tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News November 29, 2011 6:00pm-7:00pm EST
>> republican presidential candidate mitt romney one-on-one. this is "special report." >> good evening. i'm bret baier. the romney interview in just a moment, but first the headlines. president obama is urging iranian authorities to punish protesters who stormed the british embassy and ambassador' residences in tehran today. a showdown is brewing in congress over how to pay for an extension and expansion of a payroll tax cut and herman cain told supporters today that he will assess whether to continue his presidential campaign. monday a georgia woman said she's carried on a long-term sexual affair with cain. he denies it. now mitt romney. he's been in the business of running for president for a long time. the former massachusetts
governor has run a methodical campaign and wants challengers surge and fall. his focus today, laying the groundwork for florida's primary. governor romney came to miami to tout a trio of endorsements from cuban lawmakers and members of the community. >> thank you so much. and to to mario and lincoln, thank you so much for your endorsement, your help. >> governor, thanks for the time. >> i began our interview right in the middle of the working warehouse in between juice bottles, asking about another endorsement. >> the new hampshire "union-leader endorsed newt gingrich over the weekend, that he has courage and conviction and the editor confirmed it was about you. what's your reaction to the endorsement and specifically the charge that you lack conviction?
>> you know, the "union-leader's" not always been happy with me. speaker gingrich is a good man. we have different backgrounds. he spent his last 30 or 40 years in washington. i spent my career in the private sector. i think that's what the country needs right now. with regards to my own views, i'm happy to have people take a look at my book. i wrote that a couple years ago, laid out my views for the country, and i believe that my views are what are essential to get this country going again. so no problem with newt gingrich. good man. but a very different person i am based on our life experiences. >> if speaker gingrich became the republican nominee, do you think he could beat president obama in november 2012? >> i think i stand by far the best shot of replacing president obama among the republicans in the field. that doesn't mean that others wouldn't have a good shot at it as well, but i wouldn't be in this race if i didn't think i had unique background and vision for america, and the capacity to actually replace president obama.
i think to get president obama out of office, you're going to have to bring something to the race that's different than what he brings. he's a life-long politician. i think you have to have the credibility of understanding how the economy works. and i do. that's one reason i'm in this race. >> like the "union-leader," your critics charge that you make decisions based on political expediency and not core conviction. you have been on both sides of issues, and there's videotape going back years, speaking about climate change, abortion, immigration, gay rights. how can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the white house? >> bret, your list is not accurate, so, one, we'll have to be better informed about my views on issues. look at what i've written in my book. you can look at a person who's devoted his life to his family, to his faith, to his country, and i'm running for president
because of the things i believe i can do to help this country. i know in politics there are those who try in every way they can to tear down one another, but the real question is, does barack obama have the capacity to lead this country out of a very difficult economic setting? the answer is no. he's proven he doesn't. i do. that's my experience. that's what i know how to do. the american people want someone who knows how to lead, who believes in the free economy, and understands the principals it takes to get america strong, economically, militarily, and culturally. >> i'm sure you've seen these ads, using videotape of you in previous years, speaking on various issues. >> uh-huh. >> it seems like it's in direct contrast to positions you take now. >> well, i'm glad that the democratic ads are breaking through and you got -- >> jon huntsman has a couple ads that duty exact same thing. >> there's no question but that people will take snippets, things out of context, and show there are differences, which
there are not. i'd change my mind regarding abortion. i'm pro-life. i did not take that position years ago. that's the same thing that respected with george bush and others in the pro-life movement. >> in recent days you charged that speaker gingrich was proposing amnesty with essentially what he said in the last debate. you were attacking him on immigration, but you took a similar position back in 2006-2007, telling bloomberg that some illegal immigrants need to be allowed to stay, come out of the shadows, and "we need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status. we're not going to go through a process of tracking them all down and moving them out." is that different than where you are now? >> you know, my view is that those people that are here illegally today should have the opportunity to register and to
have their status identified and those individuals should get in line with everyone else that's in line legally. they should not be placed ahead of the line. they should instead go at the back of the line, and they should not be allowed to stay in this country and be given permanent residency or citizenship merely because they've come here illegally. >> isn't that what gingrich is saying? isn't he saying short of citizenship -- >> i can't tell you what speaker gingrich is saying. >> yet you call him -- >> if he does what i believe he said he was going to do, allow those people to become citizens, that's providing for them a form of amnesty. i'll let him describe his view. my view is straightforward. for those people who came here illegally, they should have the opportunity to get in line with everybody else who wants to come in to this country, but they go to the back of the line and they should be given no special pathway to citizenship or permanent residency merely because they've come here illegally. >> and they'd do it outside of
this country? >> whether they -- whether they apply here or apply by going home, i think i've said in the past it makes more sense for them to go home if we set up a system to apply here. >> the question is what you do with the 11-plus million people who are already here, how you handle them. back in 2006-2007 you made a point of saying, we're not going to round them up and send them out. >> that's right. >> what do you do with them? >> there's great interest on the part to talk about what we do with the 11 million. i say let's make sure we secure the border, and don't do anything that talks about bringing in a wave of those, attracting a new wave of people into the country illegally. the right course for us is to secure the border and say nothing about amnesty or tuition breaks to illegal aliens or anything else that draws people into the country illegally. the right course, secure the border, then we can determine what's the right way to deal with the 11 million, to make it as clear as i can possibly can.
