but the other day on "the five "you mentioned, enough of the back-and-forth. how are we going to fix this problem. i do think it's a little bit of a distractioning talking about whether or not shinseki should step down or not. >> right. i think a resignation or a firing is coming because there's just going to be -- it will become impossible for president obama to continue to have confidence in him if everybody in washington doesn't, even if the speaker and pelosi do not think he should be fired. partly because -- i think what boehner and pelosi are saying, it's one thing to remove the top guy, but you can't just ignore the rest of the problems. if it's a systemic problem throughout the entire v.a. and shinseki didn't know about it, there are plenty others that did. you can't fire them all. maybe you could, but you have to

have some sort of plan in place to replace it. so i would bet that tomorrow is a friday, i bet the secretary will be gone by then. >> around 4:00, 3:30 in. >> yes. >> time for him to go, eric? >> yes. what does it take in d.c. to get fired? all these scandals, the irs, the v.a., we talk about the gsa, remember the guy who was in the bathtub with the -- people just don't get fired. and it's not just president obama's fault, although i think shinseki should go, i'm tired of him saying i still have confidence in it the guy. i disagree, dana. i think you need to fire a high level person to shake up the whole tree. let people know that if that guy can get fired i can get fired. and if nothing else i better get my butt in line and start dog things the right way. but i also have a problem with john boehner saying he's not ready to call for the resign or

firing of shinseki. why not? what are you waiting for? 40 veterans died. maybe 80. we don't know what the scandal will look like. start to peel back the onion and look. the only way to do it is by removing him and maybe getting someone from the outside and looks in and says, look what i found. that's usually how these things start to really open up when you bring someone in not part of the chain of command. break it up a little bit. >> the only concern he i have with vin sec ki stepping down is it doesn't fix the larger problem but then the pressure is off. with shinseki the pressure is on, we're focused on it, the press is. when they bring in somebody else, it seems the story dissipates and i get the sense, bob, that the white house likes having him there to run interference on a lot of these issues and politicians love look like they're dog something calling him to step down. so that deflects off of them. >> there's something to be said. i think somebody going to go, and i think it will be tomorrow.

what i'm tired of are these pompous jerks in congress who sit there and yell at these people who are public employees and -- did you hear what one guy said? that's what you said two months ago. well, your job is the oversight of the veterans administration. why didn't you follow up two months ago? because you're not doing your job. every one of your member fz congress that shoots off your mouths who didn't investigate this are as guilty as anybody else responsible for it. >> isn't that true? the members of congress have to look like they're doing something. take the heat off them because they're feeling it from constituents. >> i agree with bob. i agree with bob! it feels great. i agree. i mean, i think these hearings stink. always pompous people are yelling at these employees. i feel bad for the employees. can we just send our military to the regular hospital? could we do that tomorrow? enough with the v.a. let them go to the hospital.

i don't even know why we still have a v.a. we want the best for our troops so why are we sending them to government-run hospital? >> here's the amazing thing. you know they authorized several years ago appropriated money to do exactly that when there was an overload in the v.a. nobody's talked about that pot of money, nobody's used it. that it to me is a scandal. >> let's do it, bob. >> but it's really not about the money. there's no one claiming that it the v.a. -- >> underfunded. >> it's not a money thing it's a bureaucratic nightmare. i will say it again. i said it last week. it's the union. the v.a. is unionized. it takes a lot 0 to get rid of a d.c. employee, then put a federal employee union on top of it. >> that must be the most amazing -- what's his name that

was here yesterday said the same thing. >> i got a call from a congresswoman who said, you aren't saying anything become it this. see what's going on in north carolina. it's the unions. she went to visit her v.a. to the "t," every person was unionized and she put her finger on that. >> so what? >> name me one organization where it works better unionized than if it's not. >> the automobile industry. >> oh, yeah. >> communication workers, cwa. >> the schools? >> certainly the zooms. with the exception of the inner city schools. remember the unions are 9% of the work force. you jump -- >> 80% of the v.a. >> you think the union people are trying to hurt people purposely? >> no. they slow walk everything. >> what i said is there's a pot of money to send them to private hospital which is where you want to send them. >> you wouldn't get fired for saying stuff on tv, would you say more than what you already

