Special Report Online: 2/22
Should U.S. arm Syrian rebels?
- Duration 32:36
- Date Feb 22, 2012
Should U.S. arm Syrian rebels?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Welcome to another edition of special report on line I'm Bret -- if you haven't been here before welcome aboard this is a place you can type your questions and comments.
Interact with the panel.
It's a lot of fun little bit more relaxed.
Although the -- pretty relaxed -- -- it's it's kind of relaxed anyway welcome you can vote in sum up holes underneath here we'll have some votes throughout.
The half hour we have with you on the panel tonight Steve Hayes from weekly standard -- -- -- is with the Christian Science Monitor and Juan Williams.
With the -- we were.
Interrupted by some breaking news of Charlottesville and a verdict in that George you've leak case.
But we're going to talk about serious.
And the carnage that's happening on the ground there will start the online panel with that Steve.
It seemed like the administration for some time was considering.
A proposal to arm the rebels on the ground in Syria but good indication seemed like the White House is turning that down today.
What do we think is the real story yet you know I think I think -- -- and it's it's really hard to tell where the White House is which is itself I think a big problem -- the international community.
Doesn't know what the White House wants if we can't tell from listening to a day with the State Department -- this thing.
What Jay Carney is saying what our sources are saying if we don't know where the White House is.
You know one -- the Syrians on the ground thinking what are our potential international partners thinking what are the people we hope to persuade to be our international partners -- I think in that respect this is this and yet another step.
In what has become a picture of weakness from the administration on this question of Syria.
Nobody thinks this is an easy.
We know there's an easy answer here there's not a tremendously complicated question but if you go back to the beginning of the administration you look at that what was.
From the White House from the State Department overtures to aside for meetings and then we fast forward.
Two are sending an ambassador last -- got Hillary Clinton labeling them a reformer.
As late as march of 2011 after some of this have been happening any one step after another.
Trying and failing at the Security Council just a couple weeks ago.
Jay Carney spoke today -- needing one voice from the international community.
In order to solve this tremendously difficult problem I think the administration has not done -- that's been at the center of the problem.
-- grade pilgrim says.
Arming Syrian rebels that works so well for us in Libya and Egypt.
I think there's.
Mean the vote was a little telling tonight 6000 folks texting and there is some some.
Some weariness out there about where this goes.
Absolutely I mean as soon as Steve said it's a really complicated issue it's a complicated place the package that you ran.
Earlier tonight pointed out that compared to -- is denser.
There's people more heavily concentrated so anything you do is likely to incur more civilian casualties which is another hole.
The problem for the administration.
The chairman of the joint chiefs last weekend I thought had an instant party set but adding it's premature to take a decision to on the opposition movement in Syria because I challenge anyone to clearly identified for -- the opposition and in Syria.
And there's a whole range of opposition movements in -- some of which have al-Qaeda ties and it's just it's just a hornet's nest and so I think.
The administration is feeling its way.
We'll see if the publicity surrounding -- really tragic death of two western journalists today has any impact on moving the debate.
I may very well and it miss Sarkozy today came out and said -- think that he said that's -- after Genesco.
And and you know even just frankly -- you know did the Sunday Times which is that Mary Coleman.
-- for released her last piece outside -- the pay while today and and many many people I think are going to read and I urge everybody to go and it was just incredible.
On the ground reporting she she had this story about this -- -- she called it which was.
Basically a giant basement with hundreds of widows and children -- hold up trying to avoid the carnage and it's just didn't gut wrenching reporting and and she would not want to be the story obviously -- she was the type reporter who would never want to be the story but.
And she may move the story in some way.
Judith Miller has.
Longtime friend has a right up on foxnews.com.
Remembering her as well one Senator McCain.
Said just how could someone sit by and watch this massacre continuing.
-- without exploring and employing every option that we possibly can to stop.
Because it's a betrayal of the United States where we stand for -- what we believe in.
What about that mean.
At what point.
Does the Libya action.
Cause problems for the administration in Syria like the dichotomy between the two actions.
You know you you heard the president we're not gonna have mass graves in Libya we're not going to stand -- and yet the writings that we're seeing posted on the ground in Syria.
Not that the US wants to get involved in another war but if you're using the same standard -- used in Libya it would seem like this would require action.
Well I think that it's all contextual and of course once you say that it sounds went fishing and I think and invites you to -- the administration's not offering clear leadership and direction.
