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

---

September 06, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - September 6

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm announcing today that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramsey bin al-Shaidand 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

(APPLAUSE)

As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men, our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, can face justice.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: And that audience, of course, made up heavily of 9/11 families, welcomed the president's remarks about what was going to happen to terrorist suspects connected to 9/11. The president also revealing, by implication at least, for the first time, that the CIA had indeed been conducting -- having detention overseas with attended (ph) questioning of suspects. The president went to some pains to say today that a lot of information yielded by the captured terror suspects has been what's been able to keep America safe. He mentioned several potential terrorist attacks he said had been thwarted.

Some thoughts now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call"; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX NEWS contributors all.

Well, the president had little news here today, Mara and a proposal to Congress to authorize military tribunals. Did he make any headway?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, he might have. Congress is divided; his own party is divided about exactly what the rules will be for these tribunals. The president wants.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: But not about granting the authority.

LIASSON: No, no, no, not about granting the authority. Basically the Supreme Court told Congress these are going to be legal, you have to authorize them. And now the question is what will the rules be for these tribunals? The questions that Republicans are still divided on are things like what kind of evidence will there be able to shown to the defendant, will the defendant be able to be actually in the courtroom? And that's something that the president's own party needs to come to terms on before they can pass this.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": The "Washington Post" went at some pains to maximize the difference between Senators Graham, Warner and McCain, Republicans, with the president. I talked to somebody in McCain's office today who said that these differences are exaggerated, that they're going to be able to work it out, they think, on the issue of classified testimony. What the president said was is that class -- that defendants would be denied to see -- seeing the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances.

HUME: And their defense lawyers would be able to see it?

KONDRACKE: Yeah. And so -- and on the coercion issue, there was also some, you know, this would only be used under, again, extraordinary circumstances and the judge would have to allow it, et cetera, et cetera. So, the space between the Republicans and the administration on this may not be that wide.

However, the Democrats, you know, came roaring out again and said, you know, it's about time that he came up with something. We're still unsafe. He's letting, you know, this is an extension of executive authority and, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And Harry Reid's office put out a statement basically using the Ron Susskind, "The Two Percent Solution," to challenge everything he said that had been accomplished by the CIA interrogations of people like Abu Zubaydah.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Now, the Democrats are in a bad position because the president, as he laid out, as you had in that bite bit, which shows where they are, the president said these terrorists, these terrorist leaders, these men responsible for 9/11 will face justice just as soon as Congress approves these new rules for the military commissions and the commissions themselves. I think the Republicans are going to be united. I have heard the same thing Mort has said and it was only three of them who were really opposed to some of what the president was in favor of and only one of them that mattered, John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Com Mitt ee. It would be difficult to overcome him. But I agree with Mort, they won't have to.

So the Democrats are going to be out there as the people who will be criticizing this. If they don't go along with it in this September session, they'll be the ones who block the trials from going on of these terrorist leaders.

LIASSON: You know, these are the issues, military tribunals, the warrentless electronic surveillance where the president still has some advantage -- and the president and the Republicans still have some advantage, as their advantage on other national security issues have slipped in the polls, these are the issues that kind of.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: So is it wise for the Democrats optically to resist him on this?

LIASSON: Well, it depends how much they're going to resist. Are they going to say that they oppose any military tribunals? No, I think the Democrats want to find a way to actually do something with these people. You can't just detain them in definitely, if they com Mitt ed a crime they should be tried somehow. I think the Democrats might have greater differences with the rules of these proceedings than Republicans do. But this is, I think, two areas where the Republicans still do have an advantage.

BARNES: And particularly if the Democrats are in a position where they can be accused of -- that their line is, you're unfair to the terrorists, you're not giving enough rights to the terrorists, these people who were responsible, in several cases anyway, for killing 3,000 Americans.

LIASSON: You know, there's another.

BARNES: If it's their position, I think that's a difficult one to maintain.

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: Right, the ACLU position on this is that, what the president announced today still allows torture, according "torture," in -- by the CIA, in the secret prisons which the president said that he would not eliminate even though there's nobody in them at the moment. You know, now, the question is.

HUME: We don't know that.

LIASSON: We don't know there's nobody in them.

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: Well, OK, in any event, in any event, the question is, do the Democrats adopt the ACLU line or do they try to work out a deal here and look as though they want something to be done with these people.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: You know, in these -- in these debates that are internal Republican Party debates, the Democrats have generally looked at people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham for some cover and I expect that they will do so again.

