Sign in to comment!

The Five

Was President Obama's Oval Office address premature?

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," December 7, 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."

Just days after the terror in San Bernardino, and for only the third time in the seven-plus years he's been commander-in-chief, President Obama took to the Oval Office to address the American people. We had hoped we're going to hear a clear strategy to defeat ISIS. We had hoped we're going to hear his plan to keep us safe from terror here at home. Instead, we got a gun control speech and a lecture on us being tolerant to Muslims. But to be fair, it was a sprinkling of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This strategy that we are using now, airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country, that is how we will achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: So the strategy is to continue the strategy of no strategy or a strategy that, by his own admission, isn't really working. President O explained why he doesn't want to fight ISIS on the ground.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for four years, killing thousands of our troops and draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: All right, Miss Kimberly, 20 minutes, but O's pact is oh, so much to talk about.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Oh, so much disappointment in 20 minutes. I mean, honestly. So this is the problem. President Obama really likes to lecture the American people, and quite frankly, we're tired of it. We're tired of him lecturing like he acts like he's the only adult in the room, lecturing us for betraying our values, for not having a higher level of understanding about the world and its globalization. He's more concerned about offending people, by offending Muslims than he is about even saying the words, radical Islamic terrorism and combating ISIS. He wasted an opportunity a moment in history that could have been compelling, that could have helped to make Americans feel safe by some kind of a definitive plan. He used what is very rarely used an address in the Oval Office and it was just completely disappointing, I think across the board.

BOLLING: But Juan, he has spent a lot of time and here is what we're not going to do. We are all hoping for his what we're gonna do, and we heard -- frankly, heard we're not going to really change much, we're already doing stuff. Here's what we're gonna do, he went through things that he didn't want to put ground troops in, it would tick off ISIS. And then spent a really long time on talking about how Americans aren't anti-Muslim and we need to be more tolerant going forward. He literally spent more time on tolerance than he did on ISIS strategy.

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: I don't think that's true. I think he was very clear, first of all in saying, "We can defeat ISIS. We will overcome. We will defeat them and anybody who tries to harm us." I think he's very clear in saying that. And I think the second thing, speaking to a larger point is, he said that freedom is more powerful than fear. And we hear lots of people, especially on the republican campaign side, appealing to fear on the part of the American people. And I think the president felt, you know, he's been saying things about the strategy all along, but people haven't heard him or people maybe don't pay attention. And so I think that's why he tries to so last night, lay it out. So the complaint this morning is, oh, gosh, you know, he didn't say anything new. And guess what? That's a legitimate complaint, but it is not in the intent of the speech, I think, to say there's some radical new step because even the republicans don't have any radical new strategy.

BOLLING: So Dana, here's the strategy-- here's what President Obama basically did. He took to the Oval Office on a Sunday night. And he knows all eyes are on football, it's coming over to President Obama, and he says, we're going to change nothing about this strategy. And then thought, you know, we all know that the strategy isn't working. Literally, his advisers that told us, it's not working. What's the point of that?

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Well, and some of his advisers have said that. Although they are, like on Capitol Hill, like Dianne Feinstein and then former advisers, people who have left, who are frustrated. I think that the president's speech was premature, and he could have waited a few days to give it and that to have given it at some more thought. They made a critical mistake. And just, you know a factual error on the way -- of the visa issue that they haven't then correct. It just looked really sloppy. And I think that he kind of got pushed into it. Think about this. FBI Director Comey, last week said that they're attacking California where the terrorists attacked. That was a big wake calls in the White House because they had wanted to slow walk it for awhile, they didn't want to alarm people. But the FBI director is not somebody who backs down, so he said it's a terrorist attack. The radio address that the president taped, which is also on videotaped, I think that they probably did that Friday morning, before Comey made his announcement. And so, by the time the president actually speaks to it, it's taped and it's old, and they realize, we've got a problem, because all of the polls are showing. In fact, the Gallup Polls today, 60 percent of people that he doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS. So I think the president is stuck. He believes that the use of military force, other than like drone strikes that are sort of here and there. That either Special Forces won't work or it will backfire. He says that ISIS wants us there, but we will defeat ISIS. So I don't say like, why I don't understand and why we won't go there to fight -- to defeat them.

I also think that he feels like it's politically risky for him to say anything that he actually thinks. So the speech therefore becomes a little bit less satisfying. I think they could have waited a few days and give a better one.

