The McLaughlin Group

Subjects: Iraq, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Africa

John McLaughlin, Host;
Pat Buchanan, Author and Columnist;
Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast;
Tom Rogan, National Review/Daily Telegraph;
Mort Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report

Time: 11:30 a.m. EDT
Date: Sunday, August 17th, 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Federal News Service, LLC, 1120 G Street NW, Suite 990, Washington, DC 20005-3801 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, LLC. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Transcripts Database or any other FNS product, please email or call 1-202-347-1400.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Issue One: Grading Hillary.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: (From videotape.) I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I'm going to miss her; wish she was sticking around. But she has logged in so many miles, I can't begrudge her, one, to take it easy for a little bit. But I want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she's played during the course of my administration. And a lot of the successes we've had internationally have been because of her hard work.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What a difference 18 months makes. In January of 2013, when President Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared that unique "60 Minutes" interview, President Obama's approval rating on foreign policy was 49 percent. His handling of foreign affairs was one of the pillars of his presidency.

Fast-forward to this summer, as ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, overran Iraqi forces defending the Iraq city of Mosul. President Obama's foreign policy approval was routed by that onslaught, dropping to a 36 percent positive, with 58 percent disapproving of Mr. Obama's foreign policy.

His former secretary of state appears to have joined the critics. In an interview with The Atlantic magazine, Hillary Clinton placed the blame for the rise of ISIS on Obama; namely, his refusal to equip and train Syria's rebels. Quote Clinton: "The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad - there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle - the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," unquote.

In that same interview, she rejected one of Mr. Obama's trademark mantras - "Don't do stupid stuff." Why does the madam secretary knock that Obama mantra in her Atlantic profile? Quote: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle," unquote.

Question: Why is Hillary Clinton seemingly no longer eager to share the limelight with President Obama, as she did in that "60 Minutes" interview? Is it a matter of principle, or is she reading the polls? Pat Buchanan.

PAT BUCHANAN: I think it's belief on Hillary's part, and she's reading the polls. Obama's at 36 percent in foreign policy, as low as you can get. Hillary said that he failed to support the small "d" democrats in Syria, and otherwise that the ISIS might not have taken over. And Barack Obama called that a synonym for horse manure. Hillary came out much stronger pro-Israel, much tougher on Iran than Barack Obama.

What she is doing, John, she is staking her claim, basically, for the Democratic interventionist, neoconservative Democrat in the coming race. I think strategically she's making a bad mistake, because in the Democratic Party, the George McGovern, come home America, no more wars, focus on our own country - that thought, that sentiment, is really almost dominant inside the Democratic Party, and she's inviting opposition in the primaries.


ELEANOR CLIFT: Well, I think this is the same fault line that emerged between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the `08 primaries. She's always been more of an interventionist than he has been. And, of course, you know, "Don't do stupid stuff" - David Axelrod, Obama's key advisor, tweeted, "Don't do stupid stuff, as in invading Iraq." By the way, Hillary Clinton supported that.

So there is some tension, I think, between the two camps. But she's got to separate herself from the president. I think he understands that. But it's a little early for a general-election campaign. I think she's misreading the polls to suggest - to think that this represents the Democratic Party.

Obama's numbers may not be great overall, but Democrats still love him. And she's really kind of picked a fight here that she doesn't need this early in the game. And she's done it rather inartfully, which is the bigger problem as we gear up to watch her run, which I think she's almost certainly going to do.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well stated.


TOM ROGAN: Well, it's clear that Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2016. I know people don't want to say that yet, but it's obvious in the way that she's making these statements, deliberately entertaining a series of difficulties with the administration, not simply on this, but if you look at actually her book as well, the interesting counter-side to the neocon line is that she's criticizing drones to a degree.
So she's trying to have all these different elements of the Democratic Party getting behind her, but she's also trying to insulate herself from the criticism of the president because of what's happening in Iraq and Ukraine and elsewhere at the moment.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was it a slip of the tongue on Hillary's part?

MR. ROGAN: No, I think it was a deliberate move to try and generate a distinction between her and the president. Hillary Clinton is a politician who's been around for a long time. She knew what she was saying and she knew -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How about her -

MR. ROGAN: - the response.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How about her subsequent phone call to hug it out - hug it out with Obama -


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: - which happened, by the way?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I happen to have been at a dinner with her about five or six months ago. She said more or less the same thing then. I don't believe at all that she is doing this just for political reasons. This is what she genuinely believes. And if you look through the record, of which she's separated herself from the Obama administration, when she was secretary of state she had a more robust and stronger line in terms of American foreign policy and the use of American forces to back up that policy.
That's where she comes from. This is not just a political issue for her. I think that really degrades her real commitment to this. And when politics weren't the issue, she was just as explicit and outspoken and -

MR. BUCHANAN: They're going to hug it out. Let me say, that hugging it out, that tells me that Hillary - and I agree with Eleanor here - Hillary, I think, on second thought, thought she had moved too early and moved too far to separate herself from Barack Obama. And she doesn't want - I mean, she's got her message out there and her position. But I think personally she does not want to be that far away from Obama as she is right now.

