Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  November 21, 2010 6:00pm-7:00pm EST

6:00 pm
man: hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood! vo: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteenercent or more . >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is fox news sunday. foreign policy on the front burner, from the war in afghanistan, to bringing terror suspects to justice we'll discuss the president's diplomatic challenges with secretary of state hillary clinton. and, republican governors with more power than ever. we'll sit down with the new rga chairman, texas governor rick perry, to talk about the barack obama agenda and what role he'll
6:01 pm
play in the 2012 presidential race. plus, with the holiday travel season about to start, airport security gets up close, and personal. we'll ask our sunday panel if new tsa procedures go too far and a power player of the work, a former grafitti artist now creates works of art that you can eat. all, now, on fox news suddenly. and, hello again, from fox news in washington. president obama and other nato leaders agreed saturday on an exit strategy for afghanistan. turning over security to the afghans by the end of 2014. while nato officials said they did not expect foreign combat forces to keep fighting the taliban after that, u.s. officials said they will decide at the itime, earlier we spoke with hillary clinton from the nato summit in lisbon. secretary clinton, welcome back
6:02 pm
to fox news sunday. >> thank you, chris, good to talk to you. >> chris: nato now agreed to a goal of 2014 for turning over securities responsibilities to the afghans, does that mean that the u.s. will have combat troops there for the next four years, and, possibly beyond? >> well, chris, i think what happened today was a real vote of confidence in the strategy that is pursued by the nato isap coalition. we are following the lead of president karzai and the afghans who set 2014 as the year during which security will be transitioned to the afghans. there was discussion today and an agreement by the nato and isap partners that there will be a continuing effort to train and equip and support the afghans, but the points of the declaration by the nato iasf
6:03 pm
partners is the transition will occur 2014. >> chris: that means four more years and as i understand it possibly beyond. >> i don't know quite what you mean by that. for example, if you are going to continue in a supportive role, whether american troops or one of our other krintding nations, you are not there for the primary duty of security or combat. you are there to support the afghans. but does that mean you will defend yourself? you will come to the aid of one of your afghan colleagues in trouble? of course. but that is not the primary goal. the goal is to transition the security to an afghan lead and what we heard at the isaf meeting was the contribution from contributing nations to increase the number of trainers and mentors so that we could
6:04 pm
accelerate the training of the afghan security forces so, all around it was a great vote of confidence in the president's strategy for afghanistan. >> chris: you met with afghan president karzai the other day. last week he said that the u.s. must reduce its military operations, especially its night raids. which are the tactics that seem to be working. i know you met with him, as i say, a couple of days ago. did you get him on board the new aggressive u.s. battle plan? >> well, chris, i think -- i wanted to somewhat take issue with your characterization, new aggressive american battle plan. i think what you will hear from general petraeus, president obama, president karzai, and all of us, is that we now have all of the components of the strategy that president obama directed a year ago. and we believe it is working and not only do we, in the american
6:05 pm
government believe it is working, what was particularly reassuring is that the expressions of support that came from the nato partner countries also recognized that we are making progress on the ground. now, when you are engaged in both trying to kill and capture the enemy and get support from the local population you always have to ask yourself, is what i'm doing keeping the balance? general petraeus understands that, probably better than anyone, in my conversation with president karzai in the meeting i came from that president obama had with president karzai, we were very clear in saying we have to continue to do what is working but not to the extent it turns people against the strategy that is work. and this is a -- >> if i may -- >> this is a constant evaluation
6:06 pm
and it shows the level of dialogue going on between us. >> chris: did president karzai agree to that. >> absolutely. he's expressing legitimate concerns that come to him from the afghan people. if you have a night raid and take out a taliban leader. he's all for that. if you have a night raid and 4 or 5 other people, who have nothing to do with the taliban, are collateral damage that is a problem. everybody understands that. what we are trying to do and i think we are succeeding, through a lot of hard work, by our military and civilian leadership on the ground is to constantly try to get the balance right. >> chris: the obama administration is pushing for a vote this year on the "start" treaty agreement with the russians and jon kyl says there is not enough time in this lame duck session before the end of the year and the fact is you only have one of the nine republican votes you need. aren't you taking a big chance
6:07 pm
pushing for a vote this year, and running the risk of suffering a major embarrassing defeat on the world stage? >> well, chris, i have a great deal of respect for all of my colleagues, democratic and republican in the senate. and i think everyone is trying to figure out how to do the right thing on the important treaty. i'd make three quick points, one, this is in the national security interest of the u.s. no doubt about it. in fact what i was heart inned by and even a little surprised by, at the nato meeting was the number of people, like chancellor merkel of germany, like foreign ministers and prime ministers and presidents, from the baltic countries, from central and eastern europe like the editorial written by the foreign minister of poland, people who are on the ground in europe, nearby russia, many of whom were part of the former soviet union, who are saying,
