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

---

August 30, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - August 30

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Here now, we are now at the next step, where we believe that sanctions are merited, and we hope that sanctions will send a clear, strong signal to the Iranian regime that this is a matter of utmost concern and serious concern to the intent community and that they need to change their behavior.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): In this issue, it is necessary that the international community remains firm and united while at the same time stays open for dialog.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Well we will see how firm and how united. Now some analytical observations on the situation with Iran from Fred Barnes, the snappily dressed executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke executive editor of "Roll Call"; and Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief of "Fortune" magazine, FOX NEWS contributors all.

Now, I'm not sure what staying open for dialog means, the phrase that DeVillepin used, it's not quite clear. But it is clear that the U.S. is now going to make a major push for sanctions, and it seems equally clear, Nina, that Iran -- it has no intention of doing anything in response to the U.N. resolutions.

NINA EASTON, "FORTUNE": Well a couple of things, the U.S. has to pursue sanctions and it's got to prevent -- at the same time you have to prevent the conversation from becoming about the U.S. This is about defiance of the international community and this is not about -- if you go to -- if you hear from leaders of Iran, the defeats of the U.S. and the problems with the U.S. This is not about that, this is about defying the international community. And there has to be recognition, I think, in going into this that there is -- the best chance that we have in this country is strengthening the hands of reformists who got rolled by hardliners last summer.

The hardliners are -- are very much in control, and yet there is a reformist almost in the country. It's a country where the population is very pro U.S., people would like to travel to the U.S., but again, and that's another reason why you can't let the conversation -- military threats I think unifies that whole -- from reformist to hardliner unifies them. But I do think there's a potential of a wedge inside that country that can be taken advantage of.

ANGLE: Well Mort.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": The way to get there, though, to have sanctions that bite. That really show that the population, that the world is not going to allow this nuclear weapons program to precede and that Ahmadinejad is just outside the world community. I liken this to, you know, the way the world isolated South Africa across the board, that that's what we should start doing here and there are ways to do it. I mean, but the U.N. sanctions, you know, after -- if the Russians and Chinese are even willing to agree to sanctions, they're going to be patsy sanctions. I mean, what you really need is for the Europeans and the United States to get together and start out by maybe freezing assets, cutting off economic relations, and then you -- if that doesn't work, then you escalate to cutting off the gasoline supply or -- you know, and then you resort to.

ANGLE: Because they have plenty of oil but not plenty of gasoline because they are short on refineries.

KONDRACKE: Right.

ANGLE: Now Fred, are sanctions likely to be more effective if the U.S. essentially creates a coalition of the willing, rather than going through the U.N., where things are likely to get watered down?

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, it depends on who is willing it would be nice if the Italians who have extensive economic relations with Iran were there. India does, I'm not sure whether India's willing to go along, but it would be a tremendously important country if you were going to have sanctions. France, the U.S., Britain, don't quite -- well, France has a strong economic relations. But if you had Italy, India, France, Great Britain and the U.S., you'd be off to a heck of a good start in economic sanctions.

I was struck by David Ignatius' column in the "Washington Post" today, he's over there in Tehran, and says people over there that he talks to they all think there's going to be some solution that's going to pop up tomorrow.

ANGLE: Miraculously appear?

BARNES: And there will not be a huge argument anymore. The only way that could happen is for Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs to say OK, we'll stop, at least for now, we'll stop our uranium enrichment. I don't think that's outside the realm of possibility, but it's pretty close to that.

KONDRACKE: One thing I don't understand is why the administration decided to give a visa to the former president, Khatami, who, you know, might have been, in himself, a reformer, but was rolled constantly by the Mullahs, and never got -- his reforms were all peeled back.

ANGLE: And the secret nuclear program went on under his...

KONDRACKE: Exactly, so he's coming to the United States and he's going to get together with Jimmy Carter, and there's going to be some, you know, plan.

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: And the plan is going to undercut -- you know, we're going to have negotiations. Let us -- you know, Ahmadinejad wants to have negotiation, let's, by all means, let's have negotiations.

BARNES: Now you know, Carter's going to say that. But I regard this -- now this will be the summit of failed presidents. I mean, remember when Carter was president. We had stagflation, you know, 20 percent interest rates in nation, communist on the march around the world. He don't have a lot to talk about.

KONDRACKE: Unless this is a device to goad the Democrats into going into something that really looks weak. In other words, Carter says "let's negotiate," Nancy Pelosi says, "oh, by all means, let's negotiate," Harry Reid say, "let's negotiate," and then the administration can see say, "you see that's what." That's Rove.

