dave works on the show here, 25th wedding anniversary, can you believe? isn't that fantastic. happy anniversary! good night from washington. ten days ago the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in syri syria. >> it's a cancer growing in the region. >> the use of chemical weapons is a barberous act. >> this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. >> i think america should take action. >> i am fully supportive of the president's action.

>> authorizing the use of military force is a declaration of war. >> president obama did not draw the red line. humanity drew it. >> this is something that the united states as a country needs to do. >> he will be stronger if we take action together as one nation. >> and welcome to hannity tonight. as you just heard, the war drums are beating in washington, d.c., and over the course of the next hour, we will have the very latest on the showdown with syria, this developing story. we'll check in tonight with senator rand paul, ann coulter and our panel of military experts. we begin with this weekend's surprise announcement that the white house would delay an attack on syria to seek a use of force resolution from the u.s. congress. take a look. >> i will seek authorization for the use of force from the american people's representatives in congress. for the last several days, we've heard from members of congress

who want their voices to be heard. i absolutely agree. so this morning, i spoke with all four koengal leaders and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as congress comes back into session. >> today, leaders from both parties including speaker boehner, senator reid and others 11/they would vote in support of a strike. however, not everyone on capitol hill was quick to back such a resolution, and that was very apparent when the senate foreign relations committee convened a hearing this afternoon, featuring testimony from the secretary's estate and defense. as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. let's take a look as a number of senators raise serious reservations about carrying out an attack in damascus. >> i am reluctant. if there was one american. if this was an attack against any american. against any american interest. this would be a no-brainer for me. i'm reluctant at this point. and part of it stems from where this is going to go. the other thing that is really -- troubles me about this, is what happens if this

thing gets away from us. >> goal number one is to hold assad accountable. goal number two is to deter this behavior in the future. goal number three is to degrade assad's capacity to carry out these attacks in the future. quite frankly i'm a bit skeptical, that what the president is asking for, will provide the support needed to achieve these objectives and that these objectives are -- >> if we do not say we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us. so we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will abide by the verdict of congress. you're probably going to win, just go ahead and say it's real and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose, and say, oh, well, we have the authority, we're going to go ahead and go to war anyway.

>> another significant moment at today's hearing came when kerry was asked if american boots would ever be sent to syria, here is his response. >> let me be very clear now. i don't want anything coming out of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibilities. let's shut that door now as tight as we can. there will not be american boots on the ground with respect to the civil war. >> regardless of those assurances, there are legal experts who believe that possibility could in fact still exist. which is probably why, according to a brand new poll, conducted by the washington post, abc news, 6 in 10 americans are opposed to taking any military action. here with reaction tonight is a member of the senate foreign relations committee. good to see you, welcome aboard. >> good to be with you, sean. >> let me use the words of the white house. this is not open ended. no boots on the ground, this is days not weeks, by the way, this is not about regime change. so that raises the question, what are we doing this for in.

>> well, sort of like, we've announced in advance, it's going to be just a little war, not a big war. just a little war, and it won't last too long. and we're not going to regime change. we really have no military objectives, but please support us in this little war that the president needs to have so he can save face because he drew a red line. that's not a compelling reason. i don't think they make compelling arguments today. >> we heard syria's moving a lot of their weapons into areas where there's a high population of civilians. are we planning on the potential collateral damage or do we have any chance even to get those weapons? >> i thought senator mccain made a great point. he and i don't always agree, he made a wonderful point. he looked at john kerry and said, it's not very good military strategy to announce in advance. it's going to be limited, and let them know it's coming, so they can move all the things

coming. it's ridiculous when you think about it, that that's the strategy that president obama has. >> isn't it similar to the strategy that saying alla akbar is similar to say iing glory to god? >> i didn't hear that. is it more likely that israel will be attacked if we bomb syria or less likely. i think it's more likely. is it more likely that turkey will be attacked or that iran or russia will be drawn into this. i think all of those bad scenarios are more likely to occur if the u.s. bombs syria. so i really think that there's not a good outcome, and there's also not a clear entity that i think will be an american friend in the syrian civil war. >> senator, not is it not only more likely, it's probably probable at this point. both syria and iran have said, they will retaliate against

israel. did anybody ask senator kerry or chuck hagel or president obama if in fact israel is the victim of retaliation for whatever strike he makes? what effort he will put into defending israel? >> his comment was israel told them they could take care of themselves. i want to make it less. i think israel can. i think israel has a strong natural defense and they can do well in any battle. i don't want to involve them because they have so many enemies around them i'm fearful it can spin out of control. my first choice would be to not involve israel in a battle if we don't have to. >> the president didn't feel, even when he spoke on saturday, that he necessarily needs to go to congress, although i believe the constitution is clear that in fact he does. and i think awe degree with me on that. but there have been many examples, i'll put them up on the screen. i want you to respond to this, of how the president has bypassed congress since he took over. more recently with the mandate and obama care delay.

