Is president displaying enough urgency in terror fight?

A fair and balanced debate on 'The Five'


This is a rush transcript from "The Five," November 24, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling, along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Juan Williams, Dana Perino and Jesse Watters. It is 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

While Islamic terrorists are planning their next attack, France has declared war. Russia is pounding ISIS targets. Britain is about to join in, and President Obama, well, he spent the morning recounting romantic memories he made in Paris.



PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: By my bed, in the residence, is a picture of me and Michelle in Luxembourg Gardens, kissing. Those are the memories we have of Paris. As early on, I had no gray hair. So when tragedy struck that evening, our hearts broke, too.


BOLLING: And at the White House news conference alongside the leader of France today, President Obama really stuck it to the terrorists by reminding him -- them, he'll be attending a weather summit soon.


OBAMA: Next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.





BOLLING: Memories and the Climate Summit.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, this is really disturbing and I'm trying to think if I can speed-dial my doctor for a giant dose of antibiotics, to cure me from the ills that the president is making me feel right now. I don't understand why would he even bring it up like enough, we got it. We got the memo, we signed for the package. We know you love the weather -- stop. I mean, can you imagine, poor president, like Hollande is in there going "hey, come on, can we get some action here, can we get some focus?" And he's like, "well, I remember my romantic times in Paris" and wow, we're going to stick it to the terrorists when we start talking about climate change.

BOLLING: And Dana, first of all, during that sound bite, we are all like, really? President Obama came out.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Except for Juan, he was wondering what's happening at this table.

BOLLING: He says.



BOLLING: Literally, he says I'm about to talk extensively on terror and then he goes into these things, your thoughts?

PERINO: Well, I remember last week, he got some criticism because he when he was at the G-20 Summit, he launched into talking about the G-20 Summit and not talking about the terrorist attacks first, and we said, maybe just at least signal that you're gonna talk with the terrorists attacks and then you can talk whatever you what. This one thing that I was curious about is that, if you know that you have one way to win the day today in the headlines, do you want to win it? Or do you want to take a pass? And to me, I think, the president took a pass today.

BOLLING: Jesse, the world is on fire, people are dying. And honestly, did were -- did he outline an aggressive strategy or a strategy at all?

JESSE WATTERS, GUEST CO-HOST: That was not a military strategy that was a PR strategy.

GUILFOYLE: That was a lateral.

WATTERS: And I never thought I would see America surrendering and France leading the charge. I mean, the president is talking about kissing Michelle in Paris, what is that, soft power? I don't know what you would call that. And then he's saying, "We need to fight terror by using a poem on the Statue of Liberty," OK. I don't even know what that means. And then he's going on and saying, "The biggest rebuke to terrorism is to talk about the weather." Now, I just don't know if Muhammad cares about the weather. It's hot enough in the desert. I don't even think that matters. And I don't think Americans care if we rebuke the terrorists. I think we should be nuking the terrorists. This is why people don't trust the president. It's not just this. He gave a warning before he dropped bombs on ISIS. He dropped leaflets saying we're going to bomb you. And then he goes into the Iranian nuclear facility, we're going to give you a 24-day notice, and then he's whispering to the Russian president, "I need a little more flexibility." Now people wonder where this guy's allegiances are. This is why people wonder about where the president stands.

PERINO: You always take it one step too far.


GUILFOYLE: It was so good -- still then.

BOLLING: So the sense of urgency. A lot of people had a problem with President Obama. He has no sense of urgency, he doesn't, he -- you know, we know about the JV code.


BOLLING: And Paris was a setback.

GUILFOYLE: Contained.

BOLLING: And contained. Where was the urgency? I didn't see it. Yet, today, I didn't see it. Good opportunity that's to change his tune a little bit.

GUILFOYLE: Given the polls, exactly.

WILLIAMS: Change his tune from what? He is working with the French president to try to put together. Hollande is trying to work together -- put together an international coalition to go and deal with ISIS in a way that's effective and long-lasting, and will allow us all to have a sense of completion that we really are taking the bite to ISIS. Now, what Hollande said.


BOLLING: If this is the 65 nations that are a part of the coalition, that's enough?



WILLIAMS: So what we have -- I mean contrary, the news today. I think, you know, it doesn't get discussed here, but I mean the news today is Hollande says he wants the United States Intelligence-sharing, we already giving him Intelligence, we have been giving them intelligence, so they can pick out appropriate targets when they're bombing ISIS. Hollande is going to meet with Putin. Obama is saying, "We can live with Putin, but we are not going to live with Assad. Assad has to either agree not to run again or get out, but you can't allow Russia," somehow, now having had their jet shot down by the Turkish country, "to somehow get involved in dictating the terms of the relationship for the coalition."


