tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News September 12, 2021 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
withdraw from afghanistan, the u.s. accomplished its prime objective in the longest war, bringing the mastermind of 9/11 to justice, members of political, military arms worked together worked together chris: president biden faces a barrage of challenges to this sweeping vaccine mandates, impacting tens of millions of americans. >> this is not about freedom or personal choice. it's about protecting yourself and those around you. chris: as the delta variant surges, the latest offensive in the fight against covid, faces pushback from republicans, accusing the white house of big government overreach. >> to protect my people and to defend their freedom. >> president forgot we live in america. >> these pandemic politics as i
refer to it are making people sick. chris: we'll ask nebraska governor pete rick et cetera about the -- rick ets about the battle over federal mandate as the president gets tough with the unvaccinated, then our exclusive sitdown with supreme court justice stephen breyer, we ask about calls for him to step down. >> why didn't you retire? chris: and the push by progressives to pack the court. >> what do you think of the idea of increasing the number of justices on the court? chris: justice stephen breyer, only on fox news sunday. and, america marks 20 years since the 9/11 attacks shook our nation and kicked off the war on terror. now, with the taliban back in control of afghanistan, we'll ask our sunday panel if there is a new threat to the homeland. all right now on fox news
sunday. and hello again from fox news. today from our brand-new stewed he yow here in washington -- studio here in washington. on this 20th anniversary weekend of 9/11 i'm sure many of you are still reflecting on that roll call of names we heard again yesterday. people of all races and religion that tell like tear drops on our hearts. it never gets easier and maybe that's the point. we'll have much more on 9/11, 20 years out, and where we stand in the war on terror later this hour. but we begin with breaking news, president biden's new mandate that billions of workers get vaccinated or test for covid weekly has created new battle lines in the fight over the virus, amid accusations of federal overreach, some 19 republican governors are threatening to as one of them put it fight to the gates of
hell. in a moment, we'll speak with one of the governors, pete rickettes of nebraska. first let's bring in mark meredith at the white house with a look at the brewing battle. >> reporter: the president insists sweeping new mandates are necessary to convince some 80 million unvaccinated americans that now is the time to get the shot. but critics argue the president is overstepping his authority and they're vowing to fight back. >> we're playing for real here. this isn't a game. >> reporter: president biden is brushing off looming legal challenges to new vaccine mandates, he says starting soon, osha will require employers with more than 100 people mandate vaccinations or require employees who opt out to undergo weekly testing. more workers and contractors will be required to be vaccinated in order to keep their jobs and the tsa is doubling the minimum fine for travelers who violate the mask mandate. >> my message to unvaccinated americans is this, what more is
there to wait for? what more do you need to see? >> reporter: several gop governors claim the president is going too far, arguing american businesses should not be forced to police employees' medical choices. >> i do not believe that people should lose their jobs over this issue and we will fight that. >> reporter: the white house admits there are limits to what it can mandate for schools. it's urging governors to require school employees be vaccinated. in los angeles, the nation's second largest school district, officials going even further. soon, every student 12 and older will need to be vaccinate todd attend in person classes. tomorrow, the president is off to idaho to get an update on how the government is battling wildfire, then he's going to california to campaign for gavin newsom whose recall election has been dominated by his response the pandemic. chris: mark, thank you. joining us now, the governor of
nebraska, pete rickets. welcome to fox news sunday. >> good morning, thanks for having me on. chris: i want to start with something that you said this week about president biden's new vaccine mandates. here you are, sir. >> the president's forgotten we live in america, he thinks we live in the soviet union. the hypocrisy of this is unbelieveable. chris: what's so objectionable about biden's vaccine mandates and what are you going to do about it? >> well, first of all, we have been encouraging people to get vaccinated, we've been providing information and encouraging people to reach out to their neighbors because vaccines work and they will help people but it should be a personal healthcare choice. this is not something that the government should mandate. and somebody shouldn't have to make the choice between keeping their job and getting a jab in the arm. it's just wrong. i talked to people, a number of people who have told me if they made me take the vaccine i'm going to be fired. i'm not going to do it. chris: but you say it's a personal choice.
