tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News June 23, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
professor. i appreciate it. law students at stanford are lucky. don't forget, join us next time on life liberty and limited. you. laura: thanks for having me. leland: all right, see ya. chris: i'm chris wallace. president trump orders but then calls back airstrikes on iran for shooting down a u.s. drone. as tensions rise, what happens next? chris: what about a serious dark horse who didn't make the cut? montana governor steve bullock
joins us for a sunday sit-down about where his campaign goes from here. plus, democratic front-runner joe biden under fire for touting his past work with segregationist senators. >> you going to apologize -- >> apologize for what? chris: we'll ask our sunday panel whether biden is in for more heat at this week's debate. and our power player of the week, always heard but never seen. the old guard's elite cannon team on the split second timing of a 21-gun salute. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. president trump says nothing is off the table when it comes to how the u.s. will respond to iran's shootdown of an american surveillance drone. the president is at camp david recalibrating his iran policy after calling off airstrikes
thursday night. but national security adviser john bolton says iran should not, quote, mistake u.s. prudence and discretion for weakness. in a moment we'll talk with republican senator tom cotton. but first, let's bring in david spunt with the latest from the white house. >> reporter: president trump returns to white house from camp david later this afternoon. he spent the night there before leaving for the camp yesterday on the south lawn he said that dialogue is his number one priority with iran. then a few hours after getting to camp david he tweeted that major sanctions would take place tomorrow. president trump making it clear he wants to avoid war with iran. >> everybody was saying i'm a warmonger, and now they say i'm a dove. and i think i'm neither. >> reporter: the president says that's why he aborted airstrikes. >> i don't want to kill 150 of anything or anybody unless it's absolutely necessary. if the leadership of iran
behaves badly, then it's going to be a very, very bad day for them. >> reporter: with few specifics, the president tweeted: major additional sanctions will be imposed on the country. the president says he hopes iran becomes a productive and prosperous nation again. the president also holding off on arresting thousands of illegal immigrants sunday morning. fox news has confirmed house speaker nancy pelosi called president trump to ask him to delay the planned i.c.e. raids, a hint of bipartisanship and the president obliged. now, president trump basically said that he's giving congress only a couple of weeks. congress, on this hand, has only a few more working days, chris, before their july 4th recess. then president trump said those deportations would begin. now, on another note, we can tell you that president trump apparently sent a letter to kim jong un in north korea, this is being reported from the white house. reportedly chairman kim, from a
north korean news agency, said the letter was excellent. a senior national security adviser said that president trump and kim jong un would not be meeting for another summit anytime soon. chris, back to you from the white house. chris: david, thanks for that. we're joined now by senator tom cotton, a member of both the intelligence and armed services committees and author of of the new book "sacred duty: a soldier's tour at arlington national cemetery." senator, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me on. chris: last sunday you called for a military strike against iran after it had attacked two foreign ships near the strait of hormuz. here you are. >> unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike against the islamic republic of iran. chris: well, this week, as we all know, iran went after and shot down a u.s. navy drone, and
president trump first ordered and then called off a retaliatory strike. what do you think of the president's move? >> chris, obviously, i think retaliatory strikes were warranted when we're talking about foreign vessels on the high seas, i think they're warranted against an american unmanned aircraft. what i see is iran steadily marching up the escalation chain. it started out with threats, went to attacks at sea and to an unmanned american aircraft. i fear we're going to see an attack on a u.s. ship or u.s. manned aircraft. this is exactly what we saw in the 1980s when iran, for four years, was allowed to attack ships on the high seas. over 190 attacks in the iran/iraq war. ronald reagan finally lost his patience after one of those mines hit a u.s. navy frigate, and he launched one of the largest naval engagements since world war ii. i hope that's not the case. i hope the president's statement on friday and yesterday that we
will not tolerate any kind of attack on an american service member anywhere in the region gets through to the leaders in tehran. i worry though that they have a long history of marching up this escalation ladder anytime they face the kind of strategic challenge they face right now thanks to administration's maximum pressure campaign. chris: you were very critical of president obama's failure to enforce his red line against syria after a chemical attack, saying that it raised questions about how strong security commitments and statements by the president were. president trump has repeatedly gone after mr. obama on the same thing. take a look. >> when he didn't cross that line after making the threat, i think that set us back a long ways not only in syria, but in many other parts of the world because it was a blank threat. chris: does this run the risk of being president trump's red line moment? >> no, chris, i see some differences between the two situations.
