will boom in the will live happily every after. i can dream can't tie? that is the show. figure for watching. so much fo news where we remain proud and fearless. i'm chris wallace. two top secret raids target terrorists, including one wanted by the u.s. for more than a decade. >> the members of al qaeda and other terrorist organizations literally can run but they can't hide. >> in somalia, american forces go after those responsible for the recent mall attack in ni robe i. in libya they capture an al qaeda leader linked to the 1998 embassy bombings in east africa. we'll have a live report. plus as the partial government shutdown drags on, there is another financial crisis on the horizon. >> this isn't some damn game.

the american people don't want their government shut down, and neither do i. >> for as reckless as a government shutdown is, an economic shutdown that comes with default with america not paying its bills would be dramatically worse. >> we'll discuss what's at stake in the shutdown and the looming battle of raising the nation's debt limit with treasury secretary jack lew. then, republicans debate the way out of this standoff. we'll talk with tom graves of georgia who is leading the charge against obama care. and pete king of new york who says the right wing has hijacked the gop. plus our sunday panel with new fox contributor george will debates which side will blink first. and our power player of the week. >> we would like to savor the largest law firm in the world. >> the first woman to head the army's military justice system, all right now on "fox news

sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. we start with those u.s. commando raids in north africa. navy s.e.a.l.s hit a seaside village in somalia to get al sha basketba -- al shif shabab. national security correspondent jennifer griffin has more on these daring operations. jennifer? >> chris, the lib yan government was not told about u.s. plans to carry out this commando raid, and now they are demanding answers. u.s. officials confirmed the president signed off on these two operations at the end of september. navy s.e.a.l.s came ashore to target a village south of mogadishu where members of al-shabab were gathered. elite forces surrounded the

vehicle of this man, al alib, who has been wanted by the u.s. governnt for more than a decade for his role in the east africa bombings. his family says al ibi had just pulled up to his house after prayers when he was nabbed by u.s. forces. they issued the following statement, quote, as a result of a u.s. counterterrorism operation, abu anas sparks a al libi is currently lawfully detained by the u.s. military in a secure location outside of libya. one was killed but they could not retrieve the body to make a positive identification. libya is said to have done surveillance on the embassies before the bombing. he hid in britain and iran after 1998 and returned to libya during the uprising of muam

muamar ghadafi. u.s. officials confirm al libi will be tried in the united states and will not be sent to guantanamo bay, chris. >> jennifer, thank you. now to the partial government shutdown. day six and the clock is ticking toward another deadline. congress must raise the debt ceiling in less than two weeks, or for the first time in our history, the country goes into default. joining me now the secretary of the treasury, jack lew. welcome backs to "fox news sunday." >> good to see you, chris. >> people are panicking about raising the debt ceiling and the shutdown, saying they should be more concerned. here's the president. >> i think this time is different. i think they should be concerned. when you have a situation in which a faction is willing, potentially, to default on u.s.

government obligations, then we are in trouble. >> but so far the markets are shrugging it off. the dow jones dropped just 1.2% this week. nasdaq was actually up more than half a point. aren't your efforts failing to try to use the markets to put pressure on republicans to cave? >> you know, chris, it's my job to try to make sure we strengthen the economy, and i spend every day trying to do that. that's why it's so important for congress to act, to open up the government to make sure we can pay our bills. there is no question but that if we were to have the unthinkable happen and have the united states default, it would cause real problems. the only question is how serious the problems would be, and there's a kind of range of how bad the consequences are, but why would anyone want to do that to the american economy at a time when the americans are showing their resilience, recovering from the greatest economy since the great depression.

