CQ Transcriptswire

SPEAKERS: Bret Baier

Sen. Evan Bayh , D-Ind.

Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss , R-Ga.

Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa.

[*] BAIER: I’m Bret Baier, in for Chris Wallace, and this is “FOX News Sunday.” Two global hot spots test the Obama administration. Afghanistan -- what’s needed, more troops or a new strategy? And Iran -- it says yes to inspectors, but can it be trusted?

We’ll discuss these challenges and more with four influential members of the Senate -- Republicans Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss , and Democrats Evan Bayh and Bob Casey .

Also, the White House puts its prestige on the line for Chicago’s Olympic bid but comes up empty. Was this an international snub of the president? We’ll ask our Sunday regulars -- Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan, all right now on “FOX News Sunday.”

Hello again from Fox News in Washington. With Afghanistan and Iran dominating foreign policy concerns, we turn to four key senators for their insights on how best the U.S. should move forward -- from South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham ; from Scranton, Pennsylvania, Democrat Bob Casey ; and here in studio are Evan Bayh , a Democrat from Indiana; and Saxby Chambliss , a Republican from Georgia.

Senators, welcome to you all. Let’s get right to Iran where we have seen some significant developments overnight. Senators, the front page of the New York Times this morning has this story, “Report Says Iran has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb.”

This is about a confidential analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. The Times writes, quote, “Most dramatically, the report says the agency assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based on highly enriched uranium.”

These excerpts also suggest that Iran has done much research and testing to perfect nuclear arms, like making high-voltage detonators, firing test explosives and designing warheads.

We should point out the Times is following up on some of the reporting by the Associated Press and other sites on this secret IAEA report.

So, Senators, your thought on this report and how or should it factor into the negotiations with Iran.

Senator Graham first.

GRAHAM: Oh, absolutely. I think one of the things that we’d want to do is challenge the Iranians to give us some access to what’s alleged in this report.

Clearly, they’re not developing a nuclear program for peaceable purposes. This report is just yet more evidence in a long line of evidence that the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and half measures won’t work.

We need to get on with challenging the Iranians with some deadlines and ultimatums, quite frankly.

BAIER: Senator Casey? Senator Casey?

No, we’ll turn to Senator Bayh first. Your thought on this report and...

BAYH: Well, Bret, it shows that we need to bring a real sense of urgency to this issue. The clock is running, and the Iranians will have a nuclear capability before long if something doesn’t happen to change their minds.

So we need to have tough sanctions, financial and economic. We need to do them now. Have real deadlines and consequences if they don’t live up to their word, because they have lied repeatedly in the past.

But you know, we are on a path toward a nuclear Iran which is an unacceptable course. If we’re going to avoid the very painful dilemma of either having to live with that or taking military action to prevent that, which may ultimately be a choice we have to face, we need to act now on the financial and economic side.

BAIER: Senator Chambliss, has the administration taken the right point of view here?

CHAMBLISS: Well, I think so. Obviously, there have been some significant high-level discussions both with our allies as well as beginning talks with Iran right now. So I think the administration realizes the seriousness of this.

And when you combine, Bret, the revelations relative to the knowledge that Iran has concerning the manufacture of a weapon with the fact that we now have publicly disclosed the other facility in Iran at Qom where, for the last several months, we’ve been monitoring their operations -- and that is not a facility where the Iranians are going to be manufacturing enriched uranium for nuclear power purposes.

It’s not big enough. They don’t have enough centrifuges for that. So it’s pretty clear that Iran is headed down the track of getting a nuclear weapon. They have the knowledge. They now have a secret facility that’s been disclosed.

What else do they have? I think that’s the question the administration needs to ask.

BAIER: Senator Casey, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, arrived in Tehran on Saturday to arrange this inspection of the facility that Senator Chambliss mentioned in Qom, near the holy city of Qom.

He announced at a news conference this morning that Iran has agreed to let inspectors in there on October 25th. That is three weeks, not two weeks, from now, as the president forecast. He also said that Iran has agreed to, quote, “in principle” allow some of its low enriched uranium to be transported out of the country to Russia or France to be enriched to higher levels for nuclear fuel.

So the president has called these talks a constructive beginning. How do you see these talks?

CASEY: Well, what we heard this week was certainly encouraging, but I think we have to be very focused on giving the president and giving other parts of our government, including pension funds, the ability to impose sanctions.

We should not have to allow the talks to be an end in themselves. That’s why I and others have supported legislation that I know my colleagues support to provide a broad range of sanctions.

And in particular, Senator Brownback and I have legislation to allow pension funds to divest -- or I should say to allow pension fund entities around the country to divest pension fund assets out of companies that are doing business with Iran’s energy sector, up to a $20 million level.

So I think it’s critically important that we have all of the tools on the table to impose sanctions, even unilaterally if necessary.

BAIER: Should the Senate move forward now?

CASEY: Oh, I think we should. We should at least give the president all of the -- all of the tools he needs to impose sanctions if he needs to act.

And certainly, pension funds and any other entity that wants to help us on this should be given that authority, which they don’t have now under federal law.

So, look. I’m glad that we’re talking, but we cannot allow talking and negotiation to replace strong action if we feel we have to take that step, in addition to the international efforts that we’ve undertaken within the Security Council or other ways. We should have as many options on the table as possible.