first, president obama's syria policy was a mess. second he himself in his own words drew that red line and failed to enforce it. here president trump's iran policy is working. it's probably the first time in 40 years where we've had the initiative against iran. one reason they're lashing out is because of the maximum pressure campaign that has driven their economy to near depression levels of activity. second, he had not drawn any such red line in his own language. he didn't take military strikes last week in an overt or conventional fashion, but he has said very clearly what we will noting tolerate, iran or its proxies making any kind of attack on american service members or citizens in the region. and he's also said major sanctions are going to be added tomorrow which is only going to increase the sanctions that they already face which is one very positive result so far of the maximum pressure campaign. chris: iran now says -- i mean, i think it's fair to say attacks on ships and drones, serious as they are, are kind of the side show. the big deal is the iran nuclear
deal, and iran now says that it is going to violate that, this week, that it is going to exceed the limit on its stockpile of enriched uranium and that perhaps it is going to violate the limit on uranium, go from 3.5% enriched up to 20%, putting it closer to a nuclear weapon if it does that and gets closer to a nuclear weapon, what should the u.s. response be, and are you at all concerned that the president's back and forth this week where he ordered an attack and then called it back may, perhaps unrealistically, encourage the mullahs to think they can get away with it? >> first, i'd say that iran's threats to enrich uranium to levels beyond permitted, this is a question for the europeans whether they want to continue the charade of pretending that iran may continue to obey those limits and they can engage in some kind of trade with iran that bypasses american
sanctions. i would say to those european leaders given the fact that the president exercised restraint in this past week, they should view that as an opening to double down with the united states on those sanctions if iran bypasses those enrichment limits. but just like an attack on an american ship or any harm to an american service member or citizen in the region, the president has also been very clear he will not allow iran to approach a nuclear weapon. chris: president trump, as you point out, says that he's going to impose major new sanctions on iran starting tomorrow, but he also says that if iran were to change its way of doing things, that it could turn into an economic powerhouse. take a look at what the president said. >> if iran wants to become a wealthy nation again, become a prosperous nation, we'll call it let's make iran great again, does that make sense? make iran great again. it's okay with me.
chris: now, that's the same offer he made to north korea, that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, that he would turn them into an economic -- or help them become an economic powerhouse. do you really think that repressive regimes like north korea and iran are going to give up their nuclear ambitions in return for the blessings of western capitalism? >> chris, i'd probably hear hear to what ronald reagan once said about the soviet union, trust but verify. the president's policy as outlined by secretary tom poi yea -- pompeo last year, they're not going to renegotiate the obama era nuclear deal. they're not going to put a few new provisions on it. they want iran to change its campaign of terror throughout the region and drop its ambitions. that means things like stopping support for hezbollah and that a maas and rebel groups in places like yemen that are trying to overthrow legitimate governments, supporting proxy forces in iraq. if they will adhere to those 12
points that secretary pompeo laid out on behalf of donald trump and negotiate a genuine and verifiable end to their nuclear program, then we could have a different kind of relationship with iran, and that would be much to benefit of the iranian people as the president laid out yesterday. chris: but it would seem to me in any case that the prospects that iran -- you're basically talking about the islamic regime completely changing its colors, completely changing the way it acts. you've got the iranian revolutionary guard, you've got hard-line, hard-liners in tehran, do you think that the prospect of american capitalism is going to get them to change that? >> that's why i say a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when you're dealing with regimes like the ayatollah's. secretary pompeo didn't ask them to turn into a western european-style parliamentary democracy. heed is ask them to stop committing acts of terrorism, stop trying to overthrow governments in the region, stop
attacking shipping on the high seas. those are very reasonable requests that we would expect of any civilized and normal nation. chris: speaking of north korea, the regime there says that president trump sent a letter to chairman kim that he has received over the weekend and that kim, quote, will contemplate the interesting content of the letter. really the same question, how optimistic are you that iran will ever agree to denuclearize through diplomacy? >> again, chris, i think healthy skepticism is warranted here. what we should do with iran is exactly what the president has done with north korea since kim jong un made unreasonable demands in february and the president rightly walked away from that summit. we should give them no corner, give them the opportunity to begin to act like a normal nation and try to seek relief of in return for tangible and verifiable commitments.
