tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News December 27, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PST
3:00 eastern, noon pacific, on fox news channel, and when the news breaks out, we'll break in. washington. >> hope you had a great christmas. see you soon. >> another night of deadry tw l twisters and mike huckabee says it's iowa or bust. >> if we don't do well in that state, then i don't know how i can translate that into a great surge going forward. mike huckabee on make or break in iowa and his republican rivals. it's a "fox news sunday" exclusive. holiday travelers may no longer be able to opt out of those controversial body scanners. >> i flew right after 9/11 and that was scary. this i would say i'm feeling comfortable with. >> i don't think this training procedure for someone. >> we'll ask congressman peter
king about the change and what's being done to keep country safe. when does political comment air go too far? we'll ask our sunday panel about the controversy over editorial cartoon about ted cruz and his children. >> not much ticks me off but making fun of my girls, that will do it. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." >> hello, again, from fox news in washington. we begin with breaking news of another round of wild winter weather and another string of deadly tornadoes, this time in the dallas area. at least eight people are dead in the aftermath. the twisters touching down after dark saturday leaving a path of damage stretching over 40 miles just southeast and north of the city. on the other side of the state, the same storm system is expected to leave at least 16 inches of snow in what could be an historic blizzard. look as the snow fell at the sun bowl college football game between miami and washington state in the mexican border city
of el paso. it followed severe weather in the southeast that spawned tornadoes and massive flooding that killed at least 17 this christmas week. meanwhile, the eastern third of the country could set record temperatures again today including here in the nation's capital where we could see a high in the mid 70s. meteorologist janice dean is covering it all in the fox extreme weather center. janice? >> we have the threat for strong storms today and even severe weather east of the dallas area moving in toward arkansas, louisiana and mississippi and then tomorrow's threat it diminishes quite a bit but we could see large hail and damaging winds across portions of the southeast. flood advisories in place for a dozen states. we have the potential for four to eight inches of additional rainfall over the next couple of days and across a wide swath of the country that's already got saturated ground. that's going to be a concern. flash flooding and of course the rivers continue to rise.
looking at the future radar, snow behind this system. mixture of freezing rain or ice as we head into monday across the midwest. the heavy rain threat continues and then by tuesday moving into the northeast where they could get an additional six to eight or even 12 inches of snow. there's your forecast. we have potential for blizzard conditions over texas and new mexico up toward the southern plains. >> the east coast, what is it with these balmy temperatures we're experiencing here? >> we have set records. christmas eve, christmas day, and through the weekend we have had record setting temperatures because we have this frontal system that hasn't really budged and then we have all of this southerly air moving northward so take a look at the temperatures on monday. 42 in new york city. still very warm. and in some cases we saw temperatures colder in phoenix than we saw in new york city. temperatures will moderate a
little bit into tuesday. still very cold air coming in from canada. you can see it's starting to move into the southeast, the ohio valley and in toward the northeast but long range forecasts are still showing a pattern of warmer than average temperatures for the east coast well into january. >> janice dean, thank you very much. now to presidential politics. just a little more than a month now until the first in the nation voting in iowa. just eight years ago, mike huckabee won the gop caucuses there but it's a different story this time around. huckabee is currently polling eighth in the state at only 2.3% according to the latest real clear politics average. this week he said he'll likely end his campaign if he does not finish in the top three. governor huckabee joins me now from little rock, arkansas. governor, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> great to be back with you. >> it's incumbent on me to ask you right off the bat, do you have an announcement to make right now?