the full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of the default by the united states are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. d denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states would have the dollar volume of the exchange markets. that was president reagan. >> the department issued a report this week that said a positive default would be, quote, catastrophic. credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, u.s. interest rates could skyrocket and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. on the other hand, the fed continues to pump money into the economy. given that, what's the likelihood that a default would be catastrophic? >> look, chris, the good news is there is a majority in congress that's ready to do the right thing, that's ready to vote -- >> i'm asking you not a political question. >> and the united states, for

the first time since 1979, if they willfully default on the full faith and credit of the united states, i don't think there are serious people who think the consequence is minimal. people say you can pay some bills but not other bills, but let me ask you a question, chris. if you pay one bill, let's say you pay interest and principle on debt, what happens if you don't pay millions of people in social security? what happens if you don't pay hospitals and health care providers across the country? the consequences are immediate and they're very bad. congress needs to act. >> i asked you an economic question. would it be catastrophic? >> chris, i am telling you that i know the direction. i know the direction is bad. there are a range of how bad. it is not responsible, it is irresponsible, and it is reckless to take that chance, which is why congress needs to act. it's only congress that can act to raise the debt limit. it's congress' authority and responsibility. >> all right. you say the consequences would be bad, it would be irresponsible not to act. despite these stakes, the

president -- the president -- refuses to negotiate, saying what republicans are demanding has never happened before. take a look. >> you have never seen, in the history of the united states, the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt. >> mr. secretary, that is just not true. congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling 53 times since 1978, more than half. 27 times it's been linked to something else, and among those items it's been linked to, campaign finance reform, school prayer and busing and a nuclear freeze. what's unprecedented is not congress tying strings, what's

unprecedented is the president refusing to negotiate. >> chris, let me be clear. the president has always been looking for a way to negotiate, find that reasonable middle ground with a bipartisan group of members and senators to do the right thing for the american people. he was, he is. he put out a budget that actually took an enormous step to do that. so the president is open to negotiation. the question about the debt limit is different, and frankly, i think you're history is wrong. if you look at the cases where the debt limit was involved, there were many other things attached to the debt limit, but the question of threatening to cause a default in the united states, not until 2011 did it become a positive agenda -- >> with all due respect, your history is wrung in 1973. democrats, including the senate, including ted kennedy and walter mondale wanted reform to richard nixon to raising the debt limit. it ended up being a filibuster. republicans had to filibuster to defeat it and take it out.

this has happened over and over again, and this president, as unprecedented as it is, is refusing to negotiate. >> you know, chris, i lived through the budget debates of the 1980s, the 1990s, the early 2000s. i know there were occasions when the debt limit was tacked on to other things. i remember when it was used as a deadline. it was different in 2011. in 2011, you had 50 to 100 members of the house that said, if we don't get our way, we would rather see the default of the united states, and that was different. it was different. i think what the president is saying is congress has to do its job, it has to open the government, and then we need to sit down and negotiate. >> why not sit down with them and talk? you're the one saying they're ready to take the economy down. they say they don't want to take the economy down. you agree. in 1997 you were deputy director of omb when the debt limit was tied to measures to balance the

budget. if it was good enough for bill clinton to sit down and negotiate with the house speaker, why isn't it good enough for barack obama? >> in 1977 i sat through every meeting in the balanced budget negotiations. nobody once ever raised the issue of threatening default. >> neither is john boehner. >> i know john boehner. we have a good relationship. i know he doesn't want to default. he also didn't want to shut the government down, and here we are with a government shutdown. there is a majority in congress who would vote to do the right thing and the majority needs a chance to act. >> boehner is saying he doesn't want to default. republicans are talking about a down payment on the debt. they're willing to ease the sequester automatic spending cuts in return for long-term spending cuts through entitlement reform. will the president negotiate on that as part of a deal to deal with the debt limit and the shutdown? >> chris, we need to separate the issues. >> why? it hasn't been separated for years.

>> we're now going into the second week of the government shutdown. it's causing real damage to the american people. people who thought it was okay to shut the government down, every day they're discovering why it's a problem. you can't fix this here and there. it's solely congress' job to pass a budget. they have to pass a budget. >> are you refusing -- are you saying the president is refusing to negotiate, sir? >> i'm saying the president wants to negotiate, he wants to negotiate -- >> negotiate on the debt limit? >> chris, we need congress to do its job and we then need to negotiate. the president has taken many steps over the last several years to show his willingness to negotiate. he's done it with democrats saying he's too eager to negotiate. republicans have not come forward and made comparable movement. if we were in a place a year ago or two years ago where everything was on the table, where entitlement reform and tax reform were equally on the table as part of a solution, we wouldn't be where we are now. we came forward and were willing to do entitlement reform.

