Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  October 4, 2009 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT

6:00 pm
which is not a good name for, you know, a girl, t-rex. but we'll continue to follow it and we have found it in south dakota. back in 1992. >> julie: i am not like that! like a t-rex. >> gregg: you have no idea! >> julie: that. i'm bret baier in for chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." two global hot spots test the obama administration. afghanistan, what is needed, more troops or a new strategy? and iran, it says yes to inspectors but can it be trusted? we will discuss these challenges and more with four influencal members of the senate, republicans lindsay grahame and sax by sham bliss.
6:01 pm
chambliss a republican from georgia. lets gate to yeerngs we have seen significant developments overnight and senators, the front page of "the new york times," this morning, has this story, and reports say iran has data to make a nuclear pom and an analysis by the iaea, and, the times writes, quote, most dramatically the report says the agency assesses iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear
6:02 pm
device. and based on highly enriched uranium and the excerpts also suggest that iran has done much research and testing to perfect nuclear arms like making my high voltage debt naerts and dining warheads and we should pointed out "the times" is following up on the reporting by the associatedest press and other sites on the secret iaea report and so, senators, your thoughts on this report, and how or should it factor into the negotiations with iran? senator graham, first. >> absolutely, i think we want to do -- is challenge the iranians, to give us access to what alleged in the report and, clearly, they are not developing a nuclear program for people -- peaceful purposes and the report is yet more evidence, in a long line of evidence, that the iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon and half measures will not work and we need to get on with challenging the iranians with deadlines and ultimatums, frankly. >> senator casey?
6:03 pm
>> senator casey? >> we'll turn to senator bayh, your thought on the report -- >> granted it shows we need to bring a real sense of urgency to the issue. and the clock is running, and the iran consequenians will havr capability if something doesn't happen to change their minds and we need tough sanctions, financial and economic and need to do them now and have real deadlines and cons consequences if they don't live up to their word because they've lied repeatedly in the past, but, we are on a path toward a nuclear iran, which is not acceptable and if we avoid painful dilemma, of having to live with that or taking military action to prevent that, which may be a choice we have to face we need to act now on the financial and economic side. >> bret: senator chamblis has the administration taken the right pointed of view here. >> i think so. there are significant high level discussions, both with our allies, as well as beginning talks with iran, right now, so,
6:04 pm
i think, the administration realizes, when you combine the revelations, relative to the knowledge that iran has concerning the manufacture of a weapon, with the fact that we now have publicly disclosed the other facility in iran, at qum, wherefore the last several months we have been monitoring the operations, and, that is not a facility where the iranians are going to be manufacturing enriched uranium for nuclear power purposes. it's not big enough. they don't have enough centrifuges and it is clear that iran is headed down the track of getting a nuclear weapon, they have the knowledge and now have a secret facility that is disclosed, and what else do they have? i think that is the question the administration needs to ask. i think that is the question that the the head of the eye eye arrived on tehran on saturday to arrange the inspection of the facility, senator chamblis mentioned in
6:05 pm
qum and announced that iran has agreed to let inspectors in their on october 25th, and that is three weeks, not two weeks from now as the president forecast. and also said iran has agreed to, quoted, im principle allow the enriched uranium to, transported out of the country to russia or france, to be enriched to higher levels, for nuclear fuel and the president has the -- called the talks construct tiff beginnings, how do you see this talks. >> well, what we heard this week was certainly encouraging but i think we have to be very focused on giving the president and other parts of our government including pension funds the ability to impose sanctions. we should not have to allow the talks to be an end in themselves. that is why i and others have supported legislation that i know my colleagues support to provide a broad range of sanctions and in particular senator brownback and i have
6:06 pm
legislation to allow pension funds to divest or i should say to allow pension fund entities around the country to divest pension fund assets out of companies that are doing business with iran's energy sector up to $20 million level. so i think it is critically important that we have all of the tools on the table to impose sanctions even unilaterally if necessary. >> bret: should the senate move forward now? >> i think we should. we should at least give the president all of the -- all of the tools he needs too impose sanctions if he needs to act and certainly pension funds and any other entity that wants to help us on this should be give than authority which they don't have now under federal law. i'm glad that we are talking but we cannot allow talking and negotiation to replace strong action if we feel we have to take that step in addition to the international efforts that we have taken within the security council or other ways.
