2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

August 12, 2006

Hot Stories: It's One War, Left Turn

Beltway Boys

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Coming up on "The Beltway Boys," Israel's fight against Hezbollah, a major terror plot foiled, and the insurgency in Iraq - the war against extremists is heating up.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL: We'll take a look at the battlefield and how each party is angling for an advantage heading into the elections.

BARNES: Goodbye, Joe. Hello, Ned. The anti-war left is inching closer to a complete takeover of the Democratic Party.

KONDRACKE: And Hillary Clinton feeling the heat from the left, too. We'll tell you how she's adjusting her message.

BARNES: "The Beltway Boys" are next, right after the headlines.

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to - to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KONDRACKE: I'm Mort Kondracke.

BARNES: And I'm Fred Barnes, and we're "The Beltway Boys."

KONDRACKE: Well, Fred, the "Hot Story" is "It's One War, Stupid." And by stupid, I mean those people - and I'm afraid most of them are Democrats - who don't believe that we're involved in one - one war with Islamic radicalism. But it is one war, and there are three main fronts right now.

One is with the al-Qaida network, which is very much alive, as evidenced by this plot - very sophisticated plot - to blow up U.S. airliners as they're going over the - the - the Atlantic Ocean. There is Israel's fight with Hezbollah; that's all part of it. And then there's our war in - in Iraq.

You know, after Pearl Harbor and after 9/11, the country pulled together because we were facing one common - one common enemy. And you'd have - you'd have thought when the plot was uncovered this week over in Britain that - that we'd pull together - together again. Not so. I mean, the - the parties are - are going to their respective corners.

For example, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, said - quote - "The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism. And it's created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we're taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

Now - so that - that's an attack on Bush. And then along comes Ken Mehlman, the Republican National chairman, responding and says - quote - "Instead of focusing on political attacks, we should focus on the fact that we are at war and we need every tool to win the war on terror. If Harry Reid had his way and killed the Patriot Act and ended the terrorist surveillance program, authorities would be less able to uncover terrorist plots."

You know - now, Reid and the Democrats have a point in saying that in 2003, Iraq might have been a diversion from the - from the main war on terrorism. But it's not that way anymore. I mean, it is clearly - Iraq is clearly a central front in the war. If we lose in Iraq, the Islamic radicals are going to win across the board. Al-Qaida will win. The insurgents - the Baathists will win. Muqtada al-Sadr will win. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, the whole gang of them will win.

BARNES: Yes.

KONDRACKE: The - the Islamic fundamentalist movement wants to take over the world in very - much the same way that the Nazis did, or the Japanese wanted to take over Asia. And - and the communists did in - in the - in the Cold War. And they need to be fought.

BARNES: Yes. Let me go back a minute and - and - and - and let's identify who it is who - exactly who's stupid. Let's see, it's those Democrats like Harry Reid - would you like to name a few more Democrats - cite them by name.

KONDRACKE: I'll let you - I'll let you this end of (INAUDIBLE).

BARNES: And obviously it's those liberal bloggers that are always filled with hate, and I assume the entire left-wing gang basically. And I think this is the people you're talking about - basically, it's the people who think that the idea of a terrorist threat is - is something that George Bush uses as a political ploy against Democrats, that it's not really - there's not really that great there.

I would say to them one thing: August 16, 2006. That is the date - which is next Wednesday - that is the day that the terrorists had scheduled to get on the airlines with their explosives, or their ingredients for explosives, and blow up those planes over the Atlantic. And the truth is, they are very clever - you know, they had those liquids they had - they'd mixed together. They probably would have gotten on. And if it hadn't have been for a tip - starting with a tip last year sometime in England, they probably would have gotten on and the plot would have worked, and it would have been 9/11 the sequel.

As it turned out, it didn't work. The - because they were stopped. And - and - and the reason it didn't - one of the reasons it didn't is because the U.S. and England, and in this case, Pakistan, has gone on offense. They weren't waiting around.