let those people apply, just like everybody else that wants to come to this country, but they have to apply at the back of the line as opposed to jumping in the front because they've come here illegally. >> about your book, you talk about massachusetts healthcare. we've heard you many times, in the debates and interviews, talk about how it is different in your mind the president's healthcare law, obamacare. the question is, do you still support the idea of a mandate? do you believe that that was the right thing for massachusetts? do you think a mandate, mandating people to buy insurance is the right tool? >> bret, i don't know how many hundred times i've said this, too -- this is an unusual interview. all right, let's do it again. absolutely, what we did in massachusetts was right foumarts. i've said that time and time again, this people of the state continue to support it by 3-1, but it's also designed for massachusetts, not for the nation, and at the time our bill was passed, and that was brought forward as an issue, there were people who said, is this something you'd like to have the
entire nation do? i said no. this is not a federal plan. it's a state plan. and under the constitution, states should be able to craft their own plans, and our plan -- >> governor, you did say on camera and other places, that at times you thought it would be a model for the nation. >> you're wrong, bret. >> no, there's tape -- >> continue to read the tape, and the tape goes on to say for each state to be able to look at it. i was asked time and again, in the last debates, look back at the 2008 campaign, on the stage i was asked in the debate, is your massachusetts plan something you would have the nation do as a federal plan? each time said, no, the answer is no. when you write a book, you have the ability to put down your entire view. i put in that book, as clearly as i possibly could, that the plan we did in massachusetts had many features that i thought should be adopted by other states. i thought there were very good ideas in there that could be a model for the entire nation. >> you think that you are well positioned to go up against president barack obama on the
issue of healthcare? >> of course, the best equipped, the best equipped. i understand lightning. spent a good portion of my career working in healthcare. i came up with a plan, unlike his, that doesn't cost a trillion dollars. unlike his, we didn't raise taxes. unlike his, i didn't cut mark by half a -- cut medicare by half a billion dollars. this is states crafting plans that work for their states, not a federal, one-size-fits-all plan. >> in the next series of questions, i brought our center seat segment to the governor with questions from the panelists. >> steve hayes from the "weekly standard" asked this. can you name two issues on which your views are not in line with the views of the conservative base of your party? >> you know, i don't typically think about how i'm not in line with the conservative base of the republican party. i think in terms of what i
believe. that's what i've spoken about as i've run for office more than once. i have a record as a governor that laid out my views, or, if you will, exposed my views by virtue of what we did in the state of massachusetts. >> is there one? >> there are a number of issues where i part company with other members of my party. i've got a carbon copy of all the -- i'm not a carbon copy of all the people in my party. would you say anything to get elected? if that was the case, would i still be defending massachusetts healthcare. it's by far the biggest challenge i have in the primary race. if i were willing to say anything to get elected, wouldn't i just say, oh, it was a mistake in i've watched other people on the stage, when they talk about cap and trade policies, they say, oh, that was a mistake. an ad on global warming, they say it was a mistake. they brush it aside, and that makes them more attractive in a primary. i'm standing by what i did in massachusetts. the biggest issue that dogs me in the primary campaign, i'm