6:08 pm
please, ratify this treaty now, united states senate. why are they saying that? not because they have a dog in the hunt between republicans and democrats. in our country. it is because they know this would be an important treaty for the continuing cooperation between russia and the united states. secondly, we do not have any inspectors verifying what russia is doing with their nuclear stockpile or anything else that is going on in their sights. we lost that capacity. if you talk to any of our intelligence experts like general jim clapper, the new director of the national intelligence agency, they will tell you we cannot go much longer without that capacity restored. and, finally, this is in the tradition of not just bipartisan, but nonpartisan action on behalf of arms control treaties, going back to president reagan who famously said, trust but verify and now we have no verification and what
6:09 pm
we are arguing is that we'll find the time in the lame duck. i understand the legitimate concern there might not be enough time to debate, to make sure that everybody is well informed. but, as senator lugar, who is one of the leading experts in the world, on the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, on the necessity of having more insight into what russia is doing he says we cannot wait and i agree with him and we're continuing to work with all of our democratic and republican senators to try to get to a point where we can hold that vote this year. >> chris: we have a verdict this weekend, the first big civilian trial of a terror detainee who had been held in a cia secret prison and transferred to guantanamo bay. ahmed gillani. who was convicted on one count and acquitted on 1284 other counts. all of the other counts. this is supposed to be the easiest trial to conduct. so, i guess the question is, do you have any choice now, except to hold all of these terror
6:10 pm
detainees, at gitmo, and either give them military trials or hold them indefinitely. >> chris, i think that the verdict needs to be put into a larger context. the sentence for what he was convicted of is 20 years to life. now, that is a significant sentence. secondly, some of the challenges in the courtroom would be the very same challenges before a military commission about whether or not certain evidence could be used. thirdly, we do believe that what are called article 3 trials, in other words, in our civilian courts, are aproecht for the vast majority of detainees. there are some for whom it is not, a property. you'll get no arguments from this administration on that points. but when you look at the success record in civilian courts of convicting, sentencing, detake and maximum security prisons by the civil union courts it
6:11 pm
surpasses what yet has been accomplished in the military commission. so i'm well aware as a former senator from new york on 9/11 how important it is to get this right. i want to see these guys behind prison or executed, whatever is appropriate in the individual cases, now, we are moving to try to do that in the way that maximizes the outcome that is in the best interest of the security of the american people. so i don't think you can as a rule say, oh, no, more civilian trials, no more military commissions, president obama's theory of this is that most should be in article 3 court, some should be confined to military commissions, but, as things stand, right now, we have actually gotten more convictions and more people, more terrorist are serving time in prison, right now, because of article 3 courts, than military commissions. >> chris: one final question, you made news recently in australia, when you ruled out running again for office in 2012
6:12 pm
and 2016. why? >> well, first of all, i love what i'm doing. i cannot tell you what it is like, chris, to -- every day, get to recommend the united states. and, is why i feel strongly about every issue from "start" to -- >> are you categorically stating you are done with political office. >> i've said it over and over again and i'm happy to stay it on your show as well, i'm happy to do what i can to advance the security, interest and values of the united states of america. i believe that what i'm doing right now is in furtherance of that, and i'm proud and grateful to be doing it. >> chris: you are done with elected office. >> i am. i am happy doing what i am doing and i am not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office. >> chris: secretary clinton, we wanted to thank you so much. thank you for talking with us and safe travels home. >> thanks a lot, chris, good to talk to you. >> chris: up next we'll talk policy and 2012 politics with governor rick perry of texas.
6:13 pm
the new chairman of the republican governor's association. , the new chairman of the republican governor's association. thas to the venture card from capital one, we get double miles on every purchase. so we earned an la getaway twice as fast. we get double miles every time we use our card. [ histling ] no matter what we're buying. and since double miles add up quick... romans! get em! [ garth ] ...we can bring the whole gang. [ sheep bleats ] it's hard to beat dble miles. whoa -- 's on the list. but we're with him. [ male announcer ] get the venture card from capital one anearn double miles on every purchase, every day. go to capitalone.com. [ indistinct suting ] what's in your wallet? when we all become doers. when our mittens double as wk gloves. and we turn every room into a project. but this year, let's trim the budget. get some help from martha stewart that we can't get anywhere else. and spread our money as far as our cheer.
