tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News November 19, 2011 1:00am-2:00am PST
>> shannon: checking world headlines. secretary of state hillary clinton says there is no appetite at the u.n. for a libya style intervention in syria. activists there say security forces killed 16 protesters today. the syrian senior official said the government agreed in principle to allow arab league observer mission in that country. libya regabed the spot on the -- regained the spot on the united nations civil rights council. they promised to defend human rights and establish rule of law. the membership had been suspended over the gaddafi government violent crackdown on protesters. tens of thousands of egyptians rallied in tahrir square, protesting what they say are attempts by military rulers to designate themselves as guardian of new egypt. the head man at the pentagon has a warning for his counterpart from israel. be careful about striking
acran. national security correspondent jennifer griffin is following that story for us tonight. good evening, jennifer. >> good evening, shannon. when leon panetta met defense minister in canada he warned against the military strike that the nuclear program would have telling reporters traveling with him he still favored sanctions and diplomacy. "to go beyond that raises concerns about the unintended consequences that could result." there are going to be economic consequences to that, that could impact not just our economy but the world economy." critic on capitol hill say this sends a mixed message to iran and the region, just days after the pentagon received new 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs larger than the ones seen here. senator mark kirk introduced legislation to sanction iran's central bank. >> i'm worried that the obama administration policy in iran is one of aggressive weakness.
they are not taking any real action against the central bank of iran or other parts of the nuclear program. of the islamic republic of iran. then telling everyone else that they shouldn't do anything either. >> former defense secretary robert gates told tom sullivan on fox business network that the israeli government is as divided as the u.s. government about a military strike. >> i think we have a little more time. they have got in tough enriched uranium probably for several weapons but it is still low enriched uranium. they're still working on their weapons design. i think we have some time. the question is how much harder can you squeeze the regime iner th in tehran? >> the white house welcomed resolution from the iaea board of governors about iran nuclear program, adding it will increase pressure on iran to abandon the drive for a nuclear bomb. but it did not specify how it would do so.
shannon? >> shannon: jennifer griffin live from the pentagon. thank you, jennifer. we told you last night that president obama threatened to veto a new defense spending bill over the handling of terrorism suspects. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge has more for us this evening. >> reporter: shannon, the president's veto comes after five months of negotiation between the white house and senate armed service committee over the questioning of detainees. >> the administration policy has been a complete failure. >> on the senate floor, the obama administration was chided for promising to close gitmo and failing. promising to try the 9/11 suspects in a federal court and failing. for lacking a clear policy for detention and questioning of terror suspects. >> if today we capture al-zawahiri, the leader of al-qaeda, what would we do with him? >> the requirement to detain a person in military custody does not include u.s. citizens but it would cover al-qaeda terrorists arrested on u.s. soil. >> is america part of the battlefield? >> you better believe it's part of the battlefield. the administration could use a
national security waiver to send some cases to the f.b.i. and ultimately criminal courts. concessions were made to the white house. >> they want flexibility. that is exactly what we provide in this amendment. >> yet, the white house calls detainee language unwise and unwarranted restrictions to combat terrorism. key democrats agree. >> i view the detention provisions of this bill, as really pernicious, as an attack as the executive po power of the president. >> the bill codifies indefinite detention but prohibits the gitmo detainees brought to the mainland using defense department funds. shannon? >> shannon: thank you. still ahead -- how exactly do you go about cutting more than $1 trillion from the budget? but first, downside of occupy wall street
>> shannon: new york mayor michael bloomberg said today several thousand protesters who marched over the brooklyn bridge thursday do not represent occupy wall street. bloomberg said the vast percentage were part of an organized labor union event. tonight, correspondent kohl's looks at the neg -- correspondent jamie colby looks at the negative movement. >> reporter: for two months protesters in cities across the country shut down streets, bridges and neighborhoods often during rush hour. even children have had trouble getting through the protests to get to school. and while some protesters have been injured in scuffles with police, the occupy wall street protests have had a financial and now physical toll on poce officers injured trying to keep the peace. wall street workers are fed up. >> we work on wall street, we cannot get to work because the people are here in our way. do you see what is going on here? we have jobs.