say? would you drop some f-bombs if you wsht go weren't going to get fired? >> i already did at you. >> the control room is going to drop one if i don't go on. congress isn't the only body feeling pressure. jay carney feeling pressure. it makes you wonder what it takes to get jay carney fired. he didn't have a lot of answers today. >> does the president have confidence in president shinseki. >> john, the president atreddred this question. >> he wasn't asked directly. >> the president believes that and is confident that secretary shinseki has served his nation admirably. >> the president promised at that podium, quote, once we know the facts i assure you it will be punished. who has been punished? >> a preliminary report -- we got a report yesterday. the president found the report extremely troubling. >> why is he still tolerating it and where is the punishment?

>> ed, i don't ask how else to disappoint you, but i'll give you the same answer. >> it's not me you're disappointing. there's veterans waiting 115 days. >> the sniffing, the alaughing, why can't he answer the question? >> i think what's happened is the president hasn't made a it decision yet so jay carney is in a position where he has to represent the president and give the president a little bit of wiggle room possibly. maybe that's what he was asked to do today. sometimes when you're the press secretary you have to go up there and not have any good answers and so it looks bad. but it's better that you look bad than it your boss looks bad. when it comes to confidence in a cabinet secretary, the president either has it until they don't. if and when that happens, i think president obama has shown that he is very loyal to his cabinet members and to his staff. he will never be accused of being disloyal. think about secretary sebelius who stayed on after all of those

calls for her to be fire ford apexance probla performance problem. now shinseki -- he's not willing to let anybody be beaten down, including susan rice, how upset he was with susan rice after the benghazi talking point nightmare. she wasn't in a position to be the secretary of state. he tried to stay with her up until he didn't. and there becomes political reality can overwhelm the situation. i think that possibly is going to happen if not tomorrow then by sunday. >> dana makes a great point, tom. nobody is questioning the president's loyalty to his staff, they're questioning his loyalty to theveterans. that's ed's point. the veterans are suffering. president obama had time today to do a summit, the first of its kind for sports concussions, something that -- what the heck is the president getting involved in? he looks detached but he has his priorities straight and his little tis to his staff not our

military heroes. >> i don't think it does any good to be loyal to his staff. it always helps if you can fire someone and someone new comes in and says, i'm the new guy. then the story goes away. which is why i don't think anyone should ever get fired. then the story goes away and somebody says, we're working on it. >> that happened at the irs. >> exactly. i don't know what good it is to be loyal to shinseki, but. >> but there's other people in the administration, if he was going to fire somebody, i wouldn't put shinseki at the top of that list xs we talked about susan rice. we talked about kathleen sebeli sebelius. if he isn't going to fire them, why is he going to fire shinseki. >> don't take it from me. take it from bill burton. wasn't he he on both campaign snz i believe he's on both of president obama's campaigns. let's call him a very insider on the left. he today said the reason why obama is not firing shinseki is

for politics. because if obama fires him, the gop will take a pound of flesh and point the finger at a bad hire because shinseki has been there for almost the duration of the obama presidency. so even on the left they realize at this so far 40 vets dead -- >> isn't a bigger pound of flesh the dead veterans? >> i think the point you made, the politics, the best politics would be to fire him. i mean, that's where he's got it wrong. i think that takes the heat off of a lot of things, bring someone in fresh from the outside. by the way, when you suggested that jay carney, what does it take to get him fired, in the break i said carney puts up with all of this stuff all the time, dennis told me to kiss her -- because she had to put up with all this stuff i. want to say to both dana and to jay, i'm impressed -- >> kiss my grits, bob. can i just say one more thing

like pelosi and boehner are reluctant to call for shinseki's firing. he's a decorated war veteran, has dedicated his life to the country, and i don't think they think his commitment to the vets is any less than theirs. i think that's why they are showing deference in this regard. >> that makes seps s sense to >> i do think he's the most dedicated to the veterans. >> i agreed with bob on both of those stories. amazing. >> shocking. >> better go to the doctor tomorrow. >> there's some vulnerable democrats up for senate reelection who are zapsing themselves, actually calling for shinseki's head. aloft politics going on. come up, dick cheney and mitt romney were not impressed with the president's foreign policy speech at west point. they're fire ud up about it, an you're going to hear from both of them next.