BOLLING: Or maybe not that all. Perhaps he'll stay and something else to say. Jesse, very interesting, Dana points out that radio address also very interesting. We had believed the first time in 120 years, the New York Times put an op-ed on their front-page and happened to be anti-gun control. Now there is a lot of gun control in the president speech as well. Is this more politics than actually making us feel better?

JESSE WATTERS, GUEST CO-HOST: Absolutely. It was the worst attack on our soil since 9/11 and the president went out there and told us, "we need to disarm and we need to stop offending Muslims." I don't think anybody felt safe after watching the president's speech last night, maybe the terrorists felt safe, I didn't feel safe. You have him also say, "We need to be more politically correct." Well, political correctness kills. We saw what happened. To name one of these radical Muslims wouldn't rat out these guys, because they don't want to be labeled the profiler. Profiling works! When, if someone is dating your daughter, and you, and some guys shows up to pick her up on a motorcycle in a Mohawk and tattoos. You're going to profile that guy.

BOLLING: You are so.

WATTERS: Remember.

BOLLING: So against motorcycle guys.

WATTERS: Would shall I know.

BOLLING: For your daughter.

WATTERS: But I'm - you're not dating my daughter.

BOLLING: All right. Hang in there for one second. President O still refuses to call radical Islam.

GUILFOYLE: Thank goodness.

BOLLING: Radical Islam, see, we'll do it. Hillary tends to agree. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.

HILLARY CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The problem is that that towns like we are declaring war against a religion. I don't want to do that, because number one. It doesn't do justice to the vast numbers of Muslim in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people. Number two, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: Is it, really? I mean, is it really -- I mean, we're playing games like you can't say radical Islam, because it might piss someone off. Meanwhile, they're trying -- they're plotting and planting to blow us up any chance they get. And guess what? They won't stop if we stop saying radical Islam -- I'm guessing.

PERINO: They're always willing to point out that's just what ISIS wants when -- ISIS wants to kill us.

BOLLING: Yeah.

PERINO: So I, I am fine what whatever we need to do, but I actually think it would be better for the moderate Muslims that are peaceful that our Americans that are assimilated that want to be here, to separate radical Islam from them. I think that it actually doesn't help if they are all lump together, like, oh, they are all peaceful and they know.

BOLLING: Can we say that right, though?

PERINO: I think you can.

BOLLING: I mean, yeah?

PERINO: I think -- yeah. I think that you could say that the two killers form San Bernardino were different, separate, radicalized and, that I think that would actually help, all of us, including the Muslims that live here in America that are doing so legally, that don't want to kill us. And there are so many of them, right? This is just like they're isolated to people. So I think they're isolating them as radicals, actually protects everybody else.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Because here why. Because Juan, because in the Koran it says, if you're -- if you don't believe that, that Sharia law should be the ruling law of the land. If you don't believe in the Koran, if you don't believe that, you know, Prophet Mohammad, you're the infidel. And the infidel could, Jesse could -- or Juan, who can have violence against them.

WILLIAMS: No. What I'm saying.

BOLLING: Or killed. That's why.

WILLIAMS: What I'm saying is that's the stuff in the Old Testament. It sounded like you know.

BOLLING: And can I just, can I just ask you this.

WATTERS: OK, Juan.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Let me ask this question.

WILLIAMS: OK, I was answering your question.

BOLLING: Do moderate Muslims believe that violence against people who do not believe in Sharia law is OK? Yes or no?

WILLIAMS: I don't know. I mean, I don't know the answer, but I would imagine from what I see, in terms of the overwhelming numbers, I don't think most Muslims in the United States or the world are at war or involved in violent Islamic jihad. I don't think that's true, Eric. So I don't think.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Let me ask you a question. I don't understand and why you don't understand president and the president and Mrs. Clinton saying, this, in fact, is what ISIS wants. They want the entire world of Islam against the west.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Listen, Juan. He won't say radical Islam, but he has no problem saying radical republican. And who cares what ISIS, you know, thinks we say about them. Eric is right.

WILLIAMS: It's not about ISIS.

WATTERS: They want to kill us not because what we say about them, they want to kill us because of who we are -- infidels.

WILLIAMS: But.

WATTERS: That's why, Juan.

WILLIAMS: What I'm saying is that it is not about ISIS, it's about the idea of preventing the whole world of Islam.

GUILFOYLE: How about this, Juan?

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Is it powerful?

