tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News January 7, 2020 7:00pm-8:00pm PST
they are putting themselves on the line. the damage assessment continues. iran may have just blinked. at least one source climbing none are confirmed. let not your >> laura: excellent coverage tonight, we are on all aspects of breaking news as we come in. i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle" on a major news night in washington. multiple friends, iran, impeachment and a lot more. a dozen missiles against u.s. forces in iraq, a retaliation against the killing of soleimani. the pentagon is telling us the ballistic missiles were fired from iran and fired at two iraqi bases that house u.s. personnel. it's too early to assess all the damage but an official is telling fox news tonight there are no american casualties.
we will be bringing you updates and important analysis throughout the hour from multiple perspectives. but first i want to go to trey yingst, who is live from baghdad where the sun has just come up. what can you tell us at this early hour? >> good evening. we saw the expected response from the iranians. no one knew exactly what was going to be but it ended up being more than a dozen ballistic missiles fired from iranian territory towards that military base. the all assad base in western iraq. this is a base that does house many u.s. forces. according to resource at the pentagon, a total of 15 ballistic missiles were fired. for two of them failed, one landed in the city, the rest hitting that base. but as he said, no reports of american casualties. the good news out of this ballistic missile strike attack today from the iranians. what is different about tonight's attacks from previous months we saw it earlier this
week, in baghdad's green zone, to the left, some rockets fired by iranian backed shia militia groups. these are smaller rockets fired within iraqi territory, often towards u.s. backed bases, but not from iranian territory. this is a major escalation from what the iranians were doing before. but from baghdad tonight, a lot of helicopter activity over baghdad's green zone. a number of countries including the u.s. patrolling the area to make sure none of the militias would launch a similar attack during the same prime. according to the iranian foreign minister, zarif, the ball is now in president trump's court. he's participated in this back and forth all week. even today, president and top leadership have said they are going to spill american blood. it does appear that this round of retaliation is over, but make no mistake, there are iranian proxies across the middle east. we've spoken with many of them
in places like gaza, hamas, also in lebanon, has below, and iranian backed militias in places like iraq and syria. they all threaten allies such as israel, so even the retaliation may be overcome u.s. troops in kuwait are still on high alert. laura? >> laura: thanks, and remember there are 5,000 u.s. troops in the region tonight in iraq. here to react to all this news, retired colonel daniel davis, senior fellow and military expert for defense priorities also with us, jim hansen. former special army operator. i will start with you, colonel. can we expect more from the iranians or is this it for now? >> i think this is going to be it for now. i think they're going to wait and see what we do as a result. we heard from the correspondent right there and other sources i have heard from also, is that many of these ha types in iran d
syria have all independently threatened the united states as well. the question is can they be controlled from tehran or might some of them be directed? so we are not out of the woods next. >> laura: if they wanted to kill americans, they could have, correct? they know where they are basically on these bases. if this report is correct and it looks like so far we have no reason to doubt it, that no american service personnel have been killed, could this have been their way to kind of save face with their anxious, radical within their population? >> they had to retaliate in some way or they would lose face, so think you're absolutely right that that is a distinct possibility and the choice of ballistic missiles, as opposed to another -- >> laura: explained that for us. >> ballistic missiles are long-range, they require guidance. to be perfectly frank, the iranian missiles sucked. they are not good. they don't know where they're going to land.
they lobbed them hundreds of kilometers and they land in a general area. it's not like people think the u.s. launches ballistic missile strikes -- >> laura: pinpoint accuracy. >> we are going to hit a desk in a building. >> laura: you are saying something different, they could've tried to kill u.s. forces but missed? >> i think they were trying to take the least likely incident but they took a chance by doing it, by launching them at the base. if they hit and killed american, then they are in trouble. they knew the chances were slim of that and it makes them look tough because lipstick missiles sounds like a tough guy move. >> laura: nancy pelosi you would be happy to know is closely monitoring the situation. here is a tweet, following the bombings of u.s. troops in iraq. we must ensure the safety of our service members including neal's provocation from the administration and demanding that iran cease its violence.
we cannot afford war. and a picture of her closely monitoring the situation from a rather high-end d.c. restaurant here she happened to be out to dinner, i'm not going to crucify her for that. but she is criticizing the president as the commander in chief as american forces are in harm's way. >> well, what else is she going to do? she has to say something because there is a bigger issue involved here. i've said this on your show several times of the last several months, is that we need to get our troops out of there because right now they are serving absolutely no positive outcome for the united states. our security is not at risk. the missions we had been given, which is train the iraqi troops encounter isis staff have now been suspended. right now they are just sitting in the desert. >> laura: are our military sitting ducks in iraq waiting for iran may be to attack? speak a correct and we need to pull them out.