the reviews are in from president obama's foreign policy address to west point. conservatives weren't impressed. >> very, very weak president, maybe the weakest certainly in my lifetime. we have a lead her who doesn't understand u.s. obligations and commitments around the world and isn't prepared to act on them. >> i think it's a particularly sad day in america when the president of the united states feels compelled to give an address saying that america in effect isn't weak, saying we really are a leader, we really are strong.

if you have to tell people you're strong, then you're not. >> the big papers were not impressed either. the editor equal board at the "new york times" writes, the address did not match the hype. many still doubt obama fully appreciates the leverage the united states has even in a changing world. . "washington post" said, this biepding of u.s. power places please obama at odds with every u.s. president since world war ii. and the "wall street journal" said listening to mr. obama was like watching tom hanks trying to survive in castaway. i said to andrea yesterday that the reaction of the speech was across the board disappointing. i was surprised this morning to read as much as i did about how people who are actually usually cheerleading for obama and defending him were just left so confused by what this considered an incoherent speech. how does that happen in a white house where they know they're under the gup, everyone is watching, the cadets are there, a great speech you can give on any topic you want and you blow

it. >> when the new york times editorial board can't defend you and you're the president of the united states and you're barack obama, you know you're doing something wrong, there's a legitimate argument and it's not just part of politics. but it's true. we have an incomprehensible, inxrutable foreign policy. i'm not saying that president obama needs to have a doctrine. i don't think every four years wre need to change our foreign policy doctrine. but he said yesterday, he said, just because we have a heavy hammer doesn't mean we have to hit every nail. after five years of watching him hit his thumb and hit no nail or hit the wrong nail or whatever he's dog, i don't want him using the heavy hammer. i'm very comfortable with him talking about school lunches and pond scum and concussions and cow parts and birth control, i am kfrltable with him doing that. i don't want him using the heavy hammer. i'm confident he doesn't know how to use it. >> interesting thing, eric,

about the president's decision to basically rebut critics in the speech rather than to inspire the cadets or have a speech that would be forward thinking. it really ended up being more of a defensive -- >> rambling, wandering, as many have pointed out, flip-flopping on syrian policy, other policy. someone said something on twitter, the general who led the s.e.a.l.s to capture bip lan la from texas, mccraven, that speech given to the west point graduate woz be more appropriate than what president obama did. he hit on climate change, pulling back our stature apologizing for american exceptionalism. wrong place, wrong time. not a speech if you want to 'do give it maybe at university of cairo in 2009. kind of the same type of speech. just i really have a problem with the venue. those people were forced to sit and listen to that. they were obeying orders.

you heard that smattering of claps a couple had to do. that was probably -- >> i agree with andrea. maybe they didn't need this speech at this time. did you feel there was a clamoring for this type of foreign policy speech? >> not really. but i think what this shows you is the divide among democrats in the national security arena it. there are those in the democratic party who believe that we ought to pull back, we ought to become more isolationist, we've been overseas 00 too long. and there are those who think we ought to project ourselves worldwide on global warming and others. i think that was the mishmash of a lot of thinking from different people. that was the mistake of the speech. but let me just say this, for dick cheney to call president obama weak. he is the same cheney who talked bush going into iraq. >> that hillary clinton supported. >> keep his mouth shut. go back to wyoming. >> this is what this is all

about. you have to stop calling it an illegal war. both sides of the aisle. >> ill-advised war. >> tom, i wanted to ask you about speech writing. one of the things you do is look at language. you have a -- you're not doing stand-up, you have a limited amount of time in front of an audience. when you look at a speech like that, don't you feel like every word has to count? >> yes. but you have to give him credit for going into an unfriendly audience. >> i think they're friendly. >> look -- >> the west point cadets? >> they gave him clap ter. but remember when president bush spoke in front of cadets, they loved him. but when greg gutfeld has to give a speech at u cal berkeley. it's not his people. >> remember they all had gloves on. ever see people clap with gloves? >> we've got to go.

ahead, what do prince charles, ed snowden and brad pitt have in common? they're all coming up on "the five."

welcome back, everybody. so a crazy sob opens fire and the lunatic left begins to point fingers, their best target race. rutgers professor of african studies, britney cooper blamed, quote, white privilege. but here's the thing, the shooter and knifer elliot rodger is half asian. >> white male privilege kills?