You know, Democrats are always talking about, We need more money for first responders here in the United States. When planes blow up over the Atlantic, there's not much first responders can do. And - and so they're - they're irrelevant to this situation.

The joy is - and - and then - and I think there should be real joy in America about this, that we've avoided another 9/11 once more.

KONDRACKE: Yes. Well I - I think that there are certain targets, soft targets in the United States that do need to be hardened. But you're right.

BARNES: I agree.

KONDRACKE: I mean, we have kept the - the - the enemy at a distance so far.

BARNES: Mm-hmm.

KONDRACKE: But - but look, politically speaking, I'd love to see the president and Ken Mehlman try to unify the country and not use the - the war on terrorism as a - as a - in order to save the Republicans in the - in the 2006 election. But - but I have to admit that on the merits, if you had to ask which party is more dependable for fighting terrorism, you'd have to say it's the Republicans. I mean, after all, the Democrats, when - when President Bush put into effect the National Security Agency domestic- surveillance program so-called - which is really an international terrorist..

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: .terrorist surveillance program, what do the Democrats do? They scream bloody murder. Same thing with the Patriot Act; same thing with the - the Swift Financial Services tracking system.

So, you know, the Democrats - if - if I have to say they're stupid, they are.

BARNES: How about weak on terror?

KONDRACKE: I agree.

BARNES: OK.

Anyway, you know, we've sort of given short shrift - we talked about Iraq. We - we talk about Iraq every week. We really short shrift to the Israelis and their war against Hezbollah. And we - and there is a - a U.N. resolution that the U.S. is supporting that will give - that has some teeth. Not as many teeth as we would like in driving Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, far away from the Israeli border.

But it's going to bring in 15,000 U.N. troops - French troops I think are going to be the main ones. And, you know, the French are - I mean, they're kind of wimpish about a lot of things. But they have an army that really fights. So they could be good, and they may need to do it.

It's just - a couple things are unclear to me. One is, who is going to actually shove Hezbollah back farther than the Israelis have shoved them? And who is going to disarm them? I mean, it - it calls for that in this resolution. But you know, resolutions - U.N. resolutions often lead to nothing.

KONDRACKE: Yes, I'm not convinced that Hez - that the Hezbollah front of this - of this war on terror is being won, actually.

BARNES: I'm not either.

KONDRACKE: I mean, I hope - I would hope that it - that it - that it is.

The Democratic Party - coming up - gives Joe Lieberman the heave-ho. We'll have the political fallout. Stay right where you are; "Hot Story" No. 2 is straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NED LAMONT (D), CONNECTICUT SENATE NOMINEE: Stay the course - that's not a winning strategy in Iraq, and it's not a winning strategy for America.

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARNES: Welcome back to "The Beltway Boys."

"Hot Story" number two: "Left Turn."

Mort, dumping Lieberman really tells you a lot about the - about today's Democratic Party in - and nominating a - a limousine liberal like Ned Lamont does as well. I mean, Lieberman is not a nobody. He'll be - he was the vice presidential running mate to Al Gore on the Democratic ticket in 2006. He is the last leading hawk - and they used to call them Cold War liberals, Kennedy, FDR, Truman and all those - he's the last living hawk on national security.

And he's been bounced. I mean, the others - Al Gore, he used to be a hawk. He flipped on Iraq. John Edwards - well, he was never that much of a hawk. He's flipped too, as others have. John Kerry pretended to be a hawk, but - but he's flipped. Lieberman is also the leading Democratic defender of Israel, and - and in the Democratic Party, I think support for Israel - and "The Los Angeles Times" shows it conclusively - that support for the - for Israel has declined. Their polls show that Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin, support Israel more than Democrats do. I mean, that's a flip. It was Democrats who were the biggest supporters of Israel.

And - and they've - so this is the guy they've overturned Ned Leblanc (ph) - Lamont, who thinks that pulling out of - of Iraq solves a problem. And - and appeasing - basically appeasing Iran solves another problem.