6:14 pm
♪ more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. we're lowering the cost of bright spirits. now get a 100 count light set for $2.28. [ male announcer ] what does it take to excel in today's business world? our professors know. because they've been there. and they work closely with business leaders to develop curriculum to meet the needs of top businesses. which means when our graduates walk in the room,
6:15 pm
they're not only prepared... they're prepared to lead. devry university's keller graduate school of management. learn how to grow the business of you at keller.edu.
6:16 pm
>> chris: joining us from his home state of texas is the new chairman of the republican governor's association, rick perry. governor, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> chris, thank you, and it is good to be with you this morning. >> chris: what role do you see the republican governors playing in the debate over the next two years, and also in the 2012 presidential campaign? >> hopefully one of the most extensive roles they've played and i'm talking about even more than in '96, when tommy thompson and governor engler were involved with the health care legislation, particularly, back
6:17 pm
on health care, with the medicaid and we'd like to see block grants back to the states. we'll be very involved with working with our counterparts, not necessarily counterparts but our colleagues and friends in washington as they devolve power out of washington, d.c. back to the states. >> chris: i'm going to get into more specifics in a moment but i want to ask you, this as an overview question, you have written a book called "fed up." and you say the balance between the federal government and the states is out of whack and needs to be corrected. how far would you go? >> it has been for some time. once you read the book "fed up" i think you'll agree the federal government has centralized so much power and taken away the incentive to compete from a lot of the states. states should be the centers of innovation, laboratories of innovation, where people try out different ideas. and health care is a great
6:18 pm
example, this federalized washington health care now, may not work, as a matter of fact we know it won't work well in texas and i have an idea other states can come up with better ideas and we'll pick and choose what works best to deliver health care for our citizens. >> chris: let's pick up on health care, you want to repeal the obama reform plan but 25% of texans currently don't have health insurance, the highest rate in the country. >> one of the reasons -- >> would you let them go without. >> one of the reasons is because of the strings attached to the federal dollars that come down in our medicaid programs and as a matter of fact is one of our strong points to block granting, we and create a better and more ex-expansive insurance coverage and the delivery of health care to more people without all of those federal strings attach. you make exactly the point we will make in washington, is,
6:19 pm
listen, do the things you are supposed to do. like securing or border. like delivering the mail, preferably on time and on saturday. before you get involved in things the constitution doesn't say one word about, like health care. >> chris: so i will make sure i understand. are you basically saying that on things like medicare, medicaid, those programs should be ended and federal money should go to the states? >> between social security and medicare and medicaid there is $106 trillion of unfunded liability and not one dime saved to pay for them and my children, who are in their 20s, know social security is a ponzi scheme and medicaid, we think we can save substantial dollars for the federal government and states if they allows us to implement the program, for instance, $30 billion a year, between the state and the federal government for one year of medicaid in the state of texas. we think we can cut that substantially, help our
6:20 pm
colleagues in washington, d.c. balance the budget up there and substantially help us with our budgetary issues here. if they'll just trust the states, to do what the states and our founding fathers actually foresaw was letting the states be the laboratories of innovation. >> chris: would you do the same with social security? would you end social security as a federal program? >> let us work on medicaid first and while we're doing that, they can have a discussion on how to put our social security program on better and more solid footing. >> chris: you know, when you say a ponzi scheme, the fact is, it is just a demographic fact, when social security started in the 1930s and i forget the exact numbers but there was -- there were 7 or 8 well, for every one retiree. it just so happens now because of the baby boom they are -- there are more retirees and fewer workers out there. it's not a ponzi scheme in the sense of bernie madoff. >> well, it probably is a program that even makes
6:21 pm
mr. ponzi feel pretty bad if he were still alive. the fact is our children know the money they are putting into medicaid they'll never see and they need to fix it and it is a ponzi scheme, i don't know how to explain it any other way than what you just did. there are fewer people paying into it and our kids are never going to see benefit from it, fix it and fix it today. >> chris: let's go back to one of the other prime targets of yours, bailouts. i know you are unhappy with them but the fact is general motors just had a big ipo, this week, which paid back the federal government $13.5 billion, of the $50 billion investment with more to come. and, even a conservative republican senator like bob corker of tennessee, who was originally against the bailout of general motors now says you know what? it worked. >> i don't think government should be getting involved in private sector -- just to say it work is not to back up.