BAIER: The president specifically touted this move to move low enriched uranium out of Iran when he talked about these talks in his comments.

But here’s what the Associated Press wrote about this on Friday, quote, “President Barack Obama noted the deal in the comments on the meeting, but Mehdi Saffare, Iran’s ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks, told the Associated Press the issue had not been discussed yet. Asked if Iran had accepted, he replied, ‘No, no.’”

Senator Bayh, do you believe the Iranians are negotiating in good faith over their nuclear program?

BAYH: Absolutely not, Bret. I mean, they have a pattern of deception. They have a pattern of breaking agreements that they agree to. This may be a further example of that.

They respect strength and strength alone. They’re contemptuous of weakness. So having this dialogue is good, but you’ve got to hold them to their word. What matters ultimately is not what they say but what they do.

So will they allow the inspections to go forward? Will they actually send the uranium out of the country? What about other hidden facilities they may have? That’s why we need to tee up all of these sanctions to raise the cost of misbehavior so that hopefully they’ll change their mind.

But taking them at their word -- absolutely not. I’m afraid they’re running the clock on us -- is what they’re really doing.

BAIER: But how long does the administration have?

BAYH: Well, I think we need to give them a matter of weeks to come clean on the inspections, to actually send the uranium out of the country. I think, you know, we’ve got to have firm deadlines, the sooner the better, and real consequences if those deadlines aren’t met.

BAIER: Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: Well, I couldn’t agree more with my Democratic colleagues. I think they’ve got it exactly right. What I would like to have is a session in the Senate, maybe a couple, three days, “Iran Week,” where we pass Evan Bayh ’s sanction proposal regarding refined petroleum, where the president would have tools to sanction companies that provide refined petroleum to Iran.

I’ve got a bill with Senator Schumer restricting -- sanctioning companies who provide cyber assistance to the Iranian government to oppress their own people. Radio Farsi, Radio -- the Voice of America needs to be enhanced.

I would like to see the Congress in a defined period of time the next couple of weeks pass a series of measures that would empower the president and our country to be tough and to put some actions behind words. So let’s have “Iran Week” in the Senate and get something done. I totally agree with him.

BAIER: In the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 77 percent of those surveyed are worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons, and almost 70 percent in that poll said President Obama is not tough enough on Iran.

Senator Chambliss, do you think he’s being tough enough?

CHAMBLISS: Well, what I was hoping that President Obama would do here in these recent talks with our allies was to go ahead and promote the -- putting in sanctions now against Iran.

Evan’s bill is a great bill. It’s the right direction in which we need to go. And rather than saying, “If you don’t stop what you’re doing, we’re going to impose sanctions” -- we’ve been lied to enough by Iran.

And I would hope what the president would do -- would take a bolder step, go ahead and let’s impose sanctions. Let’s get our allies together and say, “This is what we’re going to do. Now, if you want us to ease those sanctions off, then you need to come clean on your weapons program and tell us what’s going on.”

I think just continuing the dialogue with them and threatening them with sanctions -- if the president’s going to take that attitude, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with that.

BAIER: Senator Casey, do you agree with your colleagues that the Senate should move forward, that Congress should move forward, even ahead of the administration’s ability to impose sanctions on a world stage?

CASEY: Oh, absolutely. I believe that when we have these measures in front of the Senate, Senator Bayh’s bill, the bill that Senator Brownback and I have on pension funds, as well as what Senator Graham mentioned -- every possible option should be on the table here.

And I think that gives the administration the ability to have a broad range of choices here, and that’s what we want to make sure. We want to make sure that at the appropriate time, if sanctions have to be imposed, that they can be imposed swiftly, with consequences, and not have some indefinite time line here that will allow them to continue to lie to the international community as they’ve done time and again.

BAIER: Senator Graham, last thing on Iran. What is your thought about the Israelis and their possible timetable of acting unilaterally, possibly before even the end of the year, if it continues this way with Iran?

GRAHAM: I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran, and they’re not aligned now. It’s too much pressure to put on Israel.

Let’s go down the sanction road, as my colleagues have indicated. Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at. And I would rather that our allies and us take military action if it’s necessary.

And let me say this. Only if it’s necessary, but if sanctions fail and Iran’s going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, every Sunni Arab state that could would want a nuclear weapon. Israel will be more imperiled. The world will change dramatically for the worse.

And if we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float.

If you go down that road, knock them out conventionally as well as their nuclear programs. But that would be a last resort, and I don’t want Israel to have to have that burden. That’s not the best way to do it.

BAIER: But the Israelis say what’s the timetable, what’s the time line. How long should we wait? GRAHAM: Well, here’s what I -- act first. See what actions have -- what effect they’ll have on Iran. The Iranian people very much are against this regime. Let’s empower the Iranian people and isolate the regime.

Let’s do what my colleagues have said on this show, have a series of votes in the United States Senate and the House in the next two weeks to give our president tools to impose meaningful sanctions on Iran. If they change their behavior, we can back off.

But do all of this in the next few weeks. Do that before you even consider military action. But take military action before they get a weapon. So I don’t know how much time we have left. But I know that all this talking’s not working.

They did the same deal with the Europeans in 2007. They said, “You can have our low enriched uranium. The Russians can have it.” They backed out then. I don’t believe a thing Iran says. I want them to act. Then I’ll believe it.

