tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News November 9, 2014 3:00pm-4:01pm PST
i'm howard kurtz. thanks for joining us. "like" our facebook page where we post original content, answer your question, post videos you don't see on this program. we're back here next sunday 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern with the latest buzz. i'm chris wallace. breaking today. two americans held captive in north korea return to the u.s. with this country's top spy. plus, with control of both houses of congress, are republicans headed for compromise with president obama or confrontation? >> we are heading to washington. and we are going to make them squeal! >> we have swept this nation with a compelling senate majority. >> tonight we shook up the senate. you shook up the senate. >> we'll talk with two members of the wave of new republican senators. shelley moore capito and cory
gardner of colorado. then after that white house lunch, did the power shift in washington end the partisan gridlock? >> we do have an obligation to work together on issues where we can agree. i think we have a duty to do that. >> i would enjoy having some kentucky bourbon with mitch mcconnell. >> we'll discuss the agenda for the lame duck session and next year, with two congressional leaders who were at the lunch. republican senator john barrasso and democratic congressman xavier becerra. plus, the president authorizes sending 1,500 more u.s. troops to iraq in the fight against isis. our sunday panel will tackle that. and our power player of the week, a man who goes undercover to rescue child sex slaves. >> we kind of broke roles and said, guys, this is the sound of liberation, the sound of emancipation. >> all right now on "fox news sunday."
>> hello again from fox news in washington. we'll get to the new balance of power in washington in a moment. but first some breaking news. two americans held by north korea are back home, and u.s. air strikes in iraq may have taken out the leader of isis. fox news chief intelligence correspondent catherine has the latest on both stories. >> chris, senior administration officials insist there was no quid pro quo for release of two americans, but now that they're home on american soil, there are new questions about the timing and the motivation of north korea's secretive leader. saturday the blue and white government jet touched down in washington state. the release of kenneth bae and matthew todd miller came after a last-minute trip by the nation's most senior intelligence officer, tapped by the president to bring the americans home. miller was arrested in april, accused of hostile act and sentenced to six years in prison. bae was arrested in november 2012 and sentenced to 15 years
of hard labor for unspecified crimes. >> i just to want say thank you all for supporting me, and lifting me up and not forgetting me. at the same time, not forgetting the people of north korea. >> the director of national intelligence, james clapper, did meet with north korean officials but significantly not with the north korean leader, kim jong-un. administration officials say it was emphasized to pyongyang that they must denuclearize as a condition for further talks. in iraq, a defense official confirms a new series of air strikes near the iraqi town of mosul targeted the leadership of isis. with intelligence suggesting a meeting of senior operatives, possibly including islamic state leader, al baghdadi, a convoy of ten trucks were destroyed. damage assessments are ongoing and a defense official had no further information on the status of the isis leader. chris? >> catherine, thanks for that. a red wave swept the country this is week, giving republicans control of congress, including
their first senate majority since 2006. we want to introduce you to some of the new members of the senate as the gop sets its agenda. we'll talk with colorado's new senator, cory gardner, in a moment, but first congresswoman shelley moore capito, is west virginia's first female senator ever and first republican senator in half a century. senator-elect, congratulations. welcome to "fox news sunday". >> thank you. glad to be on. >> good to have you. president obama called you on election night, one of the few newly elected republican senators he reached out to. did he give you any sense he's willing to compromise? >> he did say -- he congratulated me, which was very welcome. the call was wonderful, of course. but he did say that, i think we can find common ground to help the people of west virginia. as you know, in west virginia the president is very unpopular, so i appreciate that sentiment. i want to find that common ground. i look forward to that. >> but he didn't put much meat on the bones.
