Skip to main content

About this Show

FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace

News/Business. (2013) Rand Paul; Juan Williams; Newt Gingrich; Jennifer Rubin; Evan Bayh. (CC) (Stereo)




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Virtual Ch. 760 (FOX NEWS HD)






Israel 13, Us 11, Syria 9, Nicolle 7, Washington 6, Gingrich 5, Obama 4, America 4, Turkey 4, Doma 3, Gary Bauer 2, Paul Ryan 2, Bush 2, United States 2, Hezbollah 2, U.n. 2, Jennifer 2, Mr. Bauer 2, Bayh 2, Egypt 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX News    FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace    News/Business.  (2013) Rand Paul; Juan Williams;  

    March 24, 2013
    11:00 - 12:00am PDT  

with filthy roommates to smoke cigarettes. it that is why we learn when you're learning college. i don't know why you need to for who -- the politicians tells you to get ahead you have to get a college. >> we need to get you the college and get you ready for college. >> graduates from 4-year colleges are nearly twice as much as high-school graduates. an estimated $1 million more over a lifetime. a billion dollars. based on comparing salaries that leaves of the fact that you're different from people who don't go to college. you will go to college and tend
to be more motivated. study in high school, more likely to show up on time. so you are in more money coming even if you never went to college. you i that population group. the politicians and colleges set the million dollar difference is disgusting, weak consumer reporters used to call a scam. think about that before you go into debt. end these days the students are more likely to go into debt because of the past 25 years, inflation was about 100 percent college tuition killing of 400%. tuition goes up because politicians and out so much student loan money and think everyone must go to college. if you are learning a lot in college and you want to pay, good for you. no the facts. a third of college graduates now working jobs a require only a high-school degree. 60 percent of bartender's now
have college degrees. everyone should go to college? give me a break. that's our show. thank you for joining us, and thinks for the growing students for liberty movement for helping with what really counts, liberty. liberty. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. rand paul shakes up the political landscape. from his marathon filibuster to the straw poll victortry over the gop establishment rand paul is grabbing headlines and turning heads. is he the flavor of the month reckoned withbe recognize in 2016? we will ask rand paul. a "fox news sunday" exclusive. then a pivotal moment for same-sex marriage. with the supreme court ready to hear two cases this week, the
since your filibuster early this month your standing in the republican party shot up. as we mentioned you won the cpac straw poll. a major speech on immigration reform this week and you will headline an sestette republican dinner in may. why do you think that you are suddenly such a hot property in the republican party? >> i think people hungry for someone that will stand up on principle. standing up on the right to trial by jury is something that real a lot of people should agree with both on the right and the left. and even some on the left were disappointed in the president by not being firm and clear are that everybody has the right to trial by jury that we would never drone someone in america. it was disappointing to many that he would not answer the question. it took 13 hours of filibuster for him to say no, we won't kill noncombatants in america. so it was worth it and really served to nary row presidential power which i think is
important that there are limits. >> chris: we will get to the substance of the filibuster a little later. does all of the attention now increase your interest in and your sense of the feasibility of running for president in 2016? >> well, you know, i have always said i wanted to be part of the national debate. i will think republican party needs to figure out how to be bigger and io bring some ideas to that and so i have talked with the republican national committee, the republican national commit chairman about things i think we need to do to be competitive on the west coast and new england and illinois and some of those ideas are are a more libertarian republican approach to things and i think that a lot of young people are attracted to that and our party could grow if we accepted something maybe a little different than the cookie cutter conservatives we have put out in the the past. >> chris: to press my question, does this increase your interest in running for president? sounds like the answer is, yes. >> definitely being part of the debate.
