tv MONEY With Melissa Francis FOX Business September 13, 2013 12:00am-1:01am EDT
the world's biggest superpower? the congressman says that syria is a special case. congressman,hat makes all the difference? >> no, it does not necessarily make all the difference. if we have american troops, we have a technological regime. with hezbollah in lebanon, we have elements within syria that can now acquire and hijack those chemical weapons capabilities because of thought has drawn them out. we do believe that we have a core national security interest in acting. john: don'these countries look at rwanda where half a million people were killed.
>> you know, in fact, i have to support the prior president mccain to other purity issues. we should not be the world's policeman, but we should protect our interests and while we ave believed in standing against this kind of murdr that we saw in syria, it is not just that, it is the risk of proliferation and it falling into the right hand john: should we also have a fake nuclear weapon in iran we should use all the options in our toolbox, and i have said quite clearly and quite consistently that the military action should be reserved if the
iranians denounced it as a nuclear weapon. because the iranian nuclear weapons capability seems that all balance in the middle east creates a nuclear arms race. that really threatens our interest in the interest of the entire world. john: i am skeptical of the wiccan compass. politicians always say, we can fix this. we want to run education and health care and now international affairs. let's say we send a missile and mist. we pound sandlike clinton did in libya. that is not good. let's say we killed the leader. how do we know that the next group is better than the current one? let's say we kill innocent people and make new enemies. so much that we make things worse. >> john, i get that. we had an experience in afghanistan where we went in on one side. the mujahedin. and then they morphed into a group called al qaeda.
john: why do you think this would be different? >> i'm very skeptical. we're talking about a military operation that is confined and contained too degrading their regimes chemical weapons capacities, not just to stop the regime from using chemical weapons against its own citizens, but to stop those rebel elements from acquiring the stock of weapons which they can now do, pathetically because those weapons have been drawn out of the stockpiles. so it does not stop any side from acquiring the capability. john: chemical weapons are so much worse. are we just saying, you want to kill your people, you better use conventional weapons. >> i tell you, i have actually seen those videos. i know many of your viewers have seen the videos of what happened in the aftermath of august august 201st. posted on my website chemical weapons and weapons of mass instruction because they inflict mass casualties in a very short amount of time, which is why when chemical weapons were used in the form of mustard gas in world war one, the world was
appalled. we said we would not allow that to happen again. i agree with that decision. i believe it should be sustained john: thank you, congressman. i just don't agree. chemicals make it so different. all wore is awful. now he supports the military strike, but the public has turned against it. ... fox news poll finds 68 percent of voters say we ought to stay at a serious. this is different from what i am used to in my reporting career. at a nasty this kind of opposition when the first president bush said america moscow or against iraq. >> the world has said this aggression would not stand, and it will not stand. >> the danger is clear. john when the president's second bush wanted to attack again the senate voted 77 to 23 to authorize the use of military force. >> this resolution is passed.
>> it will set a crse towards safety. john: the president has set a red line against anyone who uses chemical weapons. john: but it would not be a big war. there are all those other countries behind us. there are a number of countries in the double digits who are prepared to take military action. we have more countries prepared to take military action then we actually could use in the kind of military action being contemplated. john: really? well, let's debate that. a former lieutenant commander in the navy who has family members and syria. he wants the u.s. to intervene now. should have already intervened, he says. a fox military analyst says, no, we should not. to you first. we should support the moderates, you say? bomb military facilities.
>> absolutely. i think that is the only way forward. there is no political solution, and thiss about containment verses iran. a regional conflict. who is left to promote libty and tipping forward in the right direction of places like syria that border our ally israel. if we don't help those on the ground, you can see now the current environment in syria has promoted and al qaeda and hezbollah in the most vicious -- who can prevent genocide is not the united states? john: and we prevented by launching attacks? >> well, you already have a popular uprising. not just like the iraqis. millions of serious rising up against their government being smothered by the help of russia. a military trained in history by the soviets. we on them and give them space on the ground, the great military through that two week operation. it will give them rm to tip syria in the right direction.