HUME: When we come back with our panel, the former Iranian president arrives in Washington tomorrow. He's already been in the U.S. for several days. Should he be welcome here? That topic, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN MCCORMACK, SENATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We have not put ourselves, as the U.S. government, in the position of standing between those private American organizations and citizens, who wanted to hear what former President Khatami had to say. That's the extent of our involvement in this visit.

GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: In no way is it appropriate for him to be welcomed to Harvard University to speak to us on September 10, on the topic of tolerance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, two views on the visit -- ongoing visit of former Iranian leader Mohammed Khatami who's in the U.S. now. He will speak at Harvard or has spoken at Harvard, he or -- excuse me, suppose to speak at Harvard on the 10th, he'll be at the National Cathedral, here in Washington. There are some who thought he should have been denied a visa. The State Department -- you heard what the State Department said. What about this visit, what about this guy, what about all this controversy?

KONDRACKE: Well he -- you know, he -- he's identified as a quote, unquote moderate. He did try to put some, you know, expand some domestic liberties and he was in the favorite of students and stuff like that when he was the president, but basically the kind of reforms that he wanted to get through or said he wanted to get through were vetoed by the -- by the Mullahs, so he didn't get very far and you know, all the stuff that the Iranian regime has been up to, including developing nuclear weapons and assisting Hezbollah and denouncing Israel and all that stuff, went on during his regime, you know.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: He's had a thing or two to say about Hezbollah, hasn't he?

KONDRACKE: Exactly.

BARNES: He loves Hezbollah, look.

HUME: In those words, he said "we love Hezbollah."

BARNES: Yeah sure.

LIASSON: Well yeah.

BARNES: This guy is the world biggest phony. That's all he is, the world's biggest phony. I mean, this guy, as Mort put out, he's a big reformer who got no reforms and he pretends like he's a friend of other people in the world and he's not. And the lies he told "Washington Post." He said Iran hasn't rejected this offer by the U.S., and the Germans and the French and everything to stop enriching uranium, the hadn't rejected it.

That'd be news to the rest of the world. He says that. He said here also, "whenever the United States has tried to solve its dispute through military means, it has not achieved its objectives." WE did pretty well in the first Gulf War, did OK in Afghanistan, thought the Taliban still fighting. I remember that brief war in Panama where Manuel Noriega was taken out -- that -- I though U.S. achieved its goals. And it goes on and on like that. I -- I -- I want to say -- wanted to say -- I really criticize the University of Virginia where I went and my three daughter want and where you went, Brit, but I'll have to say I'm embarrassed that they invited him to come speak there.

LIASSON: Look, I think too much is being made of his visit. He's not a former, he's not a current official of the Iranian government. He was repudiated pretty roundly, as Mort said his policies did not take affect. He said a lot of things that are contrary to the positions of the current president of Iraq. He said, you know, for instance, that he believes in a two-state solution. That Israel and Palestinian states should exist side by side as opposed to the current president who says Israel should be wiped off the map.

I mean, he even said it's a good thing that U.S. forces are in Iraq. Which, I don't know, if that would endorsed by the rest of the Iranian government. I think that, you know, he provides a useful foil, certainly for people like Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts, who, you know, is running for president and of course came out and said he should...

HUME: Should he have been denied a visa, anybody?

LIASSON: No, I don't think there's any harm was done.

KONDRACKE: You know, I honestly think that if the students at Harvard and UVA and elsewhere were equipped with good questions, that it would be fascinating to have them...

HUME: What about the visa issue

KONDRACKE: Well, uh.

HUME: Yes or no!

KONDRACKE: No.

HUME: He should got it.

KONDRACKE: I -- I would not have let him in, but having...

HUME: Wouldn't let him in.

Yeah, having let.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: You let him in -- Fred.

BARNES: I'd just have him speak at a different college.

KONDRACKE: Having let him in, I would have some sort of emissary, not necessarily a U.S. government official, sidle up to him and just find out, you know, what's going on, use him, you know, see whether there's any space in Iran, just...

BARNES: That's what you call nuance.

KONDRACKE: Well, I wouldn't have let him in in the first place, but I would try to get something out of him.

HUME: How about sending him down to Gitmo for a weekend done there? (INAUDIBLE) So, has this -- beyond -- when he's gone, is there anything to be gained? Will this be an event that leaves no trace, will this further the cause of people who were saying that the Bush administration's isolation of Iran is a mistake, we ought to be talking to him, what? What effect?

LIASSON: No, I think it will have very little effect unless he has some kind of private, secret message, you know, from the government of Iran. We don't know.

KONDRACKE: Well, he'll have a message that we can negotiate and those who think we should negotiate, will repeat it.

---

Sponsored Links

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