>> well, no, it was late. you know, i'm going to take what i can get at this point. >> in his news conference the day after the election, the president was unwilling to say that he's going to change any of his policies or change the way he does business. and he also seemed to almost dismiss the message from the voters on tuesday night. take a look. to everyone who voted, i want you to know that i hear you. to the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, i hear you, too. >> do you think the president gets it, gets how unhappy voters are with him and the democrats? >> you know, not really. those comments we saw right after the election, when he says he hears two-thirds of the people that are not voting, what kind of message could he possibly be getting? i think the dysfunction, the gridlock, the overreaching, certainly in my state the overreaching by certain
regulatory bodies is really, i think, eating away at the confidence in his ability to lead and an ability to get things done. and i don't believe that -- you know, i want to believe that we can do this. i do believe we can and we must. and i hope the president kind of gets on board a little more than he did in that first press conference. >> there's also a question for republicans, and that is whether they compromise with the president or whether they confront him. and there seemed to be a split in the days after the election within the republican party, various comments made by the new presumptive senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and republican tea party favorite ted cruz. let's take a look at what both of them had to say. >> i want to first look for areas that we can agree on. there probably are some. >> the era of obama lawlessness is over. >> so, are you with mcconnell, let's look for areas of
aagreement, or with cruz, who wants apparently to draw bright lines versus this president? >> well, let's look at one thing the president did do for the republican party on election night. he unified us. we have majorities, a larger majority in the house. we have the majority in the senate. many states -- my state hasn't elected a republican senator since 1956. and part of it was the dissatisfaction with the direction the president's going. i think what we would be smart to do, in my opinion, the way i want to move forward s score small victories. bipartisan with the president, showing and demonstrating to that disaffected majority of americans out there that we can begin to solve the problem. >> such as? >> such as keystone pipeline, such as some tax reform, transportation bill, a six-year transportation bill that -- >> do you think the president will back down on keystone pipeline? >> i think he would be smart to do it when he sees a margin in the senate of over 65 votes.
i would hope so. if we're looking at jobs, infrastructure. we have an energy growth in our country that we really need to capitalize on. >> let me talk about one of the big issues in your campaign, which was what you called the war on coal, which is obviously a big deal in coal-rich west virginia. how aggressive are you going to be in the senate in trying to roll back some of the epa regulations? >> extremely aggressive. that is my promise to west virginia. we have lost over the last two years 5,000 jobs. those are just coal jobs. we have several thousand other miners under a warn notice, meaning they're going to potentially be losing their job. that doesn't count the electrician jobs, tire distributor, all the other jobs that goes with coal mining. coal is our base-load fuel. the president's policy is disenfranchising part of the country, my part of the country. we've been picked as a loser. i'm not going to stand for it. rolling back the epa regulations is the way to do it.
>> finally, how do you feel about the president trying to get a lot of things done in this lame duck session of congress? for instance, just yesterday he nominated loretta lynch to be the new attorney general. how do you feel about his effort to try to get that -- her confirmed by the lame duck session as opposed to waiting for the new senate with members like you getting to vote on? >> i think you see the rapid change in both houses, particularly on the senate side. i think you'll see a lot pushed to the first of the year. i think that will give us time to have the debate and deliberation that the senate haz hasn't had over the last four years, that we need to have, whether it's nominee for attorney general -- >> do you think it would be a mistake to try to push -- jam her through in this session? >> i do. i think if we're going to have an era of good faith, we need to begin with the confirmation process for one of the most important jobs in the country, that's attorney general. >> senator-elect, thank you. thank you for coming in. please come back. >> i would love to. thank you. >> good. now let's meet another of the new gop senators in the battle
state ground of colorado. cory gardner ousted democratic incumbent mark udall. senator-elect gardner, congratulations to you and welcome to "fox news sunday."nk. and thanks for having me on. >> i want to start with the question i asked senator-elect capito. do you think, from what you've heard from the election, do you think the president gets what voters were saying on election night? >> time will tell. look, what i saw in colorado on election night wasn't so much about republicans or democrats, but it was about a rejection of the failed ways of washington. and the democrats happen to be in charge of the senate and the president. so, the fact is, if the president doesn't recognize that people are dissatisfied with the direction of washington, then he's going to have a challenge over the next couple of years. >> and what message, senator-elect, do you think voters were sending republicans? do you think it was a mandate or do you think in a sense it was kind of hold your nose and they dislike you less than they dislike the president and the democrats?
>> well, the mandate was this. people don't like dysfunction, they don't like gridlock, they don't like the way washington is working. so in two years from now, if republicans don't prove we can govern with maturity, we can govern with competence, we'll see the same kind of results two years from now, except it will be a wave going back a different direction. >> in your campaign, you reached out to hispanics who make up 14% of the voters in your state of colorado. and you did very well in a lot of the areas of colorado where they live. since the election, perhaps the biggest issue has been the president's statement, his determination that he is going to sign this executive order deferring the deportation of millions of people who are in this country illegally now. here is some of the debate over that issue. >> what i'm not going to do is just wait. i think it's fair to say that i've shown a lot of patience. >> i believe that the president
continues to act on his own. he is going to poison the well. when you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself. >> senator-elect, do you worry that republicans are going to once again be seen, when all of this is over, once again be seen as anti-hispanic and anti-immigration? >> i think what we have to do is make sure we work with the president, show a willingness in the house and senate to work together so that the president can ultimately do the right thing. the right thing for the president to do isn't going around congress but it's working with congress. so, i think that's the challenge that this new era of goodwill, so to speak, presents itself for us. we have to make sure that the president is willing to do the right thing. that means the congress and house, the house and senate, are willing to show an effort to work together. i think ultimately that's how we have immigration reform and we have to continue our outreach efforts in every community in our country, in every community in states like colorado, to make sure they have the confidence we're going to look out for them and be a strong voice for them, regardless of where they are from.
