 | Edwards Stumps in Chicago | |
| In Today's Video Vault | |
| Grassley Swings at (and Misses) Obama | |
| Richardson's Interview | |
| This Just In.... |
| In Defense Of Incrementalism | |
| The War Comes Home | |
| Roe, Not Giuliani, Is The Real Abortion Muddle | |
| Rudy's Party Or Reagan's? | |
| Blair's Influence To Outlast His Iraq Stand |
|
August 21, 2006
Special Report Roundtable - August 21
FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. But I do know it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who've shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation as far as I'm concerned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: That was President Bush today at this news conference he called kind of out of the blue to -- supposedly to talk about the cease- fire in Lebanon, but it ended up being devoted heavily to Iraq and the president, as you saw there made a very energetic argument that pulling out of Iraq would be a terrible idea and would result in an abandonment of American's ideals and principles.
Some analytical observations on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke editor of "Roll Call"; and the syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, FOX NEWS contributors all.
Well, the president was pretty straightforward, Charles, about the idea that the original rationale, weapons of mass destruction or the principle original rationale, was found to be not present in Iraq, but he now makes an argument that the situation is such that we can't leave it now. Is this an argument that's likely to have a favorable effect on voters as far as he is concerned and as far as Republican candidates, this fall, are concerned?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: If the argument is about withdrawing now, I think he can win the argument. If the argument's about was it worth it in the past, the original decision, he may lose it. So that's why he wants to focus on the issue right now.
Look, there are two reasons we might want to leave, one as we heard from John Kerry, earlier in the show is that this is not essential front on the war on terror. Now, that's a truly idiotic argument. If Iraq disappears, if the government collapses, it will if we leave precipitously, it will be a victory for Iran and Syria and al Qaeda, the three major terrorist actors in the world. So it would be a disaster.
The major argument for withdrawal is that we can't win. We are losing anyway. Why lose another soldier? It's a losing cause. The president has to address that. That is a reasonable argument because the indices looks as if it is negative and he has to explain how we are going to change our strategy. He did talk about in saying the idea of securing Baghdad. But the real problem is not, I think, in the Sunni insurgency. I think, I've heard a high administration official tell us, and I think he's right, that within a year, the Sunnis will ask for our stay as a way of protection. The problem is the cancer in the government of the Shiite militias is lead by the Madi army. Our big mistake was to alarm the Madi army to get out Najaf alive two years ago. And that -- the Shiite militias, which are not under control, is the real issue and the president did not address how we are going to tackle that.
MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": I agree with everything that Charles said. I mean, I think Bush makes a forceful moral point, which you played, a powerful strategic argument that if we leave, this place will turn into a terrorist haven and we will be chased down here at home, he quote the General Abizaid. But the discouragement on the part of the American people, I think, and the poll of support, in the Gallup poll is now down to 35, the lowest it's ever been, is that we don't seem to be winning. And you know, what we need -- I don't think the rhetoric will convince anybody anymore. I think it's going to take results, it's going to take success in Baghdad. If Baghdad could be pacified as the administration is saying over and over and over again that it's trying to do, that would arrest people's attention, I think, and would give people confidence again and would sustain Republicans in the election.
HUME: But if the argument is fought out this Fall, Fred, between those and there are numerous in the Democratic party, Ned Lamont, the most conspicuous and recent emergent example, Democrats arguing that an immediate pullout is the right course, could this issue work for the Republicans anyway?
FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, I think that depends on one thing and that's a bit of good news on the ground. I think the president did as well -- he was compelling in talking about Iraq, about as compelling as one could be in the absence of good news coming from Iraq. And the obvious point of emphasis, right now, is Baghdad as Mort suggested, that's where the good news has to come from because we know they've started a campaign to clean out the terrorists there. And the problem is actually what Charles mentioned. Moqtada al Sadr, this renegade Shiite leader who has a block of voters in the Iraqi parliament, is a huge part of the problem. I'm not sure that the sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shiites can be contained unless he is contained. And not only was he not arrested a couple years ago, but earlier, in the early days when Paul Bremer was running the country, with the envoy there, there was a warrant for his arrest in the murder of another ayatollah, and it was -- but it was never - - the decision was -- while Bremer wanted him to arrested him, the decision was not to do that.
HUME: The Iraqi figures did not want that.
KONDRACKE: Well even lately, U.S. forces have been engaged with Sadr's army and Maliki, the prime minister, complained about it that we shouldn't be doing that because Sadr is part of Maliki's coalition. So it is very complicated. I thought the question that didn't get asked today at the press conference is, suppose your generals tell you that a full-scale civil war is underway, what is your policy then? Well, he would say that's a hypothetical question, but it is the question. I don't know the answer.