the feds in the case of the mandatory minimum sentences and with the justice department. recess appointments, when you guys are in recess, the mini-dream act. obama care waivers, funding egypt, which i think was a bad mistake when they wouldn't say a coup is a coup. they've done it on gun control, funding palestine. the defense of marriage act. no child left behind waivers, nsa surveillance, offshore drilling. it goes on and on here. the point i'm making. is he trying to push the blame if this goes on -- >> i want to be proud of the president there, haven't been that many times, i wanted to be proud that he was asking for congressional authority. and i was for about a minute until i heard him say, oh, but it's just a fake vote. if you vote against me, i'll still bomb syria, because i have all the authority i need that

troubles me, because madison wrote a lot about war. madison said that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates that the executive branch is to war. therefore, the con sti dugs gave that power to the legislature. i don't think the president fully gets that. >> what could we possibly accomplish in something that's not open ended. something that is going to be days not weeks? is one of those things, perhaps assisting the islamic radical islamists that are the likely successor to assad. >> i'm a big stick letter that congress initiates war, i think one of the problems of this resolution is going to restrict the power to execute the war. while i think the president is limited on initiating the war, i think the president does have most if not all of the power on how to execute the war. i think the resolution and narrowing the focus and saying

is this going to be a baby, a little small war, we're not going to do too much. we're not going to have regime change. that's the decision should be if we initiate war. >> we could have help the al qaeda radical islamic opposition, true or false? >> yeah, al qaeda is on the same side as the islamic rebels. i'm concerned we could have a victor. but we could also cause retaliation against israel, that could be rather severe, right? >> absolutely. and i think we could also have a problem where russia and iran become more involved than they are already. >> okay about and we could have a broader conflict and for what? the president drew a red line in the sand? not a good situation. senator, i think you're on the right side of this, thank you. >> thank you. >> and still ahead tonight, ann coulter live in studio.

there are reports that the rouge regime in damascus is moving its troops and weapons in preparation of this attack. did the obama administration reveal its cards too soon? we're going to break down the military implications next. also, you get to select the video of the day. option number one, my good friend tucker carlson. he guest hosted for me friday night. this is what happened when he sat down to anchor fox and friends the next day. >> i don't think we're being good co-hosts right now. >> good to see you. welcome to fox and friends.

welcome back to hannity, senators on the senate foreign relations committee have in fact struck a deal late tonight on the wording of a new resolution. it would permit up to 60 days of

military action against the government of assad. it gives the president the option to extend military operations by 30 days, pending congressional notification, according to senate aids. we'll keep you updated as the night unfolds here. while the president waits for congressional approval before taking military action in syria. questions are being raised about the strategic consequences of delaying a potential strike. and with reports that the syrian army is already moved, troops and military equipment such as rocket launchers, artillery and other heavy weapons into residential neighborhoods. it is not surprising that experts were left scratching their heads when they heard the president say this on saturday. >> the chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. moreover, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time sensitive, it will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now. >> now, earlier today, john

mccain slammed the administration for telling the american people the timing of a potential strike was a nonissue. really? watch this? >> i hate to use the word disgraceful, but to tell the american people it doesn't matter when we strike while bashar al assad is moving his military into civilian areas is just disgraceful. >> here with us ralph peters and general thomas mcinerney. do either one of you agree with what's going on here. do you think this is a good idea? >> no. >> why? >> for many reasons, one, i still do not see the vital u.s. national interest in this. and two, there's no sign of a serious strategic plan with a clear goal, allocation or means