6:22 pm
i don't know whether it worked or not and frankly at the end of the day i don't think anyone can say definitively the government wasn't out any money, here's what is more important, sending the message there are people out there or entities out there that are too big to fail is just wrong. its wrong, philosophically and wrong for a fiscal conservative to say that, and i will disagree with the senator, i think washington made a serious mistake. the reason we have bankruptcy laws is to restructure, to make businesses more efficient and effective and government needs to stay out of those things. >> chris: but, let's look at the real world effect of this, governor. there was a study released this week, that says government aid to general motors and chrysler saved 1.1 million jobs last year, and 314,000 jobs this year. you would have just let those people fend for themselves? >> i don't think -- i think your study is looking at one thing,
6:23 pm
the state of texas over the course of the decade of the 2000s, 850,000 net new jobs created during that period of time. we have low taxes, low regulatory climate, a legal system that doesn't allow for oversuing and continue to have a great skilled workforce because we have accountable schools and we get out of the way. the federal government ought to try that. i guarantee, this country's economy would go roaring back to life, if they saw a president of the united states and congress that understood how the free market actually works and not having government interfere with the free market, let it work and i promise you jobs will be created and our economy fix the tax system, all of those things, together, devolve all of the power and -- in washington, d.c., and let the states become the laboratories of innovation. that is what you will hear out of the governors and i have to think there are democrat governors that don't want washington down micromanaging
6:24 pm
the states. >> chris: let's talk about texas. because you are quite right. i did research and you have the -- one of the lowest tax burdens in the u.s. and led the country? private sector growth over the past decade. on the other hand, you are facing a state deficit of $25 billion over the next two years, and you say you will not raise any taxes. how will you deal with that short fall? >> well one threatening i will take you to task on, chris you have a better crystal ball than anybody down here unless you are just throwing numbers at the wall, with all due respect that number will not be known until january when our comptroller makes the official estimate. there's a lot of guesses. but the fact is, here's how we did it like we did in o- 3. we faced a $10 billion short fall and cannot deficit-spend in texas, we have a constitutional amendment to our texas constitution, something that thes federal government should have in place as well.
6:25 pm
but we will prioritize what is important. keeping the economy, the taxes and regulatory climate and legal system, we are considering the concept of loser pays to make the legal system better for the men and women of the state of texas and we'll prioritize what is important, public safety in our education system and we'll reduce spending. like we did in 2003. we reduced our spending, built a budget gap of $10 billion and didn't raise taxes and we won't this time. >> chris: but governor let's look at the texas budget. education accounts for 55% of state spending. health care, 25%, public safety, you mentioned, 10%, that is 90% of this budget. you will cut that by $25 billion? and that is the number that is out there, sir. >> here's one of the -- well, again i disagree with the number but that is beside the point. here's what i would do for
6:26 pm
starters. block granting the federal government's medicaid dollars back to us. $30 billion, 18 out of the -- cut that in half and we think we can get close to that. that is $9 billion of savings from the federal government and $6 billion for the state of texas. we have done this before and i greatly respect your focus on our budget and what have you. we have done this before. when we have had to make the tough decisions and we will not raise taxes and we'll reduce spending and at the end of the day, texas will be better off, texas will be better off and we'll continue to lead the nation in the creation of jobs, wealth and this country will be better off from it. >> chris: we're running out of time. a couple of other issues i want to talk about and i'll ask you to do a lightning round of quick questions and answers. in your book you criticize in the only democrats but also republicans and i want to put up what you say about former president bush, your predecessor as governor: the big government binge began under the administration of
6:27 pm
george w. bush. and you say, his compassionate conservatism was a near complete capitulation to the welfare state. >> president bush will go down as a great president because he kept us safe and took the fight to the islamic tarerrorist and r that we'll be forever grateful and you look at the spending for the bailout and medicare part d, i don't agree washington, d.c. should be the epicenter of things like health care or education. i think it needs to be devolved back to the states, where -- in my book where the tenth amendment and constitution focuses. so, we disagree on what washington's role should be. i hope somebody will stand up and run for the presidency of the united states and say i want to make it as inconsequential in your life as i can and that is' winning strategy. >> chris: you brought up running
6:28 pm
for the presidency and said repeatedly you will not run for president. why not, sir. >> i think being the president -- excuse me, being the governor of the state like texas or for that matter oklahoma or new mexico, is a more pivotal job in the future. i do indeed hope someone says, i will go to washington and try and get back to our constitutional roots an devolve the centralization of government to the u.s. and why do you want to be up there if the action is down here in the states. >> chris: one last question, we're running out of time. when you took the job as the head of the republican governors association did you have to make a commitment you would not run for president. >> i made that commitment every time i have been asked and that commitment still stands. i don't want to be the president of the united states. i do want to work with these governors across the country to make the states more pivotal and powerful as they should be. >> chris: my guess is your appearance today will make you more attractive, not less attractive to a lot of people
