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

---

August 23, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - August 23

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKHAIL KAMYNIN, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): We stand for peaceful political resolution of all problems concerning the Iranian nuclear program, for preserving the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency and to further strengthening of the nonproliferation regime. To reach these goals, we are ready to use two-sided contacts with Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well that isn't what the guy voted for just a couple of weeks ago when the resolution -- I guess it was what, four to six weeks ago -- when the resolution was passed that said -- told Iran it had until the end of this month to cease and desist its nuclear enrichment program. Now that Iran has come back and said, well let's talk about it and the Russians, it appears, are saying, good idea, let's talk about it.

Some thoughts on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call"; and the syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, FOX NEWS contributors all.

Well Fred, what about this? Where does this leave us? I mean, the French weighed in said a thing or two...

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": The French said look, they said what the deal was. The deal was that the Iranians were -- if they want to have talks, they first have to stop enriching uranium and this response of the Iranians was, no, we're not going to stop enriching uranium. Now, it wasn't just the.

HUME: But we'd like to talk?

BARNES: Yes, we'd like to talk and that -- and that is -- the -- one, there was a Security Council resolution that that Russian guy voted for, but it wasn't only that, it was the private promises by the presidents of Russia and China that if Iran didn't stop enriching uranium, they would move ahead to the next step, which is economic sanctions. Now it's clear that the Russians are not going to do that now. They don't want to do it, they have tremendous economic interests in Iran, they could build, you know, four or five other nuclear reactors there, they were already working on one. And this was not entirely unpredictable. I talked to one administration official just yesterday who said, yeah, the Russians are going to screw us.

HUME: Really?

BARNES: Oh, yeah. They're not going to -- they're not going to -- they're not going to go along with what they had promised and voted for. And that the best that can be hoped for from the Russians and therefore the Chinese, because the Chinese -- on Iran, the Chinese follow the Russians. On North Korea, the Russians follow the Chinese. The best we can hope for is that will abstain in the vote on -- in the Security Council, so the idea of moving seriously to economic sanctions is in great jeopardy.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": Well, the way I hear it is that the Chinese are a even a tougher nut to crack than the Russians on this whole thing. If there's going to be sanctions, it's going to have to be quote so-called "sanctions of the willing," that is to say the Europeans either freezing Iranian assets or...

HUME: You're talking about bank...

KONDRACKE: Bank assets or...

HUME: But nothing matters to Iranians.

KONDRACKE: It would. Oh, it would, indeed. The kind of san -- look, the kind of sanctions that you're likely to get out of the U.N. Security Council would be so watered down, so weak, that the Iranians would just bat them away. They would consist of limiting the travel of various Iranian officials and maybe some teams or something like that -- not inviting teams to international sporting events. I mean, that's nothing. I mean, you'd have to impose really harsh economic sanctions to make the Iranians pay attention and at the moment, they're not paying attention.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It's been a bad week for the State Department. Earlier in the week they got stabbed by the French on Lebanon, after having promised a bigger national force, but they sent a couple of rowboat. And then on Iran, of course, the Russians had given us assurances, not only in the vote in the Security Council, but private assurances they would support us if the Iranians did not suspend enrichment, which they have not.

Now, this is all kind of predictable because even if the Russians had agreed that this is a violation and they would support us on sanction, which they probably will not now. The sanctions will be weak and even if the sanctions were strong, the Iranians are not about to give up the glory and the power that comes with nuclear weapons in return for a few economic incentives.

This is all a dance for us to get the goodwill of the French, the Germans, and the British if the time comes for an American military attack.

KONDRACKE: Well, you know, I don't know that there's going to be a military attack. I mean, there's been no indication from the administration that there would be one, and this report that was issued by the House Intelligence Committee is kind of disturbing about what we don't know and how much we don't know, it doesn't detail what we don't know, but says there is a lot we don't know about the Iranian nuclear program and also other weapons of mass destruction programs, so we could bomb Natanz, which is where the uranium enrichment facility is.

HUME: And where the inspectors are now probably being turned away.

KONDRACKE: Right, I mean, that's where everybody believes that they're developing these.

HUME: Centrifuges.

KONDRACKE: ...centrifuges, but who knows where else they may have stuff buried, and, you know, how much we could put the program back.

BARNES: Look, a lot more is known than that. Admittedly, I mean, Even President Bush has complained privately about the lack of good intelligence about the governing mullahs in Iran. But they know a lot, they know that there are about a dozen sites you could hit, and at the very least, if there was a full-scale American attack, it could set back the Iranian nuclear program for years and maybe it's time to start leaking word from the administration that there is a military option.

