 | Condoleezza Rice, Sens. Allen & Dodd, Roundtable | |
| Special Report Roundtable - July 14 | |
| States of Terror | |
| Special Report Roundtable - July 13 | |
| Hot Stories: Shotgun Wedding, Fall Guy |
| Rising Wage Gap, But No Squeeze | |
| Health Care, Not Social Security, the Third Rail of 2008 | |
| Will Democrats Keep the Faith? | |
| Turning Toward Iran | |
| Can Republicans Count on a House Snapback? |
April 17, 2006
Special Report Roundtable - April 17
FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume 
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: This, too, will pass. I think about it and I must say there is always two sides to these things and the sharper the criticism comes, sometimes the sharper the defense comes from people who don't agree with the critics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BRIT HUME, HOST: That courtesy of the EIB network, that of course is Rush Limbaugh's radio network, with Excellence in Broadcasting, as he calls it. He had an interview today with the secretary of defense and asked him about the now seven, I guess, former generals who have now called for his resignation. A number of generals came today to his defense, four of them in the pages of "The Wall Street Journal."
Some analytical observations on all this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of "The Weekly Standard," Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio and the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fox News contributors all.
Charles, what should we make of this latest dustup over Secretary Rumsfeld?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I think the pushback from the generals who have defended Rumsfeld is extremely important and the point is, look, of the ones who criticized the president and there are three ways in which you could frame critique, the first is that he doesn't listen. We've heard from Richard Myers and from Michael Delong who worked with the secretary of defense very closely that that charge just isn't true. He consults al the time.
Second charge would be, well, he consults but against unanimous opinion of the military he goes the other way. The military recommends X, he goes Y. There is no evidence that that is so. On all the important decisions, how quickly to attack Baghdad, what to do after it, what at that do with the Iraqi army, all of these decisions there was division everywhere and the secretary chooses.
What's left of the critique is the third. He didn't listen to me. So what? Truman didn't listen to MacArthur and he fired him. Lincoln didn't listen to McClellan. He fired him. If an individual general, some of whom are angry with the secretary about the way he changes, he wants a change of the military, object that he wasn't listened to, it's an insignificant complaint. And to do it in the middle of a war and to use the authority of your generalship as a way to do it is not the American way.
It's the civilians who give orders to generals and it's not generals who pick the people who will give them the orders.
MARA LIASSON, NPR: Look, I think this going forward this raises a couple of questions. One, first of all, some of these people who are criticizing him were supporters of the war. Some are longtime opponents of the war who didn't have anything to do with the prosecution. But you do have people, former members of the military who were saying in the "Wall Street Journal" for instance, today, he's a spent force. The question is what does this criticism mean for Rumsfeld going forward? Can he make another controversial decision? Maybe military strike against Iran without -- with the support he's going to need to do that.
HUME: What would be the option if they didn't support it? They would refuse to carry out his orders?
LIASSON: No, no, no, I think the question will he feel constrained.
HUME: And you know that decision is going to be made at the White House.
LIASSON: And, look, that's what a lot of this criticism is about. Several people have pointed out on both sides of the debate about Iraq, that this really is about criticizing President Bush and Dick Cheney but you can't do that or people don't feel emboldened enough to do that. I think that's one question. The other thing is if Rumsfeld were to resign, what difference would it make? The policy is unlikely to change and at this point in the war and at this point in the administration I don't know what would be any different.
FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": I grew up in a military family. My dad was in the Air Force. He went to West Point. My uncle went to West Point, was in the Air Force. My grandfather went to West Point and was an army general. Officers, once they get out, once they retire, they kind of grouse about what's going on after they left. And I think there's some of that here. You usually complain.
My dad used to say about West Point after he left particularly when they let women in. Woo! So I think there's a huge element of that. They're not there anymore. They're unhappy and the war drags on and the insurgency hasn't been eliminated yet but both Charles and Mara pointed to something. It's not exactly clear what their complaint really is. You suspect that the army guys, four of them were army generals, aren't real happy with the kind of transformation that Rumsfeld wants in the army but they certainly weren't clear about that. You wonder about their motives and I think they are legitimate question about their motives.
