tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News June 7, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
lot. i'll see you. >> no no around the corner. right there. right there. >> jimmy, i'll see you, man. >> right there. right there. >> i'm chris wallace, it could be the biggest cyber attack in u.s. history. did chinese hackers strike again? >> regardless of who it is, and regardless of what their ultimate aim is the administration takes this very seriously and recognizes that as a threat to our national security -- >> we'll discuss the breach and what we should do about it with two key congressman, pete king and adam schiff. then rick santorum won 11 states and 4 million votes in the 2012 republican primaries. this time can he win the nomination? >> the last race we changed the debate. this race we can change this
nation. >> gop presidential candidate rick santorum only on "fox news sunday." plus bruce jenner becomes caitlin, the sunday panel weighs in on the sexual culture war and the debate over the female viagra pill. our power player of the week bush 41 chief of staff bragging on his boss's behalf. >> somebody has to talk about you for appreciation to occur. >> all right now on "fox news sunday". >> hello again from fox news in washington. u.s. officials are warning millions of federal employees to be on the alert after their personal information was stolen in a massive cyber attack reportedly by china. what makes this especially troubling is it's just the latest in a series of similar attacks. chief intelligence correspondent
katherine has the latest. >> the fourth government agency hacked within the past year. this data breach could affect every branch of government. what's more concerning to investigators this morning, growing evidence it's not an isolated incident but a state sponsored campaign by china that involves a microtargeting of security clearance information for economic gain blackmail impersonation as well as facilitating future attacks. opm does 90% of federal background investigation. >> the personal management is a target because it represents the holy grail of access within the united states government. even though it is a microtarget it is eye mya microtarget of the most valuable information and that makes this highly dangerous. >> susan collins said the breach was another indication of a foreign power probing successfully and focusing on
what appears to be data that would identify people with security clearances. former intelligence officials say the attacks high level of organization and points to a nation state and likely backing of chinese military units such as pla 61398 housed in this nondescript office in shanghai. known for advanced persistent threats designed to harvest information covertly and not kriple systems. that's exactly what happened. cyber security analysts believe it was hacked because it is a softer target than. nsa. one big question is whether employee information was also stolen. how damaging was the attack and what can we do about it? we've invited two congressional experts to answer those questions. republican pete king of new york a member of homeland security committee. and from california adam schiff. gentlemen, i want to take you
back to what president obama said about hacking in february. here he is. >> the cyber world is sort of the wild wild west. and to some degree we're asked to be the sheriff. >> but three months before that the inspector general at opm, the agency hacked warned that that agency's computer system was a hacker's dream, which raises the question congressman king did president obama fail to saveguard his own administration? >> we have to get a full report. jo want to prejudge this but obviously something went wrong and a threat we have to face and do more than we're doing right now. congress has passed two bills -- house has passed two bills that would begin to address some cyber security issues but more has to be done. we have to finds a way to effective use of all of our intelligence and surveillance apparatus, if that involves the nsa because we're talking about nation states whether this
turns out to be china or not, it's a likely suspect. we have to not be afraid to use all of our tools to try to stop this. this could be devastating to our country if this got worse. >> i want to pick up on that for a moment. congressman schiff how strong is the evidence that the chinese were in fact behind this? and there are reports that this was not done to try to steal information for identity theft, it wasn't a crime, this was an intelligence -- to try to figure out who to surveyor recruit as a pie. how damaging was the information that whoever hacked into opm, that they actually stole? >> chris, it's very valuable information, we're not allowed to comment yet we've gotten good at attribute ugs, there are two possibilities, either a state actor or group of very sophisticated private hackers who often work in concert with the state. the motivation is either going
to be fraud in terms of ripping off people's identity or state sponsored attack personal information that can be exploited to identify people who might be working in the intelligence community and used to enable other spear fishing attacks. and the real challenge, in this asymmetric battle field, those on the offense have all of the advantage. it's expensive to offend. you need one open door and you're vulnerable and you can attack from anonymity and be free from repercussions. one of the big things we have to do is figure out when we'll go on offense and how we're going to provide deterrent to future attacks. >> i want to pick up with you congressman king. do we need to retaliate against the people that we believe are conducting cyber warfare against us? >> i believe we do. i don't think we should announce what we're doing.