to get there. a cost benefit analysis. and most important of all, sean, the lesson we should have taken from staying in afghanistan, baghdad, libya, is that you may hope for the best. that's fine, but you prepare for the worst. you plan for the bad outcomes. and there's no sign of that. it's all sort of pollyanna, cruise missiles or do something. and we'll tie it up in a nice bow and go home. the enemy gets a vote, and i really would worry about asymmetrical responses, not just those you and senator paul talked about. what if iranry pond ises by making mischief in the persian gulf. you hit jordan -- you don't want to hit israel, you hit jordan. all sorts of mischief, he could redouble his chemical weapons attacks against his people. and i just see an administration that is really out to protect even now to protect the

president's credibility which he threw away when he abandoned iraq after we won. that's when he lost credibility of the iranians, and gave them iraq. >> do you see any scenario underwhich this is surgical and will prevent all casualties and accomplish whatever their goal is in days and not weeks? is that even possible militarily? >> that's really not possible. although i will say that we have the isr, the intelligence surveillance assets in the global hawk over there, that can track where these targets are being moved. so i'm comfortable that we'll know where they will be moved. will they be moved in urban population areas? maybe. will that make it more difficult? >> the fact is -- >> is it impossible? >> difficult or impossible with human shields, et cetera. the real disturbing thing is, we have no vital interest as ralph said there, we ought to get a coalition of the willing, get the turks, the saudis, the

egyptians, the egyptian f-16s you've been talking about, the uae, the kuwaittys, et cetera. let them take this and be their responsibility. it has the maximum impact on those regional nations, it's about time they picked up the responsibility. lord knows we've armed them and they've spent a lot of money, and they have modern fighters, saudis have got -- we could provide them targeting information from the global hawk and other -- >> it's not going to happen. this is now the president, his red line. colonel, do you see any scenario which we don't help the islamic radical al qaeda connected rebels that are the likely successors if assad goes? >> if assad goes. that is one of the key things that worry me. assad is a butcher, he's a monster, he's a murderer. >> so is the opposition that we may end up helping.

>> as horrible as assad is, he has kept his weapons -- his chemical weapons under control. he's not going to use them against the united states of america. if the assad regime crumbles, what happens? if his guard's run away to save their lives, he has these vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons. senator kerry was tap dancing, we may need ground troops. if you think you're going to secure those stockpiles you're talking little big horn scenario. boots on the ground are part of our future if we get into this. >> i tend to agree with you, the impact it's going to have on israel, let me ask you this question. this is a tough one. general, is there not a likelihood here that this is going to put israel in a tough position, and that we're going to be assisting the radical

islamists potentially to come to power in all this. aren't we better off as cold as it may sound, let these extremists kill each other? if we do anything, let it be humanitarian assistance for hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees? >> that's my preferred solution. what i would do, i would arm the free syrian army under colonel riyhad, he's got 100,000 troops that are secular, the other group, about 30 to 40,000. >> but the power has diminished, has it not? in the 30 months during the civil war. >> their power has been diminished, that's why i would like them to be able to take control of the country. look, syria has been a more secular country as most countries go. but the danger, and you pointed it out, is israel. something's going to happen there, sean. and that's not going to be good. >> and are we committed to going all in? help them, which i think is a

likely consequence of the president's decision. and i -- i don't see any good winner here. i don't see -- >> there's no good al qaeda related terrorist or we help assad stay in power. if we really -- let me ask one last question. we really care about peace and stability, wouldn't we be better off taking out iran's nuclear sites? >> absolutely. >> that's my voitd. >> if the problem is iran, confront iran. >> the problem is iran, basically every other country is a satellite for their proxy wars, am i correct? >> right now in syria, our enemies are killing each other. that's not -- >> help the people that are victims of a war that is not of their doing, but that's about all we can do, that i see. thank you very much. >> thank you. coming up next, the always outspoken, ann coulter is here to talk about the situation in syria. also, how john kerry is sounding

pretty hawkish when it comes to the assad regime. but there's one little problem. he would like to have dinner with the guy. we'll explain. first we need your help, select the video of the day. one of the best plays during the pirates/brewers game last night, came from their ball boy. sign this kid up. maybe he can be taken over for a. rod. >> beat the brewers in back to back weeks. >> what a play,

some cite the risk of doing this. we need to ask, what is the risk of doing nothing? it matters because if we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like bashar al assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity even after the united states and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will. >> yes, the man you just heard from is the same john kerry who called going to war in iraq eye mistake. while our current secretary of state has been out almost every day pushing for u.s. intervention in syria, it

