>> chris: blim cshois for m cu. one candidate looks to make a move. he has the mons. with the frontrunners but does he have the message toit each enouund you voters? we'll talk with congressman ron . >> soul as we contin. if our series of 2012 one on one interviews. it is a "fox news sunl y" exhatusauce. then, a large bipartisan group of congressmen is ul oing the supercommil oiee to go 3 hg in cutting the deficit. we will talk with the leaders of the grou group of 100. north carolina democrat heath schuller and il hoit epublican mike simituon. plus, sexual harassment

allef1tionsit en tk herman cs s cafics weherm. we will ask the sunday panel if cain can sur to ve the chal oes and keour his candil out d al. and our power player of the week plaron a ks. four years in the election of the president. n jos thbri now on lik sunday." and hello again from fox news in washingtothe p theit our xtlican presidential race intensified this week but for all of the uitu and downs one candil te has held stedeny, raising millions and staying within striking distance of the ledeners. continuing our 2012 one on one series of inter to jos we are joined by texas congresdidan rn paul. n josme back to "f sunda this isit emarkable, now less than two months away. i want to put u yea couple of recent pfacls and the latest des moines register poll you areit unning thill w in iowa bt ten points behind cain and romney. in the latest times pfacl you areit un

i have a message that has been the same. the message becomes more appropriate every day because i have talked about our monetary system, our spending, our debt and we are in the midst now of a change in the world because of this expansion of debt worldwide and we are on the hook for it because we a dollar reserve standard and the american taxpayer is on the hook and it is moving in this direction. this is in the news every single day. we spend too much and my message is cut spending not raise taxes. change the opinion about what government should do. but in my proposal i say real spending cuts not like the others. i want a trillion dollars cut in the first year to show that

t is spending that is the problem. >> chris: we will get to that in a minute and i should point out of course, it was the illinois straw poll. the iowa straw poll was back in august. >> i will take both of them. >> chris: there you go. you almost won the iowa straw poll. many conservatives say they like your views on less spending, smaller government, adhering to the constitution. but the problem they have, the bridge too far is foreign policy. they are upset with what they view as isolationist views especially when it comes to fighting the war on terror. >> i think that is a false charge about isolationism. isolationism is when you put on tariffs and protectionism and you don't want to trade with people and you don't want to travel. mine is the opposite. mine is really very open. i don't want troops around the world because i think it hurts our national defense. by having too many troops it helps bankrupt our country. the wars we have been fighting that were undeclared from my view point, illegal and

unconstitutional but in the last ten years this foreign expenditures around the world has contributed about $4 trillion worth of our debt. we can't change that but i think we are better off served, our national security is better off by a different foreign policy. that is my -- >> for instance, drones. a lot of people say that drones have been terrifically effective and taken out al-qaeda leadership and doesn't put troops on the ground. it is cheap. it doesn't involve a lot of manpower and it does strike very deadly in its effectiveness. so why are you against drone strikes? >> because i don't agree with that assessment. i think it makes things worse because if you have one bad guy and you go after him, say, you know, he is the one, he is an al-qaeda leader, let's kill him. sometimes they miss and sometimes there is low ra colll damage and every time we do that we develop more enemies.

we are dropping drone missile bombs in pakistan and kill sod many. innocent people any time that die? we are bombing pakistan and trying to kill some people, making a lot of mistakes, build gd up our enemies and at the same time giving billions of dollars to the government of pakistan and we are more or less inciting a civil war there. i think that makes us less safe. for every one you kill you probably create ten more people who hate our guts and would like to do us harm. >> chris: do you think the allegations against herman cain are relevant in this campaign? >> the allegations against his program, his liking, you know, the federal reserve and his national sales tax, yeah, they are very legitimate and his support for bailouts. those allegations are very legitimate. those other allegations, these problems that he had, no, i don't think -- i think the media has blown that way out of

