The McLaughlin Group
Issues: Slaughter in Paris; Cameron’s Crapshoot; Dems Debate
John McLaughlin, Host
Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune
Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast
Tom Rogan, National Review/Opportunity Lives
Pat Buchanan, Author & Columnist
Taped: Friday, November 20, 2015
Broadcast: Weekend of November 20-22, 2015
Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein
are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
ANNOUNCER: From Washington, THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, the American original. For over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Issue One: Slaughter in Paris.
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): It is known as the City of Light. But last Friday, darkness descended on Paris. As Parisians celebrated the end of their working week, eight terrorists attacked restaurants, bars, the soccer stadium and a concert hall. One hundred and twenty-nine people were murdered, and hundreds more wounded before the attackers were killed. The terrorists were aligned with the Islamic State group, also known as ISIL and ISIS, that operates in Syria and Iraq.
The Islamic State has claimed responsibility. The scale of the mayhem involving suicide bombers heavily armed with the AK-47 assault rifles has European counterterrorism agencies worrying that Paris-like attacks may soon happen on their own territory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: Then only 73 hours after the Paris attack, political leaders all over the country challenged Obama’s refugee plan. Is it a positive sign or a negative sign?
I ask you, Clarence.
CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Well, obviously, up to this tragedy like this was going to be negative reactions to any new refugees coming in. But I think that Obama is going to stand his ground and over time, people become accustomed to the new system on which you’re going to have tougher background checks and all that. But it’s a -- this is an issue that’s not going away.
ELEANOR CLIFT, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, the governors don’t have any legal authority. They can say they don’t want them, and relocation is a long way away. The administration said they would take 10,000. That’s over a long period of time.
And the State Department on Friday did a call with reporters outlining the rather stringent background checks that every refugee coming into this country has submitted to. And frankly, I think at a time when your values are being tested is when you should stand for them, and to say that we’re now going to shut our door to the Syrian refugees because one terrorist may have slipped through among the hundreds of thousands that are flowing through Europe just does not seem to me the American response.
MCLAUGHLIN: “France deserves three forms of American support.
First, President Obama, who was absent from the "Charlie Hebdo" memorial -- remember that? -- should visit Paris in solidarity. If possible, he should address the French parliament and offer France U.S. support in the form of escalated military retaliation.
Second, he should respond to this attack by energizing a more aggressive and comprehensive campaign against ISIS.
Third, President Obama must draw a greater attention to allies’ successes against ISIS. This should include greater publicity, including gun camera videos of actions like last week’s airstrike on Jihadi John. ISIS leaders and fighters must come to perceive their banner as a magnet for purposeless death is not ordained glory.”
What do you think of that?
TOM ROGAN, NATIONAL REVIEW/DAILY TELEGRAPH: Well, I wrote that. So, I stand by it.
My problem, I agree that we need to have a process that allows women and children who have been through the vetting. The vetting is difficult because there’s an access to databases, right, that we don’t know. But we should be able to have women and children, especially orphan children come here. That is American. That is important.
I would also say, though, that we need to see much more of a moral leadership from the United States instead of what we’ve seen up until this point, which is essentially to allow the Syrian conflict and hundreds of thousands of people to die. So, it has to be both sides. It has to be refugees, but it has to be a more comprehensive strategy that, as we see in Paris, we do not have.
PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR & COLUMNIST: Let me tell you what’s going to happen, John. As a result of this vicious atrocity in Paris, the countries of Europe are going to go very much to the right. Their doors have been wide open. They’ve got 45 million Muslims there, a million people coming in. That’s going to stop.
The E.U. is going to have a real problem. The Schengen Agreement, which allows free travel, is going to have a real problem.
But let’s go to Syria. What this is going to do after blowing up that Russian airliner, blowing up south Beirut, which is Hezbollah country, and in blowing up Paris, they’re going to force a coalition together which Obama can lead. But quite frankly, if he wants to lead when our Arab allies have been -- have no help whatsoever, he’s going to have to bring in the Russians, the French, the Iranians, and I think even Hezbollah.
And anybody that wants to pile on ISIS, I think ISIS could be defeated. I think one of the reasons of this attack is that it’s being pared down. It’s damaged. It’s being reduced and diminished where it is.
