SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES

Rep. Buck McKeon on Obama's plan to take on ISIS

Congressman reacts to the president's speech

 

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," September 14, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, FBN HOST: Building a global coalition to take out ISIS. Good morning, everyone. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."

Horrific video surfacing purporting to show a British aid worker beheaded by an ISIS militant.

Will it galvanize support among the British people and others to become more invested in the fight?

Or is the burden going to fall squarely on American shoulders alone?

President Obama set to meet with Ukraine's president this upcoming week. We'll ask chess grand master Garry Kasparov, who has tangled with Putin before. What their next move should be at this point in the crisis.

One of the biggest technology giants in the world about to hit the stock market. What Alibaba's potential $24 billion IPO could mean for your bottom line and the U.S. economy as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

BARTIROMO: Good morning. Prime Minister David Cameron summoning military and security chiefs for an emergency meeting in response to that video of David Haines' beheading.

This is following President Obama's message to the United States and the world this past week and asking the U.S.'s strategy for taking on the Islamic State terrorist group. The president broadening airstrikes into Syria as well as Iraq while adding the U.S. will not bear the burden alone.

Buck McKeon is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He joins us right now.

Congressman, welcome back to SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES.

REP. BUCK MCKEON, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thank you. Good to see you.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about this latest horrific beheading.

Do you think this does galvanize the U.K.? It's no secret that David Cameron sprang into action and spoke to his people.

Does the fight become that much more important for them now?

MCKEON: It certainly should. I think it shows the ruthlessness of these people and how they are in it to go all the way. We need to be in it all the way, too. We can't deal with this with halfway measures. We need to go after them and go after them hard.

BARTIROMO: Which is why David Cameron was immediate, left what he was doing and went right to his desk to start talking to the people of the U.K.

What's your reaction to the president's behavior recently and most importantly his speech this week?

MCKEON: Well, I think he has reversed some of his positions. He's said before he didn't want to go into Syria and that ISIL was a junior varsity. I think he realizes now they are a very serious threat and we have to really go after them.

I think his strategy is a good start. I would be much more robust in putting boots on the ground. He seems to, whenever he talks, say the first thing is no boots on the ground. Well, he's already made that decision.

We already have boots on the ground. We just have to make sure we have enough to give Iraq the support they need to beat ISIL in Iraq.

We have to provide the training, logistics, the ground air support and the things that they can't do for themselves to make sure we're victorious there.

Then we need to get our moderate Sunnis and neighbors in the area to jump in and help out in Syria while we're training the Free Syrians. It's going to take time to get them up to speed.

But meanwhile, when that happens, we'll be able to squeeze ISIL between Syria and Iraq and not let them move into Jordan or Lebanon or other surrounding nations. We need to finish them now. Every day we wait, they grow stronger.

BARTIROMO: I want to ask you about how we pull that off, particularly the airstrikes in Syria. So stay with us, Congressman. A lot to talk about with you this morning.

First, we're hearing Secretary of State John Kerry making some headway in assembling the U.S. led coalition to combat ISIS, which now stands at 40 countries, including 10 Arab nations this week.

So what does help from those Arab countries really mean for the United States?

FOX News senior correspondent Eric Shawn with that angle.

Eric, good morning to you.

ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS HOST: Good morning, Maria.

And good morning, everyone. We just heard the congressman talk about neighbors in the surrounding states. They are part of that 40-nation coalition.

How will they really help? And are Iraqi troops, Kurds and the Syrian rebels really enough to route the radical Islamic terrorists of ISIS?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CAMERON, PRIME MINISTER, GREAT BRITAIN: This is not about British combat troops on the ground. It is about working with others to extinguish this terrorist threat. As this strategy intensifies, we are ready to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with this threat and keep our country safe.

SHAWN (voice-over): Despite his blunt talk, British Prime Minister David Cameron is ruling out direct military action against ISIS. That of course echoing the refusals of other countries. Again, the heavy lifting will be done by us.

As you said, 10 Arab states have agreed to help. Saudi Arabia offering a base to train Syrian rebels, maybe 5,000 of them. But critics say our Arab allies need to do much more. After all, Saudi Arabia has received more than $86 billion in American military aid since 2010 and can field more than 233,000 active frontline troops. That happens to be more than both France and Great Britain have.

Egypt gets $1.3 billion a year from us and can employ even more forces

than the Saudis: 468,000 troops. And Jordan, which has received more

than $81 million in U.S. military aid since 2009 can field more than

110,000 forces. But for now, the proposed boots on the ground remain those who are already there. The Free Syrian Army , though, claims it can win with our help.