6:07 pm
we should have as many options on the table as possible. >> bret: the president specifically tauted this move to move low enriched uranium out of iran when he talked about the talks in the comments. here is what the associated press wrote on this on friday clsh -- senator bayh, do you believe the iranians are negotiating in good faith over the nuclear program? >> absolutely not. they have a pattern of deception and this may be a further example of this. they respect strength and strength alone. having this dialogue is good but you have to hold them to their word. what matters ultimately is not what they say but what they do. will they actually send the uranium out of the country?
6:08 pm
what about other hidden facilities they may have. that is why we need to tee up all of the sanctions to raise the cost of misbehavior. take them at their word? absolutely not. i'm afriday they are running the clock on us. i think we need to give them a matter of weeks to come clean on the inspections. i think we have to have firm deadlines. the sooner the better and real consequences if the deadlines aren't met. >> bret: senator graham? >> i couldn't agree more. what i would like to have is a session in the senate, maybe a couple three days, iran week where we pass evan bayh's sanction proposal regarding refined petroleum where the president would have tools to sanction companies that provide refined petroleum to iran. and a bill, radio farsi, the
6:09 pm
voice of america needs to be enhanced. i would like to see congress in the defined period of time the next couple of weeks pass a series of measures that would empower the president and our country to be tough and put some actions behind words. let's have iran week in the na sena get somethi done.e. i totally agree with him. >> bret: in the latest fox news opinion dynamics poll, 77% of those surveyed are worried about iran developing nuclear weapons and almost 70% in the poll said president obama is not tough enough on iran. senator chambliss, do you think he is being tough enough? >> what i was hoping senator obama would do in the recent talks with the allies is to go ahead and promote the putting in sanctions now against iran. evan's bill is a great bill. it is the right direction in which we need to go and rather than saying if you don't stop what you are doing we are going to impose sanctions, we have been lied to enough by iran and i would hope what the president
6:10 pm
would do is take a bolder step and go ahead and let's impose sanctions and get our allies together and say this is what we are going to do. now, if you want to us ease those sanctions off you need to come clean on your weapons program and tell us what is going on. just continuing to dialogue with them and threaten them with sanctions if the president is going to take that attitude, i don't think we will get anywhere with that. >> bret: do you agree that congress should move forward even ahead of the administration's ability to impose sanctions on a world stage? >> absolutely. i believe that when we have these measures in front of the senate, senator bayh's bill and the bill on pension funds as well as what senator graham mentioned, every possible option should be on the table here and i think that gives the administration the ability to have a broad range of choices here and that is what we want to make sure. we want to make sure that at the appropriate time if sanctions have to be imposed that they can be imposed
6:11 pm
swiftly with consequences and not have some indefinite timeline here that will allow them to continue to lie to the international community as they have done time and again. >> bret: nolast thing on iran, what is your thought on the israelis and the time table of unilaterally possibly where the end of the year. >> i think an israeli attack on iran is a nightmare for the world because it will rally the arab world around iran and they are not ey aligned now. it is too much pressure to put on israel. military action should be the last resort any one looks at and i would rather that our allies and us take military action if it's necessary. let me say this, only if it's necessary but if sanctions fail and iran is going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, israel
6:12 pm
will be more impair littled, the world will change dramatically for the worse and if we use military action against iran we should not only go after the nuclear facilities, we should destroy their ability to make conventional war. no planes that can fly and no ships that can float. knock them out conventionally as well as the nuclear programs but that would be a last resort 86 don't want israel to have to have that burden. that is not the west play to do it. >> the israelis say what is the time table or the timeline? how long should we wait? >> act first and see what effect theyville on iran. the iranian people are against this regime. empower them and isolate the regime. do what my col legs said on this show. have a series of votes in the united states senate and the house in the next two weeks to give the tools to impose meaningful sanctions on iran and if they change their
6:13 pm
behavior we can back off but do all of this in the next few weeks before we even consider military action but take military action before they get a weapon. i don't know how much time we have left but i know all this talking is not working. they did the same deal with the europeans in 2007. they said you can have the low enriched uranium, the russians can have it and they backed out then. i don't believe a thing iran says. i want them to act and then i will believe it. >> the problem with military action also is you are probably not going be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple air strike. lindsay is right it is an all or nothing deal and is it worth that at this point in time? we know they have the capability. llt militarsts i down but a is tak >> bret: how long does iran have? >> well, it has to be a reasonable length of time to allow some of these discussions that have already taken place
6:14 pm
to develop but there is no reason why you can't have on one track a parallel track of talks but also a parallel tracks for sanctions and moving forward. i think senator grahame made an important point that i shut have made earlier and that is that there is a huge difference here between the regime and the people. we saw a stirring in the hearts of the iranian people this summer. that country has changed ever. television the del vision cameras aren't documenting that necessarily. a lot of iranians who won't change and frankly identify with the united states and we have to continually be aware of not just how we talk about the regime being different from the people but also making sure that sanctions that we impose don't hit the people who are trying to free themselves from a regime or at least have some degree of a change in policy in that country.
