tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News May 5, 2013 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
i'm john stossel. see next week. i'm chris wallace. today is the truth about benghazi being covered up? >> i'm not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying. >> he's going to get to the bottom of it, we better hurry up and do it. we have whistleblowers coming to us. >> eight months after the terror attack that killed four americans, lawmakers are still asking, what really happened. we'll talk to two members of the house committee that will hold a crucial hearing this week. republican jason cha fis and democrat steven lynch. then pressure builds for decisive action in liberia. we'll talk options with the
leading member of the senate armed services committee, senator john mccain. plus -- >> you're off drugs, thank god. >> you're off alcohol? >> oh, thank god. >> our power player of the week. the former champ goes from heights to rock bottom and lives to tell about it. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. well, this week the long, slow investigation into the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi may take a dramatic turn when government workers with new information feoff before congress. joining us now are two members of the house oversight committee that will conduct the hearing. republican jason chafitz and steven lynch. congressmen, welcome to "fox news sunday." we know at least two whistle dblowers with direct knowledge of benghazi are going to testify before your committee on wednesday.
gregory hicks, who was the deputy chief of mission in libya, and mark thompson, an officer in states counterterrorism bureau. what will they add to our understanding of the attack and is anyone else going to come forward either wednesday or later? >> well, we've had other people come forward and i think you'll see other hearings as well. but these two gentlemen are in a unique position. mr. hicks became the chief of mission. he has a unique insight. when i went to libya three weeks after, i was able to talk to him. he's not partisan. i think he was being suppressed a little bit and we need to hear from him exactly what happened and didn't happen that night. he was the chief of mission in libya when this went down. >> suppressed by whom? >> well, that's what we want to have a hearing about. we heard things, for instance, that there was no military option. there was no ability to get any military personnel there. i think you're going to hear some testimony that says we did
have some military options. we could have gotten some people there, and they were told to stand down. that's the kind of thing we need to explore in this area. >> and mark thompson, the officer in states countertichl bureau. what's he going to say? >> he is in charge of the support team. this is a unique group that's supposed to be the quick, rapid response interagency team when a terrorist type of activity, a hostage situation goes down. they were never called into action. why was that? why were they never engaged in this? that's exactly what they're stood up for. >> you said earlier that you're not -- these are -- the only people that are going to testify along with eric nordstrom who testified earlier. but there are others watching. watching for what? >> i think they're afraid of retribution. they've had trouble just getting an attorney. the state department hasn't given us the documents they want. every single turn, the state
house and the white house has impeded this investigation. there are other people on the ground with first-hand knowledge that want to testify, and i think will testify at some point. >> congressman, how do y explain the fact that eight months after benghazi, we have still not heard from a single witness who was on the ground that night in benghazi? >> we've had an accountability review board that went through this, led by ambassador pickering and admiral mullen. they interviewed 100 witnesses who were on the ground, some of whom were on the ground obviously, and many who were involved peripherally. and they made a review that there was no breach of duty here. they made a determination that the critical element here was that the host country forces that were committed to protecting the consulate there in benghazi walked off the job
basically and that created a, you know, a security profile that was totally insufficient on september 11. >> but if i may, congressman, why is it we have not heard in public from a single person on the ground. in a congressional hearing? >> well, the republicans who control the house, we've had investigations. nordstrom came forward. we've had other witnesses. we've had hearings here prior to the recent elections. the house -- you could have mr. chafitz why they haven't brought up people, we don't have the ability to hold a maerpg the democrats have been kept out of this whole fro sesz. this has been a one-sided investigation, if you want to call it that. there's been no sharing of information in a significant way with the democratic staff members who usually conduct this type of investigations. i think it's disgraceful to be honest with you. >> let's get to this question because this has been one of the charges, that there have been threats, intimidation, and
threats of retaliation. so let's discuss that. this week, a lawyer for one of the witnesses said that the state department has threatened officials who wanted to testify. state responded anticipate said, they don't know of anybody who has requested to testify. let's watch that exchange. >> i'm not talking generally. i'm talking specifically about benghazi. that people have been threatened, not just the state department. the people have been threatened at the cia. >> repe petedly have this person saying they had a whistleblower who has been held back from telling their story. and we're not aware of anyone asking to tell their story. >> has the obama administration blocked potential witnesses from testifying or not? >> abc litely. and more than one. we asked for a nonclassified version of how do these people get an attorney who have a degree of classified information and they still haven't given us that. there are people out there that want to testify.