CHAMBLISS: Bret, the problem with military action also is that you’re probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple air strike. Lindsey’s right. It’s an all or nothing deal.

And is it worth that at this point in time when we know they have the capability? We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take.

BAIER: Senator Casey, your thoughts on a timetable. How long does Iran have?

CASEY: Well, it has to be a reasonable length of time to allow some of these discussions that have already taken place to develop. But there’s no reason why you can’t have, on one track, a parallel track of talks, but also parallel tracks for sanctions and moving forward.

I think Senator Graham made an important point that I should have made earlier, and that’s that there is a huge difference here between the regime and the people. We saw a stirring in the hearts of the Iranian people this summer. That country has changed forever.

Now, we may not see people on the streets demonstrating today, and I know that television cameras aren’t documenting that, necessarily. But behind closed doors, on the ground, in their homes, in their communities, there are a lot of Iranians who want change, a lot of Iranians who, frankly, identify with the United States.

And we have to continually be aware of not just how we talk about the regime being different from the people, but also making sure that sanctions that we impose don’t hit the people who are trying to free themselves from a regime or at least have some degree of a change in policy in that country. So it’s an important point to keep the two separate.

BAIER: Senators, let’s turn now to Afghanistan. This morning we have sad news that eight American soldiers were killed in eastern Afghanistan after what is being described as a complex Taliban attack on two American outposts.

General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, calls the situation in that country serious. He says in his military judgment it is deteriorating.

Now, privately, senior civilian and military officials say that McChrystal wants up to 40,000 more U.S. troops in the country. Senators, should the president fulfill that request?

Senator Bayh?

BAYH: Bret, unfortunately, there are no easy answers in Afghanistan. The ideal situation would be a stronger central government with more troops and police capable of controlling its own territory.

If we have a realistic chance of achieving that, and more troops are necessary to achieving that, I would support that decision. But there’s a real question, given the lack of history in that country of a strong central government -- it’s riddled by corruption and incompetence today -- about whether that ultimate goal is achievable or not.

And that ultimately is what we have to answer, not whether we’re devoted to solving this problem, but whether the Afghans can do their part. So I would support the request if that’s what the president decides.

But I think there’s a -- also a decent case to be made that perhaps the Afghans just can’t do their part, in which case a different strategy would be in order.

BAIER: Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: Well, the one thing I can tell you for sure, without reinforcing our troops, you’re going to hear more of what happened today. General McChrystal said without reinforcements we cannot change the momentum that the Taliban has achieved, and the insurgency cannot be defeated in a year if something doesn’t change.

We had this very dilemma in Iraq. We didn’t have enough troops. Everybody thought Maliki was a sectarian prime minister. The country wasn’t governing itself. The security environment became terrible.

The one thing I can tell you, if we don’t add more troops, you’re going to see more of what happened yesterday. The security situation’s going to get worse. And any hope of better governance is lost, and the Taliban will re-emerge.

If you send troops in, we’ll have a second chance at governance. You need to put Karzai’s feet to the fire, or the next government’s feet to the fire, to do a better job. But it’s impossible to bring about better governance without security.

And what we have in place now is not going to work. General McChrystal tells us that. He needs reinforcements. And I hope the president will send them and let us all work together for better governance, because the Taliban are going to win if we don’t change course soon.

BAIER: Senator Casey, Wednesday the president met in the national -- with his national security team in the situation room with all the major players about this decision.

Here’s what the Washington Post wrote about that meeting. “Vice President Biden offered some of the more pointed challenges to McChrystal, who attended the session by video link from Kabul. Biden has argued against increasing the number of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan. He favors preserving the current force levels, stepping up Predator drone strikes on Al Qaida leaders and increasing training for afghan forces.”

Now, Thursday at London’s Institute for Strategic Studies, General McChrystal was asked directly whether he thought limiting -- a limited counterterrorism effort in Afghanistan would work. Here’s what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCHRYSTAL: The short, glib answer is no. You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish you were. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short- sighted strategy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Senator Casey, what do you make of this very public rift between Vice President Biden and General McChrystal?

CASEY: Well, first of all, I think it’s vastly overdramatized. If you read the stories about General McChrystal’s presentation, he talked about debate and deliberation. And despite what we’re hearing in Washington, to move in the next couple of days or the next two weeks, I think the president’s doing the right thing.

He’s doing what General McChrystal recommended in terms of taking time to review this, and he’s doing what the American people would expect him to do as president. There’ll be debates within the administration. There’ll be debates in Congress. That’s a good thing.

It shouldn’t be indefinite in terms of a time frame. But the best thing we should do -- we cannot make the same mistakes that our government made in Iraq, and one of the mistakes we can’t make is putting the resource and troop question before the strategy question.

We have to continue to debate, not just pointing a finger at the administration. The Congress has a role to play here, and the Senate. We’ve got to debate what the strategy should be and get that right before we talk about what the resources should be.

And if it’s as simple as saying whatever General McChrystal wants in any format, I think we’re going to miss the boat. This is much more complicated than just reacting to a part of his recommendation.

A lot of what General McChrystal has recommended involves the non-military aspects of this. And he understands how difficult it is to get a counterinsurgency strategy right. And a lot of that is non- military. I think we should thoroughly review his report and question him.