in fact, to a attend school in your state of nebraska, children must be vaccinated against a number of diseases. let me put them up on the screen. they must be vaccinatessed against diptheria, measles, mum mumps, rubella, hepatitis b and chicken pox. why are those mandates that parents must comply with routinely, why is it they're not so objectionable and such a violation of personal freedom but biden's vaccine mandates are? >> well, for all those that you just listed, there's a long history that parents have had the opportunity to see how those things have been police departmented and there's still a lot of people out there who don't know what to trust and in fact this is really an outcome of what the cdc has done because they flip-flop on so many issues, whether it's masks or whether you have to mask after
you've been vaccinated and so forth. there's a lot of people out there who don't know who to trust right now. by having the government force it on them, you're not building trust where we have the trust with those other vaccines. this is a process that's going to take time to bring people along and that's why it should be a personal choice and not something mandated by the government. chris: but forgive me, sir. i'm old enough i remember when the polio vaccine first came out. a lot of us and certainly our parents viewed it as a blessing and immediately, i lived in new york state at that time, the state mandated that we all get the polio vaccine. so we're in the middle of a pandemic. there is a new vaccine that donald trump was largely responsible for. it's been approved, full approval by the fda. again, if polio vaccine is okay for parents and they have to comply with it to send their kid to school, why not for a lot of people, not just kids, the vaccine for this disease? >> yeah, i think this is very
different from polio that has very devastating effects and certainly we know if you're older, 65 years and older, that's where 83% of the deaths in nebraska came from, we know it's really devastating. we know that 87% of the 65 years and older population has been vaccinated. if you're looking at young children, for example, here in nebraska we can look at the data and see that really children are no more at risk for the coronavirus than they are for the ordinary flu. and so it's all about balancing off these risks and the risk for this is just such where this is something that we shouldn't be mandating it. again, with the whole goal for all we're doing at least in nebraska how we're doing it is around making sure we preserve hospital capacity and a we've successfully done that here. even without doing statewide mask mandates and without doing vaccine passports. so let's keep the objective in mind which is to be able to provide healthcare and which we've successfully done in
nebraska by protecting hospital capacity and not have the heavy hand of government come in and tell people what to do. they don't want to hear it. chris: president biden was asked on friday about leaders, governors like you, who say they're going to challenge him on the vaccine mandates. heres what his response was. >> have at it. look, i am so disappointed that particularly some republican governors have been so cavalier with the health of these kids. so cavalier with the health of their communities. chris: governor, are you being cavalier with the health of your communities? >> what we're doing is focusing on preserving our hospital capacity which we've successfully done in nebraska. we're tied for the third lowest mortality rate of any state if the country for people who have
contracted covid-19 and so we protected that hospital capacity, to provide that care, and again, we can look at the data specifically around children and see the risk. last year in nebraska, if you were age 10 to 19, you were 26 times more likely to die in a car accident than you were of covid-19. so the president should look at the data and maybe the president should attend one of the weekly calls that the administration has with all the governors. he's not been on one yet since he's been president and maybe talk to some of the governors and ask them about what's going on in their states because he appears to be pretty ignorant of what's going on in places like nebraska. chris: let's talk about the covid situation in your state. it's not just about kids. it's about the entire population. let me put the stats up on the screen. back in june, nebraska was averaging 23 new cases a day. now with the delta surge, you're averaging 759 new cases a day. governor, that's the highest since last winter.