president trump has talked about this several times and i strongly agree with that because it doesn't help us any. it gives us a lot of strategic risk. i would love to see him move us out of there. >> laura: jim, do you agree with that? i'm worried about mission creep here. i'm worried that this president, who in part one make the election by being the anti-bush. he did not want to do what bush did. i don't think that is where he is going here, i really don't. i think his instinct is for peace but can't also allow terrorists to run roughshod over american interests. >> can we do peace through strength? can we admit that taking out one of the world's deadliest terrorists, the kingpin of iran's terror network and their proxies around the world, may actually make us safer because now they are disrupted. trump didn't do that because he wants to have world war iii with those guys. he did it because soleimani asked for and we would've put all our people at risk by not responding. now we did, now all their
networks in iraq, syria, lebanon are all in chaos. the russians called assad to their air base to meet with putin today. he is all soleimani has got. they are buddies. now the russians are moving in, and iran has plenty on their plate. they don't want to beat with us citizens of being a net positiv. >> i don't agree with that, i have a different view on that. >> laura: this is why i love these discussions. this is not necessarily a clear conversation about this. >> we took out a soleimani. he was the top of a very large apparatus, and if we thought there was imminent strikes come in, the operational people are still untouched and they immediately replaced soleimani. so all those things still exist but now you add a lot of emotion on top of that for retaliation, so the risk is actually higher, in my view. president trump, and there is a redline. when an american's guilt, how can you not retaliate and respond?
but that is why we need to get the troops out of there because it reduces our strategic risk and makes it harder for iran to do something because if we don't have the targets they are, what else are they going to do? their reach is very short and our global reach is unrivaled in the world, and we can reach out from anywhere. >> laura: i go back and i think about 2006, early 2006 in iraq and i was there only for a week but i said this last night, they enlisted men who kept telling me iran, iran, iran. you've got to focus on iran because they're making these ieds that blew up my body two weeks ago, and remember general case he didn't want to talk much about iran back then. but trump is in the situation because this is what he was dealt. he was dealt the situation by both obama and bush, and it's a hard cleanup act to deal with. >> obama's cringing capitulation for the entire time he was in office out of a desperate attempt to gain a legacy for his foreign policy left us in the
place where iran was dominant. they were dominant in the region and we weren't responding. now president trump has responded in a very important way and i will agree with colonel davis. i agree this may come in the short term, put us in more risk. but in the long term it may create a wedge between iran and their proxies. and at home it reminds the iranian people that they are buying guns for militants in iraq and syria, not eggs and butter for their own people. that matters. >> laura: elizabeth warren speaking out tonight as well, and he sensed the candidates on the trail, the democrats are trying to recapture that antiwar mantle that trump had successfully, you know, wrestled away from the democrats. watch. speak of the iranian government has announced that it has sent missiles to attack our military bases in iraq. this is a reminder why we need
to de-escalate tension in the middle east. the american people do not want a war with iran. >> laura: jim? >> nobody wants a war with iran. iran especially doesn't want to wear with iran because they cannot go for us to force against us and they know it. they can asymmetrically hit us. they can attack shipping again and do things like that but they don't want the united states particularly riled up. >> laura: here is my thinking. if we are now in a position in iraq where we are supposed to not respond when we have soleimani parading around the baghdad airport obviously planning something behind an attack on the embassy, they would've torched that whole embassy if they could've. if we are in a position where we can't do anything because it would trigger iran, then why are we there? the situation is truly hopeless of a country that is a sixth of our size -- we have 326 million people in the u.s., they have about 80 million.
they are a sixth of our size. if we can't retaliate, then what are we doing there? that is another way of looking at it. it illustrates colonel davis, what you are saying here, but also, we were there, we thought we would be out of there, we are still there, we get threatened, he's parading around the airpond we are supposed to say, well, nothing? >> no person in our history whatever stand passive in the face of an attack on the american people so that is unquestioned. >> laura: didn't they attack our embassy? they attacked our embassy. that a sovereign u.s. territory. speak up but that didn't happen in a vacuum. that happened after we killed 25 of their people. we call them bad but they were iraqi citizens. and 15 more were wounded. that is what drove them. so we can deal with them, as long as nobody was hurt. but here's the biggest issue for president trump. earlier today, iran says they are stopping abiding in any
capacity to the agreement. meaning they are moving back openly to nuclear stuff. what we don't want to get into is a situation where we have troops there, which can be targeted by either hezbollah, by some of these other groups there. we can pull them out so now we can just deal with that issue there, because trump i think must avoid an unnecessary war while defending us -- >> laura: you see with the democrats are doing, though, don't you? he really had an edge on us. he was so hard -- he was asymmetrical in the last election. they didn't see anything like him. now they're trying to say, no, you see. he is like the neocons try to for a while this money away in this godforsaken place. >> it is not going to work for them for one reason. trump doesn't want to work. he wants a deal. he wants to put iran in a spot. they don't have the money to do it, they've lost their puppet
master who is running all their things and he was a very charismatic guy. he may have been a scumbag, evil terrorist -- >> laura: murderer. >> but he was good at it. consequently, the guy they replaced him with is not as good, not us charismatic and he doesn't have the personal relationships. for the short term we have a least an opportunity to put them on their heels and trump is going to use that not to start a war but to avoid one. >> there is also an issue here with maximum pressure. i'm an outlier here and i will admit that right off the top here, but when all we do is put pressure on them. we say we want to negotiate a better deal, that is what trump says. but if we don't offer the possibility for iran to get something out of it, there will never be a negotiation. they will continue to move to nuclear, and then we may have to come to a point where there is a war, whether we wanted or not. that is hard for americans to say. >> laura: this is why we have different voices on the show. this is an important moment for this presidency, and i really appreciate both of you coming on tonight.