PERINO: But Putin is absolutely leading the terms. And France -- when the president starts talking about his memories, I thought he would talk about liberty or fraternity. Instead, he was talking about kissing Michelle Obama. Which I guess is a perfectly fine thing, a nice little memory, a trip down memory lane. But I think -- he had the option today to say, America is still the leader of the free world. And instead, I feel like we're saying, "Yeah, knock yourselves out. We're cheering you on from the sidelines," and I think that's what giving a lot of Americans the anxiety.

WILLIAMS: Oh, come on. How are we cheering from the sidelines? This is what.

PERINO: Because it's 16 months into the fight and now France has to try to develop a coalition to take fight that against.

WILLIAMS: Let me just say, we.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, it's correct.

WILLIAMS: The British are now -- Cameron is now saying, "Oh, I'm going to join in." The French are now joining in. The Russians joined in, I think in September, if I'm not right.

PERINO: They're all changing their strategy.

WILLIAMS: So let me just say.

PERINO: But our strategy is perfect.

WILLIAMS: Oh, let me get this straight. They are not even up to where we were last -- in 2014, when we started bombing.


WATTERS: We are not bombing, Juan.

WILLIAMS: And let me just say.

WATTERS: Seventy-five percent of the sorties, we don't even drop any bombs.

WILLIAMS: Hang on, gentlemen. Let me just say.

GUILFOYLE: We're paper cutting ISIS with leaflets.

WILLIAMS: We have special ops on the ground. These guys.


WILLIAMS: Have yet to put anybody on.

GUILFOYLE: No, no, no, but the problem is the president is reminiscing. OK, we get it. Who hasn't had a honeymoon or two in Paris or France?


GUILFOYLE: I mean, come on. You want me, so I can hit the rest of the hour talking about the couple I had.

BOLLING: All right. But again, Juan, you talked about then -- when the Russians got in, they got in with all -- with both feet in, all in. They went all in.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, yeah.

BOLLING: So did the French. So they just went in. They sent Aircraft.

WILLIAMS: But we've been doing this. Why do you always.


BOLLING: Why do you always say America is not doing enough? Americans took the lead.

BOLLING: Let's take a listen to this guy. When it comes to defeating ISIS, many believe we must put troops on the ground in Syria to succeed, but General Petraeus isn't among them. He warns against that idea. Listen.


DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I would not at this point. And I think if we are required there to clear and hold an area, it's not sustainable. Again, you need to have a hold force that has legitimacy in the eyes of the people. That has to be Sunni Arab Forces in Iran.

CHARLIE ROSE, TELEVISION TALK SHOW HOST: It cannot be American forces?

PETRAEUS: It should not be, not at this stage.


BOLLING: So what do you think, Dana? Troops on the ground, just not American troops.

PERINO: I just think that that is too black and white away to think about and what he is saying is that no, like right now, that doesn't make sense. I do think 16 months into this fight, when we are not doing very -- like what is it, 15 bombings a day compared to like the 1500.

BOLLING: The average is eight, yeah.

PERINO: By Russia in two days. Like there was -- we're now talking about a different strategy. So 16 months ago, you would have talked about doing it one way. Now, given the mess that we're in, I think General Petraeus is saying like, "We don't have the ability on the ground now to actually do what we need to do." So I don't think that he's saying that the strategy right now is perfect, but he is saying that trying to do what we're going to do 16 months ago, won't work now because of all the developments.

WILLIAMS: What Petraeus is saying is that Obama's strategy is on target. We shouldn't be putting U.S. troops on the ground. It should be an Arab force.

PERINO: I don't --


PERINO: I think that is not fair.

WILLIAMS: It should be a Sunni force, unless you can somehow get the Sunnis that play a leading role, and that means getting rid of Bashar al- Assad.

WATTERS: Juan, so the democrats were against Petraeus when he led a successful surge strategy in Iraq.


WATTERS: Everyone was cheering against him. Now all of a sudden Petraeus agrees with the president, and this guy is a genius?


WILLIAMS: I'm just saying.


WILLIAMS: I think Petraeus is respected by both sides.

BOLLING: I actually think Petraeus is one of the developers of the Obama strategy.


BOLLING: If I'm not mistaken, he was involved in developing President Obama strategy. So of course, he's going to.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, he was an adviser.

