented an update. He's a good man, he's got good ideas. And what I especially like about him is that he is saying, I'm going--20% of it is going to be combat and 80% is trying to restore services for the Iraqi people--and I think that should have been our mantra from the beginning of the operation. I was just astounded, now I thought we'd go in, restore electric power, make the water plant run properly and so forth, make the people enjoy a better life, and that would have really stabilized it. We've never done it. And the electric service is still no better than it was under Saddam and I understand the power plant is rickety, they are constantly repairing it. It cost $40 million to repair it, well we're spending more than that a day in armaments. It seems to me a good investment to put $40 million into the power plant and save lives and avoid that. So, I like his approach, he is really working hard at improving life for the Iraqis as a whole, and then trying to stabilize neighborhood by neighborhood, and above all, they've gone into Anbar provience, which is where al-Qaeda has been gathering and building, and they've really made good progress there. They've persuaded the chieftans, the tribal chieftans, to get on our side, and so there has been a lot of improvement there. And I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture, it's still very tough, but it pleases me what General Petraeus is doing. And I hope we can just stabilize it enough so that the Iraqi government will begin to take the reins and maintain it so that we can leave.

Albin: I want to continue on this line conversation about Iraq, but I do want to go back to the funding for just a second, because one of the questions I had about the timeline, when I said "relatively soon," you said "that depends on what you mean by that." You are talking about another four weeks. Is there a concern, I don't know if General Petraeus would have expressed it, is there a concern that because it has been some time since this funding bill has been talked about 'til the time that it will get to the President, and it will take some time, perhaps four weeks as you said, is there a concern that funding for the military is starting to get thin and that there could be some prioritization that has to be done and does that mean training, perhaps maintenance like here in the United States, isn't being done in order to support the theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that a question, is that a concern for you as we move forward?

Ehlers: It's a concern, but not a pressing concern at this point. It's an inefficient way to do things, because what the Pentagon has to do now is everyday reprogram money and take some away from this pot and put it over here, and it's keeping the accountants and the executives in the Pentagon very, very busy to try to do this. But at the same time, there's enough money to keep going probably until June, at worst July. So this is not a catastrophic thing, but it's an inefficient way to do it and I think we should resolve the issue as soon as we can.

Albin: More than four years ago, I sat in your office in Washington, and it was shortly after the vote for authorization to take troops to go into Iraq, and you looked at me, and said that it was the hardest vote that ever had to cast. With the advantage of hindsight and looking back, how much different is the situation that developed, you already said that you though their were differences that we should have been and expected that we would go in and rebuild infrastructure. But just looking back over that period of time, how much different has this played out than you had hoped it would?

Ehlers: Very differently and precisely the wrong way from my perspective. And I'm not here to blast any particular group or person except for one person, because I argued directly with him, and that's Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, who has been in the headlines lately for problems he's having in the World Bank, his new job. He was second in command of the Pentagon and they would come in, give us briefings about the plans and so forth, and I talked to him twice after these briefings because I have lived abroad and I know how different cultures are in different countries and I didn't see that he or anyone else in the Pentagon really understood the mentality of the Iraqi people, of the Arab people, and how they view this. And I, after one presentation, I said "Paul, I know that you can go in with the limited troops that you have, I know you can overthrow Saddam Hussein, and get him out of power, but what then?" And his answer just shocked me. He said, "Well, they'll just be so happy to see us, so happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they'll welcome us, we'll just put together a new government, and we'll leave." And I said, "where's the money going to come from for this?" And he said "From the oil revenues." And I said to his face, twice, "You are incredibly naive, it just doesn't happen that way when you invade another country, you know, you have to understand the culture of the people." And that I think is the single biggest mistake that we have made. And I don't want to fault him, just him, but since he was the chief architect of it, I think he bears a responsibility.

I, uh, that continues to bother me, and I think it should bother the whole country, and I just wish their were more people in power who had lived abroad for several years. Not as part of the State Department living in an insulated embassy area, but people that have lived abroad, worked abroad, in the economy so to speak, and who understood how different cultures are in different countries and how they interpret things differently. And I think the fact that European nations were not willing to join us in this endeavor is because their culture says "hey, that's not a good thing to do."

