tv The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson FOX News August 26, 2014 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
building that cannot get out. because that's an awful lot of smoke and awful lot of flame. this fire burning in pasadena, texas. we'll keep you updated throughout the afternoon here on fox. thanks, everybody, for joining us today. "the real story" starts right now. we are standing by for a briefing from the pentagon, just hours after we learned the u.s. has begun flying surveillance missions over syria. hello, everyone, i'm shannon breen in for gretchen carlson. welcome to "the real story." with senior defense officials telling fox news -- are air strikes far behind? the president on his way back to washington after speaking to veterans and addressing the v.a. situation with them at the american legion's national convention in north carolina. so far, american air strikes have centered on isis targets inside iraq. and syria insists the u.s. needs permission to take action
against fanatics inside its borders. ed henry joins us live from the white house with more on what the administration is considering. all right, ed, are we edging closer to actual air strikes in syria? >> it appears we may be, shannon. in that speech in charlotte, the president defended his decision to launch air strikes for now in iraq, again, repeating he's not going to dragged into a ground war, in his words, there in iraq but said the air strikes were necessary to protect american personnel on the ground. he left the door wide open to expanding those air strikes into syria to battle isis. listen. >> we'll continue to take direct action where needed to protect our people. and to defend our homeland. and rooting out a cancer like isis won't be easy and it won't be quick. >> reporter: bottom line is, last night the white house posted an interesting photo on the insta grandmothgram account
contemplating possible air strikes in seas. it was a year ago this week that the president took a now famous walk on the south lawn with dennis mcdonough when he was about to launch air strikes and pulled back at the last minute. >> ed, thank you so much. ed henry live at the white house. we'll take you over to the pentagon where the press secretary of the pentagon is speaking out. he's certainly going(tn get some questions on this. >> and secretary hagel made clear the determination of the iraqi people and the international commune to the counter this threat will only grow. the united states looks forward to working with our friends from around the world to assist in that effort. with that, i'll take some questions. bob? >> could you be more specific, i think you used the word munit n munitions. what type of munitions you're talking about? >> this is an important point. what's great about this effort is, many of these partner nations have in their stocks
more than we do, the kinds of equipment that kurdish forces use, which isn't necessarily american-made material. so it covers the full range, small arms ammunition and other personnel served weaponry. i don't have a complete inventory for you. >> if i can change the subject briefly. >> sure. >> could you confirm the reports of the egyptian uae carrying out the air strikes in libya and the u.s. tried to warn them against it? >> we do believe there were air strikes undertaken in recent days by the uae and egypt inside libya. i would refer you to those governments for any further details. as for our knowledge of it, i won't get into discussing the specifics of our diplomatic discussions. craig? >> has the secretary had any
conversations with -- or any deputies any conversations with people in those countries in uae or egypt in recent days. >> not that i'm aware of. >> admiral kirby, if the u.s. sends surveillance drones into a country that it is not currently at war with, for instance, syria, is that an act of war? and if not, why not? >> well, i'm not going to talk about hypotheticals, jen. >> i'm talking about the law. the law. >> i'm not an expert on international law either, jen. i would -- what i would tell you is, and the president has been clear about this, secretary hagel has been clear about this, this is a serious threat from a serious group of terrorists. and we need to stay mindful of dong what we need to do to protect american citizens at home and abroad.ç and it's been stated before, we're in the going to hold ourselves to geographic
boundaries in order to accomplish that job. so without getting into international law, for which i would be ill educated to speak to you, i can tell you we'll do what we need to do to protect americans. >> for instance, there's an operation that you have talked about which is the special operations rescue mission that failed in july. is that considered an act of war when we send special operators into a country you're not at war with? >> that was a rescue attempt. we only die-- divulged it because we were forced to because of leaks. it was not an act of war. it was a rescue attempt of americans being held by terrorists. it fail. we didn't get them, but it was executed very, very well, very professionally. >> just one last question. can you characterize the relationship between the u.s. and qatar right now?