GUILFOYLE: Yeah -- no. How about this.

WILLIAMS: That in fact is smart.

GUILFOYLE: How about we just kill them.

WILLIAMS: Smart.

WATTERS: Oh, you call the strategy smart?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: How about we just kill them and then we don't have to worry about what they think about the word, if they're offensive and hurts the ISIS's feelings, very sad.

WILLIAMS: Kimberly, I think the president has said last night, we have to be relentless, we have to be strong, and the idea that you can just wipe them out, it's hard to wipe out an ideology.

BOLLING: So Juan.

WATTERS: Well, we did it for the Nazi Germany, Juan.

BOLLING: Can we suggest maybe that, there is a reformation. There is a Muslim reformation that would say that moderate Muslims are absolutely against the radical Muslims and they need to stand up? But that would.

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

BOLLING: That would cause.

GUILFOYLE: As a partner.

BOLLING: Reformation versus what's going on now.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. But didn't President Obama say that last night? Call for that?

BOLLING: I think he.

WILLIAMS: I think he did it, Eric.

WATTERS: No, he lectured us, not to.

BOLLING: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Oh.

BOLLING: I'm not sure he's calling for that.

WILLIAMS: I think he did.

BOLLING: I think he's calling for us to be.

WILLIAMS: Explicitly.

BOLLING: I think he's calling for us to be tolerant of Muslims.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no.

BOLLING: For no backlash.

WILLIAMS: He calls on the Muslim community and take responsibility be a parent.

BOLLING: Very good, very good.

WATTERS: First time.

BOLLING: So AG Loretta Lynch and the DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson both have been have been warning Americans against anti-Muslim backlash. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LORETTA LYNCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Here in the U.S. an incredibly disturbing rise an anti-Muslim rhetoric. The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact migrated fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to protection of all the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence.

JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY OD THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: In the current environment, the answer cannot be to vilify all American Muslims or to drive them into hiding in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: OK, Jesse?

WATTERS: Let me know if you see any Muslim backlash, I haven't seen a lot of it. The president really wasn't worrying about anti-police backlash or anti-tea Party backlash or anti-Christian backlash when those institutions were being smeared and denigrated. In fact, there were actual backlash against those institutions. We had the Chic-fil-A shooter going up, shooting up the place over gay marriage. You had the Tea Party being targeted by Obamazone, IRS. You had cops being executed in New York. I didn't hear a lot about backlash then.

BOLLING: KG?

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, but they're just assuming horrible facts, not an evidence on -- and actions on behalf of the American people saying, I mean, who's vilifying any of the Muslims? Who's doing that? They're really talking about this and putting this at the top of their framework, because these are talking points, straight out of the White House from President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, and that's why they put Loretta Lynch there to like babysit Comey, so he doesn't like, get out the line, when he's trying to answer questions to the press and God forbid admit it, you know, say that this is terrorism. The president knew that it was terrorism, and he didn't want to say it. He was compelled and forced to tell the truth.

WILLIAMS: So let me just respond to you. What about Donald Trump today say, "Oh, we shouldn't admit any of the Muslims."

BOLLING: We're going to get to that.

GUILFOYLE: Well.

BOLLING: And yet.

WILLIAMS: Oh, so nobody.

BOLLING: We're getting.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: So your point is nobody is vilifying.

GUILFOYLE: Juan, but you want to use an opportunity, try and vilify and go after Donald Trump.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm using.

GUILFOYLE: Who is not commander-in-chief, he's not president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: No, you said nobody.

GUILFOYLE: Barack Obama is.

BOLLING: Hold on, hold on.

GUILFOYLE: That's what I'm talking about.

BOLLING: Final thought on whether or not there's the focus is on the anti - - making sure there's no anti-Muslim backslash.

PERINO: I think that the administration was -- they are concerned about it. So therefore, they want to talk about it. It went beyond record. They want to make sure that doesn't happen. But the problem is, that we have a failure at a governmental level to track these two individuals to -- you have surveillance on them, to be able to prevent an attack before it happens. We're getting into a little bit more of Adam Housley. He's going to joins us later. We'll find out a little bit more what we know about them going to a shooting range, that we know the now, maybe the mother is involved. We have the way -- you brought up last week, in terms of the money trail. So Government has actually, and Jeh Johnson, the head of Homeland Security and Justice Department Loretta Lynch. They are actually on the hook, I think, for some failure in government level. If you -- if they had been competent in tracking these people down and making sure they disrupted it, they wouldn't have to have these conversations about telling us about being tolerant.