the republicans need to move forward as well. >> the words of your report catastrophic. will the president accept a short-term extension to fund the government and raise the debt limit so you can have talks about the debt? >> congress will have to make a decision what they do. i can tell you that the american economy would be well served by getting some stability and some certainty. these manufactured crises that -- and brinksmanship over and over really hurts. since 1789, people have depended on the united states for that kind of stability. congress should act now. i think they should act to take this burden off the economy. it's a self-inflicted wound. but we'll have to see what congress does. >> i take away from thiersation republicans are willing to talk about a debt deal or a short-term extension, it is the president who is digging his feet into the ground and saying no negotiations.

>> chris, that is not what i said. >> what are you saying? it sounds like you want unconditional surrender and nothing else, sir. >> we just spent the last several months with congress creating this ridiculous choice where either you repeal the affordable care act or you shut down the government and default on the united states. that is not the way we should do business. they need to do their job, they need to open the government, they need to fund our ability to pay our bills. these are old bills, these aren't new bills. >> i understand, sir. >> we're open to negotiation. the president has always, is and will be open for reasonable negotiations. >> i want to talk about obama care. that's what a lot of this is about. the public exchanges in obama care opened this week, and i think it's fair to say the government website was a mess. in fact, and you can look at it right here, the page to sign up to enroll for obama care has been taken down for repairs during off peak hours this weekend. question, sir. you have had three years to prepare for this week. if i already had doubts,

somebody already had doubts about the government's ability to oversee a sixth of the economy, shouldn't this just add to my doubts? >> chris, i don't think that's what happened this week. what happened this week is we saw 7 million people rush to go onto the web page to find out what are their choices in this new marketplace to buy affordable health care -- >> how many people signed up, sir? >> they have six months to sign up. this is a big decision. >> how many signed up? >> i don't have the exact number, but the question -- >> do you have any number? >> it's the wrong question. >> i may look and have no interest, and in fact i'm not going to need obama care. the question is, how many people have actually signed up? >> we know people take time to make important decisions like this. they go on and compare their options. the fact that so many people rushed to get information is a very good sign. and in your question about the website, i don't know about you, but i sign on and i get updates on my software, and i often get corrections that i have to re-update my software from major

companies. it is not unique that when you have a very large, new software program come out that people work to clean it up. i usually wait until it's .3 or .4 before i sign up. so many millions of people rushed to get in because that shows how much interest there is in getting health care. >> one last time, because forgive me, sir, you haven't answered it. do you not know how many people have signed up, which would seem to indicate another software glitch, or is it that the number is embarrassingly small? >> chris, our metric for this week was could get on line, get the answers they need to make an informed decision. they have six months to make a decision. >> do you not know or is it that the number is small? >> it's obviously not my primary area of responsibility, so my knowing or not knowing is not going to be indicative. >> nobody in government has told you. >> the important issue here is

that millions of americans want to get affordable health care. they came on line, they're getting the information, and you know what they're learning? they're learning they can get affordable health care, they can save money, they can avoid having a situation where they have preexisting conditions but no health care, where they have children with no health care. this is a very important development. >> they just can't sign up for it at this point. >> i think they will be signing up. >> technically necessary can't. mr. lew, thank you for coming. we'll stay on top of everything, the shutdown, the default and the problems with obama care. thanks for being with us. >> great to be with you, chris. with the butting heads between the republicans and democrats, where is the group

will the president negotiate on that as part of a deal to deal with the debt limit and the shutdown? >> chris, we need to separate the issues. >> why? it hasn't been separated for years. >> we're now going into the second week of a government shutdown. it's causing real damage to the american people. >> treasury secretary jack lew on the republicans refusal to negotiate with congress. george will is now a fox news contributor. george, we're proud to have you on the panel. thank you. >> glad to be here. >> we're very honored to have kirsten powers on the website.

