Top Videos
2008 Polls NationalIowaNew HampshireGeneral Election
GOP | DemGOP | DemGOP | DemHead-to-Head

Send to a Friend | Print Article


Special Report Roundtable - April 6

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT FELIX CARMAN, ROYAL NAVY: We were blindfolded, our hands were bound we were forced up against the wall.

Their people were cocking weapons in the background which, as you can imagine, was extremely nerve racking on occasion. So it was, there were lots of tactics like that that were employed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: OK, there's some of the British sailors and marines talking about their experiences in Iran, today. There was also talked about how they were threatened with execution, told they would be jailed for seven years unless they admitted to straying into Iranian waters and all sorts of things.

Now some analytical observations from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer -- FOX NEWS contributors all.

One of the things that was clear here was that the Iranians, at least from the perspective of these soldiers and sailors, came out there with the intent of seeking of confrontation and appeared to be ready to have an exchange of gunfire, to have a shootout with British soldiers. They were obviously worried that would have enormous consequences and they were surrounded and outmanned, outnumbered anyway. But that suggests a pretty risky approach to this thing on the part of the Iranians, Charles. It looks like they were ready for come-what-may, that they were willing to engage in some pretty reckless behavior without regard for the consequences.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, reckless but also pointed. They have a point and the point is, the rules of engagement about Iranians in Iraq change with the appointment of David Petraeus, a few months ago. We've been shooting Iranians who have been sabotaging and helping to attack our troops. We've been arresting Iranian agents in (INAUDIBLE) and elsewhere, and this is a push back from the Revolutionary Guards.

And look, this was not the British -- the finest hour of the British, you know, the sailors in their press conference said that they decided to surrender when they saw that the Iranians were, "aggressive and agitated." What do you expect the foremost terrorist organization in the world to do, present a business card and say: we'd like you to surrender? This was a war zone, this was a warship and they decided, as you said, against escalation.

And look, I can understand the pressures after the arrest and all that and the confessions, but what was unnecessary and gratuitous was the groveling at the end. After the press conference, on live television, it wouldn't have been edited, the kissing of the ring of Iranian president was really over the top at a time when their release had already been announced and that I think was a complete humiliation and the British feel it acutely.

ANGLE: Well, and you see some of this here where they were given their goodie bags and wearing their newly issued suits. There's some of the goodie bags they got. Mort, one of the interesting things about this was you can understand people who thought they might be executed and they blindfold them, put them up against a wall, click, empty weapons, that sort of thing, you can see where that would have had an effect on them and it's not clear to what extent their remarks might have been edited here and there, buts it does seem a little bit over the top when they go and smile and shake hands with Ahmadinejad.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Well I think -- look, you can understand why they gave up when they were surrounded with -- by the ships...

ANGLE: Right, they were worried about some sort of horrible -- yeah, right.

KONDRACKE: But look, I don't know what the training is like in the British navy, but it suggests that it's deplorable, that it's cave at the first sign of trouble, you know. So they were isolated, so they were bound, so they were separated, so there was some clicking and stuff like that. So, this is like John McCain in North Vietnam? I don't think so. You know, this is a total humiliation and there ought to be a review among the British as to what the -- what the protocols are here for when you're captured. I mean, the idea that you confessing within hours of your first confinement and there was no sign of resistance, no winks, no nothing? You know, it's -- it raises all kinds of questions about, you know, what do the British tell their soldiers?

ANGLE: Well Fred, I want to play something from Ralph Peters who's a widely known military analyst who commented on this today on Neil Cavuto's show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT COL RALPH PETERS, U.S. ARMY (RET): There's no way to put a good face on this. The kissy-face with Ahmadinejad, the goodie bags, this was a real failure of leadership. And what harm did it do? I'll tell you what harm it did, it played hugely in the region. Iran backed down Great Britain, a lesser Satan. Within Iran it strengthened the hardliners. And that was the purpose of the whole thing anyway.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Now Fred, it's quite possible that as time passes, people will say, you know, those wacky Iranians, Ahmadinejad, went off and did this and it was reckless and come to a different judgment, but at the moment there are a lot of people looking and saying: it looks like the Iranians got the better end of this deal.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: You know, the British from the top of the government down to these sailors who were captured, looked weak. They were weak. I mean, the embassy -- the Mullahs obviously organized a protest, a violent protest at the British embassy' in Tehran. What did the British do? Nothing. You know, their trade has tripled in the last four years with Iran. Did they do anything about it? Threaten anything? Shutdown the Iranian embassy in London or anything like that? No, nothing.

