tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News June 29, 2016 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
practice but our adherence to a common creed. a belief that all people are created equal. a belief in free speech. and freedom of assembly. and democracy. and pluralism. and tolerance. and rule of law. and we have observed those ideals imperfectly at times. in each successive generation, we've got a little better at it. we've come closer to our ideals. and the notion that somehow we would stop now on what has been a tradition of attracting talent and strivers and dreamers from all around the world, that would rob us of the thing that is most
special about america. and i don't think it will happen. now, people are genuinely concerned about immigration that is not orderly. people pouring across borders witho without, you know, having gone through some sort of process, it adds to people's sense that things are out of control. and that's why we've invested in securing our borders and we've made unprecedented investments. it's part of the reason why immigration to the united states it at its lowest level since the 1970s. it's why we so value the corporation we've be an trained from the mexican government in order to make sure our borders work to facilitate legal trade and legal immigration and
commerce but discourages, you know, illegal immigration. it's why i'm pushing very hard and will continue to push until i leave this office and expect the next president to push for a comprehensive immigration reform plan that can fix those aspects of the system that are broken so we remain a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. and that's ultimately i think where people in the united states will land. we've had times throughout our history where anti-immigration sentiment is exploited by demagogues. it was directed at the irish. it was directed at poles and italians and you can go back and read what was said about those groups. and it's identical to what they're now saying about mexicans or guatemalans or asians. same stuff.
they're different. they're not going to fit. they won't assimilate. they bring crime. same arguments. you go back to the 100s. the language is identical. but guess what. they kept coming. and they kept coming because america offered possibility for their children and their grandchildren. even if they were initially discriminated against, they understood our system will over time allow them to become part of this one american family. and so we should take some of this rhetoric seriously and answer boldly and clearly but you shouldn't think that that is representative of how the american people think.
>> and now our third question. from the united states, roberter roberta ranson from reuters. >> i should point out that roberta is also secretly from canada so canadians are now getting an extra question. >> thank you, mr. president. given how the brexit vote shook the stability of the global economy, do you feel that you need to do more to calm the markets quickly and perhaps encourage a quick exit, rather than something that's long and drawn out? do you still feel the uk should be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the united states? and are you going to make a full-throated pitch for the ttp for your prescription when you're out on the campaign trail this summer stumping for secretary clinton?
prime minister, you seem to be quite careful when you talk about mr. trump. renegotiating nafta or tearing it up will be such a disaster for canada. why not come out and say that forcefully? president pena nieto, you comparedmussolini. i wonder if you still stand by that and how worried are you this time next year there will be a wall up on your border? >> okay. excellent questions, roberta. >> -- canadian -- >> canadians are a little more subtle? i'm actually going to help out my friends a little bit on your last question, even though it wasn't directed at me, and just say when i visit other countries, it's not my job to comment on candidates in the middle of a race. just because they may end up winning. and the relationship between governments tend to transcend
whoever is in power at any given time. so it's a tough question. i'm not saying they shouldn't answer it. i'm just -- i'm helping him out a little bit. because there's no doubt when i visit countries, there are times when i've got preferences. but i rarely express them. with respect to brexit, first of all, i think you've seen the markets settle down a little bit over the last couple of days. i didn't follow the markets today. but we're monitoring very carefully whether there's any systemic strains on the system and so far what you've seen is reactions of the market, stock prices, currencies. but i think the preparations that were done by central banks and finance ministers, our treasury secretary, you know, indicate the degree to which the global economy in the short run
will hold steady. i think there are some genuine longer-term concerns about global growth if, in fact, brexit goes through, and that freezes the possibilities of investment in great britain or in europe as a whole. at a time when global growth rates were weak already, you know, this doesn't help. and so when we attend the g-20 summit in china later this year, one of the major topics, which is something that i've continually advocated for during the 7 1/2 years that i've been president, is we all have to look at what we can do to boost global demand. whether it's the united states adopting a more robust budget for infrastructure improvements
and fixing water systems in flint michigan or repairing airports that are not as efficient as they should be or rebuilding our power grid so it can take advantage of clean energy, whether it's germany, a country with a surplus, doing more in terms of spending, or europe as a whole lifting some of the austerity constraints that have been placed on them. whether it's china shifting to a more consumer-based, domestic-based growth strategy as opposed to trying to export its way out of problems. there's going to be a whole hot of measures all of us can take to fortify the global economy. that should be a priority. with respect to the actual brexit negotiations, my main message to david cameron, angela merkel and others is everybody