HUME: When we come back with our panel, how's the 2008 presidential race shaping up now? We look at some potential candidates next with the all-stars.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, ARIZONA: I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and sacrifices that would be required. "Stuff happens," "mission accomplished," "last throws," "a few deadeners," I'm more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, that's John McCain campaigning for embattled Republican Senator Mike DeWine out in Ohio, but McCain is also thought to, underhandedly, to be running for president and perhaps by statements like that one, beginning to put distance between himself and the administration on a war that he has repeatedly and consistently supported. He now complains, as you heard, that we painted too rosey a picture to be -- "we" meaning the United States in the form of the administration.

Let's take a look, quickly, meanwhile, at the first state where anybody of any -- gets to vote in any important way which is the Iowa Caucuses and how the politics are shaping up on the Republican side. And you see that Rudy Giuliani seems to be doing the best there. He's beating out undecided there by a point, and early going, beating undecided's not a bad thing, and John McCain is far back.

What to make of all these straws in the wind, these signs now about the state of this race -- Charles.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, on McCain, I think it's simply not so that the administration had promised a day at the beach. There was no one in the position of responsibility who said it was going to be easy. Repeated warnings it would be hard. What McCain is doing is he's positioning himself as everyone who supported the war is doing, they're all trying to say, whether they're politicians or columnists or journalists, oh yes, I supported the war, but if these idiots hadn't wrecked it, if they had only acted as I would have had I been in charge, everything would be OK.

HUME: Is this good politics, Mort? I mean, is it -- for someone like McCain who's trying to win the Republican nomination, first of all, is this good politics?

KONDRACKE: You know, everybody's been accusing McCain of buttering the Bush camp and the Right and the regulars and all that. Here he is back in his mode of, you know, straight talk express. And look, he has said again and again and again, we didn't commit enough troops to the effort, we should have committed troops all along the way. He's been critical and he said that he had no confidence in Don Rumsfeld at an earlier point, so I think that he's -- that this is not something new that he said...

HUME: Understood, but it's a matter of emphasis, as you point out, he was emphasizing his.

KONDRACKE: Differences with Rumsfeld.

HUME: Well, but he was -- I know, but he -- he had stopped doing that for a while, while he reached out to everyone from, I don't know, Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson to whoever else....

KONDRACKE: The Democrats, interestingly, today on the blogs, are quoting McCain's statements from 2003 when the invasion took place as sayings things similar to what Bush was saying, and others in the administration, that we would be greeted at liberators...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: So is this good politics for candidate to be doing what he's doing now or not?

KONDRACKE: I don't think it is good general election politics, I don't know if it's good.

HUME: Fred.

KONDRACKE: ...nomination politics.

HUME: Fred, what do the Iowa numbers seem to say?

BARNES: Well, the Iowa numbers seem to say that the sheen of 9/11 and the roll that Rudy Giuliani played has not warn off, I mean look, we've seen consistent how well Giuliani who hasn't -- you know, people aren't for sure he's going to run, although I think he is, you hear reports from North Carolina. I know a guy who set up -- a Republican who set up on an event for him there, 500 people who showed up, enthusiastically response by the crowds, same thing in South Carolina where he had a couple of events. These are the states that are supposed to be trouble for Giuliani because he's very liberal on social issues. But in terms -- a lot of conservatives -- well not a lot, some, at any rate, have come to the conclusion that look, the big issue is going to be national security, protecting the country and leadership. And those are the things that Rudy Giuliani is strong on. So, despite that poll having, what, 29 percent undecided and usually any poll with more than 20 percent undecided, you dismiss. I think it shows that Giuliani has a large audience awaiting his entry into the campaign.

HUME: And does it suggest also, Charles, that in an early key states that John McCain still has some work to do to win over the Republican base?

KRAUTHAMMER: He does, but I wouldn't credit a lot to these Giuliani number. It's the name recognition and the 9/11 halo.

HUME: I know, but John McCain is a big name -- 17 percent?

KRAUTHAMMER: No -- well 17 percent if you take away the inflated Giuliani number. If you told Republicans about his social issues, a lot of people aren't aware of his positions, I think that number would be a hell of a lot lower. McCain obviously has problems on his right. He's been working on that and he is the stronger candidate in the general election, but his task is to appease the Right to get the nomination.

BARNES: I'm not sure

HUME: Quickly.

BARNES: I'm not sure that McCain is a stronger election candidate than Giuliani. The point is 9/11 was five years ago and Giuliani still seems to be benefiting from it and most Republicans do know his social liberalism.

---

Sponsored Links

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