tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News August 9, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
you never miss an episode. we always promised to be fair and balanced. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. ♪ >> good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." i'm brian. tucker says he's on vacation with his family. we need photos. north korea's state media warns that its arm my is planning potential attacks on guam, the guam islands in less than 200,000 in the western pacific. is this a real threat? the story just moved to shore. north korea state run media said north korea is ready to attack guam by mid august? the initial threats came shortly
after president trump warned that any aggression from the north korean dictator kim jong-un would be met with annihilating force. >> north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. he has been very threatening beyond a normal statement. and as i said, they'll be met with fire, fury and frankly power. the likes of which this world has never seen before. thank you. >> secretary of state rex tillerson says the president's words should make americans feel more secure. >> i think what the president was just re-affirming is the united states has the capability to fully defend itself from any attack and defend our allies. we'll do so. so the american people should sleep well at night.
>> that's the secretary of state. eddie is the governor of guam. he's been encouraging his citizens to remain calm. that was prior to the latest state-run news service report. governor, thanks for joining us. i see by your preinterview remarks, you were saying stay calm, don't overreact to this. you still feel the same way after the aggressive comments that just came out of their state-run media? >> yeah, good morning from guam and good evening to you folks on the east coast. oddly for our administration, after the people of guam, there is concern and worry. there's no panic. if you can recall just going back to 2013, this is about the third, fourth threat made by north korea specifically to guam as well as other facilities or bases in asia as well as the states, hawaii and the west
coast. we are -- we have right now 160,000 american citizens on this island. 50,000 american it is sins in the northern marianas. with have tourists on our shores. we encourage everyone to go through their lives and live them like you would do any other day. at the same time, we have our civil government working in collaboration with our -- the military regional command here that is prepared for any type of contingency. this belacose statements, this is no different than what he did in 2013. at the same time, we are concerned that it does not ramp up. most of our concern here in guam
is that decisions are not made that would cause some sort of a conflict over here. i go back to a certain senator a day or two ago that made mention that let's have a conflict, and encouraging the administration to go to war. because they'd rather have it over there than in the homeland. i think it's important for me as elected governor of guam -- >> governor, i understand that a little delay but you're talking about lindsey graham saying it's about time after four failed administrations saying they thought they reigned in north korea, it's about time to let them know there's going to be retribution for their statements and the nuclear program. they have just said the president's remarks yesterday are a load of nonsense and they promise by mid august, which is about a week away, to hit four missiles by your island. so do you think the president's remarks are getting to the heart of the problem, no longer
strategic patience and does that play to solving this problem in the big picture? >> as far as i'm concerned, as an american citizen, i want a president that says that if any nation such as north korea attacks guam, attacks honolulu, attacks the west coast, that they will be met with hell and fury. what i'm concerned about is if a u.s. senator says initiate an attack and causing alarm and remembering that there are in the mariana islands, this is american territory. this is similar to hawaii where there's over 200,000 american citizens. so it's important that as we make decisions that those folks that are in a position of leadership that they understand, too, that war is the last option because not only will tens of thousands of american military forces and dependent be affected
by a regional war but because the western pacific has american soil in it, a couple hundred thousand americans could get caught in the cross hairs. i think it's important to be strong, but at the same time be calm. i've had enough briefings with the military, there's a multilayered defense starting from korea, japan as well as in the western pacific as well as our assets here in guam with the thaad missile defense system that american communities will be protected. >> no doubt about it, governor. you know that. the secretary of state was just there. you have a thaad missile system, 6,000 troops and they think they're going to hit you first, this is one of the places in the region that we don't need permission from another country to act. because guam is part of us. governor, i appreciate getting up very early for us and giving this exclusive enter and let us
know what it's like to be in the line of fire. >> everything is okay. come to guam. >> you got it. i'll use my hilton points. we'll go there. all right. meanwhile, let's move ahead with the story and get a perspective jillian turner was with the strategic council. good to see you. and mike sample an expert on north korea and wrote a great biography of kim jong-un. they both join us. jillian, i'd like to start with michael. michael, you do not believe if kim jong-un has one shot it's going to be at guam. >> of course not. if you're going to go to prison, you're going to take a shot, you punch the guy in the face. when the japanese attacked us at pearl harbor, there was a fleet there. they know the retaliation regardless of who the president was. even president obama would have been swift and brutal. the good thing about president trump, he's speaking their language. when you're engaged in negotiation when somebody is