should catch their breath, come up with a plan and a process that is orderly, that's transparent, that people understand, and then proceed, understanding that both sides have a stake in getting this right. and i think that will be a difficult challenging process, but it does not need to be a panicky process. i think it can be a steady sensible process. obviously, leadership issues in great britain will neat to be resolved for it to move as crisply and as effectively as it needs to, but that -- i think that's recognized. and that should happen fairly quickly. i know speaking with chancellor
merkel that, you know, her interest is not in retribution, her interest is in making sure that the process works. and i have a lot of confidence in people being able to do that, and we will help in any way that we can to facilitate that. and then the last part of your question is with respect to the uk and any trade agreement with the united states. frankly, we will be the least of their problems right now because their first order of business is going to be to address the market where they sell half their goods, which is europe. and these things are not easily negotiated. particularly because we've been spending our time trying to negotiate with the european union. and so to suddenly go off on another track will be challenging. but i think first and primary
concern is going to be to try to figure out how they interact with the european union and the european market if, in fact, and when, in fact, they leave. i have emphasized throughout though that the special relationship we have with great britain does not change. that the ties of affection and family and language and institutions and culture and the business relationships that exist, those are so deep and so long-lasting, the cooperation we have on security issues and on global challenges, those are so fundamental that, you know, our relationship with the uk fundamentally doesn't change. we are concerned that their absence from the european union and the potential disruptions
within european make it harder for us to solve some of the challenges. >> would be of the things that's easy to forget among the inflated rhetoric of an election campaign is that the relationship between our countries goes far deeper than any individual leaders. and if it the three of us get along, it's not just because we're aligned in many different values and priorities, it is because we serve citizens who are they themselves tremendously aligned in terms of priorities, in terms of hopes and dreams, in terms of desire to success and ways to reach it. when you look at the level of
integration of our supply chains, the markets, the flow back and forth, goods and people, and the tremendous benefits that have come from proximity and strong relationships to individual citizens across this continent, it's essential that we understand that regardless of electoral rhetoric, canada, the united states and mexico will continue to have tremendously close relationships. economically, socially, culturally, famially and now and in the future. i love forward to working with whomever the american people choose to elect as their president in november. i know that we will always be
able to find shared priorities and challenges that we want to work together to overcome and i know that our commitment to doing what's right and what's best for our citizens will lead us to much more alignment than differentiation. >> translator: roberta. i said it and i'll say it again, my government, the domestic electoral process in the united states, i don't think i've said anything different from what i'm stating once again here. what i have said is that today,
i did not make reference to a specific place. my words reinforce what i believe. i believe that in this global scenario, and i'll use president obama's words. and as he said he gave us a hand to address this question. we are facing a global reality. we have a populous world. what i have said is that in the world we're living in different places. we have political leaders. political stakeholders that use demagoguery and have a populistic slogan that want to eliminate and destroy what has been built. what has taken decades to build.
all the benefits have not reached society as a whole, it is true. they choose the easiest way. and things are not that simplistic. to take on the responsibility to rule a country it goes beyond giving the easiest answer. it is complex and it is difficult. i just said what we have reached so far. without a doubt, makes contrasts
with what -- nun about are been never before the global society has lived, never before had our countries had a high life expectancy as we have hood, never before had we had the opportunity to have access to the knowledge of the world as fast as we do today. never before were in such a level of connection between society and the possibility of having access to any product from any corner of the world as we do today. and that was built throughout the year by using the model based on openness, free trade. trade agreement.
and the biggest challenge today is to make sure that those benefits reach out to every single citizen. but the solution proposed by some is not by destroying what we have built. it is not taking a different route to choose the road towards isolationism and destruction. what we need to do is keep up the pace toward development. when i said that, i mentioned that most of what some people say, it is very similar that the past, and president obama already said, but in the past some leaders address their societies in those terms.solini. and the outcome, it's clear to everyone. it resulted in devastation. and turned out to be a tragedy for mankind. that was my message.