BOLLING: K.G., your thoughts?

WILLIAMS: OK, come on. That's not true.

BOLLING: Petraeus is -- yeah, boots on the ground, just not Americans.

GUILFOYLE: OK. Well, no. I mean I think you do need to have boots on the ground. You can't rule that out as an option. And in fact, any kind of I think effective strategy that will deliver the results that we need is going to have to have a combination. You can't defeat ISIS by air alone. You must have some kind of ground forces, troops, yes, you have to have advisers. And you have to have it in a way that is going to be responsible to respect the lives of the American soldiers. Perhaps like a Kurdish- controlled area, et cetera, to set up battalion or something to that nature, but it has to be evolving. You can't right away rule out options because war is not like that. Battle is not like that. It is constantly influx. There are changes and you must be able to pivot and make adjustments and in order to do that, if there's an escalation of what's going on, you have to have some forces in place to be able to handle that.

PERINO: Which is also why, you don't telegraph your date of withdrawal.


PERINO: Because that's exactly what happened. A key thing here is.

GUILFOYLE: As what happened then.

PERINO: You guys have been talking about which is Assad. So Obama says -- no, our position is that Assad must go, yet we're not doing much about it. Russia's position is Assad must stay, and we're gonna do something about it to make it happen. And we're gonna be able to talk to Jennifer Griffin about that in a minute. But Assad is the key.

BOLLING: But then a huge, though.

WILLIAMS: Exactly.

PERINO: That comes down to that.



BOLLING: In whether or not Assad stays or goes.


BOLLING: How do you win this when we say Assad must go, Russia says he must stay? And ISIS is now -- I'm sorry, Russia is flying 2,000 sorties over Syria and Turkey.

WATTERS: Yeah. Well, Obama put himself in the box by saying, "If you cross the red line, we're going to enforce it." And now, all of a sudden our policy is we have to get Assad out, but I don't trust Turkey.

GUILFOYLE: He said it.

WATTERS: Turkey wants Assad out. They're against the Kurds. They're kind of encouraging ISIS across the border.


WATTERS: So I don't trust them. And now, and you will see what happens.

GUILFOYLE: He's right.

WATTERS: You know they shoot down a Russian pilot and all of a sudden is NATO going to get triggered? It's like another.

GUILFOYLE: But that's why.

WATTERS: World War I situation, we gonna have alliance.

GUILFOYLE: Jesse is right because they're going to hide behind that Article 5.


GUILFOYLE: They're gonna say, OK. They hide behind the protection of NATO. I mean, now you've got, you know, basically audience, this is the guy I think some like a megalomaniac. He wants -- he wants Turkey to be the biggest player, at least in the region.

WATTERS: That's right.

GUILFOYLE: He's going to hide behind the NATO alliance and the U.S. in creating this stuff. He is just stirring the pot.

BOLLING: It was the Turkey.

GUILFOYLE: And Obama is running out the clock.

BOLLING: The Turks actually.

GUILFOYLE: This is the problem.

BOLLING: They were smart -- militarily, they were smart. They knew they could take that plane down, and there is gonna be no retribution because you can't go after the NATO alliance in Turkey. So it was what is called the clean kill.

WILLIAMS: No, but you NATO. So NATO is having an emergency meeting today because of what happened, but it's not clean. You know there's a problem with.

GUILFOYLE: That he said.

WILLIAMS: The problem with the border, as we've been talking, the Turkish border. Hollande in fact, was focusing on that at the White House today. He wants that to seal.

BOLLING: He wants that close, yeah.

WILLIAMS: The second thing you have to talk about is the relationship to the Kurds. Jesse is always saying, oh yeah. It's just bomb. It's like Trump, bomb, bomb, bomb, but no, no, no.

GUILFOYLE: Look at what happened.

WILLIAMS: You know what we got here? We got a situation where if the United States supports the Kurds. And by the way, Admiral Bolton was in the New York Times today saying, "We should have a separate country for you know, for some part of the Muslim world, so you can separate out all of these sectarian differences." But the Kurds, the Kurds are a problem. Of course for the Iraqis, the Iraqis don't want them separate.

PERINO: So like all.

WATTERS: Sorry for wanting to bomb our enemy, Juan. I didn't know that was a bad strategy.

WILLIAMS: No. Again, this is what Petraeus think, we need a sustainable strategy that can work and stop this.

PERINO: In the meantime, ISIS has been able to plot and plan from a safe haven.

BOLLING: And you know who.