6:15 pm
so it is an important point to keep the two separate. >> bret: senators, let's turn to afghanistan. this morning we have sad news that eight american soldiers were killed in eastern afghanistan after what is being described as a complex taliban attack on two american outposts. general stanley mcchrystal calls the situation in that country serious and says in his military judgment it is deteriorating. he wants up to 40,000 more u.s. troops in the country. senators, should the president fulfill this request? senator bayh? >> brent, unfortunately, there are no easy answers in afghanistan. if we have a refuelistic chance of achieveing that and more troops are necessary i would support that decision. there is a real question given the lack of history of a strong
6:16 pm
central government. it is riddled by corruption and incompetentence today. it is not whether we are devoted to rolfing the problem but whether the afghans can do their part. i would support the request if that is what the president decides but there is a doesn't case to be made -- decent case to be made that perhaps the afghans can't do their part. >> bret: senator graham? >> without reenforcing our troops you will hear more of what happened today. general mcchrystal says without the reenforcements we cannot change the momentum that the taliban has achieved. we had this very dilemma in iraq. we didn't have enough troops and everybody thought the country wasn't governing itself. if we don't add more troops youle see more of a what
6:17 pm
happened yesterday and the security situation is going to get worse and any hope of a central government is lost. if you send troops in we will have a second chance at government. you need to put karzai or the next governments if feet to the fire to do a better job. it is impossible to bring about better governments without security and what we have in place now is not going to work, general mcchrystal tells us that. he needs reenforcements and i hope the president will send them. the taliban are going to win if we don't change course soon. >> bret: senator casey, wednesday the president met with his national security team in the situation room with all the major players about this decision. here is what the washington post wrote about that meeting. vice president biden offered some of the more pointed challenges to mcchrystal who attended the session by video link from kabul.
