tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News November 22, 2010 2:00am-3:00am EST
once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop symbicort without loss of control, and prescribe a long-term asthma control medicine. beure to see youdoctor if yoursthma does not improve or gets worse. symbicort is a good choice to help control my asthma all day and night. [ inhales ] [ exhales ] ask yr doctor if symbicort is a good choice for you. [ male announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." foreign policy on the front burner. from the war in afghanistan to the push for a new arms treaty with russia to bringing terror suspects to justice we'll discuss the president's diplomatic challenges with secretary of state hillary clinton. the republican governor with more power than ever. we will sit down with texas governor rick perry to talk the obama agenda and what role
perry will 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 these tsa procedures go too far. and your power player of the week. a former graffiti artist now creates works of art you can eat. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: hello again from fox news in washington. president obama and other world leaders agreed on an exit strategy in afghanistan turning over security to the afghans by the end of 2014. while nato does not expect foreign combat forces to keep fighting the taliban after that u.s. officials said they will decide at the time. earlier, we spoke with secretary of state hillary clinton from the nato summit in lisbon. secretary clinton, welcome back
to "fox news sunday." >> thank you so much. good to talk could you. >> chris: nato agreed to 2014 for turning over security responsibility to the afghans. does that mean that the u.s. will have combat troops there for the next four years and possibly beyond? >> chris, i think what happened today was a real vote of confidence in the strategy that is being pursued by the nato isap coalition. we are following the lead of president karzai and the africans who have 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 point of the declaration by the nato isap partners is that the transition
to lead afghan security will occur during 2014. >> chris: that means u.s. combat troops will be there for four more years and as i understand it, possibly beyond. >> i don't know quite what you mean by that. because, for example if you are going to continue in a supportive role whether it is american troops or one of our other contributing 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 are going to defend yourself, does that mean you will come to the aid of one of our afghan colleagues in trouble? of course. that is not the primary goal. the goal is to transition the security to an afghan lead. and what we heard at the isap meeting was the contributions from contributioning nations to increase the number of trainers and mentors so that we could accelerate the training of the
afghan security forces. all around this was a great vote of confidence in president obama'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 very tactics that seem to be working. i know you met with him, as i say, a couple of days ago. did you get him onboard the new aggressive u.s. battle plan? >> well, chris, i think i just want 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 government believe it
is working what was particularly reassuring is that the expressions of support that came from the nato isap 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 have to be always asking yourself is what i'm doing keeping that balance. general petraeus understands that probably better than any one. in my conversation with president karzai and the meeting that i just 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 we cannot do it to the extent that it turns people against the very strategy that is working. and it is a constant -- this is a constant evaluation and i think it shows the level of real dialogue that is going on between us.
>> chris: and did president karzai agree to that? >> absolutely. he is expressing legitimate concerns that come to him from the afghan people. if you have a night raid and you take out a taliban leader he is all for that. if you have a night raid and four or five 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 through the military and civilian leadership on the ground is to constantly try to get that balance right. >> chris: the obama administration is pushing for a vote this year on the new start treaty agreement with the russians but 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
pushing for a vote this year and running the risk of suffering a major embarrassing defeat on the world stage? >> chris, i have a great deal my colleagues, democratic and republican in the senate. and i think that everyone is trying to figure out how to do the right thing on this important treaty. i would just make three quick points. one, this is in the national security interests of the united states. there is no doubt about it. in fact, what i was a little surprised by at the nato meeting was the number of people like chancellor merkel of germany, foreign ministers and prime ministers and presidents from the baltic presidents from the baltic countries, from central and eastern europe like the editorial written by the
foreign minister of poland, people on the ground in europe, nearby russia many of who were part of the former soviet union who are saying please ratify that now united states senate. why are they saying that? not because they have a dog and hunt between the democrats and republicans 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 klappert the new director of the national intelligence agency, they will tell you we can cannot go that much longer without the capacity restored. finally, this is in the tradition of not just bipartisan but nonpartisan action on behalf of arms control treatias. going back to president regan who famously said trust by -- trust but verify.