On a critical crisis at this moment but the fact is that in -- you have people like the Arab League -- had an international community.
That was willing to get involved and create a multinational effort to do something.
And to take.
The kind of investment the kind of risk that people are not willing to take in Syria now why is that it's because Syria has a patron patrons name is Iraq.
And a run.
Is about right now at the center of its own crisis with Israel so what you're talking about here.
It's a multi dimensional problem that could explode at any moment.
And you go in this area and you say oh yeah we're gonna help lead the rebels' first and foremost as listen as the quote from the general.
Are the -- -- al-Qaeda are we gonna be putting arms in the hands of al-Qaeda what kind of stupidity would that be.
This is what Republicans were saying about Libya what no but late in Libya didn't turn out to be true.
Didn't turn out to be true and in fact you had the Arab community willing to take an unprecedented risk in Libya.
Other -- as some Republicans not Republicans across the board OK but again.
You had an international community had an Arab community that was willing to take a stand that is not the case here so if the United States.
Is willing to go in and it again what are we doing exactly who are we fighting against and who are we fighting for.
You can say we're going on a humanitarian basis.
But even on a humanitarian basis which is I think what Senator McCain was -- to -- talking about American values.
You're asking us to not only knock down a side but then put ourselves in position -- nation building.
And I hate to be so crass -- to -- -- but there's not the political will in this country don't.
Heartland let me -- in chief intelligence correspondent Catherine -- we have run another story wanna bring.
To you but I want you to weigh in on on this discussion Catherine you've been listening to her about Syria.
Well there -- three elements I would really highlight I think first and perhaps foremost when you look at what happened in Libya.
You can make the argument that we tried to support the opposition -- the rebels in that country but what we actually have seen.
Is this someone who's really risen to the forefront there is someone called -- highs.
He's not a household name but he was a member of something -- the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Which was an al-Qaeda affiliate and he was someone who one time if I recall correctly was held by the CIA.
And there has been almost sanitizing of his history.
I would say in the mainstream media because he's now a very central player in Libya so that's kind of the fallout that we have there when you look at Syria.
I think you have to remember that in the last ten days we had what I felt.
Was pivotal testimony from the Director of National Intelligence James clapper where he confirmed publicly.
What people have been thinking privately.
Which is that al-Qaeda in Iraq has infiltrated the Syrian opposition -- only talk about.
Arming the opposition we're not only questioning who is the opposition but we also have to be questioning what kind of -- al-Qaeda in Iraq we'll take because my experience.
Is that when you look at al-Qaeda and these other extremist groups.
But you know terrorism is like water takes the path of least resistance and I would argue here that al-Qaeda has sees an opening.
In Syria I think at the behest of Ayman Al zawahiri too is you were called Brett.
Had a recent message where he could be encouraged its followers to support the uprising in Syria and I think just final point is that you also have to see.
That now the Director of National Intelligence is saying publicly that there is an alliance between al-Qaeda and Iran and this is something -- has never been publicly stated before the conventional thinking.
Is that one is Sunni and won -- -- and that they can't work together but now we have the top intelligence advisor saying they are working together and when asked specifically.
If Iran might use Al qaeda's sort of as a proxy or an insurance policy against -- -- from the west or from Israel he said -- they believe that may be the case.
Yeah I mean what about this thing they want talked about essentially a three dimensional chess game here because so much to Syria and Iran are so linked and you have.
The chairman joint chiefs going around Israel you have Tom -- on the national security advisor then you have.
Clapper heading over to Israel and this is just a couple weeks ahead of the Israelis coming to the US it's not like we're not want to see them soon.
You might hit my assessment and his face and a conversation I have with someone on the hill who is familiar with the intelligence picture is that if there was.
An important public statement it was when the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that he believed.
Israel might attack Iran in April may or June.
And what this congressional source said to me is that here's the headline Panetta doesn't actually -- He believes and there wasn't a time that not that long ago where we were in lockstep with the Israelis and we would have had that kind of information.
But it seems the Israelis are not sharing that kind information with us so I believe but we're seeing right now and I think your point is very well taken Brett.
Is that we are publicly telling me Israelis that we are backing them in a very open and obvious way for sending all of our top advisors there.
We have the president also coming here just continued to have this meeting.
At the white has so we are trying to reassure them and I think it has the sense.