>> it was not just you personally, it was all three of us. >> george, as we pointed out with secretary lew that this claim that presidents have never negotiated with congress over raising the debt limit is nonsense. it's happened over and over again. as we said, 27 times since 1979. do you think that the president can stick to this refusal to negotiate, or does that at some point become politically unsustainable. >> here's the position he would be sticking to. default would be catastrophic. worldwide depression, political chaos, local plagues, et cetera. but attached to the debt ceiling increase, construction of the keystone pipeline, it's better to have locusts, plagues, crisis and war. it's an untenable position, but what makes the debt ceiling this recurring crisis so wholesome is it forces us to confront the gap on revenues and outlays and everything you need to know

about what's wrong with contemporary washington was in your interview when the secretary said we won't prioritize. a hardware store in kankakee, illinois prioritizes between what to do with its first revenues that come in. we have ten times more revenues than required to service our debt. that canni inbe done, there is need to default, therefore the choice to default will be our choice. >> kirsten, one female official infamously said friday, quote, we are winning so we don't care how long this goes on. the president quickly took that back as he went to lunch impromptu at a sandwich shop, but do the democrats risk overplaying their hand if they continue to refuse to negotiate, or if they continue to refuse to pass these bills, measures to fund nih or head start?

>> well, i think -- if they allow this to happen, if they do these piecemeal bills, for example, i think the fear is this will keep on happening, and that's why the president has taken such a hard line. the refusal to negotiate, we need to remember what he's refusing to negotiate over. he's refusing to negotiate over defunding obama care. this is a pretty significant thing. and so you can go through your history of the different things that people have done, democrats holding up reagan's budget over defense spending. that's not quite the same thing as actually defunding an entire program, an entire signature program of the president. >> they backed off that, now they're talking about just repeeling the tax on medical devices -- >> maybe the president would come around on something like that, but if they had done that in the first place, they probably could have gotten a deal. i think it's gotten to the point now where they took it all the way up to the brink. on default, yes -- i've said this before, i think the president's position is a negotiating position. it's where he's starting, and

perhaps there will be something where they can reach some sort of agreement. he does not want us to default, there is no question. i don't think, frankly, most republican leaders don't want us to default, either. >> carl, we're six days into the shutdown. where do you assess where both sides are and the end game for both sides? where does this get settled? >> if washington is not working, the ultimate symbol of washington is the president of the united states. at the end of the day, republicans, as they did in the '95 shutdown, will get more blame than the white house. but let's not kid ourselves, the president is doing some damage, the republicans are doing some damage. the structure of the government, though, has a purpose, which is to try to get congress to agree to the senate democrat spending number which is $91 billion bigger than the house and bust the sequester and ends the 2011 spending agreement. and the other part of this is that he's attempting to put the responsibility for raising the debt ceiling, and in fact, they made the amount of the debt

ceiling on the congress and not on themselves. the president through this whole thing said, we need to raise the debt ceiling, but he never once said how much it has to be raised. every other president said here's how much i want to raise it for, and people on the inside and the outside said in order to get the government to pass the 2014 election, it's got to be a significant increase. he doesn't want to be the guy who says, after all the happy talk and spending deficits, he needs another trillion dollars to get himself through the next year. >> it is interesting that an obama candidate said george bush's $9 trillion debt was unpatriotic. if they raised it, it would be $17 trillion, which i guess is treasonous. >> in 1976, he was attempting to use the debt ceiling to default because he didn't want to raise the debt ceiling.

you would think someone who made such a gross error in 2006 would sit down and negotiate, and the purpose is get more money and break the republicans. >> so is it on the democratic side? >> look, the whole problem with this is, i think, goes back to the 41 votes to repeal obama care. the republicans have had a recession with repeeling it, or at least an element within the republican party. we're now seeing that. that's how the shutdown crisis starts, with them wanting to defund, end obama care and get rid of it. that's why it's so hard for them to say they aren't responsible for the shutdown, and regardless of what negotiations there are or not, in the wake of all that momentum on obama care and republicans trying to stop it, they could turn into the grand oo party, obstruction and