6:29 pm
looking for a phonotential g.o. candidate. >> i hope, i look attractive to people who believe the tenth amendment says what it says, the states are where the power should be. >> chris: thank you so much for joining us and please come back, sir into thank you, chris, good to be with you, this morning, yes, sir. >> chris: up next our sunday panel on the changing balance of power in washington, now when the president invites republican leaders to the white house, they see if they can fit it into their schedule. you might also want to try lifting one of these. a unique sea salt added to over 40 campbell's condensed soups. helps us reduce sodium, but not flavor. so do a few lifts. campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™
6:30 pm
6:31 pm
6:32 pm
>> instead of giving americans what they wants, democratic leaders plan to use the last few days, lawmakers expect to spend in washington, this year, focusing on everything exempt preventing this tax hike. which will cost us even more jobs. >> chris: senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, warning democrats about laying plans for the lame duck session of
6:33 pm
congress, time for our sunday group, bill kristol of the weekly standard, ab stoddard of the hill newspaper, mitt romney's spokesman during the presidential campaign and fox news political analyst juan williams. something happened in washington this week that i had never seen before. the president invited congressional leaders over to the white house, for dinner and a talk, about the next two years, and, the g.o.p. leaders said, you know, we really can't fit it into our schedule, and how about, the week after thanksgiving? what is going on here, bill. >> they honestly say they -- first there, in reference to the media and had commitments with the new members in town this past week and i think they'll show up the week after thanksgiving and i think they are ready for a compromise on taxes, and other matters and would like to get the tax code set for the next two years but, i was with 30 newly lielected house republicans and they'd love it not to get done in the lame duck session and would love
6:34 pm
their first vote to be to extend, current tax rates and i think it will pass the senate and end up on the president's desk and the republicans will say, hey, put us in charge of the house and we reversed an increase, that will go into effect on january 1st and i think they are crazy enough to do the tax deal in the dame duck, the obama administration's point of view but i'm struck by how it looks like it might not happen. >> chris: i wanted to pick up on that, with you, ab, we are coming up on two deadlines, first the bush tax cuts have to be extend or they run out and everybody gets a tax increase at the end of the year, and the budget, our continuing resolution for spending runs out the first week of december, and if they don't pass that, there is to government and seems like both sides are playing legislative chicken here. >> it seems so but the democrats are in charge and have been swallowed whole by the losses and spent all of their energy on the trial of charlie rangel. on their leadership fights, on
6:35 pm
recriminations and altercations about the campaign and look at the calendar, november 30th, the day the white house meeting is supposed to take place, november 30th is also the day the unemployment insurance expires. the following day, december 1, a report of don't ask, don't tell from pentagon and the day the fiscal commission will be releasing its report, and on friday, that very, days later, the same week, the government shuts down unless they renew the funding for operations of the government. a lot to pack in a four day period. >> chris: why don't they do more this week. >> they are paralyzed. the democrats are paralyzed and are running the legislative schedule and are paralyzed. if they could have come to an agreement on tax cuts by now they would have and they couldn't do it before the election and haven't yet. >> chris: i want to pick up on that, with you, kevin. when we sat here a week ago, after i had talked to david axelrod and jim demint we all thought there is the deal on tax cuts, there will be a temporary
6:36 pm
increase of all of the tax cuts, no increase in rates for two years or three or four years and it seems less likely rather than more likely this week. >> i think, the interesting dynamic now is just how opposed the democratic leaders are and the white house had a problem with capital hill before and they were liked and never feared or respected and has probably gotten worse, and the other thing is the simple fact is republicans are sewing their oats, a little bit and feel like they have all the leverage and leverage, right now, is the most important thing that you can have, in the lame duck and john boehner and mitch mcconnell are perfectly willing to work and wait until a -- they have a clean slate, come january. >> chris: why do you think they put off the meeting until november 30th. >> i think, i'll taking everybody at their word, there were different probably scheduling issues they had. >> chris: john boehner was
6:37 pm
having a news conference at the time of the meeting. >> i believe, there is a bit of a power play, because they hold all the cards now. the same democrats up on capitol hill pushing the message before the election, that -- about taxes, you know, they had an electoral judgment that wasn't rendered in their favor if they continue to elect the same leaders and continue to push the same message. so, they seem to get it and the republicans on capitol hill feel they have all the leverage. >> chris: juan. >> well, i the democrats went up two dayses after the '06 midterm racings and met with president bush and i thought it was rude and even if it was a scheduling snafu, caused by the white house and president obama's assumptions that they agreed to meet then it ended up making republicans look as if they are still pursuing a policy of obstructing everything -- >> what about the balance of power now in the lame duck session. >> it is with republicans as we have heard from bill an kevin.