That at the expression goes of course is already -- from the barn the Israelis have made a decision.
I was told last year when the president call to go back to the pre 1967 borders.
That was I was twelve the breaking point for the Israelis and they felt they had to take things Paterson to.
-- I want I want to get to the -- sure but couldn't it also be that the message is hey don't do this right now I mean yes we support you but.
Maybe now's not the right time well at net at that if it was easy to do I would argue the Israelis we've already done it.
Yeah I and that's -- that's my own assessment based on what I know and the other thing too is that this same congressional source said to me that they had a meeting with one of the heads.
Of the an -- of intelligence agencies didn't identify who it was but said to him.
If you were king for a day what would you want and he said I would like you to explain to me what you're administration's policy is in the Middle East.
Because none of us know what it is and we don't understand it.
And even if we don't agree with it if we knew it -- we could -- against it.
So we don't even know what it is so there is a sense of of disarray and I think that maybe what we're seeing with these travels overseas.
-- a little bit of a manifestation of that almost employing the Israelis not to act.
Yeah Richard in New York says they're trying to get President Obama and prime minister Netanyahu on the same page before the visit.
But that won't happen Israel sees the window closing on an attack.
Okay the illegal immigrant charged with -- -- the suicide bombing of the US capitol.
In federal custody because he's still a threat to public safety.
That was the ruling today what what about this and and the targets of military target.
It's thank you for asking that this is story that we broke on fox last -- it's alleged this man was planning attempting suicide operation on the capitol.
But they're really two headlines for -- number one.
It to my knowledge this is only the second case and it's actually this year where we've had someone living inside the United States who wants to -- to the kind of attack.
We've always felt has been synonymous with the Middle East.
That's a very important threshold that we seem to be crossing.
And number two it's another example of someone who wanted to target the US military specifically her in the United States.
Much has been made about Al Khalifa his desire to hit the capitol building but not a lot estimated the fact that his first choice.
Was to bomb a building in suburban Washington that house the military.
Then he talked but targeting army generals many talked about turning a restaurant in Washington DC that was popular with the military.
And what we've seen in the last two years is -- 70% of the cases targeting the military has happened in that timeframe so there's been this.
Huge spike of cases and the common thread in these cases is that these individuals really believe.
This false narrative on the web.
That our country and our government is at war against their religion.
And so they feel that these military personnel who are in harm's way overseas are legitimate targets when they could once they come back to this country -- Yes church and Catherine thank you very moderate -- giants Coca.
Let's -- on Iran one time down panel here.
What about that Steve I -- is the administration sending the message.
Go -- go what are they sending you know I've I've had an infection almost the opposite.
Impression with all their public messages and they're very clearly saying we don't want you to do this we think the time is not now we are not.
Supporting you if you do this right now on the question I think would be.
If there if Toronto went ahead and did it anyway because of -- it's sense I mean if Israel went ahead and get anywhere because it.
Its sense of its own vulnerabilities.
How would the administration react we talked about on the panel on Monday night he and you know.
I think there were different views on that panels and some -- thought that the administration would have to because of a longstanding ties between Israel and the United States.
And dep support when there's addition there's a we have a defense pact with Israel as soon we will have we will.
-- view if you are ever -- -- a counterattack by Iran would require the United States in the view of some.
To step in and support Israel others myself included I'm not so sure that the United States -- do that I'm not so sure that the Obama administration would be drawn into.
Any kind of a war if Israel did this because of the fact that the administration has been so outspoken.
-- about its desire not to have this happen.
-- a lot of Catherine Herridge fans -- typing -- we we think she's great to.
Agnes says stop saying and -- rock and attempted that bombing on the capital he is an Islamist.
Be brave enough to say that.
We did point out that.
Evidence that he was.
Being attracted to radical Islam we did point that out in the report -- -- what about on Iran what.
What what we're hearing here.
I -- I was gonna say I I would agree with Steve but I would be in the camp of people who think that the administration should Israel act would feel like they had to.
Publicly support them that we were we -- in this bed together but I think they are sending.
What ever signaled they can to try to get them not to act.
Right now I think to me that was that that was the take a way of Panetta's.
The statement that you know why on earth would he say that unless he was really China sent a signal that if they're not okay with us.
But I think I think -- -- to happen.
At the Obama administration does not want to be the administration that publicly breaks with Israel it.