6:18 pm
>> a short good answer is no, you have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish you were. a strategy that does leave afghanistan in a stable po pa paefpaef casey, what do you make of this public rift between vice president biden and general mcchrystal? >> well, first of all, i think it is vastly overdramatized. if you read the stories about general mcchrystal's presentation he talked about debate and deliberation and despite what we are hearing in washington to move in the next couple of days or the next two weeks, i think the president is doing the right thing. he is doing what general mcchrystal recommended in terms of taking time to review this and doing what the american people would expect him to do as president. there will be debates within
6:19 pm
the administration and debates in congress. that is a good thing. it shouldn't be indefinite in terms of a time frame but the best thing we should do, we cannot make the same mistakes that the government made in iraq and one of the mistakes we can't make is putting the resource and troop questions before the strategy question. we have to continue to debate not just pointing a finger at the administration but congress has a role to play here. in the senate we have to debate what the strategy should be and get that right before we talk about what the resources should be. and if it is as simple as saying whatever general mcchrystal wants in any normat, i think we will miss the boat. a lot of what general mcchrystal has recommended involves the nonmilitary aspects this of and he understands how difficult it is to get a counter insurgency strategy right and a lot of that is nonmilitary. i think we should thoroughly
6:20 pm
review his report and question him but also we need to question the strategy overall and make sure we get it right. it might be that the congress reaches a point on that we recommend a more focused counter insurgency strategy or some will say just counter terrorism but i think we need a full debate, not just a political debate as we often had with regard to the war in iraq. >> bret: senator casey so you think it is possible after the description of the meeting and this rift, if you will, that president obama could possibly disregard the advice, the request of the general that he installed in afghanistan, general mcchrystal? >> no, i don't think he will disregard any part of that report. i think he is using that report as the foundation of a discussion about strategy. but that doesn't mean there is not going to be debate within the administration. debate is good but i don't buy the idea that there is some kind of rift between general mcchrystal and parts of the administration. there will be debates but it is
6:21 pm
as important that the congress is focused on strategy before resources as the administration is. >> just two quick things, bret. it is not uncommon there that there is diversity of opinion as far as what to do on things like afghanistan. it is not not downcommon where a commander in chief will have differences of opinion with his generals. harry truman had a big difference of opinion with general mack arthur. even george bush with the surge in iraq. that could be expected. it is possible the answer may be, yes, and, yes. in the short-term to build up the capacity to stablize the country as best we can although it will always be an imperfect place and then pivot to more of a counter insurgency strategy a couple years down the road. that may be the bottom line. >> when you have a military
6:22 pm
commander on the ground, a guy who is not only an expert in the situation relative to afghanistan but is a strong military leader hand picked by the president to lead the effort in afghanistan, i think you have got to go with him. you have got to go with the detailed study that he has made and you have to remember that what general mcchrystal is recommending is really two fold. certainly more troops are going to be necessary to secure the peace in afghanistan and stop the violence. but as bob casey just said, we have also got to have a civilian component to this issue. if we are going to resolve this complex situation that evan noted earlier that exists in afghanistan. but if we going to have to of the civilians to come in and educate and train the afghanis then we have to have the security necessary to allow them to do that. i think it is imperative that we listen to the commander on the ground. >> bret: senator graham, the
6:23 pm
administration continues to say that we have time and we shouldn't rush this decision. how much time do they have and how do you think it will come out? >> well, i tonight know how it's going to -- i don't know how it is going to many could come out. a counter terrorism strategy if adopted would be the biggest strategist blunder post 9/11. it would result in the taliban taking over all or part of afghanistan. it would result in the whole region wondering who america is. pakistan which is doing a good job against their insurgency, would be undercut. you cannot fight these people from a distance. in march the president said we have to defeat the taliban and we have to make sure that al-qaeda has no safe haven. i hope that this deliberation which i understand this is a stuff decision doesn't go on so long that it becomes indecision. general mcchrystal said within a year if we don't change the momentum on the ground we could lose our ability to beat the insurgency. a counter insurgency strategy
6:24 pm
properly resourced it the best way to go forward. half measures will not only lead to a defeat in afghanistan, it will affect our ability to change iran. iran is watching us. if we are in decisive about what to do in afghanistan as an american or coalition group then they will take what we do in iran less seriously. the president has a window of time here to seriously deliberate but it's oning out and what you saw yesterday is exactly what ackenned this country. our troops are sitting ducks and they need to be reenforced. i can't guarantee what will happen with more troops. if we don't reenforce them, i can guarantee that w we will le in afghanistan and that is a mistake. >> bret: this is what was said, take a listen. >> it is okay with the administration for general