hostile, you want the come at them with the same volume and say here not falling down with my bluster. if you go back to the 90s, kim jong-un boasted that if they attack, we're going to destroy the world. they haven't destroyed the world. let's take one more deep breath. in the cold war, there were hundreds and thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us and we lived through that. we have this people eager for war with north korea, so let's take a deep breath and calm down before we go down that last resort. >> and we switch to jillian. the longer we wait, the more dangerous they are. they're on a rapid course to increase their strength and send up their nuclear technology over to iran. jillian, in terms of where we're at, we're in unchartered waters, wouldn't you say? >> we are. at the same time, brian, secretary mattis and secretary tillerson both said things today that hit the nail on the head. mattis said that americans --
north koreans know that the united states would overwhelm the north koreans and any kind of arms race or a ground conflict that they could provoke. secretary tillerson said americans should sleep well in their beds tonight as michael just pointed out. those are the guidelines here. those are the ground rules. that's the ground truth. that's what we need to bank on. >> everybody has their achilles heel. you've done some extensive work on the family from the grandfather to the father and now the son. arguably the most lethal. what is their achilles heel? we know for the dad, he got the bulk of his money that fed the troops. where is it here? >> the achilles heel would be what would be the plan b if he was taken out of power? if there's some kind of soft landing that maybe china can guide us through and allow people at the top, if not him, to maintain some semblance of power, that might be it. however, when these people go down and lose their whole power, they are usually killed
themselves. kim jong-un promised to stay the course far more than his elder brother. that's why the elder brother was passed over. so he's locked into a corner himself. if he's going to back down from the united states, that will cause him to lose faith in front of his leadership. another problem for him. >> and this guy has not been invited to china to meet with the chinese leader. they arguably don't know how to figure him out. today they're supposed to be anti-u.s. demonstrations which believe it or not are pretty much demanded. that is meant to say what to us. >> this is something that is planned or ordered by the government, a quick note on kim and the north korean family. one thing here that i think it's important to say, president trump has this sort of core guiding belief, i would say,
that intimidation must be met head on with intimidation. this is a relatively new tact for the united states to take. our posture since the end of korean war has been diplomacy at all costs. so president trump is trying something new. i think before everybody decides it's going to lead to a nuclear holocaust and be catastrophic, maybe people should take a break and see if we can get further than where we've been. >> jailian, i'm amazed at the limited gravitas that this president gets. the zero benefit of the doubt. in moments, we had every democratic leader and senator john mccain condemning the president's remarks. do they remember when ronald reagan who i believe was a successful president, they named an airport after him, he said this about qaddafi. he said he's a barbarian and flakey.
he named him the mad dog of the middle east. i'm sure he was one of the most respected presidents. michael, are you surprised? do you think it gives the north korean leader a sense of the wind at his back when he sees that other lawmakers don't have the president's back? >> north koreans have the advantage of not having to listen to chuck schumer run his mouth. when he says things like trump's reckless rhetoric isn't helping things, nonreckless rhetoric is what got us to this place. and president george w. bush put them on the axis of evil. there were times that we were more aggressive with them, this is speaking their language. both sides, when they speak the same language is when there's a result. >> there's a report not only can they miniaturize a nuclear head, president obama knew about it as early as 2013. if that report is correct, that is absolutely terrible. michael, gillian, thanks so
much. >> thanks. >> let's change gears. bill de blasio says he hates bullying and wants employees to have good morale. why does the new york mayor according to his e-mails bully his employees? we'll show you what he said next. he will miss it. he's probably taking a nap. tucker will be back. tucker will be back. he says i hope old people get
for years, centurylink has been promising fast internet to small businesses. but for many businesses, it's out of reach. why promise something you can't deliver? comcast business is different. ♪ ♪ we deliver super-fast internet with speeds of 250 megabits per second across our entire network, to more companies, in more locations, than centurylink. we do business where you do business. ♪ ♪ >> brian: get ready for this. bill de blasio is a bully with a
bad attitude. that is according to the "new york post." some of his tamper tantrums against his own staff. in one of the e-mails, de blasio lambasted his communication aides because they didn't use phonetic spellings that he found hard to pronounce. do what i do, mispronounce them. the mayor writes, what do i need to do to get you to follow a direct order? do you need to experience consequences? guys, i'm fed up, which he writes his own headlines. de blasio blames his staff for his verbal stumbles. he said between all of you, you haven't fixed the problem which is bluntly unprofessional. according to the post, insiders call de blasio condescending and arrogant. the embarrassing and typewritten e-mails differ greatly from how de blasio presents himself. take a look at this. >> i also think there's a place for a thing we call good morale.