PERINO: And you get Paris.

BOLLING: You know who doesn't want that border secure?

GUILFOYLE: And you get more.

BOLLING: The Turks.

GUILFOYLE: They're coming.

BOLLING: They want it. They want that free oil, the cheap oil that's coming across the border.

WILLIAMS: That's terrible.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, all the money.

BOLLING: All right, we're gonna leave it right there. When The Five returns, we're going to go live to the Pentagon for an update on that worldwide travel alert issue for Americans ahead of Thanksgiving holiday.

Plus, new details on the downing of a Russian fighter jet, we are just talking about by Turkey, stay tuned.


PERINO: As millions prepare to travel for Thanksgiving, a serious warning for Americans. The State Department has issued a broad but vague worldwide travel alert, advising all to be vigilant in public places while abroad. There are also concerns here at home, that during this holiday season, terrorists could strike at any time.


MICHAEL MORELL, FORMER ACTING CIA DIRECTOR: I do think we need to think seriously about a possible attack over the holidays for two reasons. ISIS has thousands of followers here in the United States, the FBI knows that. They've now been incentivized by what happened in Paris to try to do something here. If we had a Paris-style attack in New York or Washington, what would our policy would then be, vis-a-vis ISIS? And then the second question is, OK, if that would be our policy the day after, why isn't that our policy the day before? That's the fundamental lesson learned from 9/11.


PERINO: Joining us now from the Pentagon is National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin. Jennifer, before we talk about Turkey and Russia, I want to talk to you about this travel alert and what he was just saying which is that, it's vague, it's broad, it's not specific, but do we need to make policy changes ahead of that?

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think what's important to remember, Dana, is that Jeh Johnson, head of Homeland Security, put out a message yesterday saying that there is no specific or credible threat by ISIS. There's a great deal of concern. Remember, James Comey, the FBI director said that there are dozens of individuals suspected of being a part of ISIS, who are now under constant surveillance by the FBI. So in the wake of Paris, the FBI, Homeland Security, everybody wants to do whatever they can to prevent a Paris kind of copycat-style attack. This travel warning -- the travel alert, excuse me, that the State Department put out yesterday is also somewhat vague. But it is just there, it is out of an abundance of caution, and it is because you've seen now ISIS strikes on three continents, against three separate countries in the last few weeks. And so this alert will be in effect for the next three months until February 24th. Dana?

PERINO: All right, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Oh my goodness. So February 24th, we just won't take a breath since then. We're going to switch topics now and talk about the incident that happened with the plane getting shot down by Turkey. So a lot of people wondering, does anybody have a benefit to this? Will there be any kind of benefit that will (inaudible) to Russia or Turkey or Europe from this escalation and the conflict? And in fact, are we in the middle of a proxy war?

GRIFFIN: Well in fact, Kimberly, I think it's a very dangerous situation, there's a great deal of concern. I was woken up about seven minutes after the plane was shot down and spoke to U.S. military sources who are very concerned that their lives just got much more complicated as a result of this plane being shot down. Remember, Turkey is a member of NATO. If Russia were to strike back at Turkey, were to do anything against Turkey. Turkey could invoke Article 5 that would had been draw the U.S. and Europe and other NATO allies into a direct conflict with Russia. This is the first time that a NATO ally has shot down a Russian plane since the 1950s. That's how unusual it is. What this illustrates is how very tight the air spaces in that western part of Syria where the Russians are operating at full speed. We now understand that Vladimir Putin has sent a missile, a missile ship off the coast of, off the coast of Syria and will be escalating. That is a significant the escalation. You now have a French aircraft carrier in the wake of the Paris attacks off the coast of Syria. This is getting very complicated. And the problem is the U.S.-led coalition of 65 countries is not coordinating with the Russians, and the French are sort of off, they're part of the coalition, but a lot going on in a very, very small territory. And I'm frankly surprised that this kind of incident hasn't happened before now.

PERINO: All right, Eric?

BOLLING: Jen, I'm trying to figure out why it actually happened at all. What's the idea, the Pentagon? Why the Turk would knock down a Russian fighter jet when they know the Russians are going after, allegedly going after ISIS? They may be going after the Free Syrian Army, who knows, who cares. They've certainly couldn't have felt threatened by the Russians, were they?