when i made reference to this event. my message was about to value what we have and also to be aware of the road that we need to work. that's the benefit that we're looking forward to. the benefit to our society. >> our last question. >> the question will be -- >> translator: mr. trudeau, with the goals that you said are ambitious for clean energy, does this mean the u.s. will import more hydroelectricity? >> with this agreement to produce more clean energy, does it mean that the united states will have to import more hydroelectricity from canada? >> certainly agreement that we've concluded today valued our shift towards cleaner renewable energy.
canada has a tremendous amount of energy that comes from clean sources right now. and we're always looking to create more. how we work together as -- not just as two countries but as three countries on energy solutions that give opportunities to our citizens while protecting future generations from the impacts of climate change is something we are already entirely agreed on. one of the things that we've learn learned through the paris agreement and other solutions is there is no single solution to our energy challenges or the challenges posed by climate change. we need to work together. the conclusion of this is so important. and how we're going to do not
just our share to combat the challenge of climate change but to demonstrate the leadership and show that clean energy and clean growth are exactly the solution. and the opportunity we face because of climate change. >> translator: it allows us to fight climate change but it's also very important when it comes to investing in green energy, clean growth in our country. i know we will have to pursue solutions when it comes to green energy.
but cooperation between our three countries will give rise to innovative solutions. i can't wait to work with united states and with mexico in order that together we're able to face climate change challenges. it's not just a matter of doing our fair share, it's a matter of showing leadership in the world. when it comes to climate change and clean energy. we have to show the future of the environment and the economy involves taking responsible decisions for the environment and green energy. thank you. >> translator: even when this question was addressed to the
u.s. and canada would like to say that mexico in this relationship, as has been mentioned here, we also are committed to clean energy. mexico has rebound its legal framework so by 2024 at least 35% of the generation of energy is clean too. this is an agreement they made in this trilateral meeting to reduce other pollutants. like methane. what i would like to say is that our three countries share the same agenda in environment issues. we have agreed to protect our
solutions we're already working on. >> we've set a goal and we are coordinating and synchronizing best practices and there's going to be an energy mix in each of our countries that's going to be different. some of it's going to be determined by what natural resources we have. it's going to be determined by how well we can integrate the grid and transmission of power so there may be some wonderful hydroelectric power we'd like to get to the united states. question is are there enough transmission facilities for us to be able to buy it at a competitive price. just as, you know, we develop wind energy, we have to build an infrastructure to get wind produced in south dakota down to chicago. and each of us i think are going to have national plans. but the point is by setting
these goals, creating these coordinati coordinating mechanisms, we're in a better position to take advantage of the confluence of interest and economies and opportunities. and i view this clean energy sector as an enormous opportunity. look, oil is cheap right now. but it's not going to be cheap. i've said this before. those buying gas guzzlers, i'm telling you. because it is a finite resource and it becomes more expensive to extract and people are taking climate change more seriously. so we're in a transition phase. but in the meantime, technology is moving. and solar and wind and hydroand bio mass and entire technologies we haven't thought of yet. there's some 15-year-old kid somewhere who's figuring it out. i don't know whether he's in
mexico or canada or the united states or china or, you know, saudi arabia, but somebody's out there, going to figure this out. and i want that opportunity to accrue to our workers, our people. our communities. and whoever wins this race is going to -- everybody else is going to follow. i believe we have the brainpower and the architecture to lead. we can test out these opportunities and figure out which work best. if you'd allow me, i want to say one last thing. that's this whole issue of populism. maybe somebody can pull up in
the dictionary quickly the phrase "populism" but i'm not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that's been popping up is populist. when i ran in 2000, 2008, and the reason i ran again, and the reason even after i leave this office i will continue to work in some capacity in public service is because i care about people and i want to make sure every kid in america has the opportunities i have. and i care about poor people who are working really hard and don't have a chance to advance. and i care about workers being able to have a collective voice in the workplace and get their