absolutely firm that it was the right thing for our state. i'll defend that. i understand it has political implications, and if it keeps me from winning a primary, so be it. but that happens to be the truth. >> another question, if you were president this week, what do you do immediately in response to the pakistani's decision to shut off nato supply lines to afghanistan and force cia to vacate a key base used for drone operations? >> well, this ought to involve the personal attention of the president of the united states, either in person or on the phone. there ought to be a building relationship with leadership in pakistan to understand our mutual interests. i'm afraid that we're growing further and further apart, in part because of a president who simply doesn't know how to lead. we need to have a president who can be on the phone, who can have a personal relationship, with generals in pakistan, with members of the isi, to assure that they understand exactly
where we're coming from, and we understand their interests. we recognize that the pakistan people and the leaders of pakistan, of course, it's a very multifractioned group there, that they will act out of their self-interest. they don't up nights what's wondering for the united states. they think about what's best for their lives and their careers. we need to understand that. then we need to make sure we have places of common ground where we can work together. i think you're seeing a pulling apart of our nations, and that would have grave consequences, long term and short-term. >> charles krauthammer asked, you pledged as president you would stop iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the last resort, of course, a military attack. you're saying you're prepared to carry it out if necessary. he asks, would it be a single strike or sustained bombing campaign like in serbia, aimed at only the weapons or the pillars of the regime if you got to that point? >> before i could make a decision of that nature i'd have
to have a thorough top-secret briefing by our military, to understand what our options are, what the responses would be from the iranian military, the intelligence community would have to weigh in. there's a lot more information i'd have to have to know what type of military strike would be appropriate and effective. >> would you be oprepared to do it unilaterally if need be? >> of course. >> lightning round. what's the last book you're reading? >> i'm reading a fun right now, so i'll skip that. i just read "decision points" by president bush. >> do you think your faith will hurt you in this primary election, and what do you think the biggest misconception of your faith is? >> i think it may have some impact among a narrow group of individuals, but by and large i don't think it will make the decision. biggest misconception is the name of our church. it's the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. >> a lot of people talk about vision. what does 2016 look like after
first term of president romney? >> a greater middle-class in america again, where people have the conviction that the future is bright than the past. america has to be strong, with strong culture, with a strong economy, and a military that's second to none. and we're losing faith in those things. i want to make america stronger again. america will be a stronger nation with freedom and opportunity as we've enjoyed in our past. >> is unemployment rate, a certain number? >> you'll see unemployment down significantly. i look at adding about 11.5 million jobs in four years. that's associated with about 4% gdp growth, getting our unemployment rate down to just a little over 6%, as i recall. we have to be a job creating machine again as a nation. i also see us having our spending as a percentage of the gdp down from 25% of gdp down to 20%. those are numbers. the vision is different than just numbers.
the vision is people working again, rising incomes in america, confidence in the future, and a conviction that america is strong and that it is going to be an american century as opposed to a global international century or an asian century. it's going to be an american century. >> did you think you have work to do to convince republican voters to trust you? >> bret, the american people have had a good chance to get to know me over the last four years. some have read my book, seen me in the debates, some saw me four years ago when i ran. i have a lot more work to do to win. it's a far cry from being in my pocket at this point, and i'll keep campaigning. >> thank you, governor, for your time. >> thanks, bret. >> analysis from the panel. still ahead, herman cain reassesses. and president obama criticizes iran over storming the british embassy.
