i'm john roberts in for chris wallace. isis extremists release another execution video, this time of a british aid worker. president obama takes his isis strategy to the american people, announcing an expanded military operation in iraq and syria. our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimately destroy isil through a comprehensive and sustained strategy. we've brandy down the plan with denis mcdonough. >> but are air strikes enough to defeat the jihadists? >> an fundamental-16 is not a strategy. the president has made clear that he doesn't want u.s. troops on the ground. well, somebody's boots have to

be on the ground. we'll ask former cia and nsa director ject michael hayden. and we'll get reaction from two members of the armed services committee, lindsey graham and jack reed. and the nfl launches an independent investigation into the handling of the ray rice domestic violence case. we'll discuss the continued fallout with attorney wendy murphy and sports caster jim gray, who cause the scandal a massive failure in judgment. plus is hillary clinton beginning to mobilize her 2016 campaign. our sunday pan weighs in, all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again. islamic state jihadists have released a third video as a proclaimed warning to american allies. it shows the execution of british aid worker david haines,

who was abducted while working for a british aid organization. joining us is senior foreign affairs correspondent amy kellogg. good morning. >> good morning, john. well, the uk's cobra or emergency government meeting has just broken up with prime minister david cameron vowing now more than ever that the uk will continue its fight against isis. >> david has been murdered in the most callous and brutal way imaginable by an organ vags, which is the embodiment of evil. we will hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice, no matter how long it takes. >> david haines, the 44-year-old british aid worker and father of two, had been delivering humanitarian aid in syria when he was kidnapped last year. his brother issued a statement that david was most alive and enthusiastic in his humanitarian roles. as soon as the news broke late

last night prime minister cameron rushed babb to ten downing street. he called the killing a despicable and appalling murder of an innocent aid worker prime minister prime minister issued a statement as well, adding the u.s. stands shoulder to shoulder with our close friend and ally in grief and resolve. and john, of course, president obama reiterated his goal of bringing together a broad, international coalition to fight isis, the u.s., though, clearly on the lead on this effort. at this point britain is not involved in air strikes and has ruled out, john, at this point boots on the ground. >> we of course will be talking at length about that this morning. amy, thank so much. good to see you. this latest execution comes just days after president obama delivered a primetime address to roll out his plan to defeat isis. it involved broader air strikes in iraq and strikes in syria.

earlier i sat down with white house chief of staff denis mcdonough to discuss the president's isis strategy. denis, good to have you with us. >> thanks for having me, john. >> the white house has been playing the semantic game whether we are at war or not after the release of this latest video of david haines being de-capitated. >> i don't know what sell mandic game you are referring to, but we've been from the start very clear this is serious business. in as much as we've got at war with al qaeda since the first days we got into this office, we obviously in similar fashion are at war with isil. wes also we're not talking about the iraq war, we're not tens of thousands of troops, but using our unique capabilities of airpower, isr, and supporting those on the ground who is fighting isil, including syria, the syrian opposition that's

fighting isil. we're gratified to see the progress we are making on the hill, thanks for the speaker and others, in passing hopefully this week the president's proposal for train and equip that opposition that's fighting isil right now. >> when i talk about semantics, the secretary of state says i wouldn't describe this as a war, it's the wrong analogy. and then the next day the white house and the pentagon are both talking about yes, we're at war with isis in the same way we're at war with al qaeda around the world. there's been a change of messaging here. why the change in messaging? >> i think we've been pretty clear and we'll continue to be clear about exactly what we're going to do and how we're going to do it and the disciplined fashion we're going to carry it out to destroy this menacing organization called isil. >> this latest tape, one thug with a knife and camera is

basically now terrorizing two nations, two american hostages killed, another one being threatened. with all the at the president's disposal, can you give one reason why in guy is continuing to do this? >> we're obviously outraged at the behavior and made clear or determination to make sure we are taking every step possible to protect our people and make sure the long arm of american justice finds and brings to justice those who perpetrate such action. that's what we're going to do here, john. >> that's kind of a long goal. what can you do in the immediate to get this guy? is there no way you can go in and stop this guy? >> i've said on your show before that we do what we say and we say what we do. that's what we're going to do. >> there's another family that has to heard about the tape of a loved one being beheaded. david haines has a young child.