thank you so much. now we will go to the white house where our chief white house correspondent john roberts is standing by with the latest. the president just tweeting moments ago that he is going to address the nation tomorrow morning. any clues about what we might expect? >> i think you could draw a lot of clues from what we saw tonight where, initially, there was what looked like mayhem unfolding in iraq with all these ballistic missiles fired at a rocky basis that has u.s. military forces. then as we found out throughout the night that it didn't look as bad as what had been initially expected. the president tweeting a short time ago, "all is well. missiles launched from iran and two military bases located in iraq. assessment of casualties and damage are taking place now. so far, so good. we have the most powerful and well-equipped military anywhere in the world by far. i will be making a statement tomorrow morning." we had no idea the timing of the statement or really what the
president is going to stay but there is a belief among some high-ranking administration officials that what we saw from iran here tonight may have been an intentional miss, that they knew where the u.s. forces were housed and even though they hit the al-assad airbase with ten air missiles with one, that those missiles fell far away from where u.s. forces were being housed and while there may have been some casualties among iraqi forces, there were no casualties among american forces, which really would've changed the equation. this is being potentially seen here, still in the early going, as a potential face-saving meast of iran to say, we did something here. but they didn't do enough that would invoke a really harsh and wide-ranging retaliatory response from the united states. now that said, the president could announce tomorrow morning that he is going to respond in
some way short for form, particularly in the oval office. the president said he was ready to do that. listen here. >> i will say this, if iran does anything that they shouldn't be doing, they are going to be suffering the consequences, and very strongly. we are prepared. we are totally prepared. likewise, we are prepared to attack if we have to. as retribution. >> of course, today iran was talking about all this attack against soleimani, which killed him on friday night in that air strike. an act of terrorism. an act of war, that was even some suggestion by the iraqi prime minister or and the foreign ministers before that soleimani was there on some sort of diplomatic peace mission that iraq was trying to broker a new relationship between iran and saudi arabia. the secretary of state basically laughed that off this morning, and listen to what president trump said about it this afternoon. >> they weren't there to discuss
a vacation, they weren't there to go to a nice resort, someplace in baghdad. they were there to discuss bad business. and we saved a lot of lives by terminating his life. a lot of lives have been saved. they were planning something, and you're going to be hearing about it, or at least various people in congress are going to be hearing about it tomorrow. >> again come over going to hear from president trump about this tomorrow. secretary of defense, cia director and the chairman joint chiefs of staff go over to capitol hill to brief members of congress on all of this. but the initial assessment this evening, the thinking among many administration officials is that this could've been a deliberate mess on the part of iran. fired some missiles out in the iraqi airbase where they say the attack on soleimani was launched and zarif himself tweeted out that iraq undertook and
concluded its response. it does not want escalation, according to zarif, but it will respond when attacked. we will see where this goes from here, but the early bedding may be that it doesn't go too much further, unless the u.s. decides to attack some iranian infrastructure. but the fact that there were no u.s. casualties tonight i think is a good sign of where this may be headed in the future. >> laura: excellent analysis. i appreciate it so much. here now, house foreign affairs committee member and matt gaetz, house judiciary committee member. congressman, let's start with you. the house is set to vote to limit trump's war power this week, but do the attacks today change the calculus? >> i would certainly hope so. i'm a member of the house foreign affairs committee. there hasn't been any type of a hearing, any markup of any resolution. get this, there isn't even text yet. here we are back in d.c., they're talking about having a vote this week on something to undercut and handcuff the president of the united states.