>> the state department person just said nobody, neither the lawyer or the witness has requested to testify. >> because they're scared to death what the state department is doing to them. we're the other branch of government. they're supposed to be able to come to congress and share this type of information. that has not happened buzz the information is suppressed. we have a person who is injured eight months ago who still is in the hospital. they changed his name on the medical records. this is a story of the state department doing things that haven't been done in any other case. >> are you say, and again, i want to bring in -- tell me, a direct threat, a direct -- an act of intimidation against a potential witness? >> yes. and i think we'll probably -- >> completely false. >> let him -- before he -- go ahead. tell me what's been said. >> there are people, more than one, that have felt intimidation from the state department. they can't even go through the process of getting an attorney to be able to represent them with the degree of classified information that they have. >> congressman lynch, your turn. >> the only reason that the
attorneys, and there running back have been two attorneys involved here, the only reason they haven't received information is they haven't asked for it yet. there hasn't been a request for documents from the attorney to the state department. the state department is more than willing to cooperate, but they haven't asked for this. the only retaliation that i've heard of here is that one of these witnesses wants a reassign. in a promotion. he hasn't gotten the promotion that he wanted and he's saying that's somehow retaliation. so, you know, hasn't got it yet. it's actually in the process. that's the -- that's the level of threats and intimidation he hasn't gotten the promotion. >> radio he will not release unclassified doms. we should be able to see the same information they want to
see. when the u.s. actually goes to see documents, they've been given eight charges of documents. they send a state department person in there to look over my shoulder to see what i'm looking at. we've had democratic staff in there. there's not a single democrat on that panel who has ever come down to look at those documents. i've never seen a democrat down there. >> congressman lynch? >> sure. every time i'm given those types of documents, i have somebody from state department over my shoulder as well. >> that's not right. that's not right. >> unclassified documents -- >> go ahead, congressman lynch. >> look, i find it incredible. look at the whole situation -- we're talk act, including my colleague, when secretary clinton and the state department asked for additional funding for embassy security, they all voted no. they all voted no. >> wait, we're getting a little
off -- >> come on now. you already admitted to it on cnn. >> i understand there's an issue about security. it's a little bit off the track. i want to try to stay on course here. >> this is the point. they're complaining about a lack of security at the embassies after they voted against the funding for security at the embassies. that's what they're complaining about. a lack of security at the embassies when they all voted to cut $500 million. is that not related? >> the cfo has said in an e-mail -- the chief financial officer for the state department said that finances had nothing to do with the decisions about funding at the facility. the security personnel were paid from the pentagon budget. they weren't paid from the state department budget. this is a facade. it's a distraction. there are four people dead here, chris. >> and i want to talk about -- let's talk about beforehand. there are sort of three stages to this. before, during and after the attack .two weeks ago, the republican chairs of five house
committee, and i will agree with congressman limpbl here, just the republicans, not the democrats, issued an interim report charging that then secretary of state clinton misled congress when she said that she had never seen any request for more security in libya. let's take a look at what she said. >> the specific security requests pertaining to benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. i didn't see those requests. they didn't come to me. i didn't approve them. i didn't deny them. >> now, the house report by the republicans made a big deal of the fact that in april, after she had gotten the request, last april, that a cable went out from the state department under the name of hillary clinton, in fact, not only granting more security, but saying that security drawdown would continue. congressman, it turns out that every cable that goes from the state department has hillary
clinton's name. hundreds of thousands. millions of cables. "the washington post" looked into this and called the allegation by the house republican chairman a whopper. >> i would hope congressman lynch would join me in releasing this document. her name is on that line. hold on here. hillary clinton claims to take full responsibility for this, and yet at the same time, pleads ignorance. four months -- >> but there are utterly routine documents that go out from state. >> can i get in here at some point? look, could i please -- look. these are the same allegations. these are jason chafitz and the republican chair's allegations that she signed off on a reduction of force at benghazi. it got four pinnochios from "the washington post." that's hard to do even in washington. i mean, you know, people say that washington is the place where shame goes to die. and this is an exact instance of that.