But also, we need to question the strategy overall and make sure we get it right. It might be that we...

BAIER: So, Senator Casey, let me ask you...

CASEY: ... that the Congress reaches a point on -- that we recommend a more focused counterinsurgency strategy, or some will say just counterterrorism. But I think we need a full debate, not just a political debate, as we often had with regard to the war in Iraq.

BAIER: All right, Senator Casey. So you think it’s possible, after the description of that meeting and this rift, if you will, that President Obama could possibly disregard the advice, the request of the general that he installed in Afghanistan, General McChrystal.

CASEY: No, I don’t think he’s going to disregard any part of that report. I think he’s using that report as the foundation of a discussion about strategy.

But that doesn’t mean there’s not going to be debate within the administration. Debate is good. But I don’t buy the idea that there’s some kind of rift between General McChrystal and parts of the administration.

There will be debates, but it’s important that the Congress is as focused on strategy before resources as the administration is.

BAYH: Just two quick things, Bret. It’s not uncommon that there’s diversity of opinion on issues as complex as what to do about Afghanistan, and there may be no good answer there, unfortunately. That may be the truth at this point.

But it’s also not uncommon where a commander in chief will have some differences of opinion with some of his generals. Abraham Lincoln did with some of his generals during the Civil War, most notably George B. McClellan.

Harry Truman had a big difference of opinion with Douglas MacArthur. Even George Bush had a difference of opinion with General Casey about whether to have the surge in Iraq.

So this is to be expected. And your lead-in posed the question, “Do we need more troops or do we need a different strategy?” It’s possible the answer may be yes and yes, more troops in the short term to try and build up their capacity, to stabilize the country as best we can, although it will always be an imperfect place, and then pivot to more of a counterterrorism strategy a couple years down the road once we’ve accomplished that. That may be the bottom line here.

BAIER: Senator Chambliss?

CHAMBLISS: Well, Bret, when you have a military commander on the ground, a guy who is not only an expert in the situation relative to Afghanistan but is a strong military leader hand-picked by the president to lead the effort in Afghanistan, I think you’ve got to go with him.

You’ve got to go with the detailed study that he has made. And you have to remember that what General McChrystal is recommending is really twofold. Certainly, more troops are going to be necessary to secure the peace in Afghanistan and stop the violence.

But as Bob Casey just said, we’ve also got to have a civilian component to this issue if we’re going to resolve this complex situation that Evan noted earlier that exists in Afghanistan.

But if we’re going to have those civilians to be able to come in and try to educate and train the Afghanis, then we’ve got to have the security necessary to allow them to do that. So I think it’s imperative that we listen to the commander on the ground.

BAIER: Senator Graham, the administration continues to say that they have time, that we shouldn’t rush this decision. How much time do they have? And how do you think it will come out?

GRAHAM: Well, I don’t know how it’s going to come out, but I can say this without any equivocation. A counterterrorism strategy, if adopted, would be the biggest strategic blunder post-9/11.

It would result in the Taliban taking over all or part of Afghanistan. It would result in the whole region wondering who America is. Pakistan, which is doing a good job against their insurgency, would be undercut. You cannot fight these people from a distance.

In March the president said we have to defeat the Taliban and we have to make sure Al Qaida has no safe haven. So I hope that this deliberation, which -- I understand this is a tough decision -- doesn’t go on so long that it becomes indecision.

General McChrystal said within a year, if we don’t change the momentum on the ground, we could lose our ability to defeat the insurgency. A counterinsurgency strategy properly resourced is our best way to go forward.

Half measures will not only lead to a defeat in Afghanistan, it will affect our ability to change Iran. Iran is watching us. If we’re indecisive about what to do in Afghanistan as an American or a coalition group, then they’re going to take what we do in Iran less seriously.

So the president has a window of time here to seriously deliberate, but it’s running out. And what you saw yesterday is exactly what awaits this country. Our troops cannot change momentum. They’re sitting ducks. They need to be reinforced.

And I can’t guarantee what will happen with more troops, but if we don’t reinforce them, I can guarantee you what will happen. We will lose in Afghanistan. That’s what’s at stake.

BAIER: This is what your colleague Senator John McCain said about how the administration is handling General McChrystal. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: So it’s OK with the administration for General McChrystal to go on “60 Minutes.” It’s OK for him to give a speech at the Institute for Strategic Studies in London. But the administration does not want General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee. How does that work?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Senator Casey, how does that work? Do you share Senator McCain’s concerns, if not his passion, about General McChrystal briefing Congress?

CASEY: Well, when I mentioned before that we need to have a debate in Congress, John’s one of the voices we should listen to, and take the measure of what -- Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Joe Lieberman wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal recently.

That’s part of what we should debate, what was the focus of their column in the Wall Street Journal, as well as other points of view.

On the question of who should appear before the Armed Services Committee -- I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee -- or any committee, in time I think we’re going to have lots of opportunities to question General McChrystal, to question maybe other administration officials as well. There’s a whole long list.

BAIER: Sure, but the...

CASEY: But I don’t think we have...

BAIER: ... senator is saying that...

CASEY: ... to do this this week.

BAIER: ... he’s out on...

CASEY: I think part...