the president and his administration have the capacity who they believe this is, i think yeah there should be a price to pay for this. how it's done and when it's done i'll leave it to them. all of us may have our own ideas but the fact is nothing should be telegraphed in advance or given as as far as notice. but these countries or terrorist groups should know there will be consequences when they act this way. >> we learned this week through another one of edward snowden's leaks that president obama approved the nsa using wire warrantless surveillance to pick up the international internet traffic of americans that may be involved in some way in hacking. congressman schiff you were one of the leaders to restrict the government's collection of our phone records. are you okay with this new avenue of collection of information that may involve americans? >> i oppose the gathering of
bulk data by the government because it was unnecessary for us to hold that data. in terms of this effort to identify foreign hackers, hackers work for foreign states to come in and steal secrets that are going to damage infrastructure or damage our companies, absolutely we need to gather that intelligence it's done under 702 and with court supervision. and i think this is fundamentally what the american people expect of their government. and that is that we ought to be aggressively going after identifying and protecting the country from cyber hackers, we need to make sure though chris in that process, if there's any incidental collection of information about americans, somebody for example, foreign hacker hacks into american companies and steals information, that we follow all of the minization requirements and i'm confident that's exactly what we will do and have to do. >> congressman king this all comes the same week that congress voted to reform not to end, but reform and some degree
restrict the government surveillance of bulk data collection of our phone records. and after that vote in the senate you put out this tweet which i would like to put on the screen. you wrote, today's senate nsa vote is a victory for america for freedom over ignorance and defeat for isis edward snowden and rand paul. i don't have to tell you, you've gotten a lot of blow back tore linking isis and rand paul. want to take that back? >> absolutely not. what rand paul did was absolutely disgraceful. adam and i have a difference over the nsa. those reforms and changes, they were debated and worked on. 99% of the senate wanted the debate to go forward. rand paul wanted to shut down the nsa several days serving no purpose other than to use it to raise money for his presidential campaign. that went beyond the limits of intelligent debate and violated
his position as senator. we can have differences and work them out and vote against nsa if you want to. but to use your one person power to unilaterally shut it down all he was doing was hurting american security and at the same time asking people to send him contributions that were shameful and disgraceful. >> let's turn to another security or potential security breach and that is what f that we learned that at the tsa, investigators inside people from department of homeland security posing a passengers and you see on screen were able to sneak fame bombs and banned weapons past airport screeners 67 times in 70 attempts. that's a 95% rate of failure. congressman king do we need to rethink our screening at airports and i know it's kind of politically charged, but do we have to consider profiling the most likely suspects? >> i think we have to consider everything let me give secretary johnson credit.
he moved immediately and moved before this report was made public. he's also reassigned frank taylor who was in the homeland security he's going to temporarily be heading tsa, first rate administrator and urge the senate to confirm the admiral as soon as possible. we need to see if more training is needed. it is totally unacceptable. as far as profiling, that's one of those hot button terms, we should be trying to narrow it down to those we think are most likely and try to do to the extent we can what the israelis do but it's tougher in our owe site. we have to again i think be more selective and make sure the tsa does a much much better job, profiling whatever else we want to call it. the fact is 95% failure rate is wrong and that not just wrong, it's totally unacceptable. >> finally there was the case this week in boston of rahim,
who was killed by police. they say he and another man were plotting to behead someone and attack police. congressman schiff how many americans -- obviously we're talking ballpark here how many americans are being radicalized over the internet by isis and how do we stop those lone wolves? >> well chris, i think certainly many hundreds are being radicalized and the fbi director acknowledged we have open investigations into every state in the union. this is a real problem. it's a real challenge. the use of social media such a sophisticated way by isis is radicalizing people at home and not only drawing recruits to get to syria and iraq that's one thing but stimulating these kind of lone wolf attacks here in the homeland. i will say that on. hierarchy of concerns mine is the airports because those kind
of attacks unlike what we saw in boston and garland, those attacks that can take out an aircraft have the potential of radically changing our country of december mating an industry and changing the way we live. we have seen through the intelligence that we gather that remains a top priority. so in terms of my concerns those airports are still at the very top. these isis related social media attacks, also a worry but not likely to change the nature of the country. >> congressman schiff and king a busy and troubling week. thank you both for joining us today. we'll stay on top of all of these stories. >> up next former pennsylvania senator rick santorum makes another bid for the nomination. how does he stand out this time in a crowded gop field?
