Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Hezbollah Confirms Hassan Nasrallah Killed In Israeli Strike; What It's Like To Debate And Vance And Walz. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired September 28, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:25]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news in the Middle East, Hezbollah confirming leader Hassan Nasrallah is dead. Israel saying this morning his death a result of Friday's airstrike in southern Beirut. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. The conflict escalating even more this morning, Israeli airstrikes have targeted 140 Hezbollah sites in Beirut, including weapons storage and missile facilities embedded beneath civilian buildings. That's according to the IDF.

The strikes are part of an ongoing campaign by Israel to degrade Hezbollah military capability. The Lebanese government responding to the widespread destruction, calling for intervention on an international basis. The country has recorded more than 100,000 people have been displaced by the conflict. Authorities claim that number is actually much higher. Our Chief National Security Analyst Jim Sciutto in Tel Aviv with the very latest.

Jim, tell us first, who was Hassan Nasrallah.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Hassan Nasrallah was a defining figure in Hezbollah and the region for more than three decades, leading the terrorist organization going back to 1992 and remaking it over the course of that time into a formidable force, certainly with Iran's help with many 10s of 1000s of rockets and missiles aimed here at Israel. He is central, was central to this group, and like the bombs that we saw strike yesterday, this attack is earth shaking for Hezbollah, and I think one can say as well for Iran, given how central Hezbollah is to Iran's exercise of power against Israel, but also in this region. Of course, the questions now, Michael, are, how does Hezbollah respond? Can it retaliate credibly, given the devastating attack, not just killing their leader, but you remember those pager attacks on many 1000s of Hezbollah operatives, as well as attacks on their weapons storage facilities. Can it retaliate credibly?

Will Iran feel that it must attack to show its strength and to respond for this? And then, of course, Israel making preparations, it seems, at least, for the possibility of a ground operation inside southern Lebanon. It hasn't given that order, but it is at least building the forces on the northern border to do so.

SMERCONISH: How will the news be received in the White House, given that the Biden administration, along with American allies, have been pushing for a cease fire?

SCIUTTO: Michael, this is the second major cease fire effort led by the U.S. with the significant investment of diplomatic capital, of course, the one in Gaza to have a cease fire there, get those hostages back, or at least some of those hostages back, and now this 21 day cease fire they were seeking in the north. In both cases, the impression from the White House is that Benjamin Netanyahu, at least, was not sufficiently interested in or supportive of those efforts, at worst, was standing in the way of getting those agreements across the finish line. And I think that informs what I was hearing last night, as were several of my colleagues from the White House, a deliberate and quite public effort to put distance between the U.S. and this Israeli strike, making quite clear, one, the U.S. was not involved. And two, it didn't know about it. In fact, only got notice of the coming attack once the jets were in the air. I think it's a very difficult point in the relationship, certainly between Biden and Netanyahu, and arguably in the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

SMERCONISH: When Iran was last in a position where it felt necessary to respond to Israel, it was almost as if it was choreographed, right? The Iron Dome was able to successfully intercept virtually everything that was fired. To me, Jim, lacking your knowledge and expertise, it almost seemed as if Iran was doing as much as it needed to do to save face, but not to trigger an escalation. First of all, what's your reaction to my characterization? And might we see that again this time?

SCIUTTO: I think it's a fair one, Michael, and there has been the impression among some in this region, but also in the White House, that Iran has not been jumping to retaliate in significant form because it does not, at least now at this point, want a broader war with Israel, or one in which the U.S. gets involved. It fears the loss of its facilities, particularly its nuclear facilities.

That said, there's also another question. You'll remember the strike in April, as you referred to with many dozens of missiles and drones fired toward Israel, that was a significant attack, no question, but Israel was able to shoot the vast majority of them down before they hit their targets, just as Israel was able to carry out a preemptive strike a number of weeks ago on a planned, what it said was a planned Hezbollah attack on Northern Israel. It raises the question whether Israel's capabilities, like Hezbollah's capabilities, are indeed as great as advertised, and whether Israel's -- rather, Iran's capabilities, are as great as advertised and whether Israel has a greater capability to neutralize those. I'm not saying Iran is not a threat, it has formidable military forces. But is it possible that Israel has the upper hand and that Iran, as a result, is second guessing itself?