EASTON: I disagrees I think it can open up a line of communication that if Khatami's not completely allied why hardliners and it can't hurt.

ANGLE: OK, when we come back with the panel, new predictions about when Iraqis will take over their own security, and Democrats cry foul over administration comments, that's Rumsfeld comments, about the war on terror, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENERAL GEORGE CASEY, COALITION COMMANDER: I don't have a date, but I can see over the next 12 to 18 months -- I can see the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country, with -- with very little coalition support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: And there you have General Casey. We're back with the panel. It's unusual for anyone at the Pentagon or in the administration to talk even vaguely about a timetable, but here have you General Casey saying that in 12 to 18 months the Iraqis can take over most of the security needs, leaving coalition troops in the background.

KONDRACKE: Oh, I thought Casey and others and we're talking about substantial withdrawals by the end of this year. That has stopped, they are not saying that now it's 12 to 18 months, and that's because.

ANGLE: Well, it's not 12 to 18 months on withdrawal. It's 12 to 18 months on Iraqis taking over.

KONDRACKE: The implications is, I mean, if the policy is as they stand up, we stand down, then if they've taken over fully by 12 to 18 months, then we can stand down substantially.

ANGLE: Right.

KONDRACKE: So that's an extension of what they are saying some months ago, and I think that's good, that we're not -- we're not on our way out, we are -- we're, in fact, fighting. And we're fighting in Baghdad and we've strengthened our, our, our, our forces in Baghdad to try to pacify the city and that's absolutely necessary.

EASTON: Well, whatever you think about the correctness of the war, it's an optimistic assessment, and, you know, if we look back at some of these optimistic assessments, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld early on saying that this would take six months, rejecting assertions it would take hundreds of thousands of troops, underestimating the cost of the war. Last year, saying that the insurgency was in the last throes. So I just think politically, I mean, we've got a couple of months before an election, and you know, this statement is being made. It's hard -- I think it's just going to be hard for the American people, you know, who are not very happy about this war at this point, to take that at face value.

ANGLE: Well Fred, it does sound a little bit like wishful thinking, but this is not a member of the administration.

BARNES: Well, this is a general over there, you know, this isn't some -- you know, somebody back here working for the Republican National Committee, that's for sure. I wish he hadn't said it. I don't think ought to be offering a timetable like that. It is one, and I fear the 25 percent that hasn't been done so far by the Iraqi troops is the hard part. This is Iraq and the Sunni Triangle. The other part of Iraq, the other 75 percent isn't that tough. I think it was Vice President Cheney who I did the last throes thing, actually, not Rumsfeld.

EASTON: Well, Rumsfeld the second did it.

ANGLE: Now there's another issue here, and that is the Rumsfeld speech, which, of course, is drawing plenty of fire, we'll get to that in a moment, but now we learn that President Bush is going to give a series of speeches, beginning tomorrow, at the American Legion, where Rumsfeld spoke yesterday. Here is what he said about his speeches, today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: My series of speeches, they're not political speeches. They're speeches -- they're speeches about, um, the future of this country. And they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, uh, this nation will become even more in jeopardy. These are important times. And, uh, I was seriously hope (SIC) people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about, because we have a duty in this country to defeat terrorists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Now politicizing these issues is exactly what the Democrats accuse Rumsfeld of doing when he's talking about...

BARNES: Well, glad they haven't done that. Democrats haven't politicized anything to do with Iraq, geez.

ANGLE: Well, I mean, what do you make of this, Fred? I mean the president is going to do speeches, he obviously, you want to do that coming up to September 11 and obviously the war on terror is important. The administration seems to be folding the war in Iraq into the war on terror as much as they can.

BARNES: Well, they've done that all along and they're sticking to it, even though polls suggest it may not be working. The -- look, the president has a duty to try to build up public support or maintain public support for a war. That also -- that happens to build up support for Bush and Republicans with an election coming on, the two go hand in hand.

ANGLE: Nina.

EASTON: Well, I think the Democrats are politicizing this just as much as -- you know, if Bush can be accused -- Nancy Pelosi saying that, you know, kind of demeaning this war against Islamic fascists, and I just have to think to myself, her statement, I don't think that that's the view of a big segment of her party. I mean, I -- Clinton's top pollster at one point this summer said his greater fear is a nuclear bomb going off at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I do think that their -- I don't think that she's reflecting the concern of the broad Democratic Party.

---

Sponsored Links

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