6:25 pm
mcchrystal to go on "60 minutes" and give a speech at then student for strategic studies in london but the administration does not want general mcchrystal and general petraeus before the senate armed services committee. how does that work? >> bret: senator casey, how does that work? do you share snor share senatos views. >> john is one of the voices we should listen to and take the measure. lindsey graham and john mccain and joe lieberman wrote a piece recently in the "wall street journal." on the question of who should report to the armed services committee, i'm on the foreign relations schmidt eor ni nie in time, i think we will have lots
6:26 pm
of opportunities to question general mcchrystal and maybe other administration officials as well. there is a whole long list. >> bret: he is saying he is south on 60 minutes and at this london foreign policy group and hasn't even briefed behind closed doors the senators and house members. >> well, let's be fair when president bush made the determination about a surge in iraq, he made a decision and then we got to see general mcchrystal months late earl. i think the same should happen here. the president should have access to all the information he needs as well as have the congress have a debate but this debate is not going to end the minute that the president allows people within the administration to come to capitol hill. we already had months and months of hearing and we have to continue that. one thing we should do, though, let me add this quickly, is we should have a debate in congress about what is the fastest and most effective way to get the afghan army and national police up to a level
6:27 pm
where they can provide security and take on the enemy. that debate alone is critical to getting this right. we can have long debates about how many troops should be there but a lot of the parts of the debate haven't taken place yet in the congress. >> bret: a couple of quick topics before we wrap up here. on the economy the unemployment stands at 9.8%. the highest in 26 years. mmore than 15 million americans are out of work. senator bayh, at the time of the stimulus package passage, you said of the $787 billion price tag "we all respect the president's number, it has to be big enough to really provide a jolt to the economy and create jobs." do you think the stimulus has provided a jolt to the economy and provided jobs? >> i think things would have been worse without the stimulus bill, that is true. having said that it is not
6:28 pm
satisfying that things continue to be a lot worse than any of us would like. remember that a good percentage of the jobs bill hasn't even gone into effect yet. i would have had to try to have 2 go into effect sooner and have more directly related to jobs. it continues to go into the economic blood stream and to keep things as unsatisfying as they are from being a whole lot worse. a that is a long answer of saying yes but i wish it could have done more. >> bret: senator grahah, you mentioned glenn beck and said appear to be alignedie with any party but that he is aligned with cynicism. >> what i'm saying he doesn't represent the republican party. you can listen to him if you like. i choose not to because quite frankly, i don't want to go
6:29 pm
down the road of thinking our best tay days are behind us. people are genuinely upset with how much money we are spending up here. but at the end of the day when a person says he represents conservativism and that the country is better off with barack obama than john mccain that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more i will listen. he has a right to say what he wants to say. in my view it is not the kind of political analysis that i buy into. >> bret: senators, thank you all for being with us and sharing your views on a wide range of topics. up next, more on the president's afghanistan review. and the thrill of victory and agony of defeat. the president's go for the gold olympics effort that came up
6:30 pm
6:31 pm
my assessment and best military judgment as i determine is that the situation is in some ways deteriorating. >> general stanley mcchrystal laying out the blunt language in. >> brit hume, senior political analyst and bill krystol of the weekly standard and juan williams. brit, your thoughts, publicly about whether more troops should head into afghanistan. >> it's worry some to think that the key policy voice general mcchrystal in all this is joe biden. who sits on the foreign relations committee who is in a position to do no harm but he is
6:32 pm
the lead negotiator or lead policy maker or one of them in the white house versus general mcchrystal, one hopes that general mcchrystal will win the day. basically it comes down to this. president said he had a new strategy, he was general when he laid it out in march. then he sent a new general over there to execute it who has come back and said, well, we need more troops if we're going to do this. the question is, did he change the strategy, or is he simply doing what was necessary militarily to carry it out. it's the latter, what is necessary it seems to me the president is in awkward position to rebuff him. >> i think it's more complicated than that. it's a tough decision, counterterrorism strip down choice or an all in
6:33 pm
counterinsurgency choice. either choice is gawtd, one could lead to the quagmire and one could lead to the al-qaeda regaining a foothold in afghanistan. i think in the middle ground looks worse, putting in a little more troops to muddle along. i think this is a very tough choice. this is defining moment for the president because there is no way in domestic politics when you can find a middle ground or balance one side begins the other. i think this is going to be very tough. i don't see how the counterterrorism strategy sounds too good to be true. very few troops and somehow with predator drones we can take the fight to al-qaeda. i think probably counterterrorism strategy would include more troops than the people who think it's going to be easy would expect. >> correctly what the white house thinks in the sense they have to make an excruciating decision, i think that is pathetic.
