tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX June 7, 2015 6:00am-7:01am PDT
. 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 gain is, the administration takes this very seriously and recognizes it as a threat to our national security. >> we'll discuss the breach and what we should do about it. the two key congressmen, 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 caitlyn. the sunday panel weighs in on the latest sexual culture war and debate over the female viagra pill. bush 41's chief of staff bragging on his boss' behalf. >> someone 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
catherine has the latest. >> reporter: the office of personal management is now the fourth government agency hacked within the last year. a u.s. official says this dated that breach could affect every branch of government. what's more concerning to investigators this morning is growing evidence that it's not an isolated incident, but rather part of a state-sponsored campaign by china with the micro targeting of security clearance for blackmail, impersonation. opm does 90% of federal background investigations. >> the office of personnel management is a real attractive target because it represents the holy grail of access within the united states government. even though this is a mike roar target, it's a microtarget of probably the most valuable information and that's what makes this so highly dangerous. >> reporter: republican senator susan collins, a member of the senate intelligence committee, said the breach was yet another
indication of a foreign power probing successfully and appears to be identifying data with people with security clearance. they say the high level of organization also points to a nation state and the likely backing have chinese military units such as plm6938 housed in this suburban office in shanghai. they're used for advanced persistent threats used to hurt them covertly. that's what happened at opm. they believe it was hacked because it's a soccer target than the nsa or defense department. the question is whether employee intelligence information was stolen. >> thank you. how damaging was the attack and what can we do about it? we invited two congressional experts to answer those questions. peter king and from california, adam schiff, the top democrat on the house intelligence
committee. je gentlemen, i want to take you back to what president obama said about hacking in february. here he is. >> the wiber 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, warned that agency's computer system was a hacker's dream which raises the question, congressman king, did president obama fail to safeguard his own administration? >> we have to get a fuel report. i don't to want prejudge this but obviously something went wrong. this is a threat we have to face and we have to do more than we're doing right now. congress passed two bills. the house passed two bills in recent months, which would begin to address some cyber security issues but more has to be done. i think we have to find a way to make effective use of all our intelligence and surveillance
apparatus even if that involves the nsa and others. we're talking about nation states here. whether it turns out to be china or not, it's a likely suspect. we have to not be afraid to use all our tools to stop this this could be devastating on our country. >> how strong is the evidence the chinese were in fact, behind this? there are reports this was done to not steal identity theft, to try to find out who to survey or recruit as a spy so how damaging was the information that whoever hacked into opm, that they actually stole? >> chris, it's very valuable information. while we're not allowed to comment on the attribution yet, we've gotten used to at bus. there are only two possibilities here with an attack like this, a state actor or a group of private hackers who usually work
in concert with the state. and the motive is fraud in terms of ripping off people's identity or if it's a state-sponsored attack it will be personal information that can be exploit exploited to find out people work negotiate intelligence community, could be used to enable other spear fishing attacks. and the real challenge chris, in this asymmetric battle of cyber warfare, those in the offense have all the damage. it's very expensive to defend. you need one open door and you're vulnerable. you can often attack with anonymity and be free from repercussions. one thing we have to do in addition to the defense is find out how we can go on offense and be a deterrent to future attacks. >> congressman king, do we need to retaliate against the people we believe are conducting cyber warfare against us? >> i believe we do.
