>> see you back here in an hour. "outnumbered" starts now. >> we begin with a fox news alert. as you can see, there's a lot happening at united nations general assembly right now. we're waiting to hear from netanyahu who is set to speak before the united nations general assembly this hour. he's expected to forcefully refute what he's calling lies from the palestinian leadership about israel's war with hamas. as you know, it lasted about 50 days this summer. we'll bring you that speech live when it begins.

>> this is "outnumbered." here with us today is hashtag first timer, one lucky guy, senior correspondent charlie and he's outnumbered. >> and crazy for being here. >> what? >> someone said, are you lucky or crazy? >> sometimes i'm lucky. sometimes i'm crazy. just don't hit me. >> no, no, no. >> i promised not to say anything too crazy. >> this won't hurt. just hang on, charlie. the president is admitting the u.s. underestimated the rise of isis. >> how did they end up where they are in control of so much territory? was that a complete surprise to you? >> well, i think our head of the

intelligence community, jim clapper, has acknowledged that i think they underestimated what had been taking place in syria. >> he didn't say that -- just say that we underestimated isil. he said we overestimated the ability and will of our allies, the iraqi army, to fight. >> that's true. that's absolutely true. >> president also saying the u.s. made a mistake in placing too much trust in the iraqi army. now remember, this is the same army we're counting to be our boots on the ground to defeat isis. mr. obama also didn't deny america's airstrikes in syria are helping asad. what do you think? >> who came up with the term "jv team?" >> he did. >> i think that gets right to it. president obama has completely underestimated the threat of isis from the beginning. really fatuous statements about

their ability to wreak havoc and now it seems like he's trying to pass the buck a little bit. >> a little bit? >> some guy that, you know, no one has ever heard of is responsible for his massive screwup and i'll tell you, the problem with the president, i think, in this issue is you almost can't believe anything coming out of his mouth going forward. you do believe that he's completely unprepared or he's so ideologically opposed that he'll prevent us from stopping him. >> katherine has cited numerous intelligence officials who warned about isis months ago and also senator dianne feinstein in february warning about isis and how can he miss this one? isis took the cities of ramadi and fallujah. he doesn't know that isis captured those cities?

>> from baghdad bob? it's sort of like that. ministry of information are telling us things that we know are demonstratively false. it's like a fake apology. you know, america didn't know. no, you're the one who didn't know. you were told and you actually -- i actually think maybe he understands what is going on and he just doesn't want to do it. it's not that he didn't know about it. in some ways he's saying it's america's fault. america didn't know. >> what about the boots on the ground? because the president is talking about the iraqi army saying we underestimated their ability to fight. did we really? jim has an excellent listing of all the people in the bush administration, cheney, bush, dwas ambassador crocker saying if we pull out, the country is not safe. now this is the same army we're counting to defeat isis. why are they better now than before? >> exactly and why didn't he know? where was he? was he not at the intelligence

briefings? why were we reading all those reports they weren't prepared and somehow he wasn't getting the memo and now he's going to pass it off as i didn't know? you don't get to do that. you're the president of the united states. if anybody is supposed to be on top of all of this, it's you. the other things he says about we just have to push them back and shrink their space, he's confusing the messaging again. are we in there to destroy the guys? are they in there to push them back? stop trying to pass the buck. you're the president. if anyone was supposed to be on top of this from day one, you're the guy that was supposed to be that person. >> harris, that is really, i think, the most important point is the pronoun he used. instead of "we" he said "they" underestimated, throwing our intelligence community under the bus. they're not happy at the c.i.a. they're saying we've been warning about this, president obama. don't put this on us. >> you're doing exactly what i did as i was watching this. and of course, the embargo was lifted last night at 7:00 p.m. eastern so we talked about this