OUBAI SHAHBANDAR, STRATEGIC COMM. ADVISER, FSA: We have seen the Free Syrian Army actually cause considerable damage against ISIS, so now is the time for the United States to implement a Department of Defense train and equip program to help the freedom fighters hold the line against the terrorists and eventually eradicate them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHAWN: And the U.S. is also pressuring Turkey to stop millions of dollars of black market oil sales that funds ISIS. One immediate way to do that is for U.S. to blow up those oil tanker trucks but that , though, has not yet happened -- Maria.

BARTIROMO: Eric, thank you very much, Eric Shawn.

More now with Congressman Buck McKeon.

And, Congressman, what about that? This strategy is imagining weakening the Islamic State but at the same time not indirectly strengthening the ruthless governments of Assad or a rival network within Al Qaeda while, at the same time, trying to build a moderate Syrian opposition.

Can we pull that off?

MCKEON: We can. One of our problems is during the last couple of years we've cut so much out of our military budget, the last couple of years and going forward the next eight or 10 years we've cut over a trillion dollars.

So we're asking our military to do more and more, which we have to do, but we can't keep pushing them to do more without giving them the resources that they need. So if -- we've got to make up our minds. If we're going into this, we have got to do it full bore and we're going to have to give the military the help that they need to be successful. We can't keep asking them to do more with less.

BARTIROMO: So do we need to start ramping up our military budget once again?

Are we at a point, given the realities of what has occurred, that we need to change direction in terms of spending on the military?

MCKEON: I think there's no question. We've talked about taking our army down and we're on a path to do that, smaller than it's been since the start of World War II. Our Air Force is the smallest it's ever been, our Navy back to the size it was in World War I.

We have to change our direction. If we're going to ask them to fight these vicious threats that we have, which I think we need to do, and they can't do it without having the ability to do it.

BARTIROMO: You make a great point.

As we wrap up here, I have to ask, what about this characterizing, changing the direction of characterizing what is at hand here, the semantics of what we call this?

Why is it so difficult for John Kerry to just say and this administration to just say, yes, we are at war with ISIS?

MCKEON: I don't understand. Actually, it's called ISIS, ISIL, over in -- I just came back from the Middle East and they call it Daish over there. I call it ISIL because what their goal is, is back hundreds of years ago, they controlled -- the Arabs controlled that area for almost

1,000 years. And they called it Levant.

BARTIROMO: Right. But what about war? I mean, what I was talking about was the word war. War or ISIS or war on ISIL?

MCKEON: It is a war. Whatever they call it -- I don't know why they don't want to say that word. It's like it can't go past their lips. But it is war. And we got to face up to the fact.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, good to have you on the program. Thank you so much for your insights.

MCKEON: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Buck McKeon joining us.

What strategy advice does a chess grand master have for our president when it comes to taking on Vladimir Putin? We will ask him, chess champ and human rights activist Garry Kasparov is with me live next.

You can follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you want to hear from Garry Kasparov. He's coming up next. Stay with us as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Big developments unfolding that could impact the Ukrainian crisis. The U.S. and the E.U. have just agreed to broaden sanctions against Russian energy, financial and defense companies, this as President Obama is set to meet this week with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at the White House and NATO members kick off long-scheduled military training exercises in Western Ukraine, despite criticism from Russia.

Chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov is a writer, a political activist who has been thrown in jail by Vladimir Putin. He is the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation, which he took over from the late Czech President Vaclav Havel.

Garry, good to have you on the program. Welcome back to "Sunday Morning Futures."

KASPAROV: Nice being with you.

BARTIROMO: Let me kick it off with Russia. I want to read you a quote from Henry Kissinger: "The Russians play chess. We play poker. Putin has succeeded beyond what could have been his expectations when this crisis started."

Is Putin winning?

KASPAROV: This statement (inaudible) correct. Yes, Putin succeeded beyond expectations, though I think, you know, at a certain point, he wanted more, but I disagree with Mr. Kissinger. It's exactly the opposite.

America is trying to play chess. Putin has been playing poker all the time.

Because he has always had a weak hand, but he knows how to bluff and he expects, and unfortunately he wins, expecting Western leaders to blink.

BARTIROMO: Get into Putin's head for us here. What is his next move?

The sanctions have been expanded. Do they matter, in your view?

KASPAROV: Yeah, they've been expanded, but it's still too little and too slow. If these sanctions were in place in March, just before the annexation of Crimea, or if Western powers agreed to supply anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine in May, we might have -- we had a chance to avoid -- a very good chance to avoid the disaster that emerged this last summer.

