Election 2008 Democrats | Republicans | General Election: Heads-to-Heads | Latest Polls

---

July 13, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - July 13

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

SEN HILLARY CLINTON, (D) NEW YORK: And if President Bush had a not ended our involvement in Iraq by the time I do become president, I will. I will do that as my highest priority.

SEN JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: Democratic candidates for president will argue for the course of cutting our losses and withdrawing from the threat in the vain hope it will not follow us here.

I cannot join them in such wishful and very dangerous thinking. Peace at any price is an illusion and its costs are always more tragic than the sacrifices that victory requires.

ANGLE: There was part of the debate today on Iraq as the week ends. After a lot of debate on Iraq, now some analytical observations from Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard, Mort Kondrake, Executive Editor of Roll Call, and the syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer, FOX News contributors all.

Fred, Senator McCain is struggling in his campaign, but he has not softened his views on the war in Iraq.

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WEEKLY STANDARD: No, and he has gotten tougher. The truth is, he is not well, but he is alive, as a candidate, struggling is one way of putting it.

And he started something new. Some of the people who work for him have complained, at least to me, that they think he lacks a particular political instinct, and that is to go after other senators and the people he deals with.

He is great about talking about an issue, but, you know, when you are running for president, you need to have that instinct to, you know, lay the hatchet into somebody--

ANGLE: Go for the jugular.

BARNES: For the jugular.

Well, he seems to be acquiring that, and he particularly went after Hillary Clinton today, and he attacked her for a piece that she and Senator Robert Bird of West Virginia had published in the New York news a couple days ago, saying how terrible things are in Iraq, and there is a civil war, and we have to get out and retreat, and so on.

Where they didn't mention al-Quida. Eighty percent of the suicide bombings there are done by al-Quida, or at least that the thought. And she didn't mention terrorists at all.

And this is what I think McCain has to do if he is going to revive his campaign. He can't just talk in generalities. He has to really go after the people he thinks are wrong on Iraq.

KONDRAKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL: I'm kind of shocked, actually, by what Hillary said. Maybe I hadn't focused on this before, but she is talking about the Bill Richardson style complete pullout from Iraq. If that is something she does, we are going to end our involvement.

Now that is a totally irresponsible position. Down the line, for years afterwards, every responsible person says that we have a long-term interest in Iraq. It is going to require some troops.

If she becomes president, we are still going to have and al-Quida threat there, and that is going to require some "involvement." And she is staking out positions in order to win primary votes in the left wing Democratic Party that are going to make her unable to carry out American foreign policy if she becomes president.

ANGLE: There was another big development today, another surprise, Charles. I want to read you something from Senator Lugar, wh,o along with Senator Warner, is making a new proposal.

And in that, he says that our amendment mandates--this is an amendment--in this ongoing battle, out amendment mandates that the administration immediately initiates planning for post September contingencies, including a draw down or a redeployment of forces, requires plans to be presented to Congress by October 16 this year, and state the plan should be designed to be executable beginning not later than December 31.

This is in accordance with their view that things are not going well, the Petreaus report may not be that favorable, and that action may have to be taken.

Now what is going on here? You have Warner and Lugar, Lugar hasn't always been that strong a supporter, Warner has, though he has had some doubts about it. What is going on here?

KRAUTHAMMER: Madness--the idea that we have to publish and pass into law our war plans. Why don't we safe on the postage and e-mail al- Quida our positions and are tactical objections inside of Iraq.

Secondly, the idea that we can now pass into law and publish our plans for what is going to be in October--we have to idea what October the 15th is going to look like.

Did anybody you know six months ago that Anbar province, which was al-Quida, we have driven out al-Quida and beyond, now--if we had published a plan about Anbar six months ago, it would be obsolete and ridiculous.

This is the Congress trying to use legalisms to fix a war. Congress has a role. You authorize a war, you declare war, or you de- authorize it, and cut it off. But the idea of writing laws and shaping the tactics in Congress while we are in combat in the field, is quite crazy.

What are we going to do? Have lawyers in Baghdad advising General Petraeus on what operations are OK and what operations are not?

ANGLE: Very quickly, is this an attempt to preempt more radical moves?