john: a 2-week operation. colonel on? >> right now warming the communications gear and tracks the al qaeda. 25 percent o the force on the rebel side is al qaeda arms the muslim brotherhood. how is it possible we are now assisting al qaeda? this is a conflict. we should not kid and one side with hezbollah and russia and the other al qaeda. this is not in our national interest. we cannot be in a third war in 12 years in the middle east. john: i assume you agree with the senator says this is not al qaeda. there are moderates who we should help. >> syria is a moderate nation. >> on the ground, the family in damascus. there are millions of syrians,
local coordination committees that are part of helping the free syrian army. yes, al qaeda is at almost five to 10,000. an islamic liberation front that is not our allies. certainly if they are there is part of a gi. the majority of syrians are far more diverse, even in egypt. the brother had less of an egt. even in egypt the majority of muslims rode up against the brotherhood they're is that is going to happen. it will only happen post assad. i would ask the colonel. if you want to defeat them it would on happen post assad. john: look if it's only 10%, remember you want to argue, 1%, the united states of america cannot, although we seem to be doing it right now, be seen as supporting one side. the other side, a nation called hezbollah. the first thing that will happen, her friends would get
it. it's a tragedy. i think that we are all war-weary nation and cannot get involved in another war. all the sudden killing a child with gas is worse than jumping a building on them. 120,000. but now he once again. again and again i keep saying, were getting in on this side of al qaeda. john: in america the american media can agree on who is a moderate in our congress. how do we possiy know in syria. the intelligence officers, most of them don't even speak arabic. >> the moderates are not there for her work. >> on the ground we have had a number of contacts with those in the local coordination committees all-around syria they're really just want to open up society as part of the air
awakening which we areeeing to social media and elsewhere with civilians want not just these few thousand. and so hard to hear my conservative friend and media and others say that while the middle east has become a post american environment and because al qaeda is sort of an arab dictator, page one playbook, least al qaeda and therefore letimize emergency law. liberty and american advocacy for freedom is gone and we cannot help tilt themoward enlightenment and maternity to which is the only way past in the middle east. jo: i think we are reacting to what we heard. we would be welcomed with on arms as liberators. >> well, the free syrian army is begging for help. they don't get it from us they're getting it from saudi arabia, i guarantee you there helping the groups that colonel hunt is worried about like al qaeda and islamists. we want to work with those that believe in the universal
declaration of human rights, it is up to america to start to figure out who those are on the ground because no one else in this world -- otherwise we are doing an hour and doctrine which basically is helping the most vicious when and the good guys will never have a chance to matter what we do. john: you get the last word. >> there is no question that this syrian fighters need help, and there are moderates. there is no question. you cannot have the united states of america are main elements that have al qaeda in them. we are forgetting. and we cannot launch msiles which will change the course of this war because we don't even know or have control over who is going to take overf assad is killed. it is not in our interest to get involved considering what we have been doing for the last 12 years. john: just to clarify the history he is talking about is to help the people fight the
♪ john: who is more eager to go to war? republicans or democrats? >> republicans. >> republicans. >> i think the republicans. more wars. john: i would have thought that. over syria it has been mostly democrats. polls show more democrats than reblicans support a military strike. is this hypocrisy, liberal and conservative changing their position depending upon who is president. no says historian thaddeus russell. what do you mean? >> this is a progressive war. i mean that the ideology of progressivism, which is about 100 years old as always said, we are obligated to uplift and save the world, not just in the ghettos, but outside our borders.
anywhere we find the oppressed. we must go out and save them. john: democrats started most of the wars. world war one, woodrow wilson, world war ii, fdr, harry truman, the korean war, kennedy and johnson, vietnam, bill clinton, cosimo,omalia. >> that is exactly right. progressivism has been an imperialists ideology for mr. beginning. john: in my lifetime at least it is democrats have dominated the anti-war movement when george w. bush asked congress to approve the use of force the bill passed. but it was democrats who said things like this. >> vote no on this resolution. thank you. [applause] >> when i looked out over this crowd today, i no there is no shortage of patriots or patriotism what i do oppose is a domear. john: what is the difference? >> what happened was that in vietnam progressives who were originally usually supportive of the intervention in vietnam saw
killing millions of people in that case and became wore a fight. by the end of their ideology, the consequences of it, and for a brief moment in history turned against intervention. and also because they did not trust the policymakers to lead those words. john: now barack obama is president. i trust myself. this is a good cause. >> one of the thgs we have been seein is a return to their of original interventionist imperialists truce. john: mostly republican supported the iraqi war. we have a long list of republicans who have changed their position on that. i think we are rolling in here. first the senators and in the congressman and in some other well-known republicans. this is not hypocrisy. >> not at all. the so-called neocons who drove us to war actually all began in the democratic party.