[09:05:51]

It's possible.

SMERCONISH: Does Iran feel obligated to respond on behalf of the loss of a Hezbollah leader the same way that Iran would presumably respond if it were an Iranian leader? There's a difference between the two. Isn't that really the issue of the day?

SCIUTTO: It is no question. There is some question as to whether there are Iranian commanders on site with Nasrallah when this strike took place, the possibility that this Israeli strike did kill quite senior Iranian leaders as well. So, this is the open question. There has been some frustration among Hamas leaders and Hezbollah as well that Iran has not sufficiently backed them or used its own military might to strike back against Israel as Israel has struck Hamas and Hezbollah, even its own proxies question Iran's commitment to them. So, is Iran making its own decisions for its own interests and leaving its proxies to hang out to dry?

To some degree, there's some suspicion that's possible, but you and I and everyone else in this region can be surprised at any moment, as we were in April, by a significant Iranian response, but also a Hezbollah one as well.

SMERCONISH: Jim, thank you for excellent reporting all morning long. We'll continue to call on you, and we appreciate you.

To dig into the ramifications of this escalating situation, let's bring in former State Department Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller.

Aaron, you know, you're always my go to, I can't help but think that with the American election five weeks from Tuesday, somehow that played a role in the timing of all of this. Tell me I'm wrong.

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPT. MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATIOR: Well, you start with the fundamental question, a exceedingly controversial one. Look, I think it what is elementally clear to me, the IDF and the Prime Minister, Prime Minister reluctantly concluding, I think, that the true strategic threat was not Hamas in the south. Israel is not fighting the two front war anymore. Yes, Hamas will survive as an insurgency, but residents of the border communities in the south have already begun to return. So the strategic threat is in the north, and I think the Prime Minister, to be a brilliant political analyst to reach this conclusion, has fundamentally concluded, the Knesset is out of recess until two weeks, roughly before our elections.

Right now, between now and November 5, the capacity of the United States to impose sanction, restrict or condition U.S. military assistance, adopt anything more than a passive aggressive response, and there's tremendous anger and annoyance. President shared this with allies, according to Politico in recent days with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but Netanyahu understands that Israel is still a incredibly resonant issue. The Republican Party has emerged as the Israel can do no wrong party. The Democrats are deeply divided. He has a margin for maneuver now, between now and November five, perhaps unlike any that I can recall during any of his 10 years as prime minister, so yes. And I would add something else, he cannot vote in this republic, clearly. But if he could, I think it's quite clear for whom he'd be casting his vote. So yes, I think the elections figure prominently in Netanyahu calculations. They also, of course, figure prominently and understandably in the calculations of the Biden administration, the worst thing. And I'll say this in as neutral the way as possible, having voted for Republicans and Democrats and worked for Republicans and Democrats, the worst thing for this administration and for the prospects of a Harris presidency would be a fully blown war right now beginning with an Israeli Hezbollah escalation that would almost certainly, it's very easy to imagine, getting the U.S. drawn in.

[09:10:09]

So, it's fraught for the administration, and frankly, it's an opportunity. I don't think Netanyahu wants this regional war, but nonetheless, it's an opportunity for Benjamin Netanyahu, whose prime directive, as you and I know, is staying in power in order to avoid should he lose it, either a possible conviction robbery, fraud and breach of trust four years running in Jerusalem District Court before three judges, or a plea deal that would end his political career.

SMERCONISH: You either complimented me or criticized me for having a sharp first question. Here's another.

MILLER: Very good.

SMERCONISH: Are we made, are we, are we the United States, the Western world, including Israel, made more or less safe by this news? In the past, it seems to me, and I get it, Hassan Nasrallah was at the top of Hezbollah, but in the past, there's been this game of whack-a-mole, one terrorist dies and is quickly replaced by another. I guess what I'm asking you is, is this the end of a chapter or the beginning of a new story?