we work every day and trying to stimulate the economy. and we cannot get to work. >> the protesters are out in smaller numbers today in new york and other cities and first responders remain at the ready. at least two nypd officers were seriously injured thursday. after a few protesters turned violent. one officer required 20 stitches to the hand he used to block a glass object thrown at him. other officers needed medical treatment after unknown liquid hit them in the face. >> we will ensure that everyone has the right to exercise first amendment rights, as well as the wright to go to work, go to school. if any one's actions cross the line and threaten the health and safety of others, including our first responders, we will respond accordingly. >> a member of occupy wall street insists their cause is justified and peaceful. >> i have been told that there have been a few minor injuries of police officers, which is regrettable. we are a nonviolent movement. it's important to point out significant injuries to the
protesters. one young man had his head split open. >> reporter: the protesters say they will continue to take to the street, but mayor bloomberg says they cannot take away the rights of others. "we are not going to let that happen." in new york, jamie colby, fox news. >> shannon: college sports had another child sex scandal. espn reports two men who served as ball boys for syracuse basketball team decades ago accusing long time assistant coach bernie fine of molesting them. fine is denying allegations and has been placed on explosive leave. a scranton newspaper quotes a trustee at penn state university saying the admission by the football coach joe paterno he should have done more about alleged child sexual abuse by one of the former assistants was a prime factor in his dismissal. according to his son today, paterno has a treatable form of lung cancer. also today the school learned the ncaa will investigate the institutional control over its
sports programs. one controversial that seemed to outlast the rest in the past half century is getting a new look. chief washington correspondent james rosen has that story. >> reporter: few historical events are indelibly stamped on the modern mind as the as is nation of president kennedy, yet the fact osthat have dark day face eternal double jeopardy, destined to be tried and retried with universal agreements about them as illusive as the prospect of time travel, itself. undaunted a team of historians retired secret service officers, ballistics experts and i.t. specialists all retained by the national geographic channel, sister network of fox news, undertaken new reenactment of the crime, aided by digital upgrade to home movies take than day, some not seen in decades. resulting documentary "jfk, the lost bullet" reaffirms that lee harvey oswalt was the lone gunman but rewrites the timeline of the assassination.
>> it shows that oswald had more time, almost twice as much time as commonly assumed. the people think of six seconds in dallas. we say it's if excess of 11 seconds. >> the team applied the technology the famous real-time document of the assassination, but holland believes it's incomplete document. >> i stood where he stood. what they capture the assassination in progress already commenced. if you read the testimony you will see he says he only heard two shots. we believe he only filmed two. >> as the motorcade turns to houston street. >> also given the nat geo treatment is the amateur film of robert hughes, customs agent who stood at the southeast corner of the plaza. >> after the shot were fired he looked up to fifth and sixth floor. >> hughes stopped filming as the kennedy motorcade turned to elm street but they believe that he captured something vital and discernible only after the digital upgrade.
>> you can see the shape in the window, lee harvey oswald getting in position to fire the first shot. >> still, up to 7 in 10 americans continue to believe lee harvey oswald was as he claimed a patsy or that he acted as part of a conspiracy. in washington, james rosen, fox news. >> shannon: you can see "jfk the lost bullet" sunday, 9:00 eastern on the national geographic channel. we will tell you how and why peta is trying to get a town in tesch to change its name for thanksgiving. european bureaucrats come to amazing conclusion about you never know when,
but thieves can steal your identity. turning your life upside down in a matter of seconds. hi. hi. you know i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. you just read my mind. [ male announcer ] just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money, and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock. lifelock is the leader in identity theft protection.