a look outside the beltway at des moines iowa. our next guest took another ten states before losing the gop fom nation to mitt romney. now rick santorum is making another run for the white house positioning hillself as the champion of the working class. senator santorum welcome back to "fox news sunday". >> thank you, chris. i'll use this words advisedly split with the republican party this year saying its traditional message is out of touch. here you are. >> we're stuck with a 35-year-old message on the economy. it's a message that says cut taxes for high income individuals, balance the budget and cut government but they are right but insufficient in
america today. >> instead of focusing so much on the business sector the gop must pay more attention to the american worker and his or her family. how would you do it? >> those are people who are hurting americans and what i talked about a multirate scheme. we have to create opportunities for the 74% of americans who don't have a college degree and look at both political parties and aren't talking to them how to create jobs to create opportunities. i've focused on something happened in the last five years in our economy that created an opportunity to change things and that's energy. we now have low stable energy prices for as far as the eye can see. that's a game changer. manufacturing heavy user of energy and natural gas and now having those low energy prices allows us if we get our tax situation correct and regulatory environment correct and trade environment correct, we can create an environment for american workers to get good paying jobs and rise in society. >> you talk about raising the
minimum wage. >> i do. >> i gather you're quite skeptical about the trade deal the president is pushing. >> i am. >> why? >> first up so much of that trade deal has nothing to do with trade. the trade component with the primarily lower tariffs ignore the other problems like nontariff barriers. those are things that we have to start looking at doing old style of trade deals in a new style world in which they use things to disadvantage us. i voted for a lot of trade deals when i was in congress but the reason i voted against and a half nafta and ever since they've never been the deal they promised it would be. >> one thing you propose, replacing the irs and current tax code with what you call a fair flat tax. the details you're going to roll out -- >> still working on it. >> you proposed something similar in 2012. you wanted only two income tax
rates, 10 and 28%, tax capital gains at 12% and corporate taxes at 17.5%. here's the problem, the tax policy center says the middle class on average would save $4,000 and while the top 1% taxpayer would save on average $350,000 and you would cut federal revenues by 40%. question how do you create and impose a flat tax that one isn't going to gut the federal treasury and raise enough money and two isn't going to end up being a bonanza for top 1%. >> those numbers are based on a static model means nothing is going to change if you create incentives for people to grow the economy, i reject. that's a flat earth way of looking at economic growth. one of the things i believe in. >> if you lowered the tax rate as much as you are for the top, they are going to do better than middle class. >> the whole idea is to treat
everybody fairly. that's the reason we're looking at the flat tax. we'll have provisions in there to make sure that lower and middle income americans will not pay more taxes and pay less taxes. but the bottom line is we have to create growth. you want to reduce the deficit and grow jobs in america, then you have to do something that's going to create jobs and that means economic growth. that's meaning you create incentives for people who grow the economy. the republican message is a good message on growth cutting taxes, supply side economics but make sure we orient that growth in people who are suffering in america today, manufacturing, energy construction those types of jobs that create opportunities for good paying jobs for working men and women, no those are created here in america. >> you are it's fair to say and you mentioned one area where you ma rpz, you're a hard liner on immigration. you say not only we need tougher
enforcement but needless -- fewer legal immigrants. here's you talking. >> hillary clinton and big business -- they have called for a massive influx in unskilled labor. business does it because they want to control costs. hillary does it well she just wants votes. >> senator, what would you do because you don't answer it there, what would you do with the 11 million people in this country already illegally and don't you run the risk as you talk about fewer immigrants and no path to legalization don't you run the risk of alienating the hispanic vote, which is the fastest growing voting bloc in america? >> i approach this is what is in the best interest of america and american workers and those workers not doing well in america. if we look at the fact 35 million people can come into the
country over the last 20 years, almost all of whom illegal and legal, more people not born in in country any time in the history of this country. to suggest when you look at what is the impact on american workers and by the way, primarily the folks most impacted by new immigrants coming in the country are the recent immigrants already here and are a minority populations with high rates of unemployment and primarily lower skilled workers. so this isn't a question of being a hard liner on immigration. this is being in hard support of american workers who have seen wages over the last 20 years flat line because supply and demand works. as we continue to bring record numbers of immigrants never before had this number come into this country and see median income fall in america, should we have a responsibility to look what's in the best interest of america workers and say let's look at the policy and see whether to adjust it to make