obsession with obama care, and that leads to fiscal assault. that could abe a problem. >> george, i want to bring you in, we have a little time left. there's been talk that the president and senate democrats, that their goal is to break the republican party, to exploit this divide within the republicans and to make them -- to stop them, basically, to school them not to use these fiscal deadlines as leverage. is that a sensible strategy? >> it's not sensible because they misunderstand the evidence right before their eyes of what's happening with the evolving republican party. they are two groups desperate to end the shutdown and break the sequester. one is big business and oethe other is the american military. previously the republican party was thought to be congruent with big business in the military. not anymore. >> we have to take a break here, but you bring us to the division of the republican party, and we'll pick up this discussion a little bit later. as the shutdown drags on,

there is a growing split inside the gop. what effect will that have on the washington shutdown? we'll talk to two leading republicans on opposite sides of michael, tell us why you used priceline express deals to book this fabulous hotel. well you can see if a hotel is pet-friendly before you book it and i got a great deal without bidding. and where's your furry friend? i don't have a cat. save up to 50% during priceline's fall hotel sale. use promo co"fall5" for even more amazing sangs on any express deals hotel. like all good deals, this is one you'll want to pounce on. express deals. priceline savings without the bidding.

the deadlock over government funding and raising the debt limit has exposed not only the split between republicans and democrats but also a bitter divide inside the gop. and that internal battle may determine how this standoff ends. joining me here in washington, georgia congressman tom graves who is demanding changes in obama care as part of any deal skpchlt . and in new york, pete deal says america is looking for anything to avoid more shutdown. i want to ask you about these two raids yesterday, commando

raids, inside africa, one in tripoli, one in somalia. two questions. first, did we kill the al-shabab leader we were targeting in somalia, and secondly, should the al qaeda operative we caught in tripoli, should he be tried in civilian court in new york where he is currently under indictment? >> chris, i can't comment on whether or not we captured the al-shabab leader in somalia. having said that, it was a daring raid. i give our special operatives tremendous credit. i think after it is over, we have to find out, did al-shabab know we were coming? because obviously there was a heavy resistance when we got there. as far as libya is concerned, libya has been wanted for 15 years. i wish he was being tried in guantanamo rather than the southern district of new york. it raises the question why, if we were able to get al libi, why didn't we get the somalians as

well? al libi is a great capture and i give the nia operatives tremendous credit, but i hope he's enter gatd finterrogated f time before he's brought to court. >> congressman king, let me start with you. you said some pretty rough things about your fellow republicans who are pushing this default. you called them yahoos, crazies, even terrorists. with tom graves sitting here, it sounds like it's more than just a disagreement over policy. >> i have great regard for tom graves. i'm talking primarily about ted cruz here who was basically saying that if we defunded obama care, he could manage to both keep the government open and defund obama care. the fact is it was done in the house, and the government is now closed and obama care is going forward. this was a strategy that never could have worked.

it was almost a sort of nullification to say we're shutting down the government if we don't defund a law we don't like. if we are going to defund it, take it to both houses of do congress, repeal it and have the president sign it. ted cruz has now walked away from it. now he's saying we should negotiate on the debt limit which is what we should have been doing the last month. that's where it should have been in the first place. >> you have been one of the people leading the charge to defund or delay obama care. first, how do you feel, whether it was from congressman king or congressman nunez being called a terrorist wearing a suicide vest, and what is it that king and nunez don't get? >> we as a conference are united. we've been working together for the last couple weeks. there may be disagreements on

strategy or tactics, but we are fully united in opening the government up as quickly as we can as well as opening discussions on obama care. we've been pretty reasonable. i've heard reference of a full delay or full repeal. that was something i was for. a full defund, a one-year delay to the entire program to now just saying, mr. president, can't we just have a one-year delay of individual mandate and provide the same protections you provide to big business. >> you say united. there are several republicans who have called you terrorist. >> that's in relation to tactics and strategy. what i'm saying we're united behind is protecting americans from the harmful effects of obama care and keeping the government open, and the actions in the last week demonstrate that, clearly. >> there is now talk from house republican leaders to pivot away from obama care, instead to focus on the debt and entitlement reform and long-term spending cuts. would you accept a deal on that,

