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

---

September 25, 2007

Special Report Panel: Bush at the UN

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the universal declaration.

I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom.

In Cuba the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. The Cuban people are ready for their freedom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: And with that the members of the Cuban delegation in the U.N. General Assembly got up and walked out.

Several who have walked in here are Mort Kondracke, Executive Editor of Roll Call, Mara Liasson, National Political Correspondent for National Public Radio, and the syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer, FOX News contributors all.

What we heard, of course, there was the president before the U.N. General Assembly making the annual, obligatory appearance that American presidents seem always to make. He was pretty specific and forthright in naming names of the countries he said were offending basic human rights.

What about this speech, and what about this whole contest is really what came down to between him and the Iranian president?

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL: Well, the Iranian president had blasted away at us again for all kinds of depredations of freedom-loving people all over the world. It was just a diatribe against the great powers, meaning us, of course.

The president actually didn't engage with Iran very much.

HUME: He just had that one mention. That was about all there was to it.

KONDRACKE: Exactly. The noose of the speech was his attack on Burma and his calling for worldwide sanctions and announcing that we would stiffen up our sanctions, although we've got about as much sanctions as we can muster against Burma. We don't do much economic activity with them.

And the Chinese, who are defenders of the Burmese, probably will prevent the U.N. from doing anything.

I thought the, actually, the interesting other part of the speech was that Bush was announcing a major change in U.S. food aid policy. The United States had been criticized by a number of aid organizations for supplying American food into developing countries, thereby depressing local agriculture, competing with it and depressing it.

Now what he says is that instead we're going to buy locally produced agricultural products, and supply that to people, which helps the local market.

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I thought the most remarkable thing about the speech was just that he decided not to take Iran on directly.

Iran has been in the news all week. There's all sorts of activity about Iran in the U.S. Congress, but he decided to leave it to inserting them in a list of bad actors, and that was about it.

I don't think that's necessarily significant on a policy level. I think he just decided that this speech to the U.N. was not the place to do this.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: In the showdown between Iran and the U.S. at the U.N., Iran was the big loser, but not because of anything our president said but because of what the president of France said. That was the most important speech of the day.

And he came out very strongly, where he said that an Iranian nuclear weapon is an unacceptable threat to the security of that region of the world. And remember that his predecessor Jacque Chirac had said France could live with an Iranian nuclear weapon. This is a very big change in policy.

Sarkozy also spoke against weakness, which is his word for appeasement, saying it leads to war, not peace. And a few days ago he spoke and said that since the Security Council is not going to act on Iran because the Russians and Chinese are blocking, he is going to try to get the EU to actually join us in sanctions.

And because Iran is dependant not on oil and gas out of Russia but on high-tech stuff out of the west, that would really hurt.

So what we have here is a significant change in the heart of old Europe from a country that for 50 years had defined its greatness as being against America, acting as a break on America, to a country led by a guy who said explicitly that when France acts and asserts itself in the world it will sometimes do so in alignment with the United States.

And he realigned himself very strongly with America on an issue that is extremely important, and that is Iran.

KONDRACKE: Provided the Germans will go along.

The president said in the interview with Bret Baier that they were going to go along with economic sanctions against the Iranians.

HUME: Well, he sort of said that. He said we checked that out. I think they are onboard. He didn't quite, it seems to me--

KONDRACKE: There are a lot of economic interests in Germany that do not want to impose sanctions against Iran.

HUME: And very good sources in the State Department are telling our James Rosen that in fact the Germans have signaled they can't go along with that.

KONDRACKE: It would be nice if Angela Merkel cleared that up once and for all.

KRAUTHAMMER: If Eastern Europe, which is pro-American, is in favor, and France is, and Britain is, Germany is not going to stop it.

LIASSON: Yes, but it's very hard to have a sanctions regime when that has holes in it. It works best when it's united. You can't have really a coalition of the willing of sanctioners.

HUME: Well, you can, to some extent, I guess.

KRAUTHAMMER: I'm not sure that Germany, with its history in the Second World War, is going to be the country to break an embargo on a country, Iran, which is preparing and declaring itself a nuclear power intent on wiping a Jewish state off the map.

That's quite a stretch, and I think Germany in the end is not going to stop these sanctions.