But here's my favorite thing. One of the captains said, "We, as a group, held out four as long as we thought appropriate." You know, I -- Mort brought up John McCain, do you think he held out, oh gee, I'm only going to hold out until it's appropriate? You know, John McCain who, today, can't even comb his hair because he can't raise arms and today -- and even today feels guilty after years of torture of the worse kind, actually broke, as others did in Vietnam. You think of McCain, and then you think of these people. And the captain also said they had to give up because they were afraid an international incident might escalate tensions in the region?

(LAUGHTER)

I'm sure that Sir Francis Drake when he faced the Spanish Armada didn't say, well, you know, we can't take them out, it might increase tensions with Spain.

ANGLE: Well, there is one other thing to point out and that is, Charles, that there wasn't much sign of backbone among Britain's allies and European brethren either because they weren't willing to do anything to ratchet up the pressure on Iraq.

KRAUTHAMMER: It was a way to expose the complete fatuousness of these international organizations like the U.N., which would not even issue a resolution depropering this action of priacy and the E.U. which could have cut off al trade and completely ruin the Iranian economy, it did nothing.

OK, next on SPECIAL REPORT, collection of United Nations scientist issues it's bleakest report ever on global warming. What should governments do about it that they're not already doing? More with the all- stars on that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAETITIA DE MAREZ, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL: This report, in a way, is a grim (INAUDIBLE) apocalyptic scenario and there's no good news in this report, I'm afraid. The only one good news is that the worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, but it can be avoided only if we act massively and extremely rapidly.

JAMES CONNAUGHTON, WHITE HOUSE ENVIRONMENT ADVISOR: Everyone agrees that there's three words to the solution and they are: technology, technology, and technology. And so, our goal is to advance technologies here in America and in the developed world -- lower the cost of them so they can be purchased and used in the developing world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: OK, there's a sample of the debate today over international report on climate change which talked about what kinds of things we might see in the future depending on how much temperatures go up and nobody's sure how much temperatures will go or over what period. For some thoughts on that, let's go back to the panel, here.

This, Charles, was another signpost in this whole debate. They say they stayed up all night arguing over a couple of words. Where are we in this thing?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it's interesting that China insisted that the wording be slightly watered down to be less alarmist and less confident about its conclusions. If George Bush had insisted on that that would have been screaming headlines know-nothing, the Bush contaminates science with politics. If China does it and Saudi Arabia, incidentally, as well, it's OK.

But look, it's a political document and actually it's a balanced one, it's not apocalyptic at all. It talks about how overall it's going to be a negative effect; however, the colder regions of the world, like Canada and Russia are going to do better and the hotter ones are going to do worse, and the poorer ones are going to do worse. But it's realist about what you can do. I mean, that report has not yet been issued about remedies, but there, we really are in a bind because unless you have a hard cap on carbon, that includes India and China, there's no way to have any affect on the climate change and even if you do have India and China, it's going to have a huge destructive effect on the world's economy.

The answer is, new technology kicking in hopefully in a generation or so.

ANGLE: Yeah Mort, I mean, that's one of the problems is that China's opening a new coal fired plant about once a week, India is growing by leaps and bounds and the only solution here is to find some sort of new technology that will reduce fossil fuel emissions.

KONDRACKE: OK. OK, I agree with that. But the, you know, the United States, right now is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses. The -- we declined to sign the Kyoto Treaty at the beginning of the Busch administration and that's fine. You know that was a draconian limits on Co2.

ANGLE: And the European's haven't lived up to their.

KONDRACKE: But what the Bush administration should have done if, it acknowledged this was a serious problem, and it is, eventually come around to saying this is a serious problem, is to say OK, we're not going to do Kyoto, but we're going to lead on this and we're going to do X, Y, and Z and we're going toward other solutions.

What did Bush administration do? Bush, during the campaign -- the 2000 campaign --promised that Co2 limits would apply to power plants and then he reversed himself. I mean, basically John McCain said that his record on global warming was terrible and until very recently it has been terrible. We should be looking for mitigation techniques, we should be looking for adaptation, build levees if necessary. Certainly start figuring out how to help these countries that are going to be faced with drought and flooding.

ANGLE: All right, Fred, about 30 seconds left. Do we have public support of that?

BARNES: Well, that's if you believe all those predictions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do.

I know you do and there's no basis for them -- for most of them. And don't even say they have full confidence, you know, they said they have medium confidence and if it melts some in Greenland, over centuries come millennia. I don't worry about what happens over centuries or millennia, but the Bush guy said: "everybody agrees that the answer is technology, technology, technology," knowledge, unfortunately that's wrong, because many of these global warming alarmists want regulation, regulation, regulation.

For more visit the FOX News Special Report web page.

Email Friend | Print | RSS | Add to Del.icio.us | Add to Digg
Sponsored Links