>> of course not. not one person in all of america has even voted. i get so amazed that people act like this is all settled. it's never settled this far out. i go back to the iowa caucuses both democrat and republican. john kerry won when he wasn't supposed to. barack obama won when he wasn't supposed to. i won and nobody thought that was going to happen. rick santorum won. he was seventh place back -- sixth place out of seven candidates five days out from the caucuses. everybody wants to base it on polls that have polled 200 or 300 people. let's wait until voters make a decision and we'll have a better picture of where this is all headed. >> in iowa perhaps more than any other state it depends on ground game. how is your ground game in iowa? >> it's terrific. we've spent more time there than anybody. we have organizations in all 99 counties. we have more named chairmen and co-chairmen and people stretched out to the precinct levels. we did a phone survey of 5,000
people in iowa. what we found was 75% of the people in iowa haven't made up their minds yet and 58% said they were not leaning one way or the other. this idea that something is sewed up or fixed, i have been in that state enough to know that it's not just quite like that yet. >> governor, if you were going to stay in it until the caucuses get under way, you have to play hard ball. that's the name of the game. it ain't bean bang. a super pac aligned with you ran an advertisement criticizing senator ted cruz. let's take a look at that. >> listen to cruz raise money in new york city from liberals who don't share our conservative iowa values. >> so would you say top three priority for you? >> no. >> governor, you have been accused of selectively and deceptively editing what cruz said at that private fund-raiser in new york last summer. "the washington post" pointed
out that after cruz said no in that comment, he quickly expanded on the point. no, i was defending the constitution as a top priority and that cuts across the whole spectrum whether defending the first amendment, stopping courts from making public policies and he said i also think that the tenth amendment to the constitution cuts across a lot of these issues. isn't that selective editing there, sir. >> not at all. there was not selective or deceptive. the point is in iowa he made a major point and pitched to evangelicals as a person who is authentic and he'll fight for religious liberty and protect the right of people to disagree with decisions on same-sex marriage. that's not what you heard in that manhattan fund-raiser. that's the only thing that i've pointed out. obviously i had nothing to do with the ad because as you well know, doug, candidates cannot communicate in any way, cannot even have a conversation with people who run a super pac. so there is no coordination or
communication there. but it's just a matter of listening to the transcript and recognizing that it's not a big issue when he's in manhattan. it is a much bigger issue in iowa. we all are looking for people who are consistent and consistent means that you say the same thing regardless of where you are geographically and that you don't take a different position or a slightly nuance position because it would help you or hurt you with manhattan fundraisers and people who are the big dollar donors in the washington to wall street access of power. >> i think in the bigger picture, this harkens back to the 2012 campaign when we had somewhat the same dynamic including mitt romney who all candidates were spending their war chests on attacking each other while president obama was out building his grassroots campaign spending his money on that. "the los angeles times" said an
examination of how the campaigns spent their money illustrates the advantage obama will have. the president's re-election campaign by the end of february pumped nearly $79 million into laying groundwork for a tech savvy field effort. >> i think there's a big difference between showing some legitimate contrasts and bashing. i don't think anybody in the gop so much as bashed another candidate. maybe there's been a little bit here and there. it certainly hasn't been by me. and i don't think that anything i've said has been going after a candidate. it's really pointing out that for those people for whom issues like sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage are critical, important and nonnegotiables, i think they need to certainly understand where candidates stand and make sure that they have a candidate who stands the same wherever he is and doesn't adjust according to geography of place. >> as you well know, donald
trump is not the front runner in iowa but in many, many nationwide polls he is just pulling ahead of the pack. he does this despite this sexual slang that he used to describe hillary's loss in 2008. yet he remains atop these nationwide polls despite numerous gaffes. what explains in your mind his falling? >> the amount of attention that fox news and everybody else gives him. my gosh, in the days after he made the comment about muslims entering the country, donald trump got 25 times more media attention on television than all other gop candidates combined. and so it's very difficult. some of us are saying things that are substantive. when i'm talking about getting the wages up for the bottom 90% of the workers who have had stagnant wages for 40 years or if i talk about the merits of the fair tax and how we can compete in manufacturing, or if i focus on getting the veteran system cleaned up by making
members of congress get their healthcare as well as for families from the va system until they clean it up, you know, it's not that all of america is hearing that because they're hearing what donald trump said. >> you know that fox news has spent a lot of time criticizing donald trump's comments and when we do so, we hear it from his followers no doubt. does his popularity have anything to do with just the generaliz generalized culture. >> people are so mad. i can understand a lot of it. they feel like this government is completely oblivious to protecting them. they go through metal detectors and they take their shoes off to get on a plane to see grandma at christmas and yet here comes terrorists coming in who passes all kinds of background checks and goes and shoots up a christmas party after her husband had sat there and had lunch with fellow employees. people see that and they're