>> yeah, again, what we focus on is preserving our hospital capacity and we have seen steady increase in hospitalizations throughout the course of the summer. here in the month of september, the number of hospitalizations has bounced around between 379 and on friday it dropped down to 350 so it's been in that range through most of september. and that is in contrast to the 987 we had at our peak in november of 2020. so you can see we're well below where we reached our peak last year. we didn't declare a staffing emergency for hospitals to be able to help them manage their folks to make it easier to bring in nurses and so forth but what we focused on is providing the hospital capacity. we set up a transfer center to be able to move people around between hospitals state-wide and all that to make sure we're protecting hospital capacity and that's our guiding star in nebraska and we've done it very successfully as i indicated with our success in keeping people from dying from this disease. chris: i want to talk to you
about that because i looked into the situation, the stress on hospital staffing and hospital beds and the fact is on september 1st you announced your state was opening a hospital transfer center that would allow patients to be moved around in case there wasn't enough staff or beds in one place. you also have directed health measures to limit elective surgeries and one of your top health officials says the fact is, there isn't enough room in your hospital by the end of each day for high level care. >> actually, what we've done is moved people around if we needed to. that's what the transfer center is for, to make it easier for hospitals who want to move a patient to get more acute care to be able to efficiently move that person into a hospital, primarily happens when you've got a more rural hospital setting that may not have all the facilities that maybe some of our urban centers do and allows them to efficiently get that to the right hospital and certainly we are encouraging
people to continue to get vaccinated as part of this but we're managing our hospital capacity very successfully in the state with the tools that we provided with the staffing emergency. chris: so i asked you a question at the top. i asked you why it was so objectionable. you answered that. you didn't answer the other question. let's finish with that. what are you going to do about president biden's vaccine mandates? >> yeah, so i've been talking to my attorney general. he's coordinating with the other attorneys general across the country who share similar views about the overreach. this is egregious overreach of federal authority and as we see what the rules are we'll be able to know exactly how we'll be able to challenge them in court. i'm also talking with my colleagues around the country as well, the other governors who feel the way i do and we'll be working on other strategies but i've got to tell you, i've heard from so many workers, so many small businesses who say this is just not going to be something they can handle. so many people told me they're
going to be fired if they're forced to take the vaccine. this is going to create huge problems for our small businesses and for our american workers and again, you shouldn't have to make the choice of keeping your job or getting a jab in the arm. chris: very briefly. you say you're going to court. any idea how soon? >> well, when we get an idea of what these rules exactly we'll be, we'll know how to be able to attack it in court. chris: governor, thank you. thanks for your time today. please come back, sir. >> great. thanks very much for having me on, chris. chris: up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss the biden administration's battle with some governors over vaccine mandates as well as its fight with texas over that state's new abortion law.
>> this is not about freedom or personal choice. it's about protecting yourself and those around you. >> you would expect words like that from the president maybe of communist china or of north korea, scolding and conned sending to -- condescending to americans, dripping with scorn, that it's somehow their fault that they've been affected by the virus. chris: sharp pushback to the president's announcement that the federal government will impose a vaccine mandate on businesses with more than 100 employees. it's time for our sunday group. gop strategist karl rove, susan page of usa today and charles
lane from the washington post. so karl, what do you think of the president's new vaccine mandates, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of politics? >> well, first of all, the question is where does his authority exist to impose this. it's one thing to say as the president of the united states i'm going to require that all federal employees and members of the military and federal contractors should get it but it's unclear to me where the authority comes to apply this to all employers with more than 100. he's doing this under 50-year-old law that allows the osha at the department of labor to put in place an emergency temporary standard. this has been done nine times in 50 years. in three instances it was relatively modest, wasn't challenged in court. in six instances it was challenged in court and lost five times. i think the president is doing this because he's afraid to go to congress to get the authority that makes it a law to do this.