i think the country is suffering right now with 12 million people out of work. i want to be part of the answers to it. whether or not that actually is me specifically running for president i don't know that yet. i do know that i think the country is suffering with significant unemployment, stagnation. still some question whether we are dipping into a recession at this point. we need something new and the party needs something new to grow and i want to be part of that. >> chris: i want to pick up on that. republicans right now see you and florida senator marco rubio jockeying for position at cpac you talked about various ideas for how to grow the party. senator rubio also talked about it and let's take a look at what he had to say. >> we don't need a new idea. there is an idea. the idea is called america and it still works. >> chris: question, is that enough? america still works? >> well, i don't think we need new principles. i think the principles we have we need to be more eck policity
with and instead of saying we want revenue neutral tax reform i think we need to stand up and say we want to leave more money in the economy and reduce taxes. when rye bega regan did it we % growth in one year. we don't reinvent ourselves in this way. unless you stand for something people aren't motivated to go out and vote for you. >> chris: talk about things you stand about. immigration you came out with your ideas for a comprehensive plan this week and you are taking fire for both the right and the left. your call four plan for creating a legal status, not citizenship but a legal status for the 11 million folks who are already here illegal immigrants already here but taking fire from the right because you oppose the e verify is system which would make it easier for employers to check
whether workers are in fact legal or illegal. why would you oppose that? >> that is not the main part of my plan. the main part of the plan is trust but verify. says we have to have border security. conservatives wanted border security before we had immigration reform. the amendment that i will add will ensure that there is border security and that congress gets to vote on the border security every year in order for it to go forward. with regard to e-verify it is not that i'm opposed to a data benghazi-gate check. database check. they should do a check to find out if you are felon or there is a problem. i think those that come in and get a work visa should be in a database and when someone applies for welfare it should be mandatory that they look at the database so make sure that you are not here on a work visa which means you are not eligible to vote or get welfare. i would prefer the government to be the policeman and not the businessman.
kind of where it happens. the businessmen have a lot more expenses to do this or whether the government should do it. >> chris: talk about your idea which is important to you that it should be he congress according to the gang of eight plan it would be governors and a commission would decide whether or not the boarder is secure and you want congress to get into this and there are some republicans who say you are setting up the gop for a fall because it will be a vote in congress and very political. a lot of republicans will say we are not satisfied with border security and that will only increase their sense of separation from the hispanic voters. ing. >> i would argue the opposite. i would argue that you are only going to get the conservatives particularly a republican house to pass immigration reform if we as conservatives are re' sured that the border is controlled and that we get to it vote on whether the border is controlled. we have not believed in the past that the proper came true. in 1986 when we normalized folks they said you will get border security and a lot of us feel like it never happened.
that soured the debate for twenty some odd years now. no immigration reform is going to happen unless republicans in the house sign on to it and i don't think they will sign on to it unless you get something like what i'm talking about and it would include border are patrol and governors and investigator general and have a matrix of things such as how many people are being captured and how many felons are being turned away and that kind of thing and then congress would vote on it. the main reason i don't want the president to stamp it is i don't trust any president republican or democrat to do a good enough job to say the border really is secure. every representative should get to vote on that. >> chris: you are as you mentioned a libertarian conservative and in your cpac speech you embrace some of those principles. let's take a look. >> our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. the new gop will need to embrace liberty in economic and
personal sphere. >> chris: let's talk about the personal sphere because you would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana and you you also in the senate have voted against in fact to ban or rather against a ban on synthetic recreational drugs. why are you more lenient on drug laws, sir? >> the main thing i said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended period of times. i'm working with senator leahy with a bill on manda tore arery minimums. there are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for nonviolent crimes and that is a huge mistake. the prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. i think even marijuana is a bad thing to do and takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things that you should be doing. i don't think it is a good idea. i don't want to promote that but i don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake.
there are a lot of young people who do this and later on in their 20s they grow up and get married and quit doing things like this. the last two presidents conceivably could have been put in jail for their drug use. it would have ruined their lives. they got lucky. a a lot of poor kids don't get lucky and don't have good attorneys and go to jail for these things and it is a big mistake. >> chris: i think it would be the last three presidents but who is counting. let me ask you you about a different issue. well, he didn't inhale. the supreme court will hear arguments on same-sex marriage this week. you say the federal government should stay out of this issue and leave it as it is trace traditionally been left to the states. should the court therefore strike down the defense of marriage act which is one of the cases it will be hearing this week which bans federal benefits for same sex couples legally married in their state. would you streak down that as federal interferences in a state matter?