obviously qatar was instrumental in securing the release of this hostage yesterday, american hostage but at the same time, there are so many reports that qatar is supporting islamist groups in libya and elsewhere. how would you characterize the relationship between the u.s. and qatar? >> we continue to have a solid military-to-military relationship with qatar, as you know, secretary hagel has spent a lot of time with the gcc nations. we were just there a couple of months ago. and we want to continue to broaden that military-to-military relationship. that's our focus is on the military relationship. putting that aside, obviously, we don't encourage any support by any nation for terrorist groups and extremists, particularly that that part of the world. >> are you concerned that qatar has supported terrorist groups? >> i've seen those reports and if the reports are true, absolutely it's concerning.
tony? >> cut to the chase. did the president authorize the pent goen to conduct surveillance missions over syria? and what comes next? >> don't talk about intelligence matters, tony. not going to start doing that today. we're planning organization here. we have to be prepared for all kinds of options and with respect to providing military options, we're going to be ready to do that.ç i'm not going to get into the details. >> intelligence normally is sources and methods that james bond world, we're talking about airplanes now. you can't confirm that you were authorized to fly aircraft over syria? >> i am not going to talk about intelligence matters. >> final thing. >> sure. >> this week, the worm was consumed with potentially bombing syria with tomahawk missiles to get them to give up chemical weapons. last year it was characterized as dense and sophisticated and integrated. one year later, is that still the case with syria's air
defenses? >> there's been no change in our assessment of syrian air defense capabilities. >> fair enough. >> back on syria, is the u.s. flying surveillance missions in syria? i want to point out how many we've been told how many missions are flying every day over iraq. >> sure, sure, not going to talk about it, courtney. but i appreciate the warning as you asked it. but the difference here is that in iraq we were specifically asked by the government of iraq to come in and assist them with an isr effort. it was an overt ask. we accommodated that request. we continue to accommodate it today. that's a different situation than the when you're hypothesizing about now. bill? >> there's been a couple members of congress yesterday and today who have said they believe the president should go to congress and ask for an authorization if he decides to order military action in syria. what is secretary hagel's view of that question and more
generally, does he feel the pentagon can operate under the existing authorization of military force? or would congress have to change it in some way if the president gave that order? >> i'm not going to speak to a question that's better posed to the white house. what i can tell you, we are operating inside iraq, given the authorities that we've been given by the commander in chief. we not just the defense department but u.s. government has kept congress informed of what we're doing. the president's filed, i think, four war powers resolution letters in response to -- because of what we're doing inside iraq. there's been a concerted effort to keep congress informed. joe? >> do you know if the pentagon have -- has enough information, a clear picture, about isis, isisç capabilities inside syri >> the way i would put it to you, joe, we have been watching
isil for many months now. we recognize their development, their growth, increase in their capabilities hasn't happened overnight and it has happened regionally. they operate pretty much freely between iraq and syria. do we have perfect information about them and their capabilities? whether it's on the syrian side of the border or iraqi side, no, we don't. we're gaining knowledge because we have been flying more surveillance flights over the country since we wer the iraqi government to do so. and because we're in better and more frequent contact now with iraqi and kurdish forces. there's a growing sense of knowledge there on the iraqi side. but it's mixed. >> how many flights have you conducted over iraq since the beginning of the year? >> i don't have a -- i'd have to point you to centcom, joe.
i haven't been tallying every flight. we're up over about 60 isr flights per day in iraq. but it varies. some days it's more, some days it's less. i don't have a total for you. >> sir, the head of air combat command recently said he wouldn't fly -- over syria. this would extend to other platforms. how are you possibly conducting these operations without some sort of coordination with the syrian government? >> the question presumes, i'm going to talk about the operations being conducted. i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to talk about intelligence matters here. >> back in june when things were heating up in iraq you all announced you moved the george h.w. bush carrier group into the persian gulf. has anything been added to the persian gulf or to the med in
recent weeks? did you ever get a response from the chinese from that barrel roll incident? >> i'm not aware of additional naval assets. that said, you know the naval forces come and go routinely swapping out. i'd point you to the update on what the navy laydown looks like in the med and the persian gulf. i'm notç aware of any major muscle changes. all i saw in terms of a chinese reaction was public comments, they made through their media that they -- that they did acknowledge these publicly acknowledged there was an intercept but stressed in their view that it was done at a completely safe distance and with professional demeanor. we obviously take deep issue with that characterization of the incident. >> in terms of meeting with chinese officials in the building here later this week? and do you know if that topic
will be discussed? >> i understand the navy is having discussions this week with some of their chinese counterpars. i'd point you to the navy for details on that. i would also, from what i gather this morning, john, this was something that was long planned, long scheduled, routine staff talks kind of thing. and the degree to which this incident will come up, again, i'd point you to navy. >> i want to follow up on the uae flights over libya. last weekend, you said repeatedly that the u.s. didn't know who was responsible for those flights. what is it that you're able to learn in the last few days? you then say the flights are being flown by the uae and why couldn't you say so last week? >> i couldn't say so last week because i didn't know. and now we know. and so now i'm able to acknowledge it. i mean, i don't think it's worthwhile going through all the mechanisms through which we learn information.