right now we have no verification. we will find the time in the lame duck. i understand the legitimate concern there might not be enough time to debate and make sure that everybody is informed. but as senator luger who is one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and necessity of having more insight into what russia is doing, says we cannot wait and i agree with him. we are 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 got a verdict are this week in the first big civilian trial of a terror detainee held by the cia in a secret prison and then transferred to guantanamo. he was convicted on one count but acquitted on 284 other counts, all the other counts.
this is supposed to be the easiest trial to conduct. i guess the question is do you have any choice now except to hold all of the terror detainees at gitmo or either give them military trials or hold them indefinitely? >> i think the verdict needs to be put in a larger context. the sentence for what he was convicted of is 20 years to life. 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 three trials, in other words in our civilian courts, are appropriate for the vast majority of detainees. there are some for whom it is not appropriate. you will get no argument from this administration on that point. when you look at the success record in civilian courts of convicting, sentencing, detain in maximum security prisons by the civilian courts it
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 or no more military commissions. president obama's theory of this is that most should be in article 3 courts. some should be confined to military commissions but as things stand right now we have actually gotten more convictions and more people, more terrorists are serving time in prison right now because of article 3 courts than military commissions. >> chris: secretary, one final question. you made some news recently in australia when you ruled out running again for office in
2012 and 2016. why? >> well, first of all, i love what i'm doing. i can't tell you what it is like, chris, to every day get to represent the united states and that is why i feel so strongly about every issue from start to afghanistaning. >> chris: are you categorically saying that you are done with -- -- with political office? >> i have said it over and over again and i'm happy to say it on your show as well. i'm committed to doing what i can to advance the security, the interests and the values of the united states of america. i believe that what i'm doing right now is in furtherance of that and i'm very proud and grateful to be doing it. >> chris: you are done with elective office? >> i am. i'm very happy doing what i'm doing and i'm not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office. >> chris: secretary clinton thank you so much. thank you for talking with us and safe travels home. >> thanks a lot. good to talk with you. >> chris: up next we talk
>> chris: joining us from his home state of texas is the new chairman of the republican governor's association, rick perry. and governor, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> chris, thank you. it's 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? >> well, hopefully one of the most extensive roles that they played and i'm talking about even more than in '96 when tommy thompson and governor
engler were very involved with the healthcare legislation. particularly with the medicaid see blockld like t ziplock grants back to the states. we will be very involved with working with counter parts and not necessarily our counter parts but colleagues and friends in washington as they devolve power out of washington, d.c. back to the states. >> chris: i'm going get into more specifics in a moment. this is an overview question. you have written a new book called "fed up" in which you say that 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. >> it has been for some time. once you read the book "fed up" you will i think agree that 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 and laboratories of innovation where people try out different ideas and healthcare is a great example.
this federalized washington healthcare 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 will pick and choose what works best to deliver healthcare to our citizens. >> chris: let's pick up on healthcare. you want to repeal the obama reform plan but 25% of texans currently don't have health insurance. that is the highest rate in the country, would you just let them go without? >> one of the reasons, chris >> one of the reasons, chris is because of the strings attached from the federal dollars that come down here in our medicaid programs. as a matter of fact, that is one of our strong points to block granting is we can create a better and more expansive insurance coverage and the delivery of healthcare to all people without all the federal strings attached.
you make exactly the point that we will be making in washington. do the things that you are supposed to do like securing border and delivering our mail, preferrabley on time and on saturdays. getting involved in the things that the constitution doesn't say one word about like healthcare. >> chris: are you saying on things like medicare and medicaid that those programs should be ended and federal money should just go to the states? >> what i'm saying is that between social security, medicaid and medicare there is $106 trillion of unfunded liabilities and not one dime saved to pay for them. my children who are in their 20s know that the social security is the ponzi scheme. medicaid we think we can save substantial dollars for the federal government and the states if they will allow us to implement that program. for instance, it is $30 billion a year between the state and federal government for one year of medicaid in the state of texas. we think we can cut that substantially, help our
colleagues in washington, d.c. balance the budget up there and substantially help us with our budgetary issues here, if they will 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? end social security as a federal program? >> let us work on medicaid and while we are doing that they can have the discussion on how to put our social security program on better and more solid footing. >> 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 7 or 8 workers for every one retiree. it just so happens now because of the baby boom there are more retirees and fewer workers out there. not a ponzi scheme in the sense of bernie madoff.