they still haven't even figured out with their text looks like so i will say it's the wrong answer. speaker pelosi putting out her statement, and instead of thinking about our troops, hoping there is no casualties, sticking together as americans first, to take that political partisan shot at the president was wrong. i think she needs to do some self reflecting tonight and as we go to the rest of this week we should be working together as americans first and not going forward with her plan to take out the president. >> laura: especially here in john roberts, it's very important, what he just said. they could've hit those military bases in a much more strategic, accurate way. even if they are not as advanced as we are, but they could've done it. >> they were able to draw a bead on their target when they were shooting into saudi arabia so i think john's point is well taken. remember, general soleimani, the terrorist, was trying to pull
the united states into war. that is why it was the right thing to do to kill him, however we should not give general soleimani in death what he could not accomplish in life, and that is a war with the united states and iran. i'm hopeful this was an intentional miss. i do believe if the united states ekes war with iran, which the president doesn't come of the american, then of course congressional authorization would be required. that is in the constitution. certainly not for self-defense. i think the president has been measured and let's hope restraint wins the day. >> laura: if he wanted to respond tonight he could have responded tonight. the light of day there was hours ago. >> of the president wanted war with iran he had plenty of opportunities. he's chosen to exercise restraint and the trump doctrine is one where we strike and then move. we don't invade and then try to persuade to liberate. >> laura: i said last night, congressman, while bush might've been idealistic when it came to what was possible with iraq, wee had to feed his him on the part of obama, we have realism of
this president. i think you see it in action right now. you are seeing it in action. >> taking out soleimani, the designated foreign terrorist organization, soleimani was a designated terrorist. he was sanctioned by the u.s., the e.u., the united nations, and when nancy pelosi said that it was disproportionate -- >> laura: tonight. when she says tonight, needless provocations from the administration. at that point we didn't know if there were american casualties. >> i would like to ask her, at what point is it proportionate when you have 600 u.s. troops who get killed and thousands more that get wounded, and she calls it disproportionate to take out the person who is responsible for it customer to go one trip to walter reed where we serve with brian masse. you have these young men, young women who have their whole lives in front of them and because of soleimani, the end of wounded permanently. i'm happy he can rot in hell
with al baghdadi bin laden. >> laura: i think nancy pelosi's comments were disgusting. disgusting. to in any way tiptoe to the edge of what trump did here. unbelievable. >> you and your last segment raised at the right question. what now customer quote is the strategic objective for our troops in iraq? it seems as though iraqi parliament has taken a different view on whether or not we should be there at all. >> laura: good. maybe we ought to do what trump has said we should do for years. to get out of iraq. >> and focus on our country. >> laura: that is where his people are. inchoate, that base there is very nice. we could operate from there. i have to share this with you, biden after he mixed up iran and iraq, he said that iran voted to kick us out of the country. this is what he was saying could be done to calm down the
situation. watch. >> haphazard decision-making process, the failure to consult with our allies or congress, and the reckless disregard for the consequences that will truly follow was, in my view, dangerously incompetent. >> laura: he went on to say that if he wanted to resolve this we should get back into the iran deal. >> giving $150 billion to iran and financing hezbollah and lebanon and assad and syria in helping them take out the government in yemen, testing ballistic missiles. remember when they embarrassed our navy sailors? and john kerry's response was, thank you. then delivering $1.7 billion on pallets of cash? >> laura: he actually said the way to de-escalate is for us now to go to iran and say, please, sir, may i have another? we want to go back to the iran deal after they used this as an excuse to not abide by the iran
deal, if they even wear. >> it's obvious the violent iran has undertaken has been animated by the iran deal, funded by the iran deal. we are in this circumstance because of the failures of the obama biden policy. but let's be sure the trump doctrine is not a continuation of the obama-bush doctrine. let's make sure we are able to match our military might with the right strategic decisions to get out of the middle east. think about what china is thinking right now. they're probably laughing and hoping that we get two more decades. >> laura: how much have they spent in the middle east? >> they have not spilled the blood of their bravest patriots the way we have. >> strategically. they are getting into cell phone towers, the ports. it's important to note, we mentioned some of the nonnuclear activities of iran but on top of that, and what joe biden in these other dems won't tell the american public, the sunset provisions, the iran nuclear deal was about to end.
the clause with the verification regime. president obama, joe biden, john kerry said this deal is not built on trust, it's built on verification. but then they put the entire verification regime into a secret deal between the ieee and iran and we as american congress, the american public. >> laura: getting into another point and i will touch on this later on on "the angle," we have a great show, but chris matthews was on tonight on msnbc, and this was as we were learning new details about the missile attack. attack. watch. >> we killed this guy, we assassinate him with mike pence in the room, mike pompeo in the room. real hawks come almost religiously so. are we counting on the fact that the people on the other side are less hawkish than the people on the other side are less religious in this confrontation? >> what a false equivalency. the left's approach fro to thisu
see a departure from the way the middle east fundamentally works. obviously they respond were expressions of strength. the fact we took out soleimani limits the capability to build this present that threatens israel, threatens the united states, ultimately. i think we made the right decision to take soleimani out. and tonight, hopefully with the lack of casualties we will be able to move forward in a way that doesn't draw us into war into war. >> john kerry was applying to be the president of the toronto chamber of congress, when he was negotiating that he'll come it seems like chris matthews, richard engel, andrea mitchel mitchell, with the way they are approaching their reporting today, it's like they want to zarif job after zarif. they hate the president so much it is distorting their reporting. they're turning into chris matthews' show, you wonder what kind of result they're looking for. soleimani is a terrorist who killed americans and wounded thousands of others. >> laura: can't we agree on that? isn't it amazing we can't even agree -- forget on what the right action was.