But, unfortunately, again, it's always reactive. White House, European Union, all major European powers, they are just trying to find, sort of -- not middle ground but not too push too hard, not recognizing the fact that, unless you show strength, the aggression cannot be stopped.

BARTIROMO: Is -- is there a level that actually would impact Putin and his economy so much, to the extent -- I mean, these sanctions are hitting defense companies; they're hitting energy companies. When is it going to hit his economy and his people that this is the wrong track?

KASPAROV: Eventually, it will hurt the Russian economy badly. But again, they could do much more. And first of all, they could aim at individuals. Yes, they had a list of individuals, but don't forget, money, the fortunes, the tens of billions of dollars already moved to the West and under control of their families.

Their families are comfortable living there while (inaudible) in a circle, now is locked in Russia. They know that their fortunes are safe.

And also, Russia has currency reserves, I mean, the real money that is not yet being hit by U.S. sanctions.

BARTIROMO: Let me move on to the president's strategy. What should the president's strategy be as you look at his reaction to ISIS, his speech last week?

KASPAROV: Again, it's too little and too slow. You may say too late, but I think it's rather slow. Because they recognize the realities, but the

-- it had to be done ages ago. I mean, how come that, you know, the army that is 30,000 strong suddenly has emerged in the middle of -- in the middle of Iraq from nowhere? And what has it been doing, the U.S.

intelligence, or the U.K. intelligence?

And is it that difficult to actually identify the source of finance?

I mean, it's -- it's still, you know -- it's -- I think the threat that has been posed to the United States is not yet being properly contemplated by the White House. And I'm shocked by this -- you know, by this fight on semantic subtleties, you know. Are we at war? Are we at war?

It's all stupid. I mean, period. It's -- they declared war.

And what brings together Putin and ISIS and all other facts (ph) is they are attacking the United States as a symbol of the free world. And for them, it's very important to show strength. All these beheadings and horrible videos -- it's not just the bravado; for them, it's a propaganda machine. They show strength and they demonstrate impunity. That's the way to recruit people from around the world who may be attracted by the jihadist ideas, but also, they might be attracted by the fact that these guys can challenge America, the United states of America, without being punished.

BARTIROMO: Can the president and the U.S. go this alone, in terms of leading it, or do we need more of a coalition? I mean, at the end of the day, isn't the U.S. leading this effort, period?

KASPAROV: Yeah, but I think, again, it's -- it's -- it's purely semantic. U.S. must show leadership. If you want to try to lead from behind, nobody will follow you. And the hesitations of the Arab nations or even the United Kingdom, whether to join America or not, is based on the fact that, for many years, America was at retreat.

I mean, let's not ignore the facts. In 2008, with all these economic horrors that -- that we have been facing six years ago, the world was a much safer place. And I believe that the fact that we are facing so many threats today is due to Obama's unwillingness to engage in the challenges that are there.

BARTIROMO: That is the bottom line. Garry, wonderful to have you on the program.

KASPAROV: Thanks very much, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much, Garry Kasparov. We'll be following you on Twitter.

A big two-day meeting at the Fed this week, meanwhile. It could impact your 401(k) and your savings. Will Janet Yellen raise interest rates and when? A former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is with me.

He'll make his prediction, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: The Federal Reserve's two days of meetings called the FOMC, could end with Chairwoman Janet Yellen telling us if and when she plans to raise interest rates or certainly suggesting that as well as other indicators of where the economy is headed.

Kevin Warsh is a former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve. He is now a distinguished visiting fellow at The Hoover Institution.

Kevin, it's wonderful to have you on the program.

KEVIN WARSH, THE HOOVER INSTITUTION: Maria, thanks very much for having me.

BARTIROMO: So, before we get into this two-day meeting that's happening next week, let me get your characterization of the economy today.

WARSH: So, it's a boring old story, Maria, you heard it from me before, the economy is growing about at 2 percent, that's where we've been for five or six years. Hope says that next year will be a breakout year.

The feds always projecting 12 months forward things are going to be great.

We'll see.

I'm opened minded that the real economy in the U.S. can improve.

There's very little data to suggest we've broken into a new gear. And there's a lot of data to suggest that the rest of the world is looking worse and worse in terms of economic growth.

BARTIROMO: I guess at one point you have to sit back and say to yourself what is it going to take to actually move the needle on things? I mean, do you see -- I know the Federal Reserve has been the only game in town in terms of stimulus. What do you think it's going to take to actually get some real, sustained growth in place?