BOLLING: We got to leave it right there with a lot more to go in this show. Ahead, you can imagine, the 2016 republican candidates weren't impressed with the President's speech last night, their reaction, plus the strategies -- their strategies to take out ISIS, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: Last night, President Obama addressed the nation fearful of more terror attacks to come, but he didn't name any new steps that he takes to win the war against ISIS. Here was the reaction from some of the republican presidential candidate to his speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: People are scared not just because of these attacks, but because a growing sense that we have a president that's completely overwhelmed by them. I think now to the president not to make things better tonight, I fear he may have made things worse in the minds of many Americans.

JEB BUSH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think he was told that he had to do it because people are anxious, but he didn't lay out anything new and he spent more time talking about what we shouldn't do than what we should. We're at war with radical Islamic terrorism, and this president continues to deny that.

TED CRUZ, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We need a commander-in-chief that sets the objective to utterly defeat ISIS. Last night, President Obama's address to the country was profoundly disappointing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUILFOYLE: OK. So some strong messaging coming out of the 2016 presidential candidates, all pointing out the failure of the president to even name the enemy or come up with any specifics or a strategy, as we mentioned in the A-block, kind of a waste of the Oval Office and the importance of giving a presidential address, Dana, from a communications standpoint.

PERINO: Like I do -- I'm going to repeat myself a little bit, but I do think that the president and his team jumped the gun and they should have waited a few days to have a much more solid speech. And as for primetime, maybe on Thursday night after they had a little bit of time to take into account the information that they were getting from the FBI and also to consult with the Pentagon. Maybe twin it with some sort of National Security Council meeting, instead of going to the Kennedy Center, honors program, it was like, it was just a little stop-by speech that he was giving in the Oval Office.

GUILFOYLE: Right. You're referring to where he went right after black ties event?

PERINO: And of course, you know, we're in an election year where everybody, if you're running against President Obama and Hillary Clinton, you're of course going to be very critical of the speech. In this case, I think the president gave them a lot of ammunition.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, and -- but here's the other of the flip side of the polling, is because people were critical the president gonna said, we didn't hear from him when this happened. We are like waiting, waiting when everyone knew it was terrorism. He didn't come out and discuss it. And then of course, he waits until Sunday, you know four days later, but for what?

BOLLING: For what, yeah. And look -- we look -- look, I love to do this here on this table. A lot of people like to complain, how this stinks, how we got here, he's horrible, they're terrible, but then come up with something else. It would've been so refreshing if he sees that the podium is set. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to defeat and here's how. May I -- here's -- let me throw an idea.

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

BOLLING: We'll let Russian take the lead on this. President Putin wants the strong ones, wants the --you know, he wants to show up his muscles, go ahead, knock yourself out Russia. We got your back, we will follow you in, we take care of ISIS, we'll finish that, leave it aside and who cares right now? We'll figure out later. Finish off ISIS. Once you're done with ISIS, you can worry about homegrown terror and I got to think, that the ongoing terror -- threat level will go substantially down when you eliminate ISIS.

(CROSSTALK)

GUILFOYLE: Yeah.

BOLLING: That would be a nice.

GUILFOYLE: McCaul said don't let.

BOLLING: Solution.

GUILFOYLE: You know, drain the swamp there, don't let it come over here, and that's the problem. I can deal with it there, knock it out, and yes, of course, we're still going to be vigilant about what we're doing herein Homeland. But I'm a little concerned because apparently, it quite easy to get this K-1 visas, and just down a fake address and come in and goes super jihad. And then we saw, of course, the media going to the same, it was like jihad Graceland, with everybody going through the apartment. I mean, what's going on around here, this is what I'm struck with. Juan, we're going to please you right now.

WILLIAMS: How was that?

GUILFOYLE: Don't get used to it. So you want to talk about Trump. So we've had a variety of different responses, and you were bringing up Donald Trump, and his respond to this issue.

WILLIAMS: No, no. I was, I was responding to you in the conversation that you are assaying, you know, there's nobody.

GUILFOYLE: Right. Well, this is the appropriate time. Now is your chance.