ey all began as progressives. great heroes. woodrow wilson, teddy roosevelt, the great progress is in history have been consistent and not hypocritical. this supported intervention in iraq. they are supporting intervention in syria to do the same. we are seeing is so interesting. the convergence of what is called the neoconservatism. what i say is neoconservatism disney -- neither new nor conservative. they're fundamentally progressive. they're finding their natural allies him what are people all progressives. john: at least this time the majority is not going along. >> that is good. john: i agree. i am puzzled most by the media which everybody i have known as been pretty leftist and mostly anti-war. and yet the media often seem to be leading the charge, at least at first. chemical weapons, look at this picture. it is terrible. we must act.
i would think that ms nbc would be the left channel, the most anti war, and it has done so much. let's go to war cheerleading. >> edges to not think that the world can sit idly by and watch innocent children be gassed to death. >> it's basically like put down a red line and sit-down use chemical weapons. then he goes ahead and blatantly does it. >> the most powerful words came from 10-year-old, a message ceases she had for president obama. she was these kids to be like . aren't we just like them? when we get bigger we are going to write obama did not help us. john: we have to attac or we are letting children die. >> ms nbc is finally understanding who they really are, what progressivism really is and always has been since we invaded against spain in cuba and the philippines through world war one, career, it has been pgress is to have killed
far more people in this country. john: they don't just want to invade. what is the philosophy behind it? >> they ultimately want to remake the world in our image. that is what they have said. that is what progressivism always has been about. remaking the people in the ghettos in our image many elite white americans and remaking of the united people of the world in our image as well. john: as you say, domestically it goes well beyond that. we can make education better. we must run education, health care. we must police the work force. we can make everything better. government can do that benignly. >> that's right. it is uplifting the poor and oppressed through the means of the state, through that monopoly oniolence. domestically that is taxation and law-enforcement brought for military force. very consistent. john: no matter how often it fails, they continue to support that. so thank you. coming up, what does the constitution say?
♪ john: i admit, i don't know much about the middle east. i don't speak arabic. i don't understand the culture or islamic traditions. last americans don't really get what's going on. yet so many people are so certain that they know what to do. >> of their going to kill each other, let them. we must stop the people in washington. >> if we do not pass the authorization measure what message will assad get? what message will iran received? we have to live up to our commitments. john: i happen to agree with
glenn beck on this one. i don't know much. so it ought to keep us humble says the author of -- she grew up in algeria, and she said in this debate neither side knows what is talked about. so let's start with the left. what did they get wrong? >> i think the most important thing to know on the ground is that in every single majority country people are standing of the fundamentalism. the left is sometimes too politicall correct to recognize the danger of that fundamentalism or to listen to the voices of these people who are doing that report. john: what d you mean they are too politically correct? give me an example. >> an example would be that some on the left have tried to embrace things like bailing or the imposition of sharia. whereas on the ground, in fact, people are challenging all of those things. some on the left in the u.s. do that because some on the right
and spoken out in a discriminatory way against sharia. john: you are attacked creature on the left. worked for the center for the constitutional rights a amnesty international. use a amnesty international get cozy with the former detainees who supported the taliban. close to supporting terrorists. >> a lot of wonderful work against torture and the death penalty. i disagree about their close relationship with a man. now, detained in guantanamo without charge or trial. it was right to oppose the way he was detained. when they got out of jail amnesty get cozy with them and brought him into judge children's poetry competitions, and this is a person who was a sympathizer and had been in and out of training camps. the head of the gender unity works on women's rights spoke out against this close
relationship and was pushed out of the organization. i believe that was a wrong decision. john: we call amnesty international. they did not cause back. the center for constitutional rights decided to represent the interest a man who was on the u.s. kill list because he is a terrorist. >> again, the center for constitutional rights has cents an extremely important work to defend human rights. i disagree in 2010 when they chose to represented his interests for free. he was not a detainee. he was at large in yemen at the time. they represented and then because he was put on a catalyst by the u.s. government, and i certainly oppose assassination. the problem is that he himself was advocating and calling for assassinations. in fact, his sermons were then used, claimed to be the inspiration even later after his death for the boston marathon bombers. so what i'm saying is, let's
speak out against assassinations , but not do it by standing up for somebody who read the was advocating them. >> the center for constitutional rights. john: what does the right wing get wrong? >> the right -- some get things wrong here as well. some have justified, for example, the use of torture in the context of the war and terror which is just wrong a against our values. also it makes muslims feel like they are victimized, which is something that plays into the hands of people trying to recruit. the right wing sometimeslso uses ready discriminatory racist language when they talk about muslims, especially in the last few years. some of this in the tea party. that is just wrong. what it does is take away that space from people like me you are both proud of their muslim