>> protesters stormed two british diplomatic compounds in tehran, sparking condemnation from the united nations to the white house. >> that behavior is not acceptable, and i strongly urge the iranian government to hold those responsible to task for rioters to essentially be able to overrun the embassy and set it on fire is an indication that the iranian government is not taking its international obligation seriously. >> the crisis in tehran played out as vice president biden landed in iraq for a surprise trip. amid questions about whether the full u.s. withdrawal of troops will create a security vacuum the iranians can take advantage of. white house officials have rejected that suggestion, but the president was vague today about what consequences iran will face for the scene at the british embassy. >> we're deeply concerned about that situation, and we expect to see some sort of definitive
action sometime very quickly. >> at a brief white house summit with european leaders monday, the president continued to insist economic sanctions are isolating iran, but today's events on the heels of the iaea report showing iran is still making strides in its quest for nuclear weapons and tehran's attempt to assassinate the saudi ambassador to the u.s. show iran is still thumbing its nose to the west. sanctions are not a magic wand however. you have to ask yourself, will the sanction yield the result that you seek? are you punishing them enough they will change their behavior? >> the president's allies say the sanctions are hitting the iranian revolutionary guard and are mr. obama's best options right now. >> short of a military strike of some kind, that's about all you can do. you know, we're withdrawing from iraq, beginning to withdraw down in afghanistan that will make other options more feasible for us, but that really is the only card that's left to be played at this point. >> senior officials privately say the last thing they want to do right now is start another
war in the middle east,-also note they need to be surgical about the sanctions. if they try to hit the iranian central bank and oil prices spike, they may do more damage to the global economy than to the iranian government. bret? >> ed henry on the north lawn, thank you. >> we learned the s&p rating service has cut its credit ratings on 37 of the world's largest financial institutions, including some of the biggest here in the u.s. on the list, bank of america, citigroup, goldman sachs group, jpmorgan chase, morgan stanley, and wells fargo. s&p says the changes reflect a new methodology reflecting less confidence in the ability of governments to bail out troubled banks. american airlines and its parent company are filing for bankruptcy. the country's third largest airline is trying to cut cost and unload massive debt brought on by labor struggles and high fuel prices. american says the filing will have no impact on travelers for now. stocks were mixed today, and
a political showdown is brewing over a payroll tax cut. democrats want to pay for it by raising taxes on high income earners. republicans do not. here's chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel. >> this week the senate's expected to take up an extension and expansion from 2.to 3.1% of the payroll tax holiday. the bill sponsored by a pens democrats bob accuracy would pay for it with a surtax on millionaires deposited into the general fund, not directly into the social security trust fund. republicans oppose the surtax and their senate leader mitch mcconnell announced the gop will offer an extension of the 2% cut for individuals but funded in an unspecified way. >> we'll offer an alternative to the one being proposed in the senate, which as i indicate would have a permanent tax increase on very, very large number of small businesses. >> senate democrats say voting against an extension would amount to voting to raise taxes
for 120 million families by about $1,000 each. the senate majority leader tried to make his case by citing the people in senator mcconnell's own state. >> every kentucky family will keep money under our expanded payroll tax break. 70,000 friends in kentucky will benefit from the new tax cuts. >> the administration says this is a critical time for the economy and this would help strengthen recovery, but the president's economic advisors do not want to discuss alternatives like cutting spending until the millionaire surtax receives a vote. >> i think that senator casey's proposal would provide very important support for the economy right now. i think it's done in a fiscally responsible way, and we should take things from there. >> that comment seems to suggest the white house is no longer demanding this must be paid for, and now democrats are considering the possibility of a straight extension if necessary to avoid allowing taxes to go up. bret? >> mike emanuel, live on the hill tonight.
congralations. today, the city of charlotte can use verizon technology to inspire binesses to conserve energy and monitor costs. making communities greener... congratulations. ... and buildings as valuable to the bottom line... whoa ! ... as the people inside them. congratulations. because when you add verizon to your company, you don't just add, you multiply. ♪ discover something new... verizon. urney across america, i've learned that when you ask someone in texas if they want "big" savings on car insurance, it's a bit like asking if they want a big hat... ...'scuse me... ...or a big steak... ...or big hair... i think we have our answer. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
>> while mitt romney was trying to gain support in florida, newt gingrich was in south carolina, and texas governor rick perry was in new hampshire, but today's big question is will herman cain be campaigning anywhere in another few days? here's chief political correspondent karl cameron. >> one day after denying a georgia woman's allegations of an extramarital affair with him and vowing to stay in the gop presidential race, herman cain told staffers on a conference call this morning, "we have to do an assessment as to whether or not will create a cloud in people's minds, as to whether they would be able to support us going forth." cain continues to deny the affair and allegations of four other women of sexual harassment and unwelcomed advances. cain told staffers he'd let them
