From last night’s Special Report with Brit Hume:

—On Sarkozy’s Visit—

BILL SAMMON: I’ve seen a lot of things in my life; I never thought I’d see George W. Bush speak French, which he did at the toast last night. . . . [T]o have him now speak French, publicly, I thought signals just how far we’ve come. [Sarkozy’s] a conservative; along with Angela Merkel of Germany, it signals an important shift in Western [Europe] toward a closer relationship with President Bush. . . . You know, we used to talk about Donald Rumsfeld, used to talk about Old Europe, which was sort of a derisive way of speaking of Western Europe allies, as opposed to Eastern Europe, which were stronger with us. Now we’re actually seeing the Western Europe allies come our way. It’s amazing. . . .

MARA LIASSON: This is a big shift, and now it remains to be seen if they can get something done on Iran. For the French president to say it’s unacceptable, that’s a pretty strong line that he’s drawn. The Europeans are the ones who have been the least willing to go along with sanctions, since their companies do so much business with Iran. Now we’ll see if they actually step up to the plate on this. . . .

MORT KONDRACKE: He actually called the United States of America the greatest country on Earth. Now, for a European to say that—we all think that we are, and we are—but for a European leader to acknowledge that, is big. And then he also said, America did not get where it got by asking for handouts—it expects people to work. Now, that was a message to his own people. You want to be like America, you want to be as rich as America? Get to work—get off this 30-hour workweek and get to work.

SAMMON: He’s also gotten away from this idea that Chirac had that France would be a counterweight to an imperialist United States, which is a silly idea. If there are counterweights to the U.S., they’re Russia, or they’re China, or global terrorism, or Iran. But this business that France and the United States were fundamentally opposed—we’re allies, our people have always basically liked each other, but now the governments actually like each other.

—On Musharraf—

HUME: The president, of course, had called Pervez Musharraf today to tell him that he wants him to hold the elections, restore democracy, and take off his military uniform. This comes as some fairly senior people on Capitol Hill were saying today that we ought to cut off aid. . . . [Is] the administration is likely to lose control of that issue?

KONDRACKE: I don’t think that they’re gonna lose control of that issue. The president was able to stop this resolution against Turkey. I think that it strengthens Bush’s hand actually, in talking to Musharraf, to have the Congress yelling and screaming about cutting off aid. I doubt that they’d actually do it, because in the end of the day, we’re not going to defeat ourselves in the War on Terrorism. It’s too risky for the Congress to play that game.

HUME: Is there anybody better in the wings, if Musharraf were undermined?

LIASSON: Not necessarily. The White House was hoping that there would be this kind of power-sharing deal between him and Bhutto. But look, he is the front line in the War on Terror, it’s a pretty shaky front line, but he is all we’ve got over there.

SAMMON: Only the terrorists win if he fails. . . .

KONDRACKE: There is still a possibility that he could agree to the elections, to what Bush wants him to do. That would be the ideal solution: He takes off his uniform, stays on as president, [Bhutto] gets elected prime minister, and they work together to fight terrorism. She is a terrorist-fighter; she is a modernist; she is a democrat; and that would allow a democratic growth in Pakistan, which would retain stability for the long future.