probably is a program that probably makes even mr. ponzi feel bad if he was still alive. they need to fix it and it is a ponzi scheme. i don't know how you would explain it any other way than what you just do. there are fewer paying into it and our kids are never going to see any benefit from this. fix it and fix it today. >> chris: let's go back to one of the other prime targets of yours which is bailouts. i know you are unhappy with them but the fact is general motors had a big ipo 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 -- just to say that it worked.
to back up, i don't know if it worked or not. frankly at the end of the day, i don't know that anybody can say definitively today that the government wasn't out any money or what have you. here is what is more important. sending the message there are people out there or init at this times out there too big to fail is just wrong. it is wrong philosophically and wrong for a fiscal conservative to say that. i disagree with the senator. i think washington made a serious mistake. the reason we have bankruptcy laws is to restructure and make businesses more efficient and effect eastbound anive and gov- efficient and effective and government needs to stay out of those things. >> chris: let's look at the real world effect of this, governor. a study released says 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 think your study is looking at one thing.
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 work force because we accountable schools and then 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 a congress that understood how the free market actually works and not having government interfere with the free market. let it work and i will promise you jobs will be created and our economy, fix the tax system. all of those things together. devolve all of that power in washington, d.c. and let the states back the laboratories of innovation. that is what you are going to hear out of these governors. i got to think there are democratic governors out there that don't want, washington, down micromanaging the states.
>> chris: let's talk about texas because you are quite right. you have one of the lowest tax burdens in the u.s. and led the country in 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 are saying you are not going to raise any taxes. so how are you going to deal with that shortfall? >> well, one thing i will take you to task on, chris, you got a better crystal ball than anybody down here unless you are just throwing numbers at the wall and with all due respect that number will not be known until january when the comptroller makes the official estimate. there is a lot of guesses. but the fact is here is how we will do it, just like we did in 2003. we faced a $10 billion short fall and we can't deficit spend in texas, we have a constitutional amendment to the texas constitution, something that the federal government should have in place as well
but we will prioritize what is important. keeping the economy, obviously our taxes and regulatory climate and legal system et cetera. we are considering the concept of loser pays to make the legal system even better for the business men and women in the the state of texas. we will prioritize what is important, public safety and the education system and then we will reduce our spending. just like we did in 2003, reduced our spending and filled a budget gap of $10 billion and didn't raise taxes and we won't raise taxes this time in texas. >> chris: education accounts for 55% of the state spending. healthcare 25%. public safety you just mentioned 10%. that is 90% of the budget. you are going to cut that by $25 billion? and that is the number that is out there, sir. >> here is one of the -- and again, i disagree with that number but that is beside the point.
instead of giving americans what they want, democratic leaders plan to use the last few days of lawmakers expect to spend in washington this year focusing on everything except preventing this tax hike which will cost us even more jobs. >> chris: senate republican leader mitch mcconnell warning democrats about lame plans for the lame duck session of congress. and it is time now for our sunday group. bill kristol of the weekly
standard. a.b. stoddard of the hill newspaper. kevin matthew a republican strategist who was mitt romney's spokesman during his presidential campaign and fox news analyst juan williams. so something happened in washington this week that i have 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 gop leaders said know, we can't fit it into our schedule. mow about the week after thanksgiving. what is going on here, bill? >> first they heard about this was in the media that they had commitments with the new members in town this past week and they willle show up the week after thanksgiving. they would like to get the tax code set for the next two years. i was with 30 newly elected house republicans yesterday at the heritage foundation and they would love for it to not get done in the lame duck session and for those first vote to be to extend tax rates.