know what he decides in a couple of days. he's already canceled a glitzy dinner in new york sunday night. gingrich was in south carolina where a new poll shows him 11 points ahead of romney. cain's a distant third. gingrich blasted romney and michele bachmann, though not by name, for "grossly misstating his position on illegal immigration" by saying gingrich backs amnesty for all 11 million illegal aliens currently in the u.s. >> it is an absolute falsehood to suggest that i favor amnesty for 11 million people, period. >> gingrich says some illegal immigrants who have been in the u.s. for a very longtime have been productive and paid their taxes, might be granted a path to legalization, not amnesty, not full citizenship. campaigning in new hampshire, texas governor rick perry echoed similar views. >> there's going to be an appropriate discussion in congress on how to deal with an individual who has been here maybe for some long period of time, but the idea that, you
know, amnesty is not on the table, period. >> romney backed the path to citizenship in 2007, but now calls the beginningry/perry position amnesty, and told fox today that he now thinks all illegal aliens should be expelled and go to the back of the line for citizenship. >> my view is to get a permanent residency in this country, those that have come here illegally should not be given a special pathway or special right to become a citizen or permanent resident. >> all of the republican candidates agree that the decisive issue in next year's race against president obama will be jobs and the economy, but for the last two weeks now they've been duking it out over illegal immigration. the leadoff gop caucuses in iowa are exactly five nights from tonight. bret? >> thank you. delegates in south africa today heard a report saying world temperatures are rising and could lead to irreversible changes to the planet, but chief washington correspondent jim
angle tells us conceptics say the science between the theory is suspicious. >> critics say emails paint a picture of cherry picking research to make client change look worn it is. >> they showed the world that they've been conceal and manipulating data, involved in essentially a conspiracy. >> they seem to be wanting to bend the research toward their desired end and not be unbiased arbiters of the science. >> in the emails, scientists quibble with one another regarding accuracy, one says there's not rising temperatures in the tropics unless you accept one study and approach and discount a wealth of others. this is downright dangerous. we need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. another email says, the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run, but another scientist takes a decidedly different view
writing, the trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out. this is no ordinary academic squabble, because those who offer the most alarmist scenarios also argue for emissions policies that would cost trillions of dollars. >> you should not just have speculative evidence, not just something that might happen, but you should have solid evidence. that solid evidence notes there. >> there's been five independent investigations of these emails. they found there's no grand global cherries. >> he denies conflict in the data and says the latest projections predict even faster warming. >> would it be extreme weather on steroids if this prediction were to come true. >> but governments are increasingly unwilling to act on such predictions. canada, for instance, has announced it will not agree to another round of emission controls underred the original kyoto agreement. jim angle, fox news. >> up next, the fox all-stars analyze my interview with mitt romney and talk about continued
so i used my citi thank you card to pick up some accessories. a new belt. some nylons. and what girl wouldn't need new shoes? we talked about getting a diamond. but with all the thank you points i've been earning... ♪ ...i flew us to the rock i really had in mind. ♪ [ male announcer ] the citi thank you card. earn points you can use for travel on any airline, with no blackout dates.
>> if i were willing to say anything to get elected, wouldn't i say it was a mistake in i've watched other people on the stage, when they talk about their cap and trade policy, they say it was a mistake. they dust it aside. that makes them more attractive in a primary. i'm standing by what i did in massachusetts. i'm not trying to dust it aside. >> governor romney talking about the massachusetts healthcare law. spoke to him this morning in miami. what about this interview in we bring in our panel, jonah goldberg, juan williams and charles krauthammer. first an overview. thoughts, charles? >> i thought he did well. obviously he's heard all the questions before. he did very well, i thought, in defending romneycare. a little bit weaker on immigration, because there are indications that what he said in
the past overlaps a bit with what he's now attacking in the gingrich plan. i thought the strongest moment was exactly that sound bite you showed, where he basically tries to change romneycare from something that will injure him into something that shows the best side. the biggest attack on him is not the substance of romneycare, although it is a difficulty he has to deal with, it's the character issue. do you believe in anything? he could say i could have jettisons romneycare, but i'm not going, i'm going to stick with it. the counterattack is hinted right here on gingrich. when he was on center seat, he was asked about the ad he did with pelosi on global warming, and he laughed it off and said, that was the dumbest thing i ever did. that's not an answer. you obviously were thinking something, so tell us about that and why you've changed. that's going to be his line of attack. >> juan?