GRIFFIN: Well, let's remember that the Russian air strikes principally have been going after Free Syrian Army. And those -- some of those, some of those are allies, not only of the U.S., but also are trained by the Turks. There are Syrians, Turkmen tribes on the ground that today were underneath where that plane fell and they are the ones who may in fact have one of the Russian pilots, hostage right now, and they are allied with Turkey. Turkey is fed up with Russian planes, not only entering their air space. They've done it repeatedly, since the Russians have started their air campaign there. But on the other hand, the Russians did only enter Turkish air space for a few seconds, under 30 seconds we're told by Pentagon officials, but this is a very, very contested bit of land. It's a little dip of Turkey down into Syria. And we learned today that it's a province that in fact the Turks annexed from Syria in 1939. The Syrians don't actually recognize that that is Turkish territory. In fact, the Assad family owns some land in that province where the Russians flew over. But the Russians were warned, Dana, 10 times in five minutes by the Turks and they ignored those warnings. So you know frankly, this is a shot across the bow. And they -- and the Turks have said they've had enough of these Russian incursions.

PERINO: All right, Juan Williams?

WILLIAMS: So Jen, you know, what struck me was according to Colonel Warren at the Pentagon, the United States was listening on open channels and hearing the Turks warn the Russians, and the Russians either didn't hear or pretended not to hear, and just went ahead. So that strikes me as incredibly odd and of course then Putin says it was a stab in the back. President Obama says, "Oh gee, you know Turkey has the right to defend its territory, but we're listening and we don't say anything to the Russians." Isn't that odd?

GRIFFIN: Well, no, it's not odd. What's odd and U.S. military sources tell me today, that in fact, the Russians must have heard those warnings and they chose to ignore those warnings and that, and then, therefore, the Turks struck. There wasn't enough time between the time of the warnings for the U.S. to be in touch with the Russians, it wasn't a U.S. plane that was involved. Remember, there is a memorandum of understanding between U.S. pilots and Russian pilots, but Russian -- U.S. pilots were not in the vicinity.

PERINO: Jesse?

WATTERS: Jen, is Turkey considered a loose cannon in the NATO alliance? We probably have, probably the least amount of control over Turkey. They have their own agenda. And you know, you have all of these world powers and they are fighting on such a small piece of territory. I mean, anything could trigger something huge. The diplomats must be going crazy trying to keep a lid on this. What's happening in these back channels?

GRIFFIN: Well, absolutely. In fact the Turks, it's been very frustrating for many of the U.S. commanders, because the Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are the U.S. allies in the fight on the ground against ISIS. So the Turks are bit of a loose cannon, they have allowed the U.S. only recently to use their air base (inaudible), that's a key game-changer for the U.S. coalition. But the Turks have not been an easy partner in all of this.

BOLLING: Feels like they're trying to bring us into it.

WATTERS: Yeah, they are.

BOLLING: We are hiding behind NATO. It feels like they're trying to suck us into this mess.

GUILFOYLE: That's what I said.

WATTERS: You're right.

GUILFOYLE: It's true.

PERINO: All right, thanks Jennifer, so much.

Ahead, President Obama's former intelligence chief takes on the White House, for publicly understating the growing threat of ISIS. That's next on The Five.


GUILFOYLE: More than four dozen U.S. Intelligence analysts claim they were instructed to alter their assessment on ISIS to paint a rosier picture of America's military campaign in the Middle East. So, did the Obama administration deliberately mislead Americans on the terror threat? The Pentagon is investigating, but the president's former defense intelligence chief says the probe should begin with Mr. Obama himself.


LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN, DEFENSE INTEL AGENCY FORMER DIRECTOR: The focus of this investigation ought to start right at the top where Intelligence starts and stops, is at the White House. The president sets the priorities and he's the number one customer. So if he's not getting the Intelligence that he needs, if he's, and if he's not paying attention to what else is going on, then something else is wrong there. Nobody can sit here today, no one. And particularly, the amount of Intelligence that the White House got and say, "We didn't know this was a problem." I mean, give me a break.


GUILFOYLE: Are those are pretty strong words? And so, when you take this around -- we're taking around the table here, Bolling, let me start with you. He's saying take it straight to the Obama administration to find out and determine where this came from, kind to follow it. It was like what we used to try and figure out with Benghazi, who pushed the video. Who gave the direction on?

BOLLING: So according to the research, it said that at some point recently, what to do with ISIS specifically, the metrics that they were using to call whatever they felt was successful, they changed it. So you can play games with statistics, you can tell someone you know, that over there is red and I can prove it to you with statistics. Or you can say it's blue and I can prove it with statistics, that's fine.