>> okay, congressman, to kbruz your expression, may i get a word in here, please. let me ask you a question, if i may. i want to talk to you about a controversy, a continuing controversy about the talking points that came out afterwards that led some people to say to a lot of disinformation. these are the talking points the administration put out after the attack. we do know that islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participated in the attack. invest the first draft of talking points to the cia on september 14. but after objections from state and after the white house had a meeting, you can see the talking points -- it's a little hard to see on the screen, there's lots of lines drawn through them. heavily edited and all mention
islamic extremists were taken out. congressman lynch, were the talking points the administration put out in advance rice's appearance, weren't those talking points scrubbed. >> they certainly weren't accurate. i don't know what the process was there. but absolutely. they were false. they were wrong. there were no protests outside of benghazi compound there. this was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. so any statements that this was sort of like the, you know, the other protests that we saw in cairo and other embassies, this was not that type of case. >> so briefly, and we're running out of time congressman lynch, how do you explain the fact that sunday, u.n. ambassador rice came on this show and four other sunday shows, never mentioned the al qaeda extremists which
had been scrubbed from the talking points but did mention a reaction to the anti-islam video, which had never been in any of the talking points. >> well, it was scrubbed. it was totally inaccurate. you're absolutely right. it was false information. and what they're trying to do is harmonize what happened in benghazi with what happened everywhere across the middle east. >> and do you think it was scrubbed because of the fact that didn't fit into the president's narrative that al qaeda was on the run? >> yeah, i think it was a victory of hope over reality. to be honest with you. they were hoping this wasn't the case. >> hope over reality? >> i wouldn't call it a victory of hope over reality. look, at the end of the day, we've got four dead americans. we've got a kid who's still in the hospital. we've got hundreds of embassies and consulates. thousands of people serving overseas.
targets near damascus. if so, it's the second israeli strike inside syria in three days. this comes one week after president obama walked back threats of a red line if the assad regime used chemical weapons. we want to discus all of this with senator john mccain, one of the gop's leaders on national security. and senator, welcome back. what do you say about the extensive air strike overnight? >> apparently the syrians and iranians have crossed a red line, to the israelis. that means weapons of advanced nature, probably missiles have been moved from iran into syria with intentions of moving them to hezbollah. the when he will thing is escalating. the leader oof hezbollah committed to helping bahshi
bahshibahshir bahshir al assad. the situation is becoming more expansive. the red line was written in disappearing ink. >> when you look at the increased involvement, two strikes in three days in israel, what does that say about what the obama administration should do? >> in the marine corps, the drill instructor said never point a weapon at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger. the president of the united states said there was a clear red line and to most people the line has been crossed. he should never have crossed a red line. second of all, it was a green light to do anything sort of
that. chemical weapons are pretty terrible, but isn't it terrible when you massacre over 70,000 people, drive a million into refugee camps? those seemed to have been acceptable to thissed a min strags, and it's deplorabldeplo. >> what do you think the message is when israel is acting and the u.s. is not? >> i think that it will probably put more pressure on this administration. but one of the things it is inc. i saw this in the vietnam war, incremental escalation. we need to have a game-changing action. and that is in oamerican boots op the ground, establish a safe zone and to protect it and to supply weapons to the right people in syria who are fighting for obviously the things we believe in. every day that goes by, hezbollah increases their influence -- excuse me, the radical jihadist flow into syria and the situation becomes more and more tenuous.
