from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest

issue one, israel versus iran. >> iran, who stands behind these a taxes, is the biggest terror exportedder in the world. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu this week accused iran of being the biggest terror exportedder in the world. on monday, terrorist bombers attacked the u.s. embassies. the landmass between the caspian and black sea, hugging

russia. then another terrorist bombing attack in bangkok, thailand. iran denies that it bombed the israeli embassies. the question is, what is the likelihood of an israeli military strike on iran? george friedman, findser intell four, says that the likelihood of an israeli strike on iranian nuclear facilities is . one, extreme difficulty. "such an attack would involve israeli air sortedees over 1,000 miles. coordinated with missile attacks from israeli submarines. ship from israeli submarines. ship launch of bunker busting bombs necessary for much of the task. iran's anti-missile defense system is anything le defense system is anything mickey mouse." >> civilian casualties in israeli. "likely rocket and missile

attacks from hezbol attacks from hezbollah and ham expected. there will be in no lightning victory achieved such as during >> three, crippling oil prices. "an israeli attack would prompt iran to close down sea traffic in close down sea traffic in the persian gulf at a southern choke point, the strait of hormuz, where some 20% of global oil production passes. oil prices would be likely to spike and cripple global economic growth. >> four, no u.s. assistance. to be successful, the action would require u.s. assistance, and that aid is unlikely to be forthcoming, especially in an election year. >> five, fear of annihilation. even if iran screeds in building some kind of nuclear

arsenal, the islamic republic faces immediate annihilation if any of the weapons are ever used. question, let's assume that prime minister netanyahu picks up the phone and calls up president obama and asked whether his defense secretary, that's the israelis defense secretary, can call u.s. defense secretary panetta to discuss prudent military action against iran. what do you think commander in chief obama would say to him on the phone? go ahead and have your guy call my secretary of defense? and let them discuss it. you think he would say that? >> i think obama would say to the prime minister, sir, we do not want you attacking iran. and if you do attack iran, united states is not going to back up here. we don't want a war. we think our sanctions are working. we doo7t think they have decided to build a bomb. they don't have a bomb. we think we've got time. we know your concerns, but do

not attack iran. the thing that netanyahu wants, john, is where israel has a powerful military, but they cannot take out these installations themselves. what will happen if -- what netanyahu wants bring the united states in, because what you have to take out is there any ship missiles or anti- aircraft or ire forces, navy, missiles, nuclear sites, and frankly i think in order to stop the long range nuclear program, you've got it take down the regime. and even we are not prepared to do that. >> eleanor. >> i agree with most of what pat just said. and i would commend you for that set-up because i think there's a lot of loose talk that makes it seems like too would be very easy for israel to undermine the nuclear -- >> as they did in syria. >> right, exactly. when the best case scenario is they would probably set it back maybe three to five years, and they would inflame the ordinary people there who see nuclear possession is their god given

right. they would feel that way if they were assaulted from the outside. i do think, though, that secretary panetta has probably had conversations with the israeli defense minister, and each side knows where each side stands. and i think what the israelis are gambling is that there could be a window before the election before -- before our election where this president might not be willing to stand up to the israelis, which is if he gets reelected then they know they won't get any help. i would think pat is right, that that president sees all the downsides and he understands that the sanctions are squeezing them. their currency lost half its value, hyperinflations. sanctions tieder than they are ever been. the europeans won't import oil. so you have to give that time to work. >> do you think -- what do you think? >> i think they're right, president obama does not want the israelis to attack. but there are differences in viewpoint here.

the israelis consider this a threat, it's not such threat to us. and the israelis see the window for them acting on their own perhaps to delay this prram closing. entruspresen or mi rneorri icit thsernative, but thest what the na ofe okt isje thu pa

ratial. spian toan is t atis iria he ive

erel, ise coeqntl atseou

pltsl ateye thei ce 0 cl os0 n

in shathhi owh ray get out of thisuntry aswell. was clr resp by iselor nuclear attackiran will continue to have a ma ofconventional army that -- and they e bl fvor some kind of action hostile action agnsisrael that will be immense. have a that consequence too. conventional military, a big one. >> yes. bules ceit, you just have to watch what iran has been doing what they saying. you cannot diminish the ex tents of threat to ra.

eye t threatening iraq anymore. but i point out in the war with th d 100,000 kids to clear up the bomb sites onth ground, and they -- they died, they were willing to do thvea l anliourv in that country that makes no calculations. >> exit question -- >> opposite side. >> exit question, what are th dsof an israeli military strike on anright now? pat? >> i would say one in five. nooninthe or four. one in five. i just don't think they're gog o b i don't think they can succeed, and i don't inth'r confident the united states will back them up, and you don't wound ak you kill it. >> will the united states fact disapprove and -- could a th lead to an ç-- >> obama the joint chiefs, th intelligence community, none of them wants this war with iran anth n'wa t raelis to drag us into one.