6:34 pm
it's he said its war we have to win and we have to think of afghanistan with pakistan. we can't have a stable in pakistan unless we hole hold the line in afghanistan. pakistan has nuclear weapons. why is that a tough call? our best commander, general mcchrystal he would love to do it with special forces. that is what he did in iraq. he saw it wasn't enough no iraq. general mcchrystal as many other terrorists in 2005, 2006. it's not enough. general mcchrystal and general petraeus best field commanders think it's necessary. this should not be a difficult call. >> brett: juan, do you think it's possible could side with vice president biden and disregard or decide against general mcchrystal? >> yes, think he could. it would come at some tremendous political costs. the other political side of the
6:35 pm
equation that has been ignored in this conversation so far, is that most americans, while we want to win the war in afghanistan don't want to send more troops to afghanistan. this is true amongst republicans. the left in this countries obviously is very war weary but the right is war weary. some think it's republicans are critics of the president and wants to send more troops. that is not the case. without seeing any substantial progress in afghanistan come to the forefront instead of the question about fraud and even sort of a narco terrorist connection to the karzai government, people are dubious in what exactly we are trying to accomplish. that is where think the problem lies. if you say we're out to defeat the taliban and out to defeat al-qaeda, i think you can generate more political support. how can we send general mcchrystal out to do a job where
6:36 pm
the american people here at home do not have confidence that we in fact are sacrificing our children for a real concrete purpose that is something that can be done in a matter of a short period, not an unending commitment. >> brit, senator obama spoke out loudly about the iraq surge against it. how tough will it be if he sides with the general to sell the american public and the left, his own party for a surge based on his previous stance? >> what sells in a situation like this is success on the ground. the public is always skeptical and resistant to troop commitments in difficult places. afghanistan is probably a difficult place. let's remember now the president and his party including some now who have been wavering who have been climbing out on the limb four or five years. go back to john kerry, five years ago, george w. bush took
6:37 pm
his eye off the ball in afghanistan which is the real war against terrorists to go chasing saddam hussein in iraq. this has been a consistent theme. it was president obama's theme when he was senator running for president. now he comes down to it. what does it really take. the idea is unpopular. the polls have turned on this. it's proving hard for barack obama so far. i don't know either way he gets any political relief. he f he says no now after all he said before and goes for some half measure, which is likely to fail, it seems to me the political consequences would be very severe indeed. >> let's turn to the olympics and decision out of copenhagen it was not going to chicago, even though the president made the pitch. take a listen.
6:38 pm
>> i urge you to choose chicago. if you do, if we walk this path together, then i promise you this, the city of chicago and the united states of america will make the world proud. >> the city of chicago having obtained the least number of votes will not participate in the next round. >> one the things i think is most valuable about sports is that you can play a great game and still not win. >> it's painful to watch. is it painful to this presidency. >> of course it's painful. whenever a presidential puts himself on the line and doesn't succeed. it's not good. that being said i don't think this was the olympics after all. it wasn't like a major piece of domestic legislation and i think he'll recover from this. it does raise questions about what they thought before they went. what we understand they thought they had a good chance. his trip over there and all the other heads of government were
6:39 pm
going, could have put this over the finish line. that being said, it does make you wince a little but in the end i think this is kind of low on the list of crucial defeats for the president. >> there is so much in this. by barack obama's view of the world he should have been routing for brazil to get the olympics. we don't need the olympics. we've had it and our economy doesn't need the boost of the olympics. an american president goes and tries to bully the international olympic committee, i'm here for america. can you imagine if bush had done this and we hadn't gotten this heavy-handed cowboy, unilateralist, obama falls into the trap. they run for it. i must say you couldn't be help
6:40 pm
but being amused about this. >> brett: should they receive blame, the staff the white house over there, looking back it looked like they had it in the bag? >> i don't know they had it in the bag. i think valerie and you think about valerie jarret, rahm emanuel all through mayor daly, yes, this is going to happen. we're going to get votes out of african nations and asians nations thatren't convinced. they didn't have anything lined up. its temporary embarrassment. it's not going have to a long term effect. the way it looks internationally and president saying, you know, we need to confirm this is now america working with the world. it's different than what was going under the bush administration. he got himself in a quagmire. >> we know what everybody was