And steps it happened.
By the way.
I should point out that Charles Krauthammer is going to be back tomorrow night have a lot of messages here he was out of town for a few days on the speech he's fine.
He'll be back tomorrow no offense you -- that you're in that seat but apparently it's Charles seat I can't have anybody else there.
Besides god bless yeah that's.
And -- Charles he is the one who said on this very panel that he thought there was nine -- -- 95%.
Possibility or likelihood that.
Israel would attack Iran before the election.
I don't know what he's thinking there I mean the the hope would be that they don't and I think you know from what I'm hearing it's a lot like.
What we're hearing that the reason the administration officials are going over there is to reassure the Israelis that the United States has.
The same concerns that they have about Iran.
Emphasis is a little different tonight that and when I'm hearing here on the panel because the -- saying what -- they're telling Iran they're telling Israel not to do it.
There's simply saying to Israel make let's make sure that we don't find ourselves in a situation where much like what we saw in Iraq.
Where we think that oh gosh they have started developing nuclear weapons and it turns out that they haven't.
Let's make sure that we know exactly what the intelligence is on the ground -- they're not sitting on the other side of the missiles correct.
-- there's no other is said to have a nuclear weapons program Norton may have -- of what they have not start the questions have they started work.
On producing a nuclear weapons.
And what you're what the United States intelligence officials are hearing from the Russians and the Chinese who were called voted against -- -- the UN Security Council is.
There is no.
Weapon in existence and no start on such work.
And I think that's create and pray I'm sorry that -- -- -- bit crazy that's crazy to say that there's been no.
Start on work towards a nuclear weapon.
You can start to produce the weapons the -- that even -- he -- even the even.
Basically set everything up so that if they wanted a break -- capacity or crawl out capacity depending on what language you want -- use.
They have it.
He's he's said they haven't made the decision.
To put it all together that's what we're -- now but but.
They've been at work on a nuclear weapons program.
There's no question about it we're kind of nuclear weapons program they have the president of the United States and I was gonna say the difference between -- beginning work to produce nuclear weapons and saying that you have facilities are scientists are all the rest.
We have an ongoing war basically with Iran I mean let's just cut them.
The assassinations of those scientists the bombings that we've all known -- been taking place.
That's that's -- that the Saudi ambassador's live here and all that in the US Iranians.
-- -- goes -- -- restaurant saying the United States and Israel already at war with Iraq I would also point out that it's been you know needs a decade of a -- -- sponsored attacks on US military personnel and US interest.
Overseas correct in Afghanistan in Iraq so now -- know that you know we come back global sponsorship of al-Qaeda we come back to what we were discussing at the three dimensional chess game because now we're back with Syria.
Because they are serious sponsor and they are to my mind responsible for the deaths that we are seeing the kind of oppression rank oppression that's being exerted by that.
-- authoritarian regime so.
Last thing on this you know the defense minister and Israel Ehud Barack said in -- speech last week.
That waiting until later could be too late.
If you live in Tel Aviv.
And so that was the message that you know how where is the window where do we wait until if you're an Israeli.
Until -- you know like until they do have the bomb.
So that's that's I just about you were -- and the United States government isn't mincing it's words the way that it has been suggested.
We but you don't Dempsey was very clear on Sunday.
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff he said it would be a bad idea to do this and to do this right now right -- -- at that point half.
If you if you see an enemy that is about as -- -- a message as the US government can possibly -- so I don't understand.
Arguments that suggests that we're going to show support that's just.
-- is -- tennis match I didn't -- I do -- do go to the next -- which 82% of the people say should be gas prices.
And that is.
That -- it kind of dovetails into this conversation because if there is obviously.
Any kind of Israeli attack on Iran gas prices go through the roof.
There were already heading up.
They now give you 101000 dollar credit.
Up from 7500.
What do you think and now there's of this talk want or -- rather about the president.
Democrats are calling for him to use the strategic petroleum reserve stroke.
To bring down gas prices yet again he did that last year you may remember.
One about that.
I mean that I feel like this gas prices is a movie that we see over and over and over ten and it never really changes.
But movie and it's an election year and it is something that does move the political you know if people really start feeling.
Pinch I think.
-- right now the administration and you know there's a sense that that everything is so volatile and it's being influenced filed a stuffed with Iran and -- it's too soon to do anything dramatic because we don't really know that this is going to.