MILLER: No, whether it's a new story an old story you are witnessing, Michael, three wars of attrition, one between Israel and Hamas, which is probably the least contentious or strategically important. A second between Israel and Hezbollah, which is going to go on in some form. And a third between two states, between Israel and Iran. None of these wars of attrition are going to end anytime soon, there are no transformative diplomatic Hollywood endings to these stories. At best it's a question of deterrence management, and maybe, maybe if Hezbollah, the Israelis and the Iranians are open to it, what I would call smart transactional diplomacy, agreements that will contain conflict, but not repeat, not bring about what you and I would consider, normal humans would consider peace in any way shape.

So the question about whether we're safe or not, I think that Hezbollah -- well, we do not know how Hezbollah is going to respond. Will they use their precision guided missiles? They roughly have 400 of the scores of 1000s of cruise missiles. One way attract -- attack drones and ballistic missiles. They afford precision guided missiles that could strike easily Israeli population centers and infrastructure. Head of the Israeli electricity grid months ago warned that a Hezbollah strike on the grid could throw Israel into the dark for days, something that is almost impossible, not for the Lebanese for sure, but for the Israelis to imagine.

Or will they stand down and understand that those sorts of actions would result in a massive retaliation. They need to figure also the Lebanese public into this, which is going to be already taking a beating as a consequence of Israeli strikes. So that's question number one. I would think they would resort, over time, to soft targets, strikes against Israeli diplomats, Jewish institutions and organizations abroad.

Second question is Iran, and I think Jim Sciutto, terrific analyst, laid it out pretty clearly, the Iranians are in a bind. They don't want to see their primary proxy, their window on the Arab Israeli conflict demolished, but they don't want to be dragged in for Iranian national interest to a sustained confrontation with Israel that would almost certainly involve the United States --

SMERCONISH: Right. But --

MILLER: -- and strikes on their conventional military and perhaps on their nuclear facilities.

SMERCONISH: And that's why I raised what was the response from Iran back in April, where it seemed to me they needed to do something to save face. I don't know what the off ramp might be in this instance.

Aaron David Miller, thank you as always. We love being able to come to you in these moments. Hopefully there won't be many more of these moments, but we appreciate your expertise.

Up ahead, what can we expect to see when J.D. Vance and Tim Walz meet on the debate stage? You got to believe this subject is now going to come up, right? Well, we're going to talk to the two men who last ran against them and debated them.

I want to know what you think, by the way. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, is Kamala Harris playing it too safe? Don't forget to sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter at smerconish.com for which Scott Stantis drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:19:10]

SMERCONISH: Tuesday is the one and only vice presidential debate of the cycle. It will take place in New York City, CBS News hosting, Norah O'Donnell, Margaret Brennan will be moderating. Many are anticipating a high stakes event following the Trump-Harris mashup earlier this month. It's the last debate currently on the schedule. So what can we expect?

Joining me now, two men who have firsthand experience debating each of these candidates, former Democratic congressman from the great state of Ohio, Tim Ryan, he debated Senator J.D. Vance twice during that Senate battle in 2022.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TIM RYAN, (D) FMR. OHIO SENATE CANDIDATE: This is not a guy who is ready to protect the rights of women. These are complicated circumstances.

SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reason why we have skyrocketing gun violence in this country is because Tim Ryan and a lot of Democrats decided to declare war on America's police.

RYAN: That shooter had. All these great replacement theory writings that J.D. Vance agrees with.

[09:20:03]

VANCE: Tim Ryan blames me and not himself for passing those laws in the first place. Doesn't make any sense, Tim.

RYAN: I try to spin this because you don't want to talk about the fact that you're with the extremists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: And former Republican Minnesota State Senator Dr. Scott Jensen, he debated Governor Tim Walz three times in 2022.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SCOTT JENSEN, (R) FMR. M.N. CANDIDATE I reject Governor Walz's comment that this is a false argument between family farms and now. This is not a false argument.

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are competing globally. We are creating trade deals together, and the folks in this room made that happen.

I'm proud of Minnesota's response. I'm proud of Minnesota's first responders who were out there, from firefighters to police to the National Guard.

JENSEN: Tim Walz denigrated the National Guard.

WALZ: He is more concerned about this fake internet rumor than getting guns out of schools.