fair share of the pie. and i want to make sure that kids are getting a decent education and a working mom has child care that she can trust. and i think we should have a tax system that's fair. and that folks like me who have benefited from the incredible opportunities in my society should pay a little bit more to make sure that somebody else's kids who weren't as lucky have those same opportunities. and i think there should be curbs on the excesses of our financial sector. so we don't repeat the debacles of 2007 and 2008. i think there should be transparency. in how our systems work so we don't have people dodging taxes by setting up offshore accounts in other places and avoiding the responsibilities that their fellow citizens who don't have
fancy lawyers and accountants, that they can benefit from those same tricks. now, i suppose that makes me a populist. now, somebody else who has never shown any regard for workers, has never fought on behalf of social justice issues, or making sure that poor kids are getting a decent shot at life or have health care. in fact, have worked against economic opportunity for workers and ordinary people. they don't suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes. that's not the measure of
populism. that's nativism. or xenaphobia. or worse. just cynicism. so i would just advise everybody be careful about suddenly attributing to whoever pops up at a time of economic anxiety the label that they're populist. where have they been? have they been on the front lines? working for nafta? working for the people? no, they're people like bernie sanders who i think genuinely deserve the title because he has been in the vineyards fighting on behalf of these issues. and there the question's just going to be, all right, we share
values, we share goals, how do we achieve them? and i do think enrique's broader point is right, which is, you know, sometimes there are simple solutions out there. now that i've been president for 7 1/2 years, it turns out that's pretty rare. and the global economy's one of those areas where there aren't a lot of simple solutions. and there aren't a lot of short cuts to making sure that more people have opportunity in our countries. we are going to have to educate our kids better. and that takes time. we've got to make sure our manufacturing sector is more dynamic and competitive. that takes time. we've got to restructure our tax codes to incentivize the right things. that takes time. we've got to raise minimum wages. we've got to make sure that college is affordable. we have to restructure and reform our financial sectors so
they're not reckless but we got to do so in ways that don't destroy the entire system and throw millions of people suddenly out of work. and when we've bailed out the auto industry, that wasn't popular, so maybe i wasn't populist, but i'll tell you what, all those automakers, all those uaw members, both here in the united states and in canada are pretty happy i did. even though it had about 10% popularity at the time. even in states like michigan. so i don't know, maybe that was an elitist move on my part because it didn't poll well. last time i visited an auto plant though they were pretty happy. let's just be clear that somebody who labels us versus
them or engages in rhetoric about how we're going to look after ourselves and take it to the other guy, that's not the definition of populism, sorry. this is one of the prerogatives is when you're at the end of your term, you just kind of -- you go on these occasional rants. >> translator: with this, we conclude our press conference. >> okay, you've been listening to the north american press conference there. we've heard from president nieto of mexico, from prime minister justin trudeau of canada and of course our own president obama. president obama taking an opportunity there at the end of the press conference to really throw a few digs at donald trump. talking about this rise in populism that we have been seeing and critiquing what he says is, you know, donald trump effectively his sudden stance on all these issues. he made the point of where was
he. how has he been fighting for people's rights all these years. you're looking at live pictures coming to us from bangor, maine. donald trump there talking about trade, talking about terror, all issues on top of voter's minds now. i want to get to the author of "defeating isis," the winnable war." doctor, keep in mind we've just seen 41 people die in that terror attack in turkey. americans are scared. yet the president, as we just heard, still labeled this as xenophobia when people are talking about profiling muslims in this country. you're shaking your head no, you don't see it as xenophobia, it's more just the reality unfortunately we have to face right now? >> i'm shaking my head because i don't know how you're doing your job right now. i'm still trying to recover from that absolute mindless rambling at the end of the president's presentation there. what was he talking about?