Sat in for the long haul.
But you know that we get into the summer and he's up against a clear opponents and it didn't really becoming.
Clear that that that this is higher gas prices are here stay for -- and yet they might go ahead into that because it is certainly something that.
People and we'll vote on because it affects the way they feel about the economy.
Wayne writes in one's cool wrong a lot but cool.
Okay yeah I would actually editing that is precisely how I say -- on -- -- -- -- I never thought I'd never.
We're not so I don't know -- -- One difference is gonna give an energy speech tomorrow.
In he pledged on the campaign trail when -- Senator Obama and in speech after he became president that within ten years the US would no longer import oil.
Overseas -- -- from the Middle East -- ten years so we are.
It has ticked down the percentage that the US is importing it was 60% I think in 2005 something like 45.
What what do you think the administration is going to do about this are they gonna tap the strategic -- -- Petroleum reserve.
I think there's lots of opposition to that I know -- really easy answer would be.
Yes -- -- -- reserve because it will open the floodgates and it ameliorate the higher cost of gasoline in the United States and short term.
In the short term but the fact is that if you are about.
Going at something like.
Well increasing oil reserves and -- an oil and natural gas.
From provisions here in the United States.
You could be doing something there's also arguments about whether or not the oil companies.
Which are enjoying record profits and their employees and in doing -- especially executives record compensation.
Why are they shipping so much oil and gas overseas at this point to widening middle class markets in China India Brazil.
But on the flip side when you pull these subsidies Steve you're also pulling these subsidies for independent drillers and if you're ultimate goal is to.
Drill more and to use more US.
Then no the big guys don't take the hit it's the small independent guys that do yeah I I think that's exactly right it looked very.
We're we're seeing higher.
Gas prices higher prices at the -- basically for two reasons what you've all talked about what's going on.
In the region I think that sometimes Republicans -- Don't acknowledge that fact enough I mean it's clear that that unrest over there has -- -- to speculation that's not been healthy for for our.
Our oil markets here on the other hand.
The administration has undertaken a set of policies that I think have also contributed.
To rising gas prices and you know I know I -- snicker when when you read the email about the administration wanting gas prices higher.
We met actually something that Steven Chu said back in September of 2008 he said we need to find a way just before it was in the Obama administration.
We need to find a way to get gas prices in United States to the levels that they are in Europe I mean.
It is part of the strategy of some who believe in Green energy and the way that senator Santorum said was theological.
To raise gas prices so that you push people in another direction to use energy.
Look at I don't agree with that philosophy I think it's gonna come back to bite them and I do you think if they try to tap the strategic petroleum reserve.
The summer people are gonna be saying why aren't you allowing us to do more here right in particular Republicans we'll talk about keystone rim nation -- David -- makes that point great take our strategic reserve would leave the other oil in the ground -- there are some here.
Calling for an energy specific debate for the GOP tonight -- be another GOP debate energy will likely come up.
What about setting the table for that as -- our final minutes here.
And what potentially who has the most to lose.
In this exchange.
Among the GOP candidates tonight and I think energy is a good issue for the Republicans and I think it's one that they will want to focus on once -- Chosen a candidate to go up against Obama.
I don't know that it's going to be the dominant issue unless gas prices just get really crazy and I did want to say.
To Steve's point that yes it certainly there are many on the left who who want to move this country.
Up towards different types of fuel and who believe that the group that the only way ultimately to do that is through.
Higher gas prices but I would not say the amount administration's policies right now are specifically.
But trying to do that in a -- -- -- -- -- No I mean they don't want that that's not an -- right now that would be political suicide and they know that so there's not there's not an effort right now -- on the part of the administration to make gassed his -- hot right but right now is the operative phrase there well -- right now I don't.
I don't know -- there's ever going to be -- that's one of those things where it hasn't on the left to really would love to have that happen in theory but I cannot imagine.
You know unless circumstances really change -- just can't imagine.
At a president going in and and being willing to take back his -- It's just too hard to but the but the literally the person who is running the Energy Department.
The secretary of energy said that the United States needs to find a way to raise gas for.
I think people believe -- -- between the talks about I mean it's it's it's and it's not an -- usually writes many people are longer battery yeah.