to reopen the government and raise the debt limit if it did not include any changes to obama care? >> i don't suspect that's something the conference would embrace right now. we have had a tremendous fight over keeping the government open and protecting americans from obama care. but i'm here to say i'm open to a lot of different ideas. i'm willing to put it all on the table. let's have a conversation about defunding and obama care. harry reid can't be scared to send democrats to have this discussion. >> you heard secretary lew, secretary of the treasury talking about how catastrophic it would be if we were to default. are you prepared to refuse to raise the debt limit unless you get what you want on obama care? >> there is no reason to default. in fact, republicans don't want to default. we passed a bill, the full faith and credit -- >> secretary le.

>> you're not answering my question. >> he could pass the full faith and credit act that we passed out of the house that would prioritize the spending. and you pointed out right that there is a lot of revenue coming into the government. they forget to tell you about the $2 billion collected every month. >> but would you refuse to raise the debt limit over obama care? >> right now we're talking about obama care as it relates to opening the government and the continuing resolution. 95% of this we agree on. let's get this taken care of and then let's talk about the other 5%. >> congressman king, democrats are now pushing a discharge petition to take this idea of a clean cr out of committee to bring it to the house floor for a vote. there are 200 democrats who have agreed to sign that, but they're going to need at least 17 republicans in the house. will you support a discharge petition? >> no. let me first tell you, i don't consider myself much of a moderate, i'm a reagan conservative. having said that, no, i would

not, and one thing tom graves and i can agree on is that the democrats in my mind are being responsible here. the president of the united states has an obligation to get involved. he's the head of the democratic party. he's doing a very good job of that. but he's also head of the entire country. i can't picture a harry truman or lyndon johnson or bill clinton standing on the sidelines while this is going on. he has an obligation to get involved. whether you close the negotiations or whatever you want to call it, if this situation is as serious as he says it is, and i think it is as far as a default on the debt, then he has an absolute obligation as president of the united states to get involved. >> sir, if you could answer my direct question, though, why won't you sign a discharge petition? >> it's not going to go anywhere. the democrats are not bargaining in good faith. there's no way in the world you're going to get 25 republicans to go on that, and having said that, i would not because they're not bargaining in good faith right now. i'm committed to making this

work. that's why i've been against the shutdown from the start. it's been called the suicide caucus. the wall street journal said they were kamikazes. you don't take a step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy and it has a chance of working. pushing obama care aside, we're talking about other issues and people are still out of work and the government is still shut down. >> congressman graves, kamika s kamikazes? >> we are still in fairness of keeping the government open. >> is the strategy at this point to shut down the government? >> the reality is we are where we are right now, and as a conference, we have never been better than what we saw particularly last friday. the aides in the administration are saying, let it go on. it's the american people ultimately that are losing if we don't reach some sort of agreement, but you have to have democrats willing to have a

conversation. >> congressman groves, one final area i want to get into. if congressman baines agrees to open the government without a deal that limits obama care, would you vote to remove him as speaker? >> there is no vote to remove him as speaker. the next vote for speaker is in january 2015. >> you can vote to remove him. you can have a vote on the house floor. >> what we're looking for right now, we want to open up all the government that we can, but we want to provide fairness for the american people, and that is providing them the same protections that the president has provided big business, insurance companies and members of congress. there should be no special treatment and all of america deserves that same treatment. >> congressman king, less than a minute. congressman graves is not saying it, but there certainly are some members who are threatened if boehner gives on this, he's gone. >> i respect speaker boehner. he warned us a month ago that

with f we default the government because of not wanting obama care, it was a no-win. i'm committed to john boehner as being the speaker. he's done an outstanding job considering what he's up against. he has different factions within that conference, and nobody could do as good a job as he did. i've had some disagreements, but never over the ability of the best speaker we have. >> congressman graven, thank yo coming in. will congress be able noto any work next year, and what about the 2016 elections?