private companies have the ability to say to their companies to take the vaccine or fest or you don't have -- test or don't have a job but i don't think the federal government has the authority to do what the president's talking about. chris: there's no question the president's standing in the polls has slipped as the delta variant has spiked, and there's no question if you look at the polls the democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of vaccine mandates. so is it your sense that the white house feels, one, this is the way to deal with the real problem that they're getting hit on, and in addition, whether they win or lose, it's a good fight to pick with republican governors like pete ricketts? >> well, the white house insists they have firm legal standing to take these steps. the fact is, the bigger threat to joe biden and his presidency is not accusations of government overreach, it's a failure, it would be a failure to get this pandemic under control. that is the issue that elected him president and it's job one for his administration and
clearly the administration has had more trouble than they expected in convincing the vaccine reluctant to go ahead and get a shot, so i think what they decided to do is what david axle rod said is getting caught trying, that you're better off trying to do something sweeping to get this pandemic under control, even at the risk of court challenges from all these republican governors. chris: chuck, as our supreme court watcher, how strong do you think the president's case is that through osha, which says that it can establish emergency rules to make a safe work of place, that they have -- workplace, that they have the authority to do this? i have to say in the last week, i've been reading up on the 1905 case of jacobson v massachusetts where came fringe, mass threw chew -- massachusetts was able to order an individual to get a vaccination for small pox. does the federal government and joe biden, do they have the authority to do this? >> well, that president is very
much on point and has influenced the court's recent limited rulings on various public health measures related to pandemic. the difference in that case of course was that it was a state law that directly authorized or rather required this vaccine. what we're talking about here, and karl went through it a little before, is something more a little more attenuated, working through osha to require employers to require. i think in all of this, there hasn't been quite enough attention on the fact that there is an alternative for the employee to getting vaccinated which is submitting to regular testing. and that may help the president's proposal stand up in court. you know, chris, the one thing i remember from law school is wait to read the text and we won't even see the text of this order it seems for several weeks.
and it will only be then that we really having to have a lawsuit about as governor ricketts i think alluded to. so what we're going to have between now and then is a lot of posturing about the legal issues involved and perhaps a lot more people rushing out to get vaccinated in anticipation of it. but as we sit here today, we still don't know exactly what the rule is going to be. chris: i want to turn in the time we have left in this segment to another story and that is the justice department announced this week that it is going to sue the state of texas over its new abortion law that says that it can ban abortions after six weeks when a fetal heartbeat is detectable and here was the attorney general of the united states, merrick garland, on that. take a look. >> this kind of scheme to nullify the constitution of the united states is one that all
americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. chris: karl, there are real questions about whether or not the federal government has what they call in a technical sense standing, whether it's a legitimate party to sue the state of texas at this point. >> i think that's right. but an abortion provider can and a woman who finds herself in a situation that's affected by the law would have standing but i agree, the federal government, this is more like a political stunt to demonstrate the administration's in favor of protecting a woman's right to abortion under roe v wade. but i do think an abortion provider if they go to court and there's one already on its way in texas is going to find a juicy target in this enforcement mechanism in which the government does not enforce the law but it's instead enforced by private individuals suing in civil court, it's a clever effort to avoid judicious review
of the law, and it's why governor de santis said we're going to have a fetal heartbeat law but we won't use the enforcement mechanism they have in texas. a number in the pro life movement are concerned about the enforcement mechanism as well. chris: susan, i want to ask you, why would the justice department announce it's going to sue even before there's a case, even before there is a case that we know of where an abortion provider gave a woman an abortion after the six week deadline, why would they decide to sue so preemptively. >> legal ingenuity on both sides with this one, this peculiar and unique law tries to avoid court review by empowering citizens rather than officials to enforce it and that's been a challenge for those who might traditionally bring a suit against this law and i think that's why the justice department has stepped in. legal ingenuity on the justice department's part as well on
this. a lot of pressure from the president's political base, which is pro-choice, supports a woman's right to choose, to get involved with this because it's going to be so tricky in the court system especially in the wake of this supreme court decision not to enjoin this law when it was first -- when it first reached the docket. chris: we have to take a break here. we'll see alittle later in the hour. with the supreme court likely to get embroiled in disputes over vaccine mandates and abortion, up next my exclusive interview with supreme court justice stephen breyer. we ask him about adding seats to the court and why he ignored calls to retire. that spin class was brutal. well, you can try using the buick's massaging seat. oh. yeah, that's nice. can i use apple carplay to put some music on? sure, it's wireless. what's your buick's wi-fi password? it's buick envision. that's a really tight spot. i used to hate parallel parking.