proportion. i think there are thousand stories out on that and i think that dilutes the real debate because his views on foreign policy for instance are dramatically different than mine. he wants to expand these things and he believes in the bailouts and the federal reserve and all this. i think that is what we should be talking about and i don't like these distractions so i don't agree with all of the concentration on that. >> chris: just speaking as a practical politician, do you think that that he help you and may get some of his supporters to take a second look at you? >> oh, i think there is a cycle going on here and i don't think that in particular -- i think we have seen sudden surges of candidates and then they fall off again. i think all of that is helpful to me. but not specifically because there has been these challenges. but i think when people get to know what herman stands for, i think that helps me because they are not going to say well, he is not really for any cuts and he is for adding this

national sales tax so yes, that helps me a whole lot. >> chris: let's talk about what ron paul stands for and specifically your new plan to restore america. and let's drill down into it. you call for cutting the federal budget you just said by $1 trillion, roughly 25% of the budget in the first year. you say you would balance the budget in three years. spending would be 15.5% of gdp by three years. that is the last time it was that low was 1951. question, even the conservative american enterprise institute says those kinds of dramatic short-term cuts would send this country back into a recession. >> you know, that is exactly what they said after world war ii and they cut the budget 60% and cut taxes 3% and released 10 million people from the military and we finally had an economic boon for the first time since the 1920s.

it means that the individuals are going to spend the money. maybe we could create an environment where people would start investing again and building automobiles and whatever they need to do. but it is wear the money is spent that is so important. it is not like we take it away. we put it into productivity use. when government spends its money it is nonproductive. it goes into bureaucracies and regulations and goes into subsidizing corporations that don't deserve to be subsidized. it goes to bailing out people. that is all wasteful spending. that damages the economy. you want the money to be spent by individuals and business people, not the government. >> chris: but i think we would both agree there are are some legitimate functions that government can perform and that no one else can. let me ask you about some of your cuts which may be more controversial. let's put them on the screen. you would reduce funding for the national institutes of health by 23%.

reduce funding for the centers for disease control by 38%. what specific programs would you cut,ing congressman? >> i would eventually try to wean ourselves off because these are functions not properly authorized by our government. >> chris: let me pick up on that. you don't think that the government has a role in trying to do research to try to find answers to new diseases or diseases or to check for instance the centers for disease control if there is an epidemic sweeping the world? >> well, if it is international, yes, and if it is people coming in yes, we will have some responsibility. when it is r & d and how this money should be spent, unfortunately, it is spent for political reasons rather than market reasons. so when that happens the lobbyists come in and they line up and special drug companies, the drug companies are very much in favor of this. but the decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats rather than by the marketplace. but you want more r & d. you would have much more r & d

and it would be better directed if investors and the market makes these decisions because believe me, the politicians and bureaucrats aren't smart enough to know exactly what you should be investing in and which immunity you have to give. when government makes a mistake, it hurts everybody. if a businessman makes a mistake in r & d it hurts only that company. it is this reliability on government to make decisions that are better made in the economy is what we had for 150 years. we have only had this idea that government has to be the vehicle for making significant economic decisions, this is rather new. and to think that the individuals and corporations make these decisions that thy nothing wrong with that. >> chris: turn to iran because there is growing fear around the world and there will be a new u.n. nuke watch dog report this week that the country is

getting closer to a nuclear breakout where are it would have all of the elements and skills to assemble a nuclear weapon. would president paul do anything to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon? >> only by a change in foreign policy and treating them differently. but the one thing that i would caution is some time of an overreaction. and if you say what is true, but they he have been saying that for ten years or so. it may or may not be true. they haven't prove ten but you are saying they have various items and might some day put a weapon together. the worst thing is an overreaction and go to war over this. and this week our international relations committee passed a very, very strong sanctions answer iran which means that any other country, even if an ally does any trading with iran we are going to punish them. that is when you put on strong sanctions those are acts of war because we did that in iraq for ten years and little kids died,

couldn't get medicines and food. it led to war. i would say treat them differently and it would be less threaten. >> chris: when you say treat them differently. >> don't put sanctions on them. >> chris: how are we going to persuade them not to pursue a nuclear weapon? >> maybe offering friendship to them. didn't we talk to the soviets and chinese. they had thousands of these weapons and we worked our way through the cold war. i was in the military through the '60s and it was dangerous. we didn't think we have to attack the soviets. they had capabilities. for the iranians to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region i think it is just blown out of proportion. people are anxious to use violence against the iranians. i think it would undermine our security and be very destructive to israel wit becae this is going blow that place up. it is not like a changeover of

