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

---

September 04, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - September 4

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY), DEM SENATE CAMPAIGN CMTE: Everyone says, every poll says that the vast majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, think we need a change in direction in both Iraq and in foreign policy.

SEN. ELIZABETH DOLE (R-NC), GOP SENATE CAMPAIGN CMTE: The Democrats, a lot of people have said they have no alternatives, no ideas, it's just obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, attack, attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Well there you have the two sides, that's from FOX NEWS SUDAY, the Republicans and the Democrats talking about the outlook for the elections or at least their view of the outlook for the elections.

Now, some analytical observations from Bill Kristol, editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Juan Williams, senior correspondent for "National Public Radio"; and the syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, FOX NEWS contributors all.

So, as we sit here, Charles, it looks like a pretty steep uphill climb for the Republicans, though in some of David Winston's numbers, if you ask people, at least on the Senate side, what do you think about -- who do you -- your views of favorable and unfavorable of Senate, Democrats and Republicans are pretty close. On the issues of Iraq and the economy, the two top issues in every poll, who do you trust best to handle those issues, also very close. What do you make of that?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, when you ask who do you trust, it's sort of saying who can handle it from here on out. I'm not sure either side has a good answer that anybody would believe, either on Iraq or on the economy, which I think is gas prices -- that's how it's become an issue.

The economy is strong, but people have a sour sense, and that's because of high energy prices. So, I'm not sure anybody credits either party with a good answer for the future. So, what I think is the main effect here is the mood people have from what's happened in the past, and obviously, the deterioration in Iraq, which is undeniable in the last year, has given a sour edge to the Republican's standing in people's mind and the Democrats are going to hardship on -- who screwed it up and they'll say obviously on Iraq and they'll say on gas prices. People understand it's largely out of our control, nonetheless, people hold the president responsible for the economy no matter how irrational holding him responsible is.

ANGLE: Juan, before we -- before you talk about the issue of Iraq, I want to show you the Democrats, actually -- a number of Democrats today proposed some specific changes for U.S. policy in Iraq, laid out a list of them. We've summarized them here for you.

Shift U.S. mission to counter-terrorism, training, and force protection.

Begin redeployment of U.S. forces by year's end.

Help disarm militias and develop sustainable political settlement.

And convene international conference to support Iraq government and economic reconstruction.

Now, a White House official and some Republicans on Capitol Hill said, hey, that's exactly what the administration is doing, with perhaps the exception of the last one about convening an international conference and that sort of thing. Do you really see that much difference in the specific proposals of Democrats from what the administration is already attempting to do in Iraq?

JUAN WILLIAMS, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, there is a difference, I mean, obviously, the timetable is a little different. They want to start things moving in terms of, you know, redeploying the troops by the end of this year, 2006. The second thing to say is that there's an emphasis here on more of an advisory role of U.S. forces rather than having U.S. forces in the middle of what increasingly looks like sectarian strife and the cause of that for Americans and even today we saw Iraqi forces being killed.

So, I think that what we're coming to is the notion of, who is in the advance of change. It's not that the Democrats want anything radically different, Jim, it's that they're simply saying, we're in the midst of saying, don't stay the course, which is the president's banner, we're saying look for reasonable changes that would allow us to bring some of those troops home.

ANGLE: Bill.

BILL KRISTOL, "WEEKLY STANDARD": One prominent Democratic leader did not sign this letter, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman. He wasn't asked to sign by the Congressional leadership, and that reveals something. The Congressional leadership, and particularly the Electoral leadership, Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York who's head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee; Rahm Emanuel, the congressman from Chicago who's head of the House Committee, they are smart politicians. They do not want to give Karl Rove a target to shoot at, so there's this vague Democratic letter expressing discontent with what the president's been doing, but without any radical or dangerous proposals.

ANGLE: No, bringing the troops home now.

KRISTOL: No, bringing the troops home. The tone of this is, we're very concerned about our national security. They want to actually help us to prevail in Iraq. It's not a defeatist letter. I think deep down they are defeatists, but the letter is not defeatist and they.

WILLIAMS: (INAUDIBLE)

(LAUGHTER)

KRISTOL: I should interject the truth occasionally.

WILLIAMS: Oh.

KRISTOL: But politically, it is very smart. And what they are going to now do is keep Howard Dean and the Dean part of the Democratic message off TV for the next two months.

ANGLE: How do they do that?

KRISTOL: Well, you should invite Howard Dean on every day and I bet he won't come on and I bet Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer would have heart attacks if Howard Dean suddenly showed up on every Sunday show for the next two months.

WILLIAMS: You guys need somebody to beat up (ph).

KRISTOL: But the Democrats have been smart and as Charles say, if it is a retrospective election, there are enough grievances with Bush, with Congressional Republican leadership that it will be a rough election night. If it's a forward-looking election, if it's a forward looking election, who's got a better plan for the country, Republicans have a reasonable shot.