WARSH: Right, that's a good question. And the simple answer is private business investment. The most shocking thing about this recovery versus every recovery we've had since the Second World War is that business investment is relatively slow, even as consumption is picking up and GDP is picking up and the labor markets are a little bit better, the Fortune 500 business people are basically sitting on their hands in spite of the fact that their share prices are this high. That could well turn going into next year, but there's not a lot of data that would let me grab onto it and say it's happening in real time.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, I think that's such good analysis.

What does this all mean for the federal reserve? Janet Yellen next week will have her press conference. Everyone is going to be looking for what words indicate where she's going with interest rates. Do you think rates start moving in a substantial way in 2015 or beyond?

WARSH: So, I really do.

So you're going to hear from me difference in judgment than you've heard from me for a long time.

I think they are in the early stages of a pivot. I think it started in Jackson Hole with Janet Yellen's very balanced, very responsible assessment of the economy. That doesn't mean that they're going to race to raise interest rates quickly, but I think markets, if you look at the foreign exchange value of the dollar, if you look at the treasury markets, markets are sniffing out that the fed is closer to moving interest rates than they had believed even some weeks ago.

And I think that she's going to continue to demonstrate that she's not some caricature dove. But at the upcoming meeting this week they will suggest that if the economy continues to do as well as they think it will, and they are pretty optimistic, that interest rates will be moving up perhaps as early as spring.

BARTIROMO: As early as the spring of 2015.

I'm glad you mentioned the dollar. That has been the story of markets certainly in the last couple of weeks and months. The dollar is moving higher versus the euro, versus the Japanese yen. What are implications, what are your thoughts on the dollar so strong?

WARSH: Right. So the dollar is the best economist I know. And the dollar is saying that U.S. economic growth isn't great but the difference between U.S. economic performance and the performance of the rest of the world is getting bigger and bigger.

The data overnight in China continues to suggest that industrial production is not that strong. The Europeans, our friends at the European Central Bank, thought this would be breakout year to the upside, looks like economic growth at a half of 1 percent.

So, if you look around the world with the exception of places like Britain, the U.S., is Chronically outperforming on a relative basis. The dollar continues to strengthen. And my own best guess is that things like the Japanese yen and euro will be under pressure as the world see that the U.S. is doing much better than the rest of the world.

BARTIROMO: Best game in town relatively speaking, that's for sure.

And look no farther than what's happening on Wall Street next week, Ali Baba, the huge Chinese Internet company going public, a lot of hype around that. What does that tell you about this economy right now?

WARSH: So, it says for one thing that for this Chinese company to want to access the U.S. financial markets, is a good thing. Our markets continue to be the deepest and most liquid. This is where they want to come for a whole range of reasons related to corporate governance, but it's also because they think that their story will be well received in the U.S.

I think the real Ali Baba story is this a Chinese company that is not a state owned enterprise, that is showing real innovation, that is getting into new markets and it might well be an example of what the Chinese government sees as something to encourage rather than discourage.

So, all in all, this is very good news.

I think broadly, though, for stock markets, a $24 billion, $25 billion equity raise, that's a lot of equity that's going to have to come out of someone else's stock price.

So, as we see this large IPO and all the IPO calendars behind it, at the same time that the Federal Reserve is showing some gradual pivot in policy, we will see whether volatility comes back to these markets and we'll see whether these markets are really in an equilibrium or not.

BARTIROMO: Particularly as the Federal Reserve may very well suggest interest rates going higher, that could create a disruption in stocks.

BARTIROMO: That's right.

What we're going to -- what the Fed has already told us is that their October meeting they will be end QE, they will be ending their extraordinary asset purchases. My judgment is that's what's taken volatility out of markets for the last several years.

If you think about the first segment of your show where we talk about front page filled with volatility and then we talk about the business pages where everything seems swell, well, the front page and business page are ultimately going to have to tell the same story and that could be happening in the next several months.

BARTIROMO: Kevin, such valuable insights. Thank you so much for joining us.

WARSH: Thanks very much, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it. Kevin Warsh, joining us today, former Federal Reserve governor and Hoover Institution distinguished visiting fellow.

The White House and Pentagon declaring that the U.S. is, quote, "at war" with ISIS. So, why did it take Secretary Kerry so long to get onboard? Yes, we are at war with this Islamic State group.

Is politics behind his reticence? Our panel weighs in on that as we look ahead on Sunday Morning Futures.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Are there political implications to saying we are at war with ISIS? Why had Secretary of State Kerry been avoiding the term? We bring in our panel right now on that.