JENSEN: Nobody in Minnesota knows what Tim Walz means when he says fully fund education.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Congressman Ryan, you debated J.D. Vance twice in that cycle. What stands out to you?

RYAN: I just think how slippery he can be. You know, there's a part of his thinking is, I'm going to kind of deny what I said that's on tape in this moment when the lights are on and there's a lot of viewers and then I'll clean it up after. So I think you're going to see a lot of misrepresentation. I think you'll see lies. And I think it's going to be very important for Tim Walz to be calling him out in real time.

SMERCONISH: He's pretty good on his feet, right? What props would you offer in terms of J.D. Vance as a debater?

RYAN: Well, he's very thin skinned. And so I think any kind of points that you want to make that are going to question his intellect or question his credibility or his honesty, I think he -- that's when he kind of gets out of his comfort zone. He's thin skinned, he'll want to defend himself, then he'll move into more angry J.D. Vance, which I think the American people have seen. And so I think, you know, getting into that space a little bit where you knock him on his heels, and we're talking strictly like debating tactics here, but getting him, I'd say, hit first and hit hard, and then hold him to account and I think he'll be much better -- you'll be able to handle it much better regardless of what the issue is.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Jensen, you debated Governor Walz three times, same year, 2022, what most stands out from those encounters?

JENSEN: Well, Tim Walz is an affable individual. And I think he does a nice job trying to resonate with the everyday person. So I think that's the initial impression he'll make. But for me, I think it would be word salad. Tim is very good on his feet, and he can put one word after another.

And when he's done, whether it's 30 seconds or 90 seconds, when he's done, your tendency is to say, yes, that sounded pretty good. But then if you ask yourself, well, hold it, what did he actually say? Then you're sort of left a little empty. So I think he's very good at sort of an extemporaneous word salad, but I do think that J.D. Vance would do best to try to brand Tim Walz.

Don't try to hit Tim Walz on all the various things. Don't allow seven or eight superficial wounds to take place. Try to get two deep cuts. You know, try to point out the fact that Tim Walz is a little slippery on labels. He's not quite accurate.

When he says he retired as a Sergeant Major, pin him down. When he says he helped coach a team to winning a state championship in football, find out that actually he was one of seven different assistant coaches. Try to pin him down and try to brand him so that when the debate is over, the audience has one or two things that they can really hang their hat on.

SMERCONISH: I'm smiling here because I think that Ryan and Jensen would be a hell of a debate, except you're both wearing -- you're both wearing the same clothing. I don't know how he would tell you apart.

Congressman Ryan, you wrote this for smerconish.com. This is Tim Ryan talking about J.D. Vance. Put it up on the screen. "He maintains a tone that sometimes make it sound as though there are intellectual underpinnings to these MAGA talking points. It's skillful and likely a central reason Trump chose him. But when you listen closely, you'll hear how it's just a tactic to muddy the waters until the next question. Expand on that. RYAN: Yes, I think -- you know, I think that is why Trump picked him. I think, you know, Trump will say something completely insane, you know, 10 minutes before and J.D. Vance will be on all the cable news shows wrapping around some kind of intellectual underpinnings to whatever the crazy stuff he just said. And so I think tomorrow -- when the debate happens, it's going to be an audience of one for J.D. Vance. His job is to make sense of the insanity. We just saw him try to do it around the Haitian issue in Springfield, Ohio, where he, you know, he was saying, all of a sudden, like, well, if I have to make up a story to get the attention of the American media, blah-blah-blah, like, you'll hear a lot of that stuff. Trying to put a bow, trying to put lipstick on the pig, and so -- but that gives an opening, I think, to Tim Walz to go forward and say, this is BS.

[09:25:32]

They're talking about themselves. Let's talk about the future of the country.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Jensen, you wrote these words for smerconish.com, in closing, I feel "compelled to share what should be expected from Tim Walz. Expect him to address his audience with hopeful and heartfelt words at a rapid fire pace. Keenly crafted phrases will help him stay in safe harbors. The arc of his moral compass is more likely to bend toward an expedient moment in time than to be framed by a deeply rooted fabric of long standing convictions." Expand on that,

JENSEN: I think Tim Walz is nimble. I think that he knows and his team has coached him when he can abandon someone who heretofore had been a big supporter. Tim Walz, at one time, very much gloried in both the contributions and the endorsement of the NRA. But when the NRA was no longer useful to him, he dumped them.

