news. mission over, but hardly mission accomplished in iraq. >> so today i can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in iraq will come home by the end of the year. >> now president bush began the war in march 2003 with a dose of what the pentagon called shock and awe. in announcing its end, president obama used the term success, not victory, and said it was time america focused less on wars overseas and more on economic problems here at home. >> i would note that the end of war in iraq reflects the larger transition. the tide of war is receding. >> there is no doubt public opinion is on the president's side. nearly 7 in 10 americans oppose the war in iraq. but a number of conservatives, including the leading republican candidates for president tonight say, president obama is weakening america and emboldening iran. the former massachusetts governor, mitt romney, said the unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the iraqi government. jessica yellin was in the briefing room for the dramatic announcement. the point governor romney was making while the president called it a success it's not exactly what he wanted, right? >> it's clear from a security perspective the pentagon wanted to keep more troops in iraq, that much is indisputable now. but from a political -- and they couldn't agree to this bottom line because they couldn't grant -- the u.s. and iraq couldn't agree to get immunity to u.s. troops who moit stay there. the president by withdrawing troop is able to say he made good on a campaign promise and this is important to the white house because the president began remarks by saying his very first sentence, i'm making good on a campaign promise. >> striking that he did that, right out of the box. they think this is a win despite the incoming, governor romney, governor perry, all the republican candidates for president except ron paul saying bad idea, mr. president. we've heard that from john mccain and lindsay graham. does the president think that criticism's fine, he can handle the politics of this one? >> reporter: the campaign aides would say bring it on. for two reasons. one, in their view the president's foreign policy is his strength because of success with bin laden, promises on the campaign trail to go after al qaeda which he has done with drone attacks, success with gadhafi and bringing troops home as promised in their view speaks to strength of leadership. contrasting that with the republican contenders, they say is a great contrast in their view. but the bottom line, john, is how much does foreign policy matters to voters now? consider the small bump when the president got when he killed bin laden. it's temporary, it's gone. foreign policy doesn't seem to be foremost on voters' minds so it's hard to imagine this will play large in the campaign. >> jessica yellin, thanks. the cost of the iraq war in both american blood and american treasure, are numbing. nearly 4500 u.s. servicemen and women killed plus 32,000 wounded. and the cost to taxpayers more than $823 billion. there are roughly 39,000 u.s. troops if iraq tonight. chris lawrence is here with the latest on now the giant logistical challenge of moving them out. chris, 39,000, is it feesable to get that down to zero by the new year in. >> they've got ten weeks, john. so it's not going to be easy, by any stretch of the imagination. but in any given week the pentagon is running 400 convoys involving about 14,000 trucks. so they are hauling equipment out of there at a very rapid rate. so it's possible. also i spoke with a senior pentagon official who said, look, we would have loved to have a standing military presence in iraq, but we don't want to walk away from our military relationship with the iraqi military. he said some of the fallback options that they're considering are maybe having newer iraqi officers come to the united states to be trained at u.s. war colleges, or even conducting combined u.s./iraqi training in a third host country. >> as we watch that play out, chris, negotiations still to come, explain to our viewers why it is so important. the president's catching the political arrows. to the point they could not negotiate a new status of forces agreement that gave u.s. troops immu immunity from prosecution, whether in a car accident and hit civilians or whether there's collateral damage in some military operation, right? >> reporter: exactly right. i talked to a senior pentagon official about this as well. he said, look, u.s. forces, you know, do fall under local laws and courts in a lot of places but he said in some place like germany or japan where they have an established legal system that's not a problem. they had a real issue with the possibility of american troops being tried in iraqi courts under iraqi law with the state of the country there right now. so when you look and say a governor romney making the statement about the president's decision being naked political consideration when mccain says no military commander recommended this, you also have to look at the question of, if the only question is to go forward without this legal protection, would you be willing to put american troops in that position. >> chris lawrence, thank you. iran is central to those critical of the president's announcement. mccain says this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for enemies in the middle east especially the iranian regime which has worked rerentsly to ensure a full withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq. perspective from fareed zakaria, in tehran, preparing for an interview with the president of iran, ahmadinejad. a simple question up front, u.s. troops leaving iraq by the end of the year. iran has to view this as a victory. >> iran's views, whether happening in iraq from a geopolitical prism. the u.s. and iran are competing for influence in iraq. they have viewed it that way from the start of the fall of the regime and they have had -- iran has long ties to many groups in iraq. many of the kurdish leaders including the current president of iraq was in iran. many of them speak fluent persian. as he fines things get dit for him in iraq he head backs to iran. so all of these political officials have been sustained by iran and as american troops draw down, iran's influence can only increase. >> and this sounds incredibly crass, but is this a fair bottom line? that after almost nine years, billions of of dollars in u.s. money and 4500 lives lost of brave u.s. servicemen and women, that iran wins? >> one of the things, they look on the idea of dealing with hussein