it will pass the senate and end up on the presidents it desk and i think he will sign it and the house republicans will say hey put us in charge of the house and we just reversed an increase in tax rates that will go into effect on january 1. i personally think they are crazy enough to do the tax deal in the lame duck, from the democrats and obama administration point of view but it might not happen. >> chris: i want to pick up with that on you. coming up against two deadlines. the bush tax cuts have to be extended or they run out and everybody gets a tax increase at the end of the year and also the budget, our continuing resolution for spending runs out the first week of december and if they don't pass that there is no government. so it seems like both sides are planning a little bit of legislative chicken here. >> seems so but really the democrats are in charge and they have been swallowed whole by their losses. they have spent all of their energy this week on the trial of charlie rangel, on their
leadership fight and recrimnations and altercations about the campaign. look at the calendar and november 30 is the day that the white house meeting is supposed to take place and also the day that the unemployment insurance expires. the following day december 1 is a report on don't ask don't tell from the pentagon and also the day that the fiscal commission will be releasing its report and then on friday just days later the same week the government shuts down unless they renew the funding for operations of the government. it is a lot to pack in a four day period. >> chris: why didn't they work on it this week? >> they are just paralyzed. they are still running a legislative schedule and they are paralyzed. if they could have come to an agreement on tax cuts buy now they would have. they couldn't do it before the election and they haven't yet. >> chris: i want to touch on that with you, kevin. sitting here a week ago after i talked to david axlerod and jim demint we all thought there is the deal on tax cuts, temporary increase of all of the bush tax
cuts and no increase in rates for two years or three years or four years but that seems less likely rather than more likely this week. >> the interesting dynamic right now is just how opposed the democratic leaders are up -- up on shrill seem to be towards this white house. i think the white house always had a problem with capitol hill before and they were liked but never feared or respected. i think that have probably gotten worse. i think the other thing has to do with the simple fact that the republicans up on the hill are sowing their oats a little bit and they feel like they have all the leverage and leverage right now is the most important thing you can have in the lame duck. and john boehner and mitch mcconnell are willing to work and wait until they have a clean slate come january. >> chris: why do you think that they put off the meeting until november 30? >> i take everybody at their word that there were different problems, scheduling issues that they had. >> john boehner was at a news conference at the time of the meeting.
>> i believe there is a bit of a power play because they do hold all the cards right now. the same democrats up on capitol hill pushing the message before the election about taxes they had an election that wasn't rendered in their favor. if they continue to elect the same leaders and continue to push the same misaiming. they don't seem to get it and i know that republicans up on capitol hill feel that they have all the leverage. >> chris: juan? >> the democrats after the '06 races met with president bush. i just think it was rude. even if it was a scheduling snafu caused by the white house and in president obama's assumption that they agreed to meet then i think it ended up making republicans look as if they are still pursuing the policy of simply obstructing anything that obama wants to do. >> chris: the balance of power in washington right now in this lame duck session. >> it is republican. i think as we heard earlier
from bill, from kevin, all the republicans have to do is wait and they gain more votes in the house and the senate so they are in better position. that raises the question are you sincere in saying you want to get something done for the american people or is this just about politics and as mcconnell unfortunately said with defeating obama in 2012? >> chris: let's turn to the new start treaty which is a big issue. as i discussed with secretary clinton jon kyl is sort of a lead dog on this for the republicans said there is not enough time in the lame duck session let's wait until there is a new congress and new senators who have just been elected by the american people and consider it then. the white house, though, seems to be upping the ante for a vote this year. the president keeps pushing it. he talked in lisbon about the strategic importance of this. he got a lot of nato leaders to support it and also got some
eastern european foreign ministers to support it. they seem to really want to make this a big issue before the end of the year. >> they do. vice president biden had a bunch of us who talk foreign policy into the white house and went an hour and a half to tell us how important it was is that it happen in the lame duck. i don't see the strength of the argument honestly. i think they will get the treaty through. you have ten year republican senators. the treaty was signed in april. if it were urgent they had plenty of months to get it through. they controlled the senate. they had 59 senators after all. they could have reported out of committee and spent two weeks on the floor in september and got ten through. instead they have been negotiating with senator kyl who i think has raised legitimate questions and concerns. i think they would be better off and i think secretary clinton hintd that they will not try to go around senator kyl. they understand they have a much better chance of getting it through if they go to senator mcconnell and senator kyl saying look we will not try to push it through the lame
