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

---

September 07, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - September 7

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN), SEN. FOREIGN RELATIONS CHMN: We originally intended to vote on the nomination of John Bolton to the ambassador to the U.N. However, I am removing the nomination from today's agenda after conferring with several Senators.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: After conferring principally, it seems, with Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee who voted for the Bolton nomination when it was before that committee the last time around and now has what he calls reservations. Having prompted the withdrawal he then wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice in which he said the following:

"The decision on whether to hold that vote is in the chairman of the committee's hands. Chairman Lugar decided to hold over the vote over to a later date and I support that decision."

OK, Senator. Well, some thoughts on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, same job at "Roll Call"; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX NEWS contributors all.

Well, it may not be easy to figure out why Lincoln Chafee does the things he does, but what was this all about?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, it might be about many things, but as you said, it's hard to know exactly what -- Lincoln Chafee is the only Republican Senate incumbent who is in danger of use losing a primary, which occurs on Tuesday and he's got a conservative challenger, Steve Laffey, who's the mayor of Cranston, and he -- it's unclear whether he thought that by delaying the vote would help him, although it appears to be -- the letter he wrote is the equivalent to being opposed to Bolton's confirmation.

HUME: What letter -- what did his letter say other than just claiming that he blamed it on the chairman.

LIASSON: Well, he said he has concerns about the way the U.S. in handling the Palestinian-Israel issue and that Israel is continuing to build houses in the -- to expand the settlements and that's not something that tantamount --- that's with U.S. policy. But he's got.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: How's that going to help him?

LIASSON: It's not going to help -- well, he might not be doing this for political reasons because this isn't going to help him in a Republican primary. He was immediately attacked for this by a political opponent and this is maybe the kind of thing that would endear him to Democratic and Independent voters once he won the primary, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": Well, just to set the table, the National Republican Senatorial Committee put out a poll today that was conducted by public opinion strategies. Which is a very good.

LIASSON: (INAUDIBLE) pollster.

KONDRACKE: OK, but it's a very good firm and I don't think they fiddle with the results and it shows that Chafee's ahead among of Laffey by 53 to 39 and among people who actually know when the election is going to take place, therefore they presumably will vote, it's 58-37. So, it looks as though Chafee is safe. Now, the White House is supporting Chafee because they know Laffey can't beat the Democrats.

HUME: And the blue state is Rhode Island.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": They're supporting Chafee, please.

No, no, they're supporting him because he's an incumbent Republican and they are -- they support all incumbent Republicans.

LIASSON: Fred, I got an e-mail from National Republican Senatorial Campaign today that said Laffey cannot win in Rode Island. Flatly.

BARNES: Yeah, but that's not -- I agree with that -- well, I -- I -- it looks like he can't win, but the real reason they support all incumbents. They supported Arlen Specter, for instance, the president went up and spoke to him.

Brit, I was at the hearing today and it was an odd hearing because many of the senators who where there thought they were coming to vote and it turned out when, I guess, after, a chat with Richard Lugar, the chairman, they didn't have a vote and the reason was, uh, that Chafee was going to vote no and not do what George Voinovich who -- did a year ago, no say well I'll allow you to report this out without a recommendation. Then it would go to

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Stop for a minute and answer this question. Why does all this matter very much?

BARNES: Well, it matters because it holds up the Bolton.

HUME: And why does that matter?

BARNES: Well, it matters -- well look, this is one of the top priorities in, for the administration, this fall.

HUME: OK, why?

BARNES: Well, it's important to U.S. foreign policy because of all the resolutions that are coming up, in particular, in particular the one on sanctions against Iran.

HUME: All right, let me.

BARNES: .guy steeped in all that, it's John Bolton.

HUME: I understand all of that, but isn't it the case that his interim appointment is about to run out.

BARNES: It expires in January.

HUME: OK. OK.

BARNES: Is that what you were getting at?

HUME: I was trying.

BARNES: I thought everybody knew that, Brit. Chafee is an odd.

HUME: I knew that but I wanted you to say it.

LIASSON: You finally got the right answer.

BARNES: Chafee's an odd bird, you know, be -- look, in this -- he objects to the Bush administration's Mideast policy. John Bolton can't change that, I mean, so he's just using him at a hearing. In July, he asked Bolton all these questions about the Middle East and stetting policy there and Bolton is merely a voice of the administration. He's not a guy who creates the policy or who can change it.

KONDRACKE: Well, now wait a minute, if the letter suggests is that if he.

HUME: The letter to Rice.

KONDRACKE: The letter to Rice, suggests that if the administration will complain about the 690 houses that are being built in these expanded settlements that maybe Chafee would turn -- you know, change his mind. That's the only specific item in this entire letter makes any sense.

HUME: Previously we had objections from Senator George Voinovich from Ohio who's now come around completely on Bolton and is backing him.

LIASSON: He supported him before.

HUME: And Chafee supporting.

LIASSON: And this was unexpected, I mean, people expected him to vote for him.

HUME: Did he say at the time anything do the effect that he expedited Bolton to be a vigorous voice against the further Israel settlements when he supported him before?