>> you know, i think it is a really complicated issue. i always said that the states have the right to decide. i do believe in traditional marriage. kentucky decided it and i don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. there are states that have decided in the opposite fashion and i don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. marriage has been a state issue you for hundreds and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be
neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the president does have the authority to use a drone strike on an american on u.s. soil who is involved in combat. >> well, here is the thing. i never argued against if people are attacking the twin towers with planes an imminent threat or active ongoing threat
i never argued you wouldn't use drones or planes or f-16s to repel that kind of attack. the problem is a lot of our drone attacks are targeted killing overseas are killing people not actively engaged in combat and that is another debeat but that kind of standard can't be used here are. if you are accused of being associated with terrorism which could mean you are an are lack american and sent e-mails to a relative in the middle east you should get your day in trial if you are accused and most americans agree to that. did the president completely slam the door on not using drones? wiggle roome is sealed air this there but we forced him to at least narrow what his power is and that was our goal. >> chris: i'm having some difficulty figuring out where you are on the political spectrum. in some senses you are to the left of barack obama when to comes to the drones and on o
the other hand you you are to the right of paul ryan because you say that the budget doesn't cut the budget fast enough. do you think there is room for a realistic feasible presidential candidate who is to the left of obama on some issues and to the the right of paul ryan on other issues? >> i think we have a confusing spectrum. this left/right spectrum doesn't always work for people. i think because of some of that confusion it shows that someone like myself i think could appeal to young people independents and moderates because many of them do think it is a mistake to put people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key. i think there are people who would like a less aggressive foreign policy. there are all kinds of issues that don't neatly fit in the left/right paradigm that i think would help because we are not the doing well in a lot of the purple and blue states so we do need a candidate that would appeal across the left/right paradigm. >> chris: we have about 30 seconds left. your budget which would balance
the budget your plan would balance the budget in five years. paul ryan's which has come under attack for balancing it in ten years. you introduced it three consecutive years if and the most votes was this weekend when you got 18. isn't that out o of the mainstream? >> the thing is i think the legislature is ten years pee the public.behind i introduced a bill to quit sending money to egypt. 9 o percent of americans agree with me and 80% of the senators disagree with me. i would argue that the senate is not up-to-date on what the people really want chris thank you for joining us and always good to talk with you, sir. >> thank you. >> chris: up next, the supreme court will hear two cases this week involving same-sex marriage. we'll have a fair and balanced debate about what the court the could do when we come right back.
>> chris: people are already start stock line up outside the supreme court camping out in the washington chill to hear arguments in a pair of high profile same-sex marriage cases starting tuesday. the justices will spend two days on cases which potentially could decide the rights of same sex couples. joining us from connecticut, nicolle wallace. former advisor to president george w. bush who supports same-sex marriage. and gary bauer president of the group who opposes this. you and more than 100 other prominent republicans have filed a brief in the supreme
court case in which you argue the court should overturn proposition 8. that was a constitutional amendment approved by california voters which said that marriage only marriage between a man and woman is valid. you you want to overturn that. explain to us why your position is consistent with conservative values? >> well, look, first of all, the people who will stand for the united states supreme court are kettleson who was president bush's se solis tore general ad david boy who represented president gore in the recount. this is a conservative legal argument that they will be advancing. they will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people. there is also a moral imperative here. if you believe if you value and treasure and reveer the institution of marriage, then
you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage. and if you believe that children are are best raised in families where both of their parents are married there is certainly no other answer than to overturn something like prop 8 which would deny an entire class of people access to the reveered institution. >> chris: gary, conservatives like nicolle and ted olson a conservative lawyer in his brief on her side to overturn prop 8 say that same-sex marriage advances limited government, individual freedom, values. >> yes, chris. well, look, you don't advance limited government by being an antidemocratic movement that is attempting to take this issue away from the american people. what the brief is asking for are and what the groups waiting outside the supreme court are asking for is for unelected judges to deny the people in the states the right to decide what marriage is in their
state. over 30 states in this country have voted that marriage is between a man and a woman and, of course, the votes are only being held because there has been this radical movement in the last couple decades that it is trying to redefine marriage. it is a profoundly unconservative thing. the kind of brief that nicolle and the others have signed that i would expect from liberal democrats who have used the courts for the last 30 years to force radical social change time and time again. >> chris: are you you you saying you would oppose a striking down of the rate to same-sex marriage? you want to leave it in the state legislature? >> look, i would prefer that every state of the union keep the definition of marriage that prevailed in westernization for a couple thousand years. that doesn't look like that is going to happen. i certainly at this point would prefer the people of the states to make the decision as they have. and by the way, chris, it is