duck. give us the commitment it will be brought up in february and march. >> who controls the new senate. senator reid. republicans are not going filibuster a treaty and if they had 67 votes they will have 67 votes for it. i think the focus on the lame duck is self-defeating by the administration. i think signaled the backing off from the white house sort of attempts to bluster. >> bill, what if they lose? it is not good. you don't want to lose that vote. >> they have to convince 67 senators. >> they have to do that in the lame duck or the regularring session. >> why is it not a good treatia? you saw the lineup of republican wise american who came into the white house, everybody said this is a necessary deal and it looks like jon kyl at the last minute is saying you know what let's get back to obstructing and taking away the key foreign policy achievement of this administration. >> one of the big problems is
they worked hard to get support but they are not the ones voting up on capitol hill. republican who came into the white house i mean everybody said this is a necessary deal and it looks like jon kyl is saying you know what, let's get back to obstructing and taking away the key foreign policy achievement of this administration. >> i think the problem is that they worked hard to get support but they are not the ones voting up on capitol hill. i think the other big problems that they have is that they haven't done the work. >> they approved by the foreign relations committee on a bipartisan vote and a key senator with substantive concerns and doesn't believe that this ought to be rushed. >> what senator has concerns? >> essential concerns about the funding behind the modernization of the nuclear armament that we have and assurances from the capital but hasn't gotten -- >> jon kyl said himself it is not a complicated document and that is true. this has been vetted. the white house has come pretty far in trying to assure senator kyl and come up with funding for it. he can say he needs more assurance. i do agree with those who say that president obama is rushing this because he is -- will be looking for 14 republicans versus 9 come january.
does this have to be passed? yes. it is important. it is urgent. maybe not today or next week but it is urgent that it be passed in order to help reset relations with russia and obviously as we try to seek the russians help to isolate iran. it is important. >> you are never far enough until you have all the votes and you don't have all the votes. >> that is certainly true. >> one crease lesson when i worked on capitol hill. 67. >> we have to take a break here. when we come back, how close is too close? we will debate the controversy over new airport security measures, after the break.
this is your show. makes no sense at all. >> tell me about it. >> chris: jay leno and former president bush feeling the pain that many air passengers will go through during this busiest of travel seasons. we are back now with the panel. so it was three weeks ago, kevin, that the transportation security administration again has enhanced screening at airports including full body scans that are very revealing and new patdowns that are very thorough. so, is this big brother run amuck or is this a necessary response to a terror threat? >> i have my personal experience of having gone through the screening and i have flown twice in the last two weeks and i haven't seen that much that i would find very objectionable and then i look at how the public views the new cycle around this issue. you see a lot of experts after
the abdulmutallab issue and they say we should have gotten smarter. about how we go through screening our passengers. i think the public views that we have gotten dumber and less tuse innt and more ob tuesday how we do that. we have a current system that equates the 80-year-old grand mother from omaha with a round trim ticket with a foreign national bo guy who buys a oney ticket with cash. instead of having a very efficient system we have an inefficient system and that is despite all of the money and technology that we have. >> chris: a.b., some passengers not just saying it is stupid. some saying it amounts to sexual assault and some are also saying it is a violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure. do you buy any of those? >> i haven't been groped at the airport yet. >> chris: i'm sorry for you. >> i don't know what it is like. obviously they have the option
of the full body scanner. there is complaints about the choice between receiving radiation from the scanner and having an invasive patdown. the homeland security department is maintaining that the level of radiation you are exposed to is quite low and comparable to the amount of radiation when we fly anyway. >> ten minutes of flying as opposed to a two hour flight. >> if that is the case they need to start a good public awareness campaign and make clear that the scanners are safe or safe enough. but i think as far as the pilots, you know, having to go -- undergo these as well, that was a huge mistake. they have now been given special rules and they are going to be -- they going to be given a pass. obviously if they were terrorists they could just fly a plane into any building and i don't see anyway around this. as long as the terrorists are willing to kill themselves we