>> now, in the wake of the red line and the alleged use of chemical weapons, the administration says it is now rethinking arming the rebels. >> i hope they are. i also hope the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who testified repeatedly of these air defenses that the syrians have are so tough and we would have -- the israelis seem to be able to pen trit it fairly easily. one thing i've learned about some of our military, some of our military leaders, if they don't want to do something, sthek invent lots of ways of not to do it. the fact is we're able to take out their air on the ground with cruise missiles. all of these supplies, by the way, from iran and russia are coming in by air. and we could obviously also with the use of patriot missiles defend a certain circumscribed area. and to allege somehow that the united states of america can't do that means we've wasted a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars. >> you just heard our spirited
discussion. >> my question is, a cover-up of what? there were serious misjudgments made player about the skrurt situation in benghazi before the attack. do you believe that president obama or secretary clinton or any other top officials did something wrong? don't forget, this is the height of a presidential campaign. the whole narrative was that al qaeda is done, the war is over, everything is done. the tide is receiving. so we start with the talking points that you discussed previously. those were not only wrong, now we know that recently in the last few days that some of those were active members of al qaeda. and then, of course, you move to
the fact that the survivors were moved to germany and were never interviewed. that could have resolved all of these issues as to who was behind it, whether it was a spontaneous demonstration or not. and secretary rice may have told you a very different story if they had just gotten the facts from those people who are survivors. we still don't know the name os of those people. we still don't know what happened there. i still say they're errors and since of omission because the families of those four brave americans deserve to know. >> i also want to ask you one other aspect of this. this week, eight months after benghazi, the fbi put out a notice that shows the pictures, you see them right here of three people, three men it says were allegedly in the compound. on the ground in benghazi during the attacks. how do you explain the facts. the fbi is asking for information. how do you explain the fact that it took eight months. >> i don't.
this is another reason why we need a select committee to review all of this. republican and democrat along the lines of iran contra or others. we need a select committee to get to the bottom of all of this, whether that will happen or not, i don't know. but isn't it incredible all this time later there's so many unanswered questions? >> i want to ask you about that. you were quoted recently saying you called for a select committee both, and i don't know if it's the same committee or two separate ones, both in benghazi or the boston bombings. >> i don't -- well, on the boston bombing, i think we need a full and thorough investigation. i haven't yet called for a select committee on that, although that certainly might be helpful because these things are not disconnected. some of these things that are happening. >> i want to ask you about that. when you called for that, or the quote was that you called for that, people are not to trust the president. is that a little harsh? is. >> i think you do not trust the information that they are getting.
and i think a majority of american people, according to polling, don't believe that. and they need to have these answers. how did this young man who supposedly was under humanitarian visa go back to the country that he was supposed to be not able to live in? why is it that only the department of homeland security knew when he left and nobody seemed to know when he came back. because of a, quote, misspelling. and this whole issue of overstaying visas. 40% of the people who are in this country illegally are not because they crossed our borders illegally, but because they overstayed their visas. shouldn't we have procedures to also track down, as we enforce our borders, that we track down those people as well and enforce the laws of when visas expire, people should leave? >> that whole thing, by the way, on that immigration reform bill, we should be looking at some of these issues as well. on how we practice our
immigration laws as where he will as pass them. >> i want to pick up on this question of boston in another issue. because as soon as dzhokhar tsarnaev was arrested in the boston bombings, you and lindsey graham were very clear. he needs to be treated as an enemy combatant. he need to not get his miranda rig rights. but president obama and some of these top officials have pers t persisted in talking about this as just brothers acting alone. take a look. >> one of the dangers that we now face are self-radicalized individuals who are already here in the united states. in some cases, may not be part of any kind of network, but because of whatever warped, twisted idea they may have, may decide to carry out an attack.
>> it's unfair to the american people. there are many questions, what did this young man do when he went back to russia and was there for an extended period of time. what was the internet activity? why didn't we know his internet activities? why did we ignore the warnings of the russians, even though they didn't repeat the warnings or us additional information. the fact that nay warned us i think should have demanded additional scrutiny. and we should assume nothing. we should assume we need a thorough and complete investigation. to say all of a sudden, just as they did about benghazi that this was spontaneous isn't an assumption that i don't think we ha the facts to make. >> finally, i've got a minute left. the president says he wants to go back to congress to find a
way to close guantanamo. >> guantanamo is not necessary to keep america safe. >> back in 2009 in his first full day, you supported in him his notion to close guantanamo. >> i still do. there's no plan they have presented. and by the way, about a quarter of those who have been released from guantanamo have gone back into the fight in leadership positions. so we really have to be very careful about that. the fact is there's been no co-heerntd plan presented to the congress of the united states as to how we do dispose of these individuals. and one of them is not to send them back into the fight where they can kill more americans.
up next, a reporter asked the president about the first 100 days of his second term. >> do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this congress? >> if you put it that way, john, maybe i should just pack up and go home. golly. sglap. >> we'll ask our sunday panel, does the president still have alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. d with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. what's in your wallet?