angry. they're angry at the fact that there's a handful of people who get richer and richer. a lot of people in this country work harder and harder and have nothing to show for it. there's frustration. they're frustrated when they watch republicans pass a huge multitrillion dollar spending bill that doesn't defund planned parenthood and doesn't do a thing about obamacare. basically gives the democrats everything they want and gives the republicans nothing. so what i'm seeing is that people are just so incredibly angry and understandably so. >> many longtime respected political analysts say that mr. trump cannot win a general election and here's why. >> trump cannot appeal to swing voters in the key states like ohio and florida, virginia, nevada. the other swing states. the swing states are where the election is. >> will he become the nominee
and will you support him if he becomes the nominee? >> if he's the nominee, of course i'll support him. that's what we've all pledged to do. i'm frustrated that the republican party made a big deal about donald trump being loyal to the party. it better be loyal to whoever the nominee is. it has to work that way otherwise we have no system and nothing at all. here's one question, doug. all of these guys that say trump can't be the nominee, if they're so smart, how come none of them predicted he would be on top of things right now? how come none of them predicted who would be leading and who would be trailing and none of them got it right so far and if they're wrong about that, why should anyone in america believe them about who will be the nominee and who isn't? >> that's your ticket to the iowa caucuses i assume, right? >> why not? >> governor huckabee, thank you for joining us. happy holidays to you. >> thank you, doug. great to be with you. >> up next, donald trump's controversy with some choice
she was going to beat obama. i don't know who would be worse? i don't know. how does it get worse? she was going -- she was favored to win and she got [ bleep ]. she lost. >> you are looking at someone that's had a lot of bad things said about me. that's why we stand up to bullies wherever they are and we shouldn't let anybody bully
his way into the presidency. that's not who we are as americans. hillary clinton reacting to crude language by donald trump earlier this week, as he commented on her first run for the white house. it's time for our sunday group. "the weekly standard." steve hayes, nina easton, and former democratic senator evan bayh. thank you for joining us today. this is not the first time we heard a comment from donald trump. he called rosie o'donnell a fat pig, a slob, appeared to make reference to megyn kelly's cycles. praised vladimir putin. he didn't know what the nuclear triad was, our ballistic armor of submarines, bombers and missiles. he called senator mccain no war hero, and it goes on and on. with each perceived gaff, he rises in the polls.
senator, i'll give you first shot. what explains this? >> he's defying the normal laws of political gravity. any of these would have brought a normal candidate down to earth with a resounding thud. his core supporters love that he's not politically correct. so these comments endear him to them even more. the fact that he's made that are verifiable are the mainstream media and political class are loathed by his supporters, so that doesn't hurt him. you take all this together and it doesn't hurt him in the republican primaries. but it makes him unelectable in a general election. swing voters will not go for this. >> nina? >> i think senator bayh is exactly right. the important thing to remember about the rise of donald trump is the economic forces behind this.
this is economic populism, blue-collar, white voters, very much his base. if you look at how his standing with blue collar voters, noncollege educated voters, he's way, way up there. if you look at him among college educated republican voters, he's like fourth. a top four, he's up there, but not far and away the favorite the way he is. so there's a tremendous amount of anger. you have to look at the median incomes have stagnated, and there has been a drop in incomes for working class folks particularly since the financial crisis of 2009. you look at what he puts in his speeches. he talks about free trade. he talks about shipping jobs overseas, so forth. this stuff appeals to people even beyond the politically correct/unpolitically correct notes he makes. >> and let's look at the latest national poll.
cnn/orc poll. it's important to remember, back in 2008, rudy giuliani holds the same position that donald trump does today. after the start of the new year, he fell precipitously. a word of warning and i think governor huckabee alluded to this. >> it is, really trump has proven to be more canny on how to stay atop more than any figure that may have approached his numbers in the past. it's a much bigger field. it's been a field that has been completely unable to dent him, unable to touch him. you heard that frustration in what huckabee said to you earlier. they don't honestly know what to do. they blame it on the media, saying there's been too much attention paid to him while he's leading. there's a reason that people are paying attention to him. another observation about trump's durability is he's been
completely immune to fact checking. i mean, i think as you both alluded to, one of his strengths has been to turn around criticism and deflect it. he's able to do that really well. it makes it very difficult to know, you know, as a reporter sort of where to go, right? you want to evaluate him on the same objective scale that we use for everyone else. he's sort of immune to it. >> you say he ran or runs a canny campaign, but i'm reminded as you said that of winston churchill's quote that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. steve, joe paladino writes on twitter -- when will he start talking about policy substance instead of people? >> that's a good question. he gave an interview on