government in egypt or some place like that which is always a negative because they are reacting to our foreign policy. >> chris: finally, this is speculation and i understand you are running for the gop nomination but there is speculation if you don't win you might run as a third-party independent candidate. can you state flatly that you will support the republican nominee in the offchance that it isn't ron paul? >> well, you know, probably not unless i get to talk to them and find out what they really believe in. if they believe in expanding the wars, if they don't believe in looking at the federal reserve, if they don't believe in real cuts if they don't believe in deregulation and a better tax system it would defy everything i believe in and so therefore i would be reluctant to jump onboard and tell all the supporters that have given me trust and money and say all we is done is for naut.

>> chris: does that mean that you might then consider an independent run? >> it does not mean that at all. >> chris: would you? >> i have no intentions of doing that. that doesn't make any sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that. >> chris: because? >> because i don't want to do it. >> chris: well, that's -- >> that's a pretty good reason, isn't it? >> chris: you answered it right there. congressman paul, always a pleasure to talk with you, sir. thank you so much. we'll see you on the campaign trail. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: up next, got congressmen leading -- i like it, i just don't want to do it. the two congressmen leading the bipartisan group of 100 that wants the supercommittee to go big when it comes to cutting the deficit.

i have great respect for each of you individually. but collectively i'm worried you're going to fail, fail the country. >> chris: erskine bowles sounding that he thinks they will fail to meet the budget deficit cuts. 100 members of congress representing both parties calling for the supercommittee to go big and cut the national debt by $4 trillion. joining us, north carolina democrat heath shuler and idaho republican mike simpson. and congressmen, welcome to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you. >> chris: let's start with the letter are that you group, 60

democrats, 40 republicans sent to the supercommittee this week and here is the key sentence. to succeed all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table. as the republican, will you support more revenues, either from raising tax rates or cutting deductions, closing loopholes as part of a plan to cut the deficit? >> i. >> you have to. you cannot get to 4 there willed without including additional revenues. we might have different ideas about what the revenues would look like. i think you could get additional revenues by lowering the tax rates and eliminating all of the exemptions underneath and i think you would have an economic boom in enues country and in e would come into the federal>> , youngsteouould take some of the money froosth loopholes as the bowles simpson mmission dndse that for deficit reduction.

deficitwould go to deficit reduction. if would have to to get to $4 trillion. you have to get to $4 trillion to stablize the debt. >> chris: two points, grover norquist has a pledge that you and all but six republicans have signed to oppose any net increase in taxes. exactly the opposite of what you said here. and i also want to play what house speaker john boehner said this week. >> our conference is opposed to tax hikes because we believe that tac tax hikes will hurt or economy and put americans out of work. >> chris: how much do you think are willing to break their pledge and quite frankly put their political futures at risking. >> first the pledge i sign that in 1998 when i first ran. i didn't know i was signing a

marriage agreement that would last forever. i think the majority of members of congress understand youster to have additional revenue. if you look at the percentage of the gdp that comes into the government right now, are it is at about 14% to 15%. traditionally has been 18%, in that neighborhood. the revenue coming in to the government has decreased as a percentage of gdp and the expenditures that used to be around 19% are now up around 25%. we have to bring those closer together again. >> chris: and that brings me to congressman shuler. will you support real cuts in entitlements, raising the eligibility age, slowing the growth of benefits as part of a deal to cut the deficit and would you accept a deal that the simpson bowle commission offered which was basically about 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases? >> i think bowles simpson report not only reflects the members of congress feel about the program but what the rest of the world is looking at north america say are you going

to -- america to say are you going make these significant cuts. when it comes to entitlements it has to be on the table. >> chris: you say it is on the table. mike simpson went further and said he would support it. would you support it? >> absolutely. in order to secure the programs we to sustain the long sustainable resources but also get rid of the fraud and abuse that has been in the program for quite some time. >> chris: do you think that president obama going around the country blaming a do nothing congress and making it sound as if all you need to do it get millionaires and billionaires to pay more in taxes, do you think that is constructive in setting the stage for a compromise? >> far too often we have seen how politics has played an important role in washington especially the closer we get to the presidential elections. the most important thing is both democrats and republicans come together as mike and 100 other members and adding every single day to the list working together to make sure that our debt and deficit spending we have been having over the last decade doesn't continue. that we have a more sustainable