>> wow. i'm really surprised at what charles said, because i thought it was such a disastrous interview for mitt romney. and mitt romney is a very smart, capable man, but i thought that when he came down to the heart of the issue, whether it was on the individual mandate or arguing with newt gingrich about immigration, trying to distinguish his position from newt gingrich's position, i think he couldn't do it. i think when it came even to being asked about, you know, what would you do about our economy, how would you get this economy going, he said he could produce 11 million plus jobs and that president obama's such a dufus, but he never said exactly what he would do. we're at the point where people want to know were you stand, what you do. simply attacking you, bret, or fox news, and suggesting this is an interesting interview, sounded to me like he was very irritated. why would you dare speak to him in this fashion? >> he's given the most elaborate speeches and detailed ideas on the economy in detail on the 59
points, in the general idea of reforming entitlements as no other candidate has done. >> let me say this to you, champs even the 59 points, the "wall street journal," every other publication, has reviewed it and has come up empty. they don't see substance. >> he came out on entitlements as no other candidate, and certainly the president has not, in a way that was extremely bold and unusual for any candidate in the race. >> i hate to say this, but i'm more in juan's camp on this. i thought he was out of sorts and uncomfortable in the interview, and i think that -- i think juan's absolutely right, that he was a complete muddle on trying to distinguish himself from newt gingrich. i don't know what that was about. it was a complete fog of an answer. but more broadly, look, what comes across here, and i think this is mitt's fundamental problem, or governor romney's fundamental problem, he tries to differentiate himself from newt gingrich, oh, newt gingrich is a washington police station, been
around washington a long time, i'm a businessman, i'm not about politics, i'm not a politician. the guy first ran for the senate in 1994. he's been running for president for about a decade. more over, somewhat unfair to him, he physically, personality-wise, comes across as if he was designed by east german scientists to be the perfect android politician. and his answers come across that way. so in his interview he seems much more political than a lot of more political people. >> i want to play another clip, talking about the mandate, massachusetts healthcare law, and then we'll have a follow-up. >> this is not a federal plan. it's a state plan. and under the constitution states should be able to craft their own plan. >> so governor, you did say on camera, and other places, that at times you thought it would be a model for the nation. >> you're wrong, bret. >> no, no. i mean, there's -- >> no. the plan we did in massachusetts had many features that i thought should be adopted by other states. i thought there were good ideas in there, that could be a model
for the entire nation -- for states. >> he's been trying to make the distinction that he was saying massachusetts could be a model for other states across the nation, but he's said it not so precisely in the past. here's one of those clips. >> i want to make sure that we have in place a plan which gets americans insured, which gets the cost of health insurance down for all americans, and makes sure that people in this country don't worry about losing their insurance, if they get sick, or lose their job. that's what my plan does. it's working already in massachusetts, and i want to take the principles and the success we've had there and see it adopted all over the nation. >> charles? >> well, first of all, i wouldn't attack a guy because his hair remains immobile, nevin a storm -- even in a storm. it could be a liability, but not the leading reason you wouldn't support a guy. on romneycare, the point he's trying to make, it would have been a model for other states, you know, the states is the
laboratory of democracy. on that clip, it sounded as if he wanted a federal program. i'm not sure that's a great -- i mean, it's a distinction he makes. i think he clearly is saying, at least his position is in massachusetts, was a singular case, other states could adopt elements of it. had he won, speaking about it 100 times, implied it could be a federal program, i didn't hear the word "federal." i think it's a fine distinction. i wouldn't exactly hang him on that. i think you can say that the entire idea of what he did in massachusetts is mistaken, and that would be a significant attack. >> okay. i want to specifically talk about herman cain. is there a sense -- today he says he's reassessing his campaign, whether his candidacy will continue on. your thoughts? >> this is over. the only thing that he's reassessing right now is whether or not there is such strong support for him that more money will pour in between now and whenever he makes the announcement that he's pulling out. if there's more money pouring in
than -- >> you're convinced he's out before iowa caucuses? >> well, what i'm trying to say, if there's more money -- if he finds that in fact people with money continue to support him, he will stay, but i doubt that that money is going to appear between -- i'm also told he canceled a big dinner in new york with media types. i don't think this is good news. >> john? >> basically politically is the walking dead. i don't see how he comes back from. his 15 minutes of fame was up about two weeks ago. it's good news for newt gingrich. >> after the gingrich resurrection, i hate to point to anybody as dead. i think he was out of his depth from the very beginning. >> when we come back, iranian protesters storm british embassy. what's next and how serious is this? i take my multi-vitamin
but wanted to do something more for my nutrition. there's so much information out there. what's good for you today, is bad for you tomorrow. i had no idea what to choose. until i found pronutrients -- a new line of supplements from centrum, who i totally trust. omega-3 supports not only my heart, but my brain and my eyes too. probiotics helps with my digestive balance and my immune function. and fruit & veggie has antioxidant properties. new pronutrients from centrum helps make nutrition possible.