we can't even agree apparently that he was a murderous, evil individual, even though obama branded him a terrorist. now obama branding him a terrorist is invalid. >> when we label someone a terrorist under democratic and administration, does that mean it is not our goal to kill them anymore customers i would hope we would want to kill him even more. >> with all the drone strikes of obama in 2011. >> laura: got no notice they are. >> nancy pelosi said it was totally legal. but here's the situation with soleimani and you have article two, the 2002, we can have a whole other conversation about. but the double standards, the hypocrisy with the way the left is engaging this debate. >> laura: trump is a political astringent, i will say it until the election. he has revealed the dirt of this city from the deep state to the media elites and what they've done to this country and the false reporting. he is revealed -- and the republican establishment, who have made boatloads of money off
the defense industry. i think he has exposed all of the send it is realism. i think you hit it tonight. such a great night to have both of you on. thank you so much. and i want to stop now and show you come in the audience, what is happening right now and iran. this is a live look at soleimani's funeral. how many funerals can a guy have? thousands of people lining up in the streets, praying over his casket, they are, singing, which are "death to america" as part of that tune. as reported last night, a lot of these folks are compelled to show up to these types of events. this is all happening just hours after the country launched an attack, whether it was an attempt to save face and purposely missed or not, we don't know yet. but trying to at least pretend like they are reacting to the killing of soleimani. now if you are just joining us, iran fired 15 ballistic missiles
at u.s. forces in iraq that were at iraqi bases, and a u.s. official told fox tonight there are no casualties. now iran the foreign minister tweeting this during the attack, after calling the u.s. strike outwardly, he said "we do not seek escalation or war, but we will defend ourselves against any aggression." this is, trump also said he didn't want to escalate this or have war today either. now i also don't remember the democrats having so much difficulty declaring someone a terrorist come out when obama declared him a terrorist. they had no problem them, but now it's trump so anything is on the table. joining me now, alan dershowitz, 25 year u.s. army vet and vice president of foreign policy and defense policy, studied at heritage, also with as a sara carter, host of "the sara carter show" and fox news
contributor. all right, did trump need to go to congress and request permission to kill soleimani? >> it would've been absurd for a president to go to congress, which is filled with leaks, and disclose in advance that he was going to conduct a surprise attack on a terrorist, who could've easily changed his itinerary. of course not. presidents don't need to get approval from congress for anything, other than declaring war. in this case, this person was the paradigm of someone who could be targeted for killing under the law. he was a combatant, he was a killer with a past history. he was going to kill other people, we were probably in the country and had permission to defend our troops, and our citizens in the country. there could be no clearer case of a president as commander in chief having the legal authority to conduct this operation. whether it was the right thing to do, that is for people to debate, and that is for us to look at over the long-term.
we hope maybe this is all iran is going to do in response. but don't confuse or conflate the legal acceptability, which is 100% positive here, with possible disputes over policy or politics. >> laura: i want to play, just so people know what we're talking about here, for james carafano, democrats repeating this mantra about the president acting implicitly and explicitly, they said, illegally. watch. >> i don't believe the president has authority to go to war in iraq without congressional dairy approval. >> he says they do. >> i don't believe that. >> no consultation with congress, that is a violation of the work consultation act. >> you are 1 of 3 democrats who have been briefed after the fact. >> after the fact. >> there is usually a congressional consulting period. it is constitutionally required constitutionally required. >> laura: did they care when obama was droning everyone and their dog?
>> chuck schumer is the master of disinformation. he knows the u.s. is not seeking to go to war with iraq. what he is complaining against is not what the u.s. is doing. 2002, military force, that is what bush, obama have operated in, it's exactly the same. even if it wasn't, when american troops are imminently in danger of attack, has the right to authorize self-defense. >> that is absolutely true and when you think about this, soleimani, for decades, has been a threat to the world. he ran proxy organizations across the globe, and south america, right next door in mexico as well. we know his operations against the israeli state, through hezbollah, through hamas. president trump knows this. he had the authority to do so because he was in direct threat to the united states, to u.s. forces come into our embassy in iraq. and, by the way, a direct threat to the united states because soleimani had made insinuations
that he had people in the u.s. that were prepared to attack the united states. what the president did was bold, he aggressively went after iran, without causing a war, and sent a message to the rest of the world, you are not going to do this to us, you to mike we are going to put america first and we will not allow thi. >> laura: you made a great point i hadn't thought of and i hate that, when you think of something before i do. but that is an excellent insight. in an interesting way, it is kind of advancing the america first policy, mantra, belief system of donald trump. he could've rushed to escalate tonight. they're waiting to see what is really going on here and he will speak to the nation tomorrow. not bad. >> the president has the right as commander in chief to make these decisions. whether they are right or wrong, the absurd notion that it is an impeachable offense to make a decision you disagree with, this was legally authorized.