MR. ROGAN: I think that is true. I mean, I had a piece this morning talking about exactly that. Both the president and Mrs. Clinton need each other to some degree going forward. But I would agree with Mort to a degree. I think Hillary Clinton's issue is that she should have spoken up - and, quite frankly, with the Syria situation as serious as it was at the time, she probably should have left the administration then. I mean -

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Maybe, but she didn't want to go public with it when she was the secretary of state and the president had a different policy. And I respect that too.

MS. CLIFT: She was -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: OK, changing gears for a minute, Mort, you've just returned from a unique visit to Israel and Gaza. Can you tell us who you went with and what you saw?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I went with, amongst others, the governor of New York, OK, Governor Cuomo, and several other public officials. But essentially what we did was to see the tunnels that the radicals had built coming from Gaza into Israel.
And I tell you, it was like being in an empty version of the New York City subway system. I mean, there was a huge open room, by the way, that had both electricity and phone lines from it. And then they had a three-and-a-half-mile, literally, tunnel. There was 25 feet of height in this thing, and it was supported with concrete.

This was a huge effort on their part; must have taken them a long time, but there are another 33 tunnels like this. I don't know how in the world they did it without any major equipment. And they just - over the years just dug it out. It was clearly going to be a platform for whatever attacks they anticipated making against the Israelis.

But to see it, it's just staggering, because you can't imagine that people could build this without the kind of heavy equipment that you have, for example, when you're building a subway in New York City.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Does this create a big problem out of disenabling the tunnels?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah, it is certainly going to be a major problem. It may be - the Israelis don't know if they have all of the tunnels. I mean, there are another 33 of them. You can imagine this thing. Some of them go three, four, five miles, because they extend further into what is now Israel, with the idea that they would come out of them and really attack local communities.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think is going to happen?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I don't know what's going to happen. I will say that the Israelis - they all see this now, OK. They know how serious it is. And I think they're going to put much more military pressure on the radicals coming out of Gaza than they did before.

MS. CLIFT: Did you tour any of the devastation in Gaza?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I did. And there was. But the devastation, if I may, as you describe it, was attempted on - was created on the part of the Israelis to interdict the missiles flying out of there. They were going after the missile targets and the missile launchers and where they were located. It wasn't just indiscriminate bombing, with all due respect.

MS. CLIFT: Yeah, but there's still a lot of devastation.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: There is always devastation.

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.)

MR. ZUCKERMAN: And this is something that the radicals there were willing to absorb, OK. But Israel cannot sit there and say we're not going to respond to what is a huge -

MS. CLIFT: I'm not getting into a debate. I'm just asking. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Is Hillary's foreign policy beat-down of President Obama proof positive that she is running for president in 2016? Yes or no, Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: It is perfectly consistent with a candidate for president of the United States.


MS. CLIFT: It's another marker on the way to the campaign trail.


MR. ROGAN: Yeah, I think she's - she is running; you know, everything - the book, trying to play the different sides. But I think one interesting thing, just going back to what Mort was mentioning about her from policy consistency, one thing that she still talks about in positive terms is calling the Russian reset a stroke of brilliance. I find that staggering, and I think it introduces an interesting contrast with the counter-side that she's offering now on Syria.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I think she is running. I'd be amazed if she doesn't run.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How are the book sales?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I don't think she's made - the book sales, I think, are below expectations. But in my judgment -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Could this be a reason why she is doing some of this, to -

MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, I don't think that has anything to do with it. That is the last issue on her agenda.

MR. BUCHANAN: (Inaudible.)

MR. ZUCKERMAN: But beyond that, OK, she's a very serious person and a very competent person. And she is a highly principled person, as far as I'm concerned, from everything I've ever seen her do or say and act on.

MS. CLIFT: And there's no daylight between her and Israel. I mean, she's very strong on Israel.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think the book is a big plus.

MR. ROGAN: What's also interesting -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I managed to read good parts of it.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: It's good.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And, of course, she's gone through exactly what we're going through in Israel today.

MR. BUCHANAN: (Inaudible) - the only good review, John.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: She's gone through that.

What's that?

MR. BUCHANAN: Yours is the only good review I've read.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's not true.