on fox report and another line that stands out like that one word you pulled out is when he was asked, the president, whether we were at war, he said this is not america against isis. they're beheading americans. they're killing americans. who the heck is it against isis then? he said, no. and now i'm going to para phrase him. we have a coalition of people, we have -- yeah, but it really is us, though, right? against them. >> he made it sound like we were just helping out a country in need, iraq, as if it was a humanitarian effort. >> after putting down their military. >> exactly. >> i'm not going to defend him but play a little devil's advocate here. america's people don't want to get involved in another poll. -- in another war. dollars to donuts, a lot of people are wary about that. >> that is the next topic. as charlie just mentioned, most americans are skeptical of president obama's promise that

no u.s. ground troops will be used to fight isis. that's according to a new poll. it finds 72% of americans will say u.s. ground troops will be deployed in the fight against the extremists but 45% of those support that. now, this is house speaker john boehner says we have no choice but to send troops in. >> the other day, i think it's going to take more than air strikes. at some point, somebody's boots have to be on the ground. >> if nobody else would step up, do you recommend american boots on the ground? >> we have no choice. these are barbarians. they intend to kill us. if we don't destroy them first, we're going to pay the price. >> so no choice. do you believe president obama when he says that's not an option? >> there are boots on the ground. special forces are over there. there are american soldiers over there, at least in directing and maybe fiesometimes fighting.

if isis is a major threat, he should go to the american people and basically do what roosevelt did and say down the law. america did not want to fight world war ii. >> can he do that? he's been before the american people so much. my goodness. do you expect him to say i'm wrong five times? >> president obama is a very effective speaker. if this is the crisis we think it is, it is imperative for him to go before the american people and say we have to stop them and do this right. >> i actually agree with president obama. i don't think that we should be putting u.s. boots on the ground and i hope he does remain firm on that. >> i don't think the american people are saying we want boots on the ground. i think the american people are saying what john boehner are saying. in this case, he has absolutely channelled the voice of the american people. they are barbarians and they need to be dealt with. they're not saying -- american

people aren't saying we want boots on the ground. they're saying fix this, destroy them. that's what they're saying. whatever it takes. and the fact that they don't want another war when we poll them, the fact they say that and almost 50% said we don't mind if there's boots on the ground, that says they know this is serious and the president is not taking it seriously. >> 72% believe that u.s. ground troops will be deployed. that means that 72% of this country thinks the president is not telling them the truth. >> that's logic. >> he's been out there repeatedly saying this is not a possibility. i don't care how effective of a speaker he is. i think he is an effective speaker. people feel they're being lied to. >> polling questions are weird. they don't really get the feelings. i think that's logic. i think the american people are saying, of course we want to get rid of them. dollars to donuts, a lot of people don't want another war but if this is the terrorist group that could come over here, if all that stuff is real, he

should go before the american people and say, we have to fight this. >> he has a credibility problem. >> maybe, and this is being very optimistic but certainly possible, maybe through the polling, what that represents is the american people giving the president the benefit of the doubt which is saying, look. if you think you need to go in there and do this, we support you to do that. >> i think the american people see the threat. they see americans being beheaded and they say there's no way the coalition and the campaign we put together can handle a threat like this. but i think they believe president obama when he says he doesn't want troops. >> we have a president also saying that beheadings are workplace violence. >> we are awaiting the prime minister's big speech at the u.n. you'll see it live right here when it happens. expect it to be fiery. did you catch it during the big game? the nfl big pr move to improve it's aim -- its image.

do they really care? keeping track of your vacation days could become a thing of the past. push for unlimited vaca in the workplace. imagine that. why some say it may not be as good as it sounds. dad, i know i haven't said this often enough, but thank you. thank you mom for protecting my future. thank you for being my hero and my dad. military families are uniquely thankful for many things, the legacy of usaa auto insurance could be one of them. if you're a current or former military member or their family, get an auto insurance quote and see why 92% of our members plan to stay for life. come from all walks of life. if you have high blood sugar,