chris: president trump has also delayed a round-up that was supposed to begin today of migrant families that have already been given their deportation orders. he says he's giving congress two weeks to work out, to reform the asylum system and otherwise he'll impose the round-up. i don't have to tell you -- you have a little bit of a look on your face. [laughter] you talk about healthy skepticism, congress isn't going to reform the asylum system in two weeks. >> i was going to say healthy skepticism is warranted when talking about the democrats. these are people who have claimed asylum in our country, they've had their day in court, they've had their claims rejected, and now they face a valid and final order of removal. if we can't deport people like that, who can we deport? that's why the democrats' position ultimately comes back to, in essence, open borders. chris: what do you think of the president's decision to hold off on the round-up? >> two weeks for a couple
thousand families is not going to make a big difference. and if we could get a genuine, a genuine law passed through congress that would address the asylum reforms that we need to stop the crisis at the border, that would be a good thing. but again, i go back to this point, if you can't deport an illegal alien that has a valid and final order of removal, how can you deport? chris: finally, you have written, as we mentioned at the beginning, a new book called "sacred duty: a soldier's tour at arlington national cemetery." what did you learn about your tour of duty at arlington guarding the tomb of the unknowns, dealing with section 60 which, of course, is the area where the people who died in the global war on terrorism are buried, what did you learn from that experience in. >> well, it was a true honor to serve when i did and to be back at the cemetery last year with the young soldiers, some of whom you'll profile later today who are honoring our fallen heroes.
but given this fact that we're on a political show here, i'll just say one thing that i see when i'm in arlington is the reverence, the respect, the gratitude, even the love that everyone has no matter their political views or affiliation for the fallen heroes and young soldiers. arlington was born in the ashes of the civil war, the most divisive time in our country, and i think it's a good reminder no matter how divided our times seem to be today, that there's still many things that we hold in common and hold dear as a country that unites us as americans. chris: senator cotton, thank you. as you point out, we have a terrific story about, a power player story about a unit of the old guard, and you're exactly are right. the reverence they have for the fallen there at arlington is quite extraordinary and quite inspiring. as you say, a good message for all of us. thank you, sir. >> thanks, chris. chris: up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss divisions inside the trump administration over how to respond to shootdown of that
>> you'll find out. >> [inaudible] >> you'll find out. you'll find out. i find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth. i think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid. chris: president trump this week sending mixed messages about how he would respond to iran downing a u.s. drone before finally deciding to call off a retaliatory airstrike. and it's time now for our sunday
group. gop strategist cal rove. mo olathe think of georgetown university, emily jashinsky and host of please ya buz, howard -- "mediabuzz," howard kurtz. i talked with some members of the president's national security team this week, and here's what i was told: they were unanimous, all of his people -- pentagon, state department, national security council -- they were unanimous in recommending a strike. the president was fully briefed on thursday on potential casualties. he gave the execute order and hours later called it off, and top advisers were, quote, surprised and don't know what changed his mind. karl, as the only one of us who's actually been in a situation room when decisions like this are made, how unusual is what happened on thursday, and what do you make of it? >> well, it's not unusual for presidents to take the unify add vice of his advisers and reject
it. what's unusual is for it to be laid out so prominently in the public. the president talking about cocked and loaded and ten minutes before the mission was supposed to begin and so forth. the question is whether this leaves an impression of weakness and, frankly, we don't know. yes, on the as far as, it does. on the other hand, the accuracy of the reports about the cyber assault on the iranians on thursday could be very important, because if fit really did knock out the -- if it really did knock out the control systems for their missile systems and basically take offline the groups that organized the assault on the tankers, then the message inside tehran might be we better not mess with these people. but let's be honest, we as a country and the west ought to be prepared for more attacks by the iranians, because the president's sanctions are working. the economy, as cotton, senator cotton pointed out is in freefall, and the iranians will react by doing something to