MR. ROGAN: She is very popular with -

MR. BUCHANAN: Most of them just say it's blah, blather.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that's because -

MR. BUCHANAN: It was written by a committee.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's because they're looking for, you know, scuttlebutt, dirt.

MS. CLIFT: It's not - (inaudible).

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: She's very good on analyzing situations.

MR. ROGAN: To be fair to her, she's very popular with ex-military people - Stan McChrystal, Bob Gates.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Inaudible.)

MR. ROGAN: And that is true.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Absolutely. And I'll tell you, I was at a dinner with her with a lot of - all foreign ministers, another six foreign ministers. She was - three of them were from the Arab world. She was the star that evening. She was unbelievably lucid.

MR. BUCHANAN: Mort, how do you explain -

MR. ZUCKERMAN: She was analytical.

MR. BUCHANAN: - that in her most crucial vote, she got it wrong, and she admits she got it wrong, the vote for the war, and then she said I supported the surge for political reasons? That's a statesman?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Look, I'm not going to debate this with you. I have known certain great politicians who've actually made mistakes. I don't know about you. I have never met anybody -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why don't you debate him? Why don't you debate with him?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Debate with her?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Debate with him.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Because there's nothing to debate. He doesn't have a valid case.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Two: Another War in Iraq?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) For the past few years, American forces have successfully conducted targeted airstrikes to prevent terrorist forces from advancing on the city of Irbil and to protect American civilians there. Kurdish forces on the ground continue to defend their city. And we've stepped up military advice and assistance to Iraqi and Kurdish forces as they wage the fight against ISIL.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: By supplying Kurdish forces with new weapons and sending 130 military advisors to assist them, President Obama has expanded America's military involvement in Iraq. And get this: On Wednesday, a U.S. military team landed on Mount Sinjar, where thousands of the Yazidi minority group remained trapped by ISIS. Last Saturday, however, the president insisted that America would not become embroiled in another Iraq war.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq because there's no American military solution to the larger crisis there.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But on Thursday, the president told Americans to expect further military action in the weeks ahead.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) Wherever we have capabilities and we can carry out effective missions like the one we carried out on Mount Sinjar, without committing combat troops on the ground, we obviously feel a great urge to provide some humanitarian relief to the situation.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Is the president engaging in mission creep? Should we be supporting the Kurds with arms and advisors, as we are currently doing? Is America being sucked into another war in Iraq? Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: No. (Laughs.) Mission creep is when the nature of the objective changes and when you really do pour in a lot of added resources. I think it's very clear that he's doing everything he can to restrain our involvement. It's a humanitarian mission.
I think we - as a country, we can be rightly proud that the humanitarian intervention has helped and the military strikes have helped. And there was another bit of good news this week, and that is, Prime Minister Maliki has stepped down and there's a new prime minister in Iraq who now has 30 days to form a government.

So you do have a unity - the potential of a unity government there that may be, you know, more equipped for the fight; and also the fact that the Brits and the French are coming in. The Brits are going to supply arms to the Kurds. I mean, I think they're the best fighters over there. And so I'm not going to say things are in hand. I mean, it's a chaotic situation.


MR. BUCHANAN: John, there's a problem.

MS. CLIFT: But there's more good news this week than there has been for a while.

MR. BUCHANAN: Here's the problem, John.


MR. BUCHANAN: U.S. air power can keep the ISIS - the Islamic State out of Irbil. It can keep them out of Baghdad. But there are no ground forces, Iraqi or Kurdish now, who can take back Anbar Province or who can take back northern Syria. So you're going to have an Islamic State there festering and growing unless you get some ground troops from someone. And the logical place for them to come would be the Turks and the Syrians and the Kurds and the Iraqis together. But that would take a diplomat of Bismarck's capacity to pull that crowd together.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: OK, who is supporting the U.S. in its mission to Iraq? Answer: A key ally, but with important qualifiers. Here's the commander in chief.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) I want to thank in particular the United Kingdom, France and other countries working with us to provide much-needed assistance to the Iraqi people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But while only France is now providing arms to the Kurds, other American key allies, including Britain and Canada, are supplying only humanitarian aid. But British Prime Minister Cameron is considering equipping the Kurds to fight. And Britain's defense minister under the former Labour government says Britain and the U.S. should join in airstrikes against ISIL. But for now, direct military strikes are being left solely to American air crews.

Question: Is this further proof that America, whether we like it or not, has once again donned the uniform of the world's solitary policeman? If so, how can we persuade our allies to better support us? Tom Rogan.