path for our future and we put the next generation in a situation where they are not the strong pay everything. every dollar that we borrow he is a tax on the next generation. >> chris: so to answer my question he directly do you think that what the president is doing these days is constructive or no? >> it would be much more hopeful if the focus was on what he can do and the support can he give the supercommittee. the problem is the politics, if he supports one way that pushes some of my colleagues on the other side in the opposite direction. i think if one sense if he is on the sidelines and allow that the members of congress, the ranking file members to continue to grow in our numbers and support the supercommittee to do something big 4 trillion plus, i mean mike and i would probably like to have closer to the 5 or $6 trillion mark and put everything on table. >> chris: let's talk about that because you both mentioned it. the supercommittee's charge is $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by the day before thanksgiving. but both of you have talked

repeatedly about $4 trillion. why isn't $1.2 trillion enough? >> because that does not stablize the debt and does not start paying down our deficit. it is kicking the can down the road and frankly we are out of road. we have to make some very difficult decisions and no matter what the supercommittee comes up with it will be a difficult vote for every member of congress because there will be part of it that they don't like. the reality is if i'm going to make a difficult vote that i'm willing to make i want it to mean something. i don't want it to be just kicking the can down the road. >> chris: congressman shuler for all of this talk that your group is growing and the fact is that i think the prevailing sense, the conventional wisdom here in washington right now is that the supercommittee is deadlocked, in fact, the greatest chances are that they are not going to come up with any deal before november 23. before we get to whether that is real or not, what do you think the impact will be in the supercommittee comes up empty on the economy, on the markets, be on the the credit rating nor

country? >> it would be absolutely devastating to our country. not only would it look as if the congress is more dysfunctional than it already is but the whole world is watching that we are going to be able to come up with something that is big and having the support of 100 members and 45 members in the senate. not only a bipartisan but this is in bicameral way that we can support the members and say we have your back and we know you have to make the difficult decisions and impact us not only here in the u.s. but truly what is happening all over the world. we need to continue to be the leaders of this world and the way we do that is those 12 members need more than just our 100 members in the house. we need to increase that member every single day. we need more members of congress to join us. >> chris: your thoughts, congressman simpson about the impact if the supercommittee doesn't meet the deadline? >> as he said, the whole world is watching this and i actually think the markets start tank if

the supercommittee does not come up with something. they are looking -- the markets will either correct the situation or we will. and i think the economy will suffer greatly and the american people will suffer greatly and who is going to suffer the most? whenever the economy goes down it is those that are less well off. we have to do something. the tough thing is and i know this sounds ridiculous and everything else. we have to put aside our elections we have to put aside republican and democrat and put aside politics and do what is right for the country. this is one time where i think it is critical. we have one chance to fix this and this is our chance. >> chris: it is impressive and that is why we have you on the program. 100 members signing this. 0 democrats and 40 republicans is a big deal. but there doesn't seem to be he a sense. maybe i'm missing something. do you really sense that there is a growing move because the general opinion i think the conventional wisdom is this isn't going to get done, that

the committee they may get to the $1.2 trillion but that they will not make a bargain, the republicans are not going to give up on taxes and democrats aren't going give up on serious entitlement reform. >> we didn't want to put pressure on the committee to do something. we wanted to show them there is support out there to do something big. getting 100 members of congress to sign anything is almost impossible. i think you will see that number grow and i think overwhelmingly as i talked to people, even people that didn't sign the letter know this is the right thing to do. they were just a little nervous about signing it. >> chris: do you think because republicans have been pretty strong about opposing the revenue, do you think -- how many republicans to you think would go along -- >> i couldn't give you a number. i believe there is a majority in congress of republicans and democrats on a bipartisan basis and that is the most important thing. any time this country has had a problem the solution has been a