this crisis could be over in hours if the speaker and the republicans would just take yes for an answer instead of continuing to be the party of no. >> apparently they think the government shutdown is good politics, and they're in no hurry to break the stalemate. >> well, leaders of both parties this week continuing to talk at each other while they fail to talk with each other. we're back now with the panel. relations between the two parties, i think it's fair to say, were pretty miserable before the standoff after this, and all the splits were seen within the parties, between the parties. george, does any business get done over the next year? >> i don't see immigration getting done. it becomes ridiculous that you can't get anything done in election year or before election year which takes all the years together. about the split in the republican party, what else is

new? they split in 1912 between taft and teddy roosevelt, they split between the rock fellers, and they don't want diversity and thought and that's what the republicans have and it makes them rather interesting. >> kirsten, do you agree with george, nothing on immigration reform, nothing on the president's initiatives? >> yeah, unless he can get a new congress. so you're talking next year. i can't imagine anything getting done, and i think -- and i do think you're talking -- we've talked a lot about is the president trying to destroy the republican party? and i think yes, he has to because of this, because nothing will get done unless there is a new congress. he needs to divide them. it's just basic math that in order for him to get his agenda done -- >> you said destroy the party. because i can see brother karl here champing at the bit.

what do you mean? >> is he trying to divide them, trying to stoke the division? is the shutdown bad for the republicans? so far, yes, it is. is that good for obama? yes, it is. this is just the reality, and i don't know that necessarily there are other politicians who are above this. it's been cast that obama is somehow especially nefarious because he would want to deal with the political rally that he can't get anything done with this congress. what else is he expected to do? >> karl? >> there is a majority of republicans in the congress skplt u.s. house of representatives that if the president's goal is to destroy the republicans, he's not going to succeed, so why try it. one acts decisively only with the conviction that all the angels are on one side and the devils are on the other, and the president has spent the last month saying the republicans are devils. monday he could have had an agreement to resolve the shutdown. he could have said, you know what, house republicans have said fund it at the current level and delay the original

mandate for a year just like i delayed the corporate mandate, and adopt my waiver for congress. >> do you think that was unreasonable for him with his signature legislative accomplishment to say i'm not going to delay the original mandate? you don't have the money to pay for anything else. >> if you delay the corporate mandate, the one that requires that every employer provide insurance or pay a fine, the cdc says that's $12 million. the mandate is roughly $15 million. if it's damaging for obaservama delay the mandate, why delay it? >> it was very complicated. >> what they're going to do is companies were going to dump coverage and toss people in the exchanges, and he didn't want that happening in election year, b but yes, it was entirely

reasonable. he could have said i'll take the withdrawal of my waiver on congress, but don't give me that one. he could have used it as a point of negotiation. >> something party because they're doing it themselves. you stand back and let them do it. there isnt to make. look, on obama care, this started in 1945 with truman wanted national health insurance. the democratic party took almost 70 years to get -- to put -- >> but democrats, not republicans. >> but to put it in place, for obama to get it there. it was stopped with clinton, we saw that. we finally get it there. he's not going to -- to think the democrats, after 70 years of fighting for this are going to give up, that's what's crazy about the republican straetagy. >> you're going to have to elbow your way in. >> six republicans are benefitting from the current

unpleasantini unpleasantness. they live in trenton, new jersey, madison, wisconsin, indianapolis, indiana, and columbus, ohio. they're republican governors christie, jindal, perry, scott walker, mike pence, and john kasay. because they are going to, all of them, contemplate running for president, i suspect, and have one great argument on their side. i wasn't part of that. >> the guy living in lancing, michigan, rick snyder is thinking about it. >> let's talk about 2014. i thought that was crazy, not 2016. >> karl, there has been some commentary that the president, you say, destroyed the party. he wants to position republicans so democrats can take back the house in 2014 so he ends his presidency with two years of democratic control the way he began it, with democratic control. is that a sensible strategy? >> it has no chance of happening. the president's job approval is