BUCHANAN: And I think there’s a real possibility to crush these guys right now.
MCLAUGHLIN: Is this a 9/11 moment in the fight against the Islamic State, Eleanor?
CLIFT: It may feel that way in Paris, and I think what we did learn this week is that ISIS has the capability to carry out organized attacks in the heart of Europe. And so, its nature is different. But the president was ridiculed for saying that ISIS has been rolled back in terms of the territory it’s been taking in Syria and Iraq.
And next week, President Hollande will meet with President Obama in the Oval Office, and I think you’re right. There is a coalition now of the aggrieved being formed, and Putin has been bombing the heck out of ISIS finally after he revealed that it is true that an ISIS bomb took down that airplane.
BUCHANAN: Well, the question -- to your question to Eleanor --
CLIFT: So, there’s a potential now for a diplomatic -- for a diplomatic resolution in Syria --
BUCHANAN: Sure, but look, the question is: are we going to allow the -- work with the Iranians, and work with Hezbollah?
BUCHANAN: And work -- I mean, these are the guys that are fighting. Our allies, the Saudis --
CLIFT: I don’t know about Hezbollah but --
PAGE: -- with the Iranians in Yemen actually. I mean, there’s --
BUCHANAN: But they’re bombing the Houthis with the French and the -- the Saudis are bombing the Houthis. They’re not bombing ISIS.
ROGAN: But this is the problem, though. If we could work with them in a realistic sense, there is more opportunity with the Russians if you can cut a deal. I suspect they’re only bombing ISIS at the moment --
BUCHANAN: You’re going to have to work with Assad, too.
ROGAN: -- to try to make the peace deal seem more realistic and to --
BUCHANAN: You’ve got to work with Assad, too.
ROGAN: The conflict will continue to worsen if you do not deal with Assad, and you challenge the reign (ph), because the Saudi monarchies are obsessed with Iranians. They clapped (ph) against each other.
BUCHANAN: Let the Saudi monarchy, those monarchies have done nothing. Let me tell you something, you’ve got the army of Syria and you got Assad in the south. The Turks have got an army of 500,000 in the north. They could be in Raqqa in two weeks if we all pulled together.
What they’re going to have to tell them is, we are not taking Assad down. We’re sorry, tell the Saudis, because they haven’t been any help at all in Syria.
ROGAN: And they’ll fund al Qaeda.
BUCHANAN: They fund al Qaeda.
ROGAN: Much more.
CLIFT: The alliance -- the alliance is between --
BUCHANAN: The Saudis are funding al Qaeda?
ROGAN: If we --
CLIFT: The alliances between Obama and Putin and the compromise is that Assad gets to stay for a period. He cannot stay. In fact, he is the source --
ROGAN: Right, exactly.
BUCHANAN: Who’s going to kick him out?
CLIFT: -- of the civil a war.
BUCHANAN: Who’s going to take him out?
ROGAN: The Russians will kick him out.
BUCHANAN: Who’s going to kick him? The Russians are with him. The Iranians are with him. All the guys fighting are fighting ISIS are with Assad, and Assad is fighting, and his army is fighting and we’re going to tell him to go? He ain’t gone yet.
PAGE: We don’t have anybody to replace him with, at least as far as somebody we know would be better than Assad. So, I suspect the Obama administration would just kind of live with Assad, like you say. The Putin alliance continues and they’ll be part of the coalition.
CLIFT: But you’ve got to get the rebels, the so-called moderate rebels, but all the rebels --
BUCHANAN: Moderate rebels? Have you found any?
ROGAN: Well, no --
CLIFT: All the rebels who are fighting ISIS. You’ve got to get them all to have some sort of a role in a transition.
CLIFT: It now looks possible.
BUCHANAN: This is the picture. If you talk about a war going on --
CLIFT: It’s not going to be easy, but it looks possible.
ROGAN: Let me get in. This is very, very important.
MCLAUGHLIN: Let the lad in, let the lad in.
CLIFT: Excuse me. And more military force and sending ground troops into the area is not the answer.