I think a lot of people don't realize it in 2022 when I ran against him, the district that he had represented in Minnesota, the Congressional District, he had won that six times in a row. Tim Walz lost that district to me. The people who knew Tim Wals best said, no, thank you. And I think what Tim Walz is trying to do now is he's trying to be supportive of Harris so that he can be a good cheerleader, and he knows how to do that. He's a former football coach on an assistant level, and I think that he's going to do for Harris whatever she needs.

He's not going to upstage her, but you're going to see that his values are not driven from that fabric of deeply held convictions, as much as it's going to be a Zeitgeist moment. What are the activists telling us? What does Kamala Harris need for me? He's going to go that way, and he's going to try to deflect on whatever J.D. Vance comes at him. And J.D. Vance needs to stay cool, calm and brand him with two or three specific items.

SMERCONISH: I've always second guessing myself after CNN programs, after radio programs, after public appearances, meaning delivering a speech. So final question for both, Tim Ryan, did you go home saying woulda, coulda, shoulda, there was something I should have done, said to J.D. Vance when I debated him, that lingers to this day. And then I'll ask the same question of Dr. Jensen, about Tim Walz. Tim, you first.

RYAN: Yes, nothing super that stands out in a big way. Probably would have been a little bit more forceful. I probably would have been a little bit more aggressive by, you know, I thought it would at that point, we're running for the United States Senate. You want to be calm and keep your composure. But I think there probably could have been a few moments there where it could have been like, this is complete BS, you know, I'm not going to let you get away with that, which I did a bunch. But you know, you always -- when you lose the election --

SMERCONISH: I mean, I was going to say, Tim, can I say -- wait, can I say I watched your debates. You did do that.

RYAN: Well, I'm half Irish and half Italian, Michael. So you know, the fighter -- you never can fight and punch too hard. So, I would just -- I would say that would probably be it.

SMERCONISH: And Dr. Jensen, I watched all three of yours as well. I've been immersed in both of you guys for the last couple of days. What do you wish you had said or done relative to your debates with Walz, Governor Walz?

JENSEN: Michael, I made a mistake. I thought that Tim Walz was going to be true to his word when he said, yes, we'll have more debates. We'll have statewide televised debates. If I had known that it was going to be such a short conversation, I would have pushed much harder on the three basic issues that confronted us at that time, inflation and the economy, crime and safety and education and what was happening to our kids. I thought we were going to get a broader conversation down the road.

So, from that perspective, we address the conversation and the questions that the moderate has brought to us. Had I known that I wasn't going to get the chance to have a single televised statewide debate with Tim Walz, I would have pushed much harder on tell us, Tim, why you're losing to me by double digits on each one of those three key issues, inflation, crime and education. I don't think he ever answered that question to the Minnesotans.

SMERCONISH: Tuesday is going to be interesting. Thank you both men, you're uniquely qualified to provide this analysis, and we're grateful.

RYAN: Thanks, Michael.

JENSEN: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: I want to remind you to go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, is Kamala Harris playing it too safe? Some social media that's come in thus far during the course of the program. Remember, I'm on all the usual platforms, follow me on Twitter, X.

I am not a Donald Trump fan at all. With that being said, I have no confidence in my knowledge of who Kamala Harris is. She comes across as a candidate and not a person. I don't know if I can vote for somebody like that, says Jerry.

You know, Jerry, there's an interesting -- there's an interesting analysis, page one, "New York Times" today that I recommend you read. Pardon my notations on it. Rebecca Davis O'Brien speaks of it -- pardon me, wrote it, and says, the reason that she doesn't come out to play as often as other candidates doesn't sit for one-on-ones, just sat for the Stephanie Ruhle interview earlier this week, is that she is nervous about it, that she's a much better inquisitor. You know, very comfortable in a Senate hearing questioning Brett Kavanaugh as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, than being on the receiving end.