more than any single strike conducted by the obama administration. much more lawfully authorized than the killing of osama bin laden. the drone attacks, the killing of the american who was a propagandist. this was preventive, and this was a military terrorist in uniform. everything that international law requires was satisfied here and everything that the united states constitutionally requires was satisfied here. the previous congressman who is in the constitution requires consultation with congress? where? show me anything in the constitution that says that. the only thing congress has the authority to do is to fund the military and to declare war. but they have no authority to be consulted by the president, who engages in a military act as commander in chief. >> laura: i also think i'm a real quick for both of you, i'm going to ask every single guest tonight, the idea that he is using this to distract from impeachment when i was a impeachment has been such a positive spread trump. he wants to stay on impeachment
because his numbers are going up! >'s because he's actually going to get reelected. >> everyone is making it all about trump and iran just conducted a massive fireworks demonstration in the desert, killing iraqis on iraqi soldiers. that is unbelievably reckless and provocative. talking about the president's conduct when we have the most egregious act in modern memory. this is incredible. >> 15 ballistic missiles and let's not forget that iran was responsible for a lot of soldiers' deaths in afghanistan and iraq. >> laura: eric trump's exclusive response to iranian attacks and the continued efforts to smear his father. stay tuned. all money managers might seem the same,
but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. the end might not be as happy as ayou think.end.
after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke! but the good news is you can rewrite your ending and get screened for stroke and cardiovascular disease. life line screening is the easy and affordable way to make you aware of undetected health problems before they hurt you. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and heart disease. so if you're over 40, call to schedule an appointment for five painless screenings that go beyond annual checkups. and if you call us today, you'll only pay $149-an over 50% savings. read it again, papa? sure. i've got plenty of time. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more.
they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/try and never go to the post office again!
speak of the seeds of danger were planted by donald trump himself. on may 8th, 2018, the day the president tore up the nuclear deal against the advice of his own top national security advisor. >> laura: oh, is that what happened? joe biden, the democrat front-runner, went on to say the only way forward never donald trump and for america is diplomacy. and rejoining the deal. here to respond, eric trump, executive vice president of the trump organization. eric, biden has a gun a foreign policy decision of right and my calculation, i, thinking about for two decades. now he is lecturing your father? >> iran thought they could get away with murder like they did the last eight years under he and obama. these were the two individuals that gave iran $150 billion, including planes full of cash. pallets worth of cash that they
threw over there to try to appease this country. the country hasn't dealt with strength in a very long time, until my father came along. how many more oil tankers need to be captured? how many more drones need to be shot out of the sky? how many more u.s. embassies have to have molotov cocktails thrown over their walls? i could go on and on but somebody finally has to punch back and my father did that very effectively. he did it with a man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of americans and i'm proud of him doing that. make no mistake, my father is a very calculating person. he's very, very measured. this will be interesting to see what comes of it. he might actually surprise you. >> laura: i think a lot of folks who voted for him were rejecting the idealism of george w. bush and going into iraq. we are going to democratize it. that ended up empowering iran. your dad is try to clean up that mess. and the defeatism, basically
trusting iran. some verification, but most smart people thought that was ridiculous. he's kind of left to deal with both administrations' messes here, yet there is also the concern that your dad was really popular, in part because he wanted to get out of this mess. he didn't want to waste blood and treasure in the middle east, yet we still have 5,000 american troops there who are now, apparently, dealing with incoming missiles. >> listen, my father didn't want to go into iraq. he said of the time it was the worst foreign policy mistake and here we are, $7 trillion later, still dealing with the mess we are dealing with right now. he didn't want to fight a lot of these wars. he doesn't believe america should be nation building other countries. we should be taken that $7 trillion and investing it in our own country and our own education system. at the same time he's not going to let jerks around the world push america around. you also realize that with so many of these nations, you actually have to deal with them with strength and not appeasement.