favorably is whatever benefits we have gotten out of the operation in iraq, the costs have been staggering, as you described. and those costs really seem to far outweigh benefits right now. >> at the white house today the deputy national security adviser said they're not that worried about iranness influence. he says iran is isolated, weakened in recent years. >> mcdonough pointed out iran's having a bad few months and i think that's entirely true. iranians have had trouble internally, trouble abroad. the whole image of iran in the wake of the arab spring has been tarnished and now new allegations about the assassination. iran's not in great shape. on this specific issue i'm not sure i would agree. i think that iran has maintained contacts with iraq very successfully and very aggressively. look, this is why the americans couldn't get a deal done. >> fareed zakaria. thanks for your insights. nine iraq war veterans serving in congress, all republicans, one a senator, the other eight serve in the house including florida republican congressman allen west who joins us live from los angeles. good to see you. you did serve in iraq. you think the president's making a bad call here tonight, why? >> well, i think that you have to be very circumspect about a near-term decision, hopefully this is not a campaign or in chief decision, not a commander in chief decision. one of the things that i go back to and remember serving in operation desert shield, desert storm. when we did not complete the operation in which we could have had the resounding tactical success and victory we knew at some point we'd have to return back to iraq. you have to be concerned about the influence that iran will continue to try to spread, across iraq into, syria and lebanon, where they have hezbollah, but also will they have some type of influence with egypt and into gaza also. we have to look at this long term and not be celebratory in the short term. >> as someone who wore the uniform, the president was unable to negotiate with the iraqi government a status of force agreement that would give the men and women of the united states military immunity, if they had issues to deal with, deal with the u.s. military system not an iraqi system, which i'm sure you would not trust. is it the right call for the president? would you want to serve there without that agreement? >> you're absolutely right. one of the things i have to look at where was the failure in leadership where we could not negotiate from a position of strength. now we look like we're in a position of weakness where we could not negotiate a solid status of forces agreement which would protect men and women in uniform serving there which will continue to make sure the army, which we know is supported by iran, we know that the arrogance of iran is increasing. we have to look at this through the prism of the eyes of the opposition from our enemi. we know that when we withdrew from somalia many saw that as a sense of weakness. as a matter of fact, bin laden said the united states was a paper tiger. so again, what is the perception that will be long term from this withdrawal? our men and women have fought bravery there. in 2003 i was there as commander and i look forward to once again shaking the hands of those who have served there and who have, you know be given their limbs. but i want to make sure that just the same in '91 when i had to return 12 years later we don't set our military up for going back into an even worse situation. >> you just heard fareed zakaria in favor of dealing with hussein years ago but he says dow do the costs outweigh the benefits. you knew where hussein stood when it came to iran. will the operation turn to be foe, not friend? >> you have to have that concern where they will align themselves, as far as their interests, if you don't have any type of u.s. presence there that can be the honest broker. i'll be the foirsedirst to admi have gone about the nation building occupation building warfare in the wrong means. we should have been focused on the enemy and conducting a strike operations. i think you see us getting to that 4 in last two, three years but i don't want to see us becoming so quick and hasteful that now the next thing is we're going to set ourselves up for a tougher situation later on, because you have an iran seeking to expand its influence in the region. i'm concerned about the cuddish people to the north if they see us as abandoning them as they saw after desert shield, desert storm. >> there could be an agreement down the road to leave several hundred troops there. among the proposals, maybe naval exercise, maybe finding a third country, maybe kuwait to train maybe in their country. do you see the possibility of working something out that make this acceptable to you? >> well, i think that that's something that when i get back to washington, d.c., we and the house armed services committee would potentially have a hearing about that, find out what are the courses of action going forward. what is very interesting to me, not too long ago commanders on the ground asked for 10,000 troops as a residual force, that got taken down to 3,000. now it's at zero. so you know you have to ask, what is the criteria? of course that status of forces agreement has a lot to do with it but i don't think that we see an iraqi force ready to assume that responsibility and we know that iran is just waiting for the moddy army to have that opportunity and they're very patient and i think they see this ace victory where they waited us out. >> as someone who has worn the uniform, not as a politician, the president used the term success, not victory, the security adviser used the term success, not victory. how do you view the war in iraq, and the fact that people don't use the term victory, the fact that public opinion has turned so vociferously against it? how does it impact the legacy of 1 million americans who have served in iraq over the past nine years? >> those of who have worn the uniform understood the mission. we had great victory. at strategic level, that's where the united states of america has had problems every since world war ii, we saw that in korea, veet et nam. it's important to get men and women on the modern 21st battlefield in uniform that can be in washington, d.c., on capitol hill and other places, so we make sure that we make those right strategy ic level decisions as we go forward and committing those in uniform so they can have victory. success, we have to wait and see how that come out. i'd like at what happens since mubarak was deposed in egypt i