6:41 pm
thinking than we did before the vote was taken. it was a long shot. maybe was poor intelligence on the part of the u.s. olympic committee people. i wonder if this view in the white house which seems to undergurd what happens if we can deploy barack obama that his wonderfulness will turn the tide change the atmosphere, will win over people. that seems to be the fundamental tenet of this administration. second point, there was a sense with chicago knocked out in the first round, but this is really the thumbing of the world's nose at this country. it suggests did not only the wonderfulness did not work but all this charming to foreign leaders hasn't worked either. >> brett: i do want to mention this. one of the reactions kale came
6:42 pm
from rowland burris who blamed the loss on george w. bush on foreign policy for eight years. >> chicago now is a victim of all of that nepotism that came out of that image. >> any comment on that? >> no comment actually when you think of the rowland burris. i do think to say, he should have gone and seeded this to brazil. i think it was worth a try. they clearly didn't have the best intelligence, but to say he should have given up when all the other heads of government were going over there and i really don't want it was not a possible choice. he did what he had to do and he lost. >> brett: we have to take a break, some key employment numbers come in worse than expected. what is going on with the recovery. recovery. our pane nkicyi -lepufeou katn se
6:43 pm
erouca y s te ona tuhachup -b. moav mooi 's p of hde tuhachup -b. coet msas nsio moav mooi
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
>> i'm working closely with my economic team to explore additional options to promote job creation. and i won't let up until those who seek jobs can find them. until businesses that seek
6:46 pm
capital and credit can thrive and until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. >> bret: that was the president on saturday and was he hinting there there could be a second economic stimulus package down this road? we're pack with bret, mara, bill and juan and unemployment 9.8% and do you think one option that he is talking about is a second stimulus package. >> not in the short-term, bret. i think what he wants to do now is to try to make sure that just as you heard him say, the credit markets, the banks in specific are more open to doing work with small business and small business being the engine for employment in the country. and if you look at wall street, right now, wall street is doing pretty good and didn't have a great week, but they are doing pretty much, for the course of the year, on an upward trajectory and look at housing starts and looking better and look at corporate mergers and this kind of confidence that would suggest people are now willing to get back in and take risk, my mortgaerging and that another positive sign and the
6:47 pm
question is the holidays and consumer confidence and the idea consumers will not spend, if they don't spend, small business doesn't hire the retail outlets and the malls and what the white house people are thinking, at the moment, is let's get this banks to be more aggressive about reaching out to small business. >> juan, don't mention unemployment, the sutdal -- sunday you are a fan of corporate mergers, and the president said, that -- looking for additional options for job creation. he has done nothing for job creation and it's stunning and what has the president proposed and congress passed that has anything to do with providing incentives for employees to hire incentives for economic growth, there is no pro-growth agenda and we're in a steep recession and in fact many of the pieces of legislation are anti-growth, increase this minimum wage and guess what, teenagers' jobs, fell 300,000 lost jobs, in the increase of the minimum wage went in the as economists predicted and the huge health care plan, a burden on business and cap-and-trade proposal which is a burden on business and did
6:48 pm
cash for clunkers which was reported friday, and moved auto sales from september to august. and, september sales back as low as they were all year and it's not a pro-growth administration, and, guess what, there is are not create -- they are not creating economic growgrowth. >> and the unemployment numbers will stay there for a while and it is hard for the vice president to continue to tout the stimulus package as working. >> the white house argument it would have been worse and i think that you can say they might be right but that is a politically unsatisfying argument to make and it would have been worse without this. i think the president has said, he also expects unemployment to go up, and possibly above ten percent and is a bad environment going into the 2010 elections, however, i think when they talk about another stimulus package they are not talking about one that looks like this first one with a lot of massive spending. i think they are talking about extending unemployment insurance, and -- >> job creator.