KONDRACKE: No. Look, I got to say this as a moderate. Lincoln Chafee gives moderation a bad name. I mean, his father was a genuine strong moderate, he's just unpredictable, shall we say?

BARNES: Mort, you can't take him personally. That's ridiculous.

KONDRACKE: Well, it's true. There's a pattern here. There really is.

HUME: Next up with the panel, did the war on Iraq save a dying al Qaeda? We'll take a look that idea next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAWRENCE WRIGHT, "THE LOOMING TOWNER" AUTHOR: By fighting America, bin Laden was able to elevate his cause. By provoking America, he hoped to get America to follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He imagined that America, like the other superpower, the Soviet Union, would blunder into Afghanistan and there be bled to death by Muslim holy warriors. In November and December of 2001 when, you know, American and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan and fought the battle of Tora Bora, although we didn't capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahiri or some of the other top lieutenants, al Qaeda was essentially dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: And this man who has written a long book called "The Looming Tower" about the "War on Terror". There you see it looks like, "Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." He goes on to say, however, that although al Qaeda was essentially dead after the assault on Afghanistan, that al Qaeda's progeny, as he calls it, has been given life by the war in Iraq, which he said is something that we're going to be dealing with for a long time.

An interesting argument to make, panel, at a time when the administration is saying yeas we are safer but need to fight on in Iraq. What about his idea, first of all, and what about this continuing struggle over this issue in Washington?

KONDRACKE: Well, I haven't read the book, but I intend to, it sounds like a perfectly fascinating book and well research with...

HUME: Yeah he's been over there.

KONDRACKE: With hundreds of interviews with all kinds of bad guys and a lot of history in it. And he may be right, you know, that we re-allowed Jihadism to resurrect itself in Iraq. Still, though, it's alive, and it has to be fought, and bugging out of Iraq is not going to help the situation with al Qaeda or with any of its progeny, it's going to encourage them, it's going convince them that the United States is weak and doesn't have the will to fight. So, the only way to solve the Iraq problem and the Jihad problem is to win. And so I think it ends up arguing against what the Democrats.

HUME: But the Democrats, of course, also argue that the failure to capture bin Laden is the cardinal example of the fact that the "War on Terror" has failed.

LIASSON: Yes. Well, one of them.

HUME: And he seems to be arguing that doesn't really matter that the Osama bin Laden -- it isn't Osama bin Laden in that branch in that branch of the terror movement or even the al Qaeda movement that matters anymore.

LIASSON: Right, well, al Qaeda is kind of a symbol for a big, fluid, not carefully-organized network of terrorists. Some of them are homegrown; they aren't all centrally commanded, certainly not by Osama bin Laden. Clearly getting Osama bin Laden was one of the most important goals of the Bush administration and the "War on Terror," you can't deny that, I mean, the Democrats like to point out failure of that at every possible turn.

HUME: But as a matter of security and effectiveness, this man seems to argue that they were crippled by what we did to them in Afghanistan.

LIASSON: And then other threats arose.

HUME: And -- and -- correct, but the point being that kind of negates the argument that it really maters anymore, although it's symbolically import. Does it really matter as a matter of security?

LIASSON: At this point?

HUME: Yes.

LIASSON: Getting him? No. I think it would be incredibly symbolic, but now you've got group in Europe, you've got groups in England, you've got homegrown Muslim terrorists and you've got, of course, the Jihaddists that you're fighting in Iraq. No, I mean, it sounds like Osama bin Laden is less important than he use to be.

BARNES: I don't know whether he makes this point or not, but the truth is al Qaeda was a part of a much larger movement that's been going on for decades now, and it's a movement of Islamic Jihaddists, and al Qaeda certainly played a big part and they've been neutralized to some extent, because -- we heard yesterday, the list of these al Qaeda leaders who are now -- they have been shipped to Guantanamo. And while Democrats say Osama bin Laden's on the loose, you know, he's stuck in a cave somewhere, that's...

HUME: Well, he's on the lam, but not necessarily.

BARNES: But not on the loose. But look, this Islamic Jihaddist movement exists all other the world in England and Indonesia and Morocco and there are terrorist attacks in all these places which I believe would be going on whether the U.S. were in Iraq or not.

LIASSON: And you know, the problem is whether you argue that the war in Iraq exacerbated or not, the fact is it is a problem, they're there and you know, the question is still open what you're going to do about it now.

HUME: Well, is -- is it a central proposal, as the Democrats have come forward with, to say that we ought to get out of Iraq as a way of coping with the terrorist threat?

KONDRACKE: It doesn't make any sense to me.

HUME: Mara, what about it. Do you that's argument that really works?

LIASSON: Well, it depends on what you mean by "getting out." I mean they talked about a phased re-deployment is the official Democratic.

HUME: That means phase withdrawal, though.

LIASSON: Yeah, it does but the question is getting out completely? Leaving Iraq to the mercies of Iran and all the other Jihaddists? Or does it mean something else?

BARNES: Well, look, a guy who's been enforced by the House Democratic Leader John Murtha, says withdraw immediate. He uses the word "immediate" all the time. Everybody out.

---

Sponsored Links

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