HUME: When we come back with our panel, Senate rhetoric on Iran gets hotter. We'll take a look at that and what may come of it. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JIM WEBB, (D) VIRGINIA: This is not the way to make foreign policy. It's not the way to declare war, although this cleverly worded Sense of the Congress could be interpreted that way.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (I), CONNECTICUT: This amendment is not about starting a war on Iran. It's about responding with economic might to Iran's war on us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: That's a piece of the debate that went on in the Senate today over a resolution to get tough with Iran. In the meantime, it should be noted that the House overwhelmingly pass a bill, not just a mere Sense of the Senator's Sense of the Congress' resolution, that would attempt to tighten economic sanctions on Iran.

What was being debated in the Senate had a similar motivation but was a different kind of matter. What was it, Mort?

KONDRACKE: Well, it's a Sense of the Senate resolution, non-binding by Senators Lieberman and Kyle which says that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities of the Republic of Iran, and to support prudent and calibrated eyes of all instruments of national power inside Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, and military.

HUME: So we take on Iran inside Iraq?

KONDRACKE: Yes. But it's not clear whether you're using the facilities and the instruments that are located in Iraq against Iran. And that, this has--

HUME: So in other words, some people would say you're authorizing our forces in Iraq to go to war with Iran.

KONDRACKE: Right.

HUME: Possibly inside Iran.

KONDRACKE: The left is in an uproar about all this.

HUME: The left believes in America today that there is a major conspiracy underway to get the United States into a war with Iran. What about this, Mara?

LIASSON: Well, first of all, I think it's hard to imagine that a Sense of the Senate resolution could be a declaration of war. Number one, it doesn't bind the administration in any way.

I think that there is some concern on the left that there is a war brewing. On the other hand there is a great desire on the part of Democrats and Republicans this week in Congress to get tough on Iran.

That House resolution was supported by many Democrats, including Democrats who said this bill doesn't authorize or urge military action in any way. It was a tough sanctions bill.

But I think that there are two desires that are competing here. One is to show that you're tough on Iran, which is a great threat to the United States, and every one of the leading Democratic candidates have refused to take a military option off the table when talking about Iran.

So I think the party is pretty split on that.

KRAUTHAMMER: What's really interesting here is you've got the House and the Senate acting on resolutions on trying to defeat Iran's attempt to defeat us in Iraq.

Three months ago the question was would the Senate and the House, would the Congress force a withdrawal? Today that question no longer exists. It's not going to do that.

HUME: They keep trying, but it goes nowhere.

KRAUTHAMMER: No, it's not going to happen, and it's as a result of our success on the ground and the change in the mood as a result of the Petraeus statements which he made when he was here last week, and, essentially, our relative success on the ground in Iraq.

As a result, instead of a debate on will America withdrawal, the debate in congress right now is how do we succeed? How tough are we on Iran in Iraq?

And what's happening is as some of the Sunnis are drawn into our side of the war in Iraq and we're having success against Al Qaeda, the shift in strategy is against Shiite extremists and Iran behind it.

And the question is how much pressure will America exert? But it's really interesting how Congress is debating how do we succeed as we shift our strategy against Shiite extremists instead of the Sunnis, instead of is America going to withdraw, and how quickly?

HUME: What will happen to this resolution in the Senate?

KONDRACKE: It's not clear that it is going to come up even. Senator Lieberman's staff, by the way, says that they are ironing out some of the ambiguities to make it clearer that it will be action inside Iraq and not from Iraq into Iran--I guess that's what they are going to say.

But nobody knows whether this will even be called up for a vote. As of 5:00 today it was not clear.

HUME: I mean if it weren't to be called up, it would be because the Democratic leadership, which controls the place, after all, and controls the calendar, in effect blocks it, correct?

KONDRACKE: Right. And Dick Durbin made a specific statement against it today on the floor, saying, like Jim Webb, saying that it was something like a declaration of war, which, of course, it's not.

HUME: Well, Webb's a serious guy about military matters. If this language were clarified, is it your view that would win him over and eliminate this fuss over whether it is a declaration of war, or they just don't want any get tough stuff?

KONDRACKE: What he said was pretty strong against it. He thinks that this is the lead up to a declaration of war.

KRAUTHAMMER: And what he's worried about is that it will give the president the moral authority and the appearance of support of congress if he expands to war even though it may not literally allow him to.

HUME: Do you get a sense any appetite on the part of this administration to go war with Iran, Mara?

LIASSON: No, I do not. I think that the administration understands this is a very serious problem, something has to be done. But, no, I don't sense that.

KRAUTHAMMER: The administration's appetite is for success in Iraq and defeating Iran's infiltration into that war and the killing of Americans by proxy is part of our getting success.

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