where you're honors, you're respected, you're work is put on the pedestal it should be put on and you're told every day by a mayor and a chancellor, we need you, we appreciate you, we thank you. >> based on a true story. pure fiction. the e-mails will have no effect on de blasio who is immune from embarrassment. de blasio faced corruption charges and probes, been caught giving preferential treatment to his donors. he uses a police helicopter to avoid rush hour traffic and when he visited the subway, he had police clear out all the homeless first. the mayor spends much of the day napping in his famously late for everything. once he miss add ceremony honoring victims of a plane crash because he had a "very rough night and woke up sluggish." he dropped a groundhog in a
photo op. he wanted to join an anti trump protester in germany, a trip financed by city funds. despite that, de blasio be likely cruise to re-election this fall that is sad. re-represented michael faulkner joins us. why don't you run for mayor first? >> i tried that. we couldn't get the kind of traction that we would be getting now. but here's the thing. there's two people in that position, the comptroller and the mayor. the mayor needs to go. the comptroller needs to control the mayor if the mayor doesn't go. >> brian: that's true. he's going to play a big role. and your sports background. what you do for kids on a regular basis make you a perfect politician. you care more about the people than getting rich. in de blasio's case, he's doing everything to blow it. he gets to work in at 10:00 after working out so tired, he
sleeps on the couch with a newspaper on his head to block out the overhead lights and demands people quiet down. >> it's unbelievable. then he be rates his staff because he's a micro manager that can't micro manage. he doesn't show up to do his job and berates his staff for not doing their job. >> brian: what i don't understand is, you had mayor bloomberg win as a republican even though he was a moderate. nobody could question mayor bloomberg's work ethic and his views. he wrote a lot of checks for people and nobody knows it. rudy guliani transformed this city twice as a republican. >> he was having staff meetings -- rudy guliani used to have staff meetings at 7:00. then he gave them a break. he started having them at 8:00 a.m. every morning. it's not about republicans, democrats. it's about connecting with the people, the voters. i'm connecting with the voters right now. the people are believing in me. i spend a lot of time in public
housing. they're fed up with de blasio and stringer and fed up with the rhetoric for the progressive rhetoric. they want jobs and equal opportunities. >> brian: i lived in long island. i went to school in long island. so every two or three months i have a reason to go to the city. the last 20 years i do it every day. i watch the transform when they said it was impossible. i watch crime just dissipate. i watch the graffiti go. 42nd street is a tourist place. where is the outrage? >> from those people protesting president trump. they should be protesting now the existence of bill de blasio. they should be protesting where the city is going. the way we can protest is in november. we can vote the bums out, drain the swamp. we have some opportunities to truly elect people that will represent the people. >> the democratic governor can't
stand the democratic mayor. they hate each other. they can't stand the sight each other and work against each other. what does it say about new york that they're not demanding more? the fact is, 46% of people say he deserves another four years. 46 people say he doesn't, this should be a black and white issue. >> one of the unfortunate statistics about new york, we're the most corrupt state in the union in terms of corrupt officials that go to jail. that's unfortunate. create as distrust in the minds of the electorate. people don't trust the politicians. they won't vote. they disengage. >> brian: i want your perspective on colin kaepernick. he played in the nfl. you know he doesn't have a job. he turned down a $900,000 job because it was insulting. by the way, you have speak lee saying i'm organizing a protest. no one goes to a football game or buys any football
paraphernalia until he gets a job. 140,000 people are signing on. what is your reaction? >> listen, first of all, football is a business. they're an employer. they employ colin kaepernick. i'm proud of him for expressing his political views. he has a right as an american to express his political views. those employers have a right to fire him. or not to hire him. he's a highly paid employee of an organization that has the right to say the kind of employees they want. they're expressing their rights. he's expressing his. if he's a real martyr, he's suffering the consequences for his political opinion. take it like a man. >> brian: michael, great to see you. congratulations. hope you have success in the fall. >> thank you. >> brian: coming up straight ahead, bill nye the scientists is not a scientists. he said wrong ideas die off. tucker will talk to a
progressive journalist that says that nye has the right idea. whoooo. you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if... ....there was a single site... ...where you could find the... ...right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares... ...prices from over 200 booking... ...sites ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.