I never many people around yeah different -- it's not a political you know it's not purely political around his -- So let's -- we can say somebody could say that if the president wins reelection that then he would not be tied by the reelection prospects and thereby would maybe do something to raise -- -- -- this -- is not political in fact.
Mitt Romney raise taxes on gas in Massachusetts while governor again with the same intent trying to decrease American dependence on foreign oil that's part of an argument that's both Republican and Democrat.
It's not just it's not just keystone and if you look at the kinds of new regulations that have put up have been put on the oil industry broadly speaking.
I think both so he can make a political argument but also if you look at the effects that doesn't happen.
There's no question that those have contributed to higher gas prices and -- -- -- right now the -- right now is instability in the Middle East highly decorated Q what do you mean how do you separate I.
I would be rather magnanimous by saying Republicans don't spend a lot of time talking about these -- textual.
Or environmental issues in the Middle East and I think that's part of the reason here.
But I can't say that that's the only reason and that -- administration's policies have nothing I'm doing.
At the moment -- I'm -- an iPod that's.
Thank you well maybe there's -- -- yeah.
Okay go ahead go right.
I think it whether it is nibbling around the -- is actually effective at all or whether it just contributes to kind of you know more of the same with slightly higher gas prices as opposed to may need -- just ripped -- band -- -- and had like really high gas prices and maybe we would.
The in a better place and you know some years now there -- about.
Anybody to have I think it's not going to happen within just a theoretical argument that academics like to -- but.
The using US resources and every way shape and form that you can seems to be attractive on both sides of the but yet actually doing it.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But what I'm saying -- is when they jump on this issue what are they saying to American consumers we don't believe that the Obama administration is doing enough in terms of drilling.
And exploration right here at home we should have built the XL pipeline.
And the Obama administration the briefings has been saying you know what.
Oil production natural gas production the United States if at the highest point right now in sixteen years -- you know there's a lag that's because of the permanent English I don't know why it's -- back.
-- it's not because of anything that they've done voluntarily -- we're gonna field and they White House also said this week that it was Republicans who who.
Really put the hammer on keystone and that it was the Republicans moved to put a deadline on this that forced the State Department right but that -- -- I would and that's that's the current Republican that you would say -- -- -- do with this was the governor of Nebraska who initially was opposed -- on environmental grounds because of the -- harper and then that allowed the administration I think.
Then to fall back into a political game where they were able to please the environmental supporters who were soaking in terms of campaign contributions are my staff is saying the clock is ticking I want to go down the -- really quickly to tonight's debate.
You know 26 -- -- -- better show up I mean you talk about who has the most to lose in this deal I don't think there's any question it's Romney it's all about Michigan if even I -- -- you've got to win by one vote he's just got to win.
In Michigan period.
And I think I actually think the pressures in the -- and -- tonight because this is going to be the first to date that -- had where he is.
Gonna be perceived as something of -- front runner or more pseudo front runner and he's going to have to Wear that.
-- he's gonna have to -- assume that's slightly different persona than he has in previous debates.
And it's going to be really interesting to see he's been under attack today because of the -- comments that.
All of that he's really going to be I think the focus of this debate more than Romney.
And then I would also say you know.
You finish will be -- we haven't seen her tribute -- not at all recently and this is a chance for him to try and insert himself and I -- expect him to do that minute and a -- colorful fashion yeah.
For the guy who says that he's the best -- out there would be the best debater against President Obama he had to.
Arguably pretty lousy debates in Florida you can -- acknowledges that he lost one of them and I think he said he tied.
The other one so I think -- anywhere did you think he's the most interesting guy and I'm then did -- stage tonight.
But less because of the likely implications for his own candidacy and more because of what it'll mean for either Rick Santorum.
Or or a Mitt Romney he's -- well.
Look beat him we said that before I'm not anything I say that it and it's I -- our erosion in that event for her but if you can even if if Newt Gingrich decided that his target tonight is Rick Santorum rather than Mitt Romney that will mean that Rick Santorum is essentially fighting.
The other three candidates on the stage Ron Paul has been a Mitt Romney proxy.
In terms of leveling his arguments -- Romney's chief opponent.
From easy to do it himself and if Gingrich piled on that'll make a very difficult night for example -- from Colorado says breath let my people go home.
-- had represented in the staff okay -- you've got it.
We're gonna wrap it up there that's this edition of special report on line we'll see you next Wednesday this same time control and we have a camera control this video.
We'll see you.