>> eleanor? >> oni iisrael is divided so i agree. i k ene and four, and one and five. i think this person that you had in the set-up isprtyon the mark. >> rich? >> it's about a % chance intolerable threat if iran gets the bomb, you're never going to unravel that. plus you end up with a turks with the bomb, egypt with a bo, sai ab wi a bomb. if iran gets the bomb, the odds of the nuclear weapon going of in a conflict in the middle east increase drtill ats wrong with the -- madd doctrine assured deruio orating on that level? >> even if you assume -- [everyone talking at once] >> we live it thentire cold war. >> even if you assume iran won't nu anyone, it gives them carte blanche for each more of the bevior they've engage in. [everyone talking at once] >> only nation that ever used a nuclear bomb, only tion used a bomb is the unedtas.

weomd -- >> john, north korea has not done a thing despite -- they haven't tidad ! eydonot center a threat. >> who doesn't? >> north korea. south kore rth china will attack noh re t ir -absolutely. >> why? >> because let's listen to what ir is saying and doing. and what they have been doing r terrorist attacks. they're not under threat. israel is under threat. >> wait a minute [everyone talking at once] kck f. >> who knocked offer the nuclear site iran? >> of course but why is that because they're trying to stop the development -- stalkarazzi trying. >> what are the odds. >> issue two, brides no more!

wedding ceremony, bridal music, smiling couples -- rg aut it today more and more americans are shunning marriage. the percentage of american adults married today is 51%. so says pew research center. that's thwe te rried adults ever recorded in any earlier pew polls, and it doesn't stop there. those americans who do marry arwainloerbefore they say i do. in 2010, the marriage rate four americans age 25 to 34 was 44%. 50 years ago, 1960, 82% were married. so why is rrge becoming increasingly passe? item, divorces. the divorce rate in america has long been 50 e ouof two merges fails. item, economy. today americans wait until they have a firm financial foin

li graduated from college, on a payroll, before walking down the aisle. item, no stigma. americans today are sslily totu their noses on those who live alone or co-habit. >> people have a lot of options in their lives now. society est saro o yoifyou live alone or if you live with an unmarried partner. >> now hold on! the number of children bo out of wedlock has gone up. there's a troubling correlation. more unrrd op vi more children out of wedlock. today the percentage of americans born out of wedlocthi question, does it strike you as ironic that just as heterosexual interest in marriage is on thwane, gay and lesbian interest in marriage is rhapsodic. >> yes, that's an irony. and when ty y the rrge died, they'll put it on the heterosexuals who have done a job of destroying it as an

initutio 70 had about 10% ill legitimacy rate and another people people mig is erodiég among the middle and the working class. if you look at marriage rates among the upper class, it's behavioral the same as 1960. it's eroding in the middle and working class which adds to the economic pressure, and it's creating a real crisis. >> you know who supports you on that? >> who is that? >> charles murray. >> he is a scholar at aei who just wrote a book called coming apart, about this class division which is not just economic, it's social and cultural. >> he makes the same point you just made. you should notify him that? without knowing it you made the same point which is a corroboration! [everyone talking at once] >> john -- >> brad wilcox on this for a long time. >> john, the triumph of the counter-culture morning working class white folks the rate is

way over 40% mock hispanics, or hispanics it's 51. among african-americans, it's 71%. among the poor it's pandemic. the valuables of the counter- culture with regard to family and marriage and divorce and pre-marital sex and all of these things are triumphing in the culture and in society and we're seeing the consequences of it now. some of us feel it means coming apart -- [everyone talking at once] >> do you think the state should be involved in marriages? why do we have the requirement of registration is needed for the state? >> i think the jude joe christian idea of family and children of enormous benefits to the society and can form that society on the basis of its values. and it did. unfortunately the values are changing, there's no doubt about it. they defeated gay marriage out there. but legislatures are passing. >> on the abstract level is there any reason why marriage should be related to the state and you have to sign a book if

you want a license to get married? >> children various rights involved, married couples there's also children involved. obligations and duties. so yes -- [everyone talking at once] >> you want the state to be involved in now the children are reared. >> new york i want -- there's obligations to protect the children. you can't do certain things. >> you mean could be a tax responsibility to take care of a child if the child is born out of wedlock? >> society has agreed they will be educated on you can do by home -- >> can't religious institutions carry that problem? >> unfortunately -- >> why have the state -- >> unfortunately -- >> you don't need the 78 involved in a marriage. >> true if we were country like we used to be, yes. we're a secular-christian country and increasingly secular. >> are you doing anything about it? >> i just wrote a book that got me in trouble! [everyone talking at once] >> they're so in love with the

institution of marriages, there are a lot of enduring relationships that don't have marriage. >> it's co-habitation. >> right. and. >> what's wrong with that? will he denounce that? >> it's called shack, up. >> i do not see a decay in our values. bring back some of those high paying manufacturing jobs poling see a lot more marriages along the traditional lines that pat seems to favor. >> you also have a situation where women now can get jobs that -- enable them to be self- sufficient. they don't have to get married to have a reasonable life. that has changed dramatically. >> are you saying that women like marriage more than men do? >> no, i'm saying they like their independence just as much as men do and they now can afford their independence so they don't have to get married to have -- >> interesting point! >> so marriage is, what, disappearing. >> no, it's not disappearing. it just happens later in life -- >> why. >> because there are a lot of good benefits to being married.