Ed Rollins is former principal White House adviser to President Reagan. He has been a longtime strategist to business and political leaders, and he's a FOX News political analyst. Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner. And Jim Rogers is chairman of Rogers Holdings and Beeland Interests Incorporated.

Good to see everybody. Thanks so much for joining us. More horrific video overnight, of course, a beheading of a Brit. And yet we just today finally heard John Kerry say that we are at war with ISIS.

What's your take on this, Ed?

ED ROLLINS, FOX POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, if we are at war, we had better go fight the war. And my concern about all this, and I always try to be supportive of the president whenever we go international, is we can't do it with 1,500 -- or 150 troops.

We spent billions and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of men trying to train the Iraqi army, and they have failed miserably. And the idea that they and the Syrian dissidents who were also routed are going to basically be able to carry this fight just with our airpower is not going to work.

We have to put troops on the ground. We might as well talk about it right now. We might as well get resources from the Congress. We're going to have to get rid of the sequester, otherwise we are not going to have the proper money to pay for it.

BARTIROMO: Which is, of course, what Buck McKeon was saying.

ROLLINS: Well, he's absolutely right.

BARTIROMO: . at the top of the show.

ROLLINS: He's absolutely right.

BARTIROMO: Byron, you know, at this point the president has laid out the strategy of destroying ISIS. Can we do it without, as Ed says, really being in the lead and leading this coalition?

BYRON YORK, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: It will take a lot more than what he's doing right now. As a matter of fact, a new study came out from a scholar named Frederick Kagan, who was really the architect of the surge in Iraq back in 2007, and he suggests that perhaps the job could be done with 25,000 American ground troops.

And then he said there are huge risks and it might fail even with that. So there's absolutely no political will to do something like that.

So it's very unlikely, I think, that you would see real success from what the president has designed so far.

BARTIROMO: Jim Rogers?

JIM ROGERS, CHAIRMAN, ROGERS HOLDINGS & BEELAND INTERESTS: Maria, I would say, what are we doing there? We went there under false pretenses in 2003. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We spent trillions of dollars, millions of lives. What are we doing there? We're just getting deeper and deeper and making more and more enemies.

BARTIROMO: Well, what are we supposed to do...

ROGERS: Why don't we come home and take care of America?

BARTIROMO: Well, what are we supposed to do when this group is taking Americans and beheading them?

ROGERS: Well, if Americans weren't there making enemies, they wouldn't be beheading them, would they? I mean, for goodness sakes, Maria, tens of hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Iraq because we went there and started a war. Let's get out of there. Let's take care of America. Do you know how many trillions of dollars we have spent there, how many poor American lives have been lost, much less the foreign lives?

This is insane.

BARTIROMO: Well, you're also though looking at a situation where you are dealing with monsters. So how do you react?

ROGERS: Let them fight it out among themselves, for goodness sakes.

ROLLINS: Terrorists are terrorists. And the beheading is a deliberate effort to basically drag us back into this thing, and in the same way with the British last night.

I think the more serious thing here, and we can talk about it a little bit later in the show, is if Scotland basically goes independent, the Cameron government is going to fall. And then we have got to start all over again.

If we don't plan on going in there and doing this pretty much ourselves, all the 40 nations that Kerry has signed up, they're all willing to hold our coat, write a check, but not willing to put troops on the ground.

BARTIROMO: I want to get back to that, because the Scotland story is an important one. I want to get all of your takes on that.

But, Jim, you just returned from North Korea.

ROGERS: Yes.

BARTIROMO: And you say that North Korea is now where China was in 1980. Washington has yet another country completely wrong.

ROGERS: Absolutely. It's where Myanmar was in 2010. Washington has this as wrong as they have the Middle East. Listen, North Korea is changing very, very dramatically. Very fast. And it's very exciting...

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: What about Americans being held there hostage?

ROGERS: Yes, listen, if somebody comes into my country and tears up his visa and says, I want asylum, maybe he's a little nuts. I don't know the guy, I don't know what he did. But I know what we read in the press -- the Western press, it sounds very, very strange.

Many Americans -- by the way, many Americans go there. Not all -- I went there. I'm not in jail.

BARTIROMO: When you were there, was it completely dark?

ROGERS: What?

BARTIROMO: Were the lights on when you were in North Korea?

ROGERS: Yes, there were there lights on. People were in the markets buying and selling food. All this stuff about starving North Koreans, I didn't see any of them. There were markets everywhere, all sorts of goods.