appears he's having a hard time staying on the same page as his commander in chief. on friday, kerry said we needed to intervene immediately. out comes president obama on saturday, and he said, we could wait. joining me now with reaction new york times bestseller, my good friend ann coulter. what do you think of kerry. it's going to look -- we're going to put a picture of kerry with assad and pelosi with assad. what do you make of what he's saying versus what obama's saying. we need congress to approve, we don't need congress to approve. well, whether we act now or later both of them acting like, this is a crime against god and man that cannot go unanswered. they're the ones as you point out who ferociously opposed the war in iraq, saddam hussein on a single day gassed 5,000 kurds.

his own people. over a few decades, he gassed 50,000 kurds, to say nothing of iranians. what is america's national security interest. in the case of iraq, saddam hussein had attempted to assassinate a former president of the united states. he had given shelter to a terrorist, one of the bombers of the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. and yet that was a war they opposed -- that was a war that ended up killing a lot of iraqis -- rather al qaeda in iraq. here this is going to give al qaeda the upper hand here. we have gone through decades, absolute proof that saddam hussein had used mustard gas, sarin gas, vx gas against his own people more than ten times,

50 times more than assad has used. what is our proof here by the way, they won't be able to tell us -- >> the bbc did publish a photo -- we'll show it to you, and it's hard to watch for those of you at home. rows of dead children saying, this was the syrian chemical gas attack. one little problem. that was actually from iraq. those are the kurds in the north, and they were gassed, yes, but by saddam hussein. >> the war the democrats -- they wanted to keep saddam hussein in power, like j. rockefeller who said we would be better off keeping saddam hussein in power. how do we know -- we need to check with hillary here to make sure the chemical gas wasn't released by a scary and upset by a youtube video. can you not trust these people on national security. they are democrats. and i would point out that in every military intervention, well, in the past century, republicans -- when republicans

are running it, we are winning. when democrats come in, we are losing. you have iran with eisenhower taking out mohammed -- that was fantastic for america, he was a lunatic. the shah is in power. in comes carter -- we have vietnam, we have somalia. >> you're right. >> we have iraq. if obama cares about presending to be a serious commander in chief, he's making -- how much is sending those troops to iraq. that is once again a war that was deposed a monster, 50 times worse than assad. established a democracy that did not allow al qaeda to get control of the country. and victory is defeated, snatched from the jaws of victory by obama by pulling out troops. now iran -- he's given that magnificent success. >> we talked to colonel peters

and general mcinerney. who says to the enemy, this is not open ended. no boots on the ground. days not weeks. this is not about regime change. >> right. >> who telegraphs that before you actually -- what kind of -- strategically, that's certainly not from the art of war -- i'll tell you that. >> all that he has accomplished is to make bill clinton look like a great general, like a great commander in chief here. no, i really -- i long for the days that america was allegedly hated by the rest of the world as opposed to the rest of the world's laughing stock. what do you think putin thinks of this guy. what is going to happen if syria retaliates. have they even thought about this? >> the wall street journal is saying to those who are asking for authorization for the use of force, which is a constitutional principle we won't argue with. >> i want to come back to that. if you look at -- if we really care about peace and stability in the middle east. we're worried about a broader

war, and mass debt on a scale of millions, potentially. then we really care about military action and intervention, i say go after iran's nuclear facilities. they're a year away from getting them. why not go there. if they want to have some impact? >> and by the way, aren't you glad zam isn't around to be involved in this right now? >> what are the odds that the weapons of mass destruction we didn't find actually made its way to syria. >> do you remember the general under iraq? you interviewed him, he wrote a book and he was one of saddam hussein's generals, he supported the war in iraq, because saddam hussein was a monster and lunatic. he said on your program, and wrote a book about it, those weapons were moved on trucks right before the intervention in iraq, and they were moved to syria. >> wonder where they came from. >> stay right there. we'll have more with ann coulter after the break. and debate the president's decision to pick up a set of

golf clubs mere minutes after laying out his thoughts to the world. you get to weigh-in on the issue and vote for tonight's video of the day. option number three, you have to see it to believe it. the harrowing video of a car, barely getting smashed by a massive bolder. make sure to tune in tomorrow night for a special edition of fox news reporting, time line of terror, part one. commercial free. and details the realtime the events that happened on 9/11. you don't want to miss it tomorrow night.