don't want to see things go in the wrong direction in iraq and iran. >> appreciate your insights. thanks very much. tonight's truth revisits how the iraq war was sold to the american people and includes a flashback. >> as we watch daybreak in baghdad and as we have a lull in the military activities i between bring back some of the words the president did speak earlier tonight. >> and herman cain aggressively rebuts those who say his signature tax plan would punish the poor, there's 9-9-9 and then 9-0-9. that's next. ♪ for spacious skies ♪ ♪ for amber waves of grain ♪ ♪ for purple mountain [ male announcer ] for the first 100 years and for generations to come, thanks for making us a part of your life. ♪ whoa new fiber one 80 calories... ...with its sweet honey taste, 40% daily value of fiber... ...and 80 calories per serving... ...you may want to tell a few friends. ♪ or all of them. ♪ i'll go get my bowl. [ female announcer ] new fiber one 80 calories. yes, you can actually love breakfast. ♪ i'm not a line item on a budget. and i'm definitely not a pushover. but i am a voter. so washington... before you even think about cutting my medicare and social security benefits... here's a number you should remember. 50 million. we are 50 million seniors who earned our benefits... and you will be hearing from us... today and on election day. ♪ today and on election day. ♪ ♪ co-signed her credit card -- "buy books, not beer!" ♪ but the second that she shut the door ♪ ♪ girl started blowing up their credit score ♪ ♪ she bought a pizza party for her whole dorm floor ♪ ♪ hundred pounds of makeup at the makeup store ♪ ♪ and a ticket down to spring break in mexico ♪ ♪ but her folks didn't know 'cause her folks didn't go ♪ ♪ to free-credit-score-dot-com hard times for daddy and mom. ♪ offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™. today herman cain tried to clarify some parts of his 9-9-9 tax plan. he addressed concerns this his plan's 9% corporate tax, 9% income tax, 9% national sales tax would hurt poor people. >> how do we deal with the poor, those at or below the poverty level? we already had this provision in there, and we still raise the same amount of money. you at or below the poverty level your plan isn't 9-9-9, it's 9-0-9. say amen, y'all. 9-0-9. >> while cain's getting hammered from the left and right for his 9-9-9 plan, this week he gained support of reagan era economyist arthur laugher. he joins us now. let me ask you, first, on the fairness of the argument, mr. cain felt like he needed to get out in public because he had been pummeled from his rivals and from left the plan as presented was unfair to the poor. do you think he has made the correct explanation now? >> i don't know if he's made the correct one now. i always thought they were exempt from the poor, below the poverty level exempt from the tax. i thought it was on all three taxes, to be honest with you. i saw detailed construction of the program that had 9-9-9 exempting 2.5 trillion from the base of the business tax, the income tax, and also the sales tax, which exactly equal the 9-9-9 number, if you score it correctly. i think he's made it very clear publicly, and the plan itself is very clear on exempting those below the poverty level. >> you care this, a new proposal, compared in some ways to jerry brown and the flat tax, he brought that up running against clinton, steve forbes campaign in 1996. if flat tax is a good idea and the sales tax part of mr. cain's plan is so controversy, why not just have a flat tax and not that sales tax? >> that would be fine. i mean that would be just as good. i mean i think people are focusing too much on the specifics of the plan. herman cain is not even a nominee for the republican party, let alone the president, let alone getting something through congress. what he's described is an ideal plan, a star, if you will, that people should shoot at and obviously when you get these specifics of the plan, they're going to be all sorts of compromises as we go through. i think it's wonderful that he's described a plan as good as he has which would create jobs, output and employment which is what the poor need. a good, high paying job. and to create jobs is the key of any good tax reform, and that cain's plan really does. >> you came to fame during the reagan era and president reagan was an optimistic person. >> he sure was. >> cain talking about one way those in the working class could avoid higher classes. listen to this. >> when you get to the third nine, the national sales tax it depends whether or not they buy used goods or whether or not they buy new goods. >> you did concede some people would pay more, by your calculations who would pay more? >> the people that would pay more are the people who would buy mostly new goods. >> as an optimist, as someone who came out of reagan's morning in america era, is it optimistic, is it consistent with the american dream to say, well, if you want lower taxes buy used goods, done buy a new car, a new washing machine? >> i don't think he said it the way i would say it, john. what i would say is that i any everyone's going to pay more in taxes because they're going to have jobs, they're going to have higher incomes, more employment. you know that's really the dream here is to raise everyone's taxes, not by raising tax rates but lowering tax rates and creating more jobs output and employment. that's exactly what we did in the '86 tax act and what we tried to do in the '81 tax act. back then it and was all bipartisan. the '86 tax act passed with 97-3 votes. three democrats voted against. we dropped the highest tax rate from 50% to 28%. kennedy, biden, all of -- al gore all voted for cutting that tax rate in 1986 because we all understood it created jobs and prosperity. that's what a tax code needs to do. so i want a lot more taxes but i don't want to do it by raising tax rates. i want to do it by creating jobs and more income. that's as simple as that. >> as you know one of the criticisms of mr. cain has been is he ready? it's a question any candidate faces and he's been the ceo of some corporations but some ask is that enough to be president of the news listen to his explanation here of people who question his ability to handle economics. >> some people have asked me, how did you come up with this? what do you know about economics? i oversaw economic analysis for the pillsbury company. some people think that's just pepperoni between these two years. but i used to work doing econo metric analyses. >> the united states of america is the world's biggest nuclear enterpri