yes we hear from the families that when they met with the white house, they were told don't you dare try to ransom your hostage, because you'll be prosecuted if you do that. they're very upset about the way that the white house handled this. why would the white house say something like that to them? >> as a far myself, i can only imagine the very difficult circumstances that the foley and so the lo sotloff families are going there. what was communicated through many, many meetings, we obviously made clear what the law is. we didn't threaten anybody, but we made clear, that's our response to make sure we explain the law and uphold the law. >> they interpret it as a threat. >> the third thing that's really important here is we took every effort and will continue to take every effort to secure our people. that included an operation that

has now been made public that the president himself said was risky and flawlessly carried out in a very daring fashion by our military. hundreds of people in a multiunit multiplatform effort, which is something about which we're all very proud, but still haunted by the fact we were not able to find our people and rescue them. >> is there a way to try it again? >> if there is a way, we will. if there is, we will. there's some skepticism on capitol hill as to whether or not -- let's listen to the speaker earlier this week. >> i'm not sure we are doing all we can do to defeat this terrorist threat. if our goal is to eliminate isil, there's a lot of doubt whether the plan outlined by the president last night is enough to accomplish that mission. >> let's look at the way this goes going to work. you alluded to this earlier. you hope to stand up iraqi

forces and work with syrian rebels. iraqi forces cut and ran in the faces of the threat and there are elements within the free syrian army which seem to shift allegiances on a weekly basis. how does it work? >> we're gratified by the effort of the secretary. and we're seeing very good progress in congress, including in the house under the speaker's leadership to make sure that we have the authorities to train and equip those on the ground fighting isil. you know, everybody believes there has to be some anvil, some force, some ground force on the ground taking the fight to isil. if it's not the syrian operation, trained and equipped by the united states, authorized by congress and the president, if congress takes a step this week, it will have to be u.s. troops. the president has made a decision we're not going to do

that. since that's what we're not going to do, we have to make the syrians are taking this fight to isil. the iraqis will do the same thing. you referenced the fact that the iraqi security forces did not perform as they had -- no doubt about that. >> millions upon millions of american dollars being spent to do it. >> unfortunately after years of leadership from prime minister malaki that was sectarian in nature that pushed on the sunnis. that's whied president was very prudent and very disciplined in how we used our force so we could move malaki out and get a multith nick government in in baghdad. so that government will underscore and support their multiethnic forces and those multiethnic forces will take the fight on the ground to isil. >> might you run into a situation where the old adage, if you want something done right, do it yourself, where you

will have to use american ground troops because the others won't be up to the task. there are reports word of an nonaggression pact can you be guaranteed that they'll do what they need to do? >> i just read a report that the suggestion of a nonaggression pact that you are referring to is not true. that's one. two, ultimately this is a fight within islam, within sunni islam. that's why we know that ultimately to defeat and ultimately destroy isil, something that is not only in our interest but in the interest of the countries in the region, they are going to need to take the fight to it. that's what we'll do. wield build, lead, under gird, and strengthen that coalition, but ultimately they'll help beat them on the ground. >> so there's already about 1,000 u.s. forces in the area. general michael hayden had an

op-ed which he said between training syrian forces up, you'll probably need about a brig ade size force there would you disagree? >> we sent in assessment teams to look at what was happening with the security forces, what they needed and how we would be able to strengthen them for this fight, a fight as i said is every bit as much theirs as it is ours, and what those defense -- what those assessment teams came bake with is a series of options. wee added another about 500 troops that the president announced in the speech on wednesday night. that brings to about a little north of 14,000 i think -- 1400 the number of troops on the ground, carrying on the missions to protect our people where they are in erbil and baghdad and at the baghdad international airport and carrying out this

effort to train and equip and make more effective the forces. >> would you dispute the notion that you need about 5,000, about a brig ade? >> you're referencing an op-ed that i guess was wring by general hayden, which i have not seen. i'm telling you that's what we're doing now and in a disfocused fashion. >> but there are american troops on the ground. >> there are american troops on the ground in iraq, they're not in a combat role. they are on the ground in a training role and a role to protect u.s. diplomats and u.s. personnel on the ground in the baghdad international airport in baghdad itself, and in erbil in the north of the country. that's the function they're carrying out. >> will there eventually be u.s. troops on the ground in syria. >> the president made clear to the country on wednesday night that the ground forces in syria will be syrian opposition ground forces. that's why it's so important for congress to enact --