environment waiting for old people who disagree with his views to die and get out of the way. joe rahm is a blogger. he says nye may be on to something. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> so this seems -- there's lots of disagreements with science. this seems like a pretty nasty way to frame it. people disagree that should just die? >> well, i think that's not exactly what he said. he just said that climate change deniers tend to be older and generational. in science, it's not unusual for scientists to point out that it's the older generation that are stuck in a paradigm and they're not going to change their views. >> what is unusual for scientists to use political language like "denier" to push views that are not right. that's not scientific way of approach ago conversation.
like likening it to holocaust -- >> it's not the same -- >> but in real science, what you do, you marshall your data and present them in an open forry and may the best data win. >> after that -- we've been doing that for 25 years. all the countries of the world asked all the leading scientists to review the science every five years around put out a report. and that report, by the way, was then reviewed line by line by every world government. so this is kind of the least common denominator -- >> that's not true. there's many questions up in the air. like what causes global warming. >> that's not a big question anymore. >> may not be -- most people may agree with a interpretation. that's one of many. is it real? how profound is it? what causes it? can you reverse it? it's valid to have a place on the spectrum on any of those questions without being a
denier, without being immoral or stupid or deserving of death. it's not all or nothing. >> can i ask a question? >> you may. >> you don't bring people on the air anymore that say cigarette smoking isn't harmful. >> that's not equivalent. >> it is -- >> actually not. there's an open debate about how exactly we can reverse this. if we can at all. there's not a -- >> there's not a debate. >> there's not a 97% consensus that this is -- for example, the paris accord is the only way to reverse global warming. it's not true. there's all kinds of opinions, this is a political question. >> now you're mixing up the politics, the solutions -- >> you are. you are doing so. >> 97% of scientists agree that humans through the burning of fossil fuels and cutting down trees are the primary cause of global warming. >> my point is only -- i'm not contesting that. >> so you accept that. >> i'm not contesting that
the -- >> you contest it? >> that is one -- here's what i contest. i contest the idea that science is ever settled. the nature of science is that you bring to bear to what you think you know, endless series of questions, endlessly skeptical. when you stop being skeptical, you're advancing a political agenda. >> if i get on an airplane, am i advanced a political agenda? >> if you get on the plane and you don't ask what crashed it -- >> and if airplanes are safe to fly on, it doesn't mean that they never crash. it means we know they're very safe. we put 12 men on the moon and got them back. so science does have a good way of figuring out what works and what doesn't. >> i agree with that. when we're endlessly skeptical, when we test what we know against the available data.
that's what makes me nervous about your approach and bill nye the fake science guy of the he's very offended that this 3% still exists. maybe they should die. why should that affect him or you? that people have a different view? why do you feel so angry that you would call them names like denier or wish for their death? why is that? >> i don't think he wishes for their death. >> he said they did. they'll do and everything will be better. >> in "or gins of species" he said that he knows evolution is true. he knows he won't persuade the existing bunch of naturalists and scientists because they lived their career with another paradigm and he's looking forward to the next generation that will look at this objectively. you're not looking at this objectively. >> i think i am more than you. i think i know less than you. i know religious behavior when i see it.