wages stronginger going forward. >> what would you do with the 11 million already here? >> you use e verify require e verify. >> no cap to legalization. >> no i'm the son of an immigrant who had to wait seven years to come to this country, separated from his father. i used to ask my dad, did you always harbor ill feeling that separated you and my dad always said the same thing, america was worth the wait. and america is worth the wait. and workers in america deserve an immigration system that supports them. >> pope francis will release an encycle cal on the environment and you suggested that the holy father should stay out of the debate on climate change. here you are. >> church has gotten is wrong a if you times on science. i think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we are really good at
which is the theology and morality. >> if he's not a scientist -- does have a degree in chemistry, neither are you. >> i agree. >> the second point is somewhere between 80 and 90% of scientists who have studied this say that humans men, human activity attributes to climate change. ip guess the question should be if he shouldn't talk about it should you? >> we have to make public policy with regard to the environmental policy. >> you're not a scientist and leave science to the scientists. >> the point is whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decisions with respect to our public policy that affect american workers. look at the administration now proposing this o zone regulation that will simply shut down any manufacturing expansion in this country. yes, there are things that they are going to happen here that scientists will determine whether we need o zone
regulations or not -- >> you don't think the pope has a right to talk about those? >> the pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about. i'm saying what he use his moral authority for. >> he would say he's protecting the earth. >> i would say that's an important thing to do but there are more pressing problems confronting the earth than climate change. i would suggest particularly when it comes to me as someone who is trying to go out there and make sure we have revitalization and things that create jobs and opportunities, that speculative science, which is proven not to have checked out all of the predictions made 15 years ago none of them have come true. the idea that the scientist settled and say they settled, that's political science not real science. no scientist would say that ever. >> you have complained more publicly than any other
candidate about the fox ground rules which are going to be the top ten candidates in national polls and here's the most recent fox poll get on the stage, others don't. according to the latest fox poll you're tied for 11th at the moment and wouldn't make the cut early on. what's your objection? >> when i won the iowa caucuses in january of 2012 i was at 4% in the national polls. the idea that we would use a national poll to determine who is going to be one of the finalists in the presidential race i just think is -- first of all not a good barometer but most important thing, we have 16 15 14 i don't know who's going to run or not run, really good people. that's -- that shouldn't be something we should be trying to select down but have the opportunity for everyone to be heard. if you had taken the top two thirds of the folks in 1992 bill clinton wouldn't have been
on the stage and top two thirds in 1976 jimmy carter wouldn't have been on stage. the idea that the media will select a certain group of people and say we're going to make an arbitrary cutoff i think this is a very fluid thing. there's nobody in the national polls above 10% and we're not leaving iowa and new hampshire the role that they need to play. >> a lot of people would say ash the country, we've given iowa and new hampshire enough of a roll and maybe the nation should play something of a role. >> i wish the case was the nation was making this judgment. >> to a certain -- one could argue perhaps they are by who's got support. you put 16 people on a stage, we're talking about everybody getting four minutes. i was on the stage with you as a moderator back in 2012 and frankly you used to complain a lot how you didn't get enough time for questions. under your plan you would get
less time to talk. >> i would suggest you do randomly selective and take ot numbers odd numbers in the polling and even numbers in others and nice even mix of folks at the top and bottom. >> carly fiorina said you given me a goal two months i'm going to get in. >> is that what the campaign should be about, trying to measure whether we meet some criteria in a debate or whether we should be out there talking to voters and trying to convince them we're the best candidate. >> we'll have to debate that. senator santorum thanks for come being in. we'll see you on the campaign trail and maybe on the stage in cleveland. >> you never know. >> up next, hillary clinton accuses republicans of trying to millions of americans from voting and gop candidates fire back. our sunday group joins the discussion when we return.
today republicans are systemically and deliberating trying to stop millions of american citizens from voting. what part of democracy are they afraid of? >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton accusing the gop, including some of the governors running for president, of trying to suppress the vote of minorities and young people. and it's time now for sunday group, brit hume and cheryl stoleberg and george will and fox news political analyst juan williams. clinton accused republicans, some of them governors by name of cut back on early voting and pushing voter i.d. laws to deal with what she called the phantom epidemic of voter fraud. brit your thoughts? >> look at the polling on this issue of voter i.d. and it's wildly popular.