BAIER: ... “60 Minutes” and he’s out at this London foreign policy group...

CASEY: Sure.

BAIER: ... and he still -- and he hasn’t even briefed behind closed doors the senators and House members.

CASEY: Well, let’s be fair. When President Bush made a determination about a surge in Iraq, he made a decision. Then we got to see General McChrystal months later. I think the same should happen here.

We should -- the president should have access to all the information he needs, as well as have the Congress have a debate. But this debate is not going to end the minute that -- the minute that the president allows people within the administration to come to Capitol Hill.

We’ve already had months and months of hearings. We’ve got to continue that. One thing we should do, though -- let me add this quickly -- is that we should have a debate in Congress about what is the fastest and most effective way to get the Afghan army and the Afghan national police up to a level where they can provide security and take on the enemy.

I think that debate alone is critical to getting this right. We can have long debates about how many troops should be there, but a lot of the parts of this debate haven’t taken place yet in the Congress. BAIER: OK. A couple of quick topics before we wrap up here. On the economy, the unemployment rate now stands at 9.8 percent, the highest in 26 years. More than 15 million Americans are out of work.

Former Fed chair Alan Greenspan is saying that he believes it will push past 10 percent and stay there for a while. Obama administration officials said when they were pitching the stimulus package they didn’t think it was going to get past 8 percent.

Senator Bayh, at the time of the stimulus package passage, you said of the $787 billion price tag, quote, “We all respect the president’s number. It has to be big enough to really provide a jolt to the economy and create jobs.” Do you think the stimulus has provided a jolt to the economy and created jobs?

BAYH: I think things would have been worse without the stimulus bill, Bret, that’s true. But having said that, of course, it’s not satisfying to see that things continue to be a lot worse than any of us would like.

You have to remember that I think a good percentage of the jobs bill hasn’t even gone into effect yet. So, look. If I’d been drafting the package, I would have tried to have it go into effect sooner and have more of it directly related to jobs.

But it is what it is at this point. It continues to go into the economic bloodstream and to keep things, which -- as unsatisfying as they are, from being a whole lot worse. So the answer -- that’s a long answer saying yes, but I wish it could have done more.

BAIER: Senator Graham, quickly, this week you talked about base politics. You mentioned Glenn Beck, who, of course, is on Fox News Channel, and you said he does not appear to you to be aligned with any party but he’s aligned with cynicism...

GRAHAM: Right.

BAIER: ... and there’s always a market for cynicism. Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?

GRAHAM: No, I’m not saying he’s bad for America. You’ve got the freedom to watch him if you choose. He did a pretty good job on ACORN. What I am saying -- he doesn’t represent the Republican Party. You can listen to him if you like.

I choose not to because, quite frankly, I don’t -- I don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us. We need to act decisively. People are genuinely upset with how much money we’re spending up here.

But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country’s better off with Barack Obama than John McCain , that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I’m going to listen.

So he has a right to say what he wants to say. In my view, it’s not -- it’s not the kind of political analysis that I buy into.

BAIER: Senators, thank you all for being with us this morning and sharing your views on obviously a wide range of topics. Thank you.

Up next, more on the president’s Afghanistan review. And a little later on, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat -- our Sunday regulars on President Obama’s go-for-the-gold Olympics effort that came up short. We will tackle it all after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCHRYSTAL: My assessment, my best military judgment as I term it, is that the situation is, in some ways, deteriorating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: General Stanley McChrystal laying out in blunt language his view of the current condition in Afghanistan.

It’s now time for our Sunday regulars -- Brit Hume, Fox News senior political analyst, and contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also of National Public Radio.

Brit, your thoughts on the back and forth publicly about whether more troops should head into Afghanistan.

HUME: Well, it’s a little worrisome to think that the key policy voice opposite General McChrystal in all of this is Joe Biden, who, while chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was in a position to do no real harm, but if he’s now the lead negotiator or lead policymaker, or one of them, in the White House versus General McChrystal, one certainly hopes that General McChrystal will win the day.

I think basically that it comes down to this. The president said he had a new strategy. It was a little general when he laid it out back in March. And then he sent a new general over there to execute it, who’s now come back and said, “Well, we need more troops if we’re going to do this.”

And the question is did he change the strategy, or is he simply doing what was necessary militarily to carry it out. If it’s the latter, doing what’s necessary to carry it out, it seems to me that the president is in an awkward position now to rebuff him.

LIASSON: Yeah, I think it’s a little bit more complicated than that. This is an excruciating decision. Either choice the president has -- a kind of counterterrorism stripped down choice or an all-in counterinsurgency choice, as General McChrystal suggests -- neither choice is guaranteed of success.

One could lead to a quagmire. The other could lead to the Taliban taking over and Al Qaida regaining a foothold in Afghanistan, which is exactly what the president said we’re in there to prevent.

And I think -- and the middle ground looks even worse, just putting in a little bit more troops to kind of muddle along. I think this is a very tough choice. This is a defining moment for the president, because there’s no way -- as in domestic politics when you can kind of find some kind of middle ground or balance one side off against the other.

And I think this is going to be very, very tough. I don’t see how -- the counterterrorism strategy sounds almost too good to be true. Very few troops and suddenly somehow, just with Predator drones, we can take the fight to Al Qaida.