relentlessly protecting your personal information to help stop the crooks in their tracks before your identity is attacked. protecting your social security number, your bank accounts, even the equity in your home. i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. [ male announcer ] credit monitoring alone is not enough to protect your identity, and only tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 60 days later. with lifelock, as soon as we spot a threat to your identity within our network, our advanced lifelock id alert system directly notifies you, protecting your identity before you become a victim. identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me. and it's gone away because of lifelock. [ male announcer ] while no one can stop all identity theft, if the criminals do manage to steal your information, lifelock is there to help fix it with our $1 million service guarantee. that's right. a $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. call now to try lifelock risk free for 2 full months.
that's right, 60 days risk free. use promo code: norisk. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this document shredder to keep your personal documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value, free! get the protection you need right now. call or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: norisk. plus get this document shredder, free! but only if you act right now. call now! lifelock service guarantee cannot be offered to residents of new york.
ground for an agreement. that will simultaneously address both our nation's job crisis, and the debt crisis. >> if you are going to ask every average american who drive askar, goes to work, struggles each day to pay their bills, and they're going to somehow be part of the solution, to have something on the table that does not ask the wealthiest people in the country to share in it would be unconscionable. >> shannon: all right. one of the republicans, one of the democrats, both on the super committee talking about what progress they have or haven't made. let's talk about it with the panel. steve hayes, senior writer for "weekly standard." charles lane, editorial writer for "washington post." syndicated columnist charles krauthammer. happy friday to you, gentlemen. good to see you all. steve, start with the issue about deadlines. we are hearing conflicting reports from the hill about when they truly have to get a deal done. we are hearing from senator kyl it's sunday night to get it to cbo to be scored. others saying monday night. it's even less time than it
sounds like they had. >> it is. these are moving deadlines, flexible deadlines. ultimately, arbitrary deadlines. they came up with november 23, because they wanted to do it on november 23. i don't think the deadlines mean that much. if you want to have it scored, you have to get it to the cbo in time to meet this november 23 deadline. look, i don't think the deadlines here are the issue so much as the fact that both, people in both political parties, basis of both political parties have come to the conclusion now that this going to be a bad deal. whatever comes out of the super committee is not a good thing. both on substance but more importantly on politics. you have democrats making an argument now they don't want this to pass because they don't agree with the kind of potential entitlement reform it could involve. you have republicans saying we don't want real tax increases that the democrats are insisting on. in effect, the same exact argument we had at the time of the debate over whether to raise the debt ceiling in the first place, surfacing again
here. the big issue for me is that you now have the white house, which thinks it's in this political interest for this to fail. many democrats think it's in their political interest to fail. many repubcans. if you have that many people with the same political calculation, it's unlikely to produce something. >> shannon: charles, do you think they reach agreement or too much undone and too many force with an interest in thinking something can't get done. >> i'm a optimist. i said they will g a deal to raise the debt ceiling and i was sort of right. butvy to agree with steve. this committee embodies the polarization in washington. made up of the most conservative and most liberal people they can think of. the theory is if you get the most conservative and liberal people to agree, then you can get an agreement. but instead, it turned into another arena where both sides can campaign for 2012. and drive the message. we just saw john kerry doing it. talking the rich.
that is a talking point. it's on to sequestration. >> shannon: pat toomey seems to suggest in his comment on "fox news sunday" and other places that if it got to sequestration, there are members of congress who would be willing and expecting to possibly try to find a way to maneuver around it. it kicks in cuts for a number of things including defense. charles, do you think they would get away with something like that? the president said he would veto a plan like that. >> the cuts, especially defense cuts will only kick in, in 2013. the president may be a bystander at no point. there is no way, even if you were in office, congress could not reject it. they have saying it's going to end military and the republicans opposing it as well. a way it will be ultimately found that will undo it.