[17:30:11] But the problem is, it wasn't statistics, the investigation that the investigator general is going do look at is whether or not it went beyond statistics, if it went beyond an actual changing of the information. Which they're alleging this group of analysts saying, it had nothing to do with the way we look at the analysis or the way we analyze the data. It has to do with actual fabrication, changing of information. And that could be, that would be criminal.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX ANCHOR "THE FIVE": I think what they said was get on board if you're not on board with the direction they wanted, that's.

BOLLING: There are two e-mails to that effect.


BOLLING: If they got on board.

WILLIAMS: And they're saying by the way I think we're leaping a little bit here in terms of trying to connect it to President Obama and the White House. It's clear that something was going on at Cencom (ph). And that's where the inspector general is looking. I will say this is a very, very serious allegation. You cannot have bad intelligence, given that we have people on the ground fighting a war and then say, oh it doesn't matter or, you know, no, this is very serious. You cannot politicize intelligence.

And I think you can go back and you can understand this is a decade-long struggle. Remember we thought there were weapons of mass destruction and we thought we knew exactly where everything wasn't decrypt (ph), not true. In Benghazi as you were mentioning, properly lots of questions about the intelligence and what intelligence was coming in at what time.

We need to have more confidence in our intelligence capacity, and we have good people. But we certainly don't want anybody playing politics with it.

KIMBERLY GUIFOYLE, FOX ANCHOR "THE FIVE": And Dana, this isn't just one or two individuals saying this was happening and this was kind of widespread, there's a quite a few people that have come together to say, look, this needs to be looked at and scrutinized. And it seems like there was kind of a concerted effort at play to change the metrics and make the dynamics more favorable.

DANA PERINO, FOX ANCHOR "THE FIVE": Right, so apparently that was like around 20 of them. And the Intel community son the front line for all matters in the country. Foreign and domestic, they are the first to be blamed if something goes wrong. So, you can imagine that they want to protect the integrity of the information they provide.

To Juan's point, that's WMD, one of the accusations from the left was that George W. Bush contaminated the Intel process by asking for things that weren't there and every independent investigation has proven that is not true.

WILLIAMS: That's right.

PERINO: The actual allegation here is that there was pressure from somewhere, I'm not saying from the White House, but that's what the inspector-general is looking at, is that there was pressure to change the information. So that it was more inline with they wanting to either say or to be told at the White House.

WILLIAMS: You know, there's often competition among defense intelligence, CIA. Intelligence.

PERINO: And that's why you have the director of national intelligence.



PERINO: But these guys do say, hey, I have a view, why isn't my view number one. And why is your view. And I think that's what you get with Flynn. Flynn was once involved in one of these fracases where his view was not being confirmed by other analysts, and he got mad about it.

JESSE WATTERS, FOX ANCHOR "THE FIVE": Well, and the messiah doesn't want to hear bad news, so people don't give the messiah a bad news. Remember what happened with Obamacare website. He didn't know about it he didn't want to hear about. He didn't want to hear about the stimulus failures, either.


WATTERS: Or and this is so funny. So Obama's IRS, this is what it reminds me of, you know, they thought, you know, messing around with the Tea Party and all of a sudden they get caught. Oh, we're going to investigate ourselves. It's the same thing happening here. We're going to investigate ourselves. Who said George Bush, you know, was trying to connect the dots. Obama didn't even want to see the dots Juan. That's why this is so scary. You don't understand why this is bad? You're looking at me crazier.

WILLIAMS: Because I love you.

WATTERS: I love you too Juan.

WILLIAMS: I think this is very entertaining.

WATTERS: But I mean, you very concerned about politicizing the intelligence during the Bush administration.

WILLIAMS: I am, as I said we don't want politicized intelligence. I think Dana said the same thing. You want to know you have good intelligence. When George Tenet comes in and says to the President this is a slam-dunk and it turns out it's not a slam-dunk. Everybody [inaudible] looking there.

WATTERS: Well, the president is not even talking about this. They're talking about what Trump retweeted, OK. This is like on the back burner.

PERINO: And always remember that President Bush never blamed the Intel community.

WATTERS: Correct.

PERINO: That he always said, you know, that he'll take the responsibility on himself. We'll see what happens here.

BOLLING: One final thought.


BOLLING: . don't forget, President Obama did say that there was not a smidgen of evidence of corruption in the IRS scandal.


BOLLING: And he also said it was a videotape that caused the deal in Benghazi attacks.


GUILFOYLE: That's what you call putting a bow on it. That's well done.