there were more than -- last week it was the first such strike and it was unclear as to who conducted it. all i could tell you for sure is that we didn't. we since gained more information and in light of this second strike over the weekend, we we've been able to ascertain that we know it was conducted by uae and by egypt in some fashion. again, i'd point you to those countries to talk about that. >> i guess i'm having a hard time understanding that the u.s. discouraged them from conducting such flights, how would you not know they had done them? >> i did not say we discouraged them from conducting these strikes. what i said was we don't talk about diplomatic discussions. >> and is it the position of this building that you welcome that the uae and egypt are trying to tackle their terrorism problems independetey without u.s. help? >> our position is the same as the united states government's position, we want the issue solved in libya to be done peacefully and through good
governance and politics and not violence. and that we discourage other nations from taking a part in libya's issues through violence. that's our position. yes, david? >> will these weapons delivery issue talked about from that coalition begin? >> they've actually already started to begin. i can get you a better sense of that later. >> who's delivering it? >> i know -- i know albania and the uk have started to deliver but, again, i'd have to get you more fidelity on that. this is an effort that's really just starting. and i'd also point to, we've said it before, we, too, have taken part in some of the delivery of equipment and personnel -- i'm sorry, equipment and material to kurdish forces, helping the iraqi government conduct that re-supply, using some of our aircraft. >> another question on iraq. where does the request from the state department for additional security personnel stand?
>> still reviewing it. still looking at it. i would also remind you that we get many requests for forces here in the pentagon, some come from the state department, some come from combatant commanders. there are options in how you address those force requirements. we're working through the omgs right now. . >> why wouldn't that be seen as something that would be helpful, the united states wants allies to step up in support against militant threats? why wouldn't it be helpful? why wouldn't the united states be applauding that? >> we -- what we don't want is more violence on top of the violence that's existing inside libya. it's already a tenuous security environment as it is. and we do want to see that resolve. we do want to see a peaceful, stable future for libya and for the libyan people. it's not just good for them. it's good for that part of the
world, which has already got issues of security as it does. so -- but adding more violence on to it, we don't believe is the answer. yes. >> parallel seems to obvious to iraq where we are conducting air strikes. that's violence on violence as you described. what differentiates the two situations? >> yes, absolutely. we're there at the request of the iraqi government. this wasn't some unilateral decision. by the united states to strike targets inside iraq. number two, we are -- the construct under which we are conducting air strikes is being done in a limited, targeted, discreet manor to protect u.s. personnel and facilities, to
pro get to humanitarian situations that might evolve. the biggest difference is we're there at the request of the iraqi government. yes? >> along those lines, would the dod consider a part of an international force in libya? >> i'm not aware of any such consideration. >> two questions. where do they get financing, training and military equipment? >> we talked about this for a long time. they -- they're well resourced. they get money from donations. they get money from ransoms. they get money from -- this is a group that tries to develop their own revenue streams. that's why they take over facilities. it's why they wanted to control the dam. i mean, they actually grab ground and try to keep it. they're selling oil on the black market. they have many revenue streams and they'll well funded. they get sourcing and training
a across that border. >> this it is. the last follow-up. >> what i'm asking you, are you watching the situation right now, what's happening in pakistan? do you still believe they have training centers or -- what they used to have before? >> who has training centers? pakistan has training centers for extremists? we talked about this again, too, before. it's a complicated relationship. we want to continue to work with pakistan to deal with what we believe is a common challenge and common threat faced by both our countries. and by afghanistan as well. that's extremists and the safe haven and theç sanctuary that they continue to enjoy in pakistan. the pakistani military has taken action against some of those extremists inside their own country. they've conducted operations,
not too long, just this summer. it's important to remind everybody they, too, have taken casualties in that fight. it's a common threat. we don't always see eye to eye on how to address it. that remains to be the case today. what's different is we have better vehicles for dialogue with the pakistani military that we want to enjoy and continue to improve. you got it. yes? >> regarding the interception that your counterpart spokesperson for the minister of defense did respond, they stressed that it was in international air space that the chinese government, the defense ministry mentioned that the mission of that flight was to tracking chinese submarines and other military activities. in order to view a better military-to-military relations, that the u.s. needs to reduce the number of flights or stop even and also from the
pentagon's perspective, i mean, the two leaders of the two countries are calling for a better military-to-military relationship. so from the pentagon's perspective how realistic it is to deal with that relationship with all this going on in south china sea and east china sea? >> it's important that we continue to work at this relationship, absolutely. that is not made easier by incidents that we saw the intercept of our p.a. patrol aircra aircraft, which was on a routine mission in international air space. and under no circumstances, under no rubric of military relations is it acceptable to fly a jet fighter around a reconnaissance airplane the way that was done. that said, it doesn't mean that the relationship isn't still worth pursuing. we continue to look for avenues to try to increase the dialogue and cooperation and understanding and transparency between our two countries.