that is one thing biden never got right and obama never got right. sending $150 billion, do you know what that $150 billion did? it probably paid for the missiles that were launched at one of our sites today. it didn't make them friendly people. they are still on the streets chanting "death to america." it got us absolutely nothing. you know what gets this country something? strength. that is something my father does very, very well. he doesn't want occupy other countries -- >> laura: some people say that we are already at war. we don't call it war but we killed their top general, who was a terrorist thug, they come back and retaliate missiles at our bases that we build, so what is this? >> it so much more than that, right? look at the sailors that were captured under obama who were held at gunpoint because their boats were in a randian water, supposedly. look at the oil tankers that were captured. look at the drones shot out of the air. look at the nuclear programs and all the things that go into that. look at the general spreading of
terror across the world, which iran funds. appeasement didn't work. my father was willing to take a very decisive shot the other day. i'm very glad he did. i think the world is glad he did and he probably stopped a lot of terrorist attacks from happening. i thought that was very strategic, very surgical. but clearly the other methodology, it wasn't working. >> laura: clearly, today iran was trying to recapture that mantle that i think your dad had successfully taken from the democrats, saying that we are the antiwar party. bernie sanders both saying that. we shouldn't rush to war, we didn't like soleimani necessarily but we shouldn't rush to war. they are trying to take that political leverage away from your father. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. aside from that, the democrats are actually accusing your father of using the soleimani strike as a wag the dog situation. watch. >> president trump doing exactly
that, trying to distract from the news of the day. >> this action was taken more and president trump's self-interest, rather than our national interest. >> do you believe president trump pulled the trigger on this operation as a way to distract from impeachment? >> i think it is a reasonable question to ask. >> laura: biden basically said the same thing behind closed doors according to a producer in new york today, saying he was worried he was going to get us into war when the walls started closing in on your father. eric, your reaction to my? >> don't you find the word distraction so ironic? the only thing the democrats have been trying to do is distract from the weather be russia investigation committee impeachment hoax. everything else they do. the fact that this country has the greatest economy we've ever seen. lowest unemployment we've ever seen. lowest numbers, best consumer confidence. leading the world and every metric. it is so ironic that they are the ones coming out and saying, somebody is trying to distract. if there is one party that is trying to distract, it is the
democrats, who haven't been focused on a single thing other than impeaching my father for the past three years. this country is doing great, my father is doing great. he is projecting strength around the world. we have the best economy. listen, we are the pride of this world right now and people are jealous of the u.s. in america is back. i'm very proud that he is in that seat, he's doing a great job for this nation. >> laura: up when you look at the totality of this impeachment fiasco in the news tonight that nancy pelosi is not going to send the articles of impeachment now to the senate until she is a full understanding of what the rules in the senate are going to be, is that required? does she have a right to dictate the rules or even know about the rules until the articles are delivered -- is she blinking tonight? >> it is fun to watch her squirm and i mean that sincerely. if she sends them over, she loses. if she doesn't, she loses. all the while the campaign is
raising so much money on this because the american people are sick of it. poll numbers the roof, if this popularity has never been better. people realize the democrats of the shams that they are and she is trapped. if she didn't do the whole impeachment hoax you probably would've lost her speakership. she did do it, she also knew that the polls were getting tanks, meaning for her. it will put my father in the driver's seat going into 2020 and she was kind of in between a rock and a hard place. it was fun to watch and i don't think they have a game plan. i don't think she has a game plan. i think the whole thing was incredibly stupid and it will be back to bite them in due time. >> laura: she made a calculation that this is a loser. if anyone wants to distract from impeachment it is nancy pelosi and the rest of the democrats he miscalculated. >> but do you know who we get to call? hunter biden, joe biden, the front runners. we will say. >> laura: it is never going to happen.
she made the calculation, trying to couch it is something else. we really appreciate on this big breaking news night. thank you so much. as the iranian missiles fly, a look at their american propaganda. that is the focus of tonight's "angle." for as long as he has been on the political scene, donald trump has been jousting with the media. because they pose as the gatekeepers of democracy. that he exposes them as left-wing pundits masquerading as reporters. >> i want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. it's fake, phony, fake. >> fake news by nbc, which gives a lot of fake news. >> if i may ask another question, are you worried -- >> that is enough. when he reported fake news, which cnn does a lot, you are the enemy of the people. >> laura: media elites thought it was their duty to take out this president and they considered his criticism a
threat to their fiefdoms. >> this idea that the press is not just covering him unfairly and he actually sees us as the enemy? >> harsh words usually reserved for tyrants. >> it would start with him taunting and calling us the enemy of the people, it is really spiraled out of his control his control. >> calling journalists traders are enemies of the people is, inevitably, going to increase the risk of violence and hostility towards journalists. and it's irresponsible. and he shouldn't do it. >> laura: it you know what has really increased hostility towards journalists? americans are sick and tired of only getting their news from who hate the president and can't set aside the own biases at "the new york times," msnbc, et cetera. but in the wake of soleimani hit into knights attack on iran, the media is validating trump's
criticism because their analysis, basically the enemy of my enemy is my friend. >> on the ground, his image everywhere. more than a million united in their cry for revenge. >> what is your message to america? >> we love americans, but not your president. >> asked if civilians would be taken off the target list. >> iran has never put u.s. civilians on its target list, to put them off the target list. we obey rules of national law. >> laura: how does martha not challenge the iranian foreign minister's assertions in their quest market is ridiculous. last november thousands of iranians were in the streets protesting their government, the biggest civil demonstration in 40 years. 1500 of them were killed by iranian forces, including revolutionary guard forces led by soleimani himself.