MR. ROGAN: I think it is true. I think that if you look at the dynamics on the ground, the reality is that American air crews are the only ones putting themselves in harm's way, flying the direct strike missions against ISIL. And the simple fact is that the Europeans, although they're now beginning to provide arms, have very little interest in doing more than that because they believe that the United States can fulfill that role. And I think it's a big problem going forward -

MS. CLIFT: Well, they think -

MR. ROGAN: - because Americans are getting sick of it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the - wait a minute. What's the exit strategy?

MR. ROGAN: How does the U.S. compel them in - to get them involved, or how does the U.S. get out of Iraq?


MR. ROGAN: Well, to get the Europeans involved, I think we have to talk about realigning our bases from Germany into Eastern Europe, because there's little flow-back -

MR. BUCHANAN: You've got an Islamic state that's going to be festering there. Somebody's got to go in and clean that up.

MR. ROGAN: Right. But here's the thing.

MR. BUCHANAN: And nobody has told me who's going to do it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you favor that?

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.)

MR. BUCHANAN: The Americans aren't going to do it with ground troops, and you need ground troops.

MR. ROGAN: But here's the thing. With Anbar Province, one of the hopeful things over the longer time is that the belief in Islam, even there with the Sunni community - it's Hanbali versus Hanafi Islam. Essentially, ISIL are fanatical, much more than the people of Anbar. So for the longer time, what will happen is that, like al-Qaida in Iraq, they will lose their support on the ground because they can't stop themselves from going and crucifying people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mort, hold on. I'll let you in in a minute.

OK, the Iraq toll, March 2003 to December 2011: U.S. soldiers killed, 4,425; U.S. soldiers wounded in action, 31,947; U.S. soldiers with serious brain or spinal injuries, 20 percent; U.S. soldiers with serious mental health problems, 30 percent; war costs, $806 billion; monies lost or unaccounted for, $9 billion; U.S. veteran care, $894 billion; Iraqis killed, military and civilian, 134,000.

Why did I read these numbers?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, you want to illustrate just that this is - if there is another intervention, it's not going to be cheap. And that's exactly right. But the other issue is it's what I call the lesser of two evils, OK. What happens if Iraq becomes a radical state, opposing all of our allies in the region, that is in the heart of the entire energy world, of that part of the world, which is critical to the entire western economy? We simply cannot just sit by and let that happen.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How likely is that?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: How likely is what?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What you just presented -

MR. ZUCKERMAN: If we don't get involved, you're going to have a radical Kurdish community up there that is going to expand. They're by far the toughest fighters. Everybody will lose hope that we are going to back them. And you will have the possibility there of a major unraveling of the American and world position in that part of the world.

MR. ROGAN: This is why I think, in the short time, it's an urgent threat. Over the long time, I think it resolves itself because they lose support. But in the short time, it forces the sectarian dynamics under way to become politicized. It forces people into corners. And more than that, talking about the direct threat of ISIL -

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.) The Peshmergas are good fighters. We're now helping them.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Inaudible.) (Laughs.) Start again. Start again.

MS. CLIFT: Right. It's Iraq's fight. They have a new government. There's a potential of them getting their act together. The Peshmergas are good fighters.

MR. ROGAN: But the European passports -

MS. CLIFT: The Europeans are now going to supply some weapons. The U.S. is not going to go back into Iraq.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, thank you, General.

MR. BUCHANAN: The Kurds are going to defend Kurdistan -

MR. ZUCKERMAN: That's right.

MR. BUCHANAN: - and they're not going to defend anything else.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: On a direct-threat-to-national-interest scale - threat to national interest - you got it? -


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: - zero to 10, how much of a threat does the Islamic State pose to American interests, zero to 10?

MR. BUCHANAN: If there was a terrorist threat that, say, now is at about a three, I think this - if they establish that, it takes it up to a six.


MS. CLIFT: Five.

MR. ROGAN: Mort, do you want to go, or -

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah. No, I'm at an eight. I think this is an unbelievably serious threat to the United States and to all of our allies and to the world of energy.

MR. ROGAN: I think it's an eight because of the regional dynamics. The Sunni Arab monarchies will go all in in support of not ISIS, but other groups similar to them. The Iranians will go on the flip side to Hezbollah and different groups like AAH in Iraq.
And also, for the United States, with the European passport holders who have learned from Snowden specific facts - they know to stay off the Internet, off the grid - they will go back home. They will smile at their neighbors. And then western intelligence services will fear that they will get on planes -


MR. ROGAN: - come to the United States, and -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why don't you -

MS. CLIFT: Do you want to place troops on the ground in Iraq?

MR. ROGAN: I don't - no, no, no. I'm not - I'm talking about interlocutor relations.