ask your doctor about farxiga. it's a different kind of medicine that works by removing some sugar from your body. along with diet and exercise, farxiga helps lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. with one pill a day, farxiga helps lower your a1c. and, although it's not a weight-loss or blood-pressure drug, farxiga may help you lose weight and may even lower blood pressure when used with certain diabetes medicines. do not take if allergic to farxiga or its ingredients. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction include rash, swelling or difficulty breathing or swallowing. if you have any of these symptoms, stop taking farxiga and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, low blood sugar,kidney problems,

and increased bad cholesterol. common side effects include urinary tract infections, changes in urination, and runny nose. ♪do the walk of life ♪yeah, you do the walk of life need to lower your blood sugar? ask your doctor about farxiga and visit our website to learn how you may be able to get every month free.

thank you. ordering chinese food is a very predictable experience. i order b14. i get b14. no surprises. buying business internet, on the other hand, can be a roller coaster white knuckle thrill ride. you're promised one speed. but do you consistently get it? you do with comcast business. and often even more. it's reliable. just like kung pao fish. thank you, ping. reliably fast internet starts at $89.95 a month. comcast business.

built for business. >> this is a fox news alert. we're waiting israeli prime minister netanyahu who is set to speak at the united nations. now, if you saw last week, palestinian president abas made some very, very harsh comments calling the israelis commenting genocide on their country. the prime minister is expected to respond to that in just moments. when he does in what is expected to be a fiery speech, we'll take you there live. you're watching "outnumbered." >> when that happens, we'll bring it to you. for now, if you tuned in for nfl football yesterday, you may have seen this. some of the deluge of usual beer and car commercials. >> no more "it's none of my business." >> no more "he didn't mean it." >> no more "she was flirting with him."

>> no more "she was asking for it." >> no more "boys will be boys." >> no more "i'll say something next time" >> no more by standing. >> no more. >> yes, the nfl aired public service announce manies featuring celebrities talking about domestic violence as the league deals with suspensions of some of the players over domestic violence and abuse. despite the surge in tv ratings, while the nfl seems more worried about losing female fans, men tend to be slightly more disappointed in the league's handling of domestic violence issues. why would that be? >> i will tell you that i thought about boycotting football and i'm a die hard football fan. >> really? >> i did until i saw peyton manning almost come back two weeks ago. football is an amazing game but this stuff is disgusting and i have a little problem with this

p.s.a. for one reason. seems to me -- i'm not saying it's bad to talk about this. this is a very bad issue but it almost seems like there's a marketing play here from the nfl trying to say, it's not really just our problem. it's everybody's problem and it takes the heat off them. >> it is everybody's problem. >> it is but there's a media problem. roger goodell did something very stupid. he knew that ray rice dragged his then fiance out of an elevator, kicked her a couple of times and treated her like a piece of meat and let him stay, gave him a two-game suspension. that's not everybody's problem. that's his problem. >> no more campaign, just so we're clear, is partnership with the joyful heart foundation that's founded by the law and order special victims unit actress who you see in there. so they're partnering with them to be able to run some of these ads. $3 million worth yesterday that they ran. you know, i'm curious, on the

heels of what charlie just said, what more can goodell do right now? >> i don't know but i found interesting the stat that the men were more disappointed than the women. and my husband is a prosecutor and one of the first lessons he learned as a prosecutor was that he was more likely to get a conviction in a rape or domestic violence case if there were more men on the jury. and that seems counter intuitive but the reason is because men really focus, i think, just like charles said, ottoman and what he did and women will sometimes take it more wholistically and what did she do? i think women can be more judgmental. >> most men are gentlemen. >> i agree. >> if you really want us to look differently at the nfl, how about putting a couple of players on that screen? and the players in the ads. we don't stand for t. we're not going to cover for our fellow

teammates. we're not having this. i don't really care what courty cox thinks. if this is an effort to fix it from the league, i want to hear from the league. >> texas long horn coach agreed to meet with roger goodell yesterday so he was getting guidance. ize still looking for answers what to do, apparently. >> i feel like people need to stopwatching if that's the case. 15% of men and women say it's probably not going to make me less likely to watch. until the public has a reaction and say, you know what? i'm not going to buy tickets to the games. i'm not going to buy paraphernalia associated with the team. i think it comes from the market and we are the market. >> nfl is an amazing marketing franchise. i know roger goodell really well. it hits three more of these and then people stopwatching. >> you know roger goodell very well. some of us have met him around the halls here. >> nice guy, bright businessman.