that is one of the reasons why the pressure is off. the trigger everybody understands are not real. congress can do whatever it wants. it can unlock the padlock, i think however i would not be as even-handed in the portioning the blame here. we heard from toomey and two conservative senators on the republican side. they're willing to increase net reeve knews, which is what the democrats demanded but not tax rates. they want to broaden the base. eliminate the loopholes, then you can lower the rates or keep them the same. what you get is democrats refusing to take yes for an answer. as we saw in what kerry said. all he cares about about is the arguement that republicans are protecting the rich because they won't raise tax rates. this isn't about rates. this is about revenue. what we are trying to get is revenue to decrease the deficit, you do it by tax
reform. you lower the rates, you eliminate the loopholes which essentially the rich are paying. and you get tax reform, lower rates, higher revenues. >> shannon: let's talk about the sequestration issue if it happens. you feel confident they would go around it if it happens. buck republican congressman with the house armed services committee wrote a letter to the cochairs of the super committee saying if sequestions ration were to occur the impact on the national security, men and women in uniform would be immediate, dire and some cases irrevocable. do you think they take the point in hand? >> he is making valid point. his arguement is the military is required a budget baited on what is in front of them. what is in front of them is a massive reduction in budget. they have to plan accordingly. either they spend time planning for budgets they will never actually see, or they will have to see the cuts. in either case, they are wasting a ton of time or dramatically weakening our capabilities in both cases
that is a very bad outcome. i think he raises completely valid points and one way though i agree with what charles is saying undoing the sequestration down the road an area that would be immediate negative impact that would be unfortunate. >> i'm concede it would be a waste of time to plan for a sequestration that is not going to happen. but it's a lot less damaging than actual sequestions ration, which even the democratic secretary of defense said it would be devastating. >> shannon: i want to mention today the house data voted down balanced budget amendment. that included some democrats that voted yes in '95 when it was a big issue. why the flip in votes this time? >> steny hoyer, who is exhibit "a," said he has learned in the interim that three-fifths could not be mustered to get out of the deal, as he once thought in 1995. don't forget, there was one important republican dave drier who supported in the past again tonight and for good reason, one of many good reasons that he would start to turn every budget in to a
federal lawsuit. the courts would get involved in what is an outlay and what is a receipt and so forth. frankly, i agree with mr. dryer about, that this kind of a gimmick and everybody knows it. >> shannon: each day we find something new to disagree about. gentlemen, we leave the discussion there. up next, the friday lightning round.
>> shannon: every week, viewers vote for your choice online in the friday lightning round poll. this week, should justices kagan and thomas recuse from the healthcare case won with 33% of the vote. back with the panel now to talk about it. start by listening to a little bit of the newest justice elena kagan's testimony during her confirmation hearings on this point. >> i would recuse myself from
any case in which i have been counsel of record at any stage of the proceedings, in which i signed my kind of brief. in addition to that, i said to you on the questionnaire i would recuse myself in any case in which i played any kind of substantial role in the process. >> shannon: today, there is a brand new letter from the top republican in the senate, mitch mcconnell and jon kyl, senator jon kyl reaching out to eric holder in the justice department demanding to know more about elena kagan's involvement with potentially coming up with the census for the healthcare law when she was solicitor general working with the administration. have you had a chance to look at the letter? what is your take on whether there are new legitimate objections to kagan? >> vy read the letter. it's interesting. if you had to go based on what we know right now i would say no, she probably doesn't have to recuse herself. however, they raise two additional things that i think present some problems and they