Albin: There's more conversation about the war in Iraq, but there are other subjects too, including one that you are intimate with, you know a lot about global warming and we're going to talk about that when we come back, because it's a big argument that is only going to grow in this country. Congressman Vern Ehlers is our guest, we'll be back with more To the Point in just a moment.

Albin: Welcome back to To the Point, it was a week ago, a week ago on Friday, when Congressman Vern Ehlers flew in on Air Force One with President Bush for a speech in East Grand Rapids. There were a lot of folks who saw this speech and listened either in the auditorium or on WOOD TV and who had some pretty upbeat things to say about it, let's take a look at some video, I think this is just after the speech. There were a lot of folks that hung around there. You actually flew in with the President on Air Force One, had a chance to meet with him, and then came into the auditorium, where he thanked you for your service, and talked a lot about Iraq. But he also talked about himself and his worldview. Let's take a listen to what the President had to say.

President Bush: I will give you my take on patience, I think that if the American people fully understand the stakes of failure that they will understand why we are doing what we are doing. And my own view of patience, is that a president, and Tony Blair agrees with this, must make decisions on certain principles, and not try to chase opinion polls. If you make decisions based upon the latest opinion poll, you won't be thinking long-term strategy on behalf of the American people... There weren't opinion polls when Abraham Lincoln was president, believe me I'm not comparing myself to him, but you know, I just don't think a president like Abraham Lincoln made a decision about whether all men were created equal based upon an opinion poll. Nor do I make an opinion about my strong belief that freedom is universal and there is no debate, I believe in the universality of freedom, of liberty, and I believe liberty has got the capacity to help transform parts of the world into peaceful parts of the world. That's what I described to you, what happened at the end of World War II, and what we were doing at the end of the Korean conflict, I firmly believe in the power of freedom. And I firmly believe that everybody wants to be free. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further, I believe that there is an almighty and that a great gift to each man, woman, and child in this world is freedom. That's what I believe. It's a principle from which I will not deviate. People say to me, the guy asked the question the other day, the opinion polls, and all that stuff, and you know, any politician that says they don't want to be popular, you know, you can't win if like fifty plus one don't like ya for a moment. You can't make your decisions, however, based on something that just changes. It just "poof," and when it's all said and done, I fully understand that some of the decisions that I have made have created a lot of national debate. But I want you to know something, when I go home and look in the mirror in Crawford, Texas after my time, I will be able to say, he didn't change his principles to be the popular guy. You know, he stood for what he believed.

Albin: I talked to a Democrat after that speech, and they said that if he had been making speeches like that for the past four years, his popularity numbers might not be where they are. What did you think of the speech and was it different from others that you have heard from him?

Ehlers: No, it's very much the same. He has always made it clear that he doesn't follow opinion polls. He regards himself as the decider in chief and he feels he has to make what is the right decision and not what is always the most popular decision. And I admire him, that's the way it should be. Not every president has done that.

Albin: Although there has been some concern on the part of Republicans that he has not taken the advice and counsel of some of his own party, votes up on the Hill either from the House or the Senate, and that has created some friction between your House and the White House, has it not?

Ehlers: Well, that's always true. The founders of this nation were geniuses. They decided to setup this balance of powers between the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, and it's always tension back and forth, and out of this magnificent tension, somehow emerges a good government and a good people. So we criticize the president all the time, and he doesn't do it very much publicly, but privately he criticizes us much of the time, but we have a good relationship. Even the Democrats like him because he's straight forward and honest. They disagree with him, but they respect him as a person.

Albin: I'm going to make a big shift, and I just have this feeling, that as we have spent so many shows, so many programs, talking about the war in Iraq, that as time goes forward, we are going to spend as many programs talking about the next subject, which I talked about before the break, which is global warming. The subject of global warming has become one that has been talked about more and more, partially through the auspices of former Vice President Al Gore, but because people are beginning to focus, but there is still a great deal of disconnect and or disagreement about exactly what is happening with our planet, with the global climate conditions, because of your background, because of your scientific background, I know that you have a particularly keen interest. You identified yourself as an environmentalist just as we were sitting down. There are people in your own party that would say that this is a lot of talk that we shouldn't get so excited, because global warming is just that, a lot of talk. What is your take?