people do worry about voter fraud. they may be wrong about that but that's where the polling stands. why would someone running for president make a statement against those sort of procedures. the answer is simple she believes she needs to rebuild the coalition that elected barack obama twice, that includes high percentages of minorities especially african-americans, that is the community to which those remarks are directed and seeking to rally them. that's why we heard her say what she said. >> some of those republican governors including john kasich of ohio fired back and noted that for all of her talk about the need for early voting new york state doesn't have a single day of early voting. here's kasich. >> to come into the state of ohio and say we're repressing the vote when new york has only election day and we have 27 days that's just silliness. you know? >> i like that just silliness.
cheryl how effective do you think this effort by clinton is in trying to appeal and mobilize the obama base particularly minorities and young people and to what degree do you think she was trying to change the subject from things she doesn't like talking about, like her private e-mails and big donations. >> i think she was trying to change the subject but it does appeal to her base. we know that obama coalition that brit talked about is very important to democrats. we saw this in 2014 in the midterms where there were aggressive efforts in places like georgia and kentucky and north carolina to register voters to get blacks hispanics and young people to the polls. it didn't work and democrats got defeated there. hillary clinton knows she's got to expand that base. if you look at 2012 it was the first time african-americans turned out in greater percentages of elgigible
african-american voters than white. 70% of hispanics voted for obama roughly, up to 60% of young people. that's what she needs to do. that's the base she needs to rally. >> the interesting thing is she seems and this has been noted in the papers seems to be running more on the obama model than on the bill clinton model. >> that's exactly right. >> more to white men, she's appealing to the minority single women, young people more the obama model. >> that's exactly right. the other small thing was by calling out republicans by name she kind of baited them. a lot of them took the bait. she'll take that and probably -- if she becomes the nominee, use those clips as ads against a rally to her base. >> ad for hillary. >> all right, meanwhile, there was a story in the "new york times" on saturday about marco rubio and his wife that they had 17 driving violations since
1997. what made it especially curious was that the senator of those 17 mrs. rubio had 13 the senator had only four of them since 1997. that's about one every four years or something. none of them were especially serious which raises the question to use the "times" not to is this all the news fit to print? >> before assessing that deep question it's of no particular relevance to this, i have no dog in the republican fight. my wife is a veteran political operative and god news has a strong mind of her own, working for scott walker. that said, is this news fit to print? four traffic violations in eight years, once every four and a half years he gets a traffic citation. times wrote the story in a coy way, a search of two county records leaving the viewer free
to surmise that they diligently searched it. they didn't. this was done by american bridge a democratic group which then passed it onto the "new york times." >> i'm going to rebut that. i don't see -- >> like a debate. you get 30 seconds. >> you probably saw our washington bureau chief said yesterday that in fact this information was developed independently and not given to the newspaper. >> can i ask a question? i'll take all of that on faith. why is it news he had four violations in eight years? >> this is a big republican field. a lot of candidates like senator rubio haven't run on the national stage before. when you run for president, every aspect of your life and spouse's life and open to public scrutiny. there have been reports about bush's jewelry buying habits and perfect president obama was a candidate,
it was reported he failed to pay his parking tickets for 17 years until two weeks before he launched his presidential nomination. so this is kind of the game right? this is what happens, why people don't run for president. >> you're saying because of a story like this why people don't run? >> because every aspect of your life whatever it is a parking ticket or financial misdeed becomes open to scrutiny. these are publicly available records. >> shall await the times report on the overdue library books and compare that and mrs. clinton siphoning up millions of dollars, clear conflict of interest and conflict of law. >> which the new york times has reported on. >> that's true they have report on that. >> very aggressively they might add. >> let's not be aggressive. former texas governor rick perry joined the race this week with a
strong speech. here's a clip of him. >> the truth is we're at the end of an era of failed leadership. we have been led by a divider who sliced and diced the ee lector rat, pitting american against american more political purposes. >> he did very well in his rollout speech but all of this comes on the backdrop of a disastrous run in 2012. can he recover from that and have a second chance for a first impression? what do you make of this field. i was counting today, i think there are 15 or 16 candidates going to run on the republican side. >> it is unbelievable. well look for rick perry first, he's got tremendous name i.d. everybody not only in the panel but audience knows who he is longest serving governor of texas and benefits from low expectations at this point. i think the fact he had such a