escalate this, probably by using proxies. but we do have a moment now where the president could say, he's said to them we're going to put some additional sanctions on on monday and more sanctions are coming if things don't move. the europeans are clearly moving towards a situation of freeze, freeze the sanctions, freeze the nuclear program and then talk. whether that's successful or not, i don't know, but we ought to be prepared as a country for more assaults and maybe the loss of american lives. chris: we asked you for questions for the panel, and we got this on facebook from cecil leak. he writes: are we going to do anything about the attack, or are we going to get another red line scenario like syria? mo, i don't have to tell you -- and i brought it up with senator cotton -- republicans, including president trump, went after barack obama for failing to enforce his red line in syria saying it showed that, you know, he didn't keep his promises, he didn't keep his commitments. do you see what donald trump did
on thursday, ordering and then deciding to call off the strike, do you see that as an act of wisdom or weakness? >> i think it's an act of confusion, and i think this is an incredibly dangerous time to have at least a publicly-confusing policy when it comes to iran. i agree with karl that this could be a situation where the iranians look at what we did and maybe even feel a little bit more emboldens baud it was so publicly played out -- because it was so publicly played out, and it didn't need to be. the president has a right to make the decision he's going to make, but to use the rhetoric that he did has the potential to maybe embolden the iranians at a very delicate time in the relationship there. i think that there's, you know, look, iran has never been an economic powerhouse. iran, these sanctions are
hurting them, but i don't know if that's what's going to motivate them. when you have a repressive regime like the iranians and if they're hell bent on pursuing a nuclear program, this is actually -- provocations and bluster from the american government actually strengths their case internally to continue to move forward. so i worry that because of the president's habits here, you know, i'm glad at the end he pulled back, but because of his habits and how he talks about these things, i worry that he may have further poked the hornets' nest. chris: if the president was reluctant to use force against iran this past week, he also decided at the last minute to delay a planned round-up this morning of migrant families. these are migrant families who have been given a court order for deportation, and there was
going to be a round-up in major cities across the country. here's what the president said saturday morning about what is called a family op, a family operation, to round up these people in the country illegally. >> everybody that came into the country illegally will be brought off the country very legally. chris: but, emily, late saturday, as we say, the president decided to delay this for two weeks to give congress time for asylum reform. what are your thoughts about the delay, and what are you thoughts about the prospects that congress is suddenly going to make some major action on asylum reform in two weeks? >> yeah. i mean, i think any major action would have had to have happened before the midterms. here we are sitting in june of 2019, and i think the likelihood of anything passing in congress, that's well past its date of having any potential of getting done. so this two week window is remarkably short. i don't think it's likely anything gets done. congress has punted time and
again, and that's the main thing that has prevented this president who has done things like declare a national emergency from enacting his full immigration agenda. i think that frustrates a small portion of his base, maybe not a significant portion of his base, but i do think there's a small fraction of that hard core base that thinks democrats are beating him on the negotiations on immigration. this decision will fuel that perception. chris: howie, you know, i think it's fair to say reporters like us tend to dismiss threats like this, but on the other hand, you know, i remember a couple of weeks ago when the president suddenly threatened mexico and said we're going to impose these tariffs and everybody went, you know, that could be very inflammatory. it's not going to get anything done. the fact is mexico is now, as a result of the threat, taking steps to guard its southern border with guatemala, some of the central american countries are talking about doing more to stop asylum seekers from the leaving their country and coming here. so sometimes the president's
tactics do work. >> threatening to begin the i.c.e. raids today, calling it off at the last minute is sort of the classic trumpian, real estate developer, make outrageous demands brinksmanship that actually does work. what happens is he will do something, and his political opponents and the media will say has donald trump gone too far, and then there is chaos and confusion, and then he hammers out some kind of compromise and declares victory. this connective tissue here between in the decision and the decision not to go forward with the airstrikes against iran, i think the process was obviously messy, but the president ended up where most -- at least many americans are, which is after iraq and afghanistan, tired of endless war. he was conflicted because he ran against dumb foreign entanglements but also likes to take a tough line against iran. the key thing, chris, this whole he backed down, he caved narrative reflects a pretty hawkish establishment members in