that incident did nothing to help that along. >> i feel like you have a follow-up. go ahead. >> the u.s. will continue to conduct those reconnaissance flights? we'll continue to fly in international air space the way we've been, just like we'll continue to sailç our ships in international waters the way we've been. the united states is a pacific power. we have responsibilities, five of seven treaty alliances in the pacific region, we're going to meet the security commitments. we want to do this in an open and transparent way, sharing information with our allies, partners and china if we can. none of that cooperation is aided along by that reckless behavior by that particular pilot. yes. >> in the strategy that you sort of outlined for iraq in response to kate's question, the strategy against isis was iraq-focused. you own others called it the
regional problem. how do you square that? how do you address a regional problem with a very country-specific response to far? >> well, kinetically you're right. the information has been inside iraq. even before we started conducting air strikes inside iraq, we've had a regional approach. we took -- we were studying, monitor, trying to gain information from isil from a regional approach. we tried to get at the extremist threat own the border between afghanistan and pakistan to my previous answer, there's a regional threat there, too. you can't -- where we are authorized to act from a military perspective is inside iraq. that's what we're doing. it doesn't mean we're turning a
blind eye to the regional threat they pose. quite frankly we're not turning a blind eye to global aspirations as well. much has been made about the threat they pose and how imminent it is and you don't need to look any further than the recruitment of foreign fighters and the degree to which not just the united states government but many western governments are concerned about these foreign fighters, leaving their shores, going over there, getting radicalized trained and coming back and executing attacks, which is not out of the realm of the possible. we are taking not just a regional approach but even a global approach to how we're trying to look at what they're trying to do. i don't know if that answered the question or not. >> you mention the foreign fighters, nbc reported that one of the americanç fighting with isis has been killed. do you know anything about that? >> i don't. i've seen the press reporting just recently but i don't have anything to add to that right now. barbara? >> what can you tell us about an
encounter with u.s. maritime forces and the iranians in the persian gulf? >> i don't have a whole lot on that, barbara. i could point you to fifth fleet on that. as i understand it, a coast guard -- a ghost card cutter, the small boat crew off a coast guard cutter in a routine maritime security operation approached an iran iian dow. the iranian dow pointed a machine gun at the -- or a small arms weapon at the boat crew. they fired a shot back. i don't know whether the shot was just a warning shot or it hit the dow. in any event, the dow pulled away and nobody was hurt. and the coast guard cutter retrieved the boat crew. that's all i know. i'd point you to fifth fleet for anything more on that. >> was it they were planning to
board the dow or seeking to board the dow? >> i don't have details, barb. i know there was one shot fired, nobody hurt. both the cutter and the dow parted ways and there was nothing more to it than that. i don't have more details on that. yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> -- to the united nations had mentioned at the news conference, north korea in order to stop ongoing military exercises and north korea preemptive strikes to u.s. and south korea? >> i haven't seen those comments. our security to -- our commitments to the security of the peninsula and treaty allies in south korea remain steadfast as they always will. our exercises will continue and we continue to call in the north
to meet its obligations. >> the mention about the preemptive strike to korean peninsula. >> i would just say our commitment to security on the peninsula and alliance with south korea is ironclad. yes. >> it was said aç couple times that american airplanes are operating over iraq at the invitation of the government there. is there anything about that agreement that restricts their ability to, for example, sur s over the border into syria? >> i'm not going so talk about that. we are there to mainly help iraqi security forces combat this threat by isil. we do that through surveillance flights but through air strikes from combat aircraft. that's the limit i can talk about today. >> were there any restrictions? >> i'm not going to get into roe from the podium here, phil.