And there's just no doubt the data supports what I'm telling you that she has done far fewer interviews. And I think if she should lose the election, people much like your comment are going to say, well, she was too cautious.

If she wins the election then people will say, it was a brilliant strategy. And that's what makes a great poll question. Is she playing it too safe? Go to my Web site and cast a ballot.

Still to come, Israel claiming responsibility for the death of Hezbollah's leader in Beirut. How will the White House react after President Biden has been pushing for a 21-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

Please make sure you subscribe to the newsletter at Smerconish.com. When you are registering, you'll get exclusive content like this from Rob Rogers. Great cartoon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:36:28]

SMERCONISH: Back to the rapidly evolving situation in the Middle East. Hezbollah confirming the death of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, during strikes yesterday. The Israeli military describing Nasrallah as one of its greatest enemies, declaring his death made the world safer.

Israel warning that they are still targeting Hezbollah's remaining senior members. Israel working to stop a large-scale Hezbollah retaliation. An Israeli army chief saying Wednesday, it was preparing for a possible ground operation after Hezbollah had fired dozens of rockets across the border and the missile aimed at Tel Aviv.

Here to make sense of all of this for us and to give us insights on what this means on the global stage, CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. He's the author of a terrific book. It's called "New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West."

David, I anticipate there will be a statement issued from the president, from the White House, speaking of the need to support Israel as Israel defends itself. What I want to know from you is, what is the real reaction, do you think, inside the White House about this news given that they've been pushing the administration of Prime Minister Netanyahu for a 21-day ceasefire?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: You know, I think, that they're going to feel as if they were misled to some degree by Prime Minister Netanyahu. You know, it was just on Wednesday night that the administration was telling all of us that they thought that the 21-day ceasefire that would have applied throughout Lebanon and so forth was within reach, and that the Israeli leadership, presumably including the prime minister, had agreed to it.

Instead, he said the next day, he had agreed to nothing of the kind. And, of course, gave his speech at the United Nations, a pretty fiery speech each about Iran, about Hezbollah just hours before the strike.

So, as far as we can tell, from the public White House announcements, there have been no conversations between the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu since all this began 10 days ago with the Israeli announcement that they were moving toward the north, with attacks using the pagers and the walkie-talkies, with the raid that they did, very skillful raid on a missile factory in Syria, and then these attacks. And what that tells you, Michael, is that at this point, the president and the prime minister of Israel have very little to say to each other.

SMERCONISH: So, I can't help but compare that having just recently read your book to President Putin and President Xi having a relationship that is such that they've been together, what was the number, 50 times, and here Israel and her closest ally, the United States, those leaders, amidst all of the tumult that we're discussing today and what's gone on recently, as far as you know, not in direct communication between Biden and Netanyahu.

SANGER: It is a pretty remarkable situation especially given how often they talked after October 7th. Then you'll remember that President Biden went on that historic trip to Israel just a week or 10 days after the attacks showed solidarity with the Israeli people, has provided much of the arms, but also issued them a warning. And the warning was, learn the lessons that the U.S. learned post 9/11.

[09:40:01]

Where we went off and did some things that we later came to regret and that later turned the world -- much of the world and much of the Arab world against the U.S. Now, of course, President Biden had a dream before October 7th, that he was going to bring about the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel in a grand deal that would really cement Israel's place and, of course, set up a two-state solution for the Palestinians and the Israelis.

This is something that Prime Minister Netanyahu quietly opposed, though he didn't come out and say so publicly. And then after October 7th, I think, you know, when historians look back at this, I think, the question we're going to be asking is, did they make some of the same mistakes of overreach that we made after 9/11?

SMERCONISH: Final question, do you see daylight between the position of President Biden and the position of Vice President Harris relative to these events in the Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah, in particular?

SANGER: Not yet. The vice president speaks sometimes in different tones about Israel but fundamentally comes out in the same place which is the U.S. is committed -- has been committed since Israel's founding to defend it, and defend its place in the world and its right to exist. And I fully understand why she does that.