WILLIAMS: I mean is, nobody is picking on Muslims. Nobody is sticking their mouth. The president is talking about abandoning American values, American principles in terms of not, you know, segregating and the like. And so here's Donald Trump saying, "Oh, don't let any more Muslims in the country." And I think that is a pretty obvious attempt to label them in a negative light. But I -- but overall, let me just say, in response to what you've been talking about, Kimberly. I'm struck that you don't see republicans, who are typically are so strong on national security issues. Saying, you know what? We are in a crisis. We are on a war. The president now says, "We are in a war." Why don't we rally around, try to support this president. Why don't we offer ideas.

WATTERS: Just what the democrats.

WILLIAMS: For how we will fight.

WATTERS: President Bush in Iraq.

WILLIAMS: Oh, gosh. Are you OK?

WATTERS: Instead of saying, "The war is lost on the Senate floor with Harry Reid."

WILLIAMS: Oh, in other words, that's what.

WATTERS: I remember a lot of collaboration.

WILLIAMS: I remember.

WATTERS: But the democrats are rallying with the flag..

WILLIAMS: I remember.

WATTERS: Under the Bush administration.

WILLIAMS: You said, they thought it was a mistake. The president then sends additional troops. He took steps. So I mean.

WATTERS: But one democrat I remember who voted for the Iraq war where in tolerant (ph) she's running for president.

WILLIAMS: Well, there's support.

WATTERS: Juan, let me talk to you about. Maybe Donald Trump, when he's saying ban Muslim immigration, maybe he's taking advice from one of your favorite democrats, Roosevelt, after Pearl Harbor, you know what he did, suspended the naturalization proceedings for all the people.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: What we think about that in retrospect?

WATTERS: Guess what? I wonder where he got that brilliant idea.

WILLIAMS: And why we think about that in retrospect?

WATTERS: From your democratic president.

WILLIAMS: How do we think about that in retrospect as a mistake, Jesse?

WATTERS: Democrats make a lot of mistakes in World War I.

WILLIAMS: Jesse.

WATTERS: You know what, if I was a republican.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: If I was a republican running for president, you know what I would say?

WILLIAMS: Tell me.

WATTERS: There is sitting duck out there, Hillary and Obama. I would say, you know what, there is a war on terror and what do the democrats want to do? They want to fight climate change, they want to take your SUV, they want to take your guns and they want to limit your freedom of speech. I would say, I'm gonna go on offense, I'm not gonna play defense, and here's my plan.

WILLIAMS: Well, let me say...

WATTERS: The cyber warfare.

WILLIAMS: Here's the plan.

WATERS: To shock all.

WILLIAMS: I want to hear a plan.

WATTERS: Assassination things.

WILLIAMS: When I look at what the republican candidates are saying they would do, I hear Santorum and Graham saying, "Yeah, I might put some troops on the ground."

WATTERS: Santorum is running, still?

WILLIAMS: I hear -- I hear last night, Senator Rubio say, "Well, we need some kind of force on the ground, but maybe it should be the Arab Force not (inaudible). I don't really hear any idea that's not being pursued by the Obama administration?

WATTERS: I'll give you tons of ideas, Juan, and I just mentioned some. I think what you do is launch a cyber warfare campaign these guys.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.

WATTERS: I think you have SEAL teams going there to assassinate these guys.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: The Saudis get some leverage over Assad, he get them to do some heavy lifting. I mean, I think there are ton of ideas. The president is not listening to any of them.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, have head upped the real coalition against ISIS. Instead of this to name only, because when America doesn't leave, the world looses -- Dana?

PERINO: I think -- I think we have to go back again to why you have republican candidates saying things that even sound extreme and un- American. And I think they have to go back to the fact that we have had several years of incompetence when it comes to this issue of immigration in particular. Or for example, let's just take the no-fly list. President says that we should definitely not let people who are on the no-fly list have guns, OK. The thing is our list is terrible. Our list includes people that should never be on it, and it takes them as American (inaudible) years, to try and get themselves off a bit. So we need better confidence out of government levels. If I were a republican candidate, I would start there. They are -- they don't have access to DOD, to all of the generals who have all said, we should sent about 10,000 troops there because I do think the concern from the Pentagon standpoint is, we can either do that now, after President Obama pull out all the troops there, we could send 10,000 in now, and try to deal with it, or we could send a 100,000 in a year from now. You have to ask President Obama, what kind of a situation do you want to leave to your successor? You could do something bold now, and get things care of, or you could wait and have to deal with it n history. And all of us are to have to pay the price for it.

GUILFOYLE: He wants to push it all.