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible) -

MR. ROGAN: But I'm talking about more than just throwing a few bombs.

MS. CLIFT: - that you want to do - (inaudible).

(Cross talk.)

MR. ZUCKERMAN: (Inaudible) - protecting American interests if he doesn't make that work.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'll climb it to a 10.

Issue Three: Out of Africa.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) And I stand before you as the president of the United States and a proud American. I also stand before you as the son of a man from Africa. (Applause.) The blood of Africa runs through our family. And so for us, the bonds between our countries, our continents, are deeply personal.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Leaders of nearly 50 African nations gathered in Washington, D.C. last week for the U.S.-African Leaders Summit. The three-day affair spanned a panoply of issues, ranging from education and political tolerance to trade and investment. By the summit's end, Mr. Obama announced $33 billion in new U.S. corporate spending, philanthropic aid, and foreign aid for Africa.

Last year, two-way trade between the U.S. and Africa totaled $96 billion. In contrast, Africa's trade with China, its biggest trading partner, was double that at almost $200 billion.

Business in Africa may boom in our 21st century. Population growth rates are higher in Africa than on any other continent, and it has a large youthful population. Africa's middle class is already bigger than India's, giving it the potential to become one of the world's bigger consumer markets.
And Chinese companies, from telecommunications to automakers, are targeting Africa as the next big thing for Beijing's export-dominated economy. Quote: "China is making a long bet on the emergence of vibrant, high-consuming middle classes there. And with each year, this wager is looking smarter and smarter," unquote. So says Howard French, author of "China's Second Continent: How a Million Migrants Are Building a New Empire in Africa."

Why does President Obama want to boost trade with Africa? Is it to compete with China's growing influence in Africa? OK, Mort.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah. I mean, I don't think that's the reason. I mean, Africa is an improving, dynamic area of the world, but it's nowhere near the kind of size at this stage of the game that's going to have a major effect, either on our exports, on our economy, or indeed on the world. But it's an area that we should nurture, for good reasons, and we will.

MS. CLIFT: Six of the 10 fastest-growing economies are in Africa. Cell phones, smartphones, the energy grid - I mean, there's such potential there for American-Africa growth. And this country is probably 15 years behind. Africa has gone in there and basically is ripping off a lot of their natural resources. And I think the president is basically saying, you know, we're not totally altruistic, but we can give the Africans a better deal than they're going to get from the Chinese.

MR. BUCHANAN: He also has an emotional attachment to the Third World, and to Africa in particular. But clearly the Chinese are drawing all the resources out of Africa while we put our money into foreign aid and helping cure AIDS and other diseases; a lot of soft - what you might call the exercise of soft power. But I think also it - (inaudible) - as competitive there. But, you know, the population of Africa is over 1 billion. It'll be 2 billion at middle century and 4 billion at the end of the century, 67 years.

MS. CLIFT: And they're all going to want smartphones. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And you know what, Pat?

MR. BUCHANAN: Eighty-six years.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Africa is exciting. Think about it.

OK, Americans and Africans share a similar work ethic. In a recent Gallup survey, 85 percent of Africans said hard work pays off. In North America, 84 percent agree. By contrast, the European Union is 17 percent below Africa and North America. In the EU - get this - a mere 67 percent think that hard work is rewarded.

Tom Rogan.

MR. ROGAN: Yeah, I think that shared work ethic is important between the two continents, North America and Africa. But more than that, the rule of law that the United States can bring to bear as a democracy, as a country that has a developed justice system, is something that Africa will find increasingly important and that China will not provide and has no interest in providing because of the nature of their government.

And so, going forward over the longer time - and I think that's what this is - it's about a slow process. That is something that helps both continents, and it does so in economic ways (that help ?).

MS. CLIFT: Symbol of change is Rwanda. We think of genocide, Hotel Rwanda. Rwanda has now come back. It's a thriving country. It's where there's a lot of promising American investment. Rwanda is really the analogy for the potential of Africa.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Predictions. Pat.

MR. BUCHANAN: The Ferguson, Missouri racial crisis metastasizes this week.


MS. CLIFT: Ferguson, Missouri is calming down with the release of the police officer who committed the crime. Justice will prevail.


MR. ROGAN: Expect significant changes in the aftermath of Ferguson in terms of federal government transfers of military equipment to local and state police forces.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: Foreign policy will become a major issue in the presidential election as a result exactly of what we've been talking about.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: President Obama's liberal true believers will be so nettled at Hillary's jabs at the Obama foreign policy legacy that they will redouble their efforts to persuade Senator Elizabeth Warren to run against Hillary for the Democratic nomination in 2016.