i don't think we should announce what we're doing. i think the president and his administration have the capacity to respond once they find out, you know, who they believe this is, then i think yeah, there has to be a price to pay for this. how that's done, when it's done, i will leave it to them. all of us have our own ideas, but the fact s nothing should be telegraphed in advance. nothing should be given as far as notice. i think these countries or terrorist groups should know there will be consequence when they act this way. >> we learned through another edward snowden's leaks that president obama approved the nsa using warrantless surveillance to pick up international internet traffic of americans that may be involved in some way in hacking. congressman schiff, you were one of the leaders in the effort 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? >> well 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 working for foreign states that are going to come in and steal our secrets or damaging our infrastructure or companies, absolutely we need to gather that information. it's done under section 702, with court supervision. it's fundamentally what the people expect of their government. we ought to be aimpressively going after and identifying and protecting the country from cyber hackers. we need to make sure in that process if there is any unintend the collections of information about americans, for example, a foreign hacker hacks into a company and steals the information, we follow all the minimumization requirements. >> congressman king of course this all comes the same week
congress voted to reform, not to end, but to reform and to some degree restrict the government's bulk data collection of our phone rorsdzecords. after that vote in the senate, you put out this tweet. you wrote today's nsa vote a victory for america, for ignorance over victory and defeat, edward snowden and rand paul. i don't have to tell you, you've gotten a lot of blowback for, some degree, linking isis and rand paul. do you want to take this back? >> absolutely not. what rand paul did was disgraceful. those changes were worked on, debated. the fact is 99% of the senate wanted the debate to go guard. rand paul wanted to shut down the nsa for several days, serving no purpose other than for him to raise money for his presidential campaign. that went beyond the limit of
intelligent debate, rationale debate, and violated his opinion as a senator. we can have positions, debate them, vote against nsa if you want to but to use your one person power to unilaterally shut it down, knowing it will be reopen in several days, so all he was doing was hurting american security and at the same time asking people to send him contributions, that was shameful and disgraceful. >> let's turn to another potential security breach, that is we learned this week that at the tsa investigators inside people from department of homeland security posing as passengers, and you see on the screen were able to sneak fake weapons past screeners 67 times in 70 attempts. that's a 90% rate of failure. congressman king, do we need to rethink our screening at airports? i know it's 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 in homeland security. he'll be temporarily headed to nsa. then i urge the senate to confirm admirable as soon as possible. obviously this failure rate is totally, totally unacceptable. as far as profiling that's one of those hot-button terms. we should be narrowing it down to our most likely and try to do to the extent we can, what the israelis do. it's much tougher in our society. we have to, again, be more selective. we also have to make sure the tsa does a much much better job, profiling whatever we to want call it. the fact is 90% failure rate is wrong. not just wrong.
it's totally unacceptable. >> finally, there was the case this week in boston of osama raheem who was killed by police. they say he and another man were plotting to behead someone and also to attack boston police. congressman schiff, how many americans, and obviously we're talking ballpark here how many americans are being radicalized over the internet by isis and how do we stop these lone wolves? >> chris i think many hundreds are being radicalized. the fbi investigator acknowledged we have open in it is union. it's a challenge the use of social media in such a sophisticated way by isis is radicalizing those at home. it's not only drawing recruits to syria and iraq, that's one thing, but also stimulating lone wolf attacks here in the homeland. ly say on the hierarchy of concerns, my greater concern is
the one you discussed, and that's the airports, because those kind of attacks, unlike boston and garland those attacks much having out an airport radicaling changing our country, decimating an industry the way we live we have seen through the intelligence that remains a top priority. in terms of my concerns, the airports are at the very top. these isis-related social media tax also a worry but not likely to change the nature of the country. >> congressman schiff, congressman king very busy and troubling week on all these areas. thank you for joining us today. we'll stay on top of all these stories. up next former pennsylvania senator rick santorum makes another bid out of white house. how does the gop runner-up in 2012 stand out this time in a crowded field. natural gas producer... and we could soon become number one in oil.
because hydraulic fracturing technology is safely recovering lots more oil and natural gas. supporting millions of new jobs. billions in tax revenue... and a new century of american energy security. the new energy superpower? it's red, white and blue. log on to learn more. you probably know xerox as the company that's all about printing. but did you know we also support hospitals using electronic health records for more than 30 million patients? or that our software helps over 20 million smartphone users remotely configure e-mail every month? or how about processing nearly $5 billion in electronic toll payments a year? in fact, today's xerox is working in surprising ways to help companies simplify the way work gets done and life gets lived. with xerox, you're ready for real business.