the media which almost always favor military action after every provocation. but then -- chris: let me pick up on that. well, i was just going to say i remember in the 1980s i was covering ronald reagan, and he suddenly announced they were going to reflag kuwaiti tankers and fly them under u.s. protection, and there were a lot of people in the media at that point who were saying, oh, my gosh, he's going to get us into a war. in fact, he reflagged them, a frigate was hit by a mine, he went out, as cotton said with a really aggressive attack on iran. it didn't get us into war, it got iran to back down. sometimes a hintedded, targeted use -- limited, targeted use of force works. >> but we have learned from iraq that -- chris: that wasn't a limited target -- >> not at all. but i'm saying, you know, things can escalate rapidly, and the president ultimately decided he did not want to take the risk of doing that in this instance -- chris: real quickly. >> look, we saw this on syria. the president, president obama
was ea playeded by many, including people in the media saying, oh, well, the red line, we don't want to get engaged in syria. this is just going to bog us down. what happened with president trump saying they'd crossed a red line with him, a hundred cruise missiles plunging into syria and destroyed 24% of their air force, nothing happened because the president demonstrated results. i'm not saying the president is pretty weak in this situation, i'm saying -- i'm glad you agreed with me, but you've got to fully agree with me -- [laughter] chris: you've got to fully agree. we've got to get out of this segment. >> what really matters is how did the iranians react to the cyber attack, and did they say, oh, my god, we better not mess around with these people, look what they did -- chris: i wonder if taking out a military battery, a radar, a missile might have been more effective. in any case, to be debated. we have to take a break here. we'll see you, panel, a little later. when we come back montana governor and 2020 candidate
♪ ♪ chris: he is the only democratic presidential candidate out of 23 who won statewide office in a state donald trump won in 2016. but he won't get to make his case at the first democratic debates this week because he didn't qualify. montana governor steve bullock joins us now for a a "fox news sunday" sit-down. governor, welcome. >> good morning, chris. great to be with you. chris: you -- i don't have to tell you -- are not going to be on the debate stage this week for the first democratic debates. in the meantime and as the governor of montana, you won't be there, but tech entrepreneur andrew yang will be there and self-help guru mary ann
williamson will be there. how big a blow to your campaign, sir? >> well, chris, it's certainly disa appointing because missing from that stage will be somebody that actually won in a trump state, and we need to win back some of those places that we lost if we're going to win in 2020. someone that has bridged divides, my legislature's majority republican, but we've gotten meaningful things done. someone there a rural state which i think is important. and somebody from out of washington d.c. but i don't think that it's a blow to my campaign in the slightest. i mean, during that time i'll actually be in town halls in iowa and in new hampshire talking to people, and i think's how both i've won here in montana three times statewide. i've always put sort of people above sort of the politics or the political party rules, and i think's what people are going to want in a president. chris: okay. let's talk specifically about it because it is one of your main selling points, that you have run and won in montana three
times, once as a attorney general, twice as governor in a state that donald trump won in 2016 by 20 points. the question i guess i have is what's the practical effect of that? the fact that you won in a red state, how does, in a practical way, does that mean you'd have a better chance of beating president trump in states that he won in 2016 like pennsylvania and michigan and wisconsin? >> yeah, chris. i was on the ballot in 2016. he took montana by 20, i won by 4. 25-30% of my voters voted for donald trump. and we have to bring out our base and win back some of those places that we lost. and i can't win in montana just by going to pockets of blue. i get all across the state, and i think that we need to make sure that our democratic nominee can be competitive not only on the coasts, but as you know, places like wisconsin, places
like pennsylvania, and i believe i can be that candidate. chris: you talk about working with and getting bills through the republican-controlled legislature in montana which brings me to joe biden who talked this week about how he used to work with regular is -- with segregationist senators to get legislation through. that led to a controversy over whether biden should apologize for those comments. take a look. >> you going to apologize, like cory booker -- >> apologize for what? >> cory booker called for it. >> he knows better. there's not a racist bone in my body. i've been involved in civil rights my whole career. period. >> for his posture to be i've done nothing wrong, you should apologize, i'm not a racist is so insulting and so missing the larger point that he should not have to have explained to him. chris: governor, what do you