>> but what's going to happen when the president, and he says he's going to do it some time before the end of the year, signs this executive order, goes around congress? >> well, i hope the president between now and whenever that is will change his mind. will decide to do the right thing. >> and if he doesn't? >> that means mitch mcconnell, leader boehner -- again, we have to encourage him to do the right thing. i don't want to speculate about an executive order that may or may not exist. bottom line is this, we know we need immigration reform in this country because the system isn't working with what we have right now. but the president to encourage working together, to encourage a way to go forward, if he does this, then i'm concerned he won't be doing the right thing. that would hurt our ability to move forward in the next two years. let's do the right thing, let's work together, let's find solutions. that's what the people of colorado are looking for. in large part, that's why we were able to achieve victory, because we presented that positive, optimistic vision for this country and that's what the president needs to do. >> let's talk about doing the right thing on immigration. the hispanic vote did not play a big role in the midterms, but
you know as well as i do, they're going to play a very big role because hispanics vote more in presidential elections, they're going to play a big role in 2016. how do republicans get on the right side of the immigration issue for what is the fastest growing voting bloc in the nation? >> when you look at the issues that the hispanic community cares about, in pueblo county, colorado, i basically tied senator udall. that's one of the largest hispanic populations in the state n one of the largest counties in the state. we did it because we talked to issues to every community, whether it's education, growing jobs and opportunity, making sure children aren't trapped in a failing school system -- >> but specifically on immigration, aren't republicans going to have to do something when it comes to legalization of the millions who are already here? >> i think when it comes to immigration, we've talked about border security. let's start with border security, as so many people are asking for. but border security in and of
ichts is not complete unless you have a meaningful guest worker program to go along with it to create that legal avenue of labor. we have to make sure we fix the entry/exit system, e-verify systems. those are things republicans can and should do right now. that, i think, is something the house, the senate and the president can work together. let's do the right thing. let's take those steps where i think there is a broad agreement that we can get behind and make sure that we are doing the right thing. >> finally, and we have less than a minute left, for all the talk about the republican senate, you're going to find out very quickly, i know you already know it, but i suspect you're not fully up to how frustrating it's going to be, you're going to need a lot of democratic votes to hit that 60-vote super majority to get anything done. any thoughts about how to break the gridlock in the senate? >> i've worked closely with gary peterson, senanate-elect from michigan, done a lot of energy efficiency work with ron wyden from oregon. it is about relationships, putting those things on the
president's desk that have broad, bipartisan support. let's start by putting those kind of solutions like the keystone pipeline, repeal of the medical device tax on the president's desk. show we can do it with republicans and democrats and prove to the american people washington learned its lessons. that will ultimately help republicans when it comes to our nomination for 2016. >> thank you for talking with us. please come visit us when you're in washington. >> will do it. thank you. next week we'll introduce you to another new member, congressman tom cotton of arkansas, who unseated democratic tom pryor. tom cotton on the next "fox news sunday." coming up, a show of bipartisanship as president invites congressional leaders for lunch at the white house. but were there any signs of breaking the ice? we'll find out from two members of congress who were there. what do you think? will the shift of power in washington end the gridlock or only increase it? let me know on facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and use #fns. twitter @foxnewssunday and
twitter @foxnewssunday and so ally bank really has no hidden fees on savings accounts? that's right. it's just that i'm worried about you know "hidden things..." ok, why's that? no hidden fees, from the bank where no branches equals great rates. at's the way i look at life. nd looking for something better. especially now that i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat, not caused by a heart valve problem. i was taking warfarin, but wondered if i kept digging,
could i come up with something better. my doctor told me about eliquis... for three important reasons. one, in a clinical trial, eliquis was proven to reduce the risk of stroke better than warfarin. two, eliquis had less major bleeding than warfarin. and three, unlike warfarin, there's no routine blood testing. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. those three important reasons are why eliquis is a better find for me. ask your doctor today if eliquis is right for you.