heritage and trying to be critical of the extremists. john: your solution is government should not get involved. civil society should? >> i think both government and society can play a role. the first and most important thing is we have to stop supporting fundamentalists, and i think many americans would be surprised to learn that many in the region think that we have been doing just that, whether supporting the muslim brotherhood after they came to power in egypt in 2011 or into an easy as well. john: saudi arabia where women cannot drive. we have call that a moderate government. i agreeith you on that one. we are out of time. coming up, some americans say instead of bombing people we should win hearts and minds with foreign aid, build schools, give money, give food. we have been doing that. how is it worki out? ♪
john i don't want to bond syria, but i am no isolationist. i want to help people who need help, people who are oppressed or just poor, but how do we best do that? many people say for any is the answer. one man used to believe that. he used to stop conserves to tell fans, western governments can and poverty. >> we have the resources, the now to end extreme poverty. john: angelina enjoy lee went to africa and talked about what would be possible if america would just spend more. >> there are solutions. john: but what they did not think about until recently is that there is a big difference between government to government foreign-aid and people going to the third world. mono at least as realize the best way to help people is to
realize -- allow capitalism to happen. e recently surprised me by saying, aid is just a stopgap. commerce an entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty and as. yes. but if the singer can get it, why can't our politicians? chris wonders about that. we should stop all foreign-aid. americans billions is doing bad by trying to do good. d that is roughly the title of his book. so what you mean? >> ultimately when it comes down to a stage provided humanitarian aid, there is a fundamental gap between is the tension our rhetoric of doing good and the actual results. oftentimes harry bad and harm the very people we intend to help. john: out? >> there are a variety of ways. one is that when you iect millions, if not billions of dollars of foreign aid into an already corrupt and is functional society if further
politicizes life, fuels' corruption, fuels kleptocts, allows regimes which are already terrible and dysfunctional to sustain. on top of it, even where a doe help in the short term, and other words, does provide some people with things, it oftentimes creates a fundamental dependency problem which is those individuals and become dependent upon an ounce. without any means of further widespread development the rely on continued handouts from other countries and governments. john: we give people food which teaches people that they cannot make money growing their own food. you give it to governments. they steal it, and so it rewards corrupt people. afghanistan got more than 15 billion in foreign aid. there gdp was only about 16 billion. distorted. >> that is exactly right. a report by the world bank indicated that about 97% of afghanistan gdp is the result of
aid and spending by foreign occupiers. ultimately what this means is that the entire economy is propped up by transfers from the united states and other developed countries to afghanistan. the problem here is that if those donors ever leave the country, the occupiers or those transfers stop, then there really is very little genuine sustainable economic activity within afghanistan since that ordinary afghans citizens will suffer. john: the amount of american money that was wasted or stolen must be phenomenal. there was a military officially told congress that they had these blocks of hundred dollar bills. hundred thousand dollars year. they were just around the office, tossing them like footballs to entertain themselves. much of that money disappeared. >> that is exactly right. one estimate or the best that we have is that over six and a half billion dollars just vanished. it was stolen.
the united states has no idea where it when or how it went missing, and this is the fundamental problem. a lack of accountability and responsibility. one of the basic lessons of life, one that we teach children is you have to have consequences for your actions are you will not act responsibly. when it comes to spending billions of dollars, we don't seem to hold politicians and a practition's to the same standard, and therefore they waste the money. it is not theirs, so they've really done incur the cost of wasting othe people's money. john: we should help him become self supporting capitalist. thank you. coming up, if we do go to war what are their rules? can a president really just bomb whoever he wants? that's next.
♪ john: it says in here, the constitution, at least as i read it, if america goes to work congress should declare war. except congress never declared war on korea, vietnam, grenada, panama, bosnia, afghanistan or libya. so what is up with that? we also killed people with drones without a declaration of
war. what is going on? politicians just ignore the law. >> politicians ignore the constitution. great to be here, and thank you for having me. politicis ignore the constitution. in 1973 congress enacted the war powers resolution. it's a federal statute. it basically said, the president can fight any war he once anywhere in the world for 90 days. he then has to go back to congress for funds and authorization. john: he vetoed it because he wanted more power. >> it liberates presidents to fight all of those words you just lifted off without a congressional declaration of war. no one has challenged the statute. john: how can this have not gone
to the supreme court? >> to very difficult obstacles. one is if it is a dispute between the president and congress, each of whom are elected. the courtwill say, it is a litical dispute. we are not going to get involved the other is a clause in the constitution that says you can i just challenges statute. you have to have standinghich means you are personally enharmonic by the operation of the statute. who would have standing? someone who was a victim in another country would have to come over here and challenged the statute. and. john: challenged and the court's judges said, you cannot do this. >> it has not been challenged. everybody likes it. john: you don't like it.