I didn't even understand what some of the goods were, they were so modern.

YORK: Was what you were allowed to see controlled by anyone?

ROGERS: No. I went into the market, the market with thousands of people, thousands of North Koreans buying and selling day in and day out.

ROLLINS: If they really wanted to have an impact they would have kidnapped him, put him seven years into hard labor, which would've sent a very loud message to all of us.

ROGERS: It certainly would've affected me, Ed, that's for sure.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: Byron, you were going to make a point.

YORK: Well, actually, I was going to make a point not about North Korea but a related point about the domestic effects of this whole ISIS thing. And I think what's really ominous for the president and Democrats is that the president's ratings for handling foreign affairs in general have just gone through the floor.

And more importantly, the most ominous is women voters seem to be abandoning the president, in part because they feel like he doesn't have a handle on what's going on. And it is not an exaggeration to say that the entire Democratic strategy for 2014 is to win enough women votes to overcome the lead that Republicans have among men.

BARTIROMO: So implications for the midterms.

ROLLINS: This is not going to have any implications in the sense of these elections, these seven or eight Senate races that are really what matter are pretty much in play. And anything the president does between now and the end here isn't going to make a dime's worth of difference.

BARTIROMO: Jim, real quick.

ROGERS: I would like to ask, do you think he has a handle on what's going on?

YORK: No. Absolutely not.

ROGERS: OK. I was going to say. Listen, I happen to live in Asia.

Everybody sits here and says, what is going on with those people? They don't have a clue.

BARTIROMO: That's -- well, let's leave it there for this segment. We want to take a look at what's coming up on "Media Buzz" at the top of the hour. Howie Kurtz is with me right now.

Hi, Howie, what have you got?

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "MediaBuzz": Hi, Maria.

Well, we're going to look at the media aspects of ISIS, and particularly this question of whether television, again, should be showing constantly this latest gruesome beheading video, whether that helps the terrorists.

But we're also going to spend a lot of time talking about the Ray Rice uproar, and that footage -- that really chilling footage of him punching his girlfriend in the elevator. I've got TMZ founder Harvey Levin. His gossipy Web site, of course, obtained that video. He talks about the ethics of paying for video when you've got an explosive tape like that.

BARTIROMO: Well, it is pretty extraordinary that this guy beats his wife unconscious and TMZ gets the video first?

KURTZ: And the NFL doesn't seem to get it or got it and nobody saw it.

BARTIROMO: Right.

KURTZ: But it also is forcing us to look at other instances of domestic violence in professional sports, which, frankly, hasn't been getting enough media attention.

BARTIROMO: All right. Howie, we'll be there in about 20 minutes or so. We will see you on "Media Buzz."

When is the United Kingdom no longer united, and no longer a kingdom?

Well, as early as this week, Scotland could make it a little closer to both. Scotland will vote Thursday on whether to break off from the U.K.

and become an independent nation. Didn't we have to fight two wars for that?

Our panel on that, next, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Today we celebrate the 200th birthday of our star-spangled banner, marking one of our greatest victories against the British in the War of 1812.

It seems ironic that the Scots are considering waging their own independence from England. But in all seriousness, this could have major global economic implications. Our panel returns, Ed Rollins, Byron York, Jim Rogers.

And I thought this was really apropos, the cover of The Economist, "U.K. RIP?" This is one of the big angles here to this Scottish vote. The Scots go to the polls on Thursday to -- to vote on whether or not to separate itself. What are the implications? What do you think happens, Ed?

ROLLINS: I think Scotland may go independent. I think it's one of these kinds of things that not everybody tells you when they want to make a change that they're going to vote for it. So I don't think the polls that are almost dead even are really totally indicating of the sentiment.

If it does, obviously the government in Great Britain will crumble and it will change the whole dynamics of Europe.

BARTIROMO: Well, Jim, we know that the U.K. is going to be weaker if you take Scotland out. We just -- we just don't know how much weaker.

ROGERS: Let's even assume that they stay in. Yes, the U.K. has weakened and Northern Ireland is going to try. Catalonia is going to try.

There are lots of separatist movements all over -- all over the world right now. Everybody is going to be given incentive to move out. So it's not going to stop with Ireland. Texas is going to go next, if you ask the Texans.

(LAUGHTER)

YORK: And this is going to totally blow up our relationship with what we view as the United Kingdom. I mean, and it's going to make these huge political changes. For example, almost all of the members of Parliament from Scotland -- almost all of them are far to the left. Well, they go, Parliament becomes a much more conservative places. That changes their politics entirely, and I do think U.S.-British relationships, this longest partnership, is going to have to be completely rethought.