You wonder why if this is such an important thing that they had to come forward during a war as Charles points out, well, why didn't they resign in protest while they were still in the military if it was so bad under Rumsfeld? And it obviously wasn't so bad under Rumsfeld when they were in the military but now in the safety of retirement they feel they can come forward.
HUME: So is that the end of it? Bush isn't going to change him.
LIASSON: It doesn't sound like he is.
HUME: You think he is going to .
KRAUTHAMMER: He stays. No chance he goes.
HUME: Do you agree with that, Fred?
BARNES: I do.
HUME: When we come back with our panel, today's bloody bombing in Israel. The worst in a long time. But such attacks have been increasingly rare. What's that all about? Stay tuned for more with the All Stars.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMI SALIM MOHAMMED HAMMAD, PURPORTED SUICIDE BOMBER (through translator): I carry out this operation in response to the massacres committed by the Zionist enemy against our people and brothers in the West Bank and Gaza. There will be more such operations with the will of God. I dedicate this operation to prisoners. We will be victorious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: That video released by Islamic Jihad a short time after the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv today was the first such attack since January. The suspicion is that 16-year-old lad was able to slip through the increasingly impermeable security barrier, the wall as it's called. Some further observations on this now from the panel. What do we make of this deal here?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it shows that some of the Palestinians are still intent on fighting the war. You've got Hamas, which is now the government, praising the bombing. At least it's not hypocritical unlike the former Palestinian government but as we heard from our reporter in Jerusalem, he probably came in through a gap in the wall still uncompleted around Jerusalem. Why? Because the Israeli Supreme Court hearing petitions from Palestinians who aren't even citizens of Israel, hearing petitions asking for the fence to be redrawn so that it reduces the hardship, say it's in an orchard or something, as a result of that the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the rerouting of the fence and it's caused huge delays in its completion and that's why it remains open.
So anybody who talks about the moral equivalence of these two sides ought to consider one side which sends a young person like that teenager whom we saw to commit suicide by killing as many innocents as he can, who raises him to do that and praises him officially after he does it and the other side, the Israeli government which in the name of human rights of its enemies reroutes and delays a wall of protection. It shows you our decision to cut off Hamas is not only a strategic decision which is necessary to starve it of support and funds but it's a moral decision as well and a very important one.
LIASSON: Yeah, look, I think that at least what happened when Hamas took over the Palestinian government is -- has cleared up some of the contradictions and things are clear now. They did praise the bombing. Of course, Abbas, who still remains the head of the government there, he criticized it but we now that he's no longer in control and I think that.
HUME: If he ever was.
LIASSON: If he ever was. The United States and Europe have been pretty much together on this. They've all cut off the funding, direct funding to the Palestinian government. I think Charles is probably right, the wall has certainly decreased these attacks. I mean, since the wall has been built there have been fewer and fewer number. You always have some people who get through. But I don't think there's a lot of controversy about the United States and Europe giving money to Hamas. I don't think there's a huge call that we should be doing it.
BARNES: That's not really the issue here. Everybody agrees on that. The issue is what is the policy going to be towards this new government? We know what the president has said is the government has to recognize Israel, has to stop terror, which it hasn't done and of course won't do, has to stop the terror. Well, there haven't been any Hamas carried out terrorist attacks but this was Islamic Jihad which is also in Gaza shooting rockets into Israel, hit a dining hall just yesterday, and the third thing is agree to all these past agreements.
Well, the Hamas government hasn't done any of those. We know it does sponsor and will sponsor and allow terrorism so it seems to fit the mold of the Bush doctrine, of a terrorist state that -- which is the kind of state we want to eliminate. Well, is that the American policy? Do we want their government overthrown as a supporter of terrorism? I think we should but it's been, I guess, purposely vague by the Bush administration so far.
LIASSON: And the reason why is that the United States pushed hard to get the process that brought them to power. There was a chance for the United States to insist on some kind of ground rules of anybody living -- anybody entering the Palestinian elections would have to agree to certain prerequisites like some kind of -- to prove their democratic bona fides and the United States chose not to do that and go forward with these elections and this is what they got.
HUME: Twenty seconds, Charles.
KRAUTHAMMER: In dropping that requirement it was a big mistake. However, this does tell the world where the Palestinians are and it tells them if you want the respect and assistance, you're going to have to ultimately change governments and change your opinion of Israel.
| Sponsored Links |