>> i understand that combat forces will syrian, will you american advisers, trainers, whatever? >> the president has been clear that the ground forces on the ground in syria will be syrian. >> can you say today there will never be an american troop on the ground in syria? >> i can say john exactly what we're doing, what the president's strategy is, and what we've just outlined we using our unique capable, airpower, isr, and training and enhancing, equipping of those forces on the ground will do our part, but we're going to lead an international coalition that includes muss limb and sunni muslim states. this fight is every bit as much theirs as it is our. >> denis mcdonough, thank for your time. >> thanks, john. let's bring in the former director of the cia and nsa, general hayden, welcome back. you heard what mr. mcdonough had to say there about troops, first

of all, do you believe at some point we'll have to have u.s. forces in some capacity on the ground in syria in. >> i think we will at some point. it might be through offer action. the president referred to the syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists, doctors and so on. we've turned on the dime in terms of our expect aches for them, so if we're going to get them to this force that he said it was fantasy to rely on to the force that's going to be, as denis said, be the anvil in a combined arms operation, they're going to need an awful lot of help. >> let's talk about the forces size. mr. mcdonough said he had not taking the opportunity to read the op-said. how many forces do you think will have to be committed? >> right now, denis admitted we've got about 1400 personnel in iraq armed, armored, and the

line has been going up. it's my estimation, john, that by the time all the dust settles, for the roles they forces have to play -- and i'm not talking about american combat maneuver units, but in terms of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, logistics, advice, command and control assistance, tactical air control parties, look, i'm betting we're up close to 5,000 by the end of the year. >> you really had the quote of the week earlier when you were speaking with the publication in which you said, quote, the reliance on airpower has all of the attraction of casual sex. it seems to offer gratification, but with very little commitment. could you expand on your comments? >> sure. i'm 39 years an american airman,

we're going to push the islamic state back with airpower. but i don't think -- denis told you he didn't believe that airpower alone will be sufficient to achieve what the president has set out with regard to our objective. the president in saying we're going to use airpower said we're also not going to do a whole lot of things. that send a message to the american people. it might have made some americans comfortable, but also sent a message to our enemies. i think that made them comfortable and sent a message to our allies, and i think it made them uncomfortable. when you just rely on airpower, when you make airpower the centerpiece of what you're going to do, people don't doubt your strength, they doubt your intention, they doubt your will. are you in this all in or not? >> how do you see this plan

working then to stand up these iraqi national guard units. i know it was more a function of leadership that they cut and ran earlier this year, in addition to the free syrian army, elements of which may be with us one week and against us the next week. do you think this plan can work? >> i certainly hope it can work. i'm much more comfortable with what our country is doing today than, say, 96 hours ago, i think we're on the right trajectory, but i think you can tier ground forces. the most reliable i think will be the kurds, the mesh perra, then i think there's a significant gap down to the rely lard iraqi army. i think we'll get some units there that will be able to operate well and independently, but not all, the third group is the free syrian army, the syrian opposition. here, in talking about real,

organized sustained substantial combat power, we're starreding from zero to create that kind of force. that is the result of an american policy not to help that group over the last three years. >> general if you are a betting man, would you bet this plan works or will we environmentalually have to go to u.s. combat forces on the ground to get the job done? >> i actually think we're going to end up with small american special operations forces active in this broad theater, both iraq and syria. i don't think you get american maneuver units on the ground, though i must admit two former commander at centcom, jim matt is and tone zinni have suggested that may exactly be what we have to end up with. right now i'm not there, but john, i do think we get to about 5,000 by the end of the year. let me put another sense of