anybody threatened by questions, he's engaging in theology. >> so you're threatening us by solving the problem. >> not in the slightest. >> you said the paris agreement is somehow no good. that's the solution that every single country in the world, 190 nations, unanimously agreed -- >> only president trump pulls out -- >> now you're not a scientist. you're a political person. i'm -- >> i'm a scientist by trade -- >> you're not behaving like on.: why is it okay -- this is a question i asked. i'm not a denier by the religious nuts. why is it okay to keep polluting for many years to come, why do we call that progress? they're like you don't believe in global warming? i'm not saying that. >> they are not saying that. >> they are. >> china is not. china has probably levelled off co2 emissions -- >> under the terms of the agreement -- you're factually wrong on this. china does not have to reduce
its carbon emissions immediately. am i misstating that? >> you are correct. >> am i right. >> but you're wrong in that they already have plateaued their co2 emissions. to be clear -- >> that may or may not be true -- >> can i have 30 seconds? >> yes. >> people can read the answers to every single one of these questions in my book. "climate change, what everybody needs to know" which is a primer that i did for oxford university after reading the literature -- >> if they don't agree with you should they die? are they deniers or people with different views? >> that's not what i said. what i said is that here's what we know, tucker. it seems to me you're the one that is denying the consensus. >> i'm not denying -- >> humans are the principal cause of global warming. okay. is that true or not? are you conceding that or conceding that nor the purpose of talking to me? >> the question at this point is what do you do about the rise --
the apparent rise in global temperatures? there's many possible answers to that question. >> there are not -- >> there are not. okay so anyone that -- i'm just saying you're not conducting science. you work for a political organization. these are political questions that ought to be solved through political means. you're trying to short circuit that by saying we know the answer. shut up and obey or you're a dyer. >> i never said that. you never get 190 nations of the world to agree on anything. the fact that they got together and unanimously said we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground must tell you something because it's never happened before. >> really? it happened in the first world war when every population agree it was a good idea to go to war. it wasn't. >> 190 nations -- >> a group of people agree on something it might be right? i disagree with your premise. everybody agreed the earth was flat. >> and science told them it wasn't. >> then let it come along.
>> it did. as much as we asked the doctors, is it safe to smoke? the answer is no. >> it's not the same. >> it's exactly the same. >> so revealing, this conversation is so revealing. >> it is. i hope we can have more. >> thank you for joining us. >> read my book and you'll be informed and you won't have to ask -- >> if i don't, i should die. thank you. >> you're not. >> that was the happiest fighting i've over seen in my life. meanwhile, coming up in the next 24 minutes, this story. how much of a threat is north korea actually pose in how much force would be needed to defeat them? up next we'll talk to a retired army colonel about those questions and he has the answers. mike stein is here to discuss the reaction to north korea's aggressive conduct and the president's comments. those two disagree about the guy in the middle.
moving. a short time ago with the escalating situation, there's new threats of the country through the national media. they are now saying they're going to fire four missiles near game sometime in mid august, next week. trump warns of fire and fury. they respond add again by saying trump's warning is a load of nonsense. so they're mocking our president. how and will the united states respond? what is the correct response here? after all, as long as this conflict is taking place, we might be the unchartered warrers. we have colonel douglas mcgregor. you believe this answer to this problem is china. you still believe that? >> yes. it's not just china. we also have to work closely with our korean allies.
president moon of the republican of the korea. i want to get back to that. first, let me dismantle some of these ridiculous claims. first, president trump is absolutely right. in the early 1990s, when this issue was boiling over once again in north korea and they had begun trying to develop nuclear weapons, general powell, former chairman stated that if a nuclear weapon is ever launched by north korea, we will turn the country into a parking lot. the north koreans know that to be the case. they are frightened. let's get that off the table. secondly, these missiles that they're talking about, the four of them are liquid fuel rockets from the 1970s. this is old technology. it's not precise. they couldn't hit guam. they couldn't hit anything with any reliability. as far as the range is concerned, they can't carry any war heads and hit anything because the rockets will run out of fuel before they get close to guam. guam is 2,100 miles from north
korea. we've been treated to these kinds of boasts and hot air for a very long time. so we need to dismiss this. north korea is in a lot of trouble right now. they're in the midst of a severe drought. not only are they having trouble feeding their own population, they can't feed their own troops. the equipment goes back to the 60s and the 70s. they have very, very few modern weapons. the bottom line is, we need to top saying the capability isn't there, stop underestimating and talk to the south korean president. >> when it comes to south korea, they had this liberal leader elected. i can't do a dissertation on korean politician. but he's changed his tone, hasn't he? he said i don't know about the thaad missile same. i'm going to do a environmental study. wheel they're examining if a frog would live or die if the missile would come in, they got to a point to needs it right