think of what the former vice president, joe biden, said, and do you think some of your democratic rivals in the field are too focused on ideological purity over practical politics? >> well, chris, and i certainly work to maintain decent relationships in my statehouse, and i think that the vice president's illustration of that we need to work with other individuals and folks that we may not agree with all the time is a valid point, and that's what i do here in montana. i might not have chosen those specific senators from the perspective of giving the shout-out to who he's been able to work with. chris: let's -- my guess is most people don't know where you stand on issues, so let's do a lightning round, and let me explain to you since it's our first time, quick answers -- [laughter] and i'll give quick questions to give a sense of where you stand on some issues. medicare for all. >> i think we ought to have access to affordability for
everyone. you can do that by providing a public option, negotiating drug prices, ending surprise medical billing. but you don't need to disrupt about 156 million people that have health insurance on the private market right now. we should be driving down those costs. chris: the green new deal. >> we need to take action on climate, and it has to be immediate and durable. we can't wait another three decades by any means. the scientists say we have to be net zero by 2050. i think we can do it a lot sooner. of so the aspiration behind it, i agree with the specific policy proposals. i think it needs a heck of a lot of work. chris: immigration. you said last year that you would not send montana national guard to southern border as part of president trump's effort, but don't we need to secure our borders, sir? >> look, yeah. and democrats certainly and i believe in border security and keeping families safe.
and also growing our economy. but this 18th century solution let's just build a wall to a 21st century problem i don't think is the way to go. this is a humanitarian crisis, and we're actually in many respects exacerbating that crisis, we're not actually helping it. chris: what limits, if any, on when a woman should have an abortion? >> 45 years ago the supreme court said that, in roe v. wade, that this ought to be a decision made by the woman in consultation with her doctor. if she so chooses. i've stood behind that, and i think that's where we need to go as a country. chris: but the roe system -- the roe decision did set up a system of trimesters, and over time the court has basically said, you know, there are more protections for women in the first trimester and perhaps in the second than there are in the third. are you saying that a woman should have a right to an abortion right up until the moment of birth? >> no. what i'm saying, chris, is we
ought to follow roe v. wade. you're absolutely right, in the third trimester there's balancing and only in cases necessarily when the held is en-- the health is endangered, and i think that's what most places have done. chris: i want to delve into one last area with you because it's an area where some of your critics say that you have flipped as you've decided to run for president, and that is the area of guns. back in 2016 you opposed universal background checks, and you said that you you had expand second amendment rights in your state of montana, but more recently you now support universal background checks, you support a limit on the size of gun magazines, and you oppose -- rather, you support a ban on some semiautomatic weapons. why the change of mind, sir? >> yeah. and, chris, i have been both a supporter of the second amendment and i've also vetoed bills that i don't think make
sense. i've had to lower the flags five times just since parkland. i think if we ever looked at this as a public health issue and not a political issue, we could make strides. look, even republicans and nra members believe that guns should be kept out of the wrong hands, and universal background checks we ought to move forward in that. red flag laws. when you look at being able to remove a gun where an order of protection is in place. places like walmart and dick's have banned the selling of assault weapon, assault rifles, and it's about time we take a look at this as well. you know, when i was growing up, the nra was a gun safety organization and a hunting organization. now it's nothing more than a political organization trying to divide us. we need to figure out addressing it from a public health perspective could actually make a meaningful difference in keeping our families and communities safe. chris: governor bullock, thank
you. thanks for sharing part of your weekend with us. this is the first, but it won't be the last time we talk with you, sir. safe travels on the campaign trail. >> great being with you this morning, chris. chris: when we come back, democratic front-runner joe biden coming off a tough week after some of his rivals call him out. what can biden expect from his opponents at this week's debate? ♪ ♪
moving is hard. no kidding. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. >> people across this nation underd it is time for big structural change in america. [cheers and applause] >> i will make it my priority the not only to eliminate national economic disparities, but racial disparities once and for all. chris: some of the democratic
