Fringe Pastor Has Change of Heart About Burning Koran
The Fox News, September 09, 2010
Alireza Jafarzadeh, Foreign Affairs Analyst and Iran Expert
Special Report With: Bret Baier
Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Charles Krauthammer
This is a rush transcript from "Special Report With Bret
Baier," September 9, 2010. This copy may not be in its final
form and may be updated.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a recruitment bonanza for Al
Qaeda. You know, you could have serious violence in places
like Pakistan or Afghanistan.
REV. TERRY JONES, DOVE WORLD OUTREACH CENTER: The American
people do not want the mosque there, and of course, Muslims
do not want us to burn the Koran. The imam has agreed to
move the mosque, we have agreed to cancel our event on
Saturday. And on Saturday I will be flying up there to meet
with him.
BRET BAIER, ANCHOR: Pastor Terry Jones announcing that they
will not have a Koran burning this Saturday to mark the 9/11
anniversary. Defense Secretary Robert Gates actually called
the pastor of this church of 50 congregates this afternoon
urging him not to do it because men and women in uniform
would be at risk.
And then he came out and said he wouldn't do it, but also
said the mosque in New York is going to be moved, something
that the supporters up there say is not going to happen, at
least not yet.
The first reaction we had was former governor Sarah Palin,
Fox News contributor, tweeted just a moment ago, "book
burner stands down -- good. Now followers of book who want
to kill innocents because some people do things you don't
agree with, stand down." Only reaction so far.
Let's bring in our panel, Jonah Goldberg, at-large editor of
The National Review online, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor
of The Hill, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.
Jonah, what's your take on Reverend Jones' announcement?
JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: I think it's
becoming ever more clear that Reverend Jones is a couple
fries short of a happy meal. But you have to admit, it's
good news that he's not doing this. Everybody condemns it,
everyone should condemn it. Nobody should be burning Korans
anywhere.
But I'm feeling an odd sort of outrage at the way this
debate has turned out and a lot of sympathy for an unlikely
person, Ari Fleischer. Remember the incredible debate we had
when Ari Fleischer said shortly after 9/11 that we should
watch what we say in this country when a congressman said
something bigoted and Bill Morris said something stupid?
Frank Rich said that was a more significant event than 9/11
itself. It would set this chilling effect, we were told. The
terrorists have won because we're clamping down on free
speech.
And now we are we've got the secretary of defense calling a
minister telling him not to do this. We have the White House
saying in effect that you know, if we let this guy do it,
the terrorists will win and kill more people. Those kinds of
arguments with considered absolutely beyond the pale when it
came to free speech issues for 8 years under Bush, but now
suddenly it's a perfectly fine argument to make.
It was a perfectly fine argument then too, but now all of a
sudden it's now all right to make it.
BAIER: A.B., the administration argues if it saves one life
it's worth the phone call. They say things were heating up
overseas just by the talk of this burning. That said, this
phone call, you know, to one pastor with 50 congregants,
who's to say if there aren't ten other pastor with 100 other
congregates who are going to get the same idea?
A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE HILL: It really doesn't
matter how much parishioners they have. If they get an idea
like this and it's going to makes news around the world and
be the subject of large in some cases violent protests in
Afghanistan, Indonesia, and other places, and merit a
warning like we heard from General Petraeus that this puts
our men and women in uniform in danger in those places.
I think the fact that the administration inserted itself
into this was absolutely necessary, and I don't understand
anyone criticizing them for doing so. These people are going
to get a microphone and get themselves on cable no matter
what. And if this indeed becomes a danger and a threat, I
don't see why the State Department and the Department of
Defense and the president of the United States, when asked
about it, cannot share their displeasure as Sarah Palin or
anybody else.
BAIER: OK, just an ABC talked to the imam in New York with
the proposed mosque, he says that he's glad the Pastor
Jones, this is Imam Rauf, he's glad that pastor Jones
decided not to burn any Korans.
However, I have not spoken with him. I'm surprised by their
announcement. We're not going to toy with our religion or
any other, nor are we going to barter. They are saying
there's no deal to move the proposed mosque in New York near
ground zero. What about that whole thing?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, now we know
that Jones was right. The man is a kook and a crank and,
obviously, delusional. He needs counseling, and not the
spiritual sort, I say this as a medical authority on these
conditions, and I think he's gotten infinitely more
attention than he deserves.
I think the real outrage was the interview that Imam Rauf
gave earlier this week in which he said that --
BAIER: Last night.
KRAUTHAMMER: Last night -- I think you've got some tape of
it, I could say to myself. He said if we don't do this right
-- that means not handling the mosque issue, meaning if you
force me to move it -- anger will explode in the Muslim
world and Americans could be hurt.
Now, either the man is excessively naive or that is an act
of blackmail, out and outright blackmail. He's saying,
unless I get my way on this issue, there are Muslims out
there, I'm the moderate and they're of course extreme, but
they will act in the name of me and of my religion and we'll
attack Americans.
Now, I don't think that's the way to argue about this issue.
There have been a lot of arguments on the mosque. I've been
in a lot of them. It's about freedom of expression, it's
about rights, it's about decency and sanctity. It's not
about the fear of attacks on us if America acts the wrong
way. That's not the way it ought to be done, and I think
it's disgraceful that he plays that card in this debate.
And if you want to believe he's naive, he said himself as
well that had he imagined any of this would happen, he would
not have had the idea of the mosque in the first place.
Well, now that he knows, he ought to stop threatening that
Muslims around the world are going to attack Americans
unless he gets his way.
BAIER: Jonah, he also said that the anger could be much
bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis which resulted in
attacks on Danish embassies, obviously, in various parts of
the Muslim world.