>> like what? >> unless i'm mistaken, they've companionship -- >> you can have that without marriage! >> they'll instruct you! [everyone talking at once] >> i don't want to turn this into a personal thing. there's also an environment in which you want to raise children. and that's one of things -- [everyone talking at once] >> joke about gay marriage is of course, we're in favor of gay marriage because they deserve everybody right to be as miserable as everybody else some that puts it in perspective. >> cohabitation, that's -- divorce revolution has receded somewhat and has gone back to the levels of around 1970s co- habitation, that's radically -- [everyone talking at once] >> not married to start issuthe obama budget, 2013. >> today we're releasing the details of that blueprint in the form of next year's budget, but the main idea in the budget is this -- at a time when our

economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we've got to do inferring our power to keep this recovery on track. >> president obama this week unveiled his 2013 budget. october 1, 2012 to september 30, 2013. spending for this 2013 fiscal year under the obama plan is $3.8 trillion. the most expensive federal budget on record! of that 3.8 trillion, 2.9 trillion will come from u.s. taxpayers -- income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes. they are federal taxes. that leaves a gap of $900 billion, a gap that will be filled by borrowing $900 billion from lenders, notably, the prc, people's republic of china. republican senator tom barrasso

says this. >> somebody asked me if this budget was dead on arrival. i said no, it's not dead on arrival, it's dead on arrival. >> very cutesie, tom. the obama budget also includes a plan to reduce the nation's debt. it now stands at $15.4 trillion. he's doing it by taxing the wealthy. item, income tax hike. income taxes for households that make $250,000 a year or more will jump from 35% to 39.6%. item, buffet tax hikes. those who make more than $1 million a year will be taxed at a rate of 30% or more, warren b that is. mort, do you want to comment on the budget? pull yourself together. >> this will be more than $900 billion in terms of deficits. it's going to be way above that because there are assumptions in there as to the amount of

taxes we'll be -- will be raising according to the budget that will never happen. so this is a budget in which we'll add immensely to the budget deficit and to our overall deficit. and this is not necessarily going to do anything about the economy. it may save it from going down more, but it's not the way to solve the problems we have. we're not dealing with any of the major issues at this economy. >> let's reduce some numbers here. the public debt now is $15.4 trillion. >> that's right. >> that's our debt. >> that's right. >> we're carrying that debt and paying interest held by the chinese. >> that's right. >> what is the interest we're paying them? >> total just -- it's got to be -- >> over a billion dollars of -- trillion dollars of the debt themselves in their own 3.2 trillion reserve. >> what do you think the doctor is with paying to the chinese on their carrying -- good portion of our debt? >> i guess the united states is paying the chinese between 40 and $50 billion a year on that debt. they probably got it at 4 or

5%. >> we've been paying the chinese interest for long before barack obama took office. >> but not -- >> this is a budget that -- >> but not nearly as much. >> this is a budget that won't pay us because the republicans wouldn't pay anything they proposes anyway. it's a setting out of a vision and that vision is that you can't drastically cut a deficit before you invigorate the economy or you will look at a loss decade. so he has his priorities right. he brings the deficit counsel and he puts critical investments in. [everyone talking at once] >> look, look. >> can i address this? [everyone talking at once] >> on. campaign trail -- >> i can say one word? >> let rich in. >> believe you spend in recession and cut when times are better. this is 10 years when growth is soon to be healthy. but spending at the end of it already a 23% of gdp. this is -- budget, it's a flat-

out tax and spend big government liberal budget. >> i want to know who the -- head of state in the u.k.? >> cameron. >> you know what cameron -- >> head of 78 is the queen. he's the head of government. >> you know he is straining to get rid of -- his deficit. he is straining to get [everyone talking at once] let me tell you what! >> i know what he's doing! he's got a relatively small national debt. and he is strain to go get rid of it! they thinks any national debt -- [everyone talking at once] >> there are two points of view. one of european view right now is austerity on the greeks and the spanish and britain austerity. but they're not growing and so the debt to gd, and is continuing to grow. the other side is the obama side, spend and -- >> are you -- by fact mitt romney wins michigan. yes or no? >> yes, he will carpet bomb

santorum. >> yes but not by enough to eliminate. >> yes, thanks to the negative ads. >> yes, and drive to the polls in an american car. >> i said before, yes, and he will! bye-bye! x0