president obama sat down with congressional leaders of both parties for lunch friday at the white house, over sea bass and pumpkin tart, they discussed the way forward with republicans soon to control congress. they disagreed sharply over the president's plan for executive action on immigration. joining us now, two of the leaders who were there. senator john barrasso, chairman of the senate republican policy. and congressman xavier becerra is head of the house democratic caucus. gentlemen, welcome back to "fox news sunday." before we get to the white house lunch, i want to ask you about the president's decision on
friday to send 1,500 more u.s. troops to iraq, almost doubling our deployment there. senator barrasso, you're on the foreign relations committee. a couple questions. one, are you going to vote for the $5.6 billion in extra money the president wants? secondly, how do you feel about this slow motion, bit by bit escalation of our footprint in iraq? >> we're going to look at specifically how he wants the money spent, but it's right that the president does come to congress for an authorization for use of military force. i support that. i think congress ought to be involved in those discussions. you do get concerned about mission creep. i think they've been doing a good job in terms of trying to degrade, but they have a long way to go in terms of destroying isis and trying to secure iraq. there are still big problems in syria, and we just discussed all of this with general austin on friday although the white house. >> the head of centcom. >> as well as the secretary. >> any concern this escalation
has the scent of vietnam about it? and do you think the president has a strategy, a strategy and a plan to beat isis? >> the way it was outlined at the lunch on friday, it seemed like a pretty coherent plan that was directed at the ultimate goal of dismantling isil. and my sense is this, after, as the senator said, we have an opportunity to look closely at all the details. i think most members will see this is just a build up of the original plan, which is to try to help the iraqis stand up and take care of business back home. >> where does it end? it was in the 200, now it's 2900. how many more troops? >> i think president has always said that the iraqis have to handle this. they've asked for help. we're willing to help but it's their job to take care of their civil war. i don't think the president intends to have this become anything close to a vietnam. >> let's talk about the lunch, which you both attended on friday.
senator barrasso, how heated was the discussion about the president taking executive actions to defer depore tags of millions of people in this country illegally? and will that really, as some republican leaders are suggesting, hurt cooperation on every issue? >> well, i believe it will hurt cooperation on every issue, chris. what the president does over the next two months is really going to set the tone for the next two years in washington. you know, nobody ran for office and won a senate race based on the president having more executive authority to take executive actions on amnesty or on health care or any of the other issues. the american people want us to work together to find solutions. so, i think it would be like the president pulling the pin out of a hand grenade and throwing it in as we're trying to actually work together. i'm hoping that cooler heads at the white house can prevail upon the president to say, look, if you want to have a good constructive final two years of your presidency, don't do this now. wait until the new congress is sworn in. let them come together and do
the sort of things senator-elect gardner was talking about in terms of working together to find some solutions on immigration. >> congressman, a couple questions for you. did the president really cut off vice president biden when he started talking about this, the idea of how long would it take republicans to come up with their own bill? and do you worry that it's going to be the grenade scenario and that this will poison the well on a bunch of issues, not just immigration? >> first, i don't recall anybody being cut off. there was a good conversation, back and forth. on the issue of immigration and where we'll go, i think the president's been very patient. he made it very clear, he's been waiting for six years to get a bill from congress. he's been waiting a year and a half for the house republicans to act on the bill that the senate passed on a bipartisan basis. and the president for months has been saying he's going to take action where he can to try to make the law work better, smarter than what it is right now. so, i don't think there's anything strange going on here, except for the fact that if house republicans continue to
insist that the president must wait to help fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system, the only thing that is harmed is our security, our economy and all those families that are waiting to see some results. so i think the president is right to move forward, to do what president reagan, president bush sr., president bush jr., president clinton, all presidents have used executive orders to make the law work better. he cannot change the law. he can only try make it work better and smarter. >> senator barrasso, you say the president still hasn't come to grips with this election. do you think he's in denial? >> i don't know that, but he is sure, i think, not fully grasping the -- the significant defeat for his party and his policies. as the president said, his policies were on the ballot each and every one of them. we have now elected -- i think we will end up with nine new republican senators. his policies have been rejected by the voters. not just because they're