ROGAN: Well, it is the answer if you can send a limited number of special forces, more than we’ve sent at the moment. Squadron sizes to do airstrikes --
CLIFT: Nothing that what he’s already doing. That’s not changing the strategy.
ROGAN: Airstrikes (INAUDIBLE) is not what he’s doing.
But you could also -- you have the tribes in Anbar. Dulaimi tribe in Anbar, which joined with the Marines, very strong. ISIS has co-opted them, because we haven’t supported them, and they’ve had Iran on the other side.
In the Deir ez-ZOr, there’s another tribe there that’s been slaughtered. I watched a video earlier today before coming on, they’re cutting their heads off. So, they’ve backed down because they’re killing their families.
Those are Sunni Arab tribes that have an existing relationship with the United States, supported with U.S. Special Forces --
ROGAN: They could push the fight and re-appropriate the conflict in the name of Sunnis, thus reducing a lot of these tensions.
MCLAUGHLIN: OK. Obama’s strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Get this: speaking at a press conference on Monday, President Obama grew increasingly agitated as he was questioned about the effectiveness of his strategy against the Islamic State.
Just watch this:
REPORTER: Do you think you really understand this enemy well enough to defeat them and to protect the homeland?
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All right. So, this is another variation on the same question, and I guess, let me try it one last time.
The -- we have been fully aware of the potential capabilities of them carrying out a terrorist attack. That’s precisely we have been mounting a very aggressive strategy to go after them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: If President Obama’s counter Islamic State strategy is working, why do so many in the national security community believe it is not working?
CLIFT: Well, because we just had those attacks in Paris, I think, and the fact that they were able to operate in the heart of Europe is a shock. His strategy is working in the sense of reducing their territory in Iraq and Syria. But he needs to double down on what he’s doing and he needs to show a little more moral outrage.
And I think that’s what’s been missing -- because most of his critics, they call for this, that and the other thing. He’s already doing it. But he doesn’t grandstand. I mean, the notion that he would now go to Paris and address the Parisian people, that’s not who this man is.
He wants to keep this -- these are killers. He doesn’t want it to be a clash of civilizations. He’s trying to keep this in perspective. This is not an existential threat to America or to Paris.
BUCHANAN: But he has made mistakes. He’s made some mistakes and one of them is clearly, ISIS has now the same capability almost as al Qaeda used to have, which is it’s not only in Syria and Iraq. It’s killing people in Paris and in Beirut and in Ankara and blowing up airliners and things like that.
But the president -- I mean, I agree with Eleanor. Look, he was just diffident. His demeanor at that press conference was awful for him.
But he does have a point. We have taken Sinjar. We have cut the road between Mosul and Raqqa. You have -- Kobani has been defended. You’ve got the Kurds in the north of Syria, got almost the entire border with Turkey.
And if you had forces, ground forces there, you could bring down Raqqa, the center of this whole thing. In other words, he’s making progress and I think there’s a measure, I do believe there’s a measure of desperation in ISIS, which is why they’re going berserk.
ROGAN: The Islamic State is spreading, OK? Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, North Africa. It’s not just about Iraq and Syria. It is not working. He goes up there with this disdainful arrogance, almost pathological arrogance, and everyone sees it for it is.
PAGE: It’s working as far as he said it was going to work. He said it was going to be a long, hard slog, and that’s what’s been happening.
CLIFT: That’s right.
PAGE: But they have --
PAGE: Part of the reason why he doesn’t want to toot his own horn is that he’s afraid he’ll play into the ISIS narrative of the caliphate --
CLIFT: That’s right.
PAGE: -- which is that the great war is building, and we’re going to win and et cetera, et cetera.
CLIFT: They love drawing --
PAGE: It only attracts more recruits from overseas.
MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think he should appear before the French parliament?
PAGE: Well, it would be a nice --
MCLAUGHLIN: Barack Obama, French parliament?
PAGE: Well, that’s a grand dramatic gesture for the TV cameras, but I think that that’s not part of his strategy right now.
MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, really? You don’t think --
PAGE: I think he definitely should --
PAGE: -- showing up to honor the dead over there, which he did not do with "Charlie Hebdo." I think that’s an excellent idea.
PAGE: But he shouldn’t go before French parliament.