bipartisan solution. it it was a republican only sort of proposal it wouldn't work and it wouldn't go anywhere. if it was a democratic only proposal it wouldn't go anywhere. it has to be bipartisan. >> chris: you said you didn't want to put presidential hopefuls he sure on the supercommittee but congressman shuler they are the guys and women deciding this issue and they have two and a half weeks. i think at this point the 12 members of the supercommittee are seen largely as agents of the congressional leadership of the members, the leaders who appointed them. should thes break with the leaders act as independent agents and make the grand bargain and let the political chips fall as they may. >> i agree that mike and i would have been good option tolls have on the supercommittee. >> chris: there may be a reason why. >> the rial sit you now have -- the reality is you now have over 100 in the house statesmen and women and in the senate or

acting in a way that givings them that support. and with that as the reason for the letter is to say we have your back, we know it is tough and gives them the opportunity to break from that leadership role that has been -- that was appointed. they were appointed by our leadership and that is not a reflex of the u.s. and it is not a reflex of what is true in our congress. we have to see more of the middle of the road, the tuesday group, the blue dog members continue to step forward because we represent 80% of america. >> chris: to give you the lasted word, should they break with the leaders and act independently and take things into their own hands? >> they need to do what is in the best interest of the country. the recent comments of speaker boehner he suggested the revenue from beyond the table it will be part of the solution. >> chris: but you you heard him say here tax hikes no. >> this thy is a difference in increase in revenues.

>> no one is in favor of increasing tax rates but we are in favor of increasing revenue. we have to increase revenue. i think speaker boehner wants a big deal. he tried to negotiate one with the president earlier on the debt ceiling limit. that didn't come up but i know in speaking with him that he wants to solve this problem. >> chris: gentlemen, we have to leave it there. thank you both so much. we will stay on top of this story. >> thank you you. >> chris: up next, herman cain is accused of sexual harassment but you stays on top of the polls and increases his fund raising. we will ask our fund group what is going on, when we come back. daddy, come in the water!

somebody didn't book with travelocity, with 24/7 customer support to help move them to theool daddy promised! look at me, i'm swimming! somebody, get her a pony! [ female announcer ] the travelocity guarantee. from the price to the room to the trip you'll never roam alone.

they can't argue with herman cain on the merits. they can't argue with herman cain on policy to what do they do? >> unless you cow to yo tow tod order you will be lynched, destroyed caricatured rather than hung from a tree. >> chris: that is a new add for herman cain linking his troubles to what clarence thomas went through. jijoining us on the panel is pl

gigot. evan bai, bill kristol from the weekly standard and fox news political and list on juan williams. he is still pied in polls taken since the story broke. and in fact his fund raising has gone up. what is going on? >> i think the american people particularly the republican primary voters have no love lost on the media so they treat with ken tickism the reports -- step tickism the reports in the media. they know some of the accusations are not the same as fact and know that businesses routinely settle these kinds of cases because they don't want to absorb the reputational risk. the accusation is not a fact and people are waiting to see how he handles it and then they will react and how this all figures in to his ability to become president. that said, i don't think this has h helped him.

i don't think this is something that you want to have happen as a candidate and the question i would ask is why if you knew the settlements were out there, which they were, these were facts, never mind the accusations, he knew it and he didn't prepare noor eventuality that they would come out. he should have disclosed them himself, get it out of the way early. what are you going to do, have this come out if you get the nomination after labor day when you are nominee? what would republicans think then. i don't think it reflects well on his crisis management or on how well prepared he is to be president. >> chris: i want to put up a couple of polls and get you to react to them. when asked whether the sexual seriousnt charges are cirrus matter, 39% said yes and 55% said no. amonging strong tea party supporters even more lopsided, 75% to 20. a new reuters poll finds the number of republicans who view

cain favorably dropped from 6% last week to 57% now. senator bai, what do you make of that? >> if i were a republican strategist i would be a little worried about this. clearly starting to see the first signs of slippage among even republicans and it is clear that he still resonates with the tea party. but when you look at the in dean pendents and moderates and women swing voters he is taking on some water there. that means in a general election he would be a damaged candidate. i don't think he will ultimately be the nominee. it does raise another issue and that is will the element in the republican party that brought us kristine o'donnell in delaware or in colorado or nevada or alaska will very this an impact on the republican nominating process and insist conditions that make it more difficult for them to win in a general election. what about mitt romney. you saw the rise and fall of donald trump. the conservatives didn't go to