PERINO: And I'm not talking money, I mean, we're talking about blood and treasure, and how many more possible attacks in between.

GUILFOYLE: You are absolutely right. That's why it's imperative that we act now, but unfortunately we have someone that lacks the will, that lacks in his moral fiber the desire to in fact, deal with this effectively during his term.

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: Well, and I think that he thinks that it won't work. I think that he thinks it won't work. He is not convinced that the experts are actually knowledgeable and could actually know what they're talking about.

GUILFOYLE: OK. We could go on all day with this block, right?

Next, a live report from Fox's Adama Housley with new information on San Bernardino terrorists and their ties to terrorists overseas, new information, next. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: We want to get to the latest now on the investigation into the terror attacks in California. Were the two married jihadists planning other attacks, and did they get support from terrorists overseas?

Adam Housely joins us now with new information from outside their home in Redlands, California.

And Adam, I know you just about 30 minutes ago broke a story that would be of interest to viewers, if you could. Recount it for us, please.

ADAM HOUSELY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you know, Dana, this obviously may not be a huge surprise to people, when you think about it, but we're told now by investigators they believe the bombs that were left at the Inland Regional Center where the massacre took place were meant to go off when first responders responded, basically.

That's a hallmark of Middle East terror attacks, where you have an initial attack, and as first responders get there -- a lot of times it was American troops -- the bombs would go off, the IUD, so to speak.

They believe that was the intent, and that the intent was not only to kill more but also put a fear, really, throughout the country to other first responders. As one explained to me, you know, first responders in our country normally don't have PTSD like you -- or the set up for PTSD treatment like you do with our military. And it was that type of attack, they believe, was meant to send a message and kill more, Dana.

PERINO: But Adam, were they disabled or did they just not go off?

HOUSELY: They did not go off, and that's the question. Originally it was because people said the water from the sprinklers, the fire sprinklers went off because one of the rounds hit the fire sprinkling system, they believe, is what set the water off.

But now I'm being told that may not be the case. They may have either had the detonator too far away, or they may have grabbed simply the wrong remote control. Remember, they had remote-control cars here with explosive devices on them, as well.

So they haven't narrowed down exactly why they didn't go off. I mean, maybe they have, but they haven't told us that. But they've given us several different reasons why they weren't detonated.

PERINO: OK. Eric.

BOLLING: But Adam, she was just the regular housewife, I thought. That's what they told us on Friday. Remember the two lawyers.

Adam, let's follow the money, continued. You had reported that some of the money was tracked outside the U.S. Any idea where any groups or any locations that they're pinpointing or focusing on?

They won't go there. They're saying there are significant data points. That's what I was told by two different people. And I'm told also that that means that right away the money went out -- in fact, there was a BOLO of sorts, Eric. Basically, be on the lookout.

I'm told that all the major financial institutions in this country have a security officer, obviously. Many of those security officers are former agents. They know what to look for. They know how to help. It's kind of a gray area the way it works, I'm told. Kind of like a subpoena, kind of like a BOLO where, within an hour -- an hour or two, whenever they had these names, it went out, "Hey, do you have any information on these people?"

And that helped starting to lead them overseas. But we know, once it gets overseas, if it's not in the western banking system, it can be difficult. We also know they did find some banking receipts in the apartment here, because we saw that on TV, as well, Eric.

PERINO: All right. Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Adam, great job, and we got some of the information that you were sending, working throughout the night last night. Some interesting developments in terms of the level of preparation, what this couple was doing in advance of this active terror that they created, if you can go through some of that.

HOUSELY: Yes, you know what's interesting, last night we reported that there obviously was a strong belief from early on that they were -- they had help. Somebody told us the first night there is no way they did this alone. I said, does that mean it's a larger terror cell? So we can't say that. Does that mean it's overseas? We can't tell you that.

So basically, they know there's something else there, and they probably know more than they're telling us, I would hope and assume, but they just won't, obviously, go down that path, Kimberly, until they know for sure.

What I thought was interesting was today where the FBI gave the press conference here. They talked about the fact that they had been radicalized for some time. Well, she's only been here a short time frame. So if it's been some time, that means that radicalism process happened overseas, which means there's a connection there.

So they're trying to figure out -- my -- I'm told the theory is he started here. He went overseas and finished there, and she was radicalized, as well, and they came back together. That's the way it's been explained to me. At least that's the belief they're looking into.