MCLAUGHLIN: "Charlie Hebdo" is not excellent idea --
PAGE: The excellent idea for him to go now to this funeral service after he missed the earlier ones.
MCLAUGHLIN: Pentagon is so lazy, forget "Hebdo."
CLIFT: The other --
PAGE: Well, that’s what -- I’m just saying, you complained about how he didn’t show up at the "Charlie Hebdo" service.
MCLAUGHLIN: No, I took note of it. He did not do it then.
PAGE: That’s a good reason for him to show up now, you know? At the same time though --
MCLAUGHLIN: It was regarded as a betise that he did not show up then.
PAGE: We’ll have it your way. Go ahead.
CLIFT: Yes, but the other point --
MCLAUGHLIN: But that’s not why he should have showed up now.
PAGE: Why not?
MCLAUGHLIN: Because the magnitude of the difference.
PAGE: Well, for the first time --
MCLAUGHLIN: This is an unbelievable horror.
PAGE: -- going to be as important as it was now, they have no excuse.
MCLAUGHLIN: We haven’t talked at all about Brussels.
CLIFT: If they invite him, he should go, obviously. I don’t know that that’s in the cards.
But the other point that he made is that, you know, we’re facing an enemy that if they’re willing to put on suicide vests, and this is very low-key operation. A couple of guns, the bombs weren’t even that central, most of the people were killed with bullets. They were in a half dozen places. This is really kind of really low tech, and, you know, people can do this.
And there’s not a whole lot we can do except strengthen our intelligence and --
PAGE: -- football arena on time, but they were late. They didn’t get inside. Thank God for that.
CLIFT: Yes. And to send more troops into one area when they’re doing all of these other things in all these other places is not the answer. And I think --
MCLAUGHLIN: Can we remind ourselves here that 129 civilians went out that evening in pursuit of happiness and returned home in coffins? Can we remind ourselves again?
PAGE: That’s what we’re talking about.
BUCHANAN: Well, we can, John, but one thing we do have to do, and I do agree with even the, quote, "intervention," you got to take down that Syria-Iraq central area there and clean those guys out of that. And that can be done.
The problem is, our Sunni Arabs are not putting up the troops. They should be doing the fighting. Not Americans from Indiana and Alabama.
MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think of their governors?
ROGAN: But how do you press them into action?
BUCHANAN: Well, if they’re not going to do it, work with the Iranians and work with Hezbollah and work with the Russians.
ROGAN: The Iranians don’t want to have Sunni empowerment.
BUCHANAN: The Iranians have guys -- the Iranians have guys in there. They’re willing -- why are our adversaries willing to fight and our friends aren’t?
ROGAN: Because they’re willing to. They want to take Syria back. They don’t want to have it, you know, a governing structure that balances these tensions, sectarian tensions.
CLIFT: Well, Turkey --
PAGE: You got to pay some dues.
CLIFT: Turkey and Saudi Arabia are key, and let’s see -- they may now have some more skin in the game, too.
MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Two: Cameron’s Crapshoot.
DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I promised the British people that if I was reelected as prime minister, we would have an in-out referendum and the final say on whether our national and economic security is better protected by remaining in the European Union, or by leaving.
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Prime Minister David Cameron outlines his vision for Britain’s E.U. European Union future. The stakes are high. Within two years, Britain will hold a referendum on whether to leave the E.U.
Mr. Cameron says he supports continued E.U. membership, but only if he can get four concessions from other E.U. leaders.
First, a guarantee that U.K. will be able to remind outside of the E.U.’s euro currency. Second, a reduction in E.U. regulations. Third, U.K. recovery of powers from the E.U. Fourth, new restrictions on access to welfare by E.U. migrants living in Britain.
Analysts believe Mr. Cameron will get what he is asking for. Still, he faces critics who say his reforms are insufficient.
MCLAUGHLIN: Are Prime Minister Cameron’s demands the beginning of a turning point for the E.U., whereby the trend toward centralization of power in Brussels ends and the flow of power back to the member states begin?
I ask you, Tom.
ROGAN: Yes, if that is the case. And it’s also the case for the reasons that, you know, we’ve mentioned, a lot on the panel in terms of the social frictions that you see across Europe and how national populations pushed back against that.