we're authorized to conduct air operations over iraq for two main purposes. i've talked about that. that's as far as i'm going to go. >> -- legitimate leader in syria. by that logic, the u.s. could never fly surveillance missions. the government of syria that the u.s. does not recognize would never invite them to fly surveillance, right? >> can you rule out coordinating with the assad government? >> we are not coordinating on the assad regime with operations we are conducting in iraq or the operations or any efforts to combat isil. >> does the border between iraq and syria still effectively exist? empsey said there basically is no border. >> if you look on a map there is a border. what we're saying it, its porous to the degree in all practical purposes doesn't exist for isil, because they flow freely back
and forth. >> it still exists for the defense department? >> of course it still exists for the defense department. what we're saying is, isil treats that part of the world as if there is no border for them. i got time for one more. yes. >> centcom said it's osd's responsibility to calculate the cost of the iraqi air strikes. do you have a cost yet and will we have to wait for a comptroller's request before we -- >> who said it's the responsibility. >> centcom. >> look, right now what i tell you is that funding for the operations we're conducting in iraq are being absorbed through current-year allocationsç that central command has. the chairman and secretary both said we're okay in '14. and if operations continue we might have to take a look at '15 to see if there's a need to request more. i don't have an estimate for
you, specifically day by day. it's being absorbed through current allocations that central command has through their disposal and services have at their disposal. the services are really the force providers. thanks, everybody. >> a bit of a spirited pentagon briefing. that was admiral john kirby. they talked iraq surveillance, we're flying over syria, libya, the uae's air strikes and just a few minutes ago, jen saki seemed to indicate that the isis threat she believes now has increased. >> they, of course, have threatened to attack the homeland. we take those threats very seriously. i think what you're seeing here is a response to our growing concern about the counterterrorism threat. >> that sounds very different from things we've heard from the administration over the last few days. let's bring in ceo of concerned vets for america and fox news contributor. pete, there's been a lot of back and forth.
we heard from the joint chair chiefs, general dempsey saying a few days ago, until we're convinced there is a direct threat to the u.s. homeland, we're not going after air strikes in syria. then we have this from jen saki today. i don't know what to do with that. >> there's a lot of misinformation going on. admiral kirby effectively said the same thing, we know there are h are jihadists going there. there's no doubt the potential for that threat exists. what this administration and the state department and defense department are walking a fine line between fully acknowledging it which would require them to more overtly take dramatic steps not just in iraq but syria. it was interesting a couple of things to hear him talk about the intelligence, how they mentioned there's a gap in inten jen -- intelligence. we've had limited interaction
with iraqi forces and very little surveillance in syria. that appears to be changing. they acknowledge the fact that that border isn't a border, assad doesn't control a lot of that terrain,en is at tempting to take it back at this point. he's on the defensive. isis goes between the two.ç for us to seek permission in iraq? who are we seeking permission from in syria? if they see no border, we can't afford to either with this kind of a threat. >> admiral kirby seemed to walk that fine line as well. he said we're not doing coordination with assad with regard to what we're doing in iraq. then there was stumbling there. we know we're flying intelligence, droughns over syria. he wouldn't say whether or not that's being coordinated. syria saying if you plan to do strikes here, even on the bad guys, you have to come to us for permission. >> it's very complicated. >> absolutely. he is absolutely right. we're not going to ask for assad's permission.