unpopular, but because they don't work. that's why we went to the white house to say, mr. president, we want to work with you on issues of jobs, the economy, affordable energy and health care. and i was astonished that during that whole lunch, the president didn't ask us anything about that at all. he just was so focused on this executive amnesty issue that he ignored the idea of having a dialogue on ways we could actually change the direction of the country and move forward with regard to jobs and the economy. >> is that true? >> let me disagree with the senator. the president wasn't so focused on the issue of executive action until speaker boehner was the one that raised it saying, it's going to be tough to do anything together if you do executive action, and that's when the president respond back. so to put the blame on the president for the speaker is unfair. the president said, we've got a lot to do together. we've got to deal -- >> was there not a discussion back and forth about both -- both parties' ideas about jobs? >> that was -- the president posed that as one of the issues
we should have conversation about. remember, we only had so much time to discuss a number of issues. we had a briefing by the military on the situation in syria and iraq. as the president said, he went through about four or five different issues and said, all these issues i hope we have an opportunity to work with on -- >> senator barrasso, you think there wasn't enough talk about the economy and jobs, which is, according to voters, the number one issue? >> whose fault that we didn't discuss the economy more? john boehner started off right away, executive action, it's going to be tough to do anything. >> and the president then spent an inordinate amount of time talking about his goals for executive action and pretty much ignored the next two years. that's why i say, what the president decides to do in the next two months, sets the tone for the next two years. there are dozens of bills that have passed the house in a bipartisan way, specifically related to jobs, the economy, trade, health care. we want to put and will start putting on the president's desk --
>> none of that was discussed -- >> -- in january. none of that came up. it seems other than the briefing on isis and ebola, it seemed the president's goal was to take executive action when the president's policy and party were refutiated. >> he said republicans will no longer have to the tea party wing in the house and the senate, but especially the house. here's what he said. >> it means that negotiations end up, perhaps, being a little more real because, you know, they have larger majorities, for example, in the house. they may be able to get some things through their caucuses they couldn't before. >> congressmen, do democrats have to do anything differently? >> well, all of us have to do something differently. >> i'm asking about democrats. >> yeah, democrats and republicans. >> what do democrats have to do differently?
>> i think democrats have to know now that senate and house are both in the hands of the republicans, that we have to see where we can work with those that drive the agenda in the house and the senate to see where we can come together and find common ground. it's no longer going to be a republican house working with a democratic senate. it's going to be one of those areas where we have to see if we can join with republicans as they propose legislation to send to the president. and hopefully the -- the republicans in both the house and the senate propose bills that the president has said he's willing to sign versus just send him legislation that he's said, this is going to be vetoed as soon as it gets to my desk. >> finally, senator barrasso, and i want to ask a question i asked senator-elect capito, how do you feel about the president trying to get the confirmation of loretta lynch as the new attorney general, to get her confirmed in this lame duck session as opposed to waiting for the new senate? how much will you resist it if he tries to get her confirmed in this session? >> the attorney general of the united states is a very consequential position.
we have not done an attorney general confirmation in a lame duck since 1906. that was in the same party. the last time we've done one with a change of party was when james buchanan was leaving the white house and abraham lincoln was coming in. so, as i say, what the president does in two months is very consequential for the next two years. she's going to have to specifically come to the hill, talk about trying to get better relations between the departments and the hill and specifically answer questions about executive amnesty. is it legal? is it constitutional? >> senator barrasso, congressman becerra, thank you for joining us today. we can solve one of the mysteries about the lunch. let's show you a picture of the leaders of congress as they left the lunch. you can see they were carrying swag bags, white house swag bags from the lunch. we wondered what was in the swag bags. john barrasso has given me, and i'm -- i don't know, i think i may drink it in the second half of the show, white house honey
ale. so, what did you get, a six-pack or -- >> yeah. >> six-pack of honey ale. have you tried it? >> no, not yet. >> you tried it? >> not yet. will, though. >> maybe we'll have a beer summit. >> there you go. >> thank you, gentlemen. always a pleasure. we'll be watching what happens on capitol hill. up next, republicans win a big victory election night. what happens now? our sunday group joins the conversation. what happens now? our sunday group joins the conversation. s charlie.