>> have you talked with him about this issue? >> no. i've done a couple of columns on this, did not return my phone call. he's very scripted. if you saw that speech he gave, it was clearly some pollster, i think i know who it is, a guy that comes on our air, basically told him what to say and it was very skrifted and i don't think he did a very good job. >> that's how all the scandals are handled. >> we'll move on to another hot topic. this sounds like an employee's dream come true. richard branson is giving 170 members of his professional staff unlimited vacation and nobody will be keeping track or approving days off, either. employees will decide how long they want to take off as long as they and their team feel projects and tasks are up to date and will not suffer in their absence. critics say the dream may be a nightmare. people could abuse the system without a specific amount of time to take off, employees might feel pressure to always be at work. what do you think? is this a good idea? a bad idea? would it increase productivity?

if people feel no pressure, they can do the work when they can and when they have the ability to take free time, they can take it? >> not for every workplace but i would imagine that sir richard brn son has a pretty good handle on his staff. if you're not producing, he'll fire you. i wouldn't want to stop working for somebody like that. every workplace is different. i don't take a lot of vacation time. i just don't. i never have. so i wouldn't abuse this and i'm sure there are a lot of other people that wouldn't, either. but there's always going to be a couple, a handful that will blow it and not be focused. >> it's not right for everyone for sure. >> he's only giving this to his personal staff, not to all virgin employees. isn't that the key? you have to know the people you're giving the privilege to. if you have trust in them, it may be go ahead -- good to go. >> you can take off as much time as long as it doesn't hurt the people. you're going to need people to trust. when will it not hurt the

business? what i think is interesting, does this maybe incur some sort of stress on the job as employees compete with each otr to say, well, i'm never going to take a day off. >> competition to do it. >> isn't this -- this is his senior staff. and all those guys and women, they all work on vacation. >> absolutely. >> working vacations. >> philosophy could work for me. >> a democratic senator wants congress to come back and vote on whether to declare wore against isis and house speaker boehner saying he would be happy to do that. lots of attention. why some critics say cbs's madam secretary is really just a big campaign ad for hillary clinton. , i've learned that when you ask someone in texas if they want "big" savings on car insurance, it's a bit like asking if they want a big hat... ...'scuse me...

...or a big steak... ...or big hair... i think we have our answer. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and are proven to taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing.

yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief.

>> one democrat is making a case

for congress to vote on whether to declare war on isis. senator from virginia is supporting obama's mission so far but he said the president does not have the constitutional authority to declare war and that previous resolutions don't give him that power. cain is sponsoring the mission. >> we shouldn't be putting our servicemen and women in harm's way if there's not a political consensus that the mission is worth it. >> he is correct, charlie. do we live in a post constitutional country? is the white house council stoned and asleep? is every constitutional lawyer in d.c. stoned and asleep? where have they gone? >> i'm not a constitutional lawyer. i think the president has every right to do what he's doing here. i don't see the -- we are not declaring formal war on isis. we should in my view. we think it's as bad as it is

and then you go to congress and you do what i said before. you get the country around you and president obama gives a nice, big speech. i don't see what he's doing. >> rachel, he's required to go to congress. war power says conflict over 180 days, which we know this will, requires him to do that. if republicans are going to be consistent, they can't say that the president didn't go to get constitutional a prufl on obamacare and other things and then not say so on this. >> i'm the wife of a congressman. i prefer they don't go to washington on personal reasons but as an american, i'm very good if he does and he should. it's part of the constitution and we wanted country united on this and also we're expecting all of these arab nations that have all of these different interests that also have ter or ties to somehow unite around the united states. they need to see the rekovl of the american people.