romney. michele bachmann. didn't go to romney. rick perry. still didn't go to romney. now, you have h herman cain taking on the baggage and still doesn't go to romney. will he have the ferrar fervent support of the republican base that you need to win. right now it looks like an iffy proposition. >> chris: herman cain clashed with reporters when they continued to ask him about the allegations after an appearance in texas. >> we are getting back on message. end of story. back and message. read all of the other accounts. read all of the other accounts where everything has been answered. end of story. we are getting back on message, okay? >> chris: how about republicans. we saw this in the add from the beginning but i h heard it from a lot of conservatives linking the allegations against caine to what clarence thomas went through and the clear implication if not the open

statement is this is the way the left goes at conservative blacks. >> i don't think it is that comparable to what justice thomas went through. anita hill showed up ten years later to attack clarence thomas, not having filed any complaints at the time. there was no record of any one having complained about thomas in a series of executive branch and judicial positions. these ever complaints filed con contemperaneously. he is not going to be the nominee. he was never going to be the nominee. the is support for h him was a symbol of conservative and republican dis-- distrust of some of the frontrunners. willingness to reward someone for being bold and having comprehensive reform plansion for being an outsider but i think the air is slowly going

to go out of the herman cain bubble regardless of the sexual harassment charges. >> chris: juan? >> he has been the pinata for the black liberal establishment for awhile. they see him as some kind of token put out by the tea party as an acceptable kind of black to the republicans. i think it has thoroughly insulting. harmful to him as a human being and disrespectful of the respect he had. people say he will not be the nominee. i never thought he would reach this point. but people on the republican side especially tea party folks see him as authentic and that is exactly what they don't see in terms of flip flops that come from some of the other republican candidates. so, i think that the thing that worries me is now that this is a way that you can crag drag him down and i think it is insulting to herman cain and, of course, it then led to questions is this attack coming from the left, the people who

said he is a bad apple among black people, he is on the crack pipe, unbelievable. it is analogous, the idea that you go after conservative blacks or conservative women in this way. i don't like it. i think people challenge the orthodox, as i said my worry is that this is a way that people and this is what herman cain apparently thinks, people in the perry campaign or romney campaign found an effective way to go after him as a black republican. >> chris: i want to pick up and juan's point, paul, about his appeal in the party. because even before this last week he had remarkable ability to -- i thought to withstand problems. he had the misstatement about abortion. he was able to get through that. he has had some fairly dramatic gaps in his knowledge about foreign policy and able to get through that. i wonder seems the republican voters are willing to cut him some slack because they see him

as an outsider, as authentic, as not a career politician and right now that really carries you a pretty long way in the republican primary vote. >> i agree with that. he is the repository of everything people don't like about politics. he doesn't speak like a politician. he has a relaxed comfortable manner. willing to say things rather than in a scripted way. with mitt romney people are telling me i wish he would just mess h his hair up. you know, with cain he doesn't mind kind of mocking the idea of expertise. i think he can take that too far. ultimately when you get into the voting booth people want somebody who knows something about the world. >> chris: we only have 30 seconds left. do you take him seriously as a possible nominee? >> i think that he doesn't really think -- he didn't think he would get this far. and that is the problem. i don't think he was prepared for this and i think that that really in my mind is going to wear with the mind of the

republican primary voters in the end and they are probably not going nominate him. >> chris: we have to take a break. when we come back, growing speculation that israel will take out iran's nuclear program we know a place where tossing and turning have given way to sleeping. where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep. and lunesta can help you get there, like it has for so many people before. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving, or engaging in other activities while asleep, without remembering it the next day, have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks.

allergic reactions, such as tongue or throat swelling, occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. ask your doctor if lunesta is right for you. then get lunesta for $0 at lunesta.com. there's a land of restful sleep. we can help you go there on the wings of lunesta.