( all together ) me too! the all-new buick envision. built around you. all of you. pay no interest for 72 months plus current eligible buick owners get 5 hundred purchase allowance on 20-21 buick suv models. hey hun hey, get your own vapors get 5 hundred purchase allowance relax with vicks vapobath or with vicks vaposhower. take a soothing vicks vapo moment wherever you chose.
chris: he's been a supreme court justice for 27 years and is now the target of a new push by liberals who want him to step down so he can be replaced by someone younger. that makes it all the more timely that stephen breyer has just come up with a new book called the authority of the court and the peril of politics where he discusses the very real
threat the court will get caught up in today's polarized debate. i sat down recently with justice breyer for an exclusive one on one. justice breyer, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thank you. chris: i want to start with the premise of your book. you quote alexander hamilton as saying that the judiciary has neither purse, like congress, nor sword, like the executive, and so it has to rely on public acceptance for its authority. is the public acceptance, is the authority of the court in jeopardy? >> hard to say. i mean, i don't think i'm an optimist and so i think, well, people understand to some degree why it's a good idea what hamilton thought and he thought the court should be there because there should be somebody, somebody who says when the other two branches of the government have gone outside the
confines of this document, who is that? the president? well, he was a little worried the president might say whatever he did was right. congress? well, some countries do have that. and a member of congress knows what's popular. he didn't know what was popular, he won't be there or she won't be there for a long time. but this document is made for unpopular people upas much as for popular people. chris: i'm curious, do you carry a copy of the constitution with you or just for tv? >> no, not just for tv. it's always in my pocket and i hope i will put a jacket on that has one in my pocket as you never know when somebody will ask a question. chris: which brings us to the second half of the title of your book, the peril of politics. you say that if people come to view judges, justice as politicians in robes, that that
undercuts the authority of the court. >> to a degree. i think it would. i mean, junior league politicians. if you want to have a politician, let's have a senior league politician. chris: one of the most interesting parts of your book, you say at one point it's wrong to think of the court as a political institution. but then you quickly add to say that there's a complete divorce between the court and politics isn't quite right either. >> yes. chris: so which is it? >> when the court and what i think was one of its -- perhaps its greatest decisions, said the words of this constitution which say equal protection of the law mean that you cannot have racial segregation by law. when they said that, a few years later a case comes up about marriage between a black man and a white woman.
ha. did they hear that and say it was illegal? frankfurter said, i believe it was frankfurter, don't take it now. hear the case later. why? because they were having a very, very, very hard time getting the south to accept their ruling and so they're interested in that and earl warren was a great political figure and i always thought -- i have no evidence -- i always thought his experience in politics led him to think let's not take it now. eventually they took it and they said of course people of different races can get married. of course. that timing, that timing is the kind of thing that -- the law books don't teach you that. it's not there in the treatises. chris: in other words, even the court can't go too far too fast. >> no. chris: so let's pursue that.