he was wittering on about what is populism, what isn't populism, look it up in the dictionary, sorry for this rant, i'm at the tend of my term. i've got whiplash from that. i'm sorry. i'm still recovering. >> i think he takes it quite personally, dr. gorka that donald trump has been as successful as he is. he sees it really as a front to everything he stands for and he has worked for. we see that come up over and over again. he take these opportunities to dig in and emphasize what he dislikes about trump. one of the reasons, perhaps, i'd like you perspective on donald success he has, is because americans really feel underserved by this president. >> yeah, can i suggest another definition for the president of populism? democracy. when the majority of the people are fed up with political correctness and fed up with the commander in chief who divides
the nation between republican, democrat, black and white, the trump nominated is a direct response to his deviivisive presidency. the idea you make commonsense suggestions such that we don't want an influx of migrants from active war zones, that's bad, that's an act of populism? the president is so thin-skinned that he's taking the commonsense approach that is working so well for mr. trump and he's taking it personally and he doesn't -- he really doesn't understand why americans are so very, very concerned. after san bernardino. after orlando. he still doesn't understand that the average american is really afraid and they have every right to be. >> but doesn't the average american run the risk of becoming increasingly more afraid when they have an
opportunity that is as seemingly unresponsive as this one? think about this, you've got secretary of state john kerry out there right now calling these, and i believe we have some sound we can play for you, calling this situation in turkey as having been done by nonstate violence actors. here he is, dr. goshg rka, i'd your reaction. >> that's why i say the first challenge we need to face is countering nonstate violent actors. >> nonstate violent actors. most officials are saying this, in fact, is actually isis. why not just call them terrorists? why do we have to use this sort of coded language? why can't we say islamic terrorism still? >> you know why? because if they had admit what it is, they'll have to admit their strategy failed. we've had more jihadi plots on u.s. territory last year than in
any year before. isis is not a jv team. it has 6 million people living on its territory. it has a gdp of $500 million. it is now executing attacks wherever it wants to execute attacks. in paris, in brussels, in orlando, in istanbul. they cannot call the enemy by its real name because then everybody will know that the last 7 1/2 years have been a catastrophe in terms of national security -- >> some people have said he's naive. >> yeah -- >> some people said he's naive, others said this is a grand plan he's thought out, well thought out. but it's just not right. given where we are right now. >> i think it's a combination all those things. i think it's putting america back in its place. i think this is an administration that thinks america is always the problem. so we have to make excuses for the bad guys. and it is naivete. can you imagine reading in a tom
clancy novel the attorney general after a mass casualty terror attack say "our best weapon is love"? >> have we gone soft, is that the problem here? >> we've gone soft, soft in the head, it's really a denial of reality, trish, a denial of reality that endangers americans. right now, nonstate actor. these are jihadis. these are people who want to behead you. want to behead me. they're not people who need a hug and a song, sing kumbaya together. every time it happens, we think this is the last one. orlando. it's going to wake them up. istanbul. it's going to wake them up. what happens? no. again. they do it again. the narrative must be maintained. it's not terrorism. it's suppressed homosexual tendencies. it's not about jihad or religion. it's about unemployment. when will it end, trish, when will it end?
>> hopefully soon. but it's not encouraging. dr. gorka, thank you. all right, airports, they're on high alert now ahead of a busy travel weekend. former cia director jim woolsey on what else we need to be doing, should be doing, must be doing, right now to keep this country safe. i work 'round the clock. i want my blood sugar to stay in control. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours.
i want to trim my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® provides powerful a1c reduction. releases slow and steady. works like your body's insulin. when my schedule changes... i want something that delivers. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i miss or delay a dose, test. test. without refrigeration... twice as long as lantus®, which lasts 4 weeks. tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your doctor about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba®,
may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your doctor. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing... fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your doctor if you're tresiba® ready. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪
stocks surging, closing out up 283 points. what happened to brexit fears? all the doom and gloom? maybe nigel was right when he told me this. watch. >> this hysteria about markets. it's rubbish. >> before we end it, because i was talking to people today who said, you know what, london is no longer going to be a financial center for europe. your response? >> oh, please. please. please, please.