[17:35:16] HBO host John Oliver convinced the Syrian refugees won't pose a threat to America and he's mocking Republicans for trying to block them. He says history shows the only refugees to fear were the pilgrims, his argument and our take, next.


WATTERS: Americans on both side of the aisle are raising alarms about taking in thousands of Syrian refugee without being able to properly vet them all. British T.V. host John Oliver delivered a die tribe to counter those concerns, making a bizarre connection to pilgrims.


JOHN OLIVER, HBO "LAST WEEK TONIGHT": Every generation has had its own ugly reaction to refugees, whether they are the Irish, the Vietnamese, the Cubans or the Haitians, and those fears have been broadly unfounded. In fact there was only one time in American history where the fear of refugees wiping everyone out did actually come true and we'll all be sitting around a table celebrating this on Thursday.


WATTERS: Wow. Well, I don't know. I think Oliver should be thanking the pilgrims because without the pilgrims bringing religious freedom here. We wouldn't be bringing in all of these Muslims, right? And, you know, it's also funny. First the refugees they compare them to orphans. Then the refugees are tourists and now they're just little pilgrims. Why even vet them, they seem so safe.

PERINO: It is always interesting to listen to condescending British person tell you about colonialism. Because at British were so much better a colonialism.


PERINO: Then the pilgrims and plus he talking about like the opposite. So, the.


PERINO: . local population invited the pilgrims for Thanksgiving.


PERINO: OK, it's not the opposite.

WATTERS: That's right.

BOLLING: And then they take over.

WATTERS: Right, where we wined them and dined them.

PERINO: You're right.

BOLLING: You're kind make the point there.

WATTERS: That's right.

BOLLING: . by accident.

WATTERS: That's right, would you rather have Thanksgiving dinner with a pilgrim or a Syrian refugee bolling?

BOLLING: Well, listen.

[17:40:10] GUILFOYLE: This is a disaster waiting to happen.

BOLLING: No, but we have been pointing out -- we had been pointing that the real problem probably isn't the Syrian refugees there "Vetted over 18-24 months."


BOLLING: It's the ones that aren't embedded there walking through the southern border. And now we find out Canada the geniuses.


BOLLING: Are going to take 10,000 refugees by the end of the year.

PERINO: And they were going to take 25, they cut it down.

BOLLING: Oh, no. They just the other 15 will happen by February.

PERINO: Right.

WATTERS: We'll they're also now taking men in Canada. So at least they have, you know, one up on us there. Juan.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, of course.

WATTERS: You have someone like William Bradford, pilgrim, you know, religious freedom type of guy invites Indians over for Thanksgiving, OK. He's the bad guy. All right? But these risky guys from Syria, these Iraqi refugees and the Somalis, we don't have anything to worry about these guys with?

WILLIAMS: Are you laugh-challenged, do you know the guy was trying -- I think not a very good attempt at humor?

WATTERS: Well, then he's comedy challenged.

WILLIAMNS: OK, he's comedy challenged. But I mean he was trying. But I think Dana is on to something. It's kind of you know the British always looking down their nose at us silly Americans. But, you know, that's what he was trying to do. I think it was a missed shot. I will say we have to not allow them to extend this attitude towards that flying fat man known as Santa. We want him to come over.

GUILFOYLE: That's not nice.

WILLIAMS: Not nice?

GUILFOYLE: Very sizeist.


WILLIAMS: That's mean. I'm sizeist.

GUILFOYLE: Santa is a hard worker. That's what I said we never wanted him to come. We want him to bring the gifts.

WATTERS: That's right and you're not getting gifts, you're getting coal.



WATTERS: Kimberly, they should just bring him to New York, de Blasio loves homeless people. I mean, whole here.

PERINO: OK, Jesse, you're being ridiculous.

WATTERS: They'll all have a home.

WATTERS: Me? I'm not ridiculous.


GUILFOYLE: Do I get a pass on that question?

WILIAMNS: I'm going to protect my friend.

GUILFOYLE: No, yeah. I mean, I don't know about that. Look, I think this guy was very funny. He seems confused or something. I don't even know who this guy barely is.

PERINO: I just find it very galling.

WILLIAMS: Well, he's brittle.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, that's thank you. Yeah.

PERINO: When he's galling to make fun of people who look at, we know, that Syrians, Syrian ISIS fighters have said that they plan to try to infiltrate the refugees in order to try to get places so that they can do attacks like the one in Paris. So we know that. So it is common sense at least Paul Ryan got exactly right when the House bill passed 10 days ago, which he said let's be sensible. Let's have a pause. We'll make sure that the program goes forward. We're not going to prioritize Christians over Muslims. Well, let's make sure we're doing it right.