>> i think it's a little, as mark twain said, rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point. >> president obama at a white house news conference this week declaring he still has clout, despite big setbacks recently to his agenda in congress. as time now for our sunday group, julie pace who covers the white house for the associated press, jennifer ruben of "the washington post" and former democratic senator evan bye.
you haven't been around nia as long as i have, but mr. obama's comment, i have to say reminded me of bill clinton's back in 1995 after the gingrich revolution when he had to declare at a news conference, the president is relevant. how much trouble is this president in right now? >> i think back to the white house correspondents dinner where he had that self-mocking thing where he put up the bush library is w. bush's legacy and his legacy would be the blame bush library. so he went on in this press conference. i kept thinking his legacy could be blame congressional republicans legacy library. the chattering class will say that he's, you know -- they will paint a death nel for this president. i think it's somewhat exaggerated, but i do think it's problematic.
gun control, you couldn't even deliver the democrats in the senate. that strikes me as troublesome. the other thing that strikes me is that it's so small bore, where we are right now. with this president and going into a second term. i mean, you -- you look at this fight over sequestration with republicans. where is entitlement reform to save medicare and medicaid and social security? where's corporate tax reform. we were reminded this week that apple has $145 billion sitting overseas, largely because we have high corporate tax rates. why aren't we doing something to bring that money home and spur the economy. that's what people are looking for. >> julie, you're sitting there on the front row along with jonathan carl of abc. how did the white house officials feel about carl's question? the president's golly answer and his inability to work on congress, whether it's gun control or sequester or having to swallow and sign this faa
labor. >> i'm sure it wasn't the question he was hoping to answer. what was interesting about that news kwompbs is often time whence we get this news conference, there's some reason why the president is holding them. there's an opening statement related to something he's push on the hill. something he wants to talk tobt american people about. he sort of came out to the briefing room and was ready to take questions on pretty much anything which led to him getting questions about syria, about healthcare, about whether he's got any juice left. and i think that's a concern for the white house is that they d do in a second term have a finite period of time where they can actually get something through congress. and now we're in early may and they haven't had a big victory. the calendar is going to start to compress even further. the one piece of legislation they're really going to pin their hopes on is immigration reform. if he does get a victory on immigration reform, that would be a big success for this white
house, really any white house. >> that is certainly one big reform, if it happens. but in terms of this progress of congress, the republicans, democrats, everyone is saying the only prospect is for obama to stay out of it. >> that's the irony. washington seems to work best without the president. he is a very divisive figure. in second terms, presidents can either make their big stamp on foreign policy or domestic policy or do a little bit of both. on foreign policy, he's in a lot of trouble, too. one of the outstanding takeaways from that press conference was really his miserable handling of the syria situation. he doesn't have a lot of mojo from foreign policy. on domestic policy, you're right. the only thing that could be done subpoena something really he's attempting not to wade through because he'll ruin it. what's his legacy? is reminds me a little bit of bush 43 in that right after the ele, when the after social security and lost. and it kind of dulled his momentum.
this president, i wonder if he had not gone after gun control, which probably wasn't get bable in the first place, if he had gone right into entitlement reform, corporate tax reform, right into immigration reform, whether he would have been building more momentum. and now i think he's stuck in a lot of these areas. >> senator bayh, what does this president need to do to turn things around? >> it's difficult, chris. the nation's capital and our country's politics are more deeply divided today than they were in bill clinton's time. and there are deep ideological differences that make compromise that much harder. i think jennifer is correct. you've got to pick your issues carefully.
the chances of immigration reform, a lot higher than gun control. gun drol was hard for bill clinton when he had majorities in both houses. and barely got it across the line. the reality is that most of the action isn't in the regulatory area. in this case it will be dealing with co2 emissions, that kind of thing. foreign policy, as was mentioned. i think the big things to look for, chris, the supreme court vacancy he can fill. and who's the next charm of the federal reserve going to be? the fed is going to have to make some very important decisions. will be stepping down. >> so what happens to the budget? you've got continuing problems on that. the debt ceiling come up sometime we're now hearing it might be later in the summer and the fall. >> there's good news here and also bad news. we're taking the european approach.