you say judges should not play politics, should not push ideology, but they do have different philosophies. you write some judges emphasize text and history, some emphasize purposes and consequences. but justice breyer, isn't that a bit of a cop-out? because don't the judges, the textualists almost always tilt conservative and don't the consequences justices -- you've been accused of being that -- generally lean -- >> i don't know. it's so easy to say. there is a recent case involving gay rights, rights in the workplace, not -- sexual discrimination, that was made up of a group of people, the majority there who they included people who emphasize
consequences and they included people who emphasize absolutely pure text. you see? chris: one of your arguments against seeing the court as political is the fact that it refused to even hear the appeals from the trump camp about the 2020 election. didn't even hear it. >> no judge has had the courage, including the supreme court, i am so disappointed in them, no judge including the supreme court of the united states has had the courage to allow it to be heard. chris: why was that? >> why was it? because they didn't bring a case, i guess, that met the normal criteria for being heard. when we decide to take a case, there has to be four votes to take it. so i can't go beyond that. but we do know there were not four votes to take it because it wasn't taken. and there are criteria and if we don't take a case, the reason in all likelihood is that the
criteria weren't met. chris: one of the problems you discuss in your book is the growing partisanship of the confirmation process. back in 1994, you were confirmed by the u.s. senate 87-9. question: do you think in 2021 as a former staffer for edward kennedy, there's any chance you would get 87 votes? >> i know what you're saying and the answer is of course no. chris: look at what senator mitch mcconnell did. in 2016 he refuses to give merrick garland even a hearing in the eight months before the election and then in 2020 he pushes through amy coney barrett in one month before the election. doesn't that undercut the authority of the court? >> i was confirmed. and i was nominated. and the confirmation process and
the nomination process well i say usually when you ask me about that and people do, i say it's like asking for the recipe for chicken ala king from the point of view of the chicken. [laughter] >> and i must say -- that's a glib joke. but the truth of the joke is, that's the political environment. now, you may disaprove of it. i may disapprove of it. and if enough people in the public want it to change or be modified one way or the other, it will be. chris: i interviewed your colleague, the late justice ant antonin scalia in 2012 and i want to play clip from that interview. take a look. will you time your retirement so that a more conservative president can appoint a like-minded justice? >> i would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything i've tried to do for
25 years, 26 years, sure. but i mean, i shouldn't have to tell you that. [laughter] >> unless you think i'm a fool. [laughter] chris: do you agree with scalia that a justice who is unmindful of the politics of the president who replaces him, whose unmindful of that, is a fool? >> i don't intend to deion the -- die on the court. i don't think i'll be there forever. i've said a few considerations previously. chris: do you think the consideration that scalia mentioned, i don't want to be replaced by somebody who is going to undo everything that i've -- >> undo everything i've done? chris: yeah. >> i see the point and the background there's -- there are many considerations, many, many considerations. chris: this brings us to the calls for you to step down while a democratic president and a democrat -- can appoint your successor and a democratic
senate can consistent family room your successor. here's one example of that. >> he makes his own decision about if he's going to retire but if he's going to retire, it should be sooner rather than later if you are concerned about the court. chris: what do you think of those calls? >> well, i think they're entitled to their opinion. [laughter] >> i think not only they understand the political world much better than i, and pretty well, and there we are. what else do you want me to say? chris: they would say you ignored those calls and increased the chances that a republican senate will be there to confirm your successor. >> i mean, there are factors, there are many factors in fact quite a few and the role of the court and so forth is one of them and the situation, the institutional considerations are some and i believe i've -- i can't say i take anything perfectly into account but in my
own mind i think about those things. chris: so why didn't you retire? >> i didn't retire because i decided on balance i wouldn't retire. chris: president biden has appointed a commission to come back to him in november and discuss -- weigh in on possible reforms to the court. what do you think of the idea of increasing the number of justices on the court? >> one party can do it, i guess another party could do it. and the more -- i mean, surely surface, on the surface it seems to me you start changing all these things around and people will lose trust in the court. chris: what about term limits? people even justices live a lot longer now than they did knack the 18th -- did back in the 18th century. would it lower the political heat if, say, a justice served for 18 years instead of a life
term? >> i think you could do that. it should be a very long term because you don't want the judge who is holding that term to start thinking about his next job. but it would make it a lot easier for me. chris: you just turned 83 years old. i've got to say, you look terrific. you're of sound mind and body. >> thank you, thank you. chris: what do you hope people say about your service on the court? >> [clapping] >> the best thing they could say, i thought i liked very much, it appealed to me, what thurgood marshall said. what do you want on your tombstone? he said, he did his best. that's it. i'm there for everybody. i'm not just there for the democrats, not just there for the republicans, i'm not just there because i was appointed. it's a very great privilege to
be in that job. part of it is to remember you're there for everyone. they won't like what you say half the time or more but you're still there for them and that's a privilege of the job. you have to giving your all and you have you to work as hard as you can. you see, i think it's important we have trust. chris: the name of the book is the authority of the court and the peril of politics. justice breyer, thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you. chris: up next, 20 years after 9/11, the taliban is back in charge in afghanistan. where do we stand with the terror threat from overseas and security risks here in the u.s.
baaam. internet that doesn't miss a beat. that's cute, but my internet streams to my ride. adorable, but does yours block malware? nope. -it crushes it. pshh, mine's so fast, no one can catch me. big whoop! mine gives me a 4k streaming box. -for free! that's because you all have the same internet. xfinity xfi. so powerful, it keeps one-upping itself. can your internet do that?