6:38 pm
look, all of the republicans, have to do is wait and gain more votes in the house and senate. they are in better positions, and that raises the question, are you sincere in saying you want to get something done for the american people? or is it just about politics and as mcconnell unfortunately said, about defeating obama in 2012. >> chris: let's turn to the new "start" treaty, a big issue as i discussed with secretary clinton, jon kyl sort of the lead dog on this for the republicans, said there is not enough time in the lame duck session and let's wait until a new congress, is elected and let's consider it then, the white house seems to be upping the ante for a vote this year and the president pushes it and he talked in lisbon about the strategic importance of this. and it got a lot of nato leaders to spirit and eastern european foreign ministers to support it. they seem to really want to make
6:39 pm
this a big issue in the -- before the end of the year. >> vice president biden and a lot of us talked... spent an hour-and-a-half trying to tell us on friday how urgent it was to happen in the lame duck and i think they may get the treaty through and i think you have ten new republican senators who have letters, saying we have to... the treaty was signed in april and, if it were urgent they had plenty of months to get it through. they controlled the senate, had 59 senators, and could have reported it out of committee and spent two weeks on the floor in september an gotten it through and instead, they've negotiated with senator kyl who raised legitimate questions and concerns. i think they would be better off -- i thought secretary clinton hinted at this, they will not try and go around senator kyl and play hard ball and they have a better chance of getting it through if they go to them and say, look we will not try and push it through the lame duck, give us the commitment that it
6:40 pm
will be brought up in february or march and in regular order and there will be debate. they'll bring it up. who controls the senate, senator reid, can bring it to the floor and republicans will not filibuster a treaty. and if they have 67 votes, they'll have 67 votes. i really think the focus on the lame duck is self-defeating. i think secretary clinton signaled the backing off from the white house attempts to bluster -- >> bill, it is not good. you don't want to lose the vote. >> they have to convince 67 senators to be -- >> that is what -- then, wait' second. >> they have to do it in the lame duck or regular session. >> why is that not a good treaty. richard lugar and the line-up of republican people who came into the white house, kiss en jinger baker and everybody said it is a necessary deal and it looks like jon kyl is getting back to obstructing and taking away the key foreign policy achievement of the administrations. >> one of the problems is they
6:41 pm
worked hard to get support from the folks like scowcroft and james baker but they are not voting for it. one problem they've had, they haven't done though work -- i'm sorry -- >> it was approved by the foreign relations committee on a bipartisan vote. >> and you have a key senator with substantive concerns and doesn't believe it -- >> what concerns. >> he has concerns about the funding behind the modernization of the nuclear armament we have. it has -- assurances from the -- >> we'll get the final word from ab. >> jon kyl said it is night complicated documents and, this is true. it has been vetted and the white house has come pretty far in trying to assure senator kyl and come up with funding for it and on the other side i agree with those who say, president clinton is right, excuse me, obama is rushing this. because he is -- will look for 14 republicans, versus nine,
6:42 pm
come january and does it have to be passed? yes, it is important and urgent and, maybe not today or next week but it is urgent to help. and it is important, it doesn't have to be done by -- >> they don't have all the votes, so... >> chris: that is certainly true. >> unless son... >> when i worked on continued hill. >> chris: 67 in this case, when we come back, how close is too close, we'll debate the controversy over new airport security measures, after the break. boss: and now i'll turn it over to the gecko. gecko: ah, thank you, sir. as we all know, geico has been saving people money on rv, camper and trailer insurance... ...as well as motorcycle insurance... gecko: oh...sorry, technical difficulties. boss: uh...what about this? gecko: what's this one do? gecko: um...maybe that one. ♪ dance music boss: ok, let's keep rolling. we're on motorcycle insurance. vo: take fifteen minutes to see how much you can save
6:43 pm
on motorcycle, rv, and camper insurance. happening right now at red lobster. choose one of three premium seafood-and-steak combinations... all under $20. get succulent lobster... paired with our eight-ounce wood-grilled sirloin... tender snow crab legs and sirloin... or new chardonnay grilled shrimp and sirloin... all with salad and unlimited cheddar bay biscuits. three new surf and turf combinations... all under $20. only for a limited time, and only at red lobster.