BARTIROMO: Meanwhile, with the conflict in -- between Ukraine and Russia, we have been waiting to see if there's an impact on the European economy, the U.S.'s biggest trading partner. You're actually investing in Russia, Jim?

ROGERS: Yes, you're supposed to buy low and sell high. You know, if you noticed, the market -- Russian market is above where it was in March, in the middle of the most intense part of the whole Crimea thing.

No, again, Maria, we started this thing in Crimea. This lady in Washington, this bureaucrat said "I want to get rid of the government," and now all of us...

BARTIROMO: Wait a second. Wait a second. What did we start in Crimea, Jim?

ROGERS: It's all on tape, Maria. The lady said, "I want to get rid of the government," and so she started demonstrations. They got rid of the guy. He was a bad guy. They got rid of him, and then it backfired, and so Putin took over -- you don't remember what happened here?

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: What I remember is Putin driving through Crimea and having incredible, aggressive...

ROGERS: Maria, go back. Go back. It's all on tape.

BARTIROMO: OK.

ROGERS: They got her on tape speaking to the American ambassador, the American bureaucrat in Washington speaking to the American ambassador, plotting how they're going to get rid of a properly elected prime minister, and they did so, and then it backfired on them.

Listen, these guys in Washington don't have a clue, whether it's the Middle East, Crimea or where it is.

BARTIROMO: Or North Korea.

ROGERS: Or North Korea.

BARTIROMO: Ed?

ROLLINS: I think -- I think Putin shook his fist. Obviously, he supported the Russian volunteers and frightened Ukraine into doing whatever he wants long-term. I think he's won that short-term battle. And I think, to a certain extent, the sanctions, all of the things we're trying to do are totally irrelevant.

YORK: I was surprised to hear Yuri (sic) Kasparov say earlier that he thought earlier and stronger sanctions might have actually prevented some of this. Because where we appear to be right now is saying to Russia, "OK, you can do this. We really are not going to stop you, but we're going to try to make it hurt later on." So it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all.

ROLLINS: Garry is a wonderful guy, but, listen, the Russians have lots of people who will trade with him. All of Asia will trade with him, so we can put on sanctions, hurt ourselves and not hurt the Russians, and just make us even worse because we're driving people to Asia, to China, away from us.

BARTIROMO: And -- and, with that, it could be the largest IPO ever.

We'll take a short break, but we're looking at Alibaba. Analysts are valuing this company at $250 billion once it goes public. That would be equal to some of the largest companies in the country, Wal-Mart, Exxon, Apple.

Should you buy into the Alibaba hype when it hits the stock market this upcoming week?

Our panel will weigh in, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. We're back with our panel, Ed Rollins, Byron York, Jim Rogers.

This is the week that Wall Street has been waiting for. Alibaba goes public, They're going to sell 320 million shares in this Chinese Internet company, and they will start trading on Friday. Would you buy this stock?

ROGERS: Well, if I could get it at their offering price, of course, because it's going pop. But I'm not going to get any. It's only going to be a few smart guys.

BARTIROMO: Why -- why is this so important, this Alibaba deal?

ROGERS: It's because Wall Street is going to make a lot of money, and the people who get it on the offering are going to make a lot of money, and then Alibaba is going to have a lot of money to do a lot more. He's a smart guy. They're smart people.

BARTIROMO: Well, we're looking for any growth in an economy that seems to be, sort of, bumping along the bottom. All of the above, what we've been talking about. How does this change the landscape, in terms of the midterms?

What do you think, Byron?

YORK: Well, I remember having lunch with John Boehner in the spring of 2010. Republicans were going to go on to have this huge victory. And he said, in April 2010, this is baked in the cake. It's going to happen.

Now, his aides had a heart attack to hearing him say that, but a lot of people do believe that these trends are already set and that we are seeing Republicans pull ahead in a number of these Senate races, like in Arkansas, that could determine how Republicans control the Senate.

So it's a real question whether anything that happens in the next 50 days is really -- you know, aside from a world-changing event, is really going to change the Republican apparent path to victory.

BARTIROMO: Jim?

ROGERS: I'm not as smart as these guys, but throughout history, this election, the third -- the sixth year of a president, the opposition always wins. They always do. It's pretty simple.

ROLLINS: The voter intensity on the Republican side is now greater than it was in 2010. So I think those Senate seats that are in play, we're going to win a majority of them and maybe one or two in excess. I don't think there's anything this president can do in --in six, eight weeks to make his own numbers come back. I think he's going to look weaker and weaker as we move forward on this whole Middle East situation.