baby laughs! as president i have a unique responsibility to try to make this town work. >> we'll see whether we can work with the president. i hope so. that's what he says. we'll find out. >> president obama and presumptive senate majority leader mitch mcconnell talking about cooperation after tuesday's republican wave. but will they find a way to do it? it's time now for our sunday group. brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. peter baker who covers the white house for "the new york times." republican adviser carly fi firorina and charles lane. from "the washington post." when democrats lost president obama came out the day after and called it a shellacking. but what struck a lot of people this time is he seemed unwilling to admit how badly republicans had lost or to talk about any changes in his policy or his way of doing business. and i guess the question is,
peter, behind the scenes at the white house, are they any more realistic about what happened on tuesday night? >> well, they know it was a bad night. they're not fooling themselves about that. but they look for all sorts of reasons why that happened. it was a bad electoral map, you know, obviously every six-year election in a two-term presidency tends to go badly and so on. he didn't want to come out and look chastened, so he didn't. he didn't want to give us a word like shellacking or thumping, like the last two, and he didn't. he wants to come out and be aggressive. we heard a lot from the white house today, the last few days, that he was champing at the bit to get out there and be aggressive but was held back by senate democrats. senate democrats have a different version. >> during the campaign. >> during the campaign. now he's more liberated and he can be more assertive if he wants to be, and certainly he was with the immigration discussion. >> brit, you and i have been through a bunch of midterms that have gone badly for presidents. oftentimes the presidents decide
to switch course as a result of the election results. bill clinton seems like perhaps the best example of that. do you think this president, this president has it in him to really change course and to work more cooperatively with republicans? >> perhaps on a few issues. but i think this president -- there's a character issue here. he seems to have this pathological inability to accept responsibility. the last midterm -- second-term midterm wipeout we saw was 2006. and george w. bush came out after that and said the results of the election were disappointing. he called it a thumping. he said, as head of the party, i share a large part of the responsibility for this. of course, it was in the aftermath of that he adjusted course in iraq, which was the issue that had dragged his party down to such a great extent in that election. so, he made a shift. bill clinton, as you pointed out, made a shift after he got -- he lost the congress in 1994, two years into his
presidency. i don't sense this president's prepared to do that. i think he -- it's almost as if he thinks that this election was somehow not legitimate because he wasn't on the -- there wasn't a presidential race and it wasn't a big turnout. >> and two-thirds of the people didn't vote. >> and two-thirds of the people didn't vote. and he has this -- among his other wondrous qualities he has this ability to hear what people diplomat say anything. >> apparently if there is going to be a confrontation, the first confrontation will be over immigration. as we've been discussing today, the president seems determined to enact executive action, take executive action, before the end of the year to defer deportations for millions of people who are in this country illegally. now, carly, are renting making a mistake here, with all this talk this week, boy, you do that, it's going to poison the well on every issue. should they separate it out and say, we're very unhappy about this but we'll continue to do business, or, you know, are they right to say, this is going to poison the well?
>> well, i think, first, republicans should be reminding the american people that when barack obama was president, when he held both the house and the senate, after promising in his 2008 election campaign that he would take on immigration, he did nothing. i think republicans should be reminding the american people that it was democrats that killed comprehensive immigration reform under president george w. bush. this president has done nothing. he has not been waiting for six years -- >> wait a minute. there was a bill, a comprehensive bill passed with republican support in the senate. >> that's correct. >> and it was killed in the republican house. >> that's right. generally legislation goes the other way, although not always. that is, it starts in the house and moves to the senate and eventually gets to the president's desk. but my point is, i do not think this president wants comprehensive immigration reform. i think he wants a club to beat
republicans over the head with, therefore, you think, i think he will take executive action. i think republicans must be talking tough about the consequences of that republican action because, clearly -- that presidential action. clearly, republicans want the border secured, but they also know the current system doesn't work. however, personally, i would counsel republicans against, say, rushing off to impeach the president if he does this. and to continue in a workman like way to pass bills with bipartisan support and put them on his desk. >> your thoughts about immigration reform, who's responsible, what republicans should do. you've got a lot to talk about. >> gee, i mean, we can go on forever, arguing about who struck down immigration reform, but i think to follow up on your question, there is a risk if the republicans sort of overdue it in saying, this will kill any hope of bipartisan. i think probably their safer position would be to say, boy this will really cause problems but we're going to soldier on and try to pass legislation anyway. the truth of the matter is that in the last congress, in spite of all the gridlock and so
forth, a lot of work was done quietly in committees on unsexy issues. things like postal reform, cyber security, housing finance, fannie mae and freddie mac. there were bipartisan projects that sort of got a little traction under them, and then just sort of died for all the reasons we're familiar with. and corporate tax reform being one of the big ones. so it's not inconceivable, even after all this, that something could get legislated. >> real quickly. we only have 30 seconds left in this segment. interesting to hear republicans talk about keystone pipeline. do you think there's any possible the president would bend on that? >> i do. i think there's room for compromise there. i can imagine a package where he agrees to authorize the pipeline in exchange for something that he wants on energy or environment, that the republicans might not be so interested in giving him, so the question is, can they come together on that. he would ar gushgs i think, as a tradeoff for whatever damage, if you can argue it, might be
created by keystone, we get this benefit, it may be worth it. but we'll see if that's possible. >> all right. that was a little hopeful. we have to take a break here. when we come back, president obama is now almost doubling the number of u.s. troops in iraq. does the escalation of forces signal a change in our mission there? plus, what would you like to ask the panel? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday. we may use your question on the air. that's a fine looking group of people there. @foxnewssunday. we may use your question on the air. that's a fine looking group of people there.