GUILFOYLE: And -- just real quick, and lots of time at the firing range. There was some discussion about that, that he was there and she knew these type of weapons. And nobody seemed to think anything about it, and including dry-firing at someone else's home to prepare themselves to be able to kill.

HOUSELY: Yes. Our producer, Dan Gale (ph) and I, we got that confirmed last night, that they went to this firing range about 25 minutes from here. He went there, I should say, with both the AR-15 and the pistol. And he was there twice. And one of the times he was there pretty long, a period of time, this's not -- you know, goes to firing ranges, but it shows that he was practicing. The interesting thing to me was they said that they were dry-firing in the backyard. Agents tell me, yes, a lot of people dry- fire in this country, but for someone who's a terrorist, they do that to prepare their mind to kill. That's what they insist was going on.

PERINO: Jesse.

WATTERS: Adam, how guilty do the family members look in all this? We're hearing stories about overhearing conversations, even arguments, you know. What did they know and when did they know it?

HOUSELY: We haven't got a lot from them. That's, I think, Jesse, where this path goes for here locally.

So we're going to obviously pursue that more. I will tell you that, when they had their press conference with their lawyers, and the lawyers spoke for them, it was a bit surprising to many in this investigation, because the lawyers seemed to put it back on authorities and maybe even coworkers. So that was a bit controversial here, but I suspect we're going to be hearing more about the family and what they knew, Jesse, in the coming days. I know that's an area we're pushing, as well.

PERINO: All right. Last question from Juan Williams.

WILLIAMS: Adam, I am still curious about the father, because what I have read now is that the father is on the terror watch now, because he has said that the son had, in fact, pledged to ISIS and that he shared some of the son's views. Am I right on this? Adam?

PERINO: We might have lost him. We might have lost him. All right. That was a good question that we will hold and get an answer for you.

All right. The president finally called the attack in California an act of terrorism, and he also took the opportunity to push for more gun control in his Oval Office address. Republicans are skeptical, saying that that won't fix the issue at hand. We have that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: We have to put a stop to mass shootings in America, and there are things we can do. Democrats have proposed some common sense gun control reforms, but folks on the right defiant. Here were some of the president's suggestions last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass shooter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: And here's Hillary Clinton this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have to up our game against terrorists abroad and at home, and we have to take account of the fact that our gun laws and the easy access to those guns by people who shouldn't get them, mentally ill people, fugitives, felons, and Congress continuing to refuse to prohibit people on the no-fly list from getting guns, which include a lot of, you know, domestic and national terrorists, we need to have comprehensive background checks. We need to close the gun loophole, close the online loophole, go after what's called the Charleston loophole and end the liability for gun sellers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: So Jesse, do you think Americans across political lines can come together and just say, you know what? We can do something to limit the easy access to guns in this country?

WATTERS: No, I don't. Really, Juan, I don't. And I don't like being lectured to about gun control by a president who let guns walk across the southern border into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel.

WILLIAMS: Oh, there we go. There's no hope.

WATTERS: And to say that, you know, terrorists are going to stop going after us, because we pass gun control, well, they have gun control in Chicago; and gang members are shooting each other up left and right.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

WATTERS: He also says that, you know, "We can't violate our values to fight terrorism." And then in the same sentence says we have to violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

WILLIAMS: I see.

WATTERS: It doesn't make sense to me, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Right, right. OK. So, Dana, does it make any sense to you that we should make it harder for people who are trying to kill us to get assault weapons?

PERINO: Well, right, so if you're talking about terrorists...

WILLIAMS: Yes, or anybody.

PERINO: ... I just said that the failure of the Obama administration to be able to track them down and to prevent this was a huge problem.

Now, I can see a distinction between the mass shootings, like the horrible one in Newtown by the -- by the lone gunman, and I think that if you can't see that distinction, that is not persuadable to me.

I also, in preparation for this, looked at Sean Davis' piece at The Federalist, talking about the seven myths of -- on the gun control debate, and I highly recommend it. And Jesse makes fun of me for quoting these articles. But I have to give credit where credit's due. It actually helped me understand this whole gun show loophole thing. Because I'm actually somebody who might be one that would be persuadable, but I don't think that they've presented anything that would persuade me.

WILLIAMS: All right. So absolutely we can get to Eric. Ninety people in America die every day in gun violence, 33,000 a year. Is there anything you think that, you know, Republicans could work with the Democrats on this.