I think probably a counterterrorism strategy would include even more troops than the people who think it’s going to be easy would expect.

BAIER: Bill?

KRISTOL: I think Mara correctly reflects what the White House thinks in the sense that they think it’s an excruciating decision, it’s very tough.

I think that’s pathetic. This president said this is a war of necessity. He said it’s a war we have to win. He said we have to think about it regionally and that we have to think of Afghanistan together with Pakistan, and that we can’t have a stable Pakistan unless we hold the line in Afghanistan, and an unstable Pakistan is unbelievably dangerous since they have nuclear weapons.

Why is this a tough call? We’ve got to win the war. He sent our best special operations commander over to run the war, General McChrystal. He would love to do it with only special forces. That’s what he did in Iraq. He saw that it wasn’t enough in Iraq. He needed the surge. He needed General Petraeus.

General McChrystal killed Zarqawi and many other terrorists in 2005 and 2006. It’s not enough. General McChrystal and General Petraeus, our two probably best field commanders, think this is necessary. This should not be a difficult call.

BAIER: Juan, do you think it’s possible that he could side with Vice President Biden and disregard or decide against General McChrystal’s advice, the general that he put on the ground?

WILLIAMS: Yes, I think he could, and it would come, though, at some tremendous political cost.

But let me just say that the other political side of the equation that has been ignored in this conversation so far is that most Americans, while we want to win the war in Afghanistan, do not want to send more troops to Afghanistan. And this is true even among Republicans.

Now, obviously, the left in this country is very war-weary, but the right is also war-weary. And I think that people sometimes, you know, think, “Oh, it’s just Republicans are critics of the president and want to send more troops.” That’s not the case.

This country, after eight years in Afghanistan without seeing any substantial progress, without seeing a stable government come to the forefront -- instead, all this question about fraud and even sort of the narcoterrorist connection to the Karzai government -- people are just dubious as to what exactly we are trying to accomplish.

And that’s where I think the problem lies. If you say very clearly, “We are out to defeat the Taliban and out to defeat Al Qaida,” I think then you can generate more American political support.

But how can we send General McChrystal out to do a job when the American people here at home do not have confidence that we, in fact, are sacrificing our children for a real, concrete purpose that is something that can be done in a matter of a short period, not, you know, an unending commitment?

BAIER: Brit, you know, then-senator Obama spoke out very loudly about the Iraq surge, against it. How tough will it be, if he sides with General McChrystal, to sell the American public and the left of his own party for a surge based on what his previous stance on Iraq was?

HUME: What sells in a situation like this is success on the ground. The public is always skeptical and resistant to troop commitments in difficult places. Afghanistan is palpably a difficult place.

But let’s remember now, the president and his party, including some who are now wavering, have been climbing out on this limb now for four or five years.

Go back to John Kerry and the campaign in 2004 -- that’s five years ago. “ George W. Bush ,” he said, “took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which is the real place, the real war against the terrorists, to go chasing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.” This has been a consistent theme.

It was President Obama’s theme when he was senator running for president. Now he comes down to it. What does it really take? The idea is unpopular. The polls have turned on this. Bill may be right that this shouldn’t be hard, but it certainly is proving hard for Barack Obama so far.

And I don’t know that either way he goes he gets any political relief. If he says no now after getting -- after all that he said before, and goes for some half measure which is likely to fail, it seems to me that the political consequences of that will be very severe indeed.

BAIER: Let’s turn now to the Olympics and this decision out of Copenhagen that it was not going to -- the 2016 games to Chicago, even though the president made the pitch. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I urge you to choose Chicago. I urge you to choose America. And if you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The City of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE PRESIDENT JACQUES ROGGE: The City of Chicago, having obtained the least number of votes, will not participate in the next round.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: One of the things that I think is most valuable about sports is that you can play a great game and still not win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Mara, that’s painful to watch. Is it painful for this presidency?

LIASSON: Of course it’s painful. It’s always -- whenever a president really puts himself on the line and doesn’t succeed, it’s not good.

That being said, I don’t think -- this was the Olympics, after all. It wasn’t like a war or a major piece of domestic legislation. And I think that he’ll recover from this.

It does raise questions about what they thought before they went. You know, what we understand is they thought they had a very good chance and that his trip over there -- and of course, all the other heads of government were going, too -- could have just put this over the finish line.

But that being said, you know, it does make you wince a little, and it was disappointing, but in the end, I think this is kind of low on the list of, you know, crucial defeats for the president.

BAIER: Bill?

KRISTOL: There are so many ironies in this. By Barack Obama ’s view of the world, he should have been rooting for Brazil to get the Olympics. South America’s never gotten them. Brazil’s never gotten them. It’s a rising power. It would help Brazil.

We don’t need the Olympics. We’ve had them a million times. Our economy doesn’t need the boost of the Olympics. And then an American president, in a sort of George W. Bush -like way, goes and tries to bully the International Olympic Committee.

LIASSON: He did not bully them. KRISTOL: He did try to bully them. “Come walk with us. I’m here for America.” Can you imagine if some Republican -- if Bush had done this and we hadn’t gotten it? “Typical Bush heavy-handedness, cowboy unilateralist, hegemonic imperialist action.”

Obama falls into that trap and they run for it, so I must say I’m -- you couldn’t help but be amused by it.