What's going to be difficult in the next five weeks until the election is that, you know, the United States is, obviously, the supplier of much of the arms that Israel is using. And the question is, why has it declined to use its leverage in an effort to rein the Israelis in toward this ceasefire or toward the ceasefire and hostage deal that they we're negotiating in Gaza.

And as you were saying earlier with Jim Sciutto, you know, what's remarkable about this is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has calculated that he's at a unique moment in American politics, where he can defy the United States and pursue his own agenda, driven much by the local politics that he's facing as he tries to keep his coalition together. That's an amazing place we haven't really seen before.

SMERCONISH: And I was thinking, as David Sanger was speaking, who knows what the next five weeks will entail. Thank you, David. We appreciate you very, very much.

Still to come, more social media reaction from all of you. Find me on X, on Twitter. I'm on all the usual platforms.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question. I haven't spoken much about it because of all the breaking news, but I think it's a great question. Is Vice President Kamala Harris playing it too safe?

When you're there voting, sign up for the newsletter. You'll get exclusive cartoon illustrations like this from Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:47:38]

SMERCONISH: More of the social media reaction to today's program.

Dude, she only talks about policy issues every day. The media as well and you now pretend she doesn't. Look at her opponent's stance on various issues. Quite incoherent in most cases.

Alan, there's no doubt about that in terms of the last part, incoherent for sure. And nobody is saying that Trump is offering the level of specificity you would expect of a candidate, don't misunderstand. But you know what you're getting with him. For better or worse, you know what you're getting for him. He was president, right, for four years.

She's more of a blank slate in that regard. I think she is playing it too cautiously. Time will tell. More social media reaction. What do we have? You got to play to win. There are still undecided voters in the key swing states. You got to give them something to vote for and you have to energize them when it's this close.

And, Mick, I would say to your point, just this morning, "The New York Times" and Siena College came out with latest battleground data showing that Wisconsin and Michigan are neck and neck.

Trump has had a chaotic six or seven weeks, even by his standards, right? Everything from Laura Loomer to the North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate eating cats and dogs, a poor debate performance, et cetera, et cetera. It has enabled her to pull even with him but not to put them away. And that new data from the Times and Siena College today says that Wisconsin and Michigan, despite Trump having had a poor several weeks, are deadlocked. All of the battleground states are deadlocked.

And if he -- if he outperforms his polling, as he did in 2016, and to a more limited extent in 2020, when I look at a poll that says its neck and neck, I think there's a Bradley factor in there for him. I think he's probably a point or two ahead, even though the pollsters say a point or two ahead of their data. So, factor that in and maybe she does need to go for more of a knockout blow, whatever that might mean.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is Kamala Harris playing it too safe?

Go cast your ballot. When you're there subscribe to the newsletter and you will get great exclusive editorial cartoons. Here's Rob Rogers, OK, to the point we were just making, right? Here's a different take. This one is from Steve Breen.

[09:50:01]

Loved Mad magazine, by the way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Poll result so far at Smerconish.com. Wow. I'm always suspicious of the very rounded numbers. But OK, we'll roll with it, 29,706. Is she playing it too safe? Sixty percent say no. I'm going to save this result.

[09:55:00]

When the election is over, we'll come back and revisit this and remember what everybody said at the time. Social media reaction to the program today. What do we have, Catherine?

It's a double standard. She's going up against someone who can say anything and pay no political price. She is a woman of color so the rules apply to her differently.

Many people are of the opinion that there is that double standard. I gave you my explanation which is to say, for better or worse, he's a known quantity. Does he offer specifics? He certainly does not. Didn't even want a platform at the time of the RNC.

More. Here's other social media reaction to today's program.

She was at her best out of the gates with nothing to lose. Now that she's pulled even, she seems less bold and overcautious. Almost like, I don't want to screw this up.

Yes. No doubt there's like a bubble wrap mentality to the campaign which, by the way, served President Biden when he was then Vice President Biden well into 2020 cycle in the midst of COVID where he was able to remain in Delaware, and Trump was out there barnstorming the nation. In the end, I think, that Trump earned some begrudging respect because of the pace of the campaign that he was able to maintain.

Go vote at Smerconish.com if you haven't so far. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)