are in a game that we struggle to win. >> chris: bill as a true red conservative are you offended by what the tsa is doing? >> not really. it might be unwise and there might be better ways to do it. apparently in holland they have a scanner that is less revealing and works as well. >> chris: i have seen it on tv and it looks like a cartoon character as opposed to the very graphic that we have in this country. >> and it would show explosives and trigger a secondary screening. i tried to think this through in the last couple of days. it is not so easy. people say do what israel does. they have less air traffic than we have. >> 1/60th. they have 10 million air passengers a year and we have 600 million air passengers a year. >> and you can't have individual interviews with all of the air passengers which is what the israelis do. people say let's do profiling. we do have secondary issues. the nigerian who buys the one
way ticket and yemeni stamps on his passport will get called for a secondary are screening now. no question we are doing that universal level of of let's say strict screening for everyone. even the 80-year-old are grandmothers. seems crazy to do it that way. on the other hand, it is not to say that excluding 0-year-old grand mothers how you will give the tsa guidance as to who would wave through. and you are don't instead of just a thorough scan of. >> i'm putting you on the spot. are you saying there is an overreaction here? >> i'm not saying there is an overreaction. this has been ginned up by the media outlets. is there outrage over this? that is unclear. >> the percentage of people that travel and that have undergone this versus those watching on tv and judging it. >> i'm not sure in either case people of outraged about it. i'm not entirely convinced this isn't ginned up by -- i would like to see polls. >> chris: a lot more people will be flying this weekend.
juan you famously talked about your fears about who is getting on planes. where do you weigh in on this? >> if it makes it safer i'm all for it because i get on planes a lot. i get patted down and i have been through the new scanner and old scanner. if it makes us safer post 9/11 i'm sympathetic to the government's position. especially and i asked janet napolitano and john pistol about it this week. i said would you have discovered the christmas day bomber who had the ex-ploy suv material in his underwear with the new scanner and they said, yes. not absolutely yes, when i went back and said exactly how is it going to detect it. they said any kind of abborent possession on your body they think they have a better chance with this device than without it. i tend to be sympathetic with that position because if something happens in this country we will hold those elected and appointed officials responsible. their job is to prevent another terror incident and that is what they have got to do.
i must say when i see a little old lady patted down i think what is going on here. and then as i have famously said, i think that they have to gage in some form of criminal protiling. now, imagine my position on racial profiling. but in terms of saying you know what, there is a higher likelihood for a certain group of people, i mean that is obvious, isn't it? >> just on the profiling issue, maybe what we ought not to do, any time you profile somebody because of their race or ethnicity you make it -- if you make one mistake you have a big, big problem, right. why not start profiling actions and tactics. if somebody starts buying -- if you are buying a one way ticket with cash and don't have luggage, that person is somebody who out to get those level of scrutiny versus an 80-year-old. >> chris: what worries me about the whole debate and it is carried out on national television. if a person has a one way ticket or, you know, if they show up at the airport with no luggage.
isn't that almost giving a primer to possible terrorists about okay, i'll get the round trip ticket, it won't cost that much more. >> and that is where i think the leading edge of our -- >> chris: they are not going to pat down kids and a kid could conceivably be used as -- >> the leading edge of this has to be intelligence. you are seeing movements on capitol hill to start targeting every single piece of cargo that comes into the country because of the last scare with ink carriers. that has to be the focus, too. we put the technology in place and the funding in place. now, put the information in place so we don't have to patdown three-year-olds. >> chris: once the word gets out grandmas aren't going to get patted down there will be a terrorist grandma. >> i think that if you are going to fly given the danger that we are in you have to accept these are the requirements to keep us safe. >> i think we are a nation at
war. we have people fighting a war we should understand we have some responsibility here. i don't think there is any question about that. one last thing to say there is a layer of security. already in place checking out people before they get on flights. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. travel safely, all of you. and don't forget to check out panel plus for the group here picks right up with the discussion on our website, foxnewssunday.com. we promise we will post the video before noon eastern time. up next, our power player of the week. ♪ fare thee well ♪ farewell ♪ mr. gloom be on your way ♪ ♪ though you haven't any money you can still be bright and sunny ♪ ♪ sing polly wolly doodle all the day ♪
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
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
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