that's just insane. these murders had nothing to do with white privilege. it was some young guy unhinged. he actually killed himself. is that white privilege, too? ms. cooper conveniently overlooks that murder is color-blind. in chicago thousands of people, thousands, have been murdered in the public space over the last few years, and 70% of the killers are black. 70%, ms. cooper. so you, madam, are exploiting the santa barbara atrocity and trying to ramp up racial hatred to boot. >> bobby, white privilege, this kid was half asian. why not asian privilege? >> i find myself one of the few and very, very few moments when i agree with o'reilly. i don't get it. i don't get the theme of it. i don't get anything about it. i mean, i don't -- if you look

at all these people -- it is true that alo lot of the people who kill in sprees like this have been more caucasian, but they're nuts. that's -- i don't get it. in fact, the guy who did university of virginia i think he was asian. virginia tech. >> he was asian as well. dana, but as bill uses, race merchant. >> rutgers is the same university that didn't want condi rice to give a commencement speech that she pulled out of. so i think all sorts of things are happening at rutgers that don't make a lot of since. when we get off on tangents like hers an bill o'reilly uses talking points to respond to it, we are doing everything not to deal with the core issue of mental health. that's the real crisis at hand. there's a legislator, congressman tim murphy, who

introduces a bill that could at least try to help something in it this regard. >> does it continually drive the wedge through the race divide, is that political, too? >> it's political, ideological and as someone who used to write regularly for the "new york daily news" as a columnist, it's a pure lack of kricreativity. it's easy to write the same column over and overnd over. i've looked back and her writings are racially driven. it's not just what you believe and what you're comfortable in but what you've written before. the problem is it's bad journalism. it's not even bad journalism because she didn't do his research to see that he is half asian. it's bad jarnl journalism because it doesn't, as dana talks about, talk about the real issue. bill o'reilly said murder is color-blind. so is mental illness. and if she wants to be a really gutsy reporter and get her facts straight, talk about stop and

frisk in new york city where the majority of crimes are committed by minorities against minorities. and the stop and frisk are to help minority communities. but they go whack to the racial nostalgia they're comfortable in. it's pathetic. >> surprisingly, she didn't mention white dude privilege. >> if anyone should benefit from white privilege it's me. but i can't get any. look at me. >> you're on "the five," though. you're very privileged. >> obviously the race thing is silly. privilege maybe. the columbine, these guys, they're rich kids, idle hands are the devil's play thing. osama bin laden, a lot of these people who commit atrocities have nothing to do. and i don't think that this guy is insane. i don't buy it. i don't buy it. he's evil. >> he's dead. >> he's dead, but psychologists

went in and interviewed him and saw that he was sane. not because they made a mistake but because he was sane. but he was evil. >> bob, i loved the fact that the left just jumped right out front of this before they had the facts and started pointing their fingers at guns, the nra. then they found out the first three victims were stabbed to death. >> i think it's very fair to say that the vast majority on the left do not agree with this woman. so the idea of lumping us all up in with this woman is a typical conservative way of painting the left, just like we're only missing greg gutfeld to say, everybody on left grows with this. the vast majority of it is, we don't agree with it. >> you don't hear people on the right saying -- >> you don't hear people on the right say anything but wacko stuff. prince charles is off his royal rocker again. he thinks capitalism is destroying the planet. you'll hear more next.

prips charles has been p drinking the global warmi ining kool-aid. he thinks he knows how to save the planet. in order to stop climate change he thinks you have to stop capitalism. >> the primary purpose of capitalism should surely be to serve the wider, long-term interests and concerns of humanity rather than the other way around. so critically it would require the cooperation of environmentalists. we stand at a pivotal moment in history. either we continue along the path we seem collectively determined to follow or we can choose to act now before it is finally too late. >> wow, that was a great are

prince charles impersonation, wasn't it? as i'm watching this videotape, i don't know if i've ever seen that man talk. i see pictures of him all the time. >> he was like al gore with a british accent. >> right. >> now bring me my slippers. >> what does he want, a place where everything flows up? >> that worked out well for the monarch. >> that was convenient for him. there is a reason that we broke away from the british. this is one of these moments where i look back at the founding fathers and say, wow, you guys really knew what you were doing and it makes me happy to live in this country. and it's for this reason because of the elitist monarchs. we have them in this country. they're not real royalty. >> who are our monarchs? >> but they believe they are kings and queens and should be privileged and everything should flow up to those connected. i think in our country it's those in the government who believe that right now. but prince charles i just have a