6:49 pm
>> talking about extending that and maybe more tax credits and i can't imagine a second round of t stimulus will be spending, it will be tax credits and maybe first time homebuyers and snierg i hope mara is right, that it won't be like this one before, in addition to not being much of a job creator the nature of it was such that it was not going to take effect if it took any, for a long time. and the normal course it has been running i think the recession will be seen as having ended by now, when economists finally look back on this with 20/20 hindsight but it is common for unemployment to continue to rise even after a recovery is begun. what seems to be happening higher and the stimulus is done so far very little to stem that, if anything and the nature of it is, and this size of it is such, that -- amount of debt incurred is so great, that the stimulus now acts as a drag on the
6:50 pm
economy going forward. so, in addition to all of the other problems with it, it is -- the stimulus now is a burden on the economy instead of being a help and my sense is, that what we are seeing is chickens are coming home to roost on one of the worst things congress has ever done. >> bret: no political appetite for a second bite at the andal. >> i hope not. >> bret: health care, the speech of saturday the president linked creating jobs to his health care overhaul. and mara, do you think that this bill, that is coming out of the senate finance committee that does not have a government run option, public option, will be what drives the day or will it somehow get added behind closed doors. >> do i think ay robust public option will get back into the bill in conference, no. i wouldn't be surprised if a trigger gets there and i think the health care bill is moving forward, step by difficult step and i'm surprised how far it has come and will get out of the committee onto the senate floor, probably, this week, and, there
6:51 pm
are many, many, many hurdles ahead but i think one of the big questions now is, will the senate democrats act like a parliamentary party on procedural matters, in other words will those moderates who don't want to vote for the final bill, agree to vote against a republican filibuster, n for closed cloet zurs and get to the bill to the floor -- cloture and moderates are recognizing they have to get the bill for an up-or-down vote even if it passes in the end. with just eber minority. >> i think -- a bare minority. >> it will fail on the floor and it has tax increases and reduces medicare payments and increases health insurance premiums and how will it be paid for and the house bill is paid for by tax increases and the corporate taxes, passed -- they defeated an attempt by froups say no tax increases for the middle class
6:52 pm
and will be reintroduced on the floor and will not pass a massive burden, tax increase and burden on the economy, when we have 10% unemployment. it will fail. >> juan. >> this is this defense of the status quo and you have to realize most americans want something done in terms of increasing -- improving the ability to get health insurance at a reasonable rate in the country and the same is true in terms of the unemployment issue, it's not about standing up for corporate america but ordinary people who think something has to be done and the stimulus was an effort to help the american people. >> bret: thank you, panel, check out this latest edition of panel-plus where our group continues the discussion on our web site,, shortly after the show ends, up next president obama takes stock of his acomcomplishment, in a surprise address to the nation. we'll explain when we come back.
6:53 pm
we know why we're here. to redefine air travel for a new generation. to ensure our forces are safer and stronger. to take the world we share to tomorrow and beyond. announcer: around the globe, the people of boeing are working together-- to make a difference. that's why we're here. "what do you mean homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods?" "a few inches of water caused all this?" "but i don't even live near the water." what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you. including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $119 a year. for an agent, call the number on your screen. si
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
>> bret: last night president obama decided to address the nation apparently only on, saturday night live, and he wenr into great detail about why the political left should be lessy than thrilled with his presidency. >> now, i just don't see why tht right is so riled up.iled how do you think the left feels? they're the ones that should be made.ho i'm sure they thought i would. have addressed at least one ofst the following things by now,heol global warming, no.l warmi immigration reform, no. gays in the military, nuh-uh. limits on executive prowrs powe, nope. looking at thiss list, i'm seeig two big accomplishments, jack and squat. >> ouch.. a program note. we'll have live coverage of theu
6:57 pm
new supreme court sessionon tomorrow night at 6 p.m. eastern. east's it for today. chris wallacete is back next wen we'll see you next fox newsee y sunday. nkicyi -lepufeou katn se erouca y s te ona tuhachup -b. moav mooi 's p of hde tuhachup -b. coet msas nsio moav mooi
6:58 pm
in poland, cargill borrowed the idea... for something quite different. small polish farms had difficulty getting... affordable feed for their smaller herds of animals. so cargill created a way to bring the feed... directly to them... on musical delivery trucks, selling a few bags per visit. ( dog barks, horse neighs ) keeping the small farmers competitive, and their animals happier. this is how cargill works with customers.
6:59 pm