I think that's a smart policy and Britain and Europe wouldn't be having the problems that they're having now if they had followed that advice.

WATTERS: That is true. It's amazing how the President has been able to divert his failure overseas and now talking about the mean Republicans not letting in the refugees. Well done, President Obama.

PERINO: I agree.

WATTERS: Next, Donald Trump has retaken the lead in Iowa, but now he has at the Ted Cruz on his tail. So he'll be Trumps next target, coming up.


[17:46:48] WILLIAMS: Some good news for Donald Trump, he's back in the lead in Iowa according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Ben Carson has dropped to third place, right on Trump's tail.

However, now senator Ted Cruz. The two have been cordial to one another so far in this race. But will Trump soon be going after Cruz. Now that Cruz is surging? Let me turn to you, doctor. I think this is very interesting, that Cruz says he's the electable conservative and that means Trump is the unelectable, unreasonable conservative. And what says you?

BOLLING: Do you think that's what Cruz is saying?

WILLIAMS: I know that's what Cruz is saying.

BOLLING: Here's what I think is going on. Donald trump had dipped in the polls he was. Ben Carson had reason to the top of Iowa.

PERINO: Of the pyramid.

BOLLING: Of Trump pyramid.

WILLIAMS: That's right.

BOLLING: And now Trump has regained the lead, I don't think he's worried if Ted Cruz. If Donald Trump comes in second.

WILLIAMS: Did you just say that Trump is not worried about Cruz?

BOLLING: No, I don't he's on Iowa. If he's New Hampshire he's got like 20- point lead in New Hampshire and he's also doing extremely well in South Carolina.

WILLIAMS: Well, that's interesting analysis.

BOLLING: But he can lose Iowa and still win New Hampshire and South Carolina and still be absolutely the front-runner.

WILLIAMNS: Well, what do you think, Kimberly?

GUILFOYLE: I think his analysis is correct in terms with the way the dynamic can play out. Even if I didn't win Iowa. I mean, I don't know if he's worried or not about Ted Cruz. I mean, Ted Cruz has kind of been like the stealth candidate, slow and steady. I think he probably well do very well in Iowa. The dynamics of this race is very interesting, is changing week by week.

You know Ben Carson was up and I don't know if he'll be able to regain the lead. Given some of the things that happened and perhaps, you know, political missteps and what not, so.

WILLIAMNS: Well, Cruz is actually gaining on Carson fall with evangelical voters Dana.

GUILFOYLE: Right, in Iowa.

WILLIAMNS: But he's not. But we don't see Trump necessarily losing those votes.

PERINO: Well, I did think that Carson's steep fall and just like 10 days, was pretty telling that that candidacy is in trouble. And I think to think you're asking the wrong question. You're asking if Donald Trump will go after Cruz, because that's the pattern, right? He started rising in the polls and he punches you.



PERINO: The question is will Cruz actually do anything to try to attack Trump.

WILLIAMS: Well, that's what I'm saying.

PERINO: Because that's how he would be able to get a leg up. There's 10 weeks to go. It might not happen for a while.

WILLIAMS: . when he says I'm the electable conservative, he is putting down Trump.

PERINO: Why would you say that? It's because you have research and information and focus groups, whatever that tell you that that's what your supporters think and that you think that that's your strongest advantage over him.

Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but that's why he would say that.

GUILFOYLE: And to Dana's point, yeah, there's a lot left you know in this to go. So I don't see Cruz whatsoever thinking it's a smart move to go after Donald Trump. Why would he do that and try to blow himself up? He should just do what he's doing, run his race, talk about what he can offer and that's that. Why you're going to draw a fire?

WILLIAMS: So Jesse, the other rising star, Marco Rubio his doubled his support in New Hampshire. A lot of people think that he is actually doing better with the donor base now than ever. What do you think?

WATTERS: Oh, he's doing better with the donor base. He's doing better in New Hampshire. But in Iowa he's way behind. And Cruz is way up. And Cruz has put in a lot of work there.

He's gotten some endorsements, he's visiting a lot of counties. It's a very socially conservative, very religious state. And Trump always like to say, you know, my favorite book to bible behind the art of the deal. And he's trying to appeal to that. But Trumps insulted Iowans a few times. I don't know if Trump likes the Iowa voters as much as he likes the South Carolina and New Hampshire voters. But at least Huckabee won Iowa, Santorum won Iowa.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.