From the American point of view, I think it’s important that the U.K. stays in the E.U. because that gives us influence through the U.K. with the E.U., as U.K. is our closest ally.
But there is a lot of anger. And -- you know, one example I would use as to why this national populations are frustrated with the E.U. is where my mother is from, in southwest England, there’s a small bridge from the 12th century, unchanged from hundreds of years, but an E.U. regulation came and it said it had to be changed to allow for lorries, a special type of lorry, to go across, which never goes across. That angers an entire village in one moment on one issue and defines it.
CLIFT: Now, I think the dream of the United States of Europe where you have all of these open borders has taken a big hit obviously with these attacks, but also with the hundreds of thousands of immigrants, migrants, refugees streaming into these countries. So, I think they’ve temporarily closed their borders. But I think the U.K. still remains a part of the larger community. They still have their own currency, though, and they want to have some separation.
But I don’t see as the beginning of the end of the E.U. for --
BUCHANAN: I think there are a lot of --
MCLAUGHLIN: Is there a risk, Pat, that if Brussels accedes to Britain’s demands? You got that?
MCLAUGHLIN: You know what Brussels stands for?
MCLAUGHLIN: Brussels accedes to Britain’s demands. The bonds of the E.U. will weaken across Europe.
BUCHANAN: Sure, everybody will make similar demands on it.
Look, John, what is happening now overall is that transnationalism, which built the E.U., all the way from the European economic community, all the way from the common market. The transnationalism is no longer the dominant force.
Nationalism in Europe, all across Europe -- the Schengen Agreement, which allows people to move across -- and goods all over Europe, that’s under fire. People are rebuilding borders. People are putting up checkpoints.
I think the Brits, they’re going to get pretty much what they want. But I think what is going to happen is sort of a breakdown of Europe -- not the total collapse of the E.U., but you know, I think the southern tier quite frankly. They’re not going to forever take austerity imposed upon them by Germans. And so, they’re going to have to have a new deal.
But I think the process of decomposition and slow disintegration has begun.
PAGE: Well, one caveat I would say would be that Europe is suffering through economic travails right now, some countries being hit harder than others, and that makes a big difference in so far as how well they work together and how they secure they feel about their future.
I think Cameron is trying to hit a middle ground here really. He’s got people on the left and the right criticizing him for different reasons. And he’s trying to keep Europe – or keep U.K. in the E.U. without really changing the status quo that much.
BUCHANAN: He’s got to bring something back because they’re going to vote to leave.
PAGE: I doubt that they will, though, because they still have advantages by staying in the E.U.
PAGE: And I think he’s going to emphasize that.
MCLAUGHLIN: Do you know what they call this? Brinksmanship.
Issue Three: Dems Debate.
MCLAUGHLIN: In Des Moines, Iowa, Democratic Party presidential aspirants gathered last Saturday for a debate. On the platform were Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders. John Dickerson of CBS News moderated.
First up, a testy exchange over donors, special interests and banking reform.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, 30 bucks a piece. That’s who I’m indebted.
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, John, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
JOHN DICKERSON, MODERATOR: Governor, Secretary Clinton gets to respond.
CLINTON: He has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let’s be frank here.
SANDERS: No, I was not.
CLINTON: Oh, wait a minute, Senator.
You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I’m very proud that for the first time, a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent.
MCLAUGHLIN: Is Hillary Clinton in the pocket of big donors?
I ask you, Clarence.
PAGE: Thank you for asking. And I’d say no more than other candidates are, with exception of Donald Trump, who is a big donor to himself. But for the fact is, I mean, big donors do tend to give the most money, except Bernie Sanders has not been appealing to big donors, either.
But the thing is Hillary Clinton never really pinned Bernie down on this, but can he point to any point where her donors have influenced her vote? I mean, that’s really something that has not been proven, but it’s always charged.
CLIFT: Well, it’s a problem in the Democratic primaries, because progressives are worried about income inequality and they think if she’s a creature of Wall Street, she’s not going to deliver for them. I don’t think it will be a problem in November, and she needs the money from Wall Street.
I think the only mistake she made there was that she seemed to suggest that 9/11, her work during 9/11 is what endeared Wall Street to her. She seemed to politicize 9/11. You know, she got a lot of negative stuff on social media because of that.