london is not a financial center for europe. it's a financial center for the world. >> in other words, he said they're not going to want to live in frankfurt and the parisians they don't really work. so no choice. now live with me with his thoughts on all this. good to see you. people are still worried over there. in fact, there's a contingency that wants to reverse this. do you think they're going to have any luck? >> less than a week from the vote, attempt to try to reverse the voting. more people voted to leave the european union that ever voted for anything in the whole of british history and yet the politicians, the megabanks, the old corporate vested interests are trying to stop it. if you want to understand why people are so angry in the first place, there's your answer. >> you look at what unfolded in
turkey. 41 people dead. more than 230 injured. a lot of what we saw in terms of folks in england feeling like they didn't want to work in the eu anymore, it was triggered by immigration concerns. do you feel as though -- >> that's not actually what the polls indicated. the top story by quite a long way was democracy. taking back the power to make our own laws and hire and fire the people who pass them. immigration was a distance second. they want controlled immigration. so we determine who comes in, in what numbers. >> to be fair to him, it was one of the points he was making. i think there's a lot of economic concerns too. when it comes to immigration, this need to protect and secure your own border is something that we share in common with you guys right now because there's a lot of concerns about who we're
bringing here. you heard all the talk of the wall with mexico. also hillary clinton has proposed being 65,000 syrian refugees into this country which obviously is nothing near what angela merkel has taken in. given all the terrorism concerns that european is now c confronting, is this really the decision that's right for the country? because you need to be able to secure these borders? >> it's really important to understand what we just voted for. taking back the right to legislate for ourselves does not mean we're walking away from our allies in europe. we will remain interested and engaged. every continent, including europe. we took the decision during the referendum campaign to deploy navel forces to the mediterranean, to assist with the refugee crisis there. we're not walking away from countries which will be our friend and allies in any scenario.
>> you want to be in charge -- >> -- the more global version and also we want more free trade. i'll make a prediction. you had the clip there of the president being invited to repeat his "back of the queue" remarks. i will happily predict on this program there will be a u.s./uk free trade agreement in place long before there's an eu/u.s. free trade agreement, if ever that happened. because the uk is a free trading -- >> we can negotiate. it's easier one on one. let me play for you and for the viewer some of the sound of the president just moments ago. i'd like your reaction. >> it's not my job to comment on candidates in the middle of a race, just because they may end up winning. the relationship between governments tend to transcend whoever is in power at any given time. >> no doubt when i visit countries, there's times where i've got preferences. but i rarely express them. >> okay. so when he says, when he goes
and visits foreign countries, he may feel one way, but he very rarely expresses those feelings. that's not quite what you saw, mm? >> no, he did intervene very directly in our system. i have to say, he had the opposite effect from the one he intended. there were opinion polls taken and all of them showed a sharp swing to leave and i don't know whether he was a secret agent or not but he may, given the narrowness of the result, be the reason we're now a sovereign independent nation again. i can't help but note you voted to leave a while ago, it's worked out well for you. >> it's worked out well. good luck to you, daniel. >> thank you. >> daniel haning, everyone. in the wake of the new terror attack, a former democratic senator isn't afraid to call the enemy radical islam. is he wondering why the white house isn't doing the same?
joe lieberman, he's here, he's next. your insurance company won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says, "you picked the wrong insurance plan." no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with new car replacement, we'll replace the full value of your car plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance.
all right. we're getting some new information into us right now about the istanbul terror attack and how the terrorists sought maximum damage. john is there with the very latest. . >> reporter: yeah, well, trish, it's quite a contrast tonight compared to last night. see it's very busy here as the airport re-opened. this time last night, i would have been standing in the midst of carnage, absolute horror after attackers stormed the arrivals hall here at the airport. that said, the death toll has gone up. 42 people now confirmed dead, 239 injured. today's turkey prime minister
shed more light, trish, on how this went down. he said the three attackers showed up to the airport in a taxi. the first attacker blew himself up outside the airport. the other two stormed the entrance, again, to the arrivals hall, engaging in a fire fight with police. getting through the checkpoint. and that's the surveillance video you see. you see the first explosion and the last attacker, the third attacker running. he gets shot, goes down then detonates his explosive device. again, 42 people confirmed dead. 239 injured. it's very busy here. the airport re-opened overnight and repairs have been going on all day, but trish, the grim reminder of what happened here, the horror, these bullet holes and there's concern that this may be the start of something even more deadly. trish? back to you. >> all right. really scary. very tragic stuff. john,much. first, belgium now turkey. ahead of this travel weekend, are fliers safe?