"fox & friends" and he said he hopes the field is winnowed, because he wants more time in the debate to flesh out his policy proposals. he really doesn't have much. i would be interested to see how he fills that time, because he doesn't know much about policy, but ironically that's one of the things the voters like about him. i think to the point that the trouble we have fact checking him. you're absolutely right. i have tried repeatedly with limited success, but if you're a trump voter, you think everybody in washington lies. you think that for some reason. that's not just out of the blue. i think there's one primary overriding question that will define the race, and that is, will the people who today say they support donald trump be trump voters in february, march and beyond. if they will, donald trump is the nominee, period. that's the way it's going to unfold. you talk to people from other campaigns about how
donald trump falters, and they don't really have an explanation. i think you have plausible explanation that if he loses in iowa it might upset him and give a crazy speech like he gave when ben carson surged. that could hurt him. on the other hand, the ben carson speech didn't hurt him, so what's the moment where he falters? >> the faltering in iowa is such wishful thinking. ted cruz could win iowa and it won't hurt donald trump. mike huckabee won the iowa caucuses. rick santorum squeaked by in the iowa caucuses. this is not going to be a deathblow for donald trump. >> he's got a floor of voters who just don't care about fact checking, don't care about the statements he's making, but i think he also has a ceiling. so i think the question is 50.1 percent of republicans willing to embrace this? my guess at the end of the day, no, but he's a phenomenon that will go all the way to the convention. >> senator, to that point, some
people have speculated that his rise and sustainability gives rise to the thought of the demise of the republican party. the left leaning center of the america progress points to the dilemma for the gop. two points fewer whites, and that's held true for several election cycles previous. they say the main challenges for republicans in 2016 are two-fold. an overreliance on white votes and an agenda and political tone that's too conservative for a national electorate. >> they would be saying that about any new, republicans would have a very different time. if you look at where american voters are, it's good for republicans right now.
voters are more skeptical of government than at any time including in the post-water-gate constitutional crisis. that's a time for republicans to be making a fact-based argument for smaller government. instead what we're getting is the trump clown show. >> indeed there are two gop candidates, cruz an rubio, who could potentially fight that trend that they are speaking of. >> i think both cruz and rubio have used that to their advantage, certainly their youth, their ethnicity, just their obvious difference from the others on the stage, they use that with the others and they have used it always both of them against hillary clinton, used particularly. i think you're right that absolutely cap would be making the same argument about any republican, but i think it's also useful to remember that reince priebus made the same argument. he has identified and many
thoughtful republicans have identified the long-term demographic problem. >> the demographic problem is real. 24th won about the same percent as ronald reagan. he still loss. republicans have loss at the presidential level the popular vote five out of six times. >> it's true republicans face long-term democratic challenges. eventually the republican party will respond to that in the way that will allow the republican party to survive. my own party in a lifetime carried with one state. they responded to that. they came back more to the mainstream and now is rising. >> ted cruz is rising in iowa. we have seen that coming on very, very strong. he's also firing back against a cartoon that depicted his two daughters as monkeys belonging to an organ grinder. here's a bit of that. >> all of us learned in kindergarten -- don't hit little girls.
it's not complicated, don't make fun of 5-year-old girl and a 7-year-old girl. >> the origin was a political ad that cruz had produced where it looked like he was reading "the night before christmas." and in fact it's "how obamacare stole christmas" and "rudolph of unemployed reindeer" and "frosty the speaker of the house." is it fair to bring his daughters into this? >> no, i would leave them out. it's a general rule that you leave children of candidates out as a general rule. but ted cruz is leading in iowa. of the seven credible polls taken, he's leading in five. i do think that he's being hit unfairly on that question on gay marriage where not just because of the selective editing we saw with
the huckabee super-pac undertake, but he actually answered the question in a way that was consistent with the way he answered it in public. you see his opponents because he's leading in iowa try to smack him for it. >> we heard this again and again from senator cruz how he deflects controversies by referring to the constitution that defend his position. >> well, it's true in this particular case. there are only a few rules in politics left. ultimately everything is sort of out there in the public record. but one of them is leave the kids out of it. "the washington post" did the right thing by pulling the cartoon. whether the average voter ultimately understands constitutional nuance remains to be seen, but, if same-sex marriage and gay rights is your driving issue, you know -- and for those rights, you know senator cruz is probably not your candidate. if you're an evangelical, you know that ultimately you'll probably be safe with him. we have to take a break here, but we'll see you later
a look outside the beltway, at times square where the 2016 sign has arrived. security is certainly on the minds of tourists and residents alike in the city that is been on high alert since last month. to discuss, let's bring in peter king, a member of the house homeland security committee. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, doug. i'd like to get your reaction to news that a purported auto tape recording from the isis leader was released in which he says that neither air strikes by russia nor by the u.s.-led coalition in