but now we are supposed to believe that the whole country is united over the death of someone who, not only ended up helping engineered the deaths of americans in iraq, but who oppressed the iranians. he will think that if you watch cnn and msnbc. >> tens of thousands of iranians flooding the streets. it would appear that the u.s. has lost the hearts and minds, to use the phrase, the hearts and minds of the iranian people. >> the sea of people not just a more in this man, who was beloved by so many, but really they are rallying around a regime that had been unpopular. to me, it looks like a message of unity. >> laura: amazingly, despite iran's brutal repression of true democracy, the left is portraying trump as the tyrant. >> the american president made a serious miscalculation. he made a serious mistake by
assassinating, by taking this terrorist action against commander soleimani. >> here we are in the assassination business again. i'm sorry, this is a top general. he wasn't operational. he was a leader. we killed this guy appear the president of the united states, the used to hide from assassination responsibility. this president is bragging about it. >> laura: they are not to mike actually parodying iranian talking points. >> he showing to the national community that he has no respect for international law, and that he is prepared to commit war crimes. >> i can't imagine our military targeting iran in defiance of international law, but that doesn't seem to matter to donald trump. he doesn't seem to care about international law. >> how is he making this more secure customer to americans feel more secure? >> americans are less safe today than they were before soleimani was killed. >> laura: is this really
journalism? maybe the phrase "the enemy of the people" is harsh. it is harsh, but ignoring inconvenient facts isn't what real journalists are supposed to do. to give trump the benefit of the doubt, why are they so willing to afford iran that luxury? and that is "the angle." joining us now, laura logan, veteran war correspondent and host of the lone new show on fox nation, "laura logan has no agenda." and conservative author and filmmaker. let's start with you. it's looking like state run tv at times. any of the grades, so why are they carrying the one of the iranian regime at this time? >> it is kind of depressing to listen to "the angle" and see that because that's not my experience appeared i've been a journalist for more than 30 years and i've never seen anything like it. what about the voice of the iraqi people? what about the voice of the syrians and the yemenis and all
the people across the region who have been celebrating soleimani's death? you want to see them on the streets of tehran. you are not going to see this great display because they are afraid. they are so afraid of what the revolutionary guys are capable of. >> laura: this is quite something. you have been cataloguing the medias assault, sadly -- and not everyone in the media. there are still some good reporters out there. but this does take it to an entirely new level, does it not? >> does a little part in all of us that wants to believe when there is the sort of an international crisis and this sort of monster, in the case of soleimani, that the united states will come together and that we can leave politics at water's edge. i think we've reached the point where that is not the case. i don't think it is sympathetic to iran and soleimani so much as
they are hostile to trump. you may view soleimani as the foreign enemy. if obama had taken him out there would be celebrations, obama is a genius. but since it is trump, they want to mobilize the soleimani assassination against trump. they are, in a way, willing to go to bed with the far enemy to defeat the near enemy, who is a greater threat to their agenda here at home. >> laura: and the twitter accounts for american news outlets, two of them, also pushed to the iranian line. "the new york times" tweeting a sympathetic testimonial, "knowing soleimani was out there made me feel safer, set a student about the commander killed in the american drone strike. he was like a security umbrella above our country." "time magazine" writing something similar. if you need help talking to your children, time for kids has a guide to explain the topic. you've spent so much time in the region, you've sacrificed
personally at the hands of some of these brutal thugs. is this imaginable to you? we do have people in the media who have integrity, but this is just -- marinating in the hatred of trump subsumes everything else. >> you know, perhaps when american journalists are forgetting at this moment is things like, when i was living in baghdad for five years. one of the revolutionary guys, proxy forces, one of the uranian militias in iraq, their task was to hunt down every iraqi pilot that flew missions in the iraq war. that commander that was trained in iran, loyal to iran, run by soleimani, he killed, according to the u.s. embassy, two and a half thousand sunnis. his preferred method to kill them was to drill holes in their heads while they were alive. they would be meat hooks on the
wall that the uranian militias used to hang people there, and i remember interviewing a young iraqi boy, his father was taken in the night by an iranian militia, and i will never forget him holding my hand and saying, when they took his father he had no shoes. he ran and got his father's shoes and ran after him. the reigning militia who relating his father out said he won't need choose where he's going. in the body of their father and the number of other iraqis, like so many, turned up in a dumpster the next day. i lost count of how many bodies we covered in dumpsters all across baghdad. what bothers me is there are many of reporters who have worked in the region, reporters who have been to syria who know what the people of syria have suffered and soleimani, one of the things he did was that he wasn't operational. what is that based on customer based on what? soleimani like to put up
pictures of himself. the iranians released pictures of him on the battlefield of syria, on the battlefield in iraq. this was part of it. if there wasn't an iraqi person in the middle east you didn't kw the name of soleimani. the reaction from iran is kind of an indication of how significant he was, because the iranian government uses terrorism as a state grass. the only government in the world that does that to that degree. that is why they are designated foreign terrorist organization. >> laura: bingo. it really quickly we are up against a hard break thoughts? >> i think that soleimani was, in many ways, more dangerous than bin laden because he was a road operator of a ragtag group whereas soleimani represented the state terrorism of a national state. trump's decision was critical,
the media's response is abominable. they will get into bed with anyone over there mad hatred of the president. to be one that is all the time we have tonight. shannon bream takes it all from here. see you tomorrow. in washington and this is a fox news alert. under attack in iraq killing qassem soleimani days ago. that traces back to the attack on the embassy in baghdad and the killing of american civilian contractor in iraq days before that. at this hour, the faa with civilian flights over iraq, iran and neighboring parts of the middle east. two rounds up a tech bringing estimated total of 16 missiles fired. no come from casualties as a bit. the president is monitoring the situation from the white house. plenty of statements in the morning. iran