bad run in 2012 with his poor debate performances and the like means that people are kind of looking at him and saying can he do better? will there be another moment for rick perry? if he doesn't do that he can do well. ted cruz is already the favorite out of texas and he tapped into a very rich vein of money in terms of texas money donations for political candidates. rick perry will have to find a way to get that money. he doesn't have it so he's involved in retail politics. that's the best hope in iowa at the moment. in iowa it looks to me scott walker is in the -- he's dominating iowa at the moment. rick perry will have to go door to door and go heavy on his air force military background which is what republican voters want but i don't see right now that i would bet -- bet big money on rick perry. >> did you have something you want to say? >> would say he has real
benefits as a retail politician. can he get a hearing? can he get enough space in this enormous field so people get exposed to him and he has a chance whether he's learned a lot than he was four years ago. >> we know how the media plays it when there's a narrative out there about somebody, dan quayle al gore exaggerating if he makes a simple slipup we'll be all over it. whether for good or ill. when we come back we're going to discuss the fight over the so-called female viagra and sharp lip divided opinion over bruce jenner's transformation into caitlin. what would you like to ask the panel about the intense coverage of the jenner story. we may use your question on the air.
the president does believe that caitlin jenner has shown a tremendous courage as she has undergone this transition in a very public way. >> conservatives and republicans are the new weirdos and that is part of the political objective here in normalizing all of this really marginal behavior. >> white house press secretary josh earnest relaying president obama's thoughts on former olympic champion bruce jenner's transformation and rush limbaugh claiming the left is trying to redefine normalcy. we're back now with the panel. a fascinating split this week it seems to me about caitlin jenner democrats have been praising her as a hero as a trailblazer while republicans have been very quiet about it. former education secretary and conservative thinker, william
bennett wrote this this week people feel like they are under siege and that the terms of the debate are now you either applaud it or you're a bigot. what do you make of this rush to embrace transgender people? >> it's part of this very heart felt drive for acceptance in that whole community. and so this prominent person does this it's described as trailblazing but i think the trail had been blazed many years ago when a tennis playing doctor became re-renee richards and played pro-tennis and was very widely seen and recognized at the time. it seems that bridge has been crossed -- >> didn't have the president through the spokesperson saying -- >> well that community is part of the democratic base and it makes political sense for the president to acknowledge this
caitlin jenner and in an approving way, good politics i suppose. >> we ask you and we got this on facebook. al list would like to know why everybody in the media thinks jenner's story is so great and wonderful and worthy of intense coverage. i was fascinated to learn this week that the world health organization classifies transsexualism as mental illness. so how do you answer alice and her talk about this rush to embrace? >> i think alice is on to something. you might want to get into the political analysis business. so much of this is a political stunt. as i recall it was 10 million people googled bruce caitlin jenner in the past week since the "vanity fair" cover. you think about the magazine
subscriptions and new show "i am cait" coming out. jenner will make $500 million from media appearances and the like. this is a big media event and media moment. i have compassion and empathy anyone going through what i consider to be a difficult transition i'm not sure it's mental health or whatever -- >> do you think it's a big civil rights issue and movement? >> if you go into russia or muslim countries, these people are not only i ammprisoned but beaten and tortured and in the united states we know about bullying that takes place for minority people going through these issues. i don't know civil rights everybody should have rights protected. should it be forced on people and be called bigots because they have trouble with it? at my age i would be a hip krit if i told you i don't have questions and puzzled and why
you see so many people googling caitlin jenner. >> george we have seen in the last decade this astonishing change about gays to the point that the building just over my shoulder here the supreme court, nine justices are now considering whether or not there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. are we going to see the same thing with transsexualism? in the course of ten years something that seems troubling, or confusing is going to be the accepted norm and somehow there's something wrong with you if you don't accept? that wouldn't little to do with even our litigious society. but meanwhile, usually that happens when someone is a victim and it's hard to see jenner's victim. as juan indicated it's a