to him, national security and war is just politics in another form.e hel that's what i hate so much abou the obama administration. p >> pentagon spokesman rear so h admiral john kirby and republican senator lindsey ear graham sharply disagreeing overn the president's decision to send more troops to help the iraqi army to fight isis. we're back now with the panel.o before we get to that, peter, a what are your sources telling i. you about this u.s. air strike against isis leaders in the rces mosul area of northern iraq in t the last 24 hours? and what about the possibility n that's being mentioned they actually hit the leader of isis, al baghdadi? >> yeah, no, very intriguing possibility, of course. very >> they had intelligence the leaders were going to be gathering and they took h advantage of it while they could.ad leag to we should be cautious in while suggesting that anybody specific has been knocked off at this point.cou esting we've seen again in again in thh 13 years since 9/11 that reporti of the demise of this terrorist leader or that militant leader proved to be unfounded. 9 i think -- i remember during the
original iraq war, we killed a guy chemical ali, cousin of kie sa sdam saddam hussein , we killed him at least five or six times.s. ally we did finally -- >> it is encouraging they had this intelligence where some of the leaders of isis were going to be meeting. >> that's right. look, you know, it's not just going to be these troops that are being sent. it's also going to rely very heavily on people on the ground t's n who can help -- you know, it spotters, figure out which targets for these strikes to hit.t. that's what matters at this point. >> we asked you for questions for the panel and we got this of facebook from donna robb. questi talking about the escalation ofe troops, how is this different from when we trickled soldiers into indochino in the early s, w 1960s? remember well where that got usd brit, do you see any in similarities to vietnam here? >> oh, sure, because you have s. this seemingly gradual an escalation. and, of course, the early forces that were sent to vietnam were advisers.etnam>>
what strikes me about this is that the rationale for this seems to be that now the iraqi e forces are doing so well, that f weor need to send twice as manyc adviserses to help them as they had before. that seems to me not to make any sense. and it suggests to me that the truth is, they're not doing so s well and that's why we need to s send the forces, the opposite of what they're saying.eeforce and i think that was always the case in vietnam. in you know, we kept -- we kept escalating and it -- we kept not quite winning and that's what caused them to keep ramping up the troops. it's a slippery slope. keptp rai >> let's take a look at however long the slope is, let's take ae look at the escalation so far in iraq. back in june the president sent the first 275 soldiers there to help support iraqi forces. now with this new deployment, he we're going to have 2,900 troops to, quote, train and assist theh iraqi army. to the question, charles, is and whether that is going to be enough to defeat isis or whetheh
in a few months -- i mean, that's a ten-fold increase sinci june, whether in a few months we'll need even more troops. >> the honest answer, we have no idea. i do want to say it's a promising sign. that there's good enough intelligence, which was always going to be the defect swer, w perspectively in this air strike to hit what seems to have been a target-rich environment this ke morning. but the achilles heel of this th whole project is the iraqi army. we're talking about training it to be effective against isis. this is an army that collapsed o after $20 billion and years of t u.s. hetraining, collapsed afte isis showed up in mosul a few lion,s ago. so, that is at best a dicey proposition that we're actuallyl going to be able to stand somebody up. i mean, there's a little bit ofa a vietnam analogy and also a res world war ii analogy, i might say, in all of this that we're proposing to team up with one evil, namely the shia-dominated
iraqi militias and their iranian backers against what we deem to be a worse evil in isis. if you think the practical problems associated with that are tough,,w wait until we star hearing the moral side. wait until our side starts committing massacres and so forth. which is another thing it has iw common with vietnam, the until corruption and brutality of ouro allies. >> there is also the issue of timing. some people thought it was more than coincidental that the utalh pentagon and the white house uef announced this just three days . after the election. carly, what do you make of that? also, what do you make of the expansion of our deployment of u.s. forces? >> well, i think first let's put this in the context that we aken still don't have and haven't i heard a strategy. a strategy for how to get any of this done.trategy. the drone strikes are great. let's hope we took the fo leadership out.r but the president has never put forward his plan for defeating -- degrading and b defeating isis.