worth mentioning that the briefs that nicolle is supporting which supports the judge, the prop 8 judge, somebody ought to read his decision. his anymous and hostility to people of faith was disgusting. >> chris: he is not here are to defend himself but people can read it if they want. the other case that the court will hear and they are two big cases involves the defense of marriage act which president clinton signed in 1996 which bans federal marry i marital bs for same sex couples legally married in their states. you said that states have the right to de. to the is conservative isn't marriage a state issue and federal interferences wouldn't that be unconstitutional? >> i don't think so and neither did a democratic president. a lot of people are changing their minds because there has been a full court blitz by the popular culture by elites, by
all kinds of folks to intimidate and cower people and no longer defend marriage as being between a man and a woman. >> chris. >> chris: go ahead, nicolle. >> chris, chris, the biggest problem that mr. bauer faces not just this morning but moving forward is that more than 65% of his own base self-describing evangelical christians under the age of 33 support marriage eequality. 80% of people in this country right, left, democrat, republican, man, woman, support marriage equality. more than 60% of all americans everyone supports marriage equality. and that very same activist court that he railed against with such hostility this morning always sides on the side of freedom. the same court that overturn
gun bans for overreaching and the same court that overturned campaign finance reform for overreaching. we can despice the court for its activism when we don't like their behavior but we can't say this is the the court that always sides on the side of liberals. you can interrupt me all you want. >> that is the moderator chris that is me. nicolle that is me, not gary. >> sorry, chris. >> chris: would you like to see the court rule there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and what about the argument that if you do that that you preempt the political debate that has gone up in the country. i want to put up a quote from justice ginsburg who has problems with roe versus wade and said not that the judgment was wrong but moved too far too fast. she says the reason we are still arguing about abortion 40 years later is because it came
down through a judicial fiat when it was being worked out by the states. >> yeah, look, i think that we all know especially from watching the healthcare decision that just came down there are about i don't know ten different things that the court could do. strike down narrowly the prop 8 decision. could have a more broad ruling and we will wait and see what they do. what is going to happen in the country is that eventually there will be nobody left to book on a show like this to debate both sides of the issue. eventually as time marchs on this is a country that believes pretty squarely in marriage equality. >> chris: if that is the case why not let the state legislatures do it and not ask the court to declare some overwhelming new constitutional right? >> you just heard from rand paul. legislatures are ten years behind the public. so i think senator paul give ya
good reason not to do that. >> the brief does try continue to truck the supreme court what to do and quite frankly the argument that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of march, chris, is ludicrous. 33 states vote the to keep marriage the union of one man and one woman. you you touched on the key issue here. if it was so obvious that the american public wants to try a radical social experiment that results in children in those households definitely, definitely not having a mother and a father that is what makes marriage a special institution. it guarantees that women -- that children have mothers and fathers. if the opinion of the american public was so overwhelming, the gay rights movement and allies like nicolle would not be ask ising the supreme court to say to the american people you have no say on this issue and we will decide it here in washington, d.c. >> chris: the washington post
had a new poll out this week and i take your point about the fact that the vast majority of the states banned it. 58% now think same-sex marriage is legal. 36% illegal. tiv years ago the numbers were reverse. 37% legal and 55% legal and there is a big generational shift. among people between the ages of 18 and 39 the margin is 70% to 27. now, i'm not suggesting that, you know, big deep moral and constitutional issues should be decided by polls but you are also a republican in addition to being a social conservative. do you wore arery that this only puts the republican party further out of touch with the mainstream of american voters? >> i'm not worried about it because the polls are skewed, chris. just this past november four states very liberal states voted on this issue. my side lost all four of those votes. but my side had 45%, 46% of the vote in all four of those liberal states. in fact, those marriage
amendments that i supportd that would keep marriage for a man and woman outran mitt romney in the four libertarians ra libern average of 4 points. and then. >> chris: i have to go to nicolle. how important do you think same-sex marriage is as a gateway issue for republicans maintaining credibility with new younger voters? >> i think what is most important is that the debate remains civilized and that it remains intellectual and remains the debate about the role of marriage in our life and we have to have room in our party for both mr. bauer and me. >> chris: on that note of unusual agreement, thank you both. thanks for talking with us and we will hear what the justices have to say when they consider these two cases this week. thank you both for coming in. >> thank you. >> chris: up next we will continue the discussion with the sunday group. will the supreme court make a
sweeping decision or decide these cases on narrow grounds?