Ehlers: Well, it is a lot of talk, but it's essential and we have to solve the problem. And just trying to gather the two parts of this program, both of them deal with very long range issues. The issue of Iraq is not just the fighting in Iraq and should we get out of Iraq or not, people tend to trivialize that. It's a huge issue as to how we are going to relate to the Middle East, to the Islamic jihadists, to the power that they have gained because of our money, through oil. I find it fascinating, this is the first war that we've ever fought that we're paying for both sides. We pay our military through our taxes and so forth, and we're paying the jihadists through our oil revenues. The money we spend at the gas pump fills their pockets, and some of it is skimmed off to fight back with. It's stupid. And so it's a really major long-term issue of how, what is the relationship going to be?

Ehlers: Similarly with global warming, it's a long range issue that is going to have a huge impact on our children, our grandchildren, and their children. And we have to take this into account.

Albin: When you think of global warming, some of the programs and earlier this week Democratic Party presidential candidates got together and one of the subjects that came up was what would you do in terms of global warming, and there have been suggestions about trying to reduce carbon emissions, and coming up with friendlier fuel, more environmentally friendly fuels, you at least believe that part of the flex fuel, and the ethanol, and the alternative fuels, will be part of the impact, but that it could also be an impact if there are new restrictions on our automotive industry, and both of those could impact Michigan pretty heavily.

Ehlers: Very heavily, and in addition to that, there is the whole issue of trying to reduce our fuel consumption, because as I said, we are sending all of our money abroad and the balance of payments is falling apart because we're spending so much money on oil. And we simply have to develop more resources internally, we have to develop alternative sources of energy, we simply can't say "well, we're going to keep buying oil until it's all gone." First of all, it's a huge disservice to our children and grandchildren, if we do that, because they won't have the energy sources. I have no problem with using oil, but we have to at the same time develop new sources for our kids and grandkids, otherwise we're really cheating them out of a future.

Albin: You are probably a little closer to this then a lot of people because of your background, but do you see out there a better hope than others? Some say that using ethanol may be just a stop-gap measure, that there has to be something on the other end, experimentation with hydrogen powered, wind power to generate electricity, nuclear power is being considered more closely now than it was over the past twenty years because people are looking for those alternative sources. Is there a direction that you see that we should be going or should we be going in all of those directions?

Ehlers: The later. There is no clear good answer, and I'd be happy to talk to you for an hour about all the issues involved. As a physicist, I understand energy and we have been getting to this crisis for years. In 1954, M. King Hubbard predicted that we would run out of American, not run out, but we would peak out, of production of American oil in 1970. Right on the dot, you remember the 1970-73 oil crisis.

Albin: When people were waiting in lines for hours, running out of gas in line.

Ehlers: He predicted that in 1954. He also predicted that by 2010, we would start peaking out worldwide, and that's part of the problem that we are facing. Ethanol is a temporary answer, and I emphasize temporary. And it's not a very large answer either. People are putting their hopes in that and farmers love it of course, corn's going up to four, four and a half dollars a bushel, that's great for them. First of all, there's a moral question, should we be using food to power our automobiles in light of worldwide hunger. That's one aspect of it. Another is there is a lot of energy consumed in creating corn and the net energy balance is not all that great. Plus, there's not enough land, if we converted every square inch of farmland in this country to producing corn for ethanol it would barely touch what we are burning in oil.

Ehlers: So, we have to find other sources. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. A lot of people think it is, but it isn't. It doesn't occur in a burnable form in nature, so you have to produce it from water, H20, or something else, and it takes energy to do it. Hydrogen is really a way of getting energy from point A to point B, it's no different than an electric transmission line and we have to have an energy source here, use hydrogen to transfer that energy to our automobiles or whatever. So, how are we going to produce it? Right now we use fossil fuels, but that's no good. So, I think high temperature nuclear reactors are probably the best way. So, lots and lots of issues that we have to deal with.

Albin: Well, I'm going to take you up, I don't know if we can have an hour show, but I'm certainly going to have you back for at least the entire half hour. We're going to talk about fuels in detail, because just in that short moment you gave people a glimpse that they probably haven't heard or seen, and as I say, I think it's conversation that we are going to hear a lot more about over the coming years. Congressman Ehlers, we're out of time, but I thank you very much for being here.

Ehlers: Thank you, I enjoyed it.