---

June 28, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - June 28

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TZIPI LIVINI, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: This operation comes after long weeks of restraint -- of Israeli restraint. The reasons for this operation are not punishment nor retaliation. The only reason for this operation is to bring Gilad back home and to prevent the next terror attack on Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, there's the senior official of the Israeli government saying that all they wanted is that young soldier who was kidnapped by Palestinians extremists -- there you see a picture of him -- home and they will desist. They have now surrounded and entered Gaza, they have buzzed the summer residence of the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad and Israel is clearly on the march. Nonetheless the young soldier remains in captivity or at least missing. Analytical observations now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call"; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX News contributors all.

Well, what about this? Is Israel justified in doing this? Will it work? What does this tell us?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, big, big tests for Hamas, who is new running the government and the Palestinian territories and apparently cannot control its own armed wing who took this Israeli soldier and the Palestinian government has said -- the Hamas leaders there have said that this wasn't something that they planned, this was more or less a rogue element, and this is a government that's under a lot of pressure. It doesn't have the foreign funds it used to rely on, now there's a question of whether it controls its own armed men and, you know, this is something - - they're either a functioning government or they're not.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": Let's remember how al this began. I mean, the Israelis got out of Gaza, they left it -- they left it alone for Palestinian rule, hoping that the Palestinians would make a, you know, a viable, secure state out of it. What ensued was total chaos, murder, thuggery (SIC), all kinds of stuff and terrorism against Israel. There have been an average of 100 missiles a day launched from Gaza into Israel proper and so -- and the Israelis have been putting up with it.

The latest thing -- in responding, to some extent, but not going back in -- the latest thing that happened is that Hamas and company dug a tunnel underneath and attacked an Israeli outpost in Israel proper, not in the occupied territories or in Gaza, and killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped this young man. Then there were days and days of negotiations where the Israelis tried to get the Palestinian government to find him and to deliver him. The Hamas hardliners would not do so and so now the Israelis have gone in like gang busters. It would be rare if this young man came out alive, I mean, it practically never happens. Every time an Israeli soldier has been captured, he's been killed. Now, this could be an exception, but it doesn't look like it and the Israelis are not going to negotiate with Hamas for release of prisoners. They have negotiated releases before, but they're not going to do it this time.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Hamas is responsible. They can say, well, we can't control this militant wing, these terrorists, or they can say, you know, it's just hardliners are doing this or something, they're responsible. This is Hamas. This is their party. This is their group. This is their people. They did it. Normally if you crossed a border, an international border and shot a couple of soldiers in the other country and kidnapped one, that would be considered an act of war. And yet, Hamas seems to think that that -- it's really not that serious. The Israelis have moved into Gaza. Last report, nobody had been killed. There hadn't been any casualties, but.

HUME: Well, apparently, they've hit pair substations, they've black -- and they've put much of the area in darkness.

LIASSON: And arrested a cabinet minister, actually.

HUME: And arrested a cabinet minister.

BARNES: Look, all Hamas has to do is turn the soldier back in. I mean, they're trying to be.

LIASSON: They can't.

BARNES: They're responsible.

LIASSON: No, I mean -- what I'm saying.

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: Why don't they.

LIASSON: It shows you how they can't even.

BARNES: They know where he is.

HUME: Well, here's the question.

BARNES: They can go get him -- demand.

HUME: Is there any evidence that Hamas is trying like crazy, with its security forces or whatever security force it has at its disposal, to find, locate and free this soldier?

LIASSON: They're either unwilling or unable but either one is pretty.

BARNES: No, it does make a big difference whether they're unwilling or unable. If they're unwilling, and that seems to be the case, I know of no evidence that they are going in with their own security forces and demanding to get him out. And so, look, I mean, this show -- Hamas would somehow wants the Europeans and the Americans and the Israelis to keep pumping money in their direction. I mean, this is not a good way to go about it. They've also changed this agreement, supposedly, remember when they were going to recognize Israel along with Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian territory, now they've changed it in a way that doesn't recognize Israel.

KONDRACKE: Well, there seems to be two wings of Hamas, here. The from the prime minister.

HUME: Oh boy.

KONDRACKE: Well, it doesn't make any difference. They're equally bad. The -- they're almost as equally bad. The prime minister's wing is the one that negotiated this deal with Mahmoud Abbas. Does it recognize the state of Israel as a permanent entity? No. Does it agree to give up violence? No. Meanwhile you have the other wing led by the guy who's in Damascus who's obviously perpetrating this violence, he doesn't even want the kind of deal that the prime minister is willing to reach with Hamas. I mean, he's blowing this whole thing up. So, it's hopeless I think with Hamas.