KONDRAKE: Yes, that is exactly what it is for. They are trying to find a bi-partisan ground to stand on to keep troops there for the long term, rather that have the Democrats de-fund it.

BARNES: This is a silly proposal.

ANGLE: OK. Coming up, the battle between the White House and Congress over Executive Privilege just keeps on escalating. Another move today, the FOX all-stars will tell you who is winning that fight so far, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REP RIC KELLER, (R), FLORIDA: If people seeking this information must specifically demonstrate, number one, that this evidence is not available with due diligence through other means, and, number two, that there is a likelihood that the subpoenaed material will contain important evidence. This blatantly fails both prongs.

REP LINDA SANCHEZ, (D) CALIFORNIA: It seems that the president's inconsistent position on allowing senior advisers to testify may reflect his concern about what the advisor might say, rather than a steadfast adherence to the concept of Executive Privilege.

ANGLE: OK, two very different views on Executive Privilege, and today, Chairman John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Harriet Miers attorney, saying her claims of Executive Privilege have been rejected, and insisting that she in fact appear before the panel, which the president has told her not to do.

So, we are back now with the panel. There are two very different views, here, Charles. Which one is likely to prevail?

KRAUTHAMMER: The president's.

Conyer's position is week on logic and on politics. On logic, you have got to show an underlying of crime, there is no evidence of that after 8,000 pages of evidence have been released.

Secondly, you have got to show that the information is not available any other way. The president has offered to let Miers speak in private, without oath, without a transcript, and to explain all the facts. And the Congress has rejected it.

But the politics is bad because it is giving the Republicans the one leg that they are going to have to stand on in 2008 in Congressional elections--a do-nothing Democratic Congress that didn't pass any bills, and yet spent all its time on absurd fishing expeditions.

KONDRAKE: I completely agree with that part of it, at least. Now, as to who is right on the law, look, the Congressional Research Service has stipulated--has found 74 instances when White House aides have gone up to testify, a lot of them voluntarily--

ANGLE: In other words, they waived Executive Privilege?

KONDRAKE: Well, at least they went up there. Everything doesn't have to be protected and be secret.

Furthermore, Harriet Miers wouldn't even deign to sit in the chair and assert Executive Privilege.

KRAUTHAMMER: Good for her.

KONDRAKE: OK, but she basically is dissing Congress. Now, that is carrying Executive Privilege one step further--

BARNES: Come on.

KONDRAKE: --and I'm not sure that the courts would uphold that.

If she gets cited for contempt, it goes to the courts. Now, it's not going to get resolved, probably, while Bush is still president, so we won't know. But someday there may be a ruling.

BARNES: Mort, do you remember what her position was at the White House?

KONDRAKE: Yes, White House Council.

BARNES: You ever head about this relationship between their lawyer and someone ever heard about--

Look, the reason she don't go, and reason the White House isn't going along with this, is because it is an entirely bogus investigation. Look, they have been doing this stuff in the House and the Senate, they haven't found anything, they haven't found a smoking gun. They haven't found any corruption, they haven't found any serious wrongdoing.

They found some clumsy behavior. And then they have, as Charles said, they an offer. They can talk to Harriet Miers if they want to, but it is not going to get her under subpoena before a committee, and try to compare her testimony against somebody else's to find some difference, and then urge that somebody be charged with perjury.

ANGLE: You heard one of the Republicans on the committee talking about the fact that one of the measures, here, of the Executive Privilege is whether or not you can get the information with due diligence somewhere other than the piercing for Executive Privilege.

And the White House offered, early on, to let her come up and testify behind closed doors, no oath, no transcript.

KONDRAKE: No transcript. Suppose somebody lies, you know, they are not under oath, there is no transcript, and you can't prove it. So- -

KRAUTHAMMER: They are wary about--

BARNES: If they did discover wrongdoing, they couldn't produce the evidence of it for public consumption.

KRAUTHAMMER: Fishing expeditions are perjury traps. We saw in happen in Libby. No underlying crime, it shouldn't happen again. There should be no transcript and no oath. You want information, she will talk.

ANGLE: If they get information, couldn't they go back and go after the president? Say she told us that you said this--

KONDRAKE: How could they prove it? They would have no record of it.

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