BAIER: Juan, does the staff of the White House -- should they receive some blame for sending the president over there in this environment, when South America -- now looking back, it looks like they kind of had it in the bag?

WILLIAMS: I don’t know if they had it in the bag. What was clear is that the United States did not have the votes lined up.

I think that Valerie Jarrett -- you think about the Chicago axis here -- Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel , all sort of acolytes to Mayor Daley, and all deciding that yes, this is going to happen, we can get votes out of the African nations, we can put force on some of the Asian nations that aren’t convinced that Tokyo should have it.

They didn’t have anything lined up, and it is a temporary embarrassment. I agree with Mara. It’s not going to have any long- term effect.

But the way it looks internationally, especially with the president going over there and saying, “You know what, this is -- we need to confirm that this is now America working with the world and it’s different than what was going under the Bush administration,” he just got himself in a quagmire, you know, and he got stuck.

HUME: It occurs to me that when you look at -- now that we know what everybody was thinking more publicly than we did before the vote was taken -- that it was a longshot. Maybe it was poor intelligence on the part of the U.S. Olympic Committee people.

But I wonder if there wasn’t this view in the White House, which seems to undergird so much of what happens, is if we can just deploy Barack Obama that his wonderfulness will turn the tide, will change the atmosphere, will win over people. I mean, that seems to be a fundamental tenet of the foreign policy of this administration.

LIASSON: But -- but...

HUME: And the -- and the second point that it seems to me worth making about that is there was a sense with Chicago knocked out in the first round that this was really the thumbing of the world’s nose in a way at this country, and it suggests that, you know, not only did the wonderfulness not work, but all of this engagement and charming that he’s been doing of foreign leaders hasn’t worked very well either.

LIASSON: OK.

BAIER: Eighteen out of 94 votes. I do want to mention this. One of the most interesting reactions, immediate reactions, came from Illinois Senator Roland Burris, who blamed the Chicago loss on George W. Bush and his foreign policy for eight years. Take a quick listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURRIS: Chicago now is a victim of all of that negativism that came out of that bad image that was created.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIASSON: Ouch.

BAIER: Any comment on that?

LIASSON: Ouch. No comment, actually, when you think about how Roland Burris came to the United States Senate in the first place.

Look, I do think to say that -- what you’re kind of arguing is that he shouldn’t have gone and he should have ceded this to Brazil, or whoever, right from the beginning. And I think that it was worth a try.

They clearly didn’t have the best intelligence, but to say that he should have given up, when all the other heads of government were going over there, and say, “I don’t really want it,” I think also was not a possible choice. He did what he had to do and he lost.

BAIER: Panel, we have to take a break here.

But when we come back, some key unemployment numbers come in worse than expected. Everyone thought the worst was behind us. So what’s going on with the recovery? Our panel’s thoughts. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: ... why I’m working closely with my economic team to explore additional options to promote job creation.

And I won’t let up until those who seek jobs can find them, until businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive, and until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Well, that was President Obama on Saturday. So was he hinting there that there could be a second economic stimulus package down the road?

We’re back with our panel -- Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan.

Juan, unemployment at 9.8 percent -- do you think that one of the options that he’s talking about is a second stimulus package?

WILLIAMS: Not in the short term, Bret. I think what he wants to do now is to try to make sure that, just as you heard him say the credit markets, the banks in specific are more open to doing work with small business, and small business being the engine for employment in the country.

If you look at Wall Street right now, Wall Street’s doing pretty good. They didn’t have a great week this week, but they’re doing pretty much -- for the course of the year, they’re on an upward trajectory.

You look at housing starts, it’s looking better. You look at corporate mergers, the kind of confidence that would suggest that people are now willing to get back in and take some risks by merging -- that’s another positive sign.

The big question has to do with the holidays coming and consumer confidence, and the idea that consumers are not going to spend, and if they don’t spend, then small business doesn’t hire, the retail outfits and the malls and the like.

And so what the president is saying -- what the White House people are thinking at the moment is let’s get the banks to be more aggressive about reaching out to small business.

BAIER: Bill?

KRISTOL: I like it. I like it when liberals like Juan don’t mention unemployment but suddenly are big fans of corporate mergers.

WILLIAMS: Hey, hey, hey.

KRISTOL: You know, that sounds -- the president said he’s looking for additional options for job creation. He’s done nothing for job creation. It’s really stunning when step back and think about it.

What has this president proposed, what has Congress passed, that has anything to do with providing incentives for employers to hire instead of just for economic growth? There’s been no pro-growth agenda, even though we’re in a very steep recession.

And in fact, many of his pieces of legislation have been anti- growth. They increase the minimum wage. Guess what? Teenage jobs fell $300,000 in the -- 300,000 jobs have been lost, teenage jobs, in the last two months ever since that increase in the minimum wage went in, just as economists would predict.

They’ve got a huge health care plan out there which is a burden on business. They’ve got a huge cap and trade proposal which is a burden on business.

They did “Cash for Clunkers” which was reported Friday moved auto sales from September to August, and September sales were back as low as they have been all year. It is not a pro-growth administration. And guess what? They’re not creating any economic growth.

BAIER: Mara, at 9.8 unemployment -- Alan Greenspan, former Fed chair, says he expects it to go above 10 and stay there for a while. That’s a tough environment for somebody like Vice President Biden to continue to tout the stimulus package as working.