they need to see the resolve of congress and that we're all united with the president. it's very important. there's a reason why our founders did this. >> the precedent it sets, pretty dangerous if he doesn't go. >> and you know, look. do you want to do this before or after the midterms? the conversations are going to be very different before and after the midterms. no one really wants to get on the record in congress on either side so i'm reading and if there are bipartisan buy-ins on this, they need to hold their own press conference. >> i think democrats want to vote against it. >> after, then you have a lame duck in congress. with a lame duck session in congress, imagine what more you can get done. >> for them to put the "i vote" next to their names. >> i don't see it as controversial. republicans back him, for the most part the democrats back him. why aren't you going to congress? the people and the government support you. john boehner is saying, bring it. bring the resolution. i'm waiting for it. >> why do you want every democratic congressman to go out

there and say -- >> why not? why don't you want the country to be unified? >> do you think it will get the votes? >> absolutely. >> what if he can't? >> he doesn't want to anger his base. >> that's the point. this is all politics. >> all politics. >> putting a vote next to your name, having to defend the decision. how about the constitution of the united states requires that the president go to congress with this? if he doesn't, the precedent that will be set, republicans and democrats. >> every time we have to wipe out a terrorist organization, we have to get congressional approval. >> i'm saying this sounds to me like war. everyone is saying the conflict is going to extend. >> did reagan get congressional approval when he bombed -- >> he criticized bush. does that was for a bigger war. >> a bigger war. how do we know this isn't going to be a bigger war? >> when they bombed muammar qaddafi, did he get congressional approval?

>> the military folks are saying -- >> we're not talking about reagan, though, charlie. >> you're talking about bombing a dictator, muammar qaddafi. from what i understand, that was not expected to be a projected situation. and what we're looking at now, not only is it projected to be three years, now we're hearing six to 10. every week it's longer and longer. >> we're already in iraq. >> we've been there 23 years, longer than vietnam. >> how many more times do you want to go to congress? we have people there. >> do we have an agreement now that allows them to take some action. you're widening it into syria. >> that agreement is years old. >> for every single thing this guy has to do to protect the country, i don't want -- [inaudible] >> there's a lot of ways i could answer that. but anyway -- >> why do you think the constitution is a dead letter? >> it is a living constitution.

i knew that would get you. >> where is the judge? >> i'm not a constitutional guy. >> everybody, check this out. >> naval base. if things get worse, we could get troops there in an hour and a half. >> exactly. hour and a half. >> we're preparing to pull troops out of afghanistan. sending the cavalry to yemen looks like a shell game. >> i agree. >> then i recommend pulling ambassador willington out of there. >> not an option. that's worse than sending forces in. it's an act of war. >> i think that's an exaggeration. >> that was a clip from the new cbs trauma, madam secretary. the show centers on a female secretary of state which some critics say bears a striking resemblance to former secretary of state hillary clinton. even going so far as to call the show nothing short of hillary propaganda. but others say that aside from

the fashion, there's no comparison between clinton and the show's main character. so what do you guys think? is this hillary propaganda? >> it's boring. >> very boring. >> so i'm thinking if i'm hillary clinton, i don't want anybody comparing that to my campaign. seriously. >> i think the bigger point is the left has been very smart about using popular culture and conservatives would be smart to take a page out of that. i think if they took half the money they spent on super pacs and spent it on buying a television studio or a movie studio that we would be further along. we have ignored the culture. what do you think? >> rachel, i think you hit the nail on the head. there are enough conservatives making movies. when they do, they're box office hits. look at fire crew, movies about religion. they do very well because people are hungry for that. you're right.