we've been calling for him to go for a long time. at the same time, the distinction we're making is arbitrary. we request permission from the iraqi government, they request us, so we do it. how do we request, we can't. the comparison falls apart there. clearly we have interest. i respect the fact that they don't want to acknowledge we're striking in syria. that's a classified operation. we don't want to tell isis what we're doing, when we're doing it. it was leaked by someone in the administration. i respect their desire to hold off on providing details of how robustly we're surveilling. we shouldn't tell the enemy what we're doing, we should just take the fight to them. this an enemy that can't be detained or deterred. it's got to be defeated, crushed. hopefully these are steps toward doing just that. >> jennifer griffin pushed on some of the ideas about what we're doing in syria, what we aren't doing in syria, what we can and can't talk about doing.
kirby in responding to her said that he's not going to look to geographic boundaries sa as a limit on protecting america and their interests. just as isis isn't recognizing borders, the u.s. may not either if somehow we can't show connection with our indiana trefts. >> we can't afford to. i think we've learned from the mistake in afghanistan and pakistan. obviously very different geopolitical strategic consideration. but part of our difficulty in afghanistan for so long as the enemy was running across a very porous border where we couldn't touch them or did in limited sense with drones. if we learn that lesson in iraq and syria, we'll apply similar pressure in syria. that's the heartç of isis. where they train, their headquarters elements. a lot of it is in northern syria, they projected more recently into iraq as they've tried to expand their orbit. frankly, they don't want to be
confined to iraq and syria. they want to go to jordan, leban lebanon, kuwait. this administration slowly is coming to the realization that they can't sit on the sidelines. we can't lead from behind. this is an enmany i that has to be confronted. our military leaders get it. we'll see how long it takes for the president and white house to fundamentally understand that. >> better to acknowledge it before an attack than after. pete, thank you so much. >> absolutely. >> always good to see you. >> thank you. burger king pushing back against claims that its $11 billion purchase of tim horton's is aimed at avoiding u.s. corporate taxes. they are vowing to keep headquarters in miami instead of moving across to the northern border. they were the fifth and heave h heaventh -- seventh biggest companies before the deal.
everyone is screaming about i have an inbox full of reports from different people on the hill, mostly democrats very upset. it's more tax inversion. bk says we're still going to pay our taxes here. >> they never were going to move the headquarters. the headquarters will still be in miami, florida. they might move lawyers and accountants but that's it. they're moving their tax domicile. that means they're not going to pay american corporate tax rates, i should say. they're going to pay canadian corporate tax rates. the surprise here is the role of warren buffett. he financed this deal. that's incredible. warren duff fete is one of the principle supporters of president obama when it comes to taxes. pay your taxes says warren buffett. now he's helping an american company jump ship to pay lower taxes in canada. that's extraordinary. he's putting $3 billion into this deal. he gets a 9% rate of return. it's a very good deal for him. here he is directly opposing the
president's tax policies, when previously he was a primary supporter of president obama. go figure. >> that's very interesting. we want to read a bill of the burger king statement. they said we hear you, we're not moving,ç we're just growing an finding ways to serve you better. our headquarters will remain in miami where we were founded more than 60 years ago and business will continue as usual at our restaurants around the world. this decision is not tax driven. it's about global growth for both brands. burger king will continue to pay federal, state and local u.s. taxes. >> sure. >> how do we parse those words? >> okay. they move to canada, the money that burger king earns all the way around the world will not be taxed by america. it won't come to america. they will not be paying that 35% tax rate that they would pay if they were in the united states of america. so it's true, they're still going to be paying sales tax at
all their operations. the headquarters stays here, got it. that's all true but they're not going to be paying american 256 taxes on future corporate earnings. they're based in canada. >> with the help of warren buffett. >> the complicit help of warren buffett. >> thank you for sticking around. >> sure. as president obama continues a new executive action on imfwrags, he's facing an uphill battle not just with republicans but key democrats in tough midterm election fights this fall. arkansas senator mark pryor issuing a statement, quote, i am frustrated with the partisanship in washington but that doesn't give the president carte blanche authority to sidestep congress when he doesn't get his way. end quote. alaska senator mark beggich says to me, securing our borders has
to be the priority, and that should be the president's focus, end quote. gentlemen, good to see you both. >> good to be here, shannon. >> what do you think about this? there are some saying the president is all about his long-term legacy. he's not worrying about the democrats who have to win, in about 70 days their own races and keep control of the senate. what do you think? >> well, i think we don't know what the president will do. certainly what we do know is that in previous immigration acts of 1996, for example, the president was given extraordinary authority to make decisions about how to deal with deportations and work permits which are the things being discussed right now. this isn't implied authority. this isç articulated authority and because the president has been trying since day in one in office to fix the immigration system. what they're saying it may be time to take small steps forward.