presidential candidates making their pitches at this weekend's south carolina state party convention, and we're back now with the panel. well, howie, this is the first big week in this race. how do you handicap the first set of democratic debates this week s and joe biden talking about working with segregationist senators, how damaging do you think it is for him to talk about how we did things in the good old days given where the democratic party is today? >> on the debate, 19 other people trying to break through, grab a viable moment on a crowded stage, and it's going to be truth. on biden, we all know what biden was trying to say, but his selection of stone cold racists like james eastland, a long-dead democrat, was just incredibly tone deaf and even more is so, chris, because his staff has urged him to stop. he sometimes seems stuck in these long-ago battles back in
the '70 gz. and it seems to me that he's given his liberal opponents an opening to say he's out of step with the party. but i think there's so much goodwill that joe biden enjoys within democrats that this doesn't hurt him much unless he keeps making these blunders. chris: well, he's going to have an opportunity on the debate stage. you know, emily, biden holds -- continues to hold a double-digit lead nationally and in most of the early primary states. how aggressively do you expect -- well, it won't be those 19 other candidates, there'll only be 9 on the stage, but those candidates on thursday night to go after him? >> yeah. i think we've actually seen a preview of how that will play out after these comments were made. cory booker has hit him hard, kamala harris. we've seen an energy over this among his rivals that clearly plan to use it against him. that said, you do note he does enjoy a double-digit lead, he does enjoy a lot of goodwill with the broader electorate which is older than i think a lot of the hard-left online
recognizes, and those hard-left attacks have just not stuck to biden so far. it's early, but, you know, as early as it is we still haven't seen those hard will left attacs really damage him yet. he's going to get hit hard over this this week, that's for sure. chris: let's turn to president trump, and i know it seems like he's been running ever since he was elected inside 2016, but he officially announced this week in orlando that he's going to be running for re-election in 2020, and let's take a look at a bit of that announcement speech. >> our radical democratic opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice and rage. they want to destroy you, and they want to destroy our country as we know it. they were shut down -- they will shut down your free speech, use the power of the law to punish their opponents, they would strip americans of their constitutional rights. chris: other than that, he's
very fond of the democrats. [laughter] karl, as someone who managed a successful re-election campaign for george w. bush in 2004, what do you think of using the first 230 or 40 minutes -- 30 or 40 minutes of your aouncemen speech to relitigate old grievances, and do you think he can sell that dire vision of democrats in 2020? >> well, to answer the first part of your question, i'm not certain that's a great way to start off, by relitigating the past. every election is about the future. and it is important for him to say here's what i've done to strength our economy, but it's even more important for him to say here's what i want to do next. now, to second part of your question, it is always useful to contrast yourself with your points. i'm not certain that that was the most effective contrast. it's better if it's, if they use the substance of their comments. there's an interesting pieced today, think about this. we've talked about biden, and it could have been worse. if temperature not for civil rights -- if it were not for
john lewis and jim clyburn saying this isn't a problem with us, it would have been worse for biden. that covered up the fact kamala harris goes to south carolina and defends the only member of the u.s. house to vote against the resolution calling for a u.s. response to al-qaeda and the aftermath of 9/11. booker refuses to say i won't meet with louis farrakhan. elizabeth warren stands up in south carolina and says free college, no tuition, no fees at any public university in america, and bernie sanders attacks centrist democrats as representatives of the corporate interest. this is plenty of material being given to president, and it's only going to get better, only going to get more juicy, more delicious, and that's what the president ought to be focused on. chris: mo, this is why he's the best, because i asked him a question about what donald trump said, and he turned it into a full-fledged attack on the democrats. [inaudible conversations] >> i was sending a message. the president can do that too. chris: well, mo, here's my question to you, what did you
think of the president's announcement speech? and in an interview this week, he said he doesn't know he's really going to have to go after swing voters because he said it's really just about, you know, turning out his base. is that what this is going to be about, the president turning out his base, democrats turning out their base and nothing in the middle? >> it doesn't have to be, but that appears to be where he's headed at least, right? look, two important things to note about the president's numbers. from the day he announced his candidacy through today, his unfavorable rating has hoveredded around 55%. that's pretty remarkable. his approval rating, job approval -- which is different than favorability, but his job approval has always been 38-42%, the sweet spot. might tick up a little, might tick down, but that's been the sweet spot. he got 46% of the vote. there are about 6% of the people out there who voted for him even though they did not like him.