a look outside the beltway of des moines, iowa. and our next guest won the iowa caucuses in 2012 and then went on to take another ten states before losing the gop nomination to mitt romney. now former pennsylvania senator rick santorum is making another run for the white house, positioning himself as champion of the working class. senator rick santorum, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you. >> you advisedly split with the
republican party saying its traditional message is out of touch touch. here you are. >> we are stuck with a 35-year-old message on the economy. it's a message that says cut taxes for high income individuals and balance the budget. they're right but it's insufficient today. >> you say 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 the people hurting american. what i've talked about is multi. we have to create opportunities for the 74% of americans who don't have a college degree who look at both political parties. necessity aren't talking to them. how do we create jobs that create opportunities? i focused on something happened in the last five years in our economy that has created an opportunity to change things. that's energy. we now have low, stable energy prices for as far as the eye can see. that's a game-changer to allow us to be competitive in
manufacturing. manufacturer is heavy user of natural gas and energy. though loes taxes, if we get our tax situation correct, regulatory environment correct, our immigration environment correct we can create an environment for american workers to get good paying jobs and be able to rise in society. >> you talk about raising the minimum wage. >> i do. >> you're, i gather, quite skeptical of the trade deal the president is pushing. >> i am. >> why? >> first off, it has nothing to do with trade. the trade components with lowering tariffs ignore bigger problems like non-tariff barriers, such as currency manipulation. we need to go old style trade deals using new things where countries use to disadvantage us. i voted for a lot of trade deals in congress but i voted against nafta. the reason is because i thought mexico would manipulate their currency and they did and it's
nafta has never been the deal it was promised to be. >> you want to change the tax code to a current flat tax. you propose something similar in 2012. i want to ask you about that. you wanted only two income tax rates 10% and 20%. tax capital gains at 20%. here's the problem, the tax policy center said the middle class, on average, would save $4,000. while the top 1% taxpayer would save, on average, almost $350,000. and you would cut federal revenues by 40%. question how do you pass, create, impose a flat tax that, one, isn't going to gut the federal treasury, that's going to raise enough money and, two isn't going to be a bonanza for the top 1%. >> first off, those numbers are based on a static model. that means nothing is going to change in the economy if you create incentives for people to
grow the economy and work with lower tax rates. i reject that. that's a flat earth way of looking at economic growth. one of the things i believe in is that you -- >> if you lower the tax rate at the top they'll do better than the middle class because -- >> the whole reason is to treat everybody fairly. we'll have provisions that make sure lower and middle income americans won't pay more taxes. in fact, pay less taxes. the bottom line is we have to create growth. you want to reduce the deficit, grow jobs in america, then have you to do something to create jobs. that means economic growth. that means you create insen stifs for people who grow the economy. that's why i said the republican message is good, cutting taxes, supply side economics, but we have to make sure we orient those areas suffering in america today manufacturing energy construction, those types of jobs that create opportunities
for good paying jobs for working men and women, that those jobs are created here in america. >> you are, i think it's fair to say, and you mention one area you may disagree with some other republicans, is you're a hard-liner on immigration. you say not only we need tougher enforcement, like a lot of other republicans but you say we need less fewer legal immigrants. >> hillary clinton and big business 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 with the 11 million people who are in this country already illegally illegally? don't you run the risk when you
talk about fewer immigrants, don't you run the risk of alienating the hispanic vote? >> i approach this as what's the best to american workers and particularly those not doing well in american jobs. almost all of whom, legal and illegal, we have more people living in this country who are not born in this history than any time in the history of this country. to suggest we need to look at what is the impact on american workers? by the way primarily the folks most impacted by new immigrants coming into this country are the recent immigrants who are in this country and here legally minority population, with high rates of unemployment and primarily lower skilled workers. so this isn't a question of i'm being a hard-liner on immigration, this is being in hard support of american workers who have seen their wages over the last 20 years flat-lined. why? because supply and demand works.
as we continue to bring record number of immigrants, never before have we had this number of immigrants coming to this country, wages flat-lining, median income falling in america, shouldn't we have a responsibility to look what's in the best interest of american workers and say, let's look at this policy and see whether we can adjust it to make those wages stronger going forward? >> 30 seconds, what would you do with the 11 million already here? >> you use e-verify. you require e-verify -- >> with a path to legalization? >> no. i'm the son of an immigrant. a son of an immigrant, my dad did, who came to this country separated from his father. i asked my dad, did you harbor ill feeling to my dad because they separated them? my dad always says the same thing, america is worth the wait. and immigrants deserve america. >> you suggested the holy father
should stay out of the debate on climate change. here you are. >> church has gotten it wrong a few times on science. and we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we do -- what we're really good at, which is -- which is theology and morality. >> two points, if he's not a scientist, and, in fact, he has a degree in chemistry, neither are you. >> i agree. >> that's one point. the second point is somewhere between 80% and 90% of scientists who have studied this say that humans men -- human activity, contributes to climate change. so i guess the question would 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. you said leave it to scientists. >> politicians, whether we like it or not people in government