>> i don't like it. people who believe that this means what it says, the constitution don't like it. love that statute. it lets them wage many warss3 "without getting permission. john: this year even double i regret this authority, i believe this is right. he does not have power to authorize a military strike in a situation that does not involve stopping in actual or imminent threat to the nation. nobody is plenty of this hypocrisy. >> wait under the law and right under the constitution. under the law, war power act, any war for 90 days. anacostia's entreaties reassigned, we cannot fight any war. we can only fight a war if we
have been attacked, if we a about to be attacked, if we are asked to come to the aid of an ally, or if the u.n. asks us to enforce a law or rule that another country has agreed to. none of these situations apply to syria. john: and i go back to libya3 when the president on libya. he said, well,his is different from the hostilities and completed in the war powers act which - this is not sustained fighting more active fire with hostile forces. i would think bombing people is like going to war against them. >> of course. after he said that, no books o the ground. now, when someone says that you have to ask them whathey mean because boots on the ground means people in uniform. americans on the ground, yes. special forces out of uniform and cia who never wear uniforms. were we killing people?
gaddafi get killed for god sakes because of our bonds. he made this decision when congress was on spring break and he was on a trip to brazil. there was nothing congress could have done. and then when they came back elect the other way. john: for a long time presidents just did what they wanted. very few challenges. i get the feeling now with the tea party, growing libertarian movement, there is more of a chance that people will start looking to this and saying, you know, this matters. >> you and i have been devoting the most recent part of our professional careers to this matters. the constitution is a delegation of authority to the government. it is not an experiment. it is not a game. it is not a test. it's precisely says what freedoms we will give up for the common good. when the government operates outside the constitution it ignores the fundamental rule of law, of the land and tramples
our freedoms. that is not what we elected to government for. what will protect us from the government when the government does not abide the constitution? john: it is shall, but sometimes i think if it were written not in 18th-century language it might influence more people tod. we are out of time. thank you. next, i'm told we libertarians to oppose bombing syria are isolationists. i resent that, and i resent the people who say that. i'll explain why. ♪ >> this is not the time for armchair isolationism.
john: did you do senator rand paul the hideous isolationist because he wishes to cut to barack obama not to 1 inches of slack according to the doobies. wall street journal writers complain about the isolationist worm eating its way through the g.o.p. apple. area of the americas secretary of state says. >> this is not the time for armchair isolationism. john: give me a break. isolationist suggest libertarians don't want to kill people in feign countries, people who did not impact us want to withdraw from the worl before world war ii america
they did fight to keep refugees who were trying to escape hitler from coming to america. isolationists also opposed to international trade, immigration and. that's and that's. we want people to be allowed to be engaged everywhe let tourism flow lettuce trade with people of every nation. except when the goods across borders the army's don't. history backs that up. a report funded by several governments found the level of armed conflict is lower today via into decades ago and trade is the reason. maybe that is why i smile when i travel and see ads like these. ♪
as we trade goods, we also export our it is a and culture. i don't claim this will and conflict but what is more likely to win the hearts and minds of young people? cruise missiles may kill their cousins or the life style shown on american television? ♪ >> it is harder for the radicals to demonize people that make you laugh. but conservative said it happened because of the ronald reagan military buildup. okay. but so did american music. in 1980 bruce springsteen held a concert in east berlin and even their behind the iron curtain when its 60,000 peopleame to hear him perform. they knew the words to
boarded the u.s.a. and a sing-along. he stopped his performance ian told the crowd he hoped one day all the barriers would be torn down. one year later it did come down. i and a stand that springsteen was not responsible but the obvious comparison between oppression and the vibrant culture of america played a big part. our economy probably played a bigger part. the people of the soviet bloc led to what we had. these influences working and they don't radicalized by killing their neighbors. hopefully they will not bankrupt just the way war may. let our musec play let neocons donate books of ideas that dictators haiti and let inventions like this one exposed isolated people to the wonders of the free world. there are times when we have to go to war.
this is not one of the times. i want us to be engaged in the world without being in charge of it. that is our show. that is our show. good night. [dave gentry] hello i'm dave gentry! welcome to small stocks and big money. [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [dave gentry] i hope all of you are having a great week, thanks for coming back we've got a great show tonight. first, a redchip nation news update on a few of our companies. profire energy announced record revenue and eaings for the first quarter of fiscal 2014. they earned $7 million in revenue and $1.6 million in net income again for the first quarter.