they believe rightly or wrongly that a nuclear armed iran poses an threat to the state of israel. i don't think there is any doubt that a nuclear armed iran tips the scales in the middle

east in a very serious fashion. >> chris: senator john mccain defending israel as it considers whether to it launch a preemptive strike against iran. we are back with the panel. surprising amount of talk out of israel this week that iran -- that israel has tested a long-range missile that could strike iran, that it has had exercises long-range air strikes and that t might speculation, open speculation that is might attack iran's nuclear program. question for you, bill kristol. do you think that they are really considering this or this is a lot of huffing and puffing because they are trying to scare the west into imposing tougher sanctions? >> i discounted the talk earlier this week partly because i think there is a certain bluffing and the israeli media is even more unreliable than the american media. when the israeli prime minister said i think it was friday that the possibility of a military attack against iran is now closer to being applied than it

had been before he is the president of israel, he is a very respected senior eler statesmen, not a guy who simply threatens military action at the top of a hat by any means. i think israel is serious thinking about whether they can live with a nuclear iran. incidentally u.s. presidents and secretary of states of both parties who said an iran with nuclear weapons is not acceptable. it seems to me the united states has the obligation to act and not leave it to israel to stop this threat to any kind of peace or progress in the middle east. >> chris: juan, what is your sense of what is going on in israel, this usually if they are are going to strike there is absolute radio silence beforehand. not a lot of talk in the papers. >> the difference here is i think at the moment we have. iaea report coming out. >> chris: the u.n. nuclear watch dog. >> right. and there is opposition forming to even the publication of the report by people who want to limit the idea of u.n.

sanctions, further sanctions against iran and this is primarily the russians and the chinese. and they have interests there and i think that the reason that the israelis are being very clear about this is that they think that the report indicates according to sources that there has been more development of nuclear weaponry and preparations for it in iran than was previously known. so it is not that they are just thinking about it and modeling it but that they may actually have something about to come online. if that is the case then, i guess israel would see it as more of a purposeful and direct threat, immediate threat to their existences. in terms of the united states, i think the united states role here is not -- i would not say the united states should go in and do it themselves. if israel does it who is going to back up israel, the united states military. >> but israel doesn't want to do this if they don't have to. >> and israel can't. >> chris: go ahead, paul. >> they realize the cost of this are not nothing. if they do this it is very risky. i will think in the end they will if the united states shows

it won't do anything and that is what i think perez is saying. trying to look at whether the americans finally are serious about doing something and so far i would say the obama administration has not been serious at all. we had an asas assasination plt discovered and the president said there would be consequences? what consequences? we have decided to pull out entirely of iraq which helps iran. is not a message of deterrences to iran. >> you can't argue guy to the extent we are bogged down in iraq and afghanistan it limits our are flexible to be more aggressive with iran. number one, if a technical standpoint, the israelis may be able to launch a one off strike on iran but they don't have the ability for the kind of sustained bombing campaign it would really take to degrade the new arsenal. the odds of hitting that in a single strike aren't high. you would have to bomb it for several weeks in a row and there is only one country that

has that kind of capability and that the united states. for us it raises the issue is the iranian state a normal nation state that is belligerent and does stuff we don't like that ultimately is not suicidal and can be deterred or are they suicidal and would use nuclear weapons even if it meant a nuclear attack against them? >> i think the odds are they are not a suicidal. but the question is if you are israel can you afford to run that risk. probably not. which raises the third point. if even if you work through that analysis, the saudis are going to immediately seek nuclear weapons which sets off an arms race throughout the middle east which means for tuscaloosa may be better to stop that before it gets started by using limited force to prevent iran from going nuclear when it gets right down to it. >> chris: do you see any sign, though, getting to paul's point that the obama administration

worried about oil markets and the world economy is prepared for all the blowback of a military action and as you said a sustained military action against iran? >> not at this moment. i think they are trying to defer the home of reckoning. ultimately it will come. we have to ask is a nuclear iran acceptable. in there is only one way to keep that from coming about and that is the use of force. >> chris: bill, you just came backing from a week in afghanistan traveling all over the country. what is your sense of what is going on there and what about these reports that we got in the last few days in the "wall street journal" that the obama administration is exploring a shift from a primary combat lead role to more of a secondary advisory role? what do the commanders on the ground think of that? >> the commanders anticipate such a shift and welcome such a shift in 2014 which is when it is supposed to happen. the one message we got