syria and iraq has done much damage to his terrorist organization. what do you make of it? >> i would expect al baghdadi to say that, we've had some impact but unfortunately overall he's probably right that after 15, 16 months of air attacks by the u.s., it's had really minimal impact on isis, considering how long those attacks have been going on. as far as the russians they're focusing most of their attacks on the syrian resistance as opposed to isis, so isis is as strong, stronger than i believe it was 16 months ago. they certainly have a larger land mass under their control, not just in iraq and syria, but making agreed inroads in afghanistan. as we know, they also intend to attack the united states. i would say in the last several months it's become clear they do want to launch an attack on the u.s. just last friday, the tsa
announced it is going to require full body scans for some traveling passengers. bruce anderson of the tsa said, quote, some passengers will be required to undergo full body screening if warranted by security considerations. he said this will occur in a limited number of circumstances. what do you infer from this change in procedure? >> well, i do believe it's only going to be very limited number of people, but there will be reasons for it, security reasons why certainly people will be chosen for this and required to go through it. i can't go into the reasons now, but there will be definite reasons why, and also, doug, it's related to two events unone is there's been a series of snipper general inspections, which have shown that tsa -- too
much has gotten through, that the inspections have not been effective enough, and that's why you're going to see this extra level of security directly against certain people. >> could we infer, then this is related to the failure of those tsa testings in the past? or is it related perhaps to some evidence uncovered in recent terrorist attacks, san bernardino or paris? >> i would say it's both. the fact is past inspections have not been effective enough, and the fact that isis is planning increased attacks against the u.s. i just wish the tsa -- and i think the admiral is doing a good job, but i wish they would lay the groundwork for what they're doing, because i think there will be reaction, people will think there will be tremendous delays. there are sound reasons why it's being done. i hope tsa when they do roll it out, they do it in the least intrusive way possible. it is going to be necessary. we live in a very dangerous world, and people have to realize that. >> turning to another issue, the crossing of illegal immigrants across the southern border.
dhs said in the past two months, the number of families crossing the southern border illegally has risen sharply compared with the same period last year. just over 12,500 families were apprehended in october and november, compared to 4,500 during the same two months in 2014. what is causing this uptick in border crossings? >> this is a story that hasn't been covered that much. i'm not sure why, but there is a fact. they are crossing. doug, this is really the case of almost politics of false compassion. i remember when those unintended minors, unaccompanied minors were coming across the border, back in the summer of 2014, your hearts go out to them. the fact is the ones who have suffered the most are the people living in the lower income communities here in the united states. that's where the kids go, and they're not ready for the schools. i know here on long island talking to the police, the numbers of ms-13 gang incidents
have risen dramatically because a number of kids are coming in. it's not their fault. they come from a violent background. they're not prepared educationally or socially. they're put in -- again, it's not white people living on the east side of manhattan. they'll be going into underprivileged communities, communities having a tough time already and on top of that they have an added burden of these kids coming in. again, you feel bad for the kids but the ones suffering the most are those trying to survive, you know, under very tough conditions. congressman, i want to turn to terrorism on the home front. you have said somewhat controversial we need better surveillance of mosques in the united states, quoting you. the only way you're going to find out this in advantage is to do the same type of 24/7 surveillance that was done in the italian-american communities. when they're going after the westies, you look at where the terror threat is going to come from. right now it's from the muslim community.
i can hear the cries of civil libertarians and constitutionalists right now congressman. >> they can cry all they want. the fact is that's where the threat is coming from. we can say that 98%, 99% of muslims in this country are good people, i'm swearing in the first elected muslim on long island into office, a good friend of mine. this is nothing against muslims, but the fact is that is where the threat is coming from. we're kidding ourselves. we have this blind political correctness that makes no sense. for instance, in boston, with the bombing, you have the tsarnaev brother who was put out of a mosque because of his radical thoughts and radical statements made in that mosque. but nobody in the mosque told the police. nobody ever told the fbi. if they had known that in advance, you combine that with the fact that the russians had already told us to be on the lookout for him, we could have prevented possibly the boston marathon bombing. we've had a number of muslims
from where i live gone overseas fighting with al qaeda and you find out they've been in mosques and spoken radically but nobody in those mosques ever told the police. in almost all of the cases you find that -- >> i wanted to ask you about that next. having been privy to classified briefings and intelligence matter, do you know of specific cases where people in the muslim community who see something, say something or are reluctant to do that. >> more often than not. we've had people in mosques here who have spoken radically who spoke of their interpretations to be involved in jihad. it was never told to the police at all. when you talk to police off the record, they will tell you they get very little cooperation. this was one iman in new york that the police did trust.