i think that's going to happen soon and i think it will be overwhelmingly popular. it showed the president is trying to solve a problem and not play politics. >> others are saying i don't think you should govern by executive action or order. it seems like they want distance, even if this is a long-termyish that might benefit them. seems like they're worried about the short-term fallout. the fact is, listen, the president deserves congratulations after six years of rhetoric about bringing this country together, he has the democrats and republicans agreeing on something. the problem is the democrats are those who are running for re-election this november and the thing they agree on is that this president has to be stopped. he can't be allowed to do this unilaterally. 5 million people granted work permits by the signature of his pen is not a small incremental step, simon. this is a huge change and the president should not be allowed to do this. >> simon, you probably have
inside scoop. any idea what the white house is considering at this point? >> the president is a constitutional lawyer. his attorney general is a lawyer. jay johnson is a lawyer. they're trying really, really hard to stay within what they believe are articulated authorities given to them by previous congresss. they're not trying to flout the law. i really do believe this. this is something -- we believe this. we've been fighting for immigration reform for nine years. one of the reasons why we had the problems at the border we had this year is because we didn't fix the immigration system and the republicans blocked us. these are things we believe passionately should get done. i think the president is trying to act upon a promise. >> i have to get a super quick final word from larry. >> the supreme court has already smacked down this president for acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally. it doesn't make me feel safe that the lawyers are in charge in the white house. this is the no the president
acting because he couldn't get the republicans to work with him. he's acting because he couldn't get the republicans to do what he told them to do. this is not a dictatorship. >> we have to leave it there. gentlemen(úáhank you both. >> thank you. president obama face to face with american veterans, selling his administration's work to fix their hospitals and systems. did those treatment delay issues really lead to any deaths? you've got to hear what the v.a. has to say. everyone is bigger in texas, texans say. where you can pick up a 99 cents pack of beer but you might need your own truck. looks like an economical deal.
the state department says it cannot confirm reports that an american was killed fighting for isis in syria. the deadly battle reportedly happening over the weekend. according to the free syrian army. rebels rifling through the pockets of the dead and finding an american passport. the state department said it is aware of the reports, adding it is in contact with the family. the state department says they are not in a position to confirm details at this point. senior defense officials telling fox news the u.s. is flying surveillance drones over syria. president obama signing off on the mission, a move that many say could pave the way for possible air strikes against islamic militants in that country. mike emanuel is live in washington with more. all right. mike, what are some of the key concerns you're hearing from folks on the hill? >> well, shannon, congressman doug collins is a member of the foreign airfaz committee, an iraq war veteran and a major in the air force reserve who's calling for a plan and leadership.
>> if air strikes alone were the only thing that would defeat isis, we'd have them defeated. we know that's not true. you have to have the control on the ground which takes the iraqis, the kurds, everyone in that rwgion to step up. there's no easy solution here. a cruise missile strike will not fix the situation. we have to have a good comprehensive plan. >> collins says the kmaner in chief must lay out the strategy and make the case for it. shannon? >> mike, what about across the hill on hill? >> tim kaine said expanded action against the terrorist army is not isolation. they say this fight and the threat posed by isil is serious enough that congress and the administration must be united on u.s. policy going forward. i urge the administration to use the next two weeks to clearly
define the strategy and objectives of its mission against isil and bring it to congress for a debate and authorization vote. indiana republican senator dan coats has written so far the united states has responded to this threat with delay, half measures and strong language without real backing. coats says president obama just back from vacation conveys no sense of urgency or alarm. so a number of key members want to see a comprehensive plan from the white house. shannon? >> we're standing by. always good to see you. thanks. >> thank you. the president is addressing the v.a. scandal telling the american leith national convention that his administration made, quote, real progress in improving veteran's health care. this comes as the ved rans affairs department said it found no proof that delay in care caused no deaths. joining me now, steven dinen with the "washington times." it is an inspector general's report.