scale on this. this is three to five years, this is three to five years even if we are successful. >> general hayden, always a plush to talk with you. thanks for the time this morning. >> thank you. is the president's strategy enough to defeat isis? more on that a little later on. after a week of scandal and uproar, some are asks commissioner roger goodell, does the national football league have a culture program? jim gray and wendy murphy will join us to discuss just that, up next. he helps looks after all our money. kid: do you pay him? dad: of course. kid: how much? dad: i don't know exactly. kid: what if you're not happy? does he have to pay you back? dad: nope. kid: why not? dad: it doesn't work that way. kid: why not? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab

american employers and their workers to go backwards. they want to go back in time and retroactively rewrite the tax laws. so they can impose taxes that weren't owed in the first place on american businesses. it sounds crazy. but it's true. the white house is on record saying they're considering retroactive taxation america can't move forward when washington spends its time trying to tax backwards. join us at fairreform.com when folks think about wthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

montgomery county grand jury indicted adrian peterson the charge for an injury to a child. he did so with criminal negligence or recklessly. a texas district attorney announcing the indictment of running back adrian peterson on the charge of child abuse, this rounding out the week in which the national football league has made headlines for all the wrong reasonses, highlighting what many of you feel is a culture problem in. >> jim gray and wendy murphy, welcome to both of you. jim, another big test for roger goodell and the nfl. >> well, it sure is. you know, it's exactly what he and the league didn't need. adrian peterson is the best running back in the national

football league. this indictment and what is contained in it, it's very disturbing, that the little boy reportedly is afraid of his father, is afraid he's going to be hit in the face, says he has a whipping room, and peterson says this is the way he was raised, the course of discipline. it's just not a good story, the bruises and lacerations found on this child, it breaks your heart. >> wendy, when you listen to peterson's attorney, that this is the way he was brought up, another classic case of the abused becomed the abuser allegedly, but speak to the bigger problem this presents to the nfl. >> yeah, you know, there is a culture problem in the nfl with regard to not only violence against women and clearly children, but a culture of cover-up. that's primarily because, like any institution and certainly like all sports industries, not just the nfl, they want to avoid

scandal, because scandal hurts them at the bottom line. it ruins reputations, it affects their branding, and the cover-up almost always works, and that's the problem. there has not been sufficient accountability or, as the old saying goes, sanctions are for second stringers. so if you're a really good player and you get in trouble, it gets broomed. it's that simple. there's very little outside accountability, because the nfl is so good at insulating itself from the sources of accountability that we otherwise would expect should step in, prosecutors offices, police, child protective services, so forth. there's a problem in larger society, too, and i want to be clear about this. goodell should take some heat, but there is a lower rate of domestic violence in the nfl compared to domestic violence in the real world, and we need to talk about larger society as well. >> jim, let's move on to the ray

rice case, because it was revealed by espn reporter don van atta, that in a meeting ray rice and his attorneys had with the nfl, he told roger goodell exactly what happened. there's also an atlantic county police report, the details that ray rice hit janay rice with his hand, but goodell said there was some ambiguity that meeting, which is why i took the more lenient action than in the beginning. does goodell have a credibility problem here? and could that affect his job? >> it won't affect his job. there's zero appetite from the owners, i've spoken to them personally, there have been a number of statements that have come out, zero appetite to fire goodell unless they found he was not being truthful. absolutely he will not resign. a credibility problem? yes, he'll have to restore thinks credibility, but he also said in a letter to the players association, which they have yet to respond to, yet to say

whether they'll file a grievance, the story he was told was substantial different from what ray rice had come forward to tell him. while it's being reported otherwise elsewhere, the commissioner has said there's ambiguity on cbs, and he also said in this letter it was a different story. >> wendy, if there's no appetite among the owners for roger goodell to go despite the fact that the national organization for women and others are calling for him to step down, what then can the nfl do in the short term and the long term to make this right? >> the nfl can do so much. you know, it's one thing to say you're doing training programs and there's a zero-tolerance policy, which both the team owners and leadership has said for decades, after o.j. simpson everybody claimed they understood now what domestic violence was and they saw the problem in the nfl and they were going to put policies in place to deal with it, and they really haven't done enough. one of the problems i think is that it has always been about