away. that alliance is reinvigorated. if you want the attention of china, who gives them all their oil and provides them with a lot of banking investment, could you start to bulk up with additional missiles? you start to have additional military presence. you go get japan more missiles? that is china's nightmare, wouldn't you agree? that wound get them to crack down. >> absolutely not. if you do those things, china will walk away from you. neither china, south korea or japan want a war in northeast asia. you're talking about building up for a war. the last thing we should do is launch any strikes or respond in any way whatsoever to these hollow threats. china would much prefer to do business with seoul. china loathes north korea. right now china has massed troops on the north korean border. the best troops they have. they held naval exercises last week which were directly threatening korea. may they'd it very clear, in the koreans go down this road, they
will engage north korea. so that is the wrong answer. this is not something we should involve ourselves in. >> really? you want us to back out there -- >> listen, brian. listen, brian. we need to talk to president moon. he has a strategy. he is our ally. he has 50 million people to be concerned about in the south. another 25 million koreans north of the dmz. he doesn't want any of them to die. we should not do anything unless we consult with him. >> brian: okay. i will say this, colonel, unfortunately we're up against it, if they were serious about cracking down, they would tell their banks to not do business in north korea until they start denuclearizing. they have not done that. but i am encouraged about what happened sunday. >> i think you would find that right now north korea's nightmare is chinese intervention. the chinese have made very clear what they will not tolerate. we need to talk to china about reuniting that peninsula under seoul and be prepared to
withdraw our forces in order to give china an incentive to cooperate with us. >> brian: that's a great point. i would love to do that. we would leave but not with north korea as belligerent as they are. thanks for your service. some republicans are bashing the president in his handling of the north korean situation. up north, mark steyn is here. why republicans are divided over the president. he's better
seen, they don't threaten unless they are ready to act. >> yeah. >> i'm not sure that president trump is ready to act. >> up trump has basically drawn a red line saying they will never allow north korea to have an icbm missile that can hit america with a nuclear weapon on top. he's not going to let that happen. he's going to stop the threat. >> brian: the media is more obsessed than the president's wordses that the actual threat of war. >> you don't think the president's comments are at odds with those of the secretary's or is this kind of a good cop bad cop routine? >> the president's language implies the use of nuclear force. does the secretary have any early warnings -- >> the president of the united states threatening a nuclear m armed country. >> let's consider what is
alarming. two nuclear tests last month. when there's an e-mail in china, i get an e-mail from you asking if another nuclear test. >> brian: and heather was flabbergasted was acting against the threat of north korea and how it's different from ever before. she was exasperated by it. were you? >> and she's right to be. this is like some lame joke, you know, what is the difference between donald trump and kim jong-un. one is an out of control crazy psycho guy and the other is the respected president of north korea. they're arguing about the president's rhetoric at a time when a government has made an explicit threat to nuke u.s. territory. these guys are the crazy ones. >> brian: they act like president trump is the only one to have ever have challenging words for a persistent threat.
remember what reagan said about qaddafi? he said he was a flake. what has happened? >> what has happened is that people are generally not as serious about these things. i mean, the conversation of north korea is -- people are arguing about whether he can merely nuke guam or whether he can nuke boston. these are absurd differences. the fact is, the same house-trained politicians have spent a quarter century allowing to us get to this point. that's why we're here. >> brian: i talked to senator mccain today. he would have been a great president. it was the same senator mccain that called kim jong-un a short fat kid and mocked him. why is that okay and the president saying this threat has
to be confronted by fire and fury? why is that not okay? >> john mccain was also the guy doing the bomb, bomb, bomb iran jokes a couple years ago as well. what i have to remember here is, it's not a time to argue about rhetoric. >> exactly. >> this is something real. we're in a state of the world now where a regime that does not respect maxims of prudence is an economic basket case and somehow managed to be a nuclear power on bill clinton and george bush's and barack obama's watch. >> brian: he handed this president a grenade, did barack obama and he might have known about the miniaturizing of the water head as early as 2013. this country elected a president more confrontational than the previous one. they elected a professor after
they thought the last president was a cowboy. respect what the people put in the dugout. >> absolutely. in fact, i don't think it hurts at this moment for the united states to be perceived as slightly unpredictable. if you -- >> no one fights the crazy guy in the back of the bar. >> if you think back to osama bin laden sitting in a tent outside canada hash and tora bora on september 10, 2011, america had overwhelming power, and could have used it to destroy afghanistan. yet those guys had no fear that it would mark. >> brian: thanks, mark steyn. when we come back, we wrap things up in just a moment.
check out my radio so, if you can't find your local station, go to foxnews.com. have a great night, everyone. "the five" is n n n n n n n n n. unless you have a different rundown. ♪ >> greg: hello, i am greg gutfeld. a claim as her suitcase, dana perino. "the five." the causes on vacation. >> north korea does not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury. like the world has never seen. >> greg: oh, dear. as usual, a threat. >> the first