have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect american workers. the administration is proposing an ozone regulation that will shut down any manufacturing expansion in this country. yes, there are things that will happen here that scientists will determine whether we need ozone regulations or not, but there are political -- >> you don't think the pope has a right to talk about this? >> the pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about. i'm saying, what should the pope use his moral authority for? >> he would say he's protecting the earth. >> that's important but i think there are more pressing problems confronting the earth than climate change. and i would suggest that, particularly when it comes to me as someone who's trying to go out there and make sure we have a revitalization in manufacturing, things to create jobs and opportunities, that speculative science, which has proven over time not to have checked out, all the predictions made 15 years ago, none of them have come true. all of this certainty which is
what bothers me about the debate, the idea that science is settled. any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that's political science not real science. >> finally the fox debate. you have complained more publicly than any candidate about the fox ground rules, which are the top ten candidates in national polls. here's the most recent tox poll. get on the stage. the others don't. you can see, according to the latest fox poll, you're tied for 11th at the moment and wouldn't make the cut early on two months to go. what's your objections? >> when i won the iowa caucus, i was at 4% in the national poll. the idea that we should use a national poll to determine who is going to be one of the final -- one of the finalists in the presidential race, i just think is -- first off, want a good barometer but most importantly, we have 16 15 14
i don't know who will end up running or not running, really good people. that shouldn't be something we should be worried about and try to select down but we should have the opportunity for everyone to be heard. you know, if you would have taken the top two-thirds of the folks in 189992, bill clinton wouldn't have bip on the stage. the top in 1976 jimmy carter wouldn't have been on the stage. for you to say we're going to make an arbitrary cut-off and those we are going to lift up this is a fluid thing. nobody in the national poll above 10%. we're not leaving iowa and new hampshire the world that they need to play. they should be -- >> a lot of people would say around the country we've given iowa and new hampshire enough of a role and maybe the nation should play something of a role -- >> i wish the case was the nation was making this judgment. i mean, you're -- >> to a certain -- one could argue, perhaps, they are, by who's got support.
the other point, 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. frankly, you used to complain a lot about how you didn't get enough time for questions. urn your plan with 16 people, you'll get even less time to talk. >> i would suggest you divide it up into eight tranches of eight do random selection, a nice mix of folks at the top and top at the bottom -- >> carly fiorina said you've given me a goal, you've given me two months, i'm going to get in. >> again, is that what a campaign should be about, trying to measure whether we need some criteria in a debate or if we should actually be talking to voters trying to convince them we'll be the best candidate -- >> we'll debate that. thank you for coming in. we'll see you on the campaign trail and maybe on the stage in
>> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton accusing the gop, including some governors running for president of trying to suppress the vote of minorities and young people. it's time for our sunday group. fox news senior political analyst brit hume sheryl gay stolbe ref "the new york times," george will and fox news's juan williams. they accused those of cutting 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 come out and make a big statement like that, against those sorts of procedures? the answer is very simple. she believes she needs to rebuild for her coalition those
that voted for president obama twice. that includes high number of minorities, including african-americans. that's the group that was directed towards, i think she's seeking to rally them. >> some of those republican governors, including john kasich of ohio, fired back. they 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 date and we have 27 dates, come o that's just silliness, you know? >> i like that. it's just silliness. taking brit's point, how effective do you think this effort is by clinton to mobilize the obama base, particularly minorities and young people, and to what degree do you think she was trying to change the subject
away from things she doesn't like talking about, her private e-mails. >> first, i think she was trying to change the subject. second, it does appeal to her base. we know that obama coalition brit talked about is very important to democrats. we saw this in 2014 where places like georgia kentucky, north carolina, to register voters to get blacks hispanics young people to the poll it didn't work and democrats were defeated there. hillary clinton knows she has to expand that base. if you look at 2012 it was the first time african-americans turned out in greater percentages, greater percentage of eligible african-american voters than whites. 93% of blacks voted for obama. 73%, roughly, of hispanics voted for obama. up to 60 or so percent voted for obama. >> this has been noted in the
papers, she seems to be running more on the obama model than the clinton model. >> that's right. >> he was referring to a south, white men. she's appealing to the minority, single women, young people. >> the other smart thing she did is calling out republicans by name. she was baiting them. shell take the bait and if she becomes the nominee use those clips for ads -- >> not a very good ad for hillary. >> there was a curious story in the "new york times" this week, on saturday about marco rubio and his wife that they had 17 driving violations since 1997. what made it especially curious is that the senator of those 17 mrs. rubio had 13, the senator had only 4 of them since 1997. so one about every four years and none were especially serious. which raises the question,
george, the timed motto is this all the news fit to print? >> before digesting that deep, philosophical reference, my wife is working for scott walker. that said, is this news fit to print? four traffic vilss in 18 years with regularity every 4 1/2 years. you get the traffic citation. "the times" wrote the story in a coy way. it's a search of two county's records as revealed leaving the viewer free to surmise "the new york times" diligently searched this. this was done by a group called american bridge, a democratic group, which then passed it on to "the new york times," no? >> i'm going to rebutt that. obviously -- >> it's like a debate. you get 30 seconds for rebuttal.