LIASSON: I think what -- the White House argument is that it would have been worse, and I think that you can say they might be right, but that’s a very politically unsatisfying argument to make, it would have been worse without this.

I do think the president has said he also expects unemployment to go up, possibly above 10 percent. It is a very bad environment going into the 2010 elections.

However, I think when they talk about another stimulus package, they’re not talking about one that looks like the first one, with a lot of massive spending. I think they’re talking about extending unemployment insurance, some more...

HUME: That’s a real job creator.

LIASSON: Well, they’re talking about extending the safety net, maybe more tax credits. I cannot imagine that a second round of stimulus is going to be spending. It’s going to be tax credits in a variety of forms, including for first-time home buyers. Maybe it would even be for hiring.

HUME: Boy, I certainly hope Mara is right and they don’t try another stimulus like the one they did before, because in addition to not being much of a job creator, the very nature of it was such that it was not going to take effect, if it ever took any, for a long time.

And the normal course that’s being -- running here, I think the recession will be seen as having ended by now when economists finally look back on this with full 20/20 hindsight, but it is very common in recessions for unemployment to continue to rise even after a recovery has begun. That what seems to be happening here.

The stimulus has done so far very little to stem that, if anything. And the nature of it is, and the size of it is such, and the amount of debt incurred is so great, that the stimulus now acts as a drag on the economy going forward.

So in addition to all the other problems with it, this thing -- the stimulus now is a burden on the economy instead of being a help to it.

BAIER: So...

HUME: And I -- I mean, my sense about it is that, you know, what we’re seeing here is the chickens are coming home to roost on one of the worst things Congress has ever done.

BAIER: No political appetite for a second bite at that apple.

HUME: I hope not.

BAIER: On health care, on that speech on Saturday, the president linked creating jobs to his health care overhaul.

Mara, do you think that this bill that’s coming out of the Senate Finance Committee that does not have a government-run option, a public option, will be what drives the day? Or will it somehow get added behind closed doors in -- as the Senate and the House work on this?

LIASSON: You mean do I think a robust public option will somehow get back into the bill in conference?

BAIER: Right.

LIASSON: No, I do not. I wouldn’t be surprised if something like a trigger maybe gets in there. I think the health care bill is moving forward step by difficult step. I’m actually surprised at how far it’s come. It’s going to get out of the committee onto the Senate floor probably this week. And there are still many, many, many hurdles ahead.

But I do think one of the big questions now is will the Senate Democrats act like a parliamentary party on procedural matters. In other words, will those moderates who don’t want to vote for the final bill -- will they agree to vote against a Republican filibuster, you know, for cloture to get the bill to the floor and act like a parliamentary party.

I think there’s a lot of talk about that now. Moderates -- some moderates are recognizing that they have to get the bill for an up or down vote, even if it passes in the end with just a bare majority.

KRISTOL: I think they’ll get the bill to the floor and the bill will fail on the floor, partly because the bill has tax increases in it. It also reduces Medicare payments. It’ll also increase health insurance premiums for many who already have insurance.

The House’s bill is going to be paid for. The House bill is paid for by a big income tax increase. The Senate bill is paid for by various corporate tax increases which will be passed on to many middle-class citizens.

You know, they defeated barely in committee an attempt by Republicans to say no tax increases for the middle class. That’s going to be reintroduced on the floor. They are not going to pass a massive burden -- a tax increase and burden on the economy when we have 10 percent unemployment. It’s going to fail, I think.

BAIER: One line.

WILLIAMS: This is a defense of the status quo. And you just have to realize that most Americans want something done in terms of improving the condition and the ability to get health insurance at a reasonable rate in this country.

And the same thing is true in terms of the unemployment issue. It’s not about standing up for corporate America. It’s standing up for ordinary people who think something has to be done, and the stimulus was an effort to help the American people.

BAIER: Thank you, panel. We’ll see you next week.

And don’t forget to check out the latest edition of “Panel Plus” where our group here continues the discussion on our Web site, foxnewssunday.com, shortly after the show ends.

Up next, President Obama takes stock of his accomplishments so far in office in a surprise address to the nation. We will explain after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BAIER: On this day in 1965, Pope Paul VI arrived in New York for the first-ever visit by a reigning pope to the United States. During his short 14-hour stay, the pope held mass at Yankee Stadium and addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Stay tuned for more from our panel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BAIER: Last night President Obama decided to address the nation, apparently only on “Saturday Night Live.” And he went into great detail about why the political left should be less than thrilled with his presidency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA (FRED ARMISEN): Now, I just don’t see why the right is so riled up. I mean, how do you think the left feels? They’re the ones that should be mad.

Now, I’m sure they thought I would have addressed at least one of the following things by now. Global warming, no. Immigration reform, no. Gays in the military, nuh-uh. Limits on executive powers, nope. Torture prosecutions, no.

So looking at this list, I’m seeing two big accomplishments, jack and squat.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Ouch.

A program note -- we will have live coverage of the new Supreme Court session tomorrow night on “Special Report” on Fox News Channel at 6:00 p.m. Eastern.

And that’s it for today. Chris Wallace is back next week, and we will see you next “FOX News Sunday.”