they spend so much money battling taxes. but this is for hillary clinton. >> are there that many conservatives that run major television networks? the rest of them, it's pretty liberal out there. time warner, you name it. who produces the content? show time? cba? viacom? very liberal people run those places. i don't think you can spend billions to copy that. that takes a lot of other efforts. >> you have to start somewhere. >> you have to create your own. >> and there's success and they keep winning elections as a result of this. i don't know how this is going to portray her but a lot of people, unfortunately, are more inclined to watch a show from that and if they make an association to hillary clinton that's positive, great, then watch the benghazi hearings and see what happened. i think you have to start

somewhere. >> i'm going to interject if you'll let me. as promised, the prime minister of israel, netanyahu, at the united nations general assembly speaking now. >> microphone, please. >> thank you, mr. president. distinguished delegates, i come here from jerusalem to speak on behalf of my people, the people of israel. i've come here to speak about the dangers we face and about the opportunities we seek. i've come here to expose the brazen lies spoken from this

very podium against my country and against the brave soldiers who defend it. ladies and gentlemen, the people of israel pray for peace. but our hopes and the world's hopes for peace are in danger because everywhere we look, militant islam is on the march. it's not militants. it's not islam. it's militant islam. and typically, its first victims are other muslims but it spares no one. christians, jews, kurds, no creed, no faith, no ethnic group

is beyond its sights. and it's rapidly spreading in every part of the world. you know the famous american saying, all politics is local? for the militant islamists, all politics is global because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world. now, that threat might seem exaggerated to some since it starts out small, like a cancer that attacks a particular part of the body. but left unchecked, the cancer grows, metastasizing over wider and wider areas. to protect the peace and security of the world, we must remove this cancer before it's

too late. last week, many of the countries represented here rightly applauded president obama for leading the effort to confront isis. and yet weeks before, some of these same countries, same countries that now support confronting isis opposed israel for confronting hamas. they evidently don't understand that isis and hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. isis and hamas share a creed which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control. listen to isis self declared leader. here is what he said two months ago. a day will soon come when the muslim will walk everywhere as a

master. the muslims who caused the world to hear and understand the meaning of terrorism and destroy the idle of democracy. now listen to marshall, the leader of hamas. he proclaims a similar vision of the future. we say this to the west, by allah, you will be defeated. tomorrow our nation will be set on the throne of the world. as hamas' charter makes clear, hamas' immediate goal is to destroy israel but hamas has a broader objective. hamas shares the global ambitions of its fellow militant islamists and that's why its supporters wildly cheered in the streets of gaza as thousands of americans were murdered in 9/11

and that's why its leaders condemn the united states for killing osama bin laden whom they praise as a holy warrior. so when it comes to the ultimate goals, hamas' i -- hamas is isi and isis is hamas. nigeria, hezbollah in lebanon, mighty army in iraq and the al qaeda branches in yemen, libya, the philippines, india and elsewhere, some are radical sunnis, some are radical s sheites, others want the apocalyptic return from the

ninth century. they operate in different lands, they target different victims and they even kill each other in their battle for supremacy but they also share the fanatic ideology. they all seek to create ever expanding enclaves of militant islam. where there is no freedom and no tolerance, where women are treated as cattle, christians are decimated and minorities are sometimes given the stark choice, convert or die. for them, anyone can be considered an infidel, including fellow muslims. ladies and gentlemen, militant islam's ambition to dominate the world seems mad. but so, too, did the global ambition of another fanatic ideology that swept through

power eight decades ago. nazis believed in a master race. the militant islamists believe in a master faith. they just disagree who among them will be the master of the master faith. that's what they truly disagree about and therefore, the question before us is whether militant islam will have the power to realize its unbridled ambitions. there's one place where that could soon happen. the islamic state of iran. for 35 years, iran has relentlessly pursued the global mission which was set forth by the founding ruler in these

words. we will export our revolution to the entire world until the cries, there's no god but allah will echo throughout the world over. and ever since, the regime's brutal enforcers, iran's revolutionary guards have done exactly that. listen to its current commander. he clearly stated this goal. he said, they did not limit the islamic refr lugs to this country. our duty is to prepare the way for an islamic world government. iran's president stood here last week and shed crocodile tears over what he called the globalization of terrorism.