>> paul apollo. >> rasino aposso junior. >> joe, we love and miss you more than you can imagine. our son is a spitting image of you. he lights up my world every day. >> they pray, they vote on a course of action and they struck. [bell ringing] [bagpipes playing] chris: some of the sights and sounds from the ceremonies at ground zero, shanksville and the pentagon, 20 years after the day that changed this country forever. and we're back now with the panel. karl, i have to say, watching
those ceremonies, 20 years after the fact, it is still deeply emotional. i'm sure it was for all three of you as well, but karl, as somebody who was in the white house that terrible day, it still packs a punch, doesn't it? >> sure does. packs a big punch. chris: your thoughts? your remembrances of that day, and looking back on it now from the vantage point of 20 years? >> well, i must admit, i feel sorrow and loss every time this day rolls around but this year i feel angry because for 20 years we kept america safe by projecting our power abroad and fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them here and now this september 11th was celebrated in kabul by the taliban, the people who gave osama bin laden sanctuary in afghanistan and allowed him to launch his attacks on our country. the new prime minister of
afghanistan was the foreign minister in 2001. and when we said to him, surrender osama bin laden or suffer the consequences, he told us to pound sand. the interior minister has a $10 million bounty by the united states on his head for having participated in the 2006 attack in kabul that killed six americans. his uncle, another member of the network, is the refugee minister which you allows him to provide cover for foreign terrorists to come into afghanistan and receive documents and he has $5 million bounty on his head so we took afghanistan which was, you know, which was trying to be a modern nation, respected human rights, allowed women to be educated and worked and we surrendered it and general milley was accurate when he said within 24 months, 36 months, afghanistan will be -- there will be, quote, a resurgence of terrorism because of what has happened in afghanistan. chris: i want to pick up on
that in a moment. but one news development this week is that some americans did get out of afghanistan either on charter flights to qatar or overland and the biden administration is having to walk a tight rope in talking about how it is dealing with the taliban. take a look. >> our engagement with the taliban and with the government, interim or long-term, will be for purposes of advancing the national interest. chris: susan, this is a tricky issue for president biden and his team. on the one hand, they do as a matter of reality have to do business with the taliban. but they also have to be clear-eyed about who these guys really are. >> yes. and they are being extremely cautious in the words they say now because we are continuing to try to get a handful of remaining american citizens who
want to evacuate from afghanistan and other endangered afghans who have been allies of ours during this long war but the fact is, this administration while it's not likely to recognize the taliban as a government, is going to have to deal with the taliban as the people in charge of afghanistan and that is going to become more and more difficult as we see video of women being beaten in the streets and repry sals -- reprisals against afghans who helped us during that war. this is an issue that is not over for the biden administration. it may get more complicated. chris: and then, chuck, there is as karl mentioned, the terror issue and general milley talking about having to reassess and reassess is a nice word to say upgrade the terror threat that comes from afghanistan and then there's also this issue of president biden likes to talk about, well, we can handle the terror threat from over the horizon which means without
anybody within hundreds or even thousands of miles of afghanistan. but in the last terror strike, drone strike, rather, of the u.s. war, the 20-year war in afghanistan, i want to put this up on the screen. there's reporting now that our final drone strike in afghanistan that we were saying at the time supposedly took out a vehicle filled with explosives and armed by isis-k may instead have killed 10 innocents including seven children, so chuck, this idea that we're going to be able to effectively fight al-qaida or isis-k or whomever from over the horizon, not going to be that simple. >> that story couldn't be more tragic, the washington post also covered it. it turns out that it's very likely that was not a car bomb in preparation but if you can believe it an aid mission being led by somebody who had an