HUME: Well, there is a consensus; it seems to me, that there is a full-scale civil war going on. You're hearing it from a lot of quarters now. Question, is there -- Fred
BARNES: I think there's a small scale one.
HUME: Mort.
KONDRACKE: I think there's a small scale one, too.
HUME: Full-scale, Charles?
KRAUTHAMMER: No, absolutely not. Full-scale civil war is Antigo.
HUME: OK. When we come back with the panel, President Bush says international troops are needed urgently in South Lebanon. European countries, well, we'll talk about them next. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: France has had a very close relationship with Lebanon, there's historical ties with Lebanon. I would hope they would put more troops in. They understand the region as well as anybody. And so we're working with, you know, a lot of folks, trying to get this force up and running.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: Well, the French force, such as it is, has apparently landed and we were able to see, over the weekend, some pictures of the French expeditionary force for Lebanon. There it is in all of its bold glory. If that doesn't look like D-Day to you, folks, well, it isn't. The French were promising to play a leadership role in the international force in South Lebanon. Well, that's the extent of it of it so far. You heard the president's aspirations on that. That does not qualify, at least from the U.S.'s point of view, as good news, what the French have been, so far, been willing to do. On the other hand today, we had that comment we saw earlier in this program from the Lebanese defense minister, which is worth another moment here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIAS MURR, LEBANESE DEFENSE MINISTER: We will be very clear with this matter, will stop anybody who will try to fire any rockets from our land.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: Well there you go. That's the strongest statement of the intent of the Lebanese force that we've heard and whether they'll actually do that or now, who knows, but it's a suggestion that the Lebanese force may be more robust in its rules of engagement than anybody had imagined.
Where do we stand in all this? Charles, is this now simply the -- is this really -- we're simply acting out the formalities of what has proved to be an unfortunate episode or is there some reason to hope this will -- things will be better there?
KRAUTHAMMER: There is hope and perhaps part of it that statement by Lebanese defense minister. I mean, he speaks and sophistication of the week, which is what Lebanon is. I believe about a third of that. That statement is probably aimed at a third element in Lebanon -- Palestinians - - radical Palestinians. He doesn't want a third element launching a missile against Israel and restarting that war. So it was a warning against -- to them. But in some sense, the Lebanese want Hezbollah defanged. The problem is that the defense minister, his government his very weak and that's why, I think, we actually have an opportunity. If we play into what the Lebanese want and not what they say, Hezbollah has a big influence in that government and it wants that government to stay away from any disarmament of Hezbollah. That's I thank god we were working on a second resolution here having been humiliated by the French in the first, as we saw that aircraft carrier landing on behalf of the French navy...
(LAUGHTER)
They promised a lot to deliver nothing. But, if we could have rules of engagement which are strengthened and we have a mandate to actually either disarm or disarm over time ,Hezbollah, it would work, because I think Lebanon in the end would support that, knowing its future hinges on defanging Hezbollah.
KONDRACKE: You know, the "New York times" editorial page, which I had earlier thought was an outpost of the French Foreign Ministry in New York, actually had an editorial today saying -- entitled "Waiting for Jacques" referring to Jacques Chirac and saying that if -- that this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic, the way the French promised that they would help lead this force and supply 2,000 troops or so. What -- I'm surprised what -- that the "New York Times" didn't take the administration to task as they love to do it, but the administration got snuckered on this, obviously. I mean we...
HUME: One presumes it may not be over yet. That the French may be holding out for the rules of engagement that Charles spoke about.
(CROSSTALK)
I'm not saying that I...
KONDRACKE: Why were the rules of engagement not clear in the first resolution instead of having to go for another one? And the time that it takes to get another one negotiated is going to allow Hezbollah to at least hide its weapons. I think what the defense minister was saying is don't saying, don't fire those weapons or we'll have to do something, bury them underground until the heat's off.
BARNES: Look the last time the French did the right thing in relation to the U.S. is when Lafayette came over. That's been two and a half centuries almost and obviously, they...
KRAUTHAMMER: And he came on a bigger ship.
HUME: A larger landing party.
BARNES: It had a bigger effect and was tougher and stronger and certainly more loyal. But, so you can't count on the French. I think, you know, that President Bush gets a lot of credit for creating an opportunity where almost everybody did the wrong things. I mean, we talked about the French. I mean, obviously, the Lebanese, they went after a few bombs landed in Lebanon, they started siding with Hezbollah, and the Arab moderates they all flipped, you know, they were really down on Hezbollah, they stopped doing that. And the Israelis didn't go all out and so we wound up in a situation where, I think, Israel has been marginally better off, but it could be -- Israel could be a lot better off and maybe a second resolution will help that.
HUME: A final chapter yet to be written and we'll stay on top of it.
| Sponsored Links |