maybe he should spare us the phony tears and have a word instead with a commanders of iran's revolutionary guards. he could ask them to call off iran's global terror campaigns which is including attacks in two different countries, five continents since 2011 alone. to say that iran doesn't practice terrorism is like saying derek jeter never played short stop for the new york yankees. this is -- this bemoaning by the iranian president of the spread of terrorism has got to be one of history's greatest displays of double talk. now, some argue that iran's global terror campaign is a version of countries throughout the middle east and well beyond the middle east. some argue this is the work of the extremists. they say things are changing.

they point to last year's election in iran. they claim that iran's smooth talking president and foreign minister, they've changed not only the tone of iran's foreign policy but also its substance. they believe they republican gally want to reconcile with the west, that they've abandoned the global mission of the islamic revolution. really? so let's look at what foreign minister wrote in his book a few years ago. we have a fundamental problem with the west and especially with america. this is because we are heirs to a global mission which is tied to our very reason for being.

and then they ask a question. i think an interesting one. he says, how come malaysia doesn't have similar problems? and he answers, because malaysia is not trying to change the international order. that's your moderate. so don't be fooled by iran's manipulative charm offensive. it's designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to lift the sanctions and remove the obstacles to iran's past. the islamic republic is now trying to bamboozle its way to an agreement that will remove the sanctions it still faces and leave it with the capacity of

thousands of refugees -- of centrifuges, real estate -- rather, to enrich uranium. in the future, at the time of its choosing, iran, the world's most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region, would obtain the world's most dangerous weapons. along with that to happen would pose the gravest threat to us all. it's one thing to confront militant islamists on pickup trucks armed with rifles. it's another thing to confront militant islamists, armed with weapons of mass destruction. i remember that last year, everyone here was rightly

concerned about the chemical weapons in syria, including the possibility that they would fall into the hands of terrorists. while that didn't happen, and president obama deserves great credit for leading the diplomatic effort to dismantle virtually all of syria's chemical weapons capability, imagine how much more dangerous the islamic state, isis, would be if it possessed chemical weapons. now imagine how much more dangerous the islamic state of iran would be if it possessed nuclear weapons. ladies and gentlemen, would you let isis enrich uranium? would you like isis build a heavy water reactor? would you let isis develop inter continental ballistic missiles? of course you wouldn't. then you mustn't let the islamic state of iran do those things,

either because here is what will happen. once iran produces atomic bombs, all the charms and all the smiles would suddenly disappear. they'll just vanish. and it's then that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world. there's only one responsible course of action to address this threat. iran's nuclear military capabilities must be fully dismantled. [applause] >> make no mistake, isis must be defeated but to defeat isis and

leave iran as a threshold nuclear power to win the battle and lose the war. to defeat isis and leave iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war. ladies and gentlemen, the fight against militant islam is indivisible. when militant islam succeeds anywhere, it's embolden ever where. when it suffers a blow some place, it's set back in every place. that's why israel's fight against hamas is not just our fight. it's your fight. israel is fighting a fanaticism today that your countries may be forced to fight tomorrow.

for 50 days this past summer, hamas fired thousands of rockets at israel. many of them supplied by iran. i want you to think about what your countries would do if thousands of rockets were fired in your cities. imagine millions of your citizens having seconds at most to scramble to bomb shelters day after day. you wouldn't let terrorists fire rockets at your cities with impunity. nor would you allow dozens of terror tunnels under your borders to kidnap and murder your citizens. israel justly defended itself against both rocket attacks and terror tunnels. [applause] >> yet israel faced another

challenge. we faced a propaganda war because in an attempt to win the world's sympathy, hamas cynically used palestinian civilians as human shields. it used schools, not just schools, u.n. schools, private homes, mosques, even hospitals to store and fire rockets at israel. as israel surgically struck at the rocket launchers and at the tunnels, palestinian civilians were tragically but unintentionally killed. there are heart wrenching images that resulted and these fuelled charges that israel was deliberately targeting civilians. we were not. we deeply regret every single civilian casualties. and the truth is this. israel was doing everything to minimize palestinian civilian