hard time taking him seriously and i did love princess diana a lot. never really warmed up to the guy. >> he didn't treat her well. >> bob, you agree with prince charles. but why do we even listen to him. he doesn't even have any political effect on england, does he? >> he's got a little bit of a voice. he didn't say he was anti-capitalism. he said it ought to look at the environment. some corporations actually have and are doing something about it, which i commend them for. but the capitalism without environmentalism is probably not going to work. communism well. but what you disagree with me on, we believe he we're at a critical point where this world is about to go through disasters with global warming. he wants to speak out about it, more power to it him. is capitalism the problem, eric? isn't the solution always restricting capitalism? >> it's just funny to hear a guy

born with a golden spoon in his mouth who's never had to risk anything, earn anything, invest anything, to say, now, the way to fix this is capitalism. well, capitalism was working for you, my good man. you have, what, $40 billion or by billion in assets? bob, you're out of your mind. something big is about to happen. do you have any basis for that? >> i believe in global warming science,s and i believe we're altering the atmosphere all the time a time. >> here's the point -- >> 20 years ago they said we weren't he even supposed to be sitting here you climate change fanatics. >> this is what i believe. you don't believe that. so you're not going to convince me. >> so change the world. get rid of capitalism. >> whatever it takes. >> i believe the oceans of this world are going to rise at least 12 or 14 inches over the next 15 years and that will be devastating to third world countries.

>> 15 inches in the next 15 years? >> 15 to 20 years. >> i want to play video for you. president obama, he seems to think we should bring the u.s. military in to fight global warming and we also get a reaction by west point grad and vietnam vet john mumford on fox and friends. >> globalest to combat climate change. a creeping crisis that will help shape your time in uniform as we are called on. >> did your jaw just go what? when he said that? >> mine and everyone i knew said that. the military's job is to fight and win wars. the military is not an organization of social policy. >> dana, whdo you think? should the military be enlisted to fight global warming? >> there is an office charged with looking long term and risks

going ahead 50 to 75 years. and there is a consensus among some of the former -- the retired security folks who get probably paid a lot of money on the consulting side but maybe they agree with bob. they think it's at least worth planning for and trying to address. my point is capitalism is the best system for addressing climate change. >> bob, i agree with you, that global warming is happening. i also agree it's manmade. i think people on the right should stop making this argument. even if you don't believe it, you should say, i'm going to believe the 90% of scientists who say it is, just because saying it's not happening isn't helping our argument. >> tom, let's say it is. i do think on some level something is happening. a majority of people believe you when they say, okay, there's something happening. >> it's happening but i don't believe there's a solution. >> here's the issue. is is it a crisis and should we use tax dollars to fix it? or as dana points out, should

the private sector deal with it? >> i'm going to throw one thing out, bob. the only water level that's going to rise 15 inches anytime soon is the bathtub when you get in. >> at certain points of the southern hemisphere because the ice melt -- listen, i'm not going to convince a krecretin l you about this. >> everyone wants to make one last point. >> if the producers could be so kind as to print off for us the opening statements for the hearing that was debunking the 97% of scientists that did not get enough coverage, not in this paper, nowhere. so we should all get that and read it before we start jumping -- >> republican hearing. sure. >> the thing is guys like bob want to restrict the economy by cutting our carbon output. that will hurt not help poor people. >> when haiti had its crisis,

earthquake, when there was floods, the united states military has time and gone again to places where there's mass destruction. there's part of the job. we think there will be mass destruction in the future and the u.s. military should be involved. >> i'm sure they will be. gwyneth paltrow thinks she knows what it's like to be a veteran. brad pitt might know better. he just came under fire on the

test vé

actress gwyneth paltrow is under fire again, this time comparing her life to troops who have served in war. you come across online comments

about yourself and your friends. and it's very dehumanizing. it's almost like in war you go it through this bloody, dehumanizing thing and then something is defined out of it. gwyneth, you ought to read what i read. if that was the case, i'd be on the floor. stop whining. if you're a public figure, that's the way. you have something to say? >> i have defended gwyneth paltrow in the past when she was on "people's" magazine's most beautiful person. i gave her a passes. they sell $7,000 juicers. everyone calls her an elitist. but this, if i were her pr perp, person, gwyneth, shut up already. john mayer had this problem for a long time. he stopped talking. he stopped doing interviews. she needs to stop doing interviews because she clearly has no crass p on reality.

