News & Election Videos
Related Topics
bush
climate change
congress
2008 Polls National | Iowa New Hampshire South Carolina Florida | General Election

Send to a Friend | Print Article


Special Report Roundtable - June 1

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: President Bush announced a climate change proposal that really was about changing the subject, but not changing the policy.

REP ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The president's goals are not aspirational, they're procrastinational.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

ANGLE: That just stands alone, doesn't it?

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Good line. A very good line.

ANGLE: OK, you have two Democrats criticizing President Bush's proposals on climate change. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, and Ed Markey.

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

Now, the aspirational reference was to one of the president's advisors who said that these weren't mandatory cuts the president was proposing, they were aspirational, in other words, goals, I believe, would be another word for that.

Now, Charles, what the president proposed was getting the 15 top polluters, the top emitters, if you will, in the world, to get together and set goals for reducing their emissions, but no mandatory cuts. Is that what this debate is all about?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It is and the reason that the Democrats are upset is because of their German proposal which would be at the G-8 meeting in a week which would impose unilaterally on the G-8 countries, the lesser Democracies and Russia, a cap, a hard cap on their emissions.

The problem is, of course, it doesn't do anything about India and the rest of the world, but particularly India and China. China is creating a new co-powered power plant every week. Let's assume that with our caps the West did the equivalent of dismantling a coal-powered plant every week, what is the net effect on the climate? Zero. It's net effect on technology and industry would be a way to dismantle the Western technology infrastructure and ship it over to China.

Democrats are concerned about outsourcing and that is outsourcing, that's outsourcing cubed. It makes no sense. So Markey talks about aspirational goals. His objections -- Democrat objections are theological as if somehow if we act in an act of penance for our advanced technology and we reduce and constrict our economies as a result it's going to solve the problem. The way to do it is we get India and China involved, to get it out of U.N. where the process is today, and to get a system in which all of the countries are cooperating, that would actually have an effect.

ANGLE: Now what about.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: That would have been a terrific idea in 2001, so the administration comes in and it rejects the Kyoto agreement.

ANGLE: Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

KONDRACKE: But it won't -- but let me continue.

ANGLE: All right, all right.

KONDRACKE: Rejects the Kyoto agreement, fine, you know, we should have rejected the Kyoto agreement, it was never going to be ratified, but immediately the Bush administration should have done something like what the president proposed yesterday, get the polluting countries together, study this problem, decide what we're going to do, take the lead, -- instead we've dribbling like -- they still don't know whether global warming is as serious a problem. Now the president says it is, we take this problem very seriously, yet the head of NASA is quoted -- the other day as saying.

ANGLE: How much importance do you give the comments of the president of NASA on administration policy?

KONDRACKE: Well, I think he was following the administration policy. I think was not -- he thought that he was following the administration policy, but he was behind the curb. I mean, this administration has been -- has just let the rest of the world go running off in the direction of mandatory caps, whether that's a good policy or it's not a good policy, and it's been -- it's floated and as a result we are the laughing-stock of the world.

ANGLE: We should clarify one thing on Kyoto, which was negotiated during the Clinton administration, and he brought it back and was prepared to send it to the Senate and the voted 95-0 to tell him, do not send this treaty to us because it will not be ratified.

KRAUTHAMMER: Because it left out India and China.

ANGLE: Because of precisely these issues. Right.

Now Fred, what of the interesting things about the European proposal is it would cut by 2050, it would cut everybody's emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels, which was the year used in Kyoto.

Now, according to some studies we are, the U.S., is 18 percent above 1990 now, we would have to cut 50 percent below the 1990 levels. What kind of impact would that have on the economy?

BARNES: Well, probably not that much because those goals would never be reached. I mean, that's really pie in the sky, it's ridiculous. You know, and I notice that Ed Markey said this is a" red hot issue," "red hot" have to act right away.