BARTIROMO: What happens then?

Let's say, hypothetically, the GOP gets control of the Senate, keeps control of the House. What happens then?

ROLLINS: The presidential election starts the day after and they try to take back the Senate, which there's a lot of Republicans up in 2016.

We're not going to get out of the campaign season. But Republicans had better have a plan on how they move forward on some things so they'll have something to run on in 2016.

YORK: And Barack Obama will start actually vetoing some things. He's been threatening to do it for a long time.

BARTIROMO: You think he will use his veto power?

YORK: Oh, absolutely. Up until now, he didn't need to because Harry Reid vetoed everything for him. But if Congress actually passes things, you'll see -- you'll see a lot of being bills basically to pass to make points for 2016, to build positions, and the president's role in all that will be to veto that and try to gin up his base.

ROGERS: Ed brought up 2016 -- since both brought up 2016, I will say right now, Hillary Clinton will not be president in 2017. Throughout history, the leader at this point has never won, and she's not going to win.

BARTIROMO: So you think she definitely runs, but you don't think she's going to win?

ROGERS: I know she's going to run. Come on, that's all she does for a living.

ROLLINS: I would -- I would argue -- and I'm a Republican -- I would argue she's going to be the nominee and be a very credible candidate, and I would argue that there's a better chance of her being president than there is of North Korea being free.

(LAUGHTER)

ROGERS: I'll take that bet.

BARTIROMO: Touche.

ROGERS: I'll take both of those.

BARTIROMO: No, I guess, you know, the reason that I even raise it is because I feel like she's very, you know, sort of, adamant about it's brutal, you know; it takes incredible stamina. Maybe she's -- but she is, of course, headed to Iowa.

ROLLINS: This is a $2 billion campaign. This one we just finished was the most expensive in history. The next one will be more expensive. It's just going to be extraordinary, and very few people can raise that kind of money.

YORK: But, remember, she ran a very poor campaign in 2008. She made some really very, very basic mistakes. She ran on her own resume and her own inevitability, which she appears to be doing now, and people don't want to hear that. They want to hear what you're going to do for them.

ROLLINS: We have a donnybrook on our side, too. We have to...

YORK: Absolutely.

ROGERS: Well, I'll just repeat, she's not going to win. She's made a lot of mistakes since 2008. She lost Egypt; she lost the Middle East. My goodness, the woman has been a disaster.

BARTIROMO: All right. Let's leave it there. Still to come, the one thing to watch for in the week ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Back with our panel. What is the one big thing to watch for the week ahead? Jim Rogers, Byron York, Ed Rollins, what's your one thing?

ROLLINS: I'm going to look to see if they lift the defense sequester, any dialogue about that. Because, if they don't, there's no real battle going to go on...

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: That's important, in other words, increasing spending on defense.

ROLLINS: Absolutely. And that basically undoes the whole deal that they did a year ago.

BARTIROMO: Byron?

YORK: I'm going to look for increasing anger among the president's liberal and especially his Hispanic base in his decision to put off a unilateral immigration edict until after the election. They're very mad at him now, and he's having to make bigger promises to them because he's put it off yet again.

BARTIROMO: It's politicking. It's not governing, obviously.

YORK: Exactly.

BARTIROMO: Jim?

ROGERS: To Ed's point, we're going to find not many people are going to support us in the Middle East. We don't have much support, no allies, and it's going to all fall apart.

BARTIROMO: What does the U.S. think about -- what does the rest of the world think about the U.S. now?

ROGERS: They don't -- they don't understand what we're doing. They can't see that we keep getting deeper and deeper, spending more of our money and losing every battle we get into.

BARTIROMO: My one thing, the two-day Fed meeting. I think it's going to certainly give us some clarity on interest rates. That's followed up the following Friday by the Alibaba deal. That huge IPO is going to be a test for the markets.

That will do it for us for today. Thank you so much for joining us, Jim Rogers, Byron York, Ed Rollins, great to see all of you.

That's "Sunday Morning Futures." I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll see you tomorrow morning on "Opening Bell" at 9:00 a.m. Eastern on the Fox Business Network. Take a look at where to find Fox Business Network on your cable network -- join us -- or satellite provider, or you can click on "Channel Finder" at foxbusiness.com. We've got great guests tomorrow as we preview what will be a busy week in business. "Media Buzz" with Howard Kurtz is up next. Stay with us, right here on the Fox News Channel. Have a great Sunday.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.