Stay updated with breaking news from Sp rating service. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
public. this week senator rand paul took to the senate floor for almost 11 hours to speak out against continuing the nsa phone record program. here's how he later explained it. >> i'm for getting terrorists and looking at records of terrorists. i want to use the constitution -- >> is senator paul guilty of mccarthyism. >> that statement was not mccarthyism. i agree with it. given the implication that americans are having nsa listen to their phone calls and read they are e-mails and information is presented in such a confusing and confused way, that i think there's a lot of demagoguery going on. that's one of the reasons why the votes in congress are so up in the air. even many members don't fully appreciate how this program works and what it does and what provisions are built into it. >> while congress debates how to protect there's the threat from isis only grows. after the terror group took the anbar capital of ramadi this
reasons to do something or at least seem to be doing something. but once again, obama is letting the tools he will use determine the mission he will undertake. and he's trying to fight isis by limited means that isn't working, more american involvement will be required to defeat this but i don't think he's prepared to do it and i'm not sure he ever will be. >> i want to pick up on that. it's not just the rhetoric from the president we're not losing it's also his actions and there's no indication that he's changing his strategy that he's going to significantly increase the number of u.s. troops in iraq or change the mission of the u.s. troops in iraq. that raises the question bob, do you see any way we can win this war given the current strategy? >> well it's going to be difficult. i mean first of all, there's kind of a leadership problem on this that in the white house, in many white houses and let's state this is a really hard case there's a tendency to
and save the taxpayers and voters from all of expense and trouble of voting and they'll pick a president. we would say they can't do that. they can't do it because it's not in the law. we are sworn to uphold the constitution and the law and it has to be consistent and agreed upon with three branches of government. one can't overrule the other two. that's all i'm saying we learned that in ninth grade civics but i'm convinced ivy league law schools must have not forgotten the lesson along the way. >> an awful lot of interesting things you've said in your announcement thank you for coming in today and sharing your holiday weekend with us. we'll see you on the campaign trail and keep asking you questions. >> all right, chris, thanks. >> up next with isis growing as a threat. is this any time to shut down the government surveillance program? we'll talk with ambassador john bolton a leading supporter of bulk data collection.
case that al qaeda was on the run? in that way i think this raises questions about hillary clinton. the hillary clinton people argue that as you said no smoking gun and there's nothing you can hold up that puts a lie to things she said. pretty unpersuasive given that no one now or perhaps ever will be able to see the full group of e-mails she was sending as secretary of state using that private server. >> i want to turn to a different subject in the time we have left. that is the politics of iraq which has gotten a lot of attention in the last couple weeks with jeb bush with marco rubio and bunch of other people and these questions, was it a mistake to go in in 2003 was it a mistake to get out in 2011 and what impact this could have both on the republican race and also the democratic race. bob, i know you want to talk about it because you've lichb a lot and reported extensively on it. >> yes, iraq is a symbol and you certainly can make the
i think i've actually seen that part of the problem overcome. i think you've got to be a realist about this. i wasn't in this primarily for myself anyway i was in it to accomplish the objective of getting foreign defense policy the first job of the presidency to be the center of the debate. >> as you say you would have run as a national security hawk now that you're out of the race are there any people that are currently and likely to be in who you are comfortable with on those issues and any that you're very much uncomfortable with on those issues? i'm talking on the republican side. >> i don't think for this point any way the s&p rating service for the other republican candidates my aim is to push all of them to talk more how they feel about national security. that is the president's top job. it's not enough to read a speech and not enough -- the kapd dates have to demonstrate in their guts that they understand protecting the country is job one. most of the candidates are moving in the right direction.
the lesson is that isis and islamic state is a big problem for barack obama. the more they criticize him, hst going to be a big problem for republicans who are going to be challenged, if you will the end, you have to will the means to that end. >> isis and iraq are going to be big issues for whoever the next president is. there's no way the battle against isis will be over. the next president's going to have to deal with it. you can't extricate yourself from iraq more broadly. this is clearly going to be a big part of the debate in 2016. not just on the republican side. what would hillary clinton do on these issues? >> and wouldn't it be nice the questions being asked about whether you would have done what george w. bush did in 2003 were similarly asked of hillary clinton about what happened in 2011 when the president decided
entitlements. >> we keep saying 60 is the new 40. okay? let's treat it that way, let's raise that eligibility age up to 70 for the people under 55. >> you favors reforms to entitlements back then. what's changed? >> the main thing i feel like that has happened as i understand if we start breaking promises to people and we start making changes in a program that people have been into for years, i think it adds to the distrust we have of government. there's never been a time in my lifetime when people are more distrustful of government. i'd say go back to people who are 14 and 15 who are just entering the workforce and here's another suggestion -- >> sir, if i may briefly, it was only four years ago you were saying yeah we do need to change it for people who are 55 and younger because frankly people are living longer. >> and i think the fact is that we can't make those changes
you said first of all, no cuts no changes to medicare or social security. here you are. >> if congress wants to take away someone's retirement let them in their own congressional pensions not your social security. >> but, government trustees say without any changes, for instance medicare's hospital insurance fund will run out of money by 2030 and the social security trust fund will run out by 2033. governor don't we have to find some way to either raise the eligibility age or cutting benefits for the wealthier people not just current retirees but a lot of people 55 and younger? >> the problem with people even 55 and younger, they've been paying in for 40 years. this is not a voluntary extraction from their paycheck. it was involuntarily lifted
reasons to do something or at least seem to be doing something. but once again, obama is letting the tools he will use determine the mission he will undertake. and he's trying to fight isis by limited means that isn't working, more american involvement will be required to defeat this but i don't think he's prepared to do it and i'm not sure he ever will be. >> i want to pick up on that. it's not just the rhetoric from the president we're not losing it's also his actions and there's no indication that he's changing his strategy that he's going to significantly increase the number of u.s. troops in iraq or change the mission of the u.s. troops in iraq. that raises the question bob, do you see any way we can win this war given the current strategy? >> well it's going to be difficult. i mean first of all, there's kind of a leadership problem on this that in the white house, in many white houses and let's state this is a really hard case there's a tendency to
no changes to medicare or social security. here you are. >> if congress wants to take away someone's retirement, let them end their own congressional pensions not your social security. >> but government trustees say without any changes, for instance medicare pops hospital insurance fund will run out of money by 2013 and the social security transfer transfer -- trust fund will run out by 2033, don't we have to find a way to resealingibility offer cutting benefits for the wenter people to keep the programs up? i am not saying for current retirees but a lot of reformers say, 55 and younger? >> the problem with people even 55 and younger they have been paying in for 40 years this is not a voluntary extraction from their paycheck. it was involuntarily listed from them under the guise the