money, how do you change the culture? how do you make an industry that really benefits from these violent men continuing to be able to play? how do you turn that around and say some things are more important than money and we care about our fan base? and our fan base is increasingly women and women are starting to step you will saying we won't -- we will hurt new your bottom line unless you take actions. i think we're starting to hear that battle cry. i do not agree with the national organization for women, let me be clear, that they have the moral authority to demand roger goodell step down, because they have not yet called for the prosecutor to step down. and the prosecutor is the number one voice. if the prosecutor treats this kind of severe violence against women as a shoplifting charge, which is really what happened here, then everyone in society takes in the message, including roger goodell, including the team owners, including the guys,

that this isn't that bad. >> jim, a quick last question to you. if there's no appetite for goodell to go and this has a problem for an awfully long time, what are the owners say about finally getting a handle on it and maybe sure they're more proactive about it? >> well, they do have to get a handle on it, and they have tried, but you have to understand they are dealing with people who -- these players and these guys who make these incursions, and have this wrongdoing is a very, very small minority. it's really wrong to paint the entire national football league and its players and its employees as people who are lawless. it's just not right. yes, maybe the numbers are higher than the rest of society, and yes they have a problem and yes, they continue to need to be vigilant and be much better at it, but to say this is a universally w50idspread ongoing existence, a structural failure at the highest level of all of

these people committing these crimes, that is just not true. there's nothing to support that. jim, wendy, thanks so much. appreciate seeing you this morning. up next, the president finally has a plan to take out isis, but some remain skeptical that it's a leading strategy. we'll talk to two members from the senate arm commit year, coming up next. solution that's as revolutionary as its beds. the amazing sleep number dualtemp layer works with any mattress brand it allows both of you to select your ideal temperature for better sleep. call or click now for this free $50 savings card and catalog. my husband both prefer different temperatures. he likes to have his side of the bed a little bit to warmer and i like to have mine a little bit cooler and we are finally sleeping better together. the sleep number dualtemp layer features active air technology which provides an evenly distributed flow of air that heats or cools each side to the temperature you prefer for head-to-toe comfort. everyone can sleep better at the perfect temperature

because the sleep number dualtemp layer works with any mattress brand. call now! call this number or click now for a free $50 savings card and catalog with price list. ask about your free 100-night in-home trial. call or click now.

we heard earlier from the white house, and what role -- joining us is lindsey graham and rhode island senator jack reed, a democrat. senator graham, let's start with you. do you have any faith that the president's plan is going to work? >> not much. there's probably a pony in that interview with denis mcdonough, but at the end of the day isil has to be encouraged with what was just said. when the white house says we say what we mean and do what we say, nobody believes that anymore. this is a turning point in the war in terror. we're fighting a terrorist army, not an organization. it's going to take an army to beat a army. this idea we'll never had any boots to defeat them in syria is fantasy. all this has come home to roost over the last three years of incompetent decisions, so to destroy isil, what i was told or what i heard in your interview won't even come close to destroy

isil. it's delusional in the way they approach this. >> senator reed, tough words. what do you say? >> the president has proposed a comprehensive plan that recognizes that it has to ultimately be the local powers. and iraq particularly. he is willing to use american airpower and american training efforts to empower these countries, but it's their fight. as denis pointed out, this is a battle within the sunni community about where they're going. >> we know the plan, but will it work? >> i think the plan has great potential to work. first of all, there is the u.s. forces, airpower. second with the cooperation of the saudis, we're going to be training, and done by the defense, military -- to go back into syria. we both support that effort.