GOLDBERG: I agree with Charles entirely that that aspect was
outrageous, but I think he compounds the outrageousness of
it, because also in the interview he says what I'm trying to
do is take back the debate from the extremists on both
sides.
And in his formulation of it, he essentially says that the
peaceful democratic protesters who have already conceded
that they have a right to build the mosque are the same, are
the moral equivalent of the extremists who are going to kill
people in all these Muslim countries around the world.
It is an absolute category error. It's a more than apples
and oranges, it's a repugnant way of framing things, to
somehow say that the democratic opponents of this thing in
the United States can be equated with the violent Muslim
extremists around the world.
And these kinds of debates are never going to end as long as
we have YouTube, this is going to be coming around, and we
might as well figure how to deal with these things.
BAIER: A.B., quickly, Donald Trump saying he wants to offer
more money to try to get this thing to move. Everybody is
getting in this thing.
STODDARD: This isn't -- it's just, you know, I can't stand
this story. It's not going to end well. I think both sides
are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. And so, it's
like I said, it's not going to end well.
I do think if you look at this Koran burning story combined
with the mosque debate, and you look at what we're doing
overseas, what we're doing in Afghanistan, tripling down
there in the ninth year of a war, trying to stabilize a
Muslim country, we're trying to win their hearts and minds.
And what they see over here undermines our sacrifices there,
and that's how I feel about both incidents.
BAIER: OK, up next, Iran's previously secret uranium
enrichment facility and the promised release of an American
prisoner. Check out our website as well.
ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, "THE IRAN THREAT" AUTHOR: There's this
huge underground site built under the tunnels, huge casket
halls underground, Tehran secret uranium enrichment program,
certainly not for peaceful purposes. This is a serious
revelation far greater than the revelation in the site at
Qum near Tehran.
GEOFF MORRELL, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: I don't know how valid
they are. I don't know that it would necessarily be
surprising that there are. We've long talked there being
multiple sites that are of concern to us.
BAIER: And this is the site, satellite photos of a site
about 80 miles west of Tehran. Running Exiles, a group
revealed in 2002, the Natans facility the uranium enrichment
facility that really caught U.S. intelligence off guard back
then pointing to these pictures today of a complex series of
tunnels built in the side of a mountain where they say the
military in Iran has moved forward with a nuclear facility
underground and very protected.
What about all of this, Iran policy and where we are today?
We're back with the panel. Charles?
KRAUTHAMMER: I find remarkable the reaction of the State
Department spokesman which we just saw in which he says,
well--
BAIER: Defense Department.
KRAUTHAMMER: I'm sorry, Defense Department. "We're not
surprised. It's another site of concern." This is
unbelievable how the placidity of the language being used
here. This is another piece of undeniable evidence that Iran
is pursuing a bomb, and we persist in all of our statements
about speaking about the ambiguity, is Iran living up to its
obligations, is it honoring the IAEA requirements? Of course
it's not. Every sentient adult in the world knows that.
And we pretend that it's all a matter of speculation and
ambiguity. The reason that we are doing that and denying the
importance of this huge underground site, which could be
extremely useful in developing a bomb, is because it would
make the administration have to face reality, i.e., either
go for huge, very strong sanctions, probably unilateral,
we're not going to get the Russians and the Chinese in on
this, but American and western, or seriously at least
threatening or talking about a military attack.
And if you want to be multi-lateral about this, bringing in
the French -- the president of France has spoken about how
unacceptable a bomb is - or the UAE -- the ambassador has
said it's unacceptably worse Iran having a bomb than attack
on Iran, and have a meeting of high level Americans, French,
UAE and others who would say this is unacceptable and at
least a military option ought to be considered.
That is what we at least ought to be thinking about and stop
speaking in these very, very soft and absurd terms about the
Iranian program.
BAIER: At the same time, the Iranian regime today announced
it will release one of the three American hikers charged
with espionage there. Sarah Shourd is supposed to be
released early hours on Saturday. There you see her
September 11th, which is also the Muslim holiday Eid.
That aside, A.B., the Iran policy decisions that Charles is
talking about, what about the administration, what lies
ahead?
STODDARD: Well, obviously, the question of a military strike
and that coming from Israel looms at this -- looming soon.
The administration, when the latest IAEA report came out
basically saying that Iran continues it's complete blockade
of the inspectors and will not divulge information with
regard to any of the processes by they are creating a
nuclear weapon, the administration said that they continues
-- the United States implying unprecedented and growing
international pressure as long as Iran continues on its
path, its leaders will deepen its isolation.
The question now is, what is isolation to Iran? Just because
the Chinese may not be selling as much refined gasoline to
them as before, they are still continuing well on the way.
The report about this facility shows it's not only well
protected in terms of placement in the mountain side to
fortify itself against aerial strike, but it's well-funded,
and the secrets are being kept.
And then you look at the fact that they have infiltrated the
Afghan government in order to pay off the Taliban to kill
U.S. soldiers there. They're doing well with all of their
goals. So, what does isolation mean?
BAIER: Quickly.
GOLDBERG: I think there is an other-worldly aspect to all of
this. The country is war weary. Obama has no interest in
doing anything with any steel to it. And we have a report
this week, as A.B. just mentioned from the Times of London
saying that the Iranians are paying the Taliban bounties of
$1,000 a head for American bodies. That should alarm people
and give us a sense of the nature of the regime.
Alireza Jafarzadeh is a FOX News Channel Foreign Affairs
Analyst and the author of "The
Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear
Crisis" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
Jafarzadeh has revealed Iran's terrorist network in Iraq and
its terror training camps since 2003. He first disclosed the
existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the
Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.