>> i don't speak for the "times" but our washington bureau chief carolyn ryan said yesterday in fact, this information was developed independently. it was not given to the newspaper -- >> can i ask a question. why is it news that he had four violations in 18 years? >> here's what i would say to this. this is a big -- when you run for president, every aspect of your life, even your spouse's life, is open to public scrutiny. perhaps there were reports about bush's buying habits, about when president obama was a candidate in 2007 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 why people don't run for president, because every aspect of their life --
>> because you think of a story like this nolt "new york times," people don't run? >> no i'm saying every aspect of your life a parking ticket, financial deed becomes scrutiny. these are public available records. >> there's a report on overdue library books, and mean while he can stand the comparison saying he has overdue library books or four traffic violations and compare that to mrs. capitol hill ton's siphoning millions of dollars, in clear conflict of interest. >> which "the new york times" has reported on. >> that's through. >> very very aggressively, i might add. >> all right. let's not be aggressive. former texas governor rick perry joined 9 race this week with a strong speech. here's a clip of him. >> the truth is, we're at the end of failure of failed leadership. we have been led by a divider who has sliced and diced the
electric pitting american against american for political purposes. >> juan we watched perry, all of this comes against a backdrop of a disastrous run in 2012? can he recover from that? what do you make of this field? i was counting today, i think there are 15, 16 candidates going to run on the republican side. >> it's unbelievable. rick perry has tremendous name i.d. everybody on the panel, maybe the audience, all know who rick perry is and he 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 people are looking at him saying, can he do better? will there be another moment for rick perry? if he can do that, he will do pretty well.
i think ted cruz is already the favorite out of texas and he's tapped into a rich vein of money in terms of texas money donations. rick perry has to find a way to get that money. he doesn't have it. it's involved in we-tell politics, his best hope in iowa at the moment. in iowa it looks like scott walker is in the -- scott walker is dominating iowa at the moment. rick perry has to go door to door and heavy on his air force military background which is what republican voters want. i just don't see right now that i would bet, you know -- bet big money on rick perry. >> he has some gifts as a politician, especially as a retail politician. the question is can he get a hearing? can he get enough space in this enormous field so people have a chance to be exposed and if people can learn a lot -- >> we also knows how the media plays it.
when there's a narrative out there about somebody, dan quayle, al gore exaggerating, if he makes a single slip-up, we'll be all over it. whether for good or ill. we have to take a break here. when we come back, things a little different. we'll discuss the invite over the so-called female viagra. and sarply divided discussion over bruce jenner's transformation into caitlyn? go to facebook or twitter twitter @foxnewssunday and we may use your question on the air.
marginal behavior. >> white house press secretary josh earnest relaying president obama's thoughts on bruce jenner's transformation, and rush limbaugh claiming the left is trying to, quote, normalize. there's been a fascinating split this week about caitlyn jenner. democrats have been praising her as a hero, a trail blazer, while republicans have been very quiet about it. former education secretary and thinker william bennett wrote this this week people feel like they're under siege and terms of the debate are now you either applaud it or you're a big got. brit, what do you make of this rush to embrace transgender people? >>ist part of this heart-felt drive for acceptance in that whole community. so this prominent person does
this. it's described as trail blazing but i would say that trail had been blazed many years ago when a tennessee-playing doctor named richard raskin became jennifer richards and was widely recognized at the time so that bridge was crossed -- >> you didn't have the president's press secretary at the podium saying he's a hero. >> that community is part of the democratic base and it makes political sense for the president to acknowledge this -- caitlyn jenner in a proving way. it's good politics i suppose. >> we ask you questions for the panel and we got this on facebook from alice smith. she writes, i would like to know why everyoned in media thinks jenner's story is so wonderful and worthy of intense coverage. i was fascinated to learn the
world health organization classifies trans-sexualism as mental illness. how do you answer alice and her rush to debase? >> i think she's onto something. i think so much of this is a publicity stunt. as i recall, it was 100 million -- is it -- 10 million people googled bruce/caitlyn jenner in the last week, since the "vanity fair" cover. you stop to think about the magazine subscriptions/. s, the cable ratings, "i am jenner," and the new york post jenner will make $5 million from media appearances and the like. this is a big media moment. i have compassion and empathy for anyone going through what i call a difficult transition. i don't know if it's mental