then we're going to be hopefully backing up the iraqis as he start re-claiming their territory, putting pressure on isil to move forces back to defend the territory they have captured, or to pull back and let us take more iraqi territory back. so i think the plan is the best possible, because it recognizes it's not a military struggle, but also a political struggle. >> it is clearly a political struggle, because you have to have an inclusive iraqi government. but senator graham, when it comes to iraqi forces, free syrian army rebels, do you have any faith they'll be up to the task to defeat isis, isil? >> the first thing i want to tell american people from my point of view, it is our fight. it is not just their fight. this is a rad cam islamic army, this pushing the theory of a master religion, not a master

race like the nazis. this is not about bringing a few people to justice who behead the innocent in a brutal fashion. it's about protecting millions of people throughout the world from a radical islamic army, they're intending to come here. i will not let this president suggest to the american people we can outsource or security and this is not about our saved. there is no way in hell you can form an army on the ground to go into syria, to destroy isil without a substantial american component. to destroy isil, you have to kill or capture their leaders, take back their territory, cut off the finances and destroy the capability to regenerate. this is a war we're fights not a counter terrorism operation, this is not somalia, this is not yemen, this is a turning point. our strategy will fail yet again. this president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home.

>> all right. so senator reed, senator graham is say there has to be a combat contingent here to fight there. will there have to be u.s. combat forces, maybe not large maneuvering divisions, but some component of american fighting forces to get this done? >> we have to mobilize the local forces on the ground, because we've found, i think, for the last ten years that the most effective fighting force ultimately is those indigenous troops, the local troops fighting for their own country, for their own future. if we make this an american fight, the iraqis, the saudis would gladly step back and let us do as much as we can. they did that after the invasion of iraq. we have to empower them, but they have to carry the fight to the enemy. this is a fight within the sunni community, it's a fight that they have to win for their own self-interests, and we have to make this clear that that's the case. so our effort, and we can do this very effectively is to

leverage our power, which is airpower, intelligence collecting, training. training with some of these units? perhaps, trainers? perhaps but the idea of putting bring ades on the ground to fight the fight that is ultimately about the future of these countries and their success, i don't think that's the right approach. the other fact that we have to recognize is there are multiple threats out of this areas. there's the old al qaeda, who is still trying to send individuals into the united states. there are thousands of lone wolf wolves who could come back here, so the idea that isil is the only thing we have to fear about attacks on the homeland is not accurate. >> what do you say to the idea, which is the flip side of your argument, if you make this an american fight, you'll only attract more to fight, the best way is for the indigenous to take bar their own territory? >> apparently nobody has been listen toss what senator mccain

and i have been saying. we said train the free syrian army so they can take this fight on. indeed of training the free syrian army, the president overruled his entire national security team and abandoned the free syrian army. we're talking about an arm now, not an organization. 31,000 is the best guest, holdic territory in iraq and syria the size of indiana. for anybody to suggest that we can do this with airpower alone is disingenuous and delusional. i want a regional coalition, i want the free syrian army in the fight, arab countries in the fight, but here's what i'm tired of hearing from this administration and my friends on the other side and within the party, that this is somehow easy and really not our fight. name one air army you could put together anytime soon to deal with a terrorist army of over 30,000 without a substantial american commitment. not the 82nd airborne, but intelligence, special forces, to go in there and dig they guys

out. i am tired from hearing from this administration how easy this is going to be, when it's going to be hard and the consequences of losing my friend, is if they survive our best shot, this is the last best chance, they will open the gates of hell to spill out on the world. this is not a sunni versus sunni, this is isil versus mankind. >> senator graham is fired up this morning. >> let me suggest the best ways to do it is for those in the region with our help, and one of the dichotomies here, everyone talks about, we're going to have to put a lot of americans on the ground. we have to be very clear. >> senators, thank you so much for joining us. coming up next, our sunday group weighing in on the plan. plus what would you like to ask the panel? go to facebook or twitter, and we may use your question on the air. stay tuned for that.

it makes me happy to go on the computer.

i like feeling smart. internet essentials from comcast has brought low-cost internet access to over 1.4 million low-income people at home. internet essentials helped me progress in my schoolwork. it helped my grades move higher. today it's the largest broadband adoption program in america. it helped me a lot. comcast. helping to bridge the digital divide.