and for rioters essentially to be able to overrun the embassy and set it on fire is an indication that the iranian government is not taking its international obligation seriously. >> protesters today in tehran stormed two british diplomatic compounds, sparking strong condemnations from the u.n. security council and you heard the president there. what about this? what will it lead to? how serious is it? we're back with the panel. jonah? >> that clip we saw from obama is a complete farce. it may be a necessary farce, but it's a complete farce, where he says they want the government of iran to hold the rioters accountable. it's nonsense. the rioters were acting on the direct order of the government. this is the iranian government trying to sort of illicit outrage against the west for
domestic political purposes, and maybe obama can't say that openly, but it is ludicrous to make it sound like this is out of the blue or spontaneous organic uprising. >> juan? >> the question is where do we go from here. in the package we had on the show, what you heard was evan bayh, the former senator, who was on the intelligence committee, talking about, well, sanctions are all you can do short of a military strike. and that's increasingly what people have to contemplate. are we willing to engage in military actions? some talk about israel taking the military action and the united states, you know, winking and nodding in response, but that could mean that we are willing to go to war in iran. i don't think americans are willing to take that step quite yet. >> that's not the issue at stake today. the issue at stake today is not a u.s. attack on iran. it is will the u.s. sanctions the central bank, which would
essentially completely undermine the iranian economy and it's not doing that. why was the british embassy attacked? because the brits had cut off attack between the banks. london is a financial center in the world eighths it's going to hurt iran. the u.s. is a larger financial center and it's not willing to pull the trigger on sanctioning the bank. that's what's at stake. the president issues this unbelievably embarrassing statement, and he's beginning to see that the iranian government is not taking its international obligations seriously. really now? this is a country that the state department has said for a decade is the no one one exploiter of terrorism, a government that's secured every security council resolution on enrichin enrichin. that statement is embarrassing coming out of a president. the iranian regime is under a lot of pressure. the syrian regime is equally under pressure, had writers
attack arab and turkish embassies as a result, and this is exactly what iran is doing. it's under attack. there are explosions all over iran all the time. it's at a point of maximum weakness, and what does america do, as it did in 2009, issues meaningless statements instead of taking actions that it can and that it should. >> response? >> i don't understand. the response can be that you go after the central bank. i think most people think that you can do that. the question is about the world economy and what you do, then, what the consequences would be on a broader scale, but the real point here to me is that the united states needs to somehow impact iran, and you're talking about doing steps that are going to impact everybody else but iran. yes, they're upset about the banks. >> would you suggest instead a kind of a surgical economic attack on iran? and what would it look like instead? >> no.
what i suggest is i hope this means the chinese, russians and others who have been their patrons will suddenly say -- >> that's dream, the chinese and russians are protecting iran. >> that's right. >> we have a lot of weapons available, and obama is not doing it. >> in the context of the iaea report showing progress on the nuclear front, and also of course the threat on the saudi ambassador to assassinate, the attempt to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in the u.s. we will follow this story. it's developing. that's it for the panel. but stay tuned for a lesson on knowing your audience. zzz, bzzz, you know, typical alarm clock. i am so glad to get rid of it. just to be able to wake up in the morning on your own. that's a big accomplishment to me. i don't know how much money i need. but i know that whatever i have that's what i'm going to live within. ♪
♪ and last chance at medicare open enrollment, too. what do yean? it ends december 7th. if you haven't reviewed your medicare plan oices yet, well, it's getting late. medicare gives you free cancer screenings and wellness visits, and 50% o brand name prescription drugs when you're in e donut hole... it's all part of the health care law. december 7th? i better get goin'! [ male announcer ] medicare open enrollment ends soon. cal1-800-medice or visit medica.gov to learn re.
>> finally, many political analysts insist president obama does not have the same support from young voters that he had back in 2008. he had a chance to recapture some of that enthusiasm last week during a visit to a new hampshire high school. but he may have missed the mark. >> hello, new hampshire! it is good to be back in new hampshire although i have to say that you still have homework to do. [ laughter ] thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. >> thank you for inviting us into your home tonight. that's it for this "special report." fair, balanced and