just enough to keep the wolf from the door but not enough to solve the problem permanently. the deficit is about 4.5%. next year it's expected to be 3.7. and '15, 3.0. it is gradually coming down nap means the markets aren't likely to pressure congress and the president to do things they don't want to do -- raise taxes or reform entitlements. the exception, i think, let's look at the midterm election. there will be a window of opportunity there needily following the midterm elections if the president is the ready to step forward and do more on entitlements. i think it's unlikely, but the rest of this two-year period, very unlikely. >> we have to take a break here. when we come back, the battle over how young is too young to get the
>> i'm comfortable with the scientific evidence for girls 15 and over. >> need adult supervision of her parents, she needs a doctor. that makes absolutely no sense. it's purely political. >> president obama and a spokesperson from concerned women for america at disagreement at what age giwome can guy the plan b contraceptive. it was available for girls, women, 17 and over. they have now changed that to 15 and older. and a federal judge has ruled it should be made available to people of all ages. it's kind of a tough spot for the administration. >> i do think there's a case to be made for conservatives or anyone who cares about the rate of abortions in this country to
deregulate birth control more. although i also understand a need for parents to be involved. one of the things out of all of this news, including the president's speech to planned parenthood and the case of murdering babies. we're looking at a culture that produces 1.2 million abortions a year. we're losing sight of that fact. and i would say that in addition to deregulating birth control, another thing we need to do is celebrate young women who bring a baby to term and find an adoptive parent. there's such a stigma to being an adoptive birth mom you're more willing to admit you had abortion than that you're delivering a healthy newborn to a loving family. what's wrong with our cull choor that's where we are today? there's a new campaign out by the national council for adoption. and i would say on the eve of mother's day next week, that we should all check that out and start celebrating these young
women who choose life for their babies. >> well, it is a brave decision. >> to get back to plan b, theed a menstruation has to respond tomorrow to this judge's ruling. the judge again has said it should be available to people of all ages. not just 15, not 13, of all ages. any idea what they're going to do about that? >> if you remember comments the president made last year when this issue came up, he made a pretty impassioned statement where he spoke about this issue, not necessarily the president, but as the father of two young daughters and talked about how he wouldn't be comfortable with, for example, an 11-year-old girl being able to walk into a drugstore and be able to buy plan b on her own. >> and this is not behind the counter. this is on the shelf next to the aspirin. >> absolutely. he's trying to strike a compromise that doesn't make anyone happy.
you have women groups who say that's still restricting access. and then you have other groups who are saying that that is just too young. how can you say that 15 is any different than 13, for example? >> so do you expect them to appeal and oppose the federal judge's ruling? >> well, there was an appeal last week to basically ask the federal judge to issue a stay on this. >> right, but i mean to actually oppose it? >> i don't want to speculate on that. >> this week, as was pointed out, mr. obama became the first sitting president to address a conference of planned parenthood in person. and he repeated his attack from the last cam last year about the gop's war on women. >> there's still those who want to turn back the clock. to policies more suited to the 1950s an that the 21st century. and they' been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort
to hold back -- >> they were happy the president addressed planned parenthood. you see him there, a philadelphia abortion doctor who's currently on trial considering four counts of first degree murder for allegedly killing babies after they had. born alive. >> i find his language so telling. he won't even use the word abortion. he says women's health. the president refused to comment. late-term abortions all together talk about a culture of life. they opposed the partial birth abortion bill. they opposed these infants born
alive. >> also condemned gosnelle. >> very well has made an excuse for gosnelle. don't comment on things that have a legal reaction. i think he's responsible in some ways. >> senator bayh, planned parenthood is controversial. there are two sides to this argument because supporters point out, and let's put it up on the screen, the hundreds of thousands of health screenings that they provide, fregosi tests, hiv tests, breast cancer tests, opponents point out as you can see the number on the bottom, it's also the nation's largest abortion provider. so i mean, there is two sides to the argument about planned parentho parenthood. >> these issues involving