everybody believes there has to be some anvil, some ground force on the ground taking the fight to isil. if it's not the syrian opposition trained by the united states, thor iced by the president and the congress, it will have to be u.s. troops. the president has made a decision on that. we're not going to do that. white house chief of staff denis denis mcdonough reiterating there would be not forces on the ground. brit hume, kirsten powers, karl rove, and juan williams are here. let's talk about the language and messaging coming out of the white house. laura sentence a question on twitter -- why are we at war today when we weren't at war yesterday? let me throw up a jump ball there. >> i think we are at war.

the administration hates the idea, because this is the president who said he was here to end wars. so they want to call it something else, about you it hardly matters i think this whole thing --i a problematic exercise, in the sense that when people around the world are making the decision about whether to sign up, to participate in this undertaking, and the united states is trying to minimize it, and the minimize the american role, it's not the kind of thing that encourages you to say these guys are all in, they're the strongest, they're going to be the winning team, i want to join it. i think it's regrettable from that point of view. >> are they minimizing the role? >> i don't think at this point they are. i don't think it matters that much what we call this. the white house has finally come around, it took a little while, but they have come around with the president's speech to say this is a very serious threat that they are taking various steps to address, and let's -- i

also think if you look at -- there has been some success already if you look at iraq, the air strikes that the president ordered did actually roll back isis to a certain extent. so i think when i hear people suggesting that the president hasn't taken it seriously or isn't doing anything to combat this is just an incorrect statement. >> karl, the president is relies on the authorizationses for use of military force that president bush had signed in 2001 and 2002 to do this. he's not going to congress to do that. would it be political impalatable? >> we faced this in 2002, we didn't want a vote on the authorization to take place in a political environment. we were forced by daschle to do it. president bush wanted a congressional buy-in, though there were arguments to be made that the 2001 authority gave us the authority to go in. i think the president would be better getting the buy-in and

better after the election. you don't want the world to ride to an uncertain touch et. i'm glad the president did what he did on wednesday night. i support the outlines of the policy, though i have severe doubts whether or not it will work, but a minor drama is revealing in my mind. john kerry, secretary of state, goes out and refuses to say that it's a war. the white house decides very quickly, we've got to clean that up, but what was interesting to me is rather than saying let's call the secretary of state to clean up his own mess, the white house undermines the own secretary of state by sending out the press secretary out. that's what worries me, in the roll-out of this thing, there's a tension, we heard it earlier, between the goals, airpower,

syria, arm and train, and the reluctance to have u.s. personnel involved in making those effective. a larger number than 1400 people already necessary to make those effective. they're not going to be in the green zone in baghdad. they'll better in the front lines and on the cutting edge of this conflict. >> how much appetite is there, juan, to have american forces if not in an active combat role, at least to the front lines to get this done? >> almost no appetite whatsoever. there's clearly on the party of the american people, we have seen this in the polls, john, over the last week or so, a sharp increase in people saying we need to be involved, we need to tail isis seriously. these beheadings i think have outraged people, they have seen it beyond terrorism, they see it as somehow beyond prime evil. >> let me quickly say here, you know, all this talk about are we at war, not at war? i think the person who e-mailed it in has it exactly right.

i think republicans focus on this rhetoric, sort of this semantic conversation, because the fact is they don't have any real ideas for doing anything very much differently than what the president is doing. the president in fact, i remember people saying, prime minister cameron of britain, he is so much more a strong leader type of person that is president obama. i noticed this week the british are not helping us. they are not getting in the fight. they're willing to hold our coat, but not willing to get in the fight. >> cam rho may have changed his mind in the last 12 hours. >> let's hope he does. with the congress, the system he would welcome a vote in congress, but i think it's republicans as well as democrats, who don't want a part of having them say you authorized this war, it's your responsibility. we've got to take a break. when we come back, in the 2008 iowa caucuses, hillary clinton returns to the hawkeye state today as the heavy favorite to win the 2016 nomination.