lucrative business if that's what he is. it's hard to see how we're not defining courage down in this case because brit says it -- we've been down here before and done in public before. >> some republicans were accused this week of ret sens is a virtue very often and i don't know why we have to be la quashs about everything anyway. the president has an urge to tell the world his opinions on things. others remain in silence about this. >> i want to ask you about another interesting social sexual story this week an fda advisory panel recommended approval of a drug to help women with low sexual desire. some women's group had launched a campaign to push for this
drug the organization called even the score noting the fda approved viagra in the '90s and failure to approve would be a failure of equality. >> i think this is interesting. issues of genders of bias in women's health go back a long way. george h.w. bush named the female head of the nih and she insisted women be included in women's trial and those issues do persist. but women's health groups would say that that issue is actually separate and apart from this issue of this quote, female viagra. first of all it's not really a female viagra. this is a pill that a man can take prior to having sexual relations to increase blood flow -- >> erectile dysfunction. >> this a woman would take on a
daily basis to address imbalances in the brain. so it's really not a female viagra. >> is it an -- >> it's to address psychological symptoms. >> some women's health groups say the fda is being pressured into approving a pill that isn't safe for women that we don't know enough about that the risk benefit ratio isn't a good one and the fda is twice rejected this pill before. there's a split among women's health groups. i would note even the score group, which has been pressing the fda to approve this is financed by the drug company making the pill there's a real debate about this. some would say if there really were a female viagra it would be a great advance in women's health but this pill isn't it. >> very interesting, thank you. >> thanks panel, see you next sunday. i've got nothing.
and that seemed to be his hallmark throughout his career. >> reporter: former new hampshire governor john is ahn governor has written a book to brag on bush's behalf as he puts it. >> he is under appreciated because somebody has to talk about you for appreciation to occur and he's been unwilling to do it for himself for so long. >> you say that president bush was more conservative than ronald reagan. really? >> in terms of what he accomplished yes. >> reporter: he points to bush's domestic record including a budget deal that broke his no new taxes plan. but with $3.5 of spending cuts for every dollar increase in the gas tax. >> that's why he sent the bill up and we will try to urge congress to send them a bill pass and send him a bill he can sign. >> you were generally seen as the bad cop, the abrasive guy
who had to say no. how do you plead? >> i plead guilty. i woke up every morning knowing i would have to catch a few spears and arrows directed at george bush and i took that as part of my job. >> reporter: he is still doing that in the book unloading on people he thinks betrayed the president. liking inning in who he said agreed to the budget deal but skipped the announcement. >> as any such plan would have to our requires that virtually everyone contribute in some way. >> when everyone went to the rose garden he shrunk out of there and decided to oppose it. when he said it was acceptable to him he was lying. >> reporter: supreme court justice david suitor also from new hampshire. sununu assured him he would be a conservative. >> do you think he deceived you and the president? >> i do. that's why i'm so upset. he sold himself an lived himself as a conservative until he got the appointment he wanted and
then his true colors showed and he shifted left. >> when you look back at that beautiful white building, what are your thoughts? >> it was a privilege to be there. really was. >> reporter: now at 75 he says he gives advice to the candidates coming to new hampshire but so far, at least, he's not backing anyone including jeb bush. no his real passion now is to make sure bush 41 gets his rightful place in history. >> he predicted the berlin wall would last another 100 years, and today, less than one year later, it's the wall that's history. >> moving the soviet union to its disillusion so fast without a shot being fired was not as easy as it looked and solving the budget problem he way he did was not as easy as it looked. i think it was an extraordinary presidency bay man willing to spend his political capital for the sake of the country. >> by the way, president bush celebrates his 91st birthday
this friday. we wish him and mrs. bush all the best. that's it for today. have a great week. and we'll see you next "fox news my new morning show "mornings with maria" 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. eastern. on our buzz meter this sunday a woman tells abc's brian ross that her late brother was sexually abused by dennis hastert, a decade after she tried to get the network to pursue the story. >> for the first time this morning, we're learning the name and the details of one of the alleged sexual abuse victims of the former speaker of the house. >> i asked him, stevie when was your first same-sex experience. and he just looked at me and said it was with dennis hastert. and i just i know i was stunned. he damaged steve, i think, more than any of us will ever know. >> is it fair to air this charge when hastert's former student is no longer alive? and how