my opinion is born out of my childhood and my faith and my beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman. >> here is what i think about it.
doma is definitely unconstitutional. >> chris: house speaker boehner and democratic leader pelosi on on site sides of the two same-sex marriage cases including doma the defense of marriage act that the supreme court will hear this week. time for the sunday group. speaker gingrich you oh o pose same-sex marriage but do you want to see the court make a sweeping decision or would you rather see a narrow decision that basically leaves this where it is now in various state legislatures? >> it is eye reasonnic to me the last guess who was in favor of same-sex marriage is making the point look what the percent of support for it. if that is true over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. i think one of the lessons of roe versus wade is when the court goes too far it weakens our respect for judicial institutions and they would be
far better off to decide the two cases on the narrow west possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against. >> it would further undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator bayh how far would you want the court to go? >> the second question involves trying to read the mind of justice kennedy. my guess is he would be reluctant to strike down the laws of 41 states that prohibit same-sex marriage or only allow civil unions. i think he will seek some sort of middle ground. >> chris: and what would you like to see? >> i think the time has come for society to accept this union between two individuals. i think it is from a conservative point of view individuals supporting one another, supporting their families so that society at large does not have to is good for the rest of us. >> chris: would you like to see
the court declare a big constitutional right in this regard or rather leave it in the political arena? >> i prefer a uniform standard for the country but 20 years from now i don't think it will matter. i think it will be legal in all 50 states. >> chris: jennifer, for are those who don't know it a first panel here on the panel. a conservative panelist and blogger for the washington post. you have written social conservatives have already lost the battle among voters on same-sex marriage and should leave it up to the political process. what do you mean that they lost the battle? >> if you look at the polls the previous guests were talking about there has been a change among conservatives and republicans and all americans. in ten years or 20 years we will not be talking about this any more. i think you are seeing a swift movement particularly among younger people. i don't think that the supreme court would be wise to follow in roe and preempt the field by holding a 14th amendment right to gay marriage. i think it should be left to the states and i think that is where the gay marriage proponents are going to have a
field day. they are making their arguments and persuading americans one by one, state by state. i think you get a legitimacy from the political process that the court doesn't lend to the major social issues. >> chris: what about the argument that gary bauer made and the statistics are on his side that the vast majority of states well over 30 have banned same-sex marriage when it has come up for a vote. >> the beauty of the 10th amendment, states are allowed to determine their own fate. if the gay marriage proponents are is successful gradually you will see that number decrease. i don't have a problem if alabama or laz or another state wants to maintain that. but by the same token i think over team this will shift. young people are befuddled. over 80% of young people feel differently. may not be today or tomorrow but maybe in another 10 or 20 years this will be a decided
issue. >> chris: juan do you see this both as a legal issue and a political issue? >> on out legal side i don't think you can deny a human being an american citizen their constitutional right and under the 14th amendment you have have an equal right it seems to me to marry. if you want to say they have the 8 state solution where you say these are states that say you you can have civil marriage but can't have marriage per se. can't have a gay marriage. if that is the case why are you stigmatizing marriage in that situation. in the california case a matter of revoking something that has already been granted right to marriage. in both situations it seems you a constitutional right. a human being. an american citizen. you should have equal rights coast-to-coast. you ask the critical question what the rest of the panel is talking about this morning. the politics of it are that if the court rules everybody will be angry at the court and say that supreme court they are an elite and trying to tell us what to do justice kennedy who
senator bayh is likely the swing vote. you can't have nine unelected people narrowly focused on the law making big decisions for the country. if that is the way they feel they will make a political decision and say it is up to the the states let them do what they want. con is not a matter of the city and constitutional rights. i want to bring in speaker gingrich. do you think that justice williams is right on the constitution? >> two key points here. first of all, when the founding fathers decided to replace the articles of confederation they wrote the federalist papers and went to the the people of the 13 individual states and said we have to gain legitimacy from your vote. they he didn't figure out some elite way to have a coupe data. there is no constitutional right invented magically 150