casualties. hamas was doing everything to maximize israeli civilian casualties and palestinian civilian casualties. israel dropped flyers, made phone calls, sent text messages, broadcast warnings in arabic on palestinian television, all of this to enable palestinian civilians to evacuate targeted areas. no other country and no other army in history have gone to greater lengths to avoid casualties among the civilian population of their enemies. [applause] >> now, this concern for palestinian life was all the more remarkable given that israeli civilians were being bombarded by rockets day after day, night after night. and as their families were being rocketed by hamas, israel citizen army, the brave soldiers

of the i.t.f., young boys and girls, they upheld the highest moral values of any army in the world. [applause] >> israel's soldiers deserve not condemnation but admiration, admiration from decent people everywhere. [applause] now, here is what hamas did. here is what hamas did. hamas embedded its missile batteries in residential areas and told palestinians to ignore israel's warnings to leave. and just in case people didn't get the message, they executed palestinian civilians in gaza who dared to protest. and no less reprehensible, hamas deliberately placed rockets

where palestinian children live and play. let me show you a photograph. it was taken by a france 24 crew during the recent conflict. it shows two hamas rocket launchers which were used to attack us. you see three children playing next to them. hamas deliberately put its rockets in hundreds of residential areas like this, hundreds of them. ladies and gentlemen, this is the war crime. and i say to president abas, these are the crimes, the war crimes, committed by your hamas partners in the national unity government which you head and you are responsible for. and these are the real war

crimes you should have investigated or spoken out against from this podium last week. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, as israel's children huddle in bomb shelters and israel's iron dome missile defense knocked rockets out of the sky, the profound moral difference between israel and hamas couldn't have been clearer. israel was using its missiles to protect its children. hamas was using its children to protect its missiles. [applause] by investigating israel rather than hamas for war crimes, the u.n. human rights council has betrayed its noble mission to protect the innocent. in fact, what it's doing is to turn the laws of war upside down. israel, which took unprecedented

steps to minimize civilian casualties, israel has condemned hamas which both targeted and hid behind civilians, that's a double war crime. hamas is given a pass. the human rights council is thus sending a clear message to terrorists everywhere, use civilians as a human shield. use them again and again and again and you know why? because sadly, it works. by granting international legitimacy to the use of human showeds, u.n. human rights council has thus become a terrorist rights council and it will have repercussions. it probably already has. about the use of civilians as human shields. it's not just our interests. it's not just our values that are under attack. it's your interests and your

values. ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world steeped in tyranny and terror. gangs are hanged, political prisoners are executed in gaza, young girls are abducted in mass in nigeria and hundreds of thousands are butchered in syria, and iraq. nearly half of the u.n. human rights council's resolutions focusing on a single country have been directed against israel, the one true democracy in the middle east. israel. where issues are openly debated in a boisterous parliament, human rights are protected by independent courts and where women, gays and minorities are in a free society. human rights -- u.n. human rights council, you'll use it just the same, the council's

bias treatment of israel is only one manifestation of the return of one of the world's oldest prejudices. we hear mobs today in europe call for the gassing of jews. we hear some national leaders compare israel to the nazis. this is not a function of israel's policies. it's a function of diseased minds and that disease has a name. it's called anti-semitism. it is now spreading in polite society where it masquerades as legitimate criticism of israel. for centuries, the jewish people have been demonized with blood libels and charges. today the jewish state is demonized with the apartheid

libel and charges of genocide. genocide. in what more universe does genocide include warning the enemy civilian population to get out of harm's way or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? or setting up a field hospital to aid their wounded i suppose it's the same moral universe where a man who wrote a dissertation about lives of the holocausts and who insists on a palestine free of jews can stand at this podium and shameless ly accuse israel of ethnic cleansing. in the past, outrageous lies against the jews were the