we expect those to be neutral to the facts. just system to the facts. what's your impression. >> the full report has just come out. it goes through a number of the cases they were determined patient deaths happened and try and trace them back and see, they concluded that there's no conclusive proof that the patient deaths of about 40 patients were tied to delays in care. but they said they also can't rule it out in some of the cases saying while they may have gotten some of the better care if they put through on time, most important though, they say the treatment is unacceptable. there were problems, they were kicked off of waiting lists or appointment lists. and that can't go on. it caused treatment problems for them. even if you can't specifically link veteran deaths to this, they said it wasn't conclusive one way or the çother, even if you can't specifically make that link, there are major problems there that go back to the incentive structure, the department. it's pretty endemic to what's going on. >> the president said he made a
solemn pledge to veterans and their family saying that at the highest level this administration is involved in working on solutions. he mentioned a couple things that i'll quickly have you respond to. one thing he said those involved in the trouble or covering it u fired. i know that's been a big bone of contention. he also said he would do nothing that would turn the v.a. system into a voucher system, but we know that the v.a. spends millions on referring people to private care when they don't have the resources or the time to get to them. >> in fact, that's exactly what the bill that he signed about a month ago does even more of. if we go past a certain waiting time, a veteran waiting too long or if you live too far, you're allowed to seek outside care at a certain point. the bill he signed does that. does it turn into a voucher system, no, it's not a patient-driven situation. it's when you cross a certain threshold. but the d.a., congress, administration by that bill have recognized that private care is
part of the solution here and the president has recognized that, too. >> thank you so much for your time. >> my pleasure. helping america's heroes get a fresh start. who is getting jobs for our veterans? stay tuned. n the clock, what am i thinking about? foreign markets. asian debt that recognizes the shift in the global economy. you know, the kind that capitalizes on diversity across the credit spectrum and gets exposure to frontier and emerging markets. if you convert 4-quarter p/e of the s&p 500, its yield is doing a lot better... if you've had to become your own investment expert, maybe it's time for bny mellon, a different kind of wealth manager ...and black swans are unpredictable.
at the veterans convention getting under way in north carolina today there's also a major job fair aimed at helping america's heroes get back on their feet. we're live there with more on that. there's been a lot of talk about people who have left the military more recently. they are certainly big numbers. why the focus there? >> there's been a focus at this convention on the younger veterans or those who served after 9/11 because this group has a lower unemployment rate. that's moore than 50% higher
than the unemployment rate for all veterans which is lower than the rate for nonveterans. the major factor is the sheer number of vets leaving the war after the warring in afghanistan. a cycle that's repeated itself throughout history. >> if you look back to world war i, they came back with ticker tape parades in november and they were unemployed come january. >> so the advice they're giving out at this job fair start early. start looking at the careers, the civilian careers that are out there. up to two years before you're about to cycle off the military. and they also want to educate employers about the qualities that veterans bring to the table such as character and work ethic. l listen, i have eight years of school. finished my mba masters of business administration. people ask me should i get my mba or go into the military, the
years in marine corps gave me more experience than any mba can give you. >> talking about the american legion, they've been hosting workshops here for veterans wanting to open up their own businesses. >> we'd love to see that. we're going to need a much, much bigger truck. one company in texas giving the old six-pack a major, major upgrade. stick around. ♪ defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. easily absorbed calcium plus d. beauty is bone deep. dunk,eady to crack, dip... it's crabfest at red lobster! the year's largest variety of crab! like new! crab lover's trio! or try new! jumbo lump crab over wood-grilled salmon. crabfest is now... but ends soon! so hurry in and sea food differently!
all together now -- ♪ 99 bottles of beer on the wall ♪ that's what they're selling. 99 bucks not 99 cents. i got confused on that earlier. austin beer works just carrying that out of the store should work off the calories. you wonder what happens to a sneep if you never sheer it? this is what happens. two farmers found this sheep
never sheered. estimated to be carrying more than 40 pounds of wool. shannon, we're three hours into a cease-fire to end the war between israel and gaza, actually just for a cease-fire, not a specific end. but so far this peace seems to be holding. we'll look at the deal the two sides have struck. we will get a live report. plus remember those reports that dozens of veterans died while waiting for care at this hospital in phoenix? government investigators say no, that's not true. there's not a single death linked to those long wait times, not one. we'll get more on that. and just days after islamic fighters chopped off the head of an american journalist and threatened to kill a second american we're now learning about a third hostage they're holding. an american woman. let's get to it.