outstanding application to come to the united states and of course it illustrates that the intelligence must have been f those stories are true, must have been terribly flawed and it goes to the point about what we have given up by leaving afghanistan, namely that that on the ground, in-country presence including the support of a friendly government, indeed a dependent government, to make sure that our intelligence is more accurate. on the subject, it leads you to the atmosphere that surrounded all those terribly moving moments yesterday. how different it might have felt if either we had not left afghanistan yet or if the departure had gone more smoothly and more nobly. of course, i think that's what president biden had in mind when he embarked on the withdrawal, of coming to this date in a much
more celebratory mode but instead we're left to contemplate a lot of these di dilemmas that will linger and that i think must have contributed, certainly did in what i saw, to the feeling of melancholy and frustration that did prevail all day yesterday. chris: karl, i've got about a minute left. the biden administration talks about hoping to reset he'll 9 -- re-settle 95,000 afghans in this country but there's quite a he debate, especially among republicans, about whether or not we have adequate vetting to bring 95,000 afghan refugees into this country safely. >> well, it's going to be a difficult task. with a lot of people we do have good vetting. some people we don't. you will see recently that i think it was 44 afghans who made it to the u.s. were returned abroad because the vetting showed they were problematic. but we have a moral obligation
to stand with those who stood with us. i have a friend who was in and out of afghanistan a lot. he had a number of interpreters. he was attempting to get one of his interpreters out, not in kabul, but he didn't get him out because the taliban took him into custody, brought all of his family together, brought together witnesses and then killed him in front of his family before killing every member of his family except the 10-year-old daughter who was given to a taliban warrior as an arranged bride. that's why we need to stand with the people of afghanistan. chris: pretty clear our involvement and engagement with afghanistan is not over after these 20 years. thank you, panel. up next, a look at the raid that killed the mastermind of 9/11 including a terrifying moment where a faltering helicopter forced the team to change its plan, just as they reached the compound.
battlefield back to pakistan and took out the architect of that terrible day. that's the subject of my new book, countdown bin laden, the untold story of the 247-day hunt to bring the mastermind of 9/11 to justice. it takes you behind the scenes of the special forces raid that killed osama bin laden from the perspective of the intelligence, political and military professionals who pulled it off. and tonight you'll hear directly from many of them in a new documentary countdown bin laden. here is a brief look. >> we were tracking the helicopters and realized that they were now over the compound. i think everybody understood that this was the critical moment. because once they hear those helicopters, you've got about 90 seconds to be able to repel down and go in before bin laden is
truly alerted to what's happening. chris: the plan they practiced so many times went south quickly. >> i was looking on the big screens there as helicopter came in and i could see it start to waffle. chris: the lead black hawk fought to maintain control and then hit the wall of the compound. >> i immediately said to bill mccraveen, i said what the hell has happened. and bill didn't miss a beat. he basically said, look, we've got a backup helicopter coming in, we're going ahead with the mission, we're going to repel and go in through the walls. this mission is going on. and i remember saying god bless you, let's do it. >> our pilot realized in an instant, if he can't hover, i can't hover, so you're not going to the roof. i remember my first foot on the ground, i thought to myself, i guess we start the war from here then. chris: you can watch countdown bin laden tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on fox news channel and after it airs you can stream it any time on foxnation.com.
my book which tells the full story is out now, available online and in stores. and that's it for today. have a great week. and we'll see you next fox news sunday. ♪ we are we the people, the citizens. see you next time on life liberty and levin. >> good evening everyone welcome to the next revolution this is another pro- worker family pro- community this weekend especially polymeric. these two men andrew carnegie and rockefeller lied and she'd just cheated for the pursuit of economic power the robber baron of capitalism in a heated that so they set about changing their image of wanted people to forget about all the terrible things they did so carn