Well we know -- look, there's only one thing that we know for sure and that is that the temperature has increased one degree over the last century. One degree. Now, that to me doesn't make it a red hot issue and we know, although Mort will, who believes in this fad, will tell you that there's a scientific consensus.

KONDRACKE: There is.

BARNES: There is, no, Mort you've been in Tibet for three weeks, believe me, everyday you were gone some new scientist came out and said he didn't believe in the extravagant tales that are told by people like Al Gore. Al Gore -- remember the difference between Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, Al Gore says that over the next century sea level rises 20 feet. This panel on climate change says well maybe 17-23-inches, which I think we can live -- look, we don't know whether humans are causing this -- we don't even know whether global warming's bad. Me, I like warmer weather.

ANGLE: OK, got to stop here. Mort, that will teach you to leave town.

(LAUGHTER)

See what happens when you go?

When we come back, former Dick Cheney aide, Scooter Libby is sentenced next week, but critics say that the prosecutor is trying to get him a lengthy prison sentence for a crime he wasn't charged with. The FOX all-stars will give their two cent, maybe four cents on that, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK FITZGERALD, SPECIAL PROSECUTORS: The trial evidence, the judge made a ruling that we were not going to try the case about whether the information was classified and I can tell you on the face of the indictment it states that her relationship with the CIA was classified and I have 100 percent confidence in that information,n and we would not plead it in an indictment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Now, that's the Prosecution Patrick Fitzgerald talking on the day that Scooter Libby was convicted. And the argument here, gentlemen, now is about the sentencing, which will happen early next week, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants Libby to serve up to three years behind bars for prudery, sentencing recommendation was about for half of that and Libby's lawyers argue that he shouldn't serve any time at all.

The issue here, Charles, seems to be that Fitzgerald is reintroducing saying that this is a serious crime and reintroducing the notion that he unveiled the classified status of an undercover agent.

KRAUTHAMMER: What he's trying to do is to get a serious and severe punishment, the three years, that would be commensurate with a serious crime, i.e. the outing of a known CIA, secret agent. The problem is that's not what he got a conviction on in the Libby case, he never even charged him with outing the CIA agent. He never charged anybody with outing a CIA agent and he never demonstrated that any unlawful outing had occurred in the first place. And, in fact, he knew from the beginning that the so-called "outing" that happened innocently, done by Richard Armitage, a man who was never an enemy of Wilson or his wife, if anything he was an enemy of the Iraq policy. So, he knew that there was no underlying crime, he creates a trap in which he gets a perjury conviction and now he wants the series of punishment applied, that would apply to a crime that he never charged.

KONDRACKE: Right, look, Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and making misstatements to a federal officer. The judge, presumably, can sentence him to the max for that if he wants to do it, perjury is a serious crime. But 30 months is, as I understand it, the penalty for, as Charles says, revealing the name of a secret agent which shouldn't apply here. I mean, the judge should sentence him for what he was convicted of, not for something that he wasn't convicted of.

BARNES: I think that this is another argument against ever having a special prosecutor. They're not answerable to anyone, and there's such pressure on them when they're brought in, because it usually is in well publicized cases, to come up with some big convictions.

He couldn't do it in this case because there was obviously no violation of the law in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name and, of course, he learned right away who had done it and that there was no White House conspiracy and so on. I think that he's trying to make up for not having much of a case, merely a perjury case, by having a big sentence. And I just hope we have no more special prosecutor. Republicans, Democrats, all of us should agree on that.

ANGLE: One thing that we learned today is that Valerie Plame Wilson is suing the CIA over the book she's written, her memoirs, because the CIA doesn't want her to talk about things that are classified that involve her exploits or whatever over the years. One would think that of all people she might be sensitive to the idea of classified information.

KRAUTHAMMER: I'm not sure that sensitivity is a word you want to apply to her or to her husband. They have turned this into a circus and a lucrative one. She got over a million for her book, publicity, attention and a new life and career and the cover of Vanity Fair, that's quite a victory.

For more visit the FOX News Special Report web page.

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