years after an amendment. we have been through the cycle over the last 40 years where we think that a handful of judges by 5-4 decisions get to pretend they are a constitutional convention. i think it is a dangerous -- >> chris: what about the 14th amendment eprotection under the law? >> that is the whole point. 150 years after we adopt an amendment the current generation decides it has a totally new meaning. why have an amending roberts sessions? why not eliminate all of the amendment process and say as long as the five out of the nine judges agree we had a constitutional convince. >> chris: the other case which is the defense of marriage act which basically says the federal government will not allow benefits for couples who in their states have beeheelly. >> that is a much harder problem not just for the court but for conservatives around i made the point in december. i believe marriage is between a man and woman and belief that
pope francis arguements about relativism are powerful and i believe there are facts on the ground and one of the facts is going to be a state says we will limit marriage to a man and woman but by the way american citizens visit from a different state. what happens to that situation? i mean i think we are now going to be in a muddled but i actually think for the health of the country it is better are to have the muddle and the legislative bodies and in politics than it is to have it cut through by five people on a five to four vote. >> chris: we should point out it is interesting, i didn't realize this, the case going before the court involves a woman, a lesbian who was involved for many years in a marriage and her partner died and she is not getting the exemption that a normal spouse a heterosexual spouse would get so she has to pay taxes on the entire estate left to her. this is on the case that rand paul was talking about should marriage be part of the tax code. >> well, this is the muddle that we are in now chris and
could be that the middle ground that justice kennedy tries to strike is not finding an equal protection issue here but respecting the edecisions of the states so that is woman if she came from a state that recognized same section unions would be entitled to have that union resented and all of the inheritance benefits that would come along with it. >> chris: when we come back, the president's trip to the middle east. what markers did he set for iran, syria and relations between israel and the palestinians? sofa... desk...
sofa... desk... you know what? why don't you go get some frozen yogurt. i got this. you're so sweet. you got this, right? i do got this. let us get everything off the shelf, and to your home. the united states often finds itself in the situation where if it goes in militarily it is criticized for going in military and if it doesn't
people say why aren't you doing something military. >> chris: president obama in the middle east defending his rehe fusal to take direct mill tare arery action to help the rebels in syria. we are back with the panel. the president is continue and i was thinking how describe is the half in half out policy with regard to the civil war if syria. expanding training and intelligence support for the secular rebels but this while the islamic jihaddists seem to be strengthening and the blood shed continues. tough issue. what is the right answer? >> i think we have a massive bipartisan failure extending over a decade. i think it will get worse in libya and egypt and syria. it will get worse in iraq. get worse in iran. it going to get worse in afghanistan. >> chris: do we he intervene militarily and then set up the possibility for the jihaddist
rebels. >> that is the problem. we have no national strategy. we haven't begun the debate how will you live in the world where you have people, talk about the peace process which is an insanity. the morning he arrives there are rockets fire inside israel and we talk about a peace process as though one faction of the palestinians could deliver if they wanted to. of the most militant factions want to destroy israel and hezbollah wants to destroy iowaial and the muslim brotherhood wants to destroy and western go around if only we had a peace process? with whom? >> chris: karl levin joined john mccain in calling for the president to consider a irstrikes to teak out the syrian air force and scud missiles. same question i had for speaker
gingrich. what should the president do in syria given all of the complications and how important was this reconciliation that the president helped broker between israel and turkey both of whom have a dog in the hunt when it comes to the syrian civil war? >> the the situation in spearia has been a mess for a long time and likely to be a mess for a long time no matter what we do. there are deep religious and ethnic differences here. the likely end game is a civil that are will involve ethnic cleansing and a whole host of other things. why on earth do we want to get in the middle of that. the president decided with no good option pursue the best of that options. covert means and allies and support indigenous groups that are more favorable to us. with what you said to karl and my friend senator mccain i would make an exception when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. if we have intelligence that chemical and biological weapons are about fall into the hands