HUME: So, is this going to lead to the disintegration of Hamas? A war? Both? What?

KONDRACKE: I think it leads to a permanent state of violence between a Hamas-led government and the Israelis, no peace negotiations. Abbas is increasingly marginalized and you've got the only protection Israel has is a wall and military action.

LIASSON: But the other question that Brit asked is can Hamas govern its own territory? And that's another big question for them. They're not being able to do that.

HUME: Doesn't look like it.

BARNES: It's not a question. We know the answer and it's no.

HUME: When we come back with our panel, a five term republican congressman wins the chance of another term by supporting or at least all the while supporting President Bush's guest worker program. Is this immigration issue not all it was cracked up to be? The all-stars on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: Those of us who believe that the American people want us solve this problem, but want us to solve it in a principled way without amnesty think that Chris Cannon's victory yesterday was a very important step toward resolving this problem for the American people.

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: But it's got to send a message to a lot of my colleagues, and to Mr. Cannon, that this issue of illegal immigration is an important one to his constituents and to Americans throughout the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Tom Tancredo has been a leader of the no amnesty caucus and a though guy on immigration -- leading though guy on immigration reform in the House of Representatives, actually worked against his colleague, Chris Cannon's re-nomination and backed his opponent. His opponent campaigned as a Tancredo-type tough guy and thought he'd have a good chance to win out there in Utah, he did not. So, what is the political meaning of this?

KONDRACKE: Well, it ought to say to House republicans that you don't have to be terrified of Tom Tancredo and the Minutemen and (INAUDIBLE) Buchanan, who's run Tom Tancredo's creative pack and the radio talk hosts, that they're not going to run you out of town, in fact, Chris Cannon got 56 percent of the vote. So, you can survive and be in favor of a comprehensive immigration plan. That's what it ought to do, but that's not what it is doing. I mean, what it is doing -- everybody is saying things -- lots of people are saying things like, well, he's an incumbent and the strength of incumbency is what counts here and after all, his opponent, leading up right before the election said he was having trouble because Satan had impaired his business so he couldn't finance his campaign, therefore he was a weak candidate, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Well, Mort says that message isn't going to be received, though. But is that the correct message to take out of this?

BARNES: I think it's the correct message, and I think it will be received. Look, he did get 56 percent of the vote, as Mort said, against an opponent who put $400,000 in his own campaign and had independent expenditures by Tom Tancredo's pack, that were spent in the district. I know of no time ever when a sitting congressman of one party ran independent expenditures to defeat one of his colleagues in a separate district. I asked some members of congress today if they can think of any time and they didn't know when that'd ever been done. And it failed, look, this was not an underfunded challenge of Chris Cannon. Chris Cannon in the primary, in 2004, against an opponent who also used the immigration issue, got 58 percent, and this only not -- at a much more concerted effort, only knocked two percent off of it, even though they called him (INAUDIBLE) called him "Chris King of Amnesty Cannon."

LIASSON: Yeah. Look, and President Bush campaigned for Cannon. And of course, a lot of John Jacobs attacks on Cannon that he was a.

HUME: His opponent, John Jacob.

LIASSON: John Jacob was the challenger -- attacked Cannon for being a rubberstamp for Bush. That's something that you think the democrats would say. Look, I think that if he had won -- if Jacob had run this would have been an earthquake and it would have had everyone running to the arms of Tom Tancredo. Now, the fact that the center held, at least in the republican party, you could say, doesn't mean that the immigration issue isn't still going to be used where members think it's necessary. I don't think it's not going to get the House republicans of their current analysis that no bill is better for them, but it does show you that -- and Chris Cannon's a serious substantive guy and he argued all along that he wanted to find a solution to this problem, not just talk about deporting, you know, 12 million people. Maybe it gives Mike Pence and people who are working on this a little bit of a boost.

BARNES: One more thing about this district, this is probably the most conservative district in the country.

LIASSON: Seventy-seven percent.

BARNES: President Bush won by 57 points in this district. And the conservatives -- look.

HUME: Is it the most conservative or the most republican?

BARNES: I think both. If a anti-immigration candidate can't win there, I don't know where they're going to win.

HUME: OK, quick thoughts. How big a deal is the Supreme Court decision in the Texas redistricting case?

LIASSON: Well, it's big deal because it didn't change anything.

KONDRACKE: I think it's terrible, actually because it's going to mean that every state is...

HUME: But, how big a deal is it for the fall?

KONDRACKE: Not at all.

BARNES: If they go by.

HUME: Quickly!

BARNES: .whether they think it's good or bad. They went by the law. It was a good decision.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006