health or whatever -- >> do you think it's a civil rights issue/movement? >> if you go into russia or muslim countries, these people are beaten, tortured, imprisoned no tolerance whatsoever. in the united states we know about bullying that takes place for a minority of people going through these issues. i have some understanding there. i don't know, civil rights, you know, everybody should have their rights protected. should it be forced on people? should people be called big gots in the conservative community because they have troubles with it, at my age, i have questions and i think that's why you see so many people googling caitlyn jenner. >> we've seen an astonishing point about gay, to the point the building over my shoulder here, the supreme court the 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 ten years something that seems troubling, confusing, is going to be the accepted norm and there's and wrong with you if you don't accept it. >> that has very little to do with our litigious society. meanwhile usually that happens when someone's a victim. it's hard to see how jenner's a victim at this point. 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 that said, brit says, it's -- we've been down there before and it's been done in public before. some republicans were accused this week of reticense about
this subject and i don't know why we have to be loquacious about everything. the president has opinions on everything and a metabolic urge to tell the world his opinions on everything. but other people are allowed it seems to me, to be silent about this. >> i want to ask you about a social sexual story this week, and that is an fda advisory panel recommended approval of a drug with women with low sexual desire. some women's groups had launched a campaign to push for this drug. the organization called even the score, noting the fda approved viagra back in the '90s and saying their approval now or failure to approve would be a statement about sexual equality when it comes to health issues. your thoughts about this? >> i think this is very interesting. issues of gender bias in women's health go back a long way. in the early '90s president george h.w. bush named the one
and only head of the fbi, and she promptly insisted women be included in clinical trials. those issues of gender bias do persist. i think what women's health groups would say that issue is actually separate and apart of this issue of, quote, female viagra. first off, it's not a female viagra. viagra is a pill to improve blood function. >> erectile dysfunction. >> this is a pill a woman would take on a daily basis to address imbalances in the brain. so, it's really not a female viagra. >> an aphrodisiac? >> it's actually an antidepressant originally. >> to improve psychological instances. some groups say the fda is being pressured into approveing a pill that's safe for women we don't know about, the risk ratio
benefit isn't a good one and the fda has twice rejected this before. there's a split, and i would note the even the score group, which has been pressing the fda to approve this is financed by the drug company making the bill. 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 -- >> very interesting. thank you. thanks, panel. i got nothing more. i got nothing. >> you can't just go forward -- >> i knew something stupid was going to get said here. it just did. up next, a power player of our week. some tributes and issues about george bush.
this week a poll found george w. bush has a higher approval rating than president obama. a former top official is reminding people about his father, the first president bush. here's on you power play of the week. >> he really never liked to talk about himself. his mother told him not to brag and that seemed to be his hall mark through his whole career. >> former new hampshire governor john sununu is talking about
george w. bush, who's written a book "the quiet man" to as he puts, it brag on bush's behalf. >> someone has to talk about you for appreciation to occur. he's been unwilling to do it for himself for so long. >> you say president bush was more conservative than ronald reagan. really? >> in terms of what he accomplished, yes. >> he points to bush's budget, and with $3.50 of spending cuts for every $1 increase in the gas tax. >> that's why you spend his bill up and we'll continue to ask the congress to send him a bill he can pass in times. >> you were considered the bass cop who had to say no. how do you plead? >> i plead guilty knowing i
would have to direct spears and arrows pointed at president bush. >> and sununu is doing that in the book, those who he thinks betrayed the deal. >> if any such plan would have to, our requires that virtually everyone contribute in some way. >> when everyone went out of the rose garden he shrunk out of there. >> supreme court justice daift suter also from ham happen. sununu urged bush he would be a strong republican. >> do you think suitor both deliberately received you and the about the? >> yes, i do. that's why i'm so upset. he had told himself and lived himself as he got the opponent he wanted. as you look back at that beautiful white building, what are your thoughts? >> it was a privilege to be
there. although age 75 sununu says he gives advice for all new candidating heading to new hampshire. he says he's not including pictures. he this now his passion is to make sure bush 41 gets his rightful place in history. >> he suggested the pearl -- >> moving soviet union to dislotion without a shot being fired was not as easy as it looked. solves the budget problem was not as easy as it looked. i think it was an extraordinary presidency by a man willing to spend all his political capital for the sake of the country. >> by the way, president bush's celebrates his 91st birthday this friday. we wish him and mrs. bush great luck. that's all we have. see you next week on "fox news sunday."