of hezbollah and al-qaeda then you go into chris but not just to intervene in a civil war. >> no, but we have a strategic interest in ensureing that weapons of mass destruction don't get out of syria. with regard to o turkey and israel. the forces of stability are few and far between in that part of the world. it is important that those that do favor stability turkey and israel among them be on the same page. they had a difference. the president served the role of bringing them together and this is a useful thing. but the final thing i will mention chris the take away from his trip. we won't know for a long time. i suspect there were a lot of conversations about iran going on in the background and what to do in the next 12 months whistling we reach a red line with regard to iran. i think that ultimately will be the key takeaway. >> chris: jennifer, help me make sense of all this. >> i think we have the choice because the president was so passive for so long. the choices are not between doing nothing and doing everything. if the president moved more swiftly and not phone to the times and had a mother may ihee
situation which the russians of course blocked. we might have been able to avert a prolonged fight. now, we have 5,000 jihadis all over syria. had we moved more quickly to drop the prepostorrous position that asaad was some kind of reformer. the lesson is not never do anything. the answer is that american leadership is crucial in that part of the region and that part of the world. with regard to turkey and israel i hope that netanyahu got something good for this. what he essentially did is apologize for defending israel. the u.n. of all places passed a report, put out a report saying that israel was justified in self-defense and they were justified in in. >> chris: three years ago a turkish ship with people and
aid activists tried to breach the israeli block kade of gaza to bring supplies to the palestinians in gaza and the israelis raided it and ended up killing nine of the people. >> that was not just peace and humanitarian people. they had weapons and attacked threw israeli soldeddiers into the sea. the u.n. issued a report saying israel had a right to defend itself and maintain that block kade. now, the president leaned on israel to issue some type of apology. did they get something in return? i hope so. otherwise it looks like obama is leaning on the israelis. bad signal to the rest of the region. >> chris: with all of the focus on syria and iran there was relatively little talk about the prospects for a peace deal between the israelis and palestinians but the president did address it in this speech in jerusalem. >> iit is possible.
it is possible. i'm not saying it is guaranteed. i can't even say that it is more likely than not but it is possible. >> chris: juan, the big news here is that the president seemed to be dropping his in is siftence that israel had to stop its settlement construction first before there were direct talks. in fact he kind of leaned on the palestinians and said look if you make a final deal the settlements will take care of themselves. how big a movement is that? >> a big movement in terms of reframing the discussion because at the moment everybody is frozen, saled. they can't come to a decision about the settlements because obviously the palestinians view it as occupied territories. the israelis moving in and the israelis view it as a matter of their own security and their own rights. if you simply focused on the settlements we are not going anywhere. if you are able to reframe it and say look israel has to have its security rights and we want sovereignty for are a palestinian state get back to the two state solution
discussions hopefully you can hope some minds and again return to the table. you know -- >> chris: let me ask, though, what speaker gingrich said which is you don't really have a reliable partner to negotiate with? >> again, if you take that perspective you throw your hands up and say we can't do anything. there are a number of arab states who have a strong interest in seeing some solution in part because they are threatened by iran and by what may take place in iran. they have a real reason sectarian strife is taking place, to see some kind of motion here that would help to prevent iran in getting stronger. >> chris: minute left. speaker gingrich how do you assess the mid east trip and what did he accomplish? >> we won't know for two or six months. if there is a beginning of a relationship between the tushish prime minister and prime minister netanyahu it as big deal. what people need to remember
now is turkey is under enormous pressure as is jordan from all of the refugees. there are over 2 million syrians in turkey. there is a much more complicated world than justicial and palestinians. swirling a kaleidoscope of problems. >> don't forget to check out panel plus where the group picks up with the discussion on fox news sunday .com and we will post the video before noon eastern time. follow us on twitter @ fox news sunday, upnext, our power sunday, upnext, our power player of the week. the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her... no. no! no. ...likes 50% more cash. but i don't give up easy... do you want 50% more cash? yes! yes?! ♪
>> chris: i can always tell how good our power player by how many members of the staff want to go to the interview. everyone wanted to go this week. so enjoy our power player of the week. ♪ ♪ ♪ meet the sergeant the mascot of the u.s. marines. this english bulldog is the face of the corps. ♪ ♪ >> the mascot is involved in number of official functions in
washington. >> we are proud to introduce the official mascot of washington, d.c., sergeant chessy. >> engaging with officials. he is one of the most popular figures. >> captain jack norton is public affairs spokesman. >> sometimes they are tough to get along with. sometimes they are grouchy but they will be there and accomplish the mission. >> there is about to be a changing the guard. chesty will retire this summer and recruit is expected to become a private in april training to take his place. >> he is getting history classes. been through his home and surroundings and getting indoctrinated that we do with all of them. >> sergeant chesty, there you go. >> chesty has his own uniform