he's doubling down in this speech and in this campaign by saying i don't need those people this time. i'm going to focus on my base and try to depress turnout for the other side. i think that is going to be his strategy. democrats have an opportunity to go after those people in the middle. >> the winner of this election is the person who wakes up and realizes they've got to take their base and cement it to a majority of the small number of truly independent, undecided -- chris: would you agree donald trump hasn't done that yet? >> no, look, campaigns are about phasing. if he started out saying i'm appealing to my base, there was a brilliant column in "the wall street journal" thursday morning, surprised you didn't read it -- chris: was that by you? >> yes, of course. [laughter] it suggested the president needed to mitigate the animosity of people towards him, that 50 some percent that said i'll never vote for him and focus his campaign on -- chris: you've got ten seconds.
when does he need to do that? >> we started this presidential campaign a lot earlier than ever, whether it was 2011-12 or 2003-4. this is really, really early. so he's got plenty of time to do that. chris: it's the getting early late here, i think that's what yogi berra said. up next, our power player of the week. it's one of the arm's proudest and loudest units that fires those 21-gun salutes for presidents. you'll take you behind the scenes, you won't want to miss it. [gunfire]
they are rarely seen that you can hear their work from miles away. members of the arterial every unit that honors presidents and other dignitaries with more remarkable precision and they are our power players of the week. >> bases itself on perfection. i like the fact that we tend to not do that. >> sergeant daniel stewart they are members of the presidential salute battery. it fires canon's at all of the big event in washington. in visits by distinguished guests. in burials at arlington
national cemetery. >> when you are shooting for a president that is like the super bowl. we have a rare look behind the scenes at the extraordinary provision --dash mike profession. two men on each cannon. the watchmen orders each and then in the boom they found yelling one, two, three. i it got lost. and you do that every three seconds. if the wass -- watchmen loses his voice. they have a plan for that. >> he messes up and now who
does it. there is no room for error. the guns are and five antitank units. the action from north africa to the battle of the bulge. three teams are usually assigned to a ceremony but if there is a misfire there is a backup unit just in case. >> my left hand is on my side as soon as i pick it up. and if there is another misfire the backup crew has to be ready to go again. the same process is done. if you think that is overkill it happened. >> there was actually two or three misfires during the honors that were there. i was loading fast enough that
you did not skip a beat. the psc is part of the old guard. the on this -- longest-serving industry in the market. it stands watch at the tomb of the unknown. with the military at war. every family that is in the cemetery they only get one a funeral. you want to give them perfection because of their loved ones serve their country. i just love it. >> in a week and a half he will get to hear the batteries work when they fire their cannons for president trump in his fourth of july event.
that is it for today have a great week. we will see you next fox news sunday. howard: this sunday president trump calls off airstrikes against iran first revealed by "the new york times" triggering an intense media debate about whether he was being careful or just backed down. >> i think what you're seeing is an indecisive president. >> they're suggesting that there's some kind of weakness by not killing these people, and so what they're basically saying is you should go to war. >> this is a president who loves to insult, he loves to threaten, but what happens when our adversaries understand that he's never going to follow through? >> last night was a high point in the trump presidency. bombing iran would have ended his political career in a minute if. there'