MCLAUGHLIN: OK, Wall Street.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York, it was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.
So, you know, it’s fine for you to say what you’re going to say. But I look very carefully at your proposal, reinstating Glass-Steagall is a part of what very well could help. But it is nowhere near enough.
My proposal is tougher, more effective and more comprehensive because I go after all of Wall Street, not just the big bank.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGLIN: Many analysts think Hillary’s use of 9/11 as her way to justify here close ties to Wall Street was in bad taste and a major blunder. Are they right?
BUCHANAN: It was in terrible taste, John.
But I think the best line we haven’t seen it for the whole debate was when Bernie Sanders said that, you know, the climate change is directly responsible for terrorism.
CLIFT: No --
BUCHANAN: That was a winning line.
CLIFT: Well, he’s basically saying that drought --
BUCHANAN: The waters will rise and all the rest of it.
CLIFT: Well, no, that the drought in Syria contributed to some of their rebellions there. But I think his larger point is that the existential threat we face is not from terrorism. It’s from climate change. And he’s right about that.
MCLAUGHLIN: Do you know who Glenn Thrush?
ROGAN: Yes, "Politico" --
MCLAUGHLIN: Glenn Thrush.
ROGAN: "Politico’s" White House correspondent.
MCLAUGHLIN: OK. He called Hillary’s comments about Wall Street and 9/11, quote, "nuts." That’s crazy and indefensible.
MCLAUGHLIN: Is he right? Answer: he’s wrong, because no matter how nuts and indefensible a comment by Hillary might seem, Eleanor will find a way to defend it.
BUCHANAN: Well, John, let me just say that Hillary will have a problem with those contributors, if she runs against Trump, who thus far has not taken any money from big contributors at all, even small contributors. He’ll say, look, don’t tell me you haven’t been bought. I know this. I used to be part of the buying group.
CLIFT: Right, yes.
BUCHANAN: And it would really be -- it’d be a real cutting issue if Trump was the guy.
PAGE: Have you ever seen an election turned on the campaign donation issue?
BUCHANAN: It will help.
PAGE: Everybody talks about it. But it doesn’t sway a lot --
BUCHANAN: I agree, but it will help with some folks.
CLIFT: But Trump --
ROGAN: The only issue Hillary Clinton will have in terms of campaign finance if it comes out if there was collusion between the Clinton Foundation and when she was secretary of state. Otherwise, she’s just the same as every Republican --
PAGE: Some people will always hope, and always do.
ROGAN: But nope, would you agree? That is she’s not going to have an issue with getting Wall Street donations. Republicans do the same.
CLIFT: The right is still looking for Rosebud. But if Trump is the nominee, he’s going to have a lot of other problems with women, with African-Americans, with Hispanics, that I don’t think the donor inequality is going to be the big issue.
BUCHANAN: But Hillary might have a little problem with a failed foreign policy.
CLIFT: Let’s see what all the right wingers want in terms of an alternative.
BUCHANAN: Go ahead.
MCLAUGHLIN: OK, language war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: The critique is that the softness of language betrays a softness of approach. So, if this language, if you don’t call it by what it is, how can your approach be effective to the cause? That’s the critique.
MARTIN O’MALLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe calling it what it is to say radical jihadists. That’s to call it what it is.
DICKERSON: That phrase --
SANDERS: I don’t think the term is what’s important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or al Qaeda who do believe we should go back several thousand years, we should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted.
CLINTON: Historically, it is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: So, why shouldn’t we utter the words "radical Islam" when defining a terrorist group like ISIS?
BUCHANAN: Because of one-and-a-half billion Muslims in the world and they love the word "Islam." And if you put it in connection with terrorism and radical terrorists, some of them they feel who are good, decent Muslims would be offended by it.
MCLAUGHLIN: Mandatory prediction: concern that Paris-style terrorist attacks will take place here in the U.S., and that will give the Republicans a major boost in next year’s presidential election.
BUCHANAN: Probably already has.
CLIFT: Fear triumphs over hope.
PAGE: I’d say yes.
MCLAUGHLIN: I’ll say yes.