below 50%. the second term midterm is always bad for the white house party. he has two chances of taking the house, slim and none, and slim is putting the saddle on his horse to ride out of town. it ain't going to happen. in fact, i would suspect given the dynamics, there are less than 60 feaseat most of these prognosticators think are in play. one is a republican seat. >> let's put up numbers on the screen. of the 232 republicans in the house, 215 come from districts that mitt romney carried last november, which you would figure are pretty safe for the gop. in the senate, republicans need to pick up six of the 35 seats up next year. democrats now hold 20, republicans, 15. joe, which party has a better chance of gaining wohl control of both houses of congress? republicans take the senate or democrats taking the house? >> if the republicans are right

about obama care and they pass the cr and let it go and everything they say about it is true, the democrats are never going to win another election, so they'll have the senate, house, and in 2016, they'll get the presidency. the problem is in doing this, they crash the economy and we default, even if they're right, they're going to lose. the house in 2014, and may not get the presidency for some time. that's what the stakes really are right now. >> george, let me ask you about that. if obama care is going to be such a disaster, why not let it play out? >> i agree with half of what joe is saying. let the american people experience obama care. if it's as bad as conservatives rightly say it is, they will recoil from it. so that should be the republican strategy. >> now the flipside is that the democrats say republicans are scared of people seeing what obama care is because they'll love it so much, they'll be democrats. >> their theory is that they'll become addicted. >> right. >> as a heroin drip to the subsidies. i think they're underestimating

the american people. i think what the republicans have to have confidence in is the ability of the american people to say, we generally vote for divided government. we want divided government, and i think you'll have a united congress against a divided -- >> all right, thank you, panel. sooyou next week. we'll continue the discussion on panel plus. up next, our power player of the week.

as long as the army's been around, there's been someone to advice comapders on military law. now for the first time in the military's 236-year history, it's a woman. here's our power player of the week. >> if a soldier's going to go to airborne school, can he go? if a soldier is inoaire borne school, do we retire them. >> last month, she became the last woman named judge advocate general of the army, making her the service's top lawyer. >> is it fair to call the job corps a giant law firm? >> we would like to say we're the largest law firm in the world. >> she has 10,000 military and civilian lawyers and paralegals serving under her. advising soldiers on everything from personal matters to big issues. >> we do everything from keeping the lights on to making sure that soldiers who should be prosecuted are prosecuted and

defended appropriately. >> the jag corps includes defense lawyers and judges who report to her and prosecutors who work for their commanders. of course, the big issue now is sexual assaults. she thinks those reports, 26,000 service members, were targets of sexual assault last year, are exaggerated. but since the army put a new focus on prosecutions in 2009, she says things are getting better. >> we have seen 100% increase in prosecution and over 100% increase in discharges for soldiers who are convicted. there's a real problem. >> as for efforts in congress to change the law so prosecutors, not commanders, decide whether to bring a case to trial? >> this is army business, not lawyer business. this really is about discipline. and so to take away the ability of the commander to try cases degrades the commander's ability to discipline the force. >> she joined the jag corps in

1987. along with her husband, chris, also an army lawyer. >> we came in on the exact same day. and we were promoted to every rank on the exact same day. until i was selected for brigadier general. >> and when she became judge advocate general, that meant she would be her husband's boss. >> the plan was this summer we were both going to retire, and so his theory on that was, i'm off plan, and so he is now a retired army officer and still a soldier for life. >> but she is excited about putting off her retirement. >> i get to work with commanders who are committed to doing the honorable thing. where they listen to advice based upon moral and ethical and the right thing to do, and i think that's pretty neat being a lawyer. >> she served two tours in iraq as the staff judge advocate, which means she was the senior legal adviser to then commander of u.s. forces general ray odeair gnaw.

that's it for this wetoday. have a great week. updates on twitter. updates on i will see you on huckabee with a live up date. >> tonight on huckabee. finger pointing. >> if you hope to end the republican shut down get rid of the tea party direction. >> this is harry reid's shut down because he wants it. and refuses to listen to the american people. >> speaker john boehner will not let the bill get a yes or no vote. >> the wall street journal out. we are winning. it is not a damn game. >> they are talking tough, but where is the action. >> the former congressman jason a tmire said the private sector can clean up the mess that the government created