when they heard the liquid explosive bomber was coming to new york, they went to the imam and asked him for help. the first thing he did was tip off the father of the bomber. he was the one guy they trusted and he tipped off the enemy. congressman, what kind of limits are being placed on u.s. investigative agencies that prevents them from infiltrating the mosques or pursuing sources they know could be beneficial? >> justice department guidelines make it very difficult. local police and again in new york, nypd, they do a phenomenal job. they have tried to cut back on that. i think mayor de blasio made too many concessions. they're still doing a great job, but that's in spite of the restraints, but as far as the feds, they are very limited. they cannot infiltrate mosques. i think it has to be done.
come on in pop pop. happy birthday. i just had a heart attack... and now i have a choice. for her. for them. and him. a choice to take brilinta. a prescription for people who've been hospitalized for a heart attack. i take brilinta with a baby aspirin ...no more than 100 mg. as it affects how well it works. it's such an important thing to do to help protect against another heart attack. brilinta worked better than plavix. and even reduced the chances of dying from another one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to doctor.
since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers. a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. tell your doctor about bleeding, new or unexpected shortness of breath, any planned surgery and all medicines you take. i will take brilinta today. tomorrow. and every day for as long as my doctor tells me. don't miss a day of brilinta.
to discover the best shows friends together and movies with xfinity's winter watchlist. later on, we'll conspire ♪ ♪ as we dream by the fire ♪ a beautiful sight, we're happy tonight ♪ ♪ watching in a winter watchlist land, ♪ ♪ watching in a winter watchlist land! ♪ xfinity's winter watchlist. watch now with xfinity on demand- your home for the best entertainment this holiday season. >> our most important job is to keep the united states safe. the united states continues to lead a global coalition in our mission to destroy isil. isil has lost about 40% of what it once controlled and losing territory in syria.
>> president obama at the end of his year speech very much in contrast to a tape recorded message from al baghdadi. released just yesterday in which he maintains the air strikes against isis are having little effect. we're now back with the panel. steve, your observations? >> that wasn't the only thing in contrast. if you listen carefully. you would think that guantanamo closing is a key priority for the president and key magnet, as he said it, for isis. it was never mentioned at any time in the 24-minute video that al baghdadi released. it's never been a part of the propaganda, yet the president is insistent on closing it. i think the way that the u.s. and the coalition is taking ramadi will virtually ensure that whatever short-term games
are, we're once again relying on the pmus and iranian-backed shiite militias. it will exacerbate the sectarian violence. you have ramadi the heart of the surge, and it is reason it worked with we worked with sunnis and neutralized shia militias. this time around we're taking on the sunnis in addition to isis and in many cases we're working with the shiite malishas. huge contrast. >> to be hsure, whoever inherits the job, the next president will inherit this and are speaking about it for some degree or another. let's look at a montage of perspectives. >> i do not believe we should again have 100,000 american troops in combat in the middle east. that is just not the smart move to make here.
>> we will have a president who will make clear we will utterly destroy isis. we will carpet bomb them into oblivion. >> it would be so great if we could get russia on our side and other countries on our side and knock the hell out of isis. just knock the living hell out of them. >> it's unfair to diminish their perspectives to those sound bites, with the exception of possibly donald trump, but assuming isis is ultimately defeated, what replaces it? just as isis filled the vacuum left by the u.s. departure from iraq in 2011, who fills the next vacuum created by the defeat of isis? this is something that nobody is touching in this country. >> one thing that the islamic state teaches us is something always fills the vacuum. it's an outgrowth of al qaeda, which had its origins, as you say, in many respects in the early days of the u.s. intervention. something always leads to something else.