we've got 15 seconds each. >> i was just going to say that i think she is at a point where she doesn't have to look online anymore. if you're selling $7,000 juicers, then somebody else can look at your online stuff and you don't have to worry about it. >> and she doesn't worry about us saying bad things about her. he i think she's great. she should say whatever she wants and we should stop giving people grief for making analogies. she didn't say she was in the war. she said it's almost like. you can make an analogy. >> tom, i'm not so sure. >> that's not even close. >> there are probably other analogies that would work. and does she look like she's been in war? >> bob, i leave here and they say, how was "the five," i say, it's like being in combat be bob. i'm not serious. >> could you tell me what you just said in my ear? >> brad pitt. >> brad pitt is walking down the red carpet at one of those other ridiculous things they have and he gets -- somebody jumps over and beats the hell out of him.

>> he didn't beat the hell out of him. he got taken down. the question is, he did it before. he tried to kiss a celebrity. >> he's a jerk. he stuck his head under america ferrara's dress. he's a criminal. >> how is he not in jail or away from the areas? >> they keep letting him out. >> the youtube video maker is still in jail. you think america could figure it out. >> why does the guy have so many guards around him, how does somebody get to him? >> i'm going to volunteer to be brad pitt's bodyguard. >> you think that dude's good looking? >> i think he's very handsome. >> his old lady is good looking. no question about that. okay, one more thing is up next.

time for one more thing. bob has a new date. eric, go first. >> you outed him in the break. last night brian williams, the interview he said down with ed snowden aired last night. i just want to say i really, really liked the story. we're going to take a couple of excerpts. take a listen. >> there are some things worth dying for, and i think the country is one of them. >> do you see yourself as a patriot? >> i do. >> but being a patriot doesn't mean prioritizing service to government above all else. being a patriot means knowing when to protect your country, knowing when to protect your constitution, knowing when to protect your countrymen. >> so it's opening a can of worms. >> i can't believe you just did that, you just pulled a bob in a one more thing.

>> remember fourth amendment constitution. >> man with the hot date. >> please, this hasn't taken place yet. great honor to george h.w. bush who is a big yaley. he was ordered a doctorate of law from harvard along with mike bloomberg and aretha franklin. congratulations, mr. president. you deserve it very much. >> he's going to be 90 next week, i think. >> dana? >> i have been wrestling with a guy that put up a youtube video about a frog on a sprinkler. i love this video. and he will not respond for permission for me to show it. if you're watching guy with a frog on a sprinkler, respond so i can show the video. instead i have to do this about the "new york times." i like twitter, social media. i always have typos and i come to find out the "new york times" has them, too.

on the front page, check this out. front page story, see that word highlighted? response. they forget the "s." soy felt a little better about my own typos. >> didn't we say jill abramson is somewhere laughing hysterically. >> should have paid me what you paid the guys. so this story is insane. on my online series trending i got to talk to a mother whose child was denied the ability to use the restroom by a teacher who said they need to pay using fake money, denying these kids the ability to go to the bathroom. marchaund ortega spoke to me about this crazy story in washington state at the evergreen public school. >> she chose not to pay to use the restroom. she said it hurt so bad that she couldn't hold it no more. she urinated herself. >> this woman has a case. it a's an insane story. they want the little girl to

apologize and they called her a liar. sad. >> sad. only he a few seconds. >> i just got back from iceland. unbelievable. i got out of my show. that's 11:00 p.m. in iceland when i just got out of this comedy club. then i went swimming in the blue lagoon. i did not enhance that photo. it's a hot springs. amazing. if you ever get a chance, visit rake avic. >> what's the name of the monster that runs around the northwest? >> sasquatch. there he is. >> they're fans of red eye and the five. >> see you back here. "special report" up next.