as we continue with ann koultder, boehner says he will not lobby. it's up to them to get the

votes, meaning the white house. mitch mcconnell says he needs to make the case. what do you think? >> i think this is absolutely crazy, as we talked about last week, the only reason obama is going to congress is that he's the one that issued this idiotic ultimatum. the only reason we're talking about syria, is because the ultimatum about the red line, if you used weapons of mass destruction. suddenly he decides he wants to go to congress for a vote as you showed, he doesn't want to go to congress for a vote, when he's required to under the constitution. i say congress only has a right to vote if he is seeking a resolution of war. if they don't like something, they can withdraw the funding for it, but the point is, you may disagree with me on that. every president has agreed with me on it, including this one, and obama says he's not going to abide by the vote anyway. the soul purpose of the vote is to make obama look like less of an idiot. why is congress wasting its time

on this. why not call in more actresses. professional athletes and steroid use in baseball? those hearings have more purpose under the constitution than a ruling from congress on whether the president is the commander in chief. >> he is the commander in chief, but congress declares war. >> this is not a war. >> the draft that came out tonight -- >> firing bombs. >> no, it wasn't. it wasn't with grenada -- >> it's not going to get us anywhere. they're going to have a clock ticking. and the clock is from the war powers act, which you think is idiotic too. >> limit military action to 60 days. 30 days thereafter for withdraw withdrawal. >> not only are all the democrats itching to start something they know not what in syria, we're the ones who most vociforously oppose the war with iraq, as are many of the

republicans. they very quickly turned against it and started bashing it. i wouldn't be counting on these people as your allies whatever happens in syria. i would never count on a democrat not to screw up any foreign policy intervention. >> eleanor holmes martin said obama would be shamed and humiliated if he loses the vote. that's why democrats are going to support him. >> they need to explain why they are against kicking out a monster who -- >> according to john mccain alla akbar means praying to god, praising god. >> yes, and that's why i respect him so much. on saturday, the president laid out his case, why he believes the u.s. should take military action against the syrian regime. now, just minutes later, he thought it was appropriate to play some golf while debating his decision. stewart barney and i disagree whether this is the right thing to do. we want to hear from you,

hannitylive.foxnews.com. join us on twitter @seanhannity. we'll continue.

make no mistake, this has implications beyond chemical warfare. if we won't stand up to this heinous act. what does it say to our resolve against others who break international wars. to terrorists who would spread biological weapons. to armies who carry out agagen e genocide. we are the united states of america, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in damascus. >> just moments after president obama made those remarks, our commander in chief laced up his spikes, headed to the first tee for another round of golf. is his hitting the links moments after making such a serious statement? >> congratulations to both of

you, i missed you. >> thanks. >> this decision after he announced he was going to go, grew the red line, says he doesn't need congress's authority, but seeks it anyway. what do you think? >> i think he got to the right place in a round about sort of way to get there. it's messy, but i think congress is going to end up doing the right thing. on the golf thing, i do have to say, john mccain getting caught playing poker on his iphone during the hearing. it's serious business. it looks bad. >> did you see mccain on fox and friends this morning? alla akbar is the same as thanking god? >> yes. >> i think i'd run for the serenity of a golf course just like he did. this is probably going to make me unpopular with conservatives.

it's in america's interests to hit assad, take away those chemical weapons somehow or another but take action. it's in america's interest to do that. those who say don't do anything -- >> i say don't do anything, because -- walk me through, they have said this bombing, i want to use the president's words exactly. >> it's going to be days not weeks, no boots on the ground limited in nature. >> yes. >> what's the point. >> it's not an excuse to do nothing. don't excuse doing nothing. >> you're going to fire cruise missiles in to do what? >> america cannot walk away when children are gassed in large numbers. >> 100,000 are dead before the chemical weapons are used. it only matters how they're kills. >> when you have mechanized

killing on behalf of the government in the middle east -- >> no regime change. days not weeks, no boots on the ground. we're going to lob cruise missiles in he's hitten weapons, tell me how that helps the united states of america. >> you don't know what he's going to do. i would like to see america take dramatic and solid action to degrade assad and his forces. >> who is it the opposition, stewart. >> are you walking away from principle? >> excuse me. 30 months ago, when there was a more secular proamerican opposition force there, we could have done something positive. that moment came and left. now, the most likely successor as i predicted in egypt. in this case, it's radical islamists with al qaeda connections. you want to help those guys out here? i do not. >> i do not. but you cannot walk away from principle. it's in america's interest to do