>> what about this question of m timing andin coming right aftere thect election?efore >> president clinton and i he remember after his re-election comes to the briefing room and o he's going to keep troops in ps bosnia and president bush ended up sending in new troops, his id own caucus was mad at him. he always have -- the election f gets in the middle of a decision process and it will always create suspicion about creat motivations and timing. the i think it's such a small amount of troops here in the end that it's hard to imagine this realli would have had an affect on the election one way or the other before last use, but it's not surprising that people wonder. >> tothat's wha the big questio which is the means and the ends, the president has a big end go here, the destruction of isis, c but has he gotco the means, a wt strategy to accomplishha that? >> the eventual construction --i
the idea of going after isis ink syria is in the back burner. what i think this president tends to do over and over again is to decide what means he wil use an then taylor the mission to the chosen means. ta >> alsoil decide what means he't not going to use.he and >> exactly. so what you have, you impose these limitations on himself which he repeatedly does, and then he conjures a mission thatt would fit or seem to.se so far in this case, it seems td me, the smaller mission of trying to hold isis back in iraq has not been met for the means he's chosen for that and that it what i think 1,500 more troops going out there to advice means, it means it isn't working so ae
far, at least this piece of it t will fail. wo >> they're veryrr worried about the huge massacre in anbar of province of the sunni tribes te that were our allies in the first time around when al qaeda was defeated in iraq. and i have a feeling that feeln somehow, some of these troops are going to an bar to try and shore that up. anb but this is a little bit of an s effort to address that hemorrhaging that was going on . in the short-term.. >> this is not the last conversation about this subjectt thank you, panel, see you next sunday. up next, our power player of theply week, a manage on the front line in the battle against child sex slavery. a bibibibibibi so i can reach ally bank 24/7, but there are no branches? 24/7 it's just i'm a little reluctant to try new things. what's wrong with trying new things? feel that in your muscles? yeah... i do... try a new way to bank, where no branches equals great rates.
he spent 12 he spent 12 years as a -- it's dangerous work conducting undercover stings. here's our power player of the week. it's. >> it's the worst kind of abuse, abuse you don't even want to talk about. >> he's talking about child sex trafficking and his efforts to stop it. he's the founder of operation under ground railroad, he and his colleagues call themselves abboll legsists.
>> people are being sold, human beings are being sold for the benefit of others and slavery is alive and well. >> he focuses on the 2 million child sex slaves throughout the world. traffickers convince parents in pe poor countries to turn their kids over, supposedly to become models, then the traffickers sell the children for the night or permanently. >> in haiti, we had terrificers sell children for $15,000. they're yours, we walked out with the kids, a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old. sex slaves? >> they dfidn't care what we di with them. >> last dpecember, he decided h could do more outside the government. last month he and a jump team from special forces got a tip from the columbian government about sex trafficking on an
island off cart 1-800-a. >> they said we have drugs, we have a girls, we said what kind of girls? they said as young as 10. it was like he was selling us a car. >> he started negotiatinging for a sex party. >> in columbia, it was about $300 a day for a child. they offered five very jichbs who were as young as 11 for $5,000. >> the traffickers brought 55 kids and ballard paid more than 26$,000. >> i looked at these kids as they were crying, it was a punch in the stomach, they think you're the monster. >> but ballard called in a colombia s.w.a.t. team who arrested the traffickers. ballard keeps his cover for the next operation. but this time the children found out they were the good guys. >> at one point, this little
girl went up to the screen of the window where we passed by and put her little hand up and i was able to reach out and touch her hand. we kind of broke role and said, guys, this is the sound of liberation, this is the sound of emancipation. >> reporter: just this year, operation under ground railroad has done a dozen stings, rescued 230 children and put two dozen traffickers in prison. ballard now is the group's public face, so he won't go under cover again, but i he'll still be part of the operation. >> to see a child being liberated and knowing we can do it again and again. and it's bittersweet, knowing how many more are still there. but the minute you start to celebrate, you stop yourself and you realize you got to get back to work. operation under ground railroad is a nonprofit totally funded by private donation,s.
if you want to learn more, go to our website, fox news.com. we'll see you next week, fox news sunday. i'm harris faulkner, reports from inside iraq that one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world has been woungded in a military operation. that man, the secretive leader of the isis terror army. they have beheaded american journalists, executed untold numbers of men, women in towns and villages all across the middle east, all under his command. two iraqi officials say that al baghdadi was hurt in an american air strike. connor powell live for us in our mid east bureau, and connor, how reliable are these aemged sources inside ir