certainly what i think we heard is the voice of a would-be wartime leader. he's trying to be a battlefield general in that address. the timing of the address is interesting because he had suffered a few battlefield reversals, and essentially trying to respond to the combination of threats he now faces, which are primarily from the united states and russia. at one time he might have thought that russia would be, if not a friend, at least a benign force for him. that hasn't turned out to be the case at all. so i think one thing that we'll have to see among the political candidates is how well they address that question, what is your long-term strategy for what is behind this movement and for what is basically allowing one thing to flow to another and how does the united states position itself to not look like the enemy, not look like it's exacerbating the problem in the middle east and is actually
there to try to be a force for good. >> nina? >> just the terrorism threat in perspective, the year after 9/11, 2002, there are 1,000 terrorist attacks worldwide. the past year there were 30,000. and we see them from groups not just isis and al qaeda, but throughout north africa and other places, so it's a worldwide global threat, so i think the president would once again do well not to downplayed that threat. the baghdadi comments i found interesting in that baghdada was also targeting saudi arabia for its false brand of islam. why? saudi arabia has put together a 34-member nation coalition to go after isis. the kingdom where a lot of the extremism that fuels isis has come from now feels like isis is an existential threat. there have been isis attacks
within saudi arabia, but i do think this will become a key component of defeating isis in the end. >> muslims i think make up something like one quarter of the world's population. even if a tiny fraction are radicals or jihadists, it points to thousands upon thousands of terrorist attacks. is islam in need of a reformation of the like that christianity underwent hundreds of years ago? >> doug, what is the old saying? all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing? if we're going to defeat this in the long run, we have to have the reformation within islam, so the law-abiding peaceful muslims step up and say this is not the face of our religion. those of us who are not muslim don't have credibility in that part of the world. it's going to have to come and be indigenous and authentic to them to reform these societies in a way that gives these young radical, young people, some hope for the future. better economies, a political
system that gives them some outlet for their aspirations. it's not happening right now. >> that's the carrot approach. does the stick approach help in this effort? >> absolutely. the sound bites are interesting. in the short run we have homicidal terrorists. they would kill every one of our viewers. that's only one alternative, and that's to stop them. in the long run every expert will tell you, we have to try to deal with the root causes of the problem ultimately if we're going to prevail. regrettably that's a generational undertaking. >> you have to kill your way out of it but muslims are also victims of these terror attacks. you think about the terror attacks on the school in pakistan. the children being shot, 132 of them, you think about the attack on beirut, days before the paris attack, those were all muslims killed. this is a point that muslim leaders need to bring to the muslim population over and over and over again.
>> this is why donald trump's comments were so hurtful. it's been exaggerated it's not the case that isis is using this as propaganda. at the same time, the entire long-term strategy of reformation inside the muslim world has to be based on separating moderate muslims from the radicals. this makes that job all the more difficult. there are many moderate muslims. i've talked to them here in the united states. when you cover intelligence and national security, some of the very best people you talk to are moderate muslims working on our behalf in the war on terror. it's not helpful at all to paint them all with a broad brush. >> if this is multigenerational. we've seen some are willing to allow some intrusion into their privacy, but if you have a generational war against radical islam, there's an intrusion into our civil liberties. is america willing to accept that?
>> i think, yes, on expanding and contracting basis. we're willing to accept it when the threat appears to be most acute and less willing when it's more remote. we have to preserve the values that make us as americans exceptional, but at the same time the ultimate denial of one's individual liberties is when they're killed. final thing, we can't let someone like edward snowden define how we protect america. our government is not as much of a threat as suicidal terrorists. we need to focus on that. up next, a final note for 2015.
a look at the sights and sounds on the beach in honolulu, where the president is spending time with his family this holiday weekend. meanwhile, the holidays are no time for a break for the republicans vying for the president's job. the trail taking many of the candidates to new hampshire. next sunday chris will sit down with two candidates who that state is do or die. new jersey governor chris christie, who has seen some momentum in recent weeks, and former florida governor jeb
bush, both "fox news sunday" exclusives. you don't want to miss it. and finally thank you for watching us each week throughout this busy new year as we say good-bye to 2015 and look ahead to 2016, here are the names of all of the people who work so hard every week to put this program on the air. from all of us, happy new year to you and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ on the buzz meter this sunday, a war of words heating up between hillary clinton and donald trump. the media can't get enough. the focus shifts from hillary's unsubstantiated debate charge from trump over isis to the donald's use of a crude term against hillary and his slam against her bathroom habits. >> where did hillary go? they had to start the debate without her, phase 2. why? i -- i know where she went. it's disgusting, i don't want to talk about it. no, it's too disgusting. >> with donald trump, my goodness, if there's a subtext, do you need a subtext? do you need to know the hidden meaning behind what is already offensive on his face?