consistently. >> chris: the report said that it was going to be sped up and be next year, 2012. >> that i think would be disasterrous. the president has already put things at risk by his withdrawal down to 16,000 troops in october of 2012. the message from the american military commanders and diplomats from afghan, friendly friends in the afghan government was that if we can hold that 68,000 level through 2013 continue the kind of insurgency operations, work on the handover to the of a gone forces in an orderly way and not in an excessively rapid way that was a winnable war and that was the message that i took away. it is incredibly impressive what our troops and soldiers and marines are doing there. the highlight is going out and seeing the areas they recently cleared at some considerable cost. but really there is a disconnect between the impression here in washington which is that it is hopeless. it is a tough place and difficult government to work with. we page huge progress.

we took the fight to them and attacks actually on our troops and friendly. >> kimberly: good afternoon troops are down by over a quarter year-over-year. even though people expected an increase in attacks since we have been on the offensive with the surge troops. the president took a risk by drawing down the surge troops too quickly. the disaster would be if he took another risk in 2012 and show that we are drawing down more in 2013, i think that could be the tipping point and difference between success and defeat. >> chris: and literally in 20 second hass about the karzai government? >> difficult to work with. we spent some time with ambassador prosser. he works with the karzai government in afghanistan. he deserves an extremely lavish retirement package when comes back here. >> thank you all. see you next week. check out panel plus where our group picks right up with the discussion on our website foxnewssunday.com. we will post the video before noon eastern time. up next, our power player of

the week. the markets never stop moving. of course, neither do i. solution? td ameritrade mobile trader. i can enter trades on the run. even futures and 4x. complex options, done. the market shifts, i get an alert. [ cellphone rings ] thank you. live streaming audio. advanced charts. look at that. all right here. wherever "here" happens to be. mobile tradi from td ameritrade. number one in online equity trades. [ male announcer ] trade commission-free for 60 days. plus get up to $600 when you open an account.

there have been 35 presidential and vice presidential debates since 1960. one man has been there election after election. he is our power player of the week. >> every move you make, every word you speak could affect the outcome not only of the debate but of the president of the united states. >> jim blair is talking about the high stakes of presidential debates and he should know. >> good evening at the university of massachusetts in boston. >> chris: he has moderated 11 them. he was a sole questioner once.

>> it's really tough stuff. >> now he looks back at the 11 debates over the presidential elections in a new book called pension city. >> not just for the candidates but for the moderator. >> absolutely. i related walking down the blade of a sharp knife and any moment you could cut yourself. >> he agonizes over an error he made over his first debate 23 years ago when he mistakenly told president bush that his time was up. >> mammogram i can words, he is right. you are wrong. >> i'm wrong my apology. >> you said nobody is perfect. >> everybody cares about this electing is watching. i wanted to drop in the hole and

stay there. >> for 36 years he has been the unflappable anchor of evening newscasts. >> i'm jim lehr in aware. >> chris: he as cam up with several theories. >> it's never about the moderator. you are talking about the moderator when it is over with. it is positively or negatively but in my opinion the moderator has failed. >> the key is to get them talking to each other. >> even when the rules prohibits -- >> he says there is another rule. no matter how fair you try to be. the moderator will always get criticized. >> you have a apple question for one, you better have a question for the other, too, some people are going to perceive you unfair no matter what.

>> he remarkably boyish looking 77. he stepped down of as anchor. >> there is time to step down from the process and that time has arrived. >> for the third time he says he has finished moderating debates. this time he insists he means. >> it thank you and good night. >> of all the things i have done it's the most exhilarating experience i think i have ever have when they are over. i feel like i have accomplished something that matters and it's good for my country. that is the truth. i did it reasonably well. >> chris: indeed, he did. how did he be the dean of moderators. he would love to say he is so brilliant but he says often the candidates couldn't agree on anyone else. have a great week. we'll see you back here next fox news sunday.