former cia director is with me right now. good to see you, ambassador woolsly. >> good to see you. >> lots of concerns. coming up on a big holiday in the united states of america. should everybody be worried? >> isis and the various terror groups love anniversaries and love challenging us on ours. they blew up the boston mar nonon the anniversary of the -- beginning of the american revolution. they like anniversaries. and so, yes, last five days or so here of ramadan until july 5th ought to be particularly a watchful time for us. >> you know, u.s. airports, we know they're stepping up security, but how do you protect yourself against someone who's crazy enough to strap a bomb to themselves, blow themselves and so many others up? i mean, there's only so much that security in an airport can do. >> exactly right, and you can't
contain yourself and control yourself in such a way as to only permit such things to be done as would be equivalent to a hockey goalie stopping every shot on goal in a season. can't let one get through because then something gets blown up. you have to get inside the enemy. you have to understand things and think, the way that isis and the other terrorist groups are thinking and one way to do that is for us to look at the data that is publicly available. huge amounts of it are coming in over the course of the last several years and especially the last few months. we need a public/private partnership between the government and between those of us who were committed to civil libber liberties. we all like civil libber eertye all like security. here, there are going to have to be kovrp mizes.
we need to conduct ourselves the way the american public did in the aftermath of pearl harbor. we have to admit we're at war and get organized and fight it. >> well, i don't know if we're willing to admit that. think about the administration right now. let me share with you some sound from secretary kerry who think we're doing okay. here we go. >> it has been more than one year since daesh has actually launched a full-scale military offensive and that's because our coalition is moving forward relentlessly on every front. now, yes, you can bomb an airport, you can blow yourself up and if you're desperate and you know you're losing and you know you want to give up your life, then obviously you can do some harm. >> so, he seems to think that we're making progress in this war on terror. but as we make this so-called progress, we're seeing more and more and more lives lost, ambassad ambassador.
>> exactly. >> what kind of progress is it? >> he's saying two different things and one is that we're making some progress in the war in iraq and -- in syria. and that's probably true. things are a little bit better there, and the turks will probably come in with us more as a result of what happened yesterday. that's not great, but there are some improvements. on the other hand, he seemed to be almost belittling things like airport bombings. we do not want to live with these or other attacks on our infrastructure and our people. whether it's in churches or in schools. >> yeah. >> for the next foreseeable future. >> we sure don't. ambassador woolsley, good to see you today. thank you very much. let's get reaction from former senator joe lieberman. >> thank you, trish. >> senator lieberman, you've been calling the enemy radical islamists now for years but members of the administration still don't want to say the word. >> yeah. >> why? >> well, i don't get -- i've heard the explanation.
i think it's because they believe if you call the terrorists what they are, radical islamist terrorists, then it's offensive to muslims. but to me, it's a way of d distinguishing this minority group of radical islamist terrorists from all the other muslims in the world and, therefore, it's not an act of disrespect toward the religion, it's an act of respect. but also how are you going to defeat your enemy if you're not willing to call it by its name? >> we've had numerous people say that. a lot of generals as well. senator, wouldn't it also put some pressure on the muslim community to then try and, you know, clean up what's going on and try and make sure that they report any extremism that they begin and start to see? >> oh, it could for sure. look, we've been calling on the so-called moderate muslims, the mainstream muslims who are the dominant group here in america to speak out against the violent
terrorists and lunatics. and i think when we call the enemy by its name, you're absolutely right, trish, we encourage the good people to speak out against the enemy. the enemy is the radical islamist terrorist. >> the other sayry thi rscary t this, of course, the connectivity all these crazy islamic extremists have now with each other on line. >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, we talk about airport security. honestly, the more we can move security and law enforcement out toward the perimeter and the perimeter can often be a jihadist website or a chat room, and the more we can be surveying and overhearing what's going on there, so if we hear that there are people planning an attack on an airport, for instance, we'll stop them before they even get to the airport. i have a lot of pride in our intelligence and fbi forces here. there have been a lot of arrests
in the last selveral years of people -- >> we have a long ways to go. >> we got them before they did it. >> long ways to go. senator, so good to see you. >> thank you, trish. >> i will see you all tomorrow on the "intelligence report" on fox business at 2:00 p.m. eastern. i'm greg gutfeld with kimberly gill foild, juan williams, and dana perino. "the five." as another terror attack strikes we see the same response. we need to do more. but wait, what about our freedoms? then the white house pivots to climate change. what we don't hear is let's ban bombs. it's a telling absence when explosives are used, the media easily labels the act terror, but if it's guns, horror is replaced by attacks against self-protection. which leads then to the endless debate that