reproductive rights and unwanted pregnancies are controversial. planned parenthood and women who believe in reproductive rights, of course he's going to speak to that group. i would encourage you to focus on what he does, not just on what he says. with regard to plan b, he's getting fired up from both sides. the truth of the matter is that that will help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions which are tragic, no matter what your perspective. gosnelle, that's a murder case. the president included if the facts of that case are true, the man should be condemned, absolutely. >> but if it's murder a minute after that child comes oit of the womb, don't we have to look at late-term abortion? is there really a moral difference between that child who is murdered, who has his neck snipped after he comes out and backing it up a few weeks? we have about 12 states who have prohibitions on late-term abortions. there's a case from nebraska
that is at the supreme court. we're going to see that. i think that's something most americans would agree upon. that very late term abortions are gruesome, they're immoral, can we not at least agree on that? >> he shouldn't have been able to operate as long as he did without being turned in. what does that say about our culture and abortions in this country. >> that i don't know. i voted to support roe versus wade, but i also voted to ban late-term abortions. that raises the issue of when does life begin? >> that's a minority opinion, senator bayh. >> there is a political aspect of this because republicans lost badly among single women voters in the last election. as we saw, the president scores when he talks about the republicans' war on women. is the issue of women's health, and to raise a lot of very troubling issues, but the general issue of women's health, is that a winner or loser for the republicans? >> republicans know right now
they have to be very careful talking about this issue. the rnc review singled out single women as one of the groups where the president won overwhelmingly. so you are going to see some republican lawmakers who are going to try to pull back a little bit in talking about women's health issues because, you know, they know this is a growing group for political purposes. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. and don't forget to check out panel plus where your group picks right up with the discussion on our website. foxnewssunday.com and follow us on twitter. up next, our power player of the week.
>>. >> chris: this is going to be a little bit of a stretch. mike tyson was in town the other day and i can't explain i always wanted to sit down with him. so i watch what i admit an unusual power player of the week >> i'm spiritually and emotionally i couldn't be better. if i were to die today, i was overpaid in life. >> mike tyson who came from nothing was heavyweight champion at 20, was knocked out at 23,
spent three years in prison for rape and has lived to talk about it. >> you are a vegan. you are off drugs? >> thank god. >> chris: you are off alcohol? >> everything. >> chris: have you cleaned up your act? >> i am living life on life terms. >> at the champion of the nation at 14 years old. >> chris: she touring the country in a one man show in which he tells his story, the good and bad and very ugly. >> in prison, i was scared. >> chris: what the difference between being on stage and being in the room? >> you don't have to go to the hospital after the show. >> chris: how much money do you think you made in your career? >> i made a lot of money. >> chris: how much is left? >> none, none. >> chris: how is that possible? >> i don't care how much money you have. if you don't take care of money
it means nothing. >> chris: he is not getting rich off his show. just enough to support his third wife and three children and pay the irs the millions he owing. >> chris: do you have miss a glamorous life? >> i'm 46. >> chris: what am i? >> a dinosaur. >> chris: he has causes now. he started mike tyson who helps disadvantaged kids with food and shelter and support in school. he has joined the campaign to get a presidential pardon for jack johnson the first heavyweight black champion that was convicted of taking girlfriend across state lines. >> deserves a second chance. >> chris: a second chance or in
tyson's case, a fourth or fifth chance. looking back he says the person he hurt worst was himself. >> there is no doubt about that. >> evander holyfield would say you hurt him, too. >> i'm sorry. >> chris: why did you do that, hurt? >> wild, crazy kid. i'm not doing it now. thing about my mortality, i think about it. i'm 46 and i have a two-year-old. i'm a former junkie. i had a bunch of fights. what the helm i thinking about? >> chris: by the way, after our discussion, tyson decided to pretend he was going to punch me out. it looks a lot scarier when he is up close. it's a unique experience, one that i won't forget.
have a great week. we'll see you next fox news sunday. ththththththththththththe starts right now. >> tonight on huckabee. >> shocking undercover video of abortion clinic workers describing what would happen if a baby is born alive after a fame would abortion. >> we do not resussitate. blowing the lid off the late-term abortion industry. >> you think it breathing or like that? >> it would die. >> and whistle-blowers prepare to testify on what the government knew about the bengazi attacks, senator lindsay graham wants answers and demands that the administration give up the namings of