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
what is all the extra security tonight? >>... we had president bush on the program tonight, everybody gets patted down.
6:46 pm
>> even you, this is your show. >> makes no sense at all. >> tell me about it. >> chris: jay leno and former president bush, feeling the pain, many air passengers will go through during the busiest of travel seasons. and, we're back now with the panel. so, it was three weeks ago, kevin, that the transportation security administration began this enhanced screening at airports including full body scans that are very revealing and new pat-downs that are very thorough. so, is this big brother run amock or is this a necessary response to a terror threat. >> look i have my personal experience, having gone through the screenings and i have flown twice the last two weeks and haven't seen that much that i would find objectionable but i think i look at how the public views what they see as the news cycle around this issue and i think what happens is you see a lot of experts, after the umar
6:47 pm
farouk abdulmutallab incident and they say we should have gotten smarter about how we go through screening our passengers and what the public views is we have gotten dumber, and less efficient and more obtuse in how we do this and we have a current system now, that equates the 80-year-old grandmother from omaha, with, you know, a round trip ticket with the foreign national who bought a one-way ticket with cash and that becomes a problem and now, instead of having a very efficient system we have and in efficient system, despite all the money and technology we have. >> chris: ab, some passengers, not just they say it is stupid, some say it amounts to sexual assault. and, some are also saying, it is a violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution, unreasonable search and seizure. do you buy that. >> i haven't been groped at the airport yet. >> chris: i'm sorry for you! >> i don't know what it's like but they have the option of the
6:48 pm
full body scanners and there are complaints about the choice of receiving radiation from scanners and having an invasive and they allege it is quite low radiation and -- >> in 10 minutes of flying, as opposed to a two hour flight. >> if that is the case, to start a public awareness campaign they need to make clear the scanners are safe or safe enough and i think, as far as the pilots, you know, having to go -- undergo these as well, that was a huge mistake and have now been given rules and they'll be -- will get a pass on these obviously -- if they were terrorists they could fly a plane into any building and they should be treated differently but i don't see a way around it as soon that's terrorists were willing to kill themselves, we are in a game that we struggle to win. >> chris: bill as a true red,
6:49 pm
rock red conservative are you offended by what the tsa is doing. >> not really, it might be unwise and there may be better ways to do it and holland they have scanners that are less revealing and works as well. >> chris: i've seen it on tv and looks like a cartoon character as opposed to the graphic scanner we have in this country. >> supposedly would show any explosives or anything like that and trigger the secondary screening, and i think it's tough, i tried to think it through the last couple of days, and it's not easy, people say, do what israel does, they have 1/500 the traffic we have. >> chris: it is actually 1/60. they have 10 million a year and we have 600 million air passengers a year. >> you can't have individual interviews with all of these people which the israelis do. and people say let's do profiling and that is not easy. we have the nigerian who buys the one way ticket and yemeni or
6:50 pm
pakistani stamps on his passport will have a secondary screening and the question is do we need this universal level of strict screening for everyone, 80-year-old grandmothers and it seems crazy to do it that way and it's not hard to think of excluding 80-year-old grandmothers how you give the tsa people guidance as to who they wave through and who they insist on a kind of thorough scan of, or -- >> i'm putting you on the spot. are you saying there is an overreaction. >> i'm not sure. because it has been ginned up by media outlets, is there genuine populous outrage. >> people who have traveled and have undergone it versus those who are watching it on tv and judging it. >> i'm not sure in either case people are out remained. i'm not convinced this isn't ginned up -- let's see. >> chris: a lot of people will three this weekend, juan you
6:51 pm