WILLIAMS: You need somebody to beat up so you want Congressman Murtha or you want Howard Dean or want to somehow vilify, demonize Democrats as, what did vice president say -- defeatists, right? Rumsfeld suggested people involved in appeasement, as World War II and the president suggests that they would cutting funding and therefore force immediate withdrawal and give the terrorists victory.

KRAUTHAMMER: But that letter that the leadership has written is exactly -- confirms what you were denying, which is the Democratic leadership understands that if the party is a cut and run party, they're going to get slammed. The way to win this elections is to say nothing on Iraq, is to be completely innocuous and to talk about a phased redeployment, which means essentially nothing, but it's a way to leave it all on what's happened in the past.

They understand that Ned Lamont might have won a victory in Connecticut in a contest among Democrats, but if you open up that election, it'll lose in the end and why jeopardize a winning issue?

ANGLE: OK, when we come back with the panel, Kofi Annan leaves Iran with no tangible progress on ending its nuclear weapons program, and Sudan rejects a U.N. peacekeeping force. We will talk about the effectiveness of the United Nations, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: If the Iranians continue to say no, they're going to continue enriching, then I think the next step is clear, we'll be in the Security Council looking for sanctions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: There's U.N. Ambassador John Bolton talking about working through the U.N.; and Sudan today rejected a 20,000 member United Nations' force to end the genocide in Darfur. Instead the Sudanese government afforded to allow 7,000 African Union troops to remain in the region, but only if they are not part of the U.N. force. That was an action taken last week, Charles, by the U.N. which looked at this, what is really a slow motion Rwanda, where you had tens of thousands of people being killed, the total now about 200,000 or more, some two and a half million homeless. Women being raped by the score by these militias and yet, something which everyone agrees, has to stop and yet the international community seems powerless to do anything. Is there anything the U.N. can do when you have a sovereign nation that resists the will of the international community?

KRAUTHAMMER: The answer is absolutely nothing. And example was Iraq, where we had 17 resolutions on disarmament and coming clean, all defied and in the end, the U.N. itself said well, yes, but we don't want to be -- America or Britain doing anything about it. We had genocides in Rwanda, we've had all of these history -- Srebrenica, the famous example in Yugoslavia of a city protected by U.N. forces where there was as massacre. The U.N. Security Council is a committee of the victors in the Second World War who interests aren't the same. China and Russia aren't interest in stopping the genocide in Sudan. The Arab League isn't interested. Sudan's an Arab country, China and Russia don't want to offend Arabs. Nothing is going to happen in Sudan.

ANGLE: What do you think, Juan?

WILLIAMS: You know.

ANGLE: Here you have a case at Darfur which seems so clear. I mean, you remember President Clinton, after he left office and toward the end of his term in office, he kept saying Rwanda, one huge regret I have is we weren't able to do anything about Rwanda. Here you have a very similar situation. Instead of, you know, one group against it's -- in Rwanda you have the ethnic Arab population and the ethnic African population, and these people are in terribly dire straits.

WILLIAMS: There's just no question, it's a tragic situation. Look, even at the founding of the U.N., the caution was always, we can't allow the United Nations to violate the sovereignty of individual nations. And in this country sometimes you hear that as well in terms of trying to force the United States into agreements. But what you're getting into now is a situation where you have a slaughter, a tragedy, and again the U.N. just is impotent and the question is if you pull back on humanitarian aid, if you pull back on aid to the government, would that force a change?

KRISTOL: The government of Iran, the governor of Sudan will only respond to the credible threat of the use of force. The most credibly threatening user of force is the United States of America, the only leader of any coalition that could do anything about aiding (ph) the situation. If people are serious about stopping the genocide in Darfur, and I would be, or about stopping Iran's nuclear program, the best thing that could happen would be for President Bush to go to Congress and get an authorization for the use of force in both cases, because then there would be a creditable threat. And that would be something if you did it in the next week or two, that could shape up the election. Don't you think?

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: Go on the offensive. What's the problem with the Bush administration right now? It's helplessly depending on the U.N., just like the Clinton administration did in the `90s. Go to Congress and get an authorization for use of force.

ANGLE: It would shake up the election, but let me ask you this. In the middle of what is happening in Iraq, how credible would a threat of force be?

KRISTOL: If Congress voted to authorize it? The threat of force against a cartoon, which is not a serious power, for military air strikes against Iran? That threat is credible, I think.

WILLIAMS: Well, here's the thing about the United Nations. When you go to the United Nations.

KRISTOL: Don't go to the United Nations.

WILLIAMS: .and you can build international support, the public...

KRISTOL: Go to the United States Congress.

WILLIAMS: You just want a coalition of the willing, again and again and again and you want to put more Americans at risk.

KRISTOL: Well, I want to stop genocide and I want to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons.

WILLIAMS: It's the world's responsibility.

ANGLE: Well a coalition of the willing is about the only way to get anything done, isn't it?

KRAUTHAMMER: It's America and the posse of the moment. That's all that ever stops genocide and war.

---

Sponsored Links

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