challenge most importantly her characterization of the need to recuse if she had a substantial role. they say that is not what the law says. they raise two things. she was cced on a number of e-mails parts of discussions among justice department personnel, about how they would defend the healthcare statute. this is number one. she said she wanted her office to be a part of discussions. whether she was herself, we don't yet know. the justice department isn't providing the information that the senate republicans are seeking. >> shannon: some documents have been turned over but apparently they are looking for more. charles, what do you make of this? people say if you are talking about justice thomas or justice kagan those asking for recusals are doing so for political reasons to influence the outcome of the case? >> it won't surprise you to learn i think they are doing it purely for political reasons. this issue is really hot with the base of the democratic party about clarence thomas and vice versa on the republican party. boy, it's just red meat to party faith that say you have
bankrupt justices on one side or the other. they've been sending fundraising efforts out about clarence thomas for a while. neither one of them should have to recuse. the issues are tangential. at the supreme court level, there is a strong resumption against recusal because it's the court of last resort. i don't think it will recuse. furthermore, the votes will cancel it out in either case. >> shannon: i don't think either starts down from it. >> i hardly endorse chuck's cynicism. i think the kagan criteria are correct, no evidence she had substantial role. what thomas, the idea that a spouse would make you have to recuse yourself, spouse activities is insulting. if the sexes were reversed and he were a woman because of a husband's activity, it would said a justice had to recuse him or herself it would be called sexism. these are dismissible objections. >> shannon: we are talking about the work that jenny thomas, justice thomas' wife has done with groups that
oppose the healthcare law. moving to the next topic, newt gingrich is having a good week. talk about the polling numbers throughout and then we will break them down. the last fox news poll, looking at the g.o.p. presidential nominee preference, gingrich is one point ahead of romney at 23%. then look at iowa, the first key caucus state. a new poll out from rasmussen reports really, we don't know if it's an anomaly. we'll let you hash it out. gingrich at 32%. romney at 19%. that stands in contrast to what we had from the beginning of the week which was a four-way tie between cain, paul, romney, gingrich. new numbers out from mcgellan strategies, romney at 29%, and gingrich at 27%. that's by far the closest poll there. if you look at the last month or so of polling from new hampshire there is a broader spread in favor of new hampire. but this is the latest polling number out of new hampshire. what do you make of it? is gingrich going to be able to maintain the momentum to peak in six weeks when it
counts? >> be clear, it is momentum. whether the individual polls are accurate or not, newt gingrich has momentum. nationally and it appears he has it in the key states. the most important and interesting potential poll is the new hampshire poll where he was not even really registering in the significant numbers until the past couple of weeks. now if he is actually within let's say five points or eight points of mitt romney there, given the amount of time and attention that mitt romney has paid to new hampshire, that changes the dynamic of the race. >> shannon: charles? >> only, those people who left gingrich's campaign last summer to join rick perry's campaign because newt didn't have a chance are eating their hearts out now. it's incredible how one candidate after another another surges as the candidate of the week of the tea party/conservatives who are looking desperately for an alternative to mitt romney. we will see if it holds up when they hear more about newt's pseudolobbying
activity, insider status in washington, et cetera, et cetera. i assume the only reason that romney hasn't said more about that, the opposition research was focused on other people all this time. they will get around to it. >> shannon: charles? >> i have seen the report if you study attacks of candidatepse on each other to debates, all of them sustained a lot of attacks. gingrich has had none directed at him. i think because of the bad start he had, people assumed he wasn't going to be a factor. now it starts and, you know, you have the stories about his business activities and i think there are also stories about his ideological inconsistencies over time. we'll see when these hit, we're going to see whether it has any impact at all or it could have no impact at all. the numbers are i think on polls taken before a lot of this information had come out. >> shannon: yes. it's been a busy week news wise for him. gentlemen, thank you very much. that's it for the panel. stay tuned. life on the campaign trail can be grueling.
>> campaign trail is exhausting. plenty of opportunities to filibuster even the simplest qution. >> this is jeopardy. >> welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the deciding game. category is famous monuments. this structure in washington, d.c. is named after our first president. rick? >> the, um -- [beeping] >> herman? >> i have got all this stuff twirling around in my head. >> michelle? >> that's really tough. >> rick? >> herman? >> no, that's a different one. >> rick? >> alley oops. >> see you tomorrow. come on, everybody.