that is if she runs. hard it can be...how ...to breathe with copd? it can feel like this. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled... ...copd maintenance treatment... ...that helps open my airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have

kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells,... you can get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. sfx: blowing sound. does breathing with copd... ...weigh you down? don't wait ask your doctor about spiriva handihaler. the path to the white house goes straight through iowa. that's precisely super presumptive democratic front-runner hillary clinton is today. is she gearing up for a 2016 run? when you look at hillary clinton she has vast foreign policy experience, probably more so than any candidate out there, but the democrats are facing

some problems. >> it will be interesting to see what she says about the president's plan for dealing with isis. it will be interesting to see what continuing effect after her become -- has on her political standing, not just month democrats where she remains wildly popular, where in iowa, she's, what, 59%. those are things to watch. i think as most people do, it's highly likely she'll run, but it's not guaranteed. i think it's likely if she won, she might win, but we all thought that back in 2007, and look what happened. you know, straight-line projections in politics are dangerous, and i think they're dangerous in her case. >> what's the effect on her, do you believe, kirsten? >> we don't really know, because we don't know what's going to be happening in the world if and when she runs. if things are stable, then it probably will look good to her.

if things are not stable, then i think it won't look as good, because she's going to be held accountable for whatever president obama leaves. and right now if the election was held today, i think it would be a real problem for her. >> karl? >> it has already been a problem. her approval ratings have declined precipitously since she left the secretary of state office. we've had a spat of polls, 44% of americans say the world is a less safe place, only 26% say more, and 52% of women say it's a less safe place. republicans in the gallup poll have a 55/32 lead over the democrats on which is the better party to confront terrorism. she's already suffering. my sense is who thinks the world will be a much safer, palace i had peaceful place in two years? the president is suffering because of the policies of his administration, squandered the peace, and have led to the

circumstances we find ourselves in today, and she was the sect taef of state during the first four your. >> juan, the first time she's been back to iowa since she came third in the caucuses there. >> and if you think back even before that, tom harkin, who's having the steak fry that they're going to attend today, you know, bill clinton didn't run against him, because tom harkin was the favorite son of the state. so the clintons don't have a strong history in iowa, which is a surprising fact. i would say that she's got to do retail politics. she's got to get on the ground in iowa. get familiar and friendly to people in a way i don't think she has done in the past. she's totally capable of it. i know there are people who are charmed by hillary clinton. i know the political classes a

little standoffish, but when you see her do -- charming an you are, kirsten has been sitting here -- >> i hate to disagree with was this. i think this is overstated. she lost iowa third, but it was 29.7 to 29.5. i mean, she really came in second in iowa. what happened there was -- >> tell that to john edwards. >> they both were outgunned by barack obama. barack obama ran a new kind of campaign. he got -- went after democrats and independents who had never caucused before. i think they were just sort of blindsided by that. she does run a pretty strong campaign, just a little outdated. >> 59% in the polls in iowa now, and so it's hard to say at the moment she has an iowa problem. kirsten, your scenario of things being calm, this conflict with isil is supposed to take years so, presumably we'll be in the

middle of this war to defeat isis in 2016, and it will either be going well or badly. i think a lot of people reasonably fear it won't be going fairly well, at least the syrian part of it looks like a big problem. it's hard for me to believe that people will look at the world and think she left us in good shape right now. that's not going to be easy to do. >> one thing we can count on is foreign policy experts making predictions not being right. so it's a we'll see what the world will be like. >> i have a bigger question. why go to iowa now? why issue the book this year so she has the controversy in the middle of an election year? why go to iowa and raise the expectations about the presidential campaign, and more importantly raise the expectations about what she's going to do to help democrats in this fall's election. does anybody think she'll by out on the campaign trail in the next 51 days and make an

appreciable difference? why is she involved? why isn't she waiting on the sideline until 2015 -- >> there's andanger for overexposu overexposure. >> fine, go to iowa. >> a quick point, there's a possibility -- >> very quick. that americans will rally around the flag. that could help democrats. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, great to be with you this week. thanks so much. chris will be back next sunday. have a great week. we'll see you again next "fox news sunday." thanks for joining us.

♪ >> tell us, when will these things be and what will be sign of your coming and of the end of the age? ♪ >> we're continuing our study about the antichrist and the false prophet.