famously talked about your fears of getting on planes. >> if it makes us safer, i'm all for it. i get on planes a lot and i have been patted down and been through the new scanner and the old scanner but, if it makes us safer, post 9/11, i'm very sympathetic to the government's position. especially, i asked janet napolitano about it this week, i said, would you have discovered the christmas day bomber who had this explosive material in his underwear with the new scanner and they say yes. not absolutely yes. when i went back and said, exactly how will they detect it. they said any kind of aberrant possession on your body they have a better chance with this device than without it. if something happens in the country we'll hold those elected and appointed officials responsible and their job is to prevent another terror incident and that is what they have to do. but i must say, when i see a
6:52 pm
little old lady patted down i think what is going on here and as i've famously said, they have to engage in some form of criminal profile, imagine my position on racial profiling but there is a higher likelihood for a certain group of people, that is obvious, isn't it. >> on the profiling issue, maybe we ought not -- any time you profile somebody because of their race or ethnicity, if you make one mistake you have a big, big problem. why not start profiling action and tactics, you are buying a one way ticket with cash and don't have luggage, that is someone who should be screened. >> that worries me about the debated and it is carried out on the national tv, all right, if the person is one way ticket or, you know, if they show up it's this airport with no luggage, it
6:53 pm
gives a primer to possible terrorists, well, okay. i'll get the round trip ticket. and it won't cost that much more. >> and that is where i think the leading edge of our -- we will not pat-down kids, a kid could be used conceivably as the -- >> the leading edge has to be n intelligence and you see movement on capitol hill to scan every piece of cargo, because of the ink carriers. and i think that has to be the focus and put the technology in place and funding in place and now we share the information back and forth, so we don't have to pat-down three-year-olds, during these screenings while they are on, traveling -- >> once the word gets out, you know what? grandma's, ab, aren't going to get patted down, there will be a terrorist grandma. >> i think if you are going to fly, given the danger we're in you have to accept the requirements to keep us safe. >> we're a nation at war.
6:54 pm
and we have people fighting a war, we should understand we have some responsibility here. i don't think there is any question and one last thing, there is a layer of security, already in place checking out people before they get on flights. >> chris: thank you, panel, see you next week, travel safely and don't forget, check out "panel plus" and our group picks up with the discussion on our web site, foxnewssunday.com and we promise to post the video before noon eastern time. up next our power player of the week. the week. [ male announcer ] welcome to that one time of year
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
when we all become doers. when our mittens double as wk gloves. and we turn every room into a project. but this year, let's trim the budget. get some help from martha stewart that we can't get anywhere else. and spread our money as far as our cheer. ♪ more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. we're lowering the cost of bright spirits. now get a 100 count light set for $2.28. >> chris: thanksgiving is not only about family but food.
6:57 pm
all those sweets. it got us to thinking about the power player of the week. >> it's the moment of disbelief and the moment of joy, you say, wow! >> jeff gold machine is the star of the ace of cakes he is world of famous making works of art you admire and then eat. how about a marie antoinette cake or french-fries cake? his favorite an r 2 d 12678 cake he made for george luke as. >> it had blinking lights and you hit the button. >> and was cake? >> it was cake. >> we went to see him in action. it looks more like santa's workshop than a bakery, artists that he created. when he isn't cooking he is back
6:58 pm
in the shop. welding or drilling the structures that support his cakes. he showed us one he is driving to arizona for a birthday party. >> it's a white sized baby elephant and feed hundred people is it a cake? >> its cake and work of art. >> he makes 15 cakes a week and first come first served. >> how much can a cake cost? >> a cake can cost a lot. >> $5,000? >> sure. >> $10,000? >> absolutely. >> up? >> yep. >> one reason they will pay that -- is the show runs in 40 countries? >> the show just got on in kuwait. >> jeff's career started as a teenager when he was break into
6:59 pm
train yards and spray graffiti. >> in college he studied metal sculpture but it was in culinary school he found his calling. >> i had been doing graffiti and metal sculpting, but then cakes happened. >> ace of cakes is part of cooking demonstration and part reality show. they take on impossible projects with unreasonable deadlines and always seem to pull it off. >> it's really exciting. we have a lot of work to do in a day and a half now. >> but he keeps it all in perspective. >> we're cake decorators but making people smile is one of those things. >>. >> chris: one of his things. a new season