Here's where I think the Democratic Party is right now. One, they're averse to the use of force. I've heard you say that, so you have to agree on that one. They believe that diplomacy with - with terrorists and with dictators can work. I think they believe that Bush's war on terror is a bigger than the threat of terrorism itself, at least at the moment. And as I mentioned, their - their support for Israel is declining. I think that's where the party is.

Anyway, here's what Lieberman said about his - about his own - his own party and his decision to run as an independent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I don't want my party to be taken over by the Ned Lamonts and Maxine Waters who will not give assurance to the people of America that we're prepared to do what needs to be done to protect our people in a dangerous world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KONDRACKE: Well, look.

BARNES: Well said.

KONDRACKE: Yes. It - it may be true that - that the rank and file Democrats are less supportive of Israel than the - than - than Republican rank and file. But I don't see any diminution against Democratic leaders, fortunately.

BARNES: Yes, they're just not saying much.

KONDRACKE: .for - for - well, but then - but they certainly aren't - but they are certainly not backing off.

BARNES: I know.

KONDRACKE: .the way they are - the way.

BARNES: But they used to be much more vocal in support of Israel.

KONDRACKE: Well, in any event - here's another - here's another exaggeration from Tony Snow. Quote - this is about Lieberman - "It's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left of their party, they're going to come after you."

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: Or somebody's going to come after you.

KONDRACKE: Well, yes, exactly.

BARNES: The extreme left will, anyway.

KONDRACKE: OK. But look, Lieberman's loss was a defining moment for the Democratic Party for the reasons that you said. He's the last of the Harry Truman liberals in the party. But the fact is that most of the establishment Democrats - Harry Reid and the Clintons and Chris Dodd and all the - all the others were for Lieberman in this primary. They're sort of forced to - to support Lamont. Now they don't have to do it with such - with such joy and such swiftness. But - but nonetheless they're obligated by party obligations to be - to at - to - to at least support him.

What really worries me about this election - and it would worry me even more if Lieberman actually lost in the - in the general election, if - he's going to run as an independent. If Connecticut throws him away, that will indicate me to me that - that there is no place for moderates who work across party lines in - in - in the Democratic Party, and maybe not in the Republican Party. There are - there are actually four Connecticut races where this is involved: three House races where you have three moderate Republicans - Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons - all who are endangered species.

BARNES: Right.

KONDRACKE: .you know - now if - if they were all to lose, and -- you know, you had Joe Schwarz, who was a moderate Republican in Michigan, he lost. What's happening is that the middle is - is falling away, and this - the politics in the country is becoming all - all the more polarized every election it seems.

BARNES: Yes. Yes, but some Democrats - what's his name with the New Democratic Network - Simon.

KONDRACKE: Rosenberg.

BARNES: Simon Rosenberg wrote afterwards that this - that the meeting of the Lamont victory is that we must be more partisan, harder partisans than ever. No accommodation and so on. Here's a guy that's supposed to be a moderate in the party. That was what his conclusion was.

You know, you said earlier that - that you wished and Bush and Ken Mehlman were pleading for unity. They can get no unity. Democrats have decided, We're not going to help Republicans on anything on any issue at any time. We're going to object to it even when they're - even when they're offering us things like hiking the minimum wage that we like. They're not going to go along with that.

So I - I don't - I mean, you're asking them to do something that - that wouldn't help at all. It would sound nice, but it wouldn't do any good.

KONDRACKE: You know what I hope Lieberman does in the - in the general election is to - is to frame that picture of Ned Lamont on that podium with who? With Jesse Jackson. With - Maxine Waters was there somewhere. With Al Sharpton.

BARNES: Yes.

KONDRACKE: I mean, that is the face of who - of what the Lamont campaign represents. It's not the mainstream of the - of the Democratic Party.

BARNES: You know what'll happen if he does that? They'll call him a racist for having shown that and said, That's why he's attacking it because.

KONDRACKE: That's got nothing to do with their race.

BARNES: Of course it has nothing with it.

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: It's got everything to do with radicalism.

BARNES: Well, I agree with you, but I don't think that's what - would be the response of the Lamont people, and the press, too, anyway.

---

Sponsored Links

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