something after this gas attack about those chemical weapons. >> we get them prior. >> are you suggesting we do nothing? >> i'm suggesting we let two radical sides kill each other -- >> you don't think iran would look at this and say, i could get away with it? >> iran already looks at us that way. >> nothing compounds the problem? >> nothing. >> all you're going to do is help al qaeda radical islamists come to power in syria. if they got lucky. >> poor dana's in the middle. >> i'm so glad to be back with the two of you. >> what you're arguing -- you're arguing a good point. for those who say to not do it or why are weoing it, why not. how do we know it won't degrade the capabilities. how do we know he won't talk really tough, and then run scurrying away. >> who's going to take his place.

>> i think elizabeth bagge has been in syria over the past couple years, she's a journalist who wrote an op ed on saturday. if there are al qaeda elements they're isolated and away from -- >> no way. >> i'm quoting from somebody on the ground. i have a -- i want to support the president, i want to support the united states, i want us to be strong. >> let me explain why i can't support this president. this is an administration that has not had the moral fortitude to admit a war on terror exists. and they claim ft. hood is workplace violence. how do you support limited two-day missile firings that will accomplish nothing based on his words. >> you are right on all accounts. >> it is a weak apresence. we may make things worse by going in with a rocket attack. i cannot walk away from

principle. >> what happens. >> it's in america's interests long term to do something about this. >> what happens -- you've yet to make that case to me, what happens if syria and iran retaliate and attack israel? are we going to go full force? i don't have enough confidence in him. >> i do. >> i don't. >> even though it took him a while to get to the place where he was going to ask congress for support, he didn't lay in groundwork six months ago there was reports of chemical attacks, why didn't he go to congress at that point opinion it's been handled terribly. >> if we want a deal with the metastasizing cancer in the region, take out iran's puke lee ar facilities, i will support him 1,000%. >> i think any president would do that if it were that easy. >> i don't think it's possible. >> it's not that easy. >> you can't bomb the knowledge out of a country.

>> you can bunker buster bomb all of their facilities. >> do you think he should ask congress for permission to do that? >> yes. >> do you think he would get it? >> i think if we don't do it -- we are living through -- >> senator rand paul supports taking out the nuclear weapons in iran. what we're facing is the rise of islamists in the middle east and the world. it is building a coalition that -- >> i agree, and that's why we should be there. >> limited bombings. >> to do nothing after the chemical attack on men, women and children in the 21st century is flat out immoral. >> i would help on a humanitarian basis, we may help al qaeda in the process, that is very dangerous. there's no good guy on either side to help. got to run, but i love you both. >> coming up, we reveal what you

have chosen as tonight's video

test test

welcome back to hannity. time to reveal what you chose as the video of the day. tucker carlson falling asleep at the wheel while he was hosting fox and friends weekend on saturday. he was filling in for me friday night. but guess who got the blame for this little nap/siesta, me.

>> he's really asleep. >> i don't think we're being good co-hosts right now. >> good to see you. >> welcome to fox and friends. >> i know we're not on television. >> no need to be embarrassed. this is a commercial. >> in the 15 years of this program, i don't think that's ever happened. >> i know, i agree with you. >> you know what it is, i sat in for sean hannity last night. >> one of our evil cameramen in the background, i know which one of you it is. >> is this all on tv? >> it is. >> in fairness to tucker, i host the show and i rarely go to bed before 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., he had to get up at 4:00 to host fox and friends. i'm on your side tucker. good choice tonight. thank you for being with us.

let not your heart be troubled. greta van susteren is standing by to go on the record. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. night. welcome to "red eye." it is like full house if by house you mean prescription painkillers taken from your nana's medicine cabinet. she wanted me to have them, people. now to andy levy for a pre game report. what's coming up on tonight's show? >> the white house sends out a photo of president obama with his foot on the oval office desk. let me say that again. the white house sends out a photo of president obama with his foot on his oval office desk. i am disgusted right now i can't even think. and is nasa planing on capturing an asteroid in deep space and bringing it back near earth? hells yeah, it is. and are they planning to open the first in patient