BOLLING: So anything that anyone is proposing so far wouldn't stop Newtown, certainly wouldn't stop San Bernardino. If someone wants to kill you, they'll get their hand on a gun and kill you. And if they can't get their hand on a gun, they'll use a pipe bomb or some chemical weapons. Jihadists are going to do that.

What's the case? You keep saying assault weapons, assault. You want to ban assault rifles. I assume that's what you're suggesting, right?

WILLIAMS: You know, guns that repeat, fire quickly.

BOLLING: Right, right. Those are already banned. They've been banned for 70 years. You're talking about semiautomatic assault rifles.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

BOLLING: That is the same action that you would -- that is in a regular rifle, a hunting rifle. So if you ban one, you're going to ban the other.

WILLIAMS: Oh, no.

BOLLING: Well, you can't ban one without the other.

WILLIAMS: In fact, all I'm saying is let -- let's look at how we can do this.

BOLLING: Here's the problem. Here's the problem. Democrats are calling for all this gun control. They don't even understand the basics of gun ownership or a firearm.

WILLIAMS: OK. All right. So how about this, Kimberly?

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

WILLIAMS: The president is saying, "You know what? We can at least, and potentially supposed to do this with executive action, broaden the definition of a gun sellers to make sure that gun sellers aren't acting without oversight by Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

GUILFOYLE: OK. Well, again, I think assuming facts that aren't in evidence. And if you go to the case in point, which I think is relevant, which has prompted all this rhetoric on behalf of President Obama and wannabe president Clinton, California has some of the strongest, toughest gun laws in the country.

WILLIAMS: And their neighbors are Arizona...

GUILFOYLE: OK.

WILLIAMS: ... Nevada and all those guns come over.

GUILFOYLE: And you saw how well that went for Jerry Brown to bad-mouth Arizona. That didn't go so well for him.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

GUILFOYLE: The bottom line is, when you look at it, these guns were purchased legally. They were not fully auto. They were semiautomatic weapons.

WILLIAMS: Then they were modified.

GUILFOYLE: OK, Juan, that's after the fact, so who are you going to punish? Punish them. Maybe you should have better -- better intel and not letting someone in on a K-1 visa that's being radicalized with a false address. This is an intelligence fail.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: You can make a community effort saying, you know, for the greater good, we all are going to do something here.

GUILFOYLE: But what about the pipe bomb? What about the pressure cooker?

BOLLING: The world, the country is getting more and more dangerous. To take guns or make it harder for people to own guns in America, law-abiding citizens making it more expensive, is a dangerous proposition.

WILLIAMS: I disagree, but we have to go. Fourteen victims were killed in last week's jihad, and a Daily News columnist here in New York seems to think one of them got what he deserved. Her column is outraging many people, and we're going to tell you what we have to say about it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: Just when you thought the New York Daily News couldn't stoop any lower, it did, publishing an opinion piece this weekend by columnist Linda Stasi, who actually puts the blame on one of the victims for the terror attack in San Bernardino.

In a hate-filled rant, Stasi refers to only 13 of the dead as innocent. She equates the 14th, Nicholas Thalasinos with the male terrorist who killed him, writing, quote, "Except for their different religions, they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job. Make no mistake, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can't change that."

She implies the 52-year-old victim got what he had coming to him for posting, quote, "NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook," quote unquote.

You know what this reminds me of? John Kerry after the attacks in Paris, who said, you know, "There's a rationale for this. There's some sort of justification." It's victim blaming, don't you think?

PERINO: Well, first of all, I have to say, I'm for free speech, and if The New York Daily News wants to run this, fine. But there are consequences to it, and that is that they will be sufficiently ridiculed here and elsewhere.

There is another woman here who -- that was shot and was one of the victims who had escaped Iran as a kid and dealt with the hands of, you know, a serious abusive situation when she was a kid. She comes here to America, and she embraces America. I have a feeling that these shooters, these killers who hated America and everything that we stood for would just as much want to kill her as they did him.

WATTERS: Yes.

PERINO: I don't think that it was -- I don't think that he was singled out at all. And in fact, if he hadn't been there, I think they still would have gone through with their plan.

WATTERS: That's probably true. Eric, The Daily News, desperate, attention-seeking move, obviously. It's circulation's in freefall here. This is an honest opinion piece that they're running. I mean, this is just shameless, wouldn't you agree?

BOLLING: It felt like there was some sort of sea change at The Daily News recently. So they said they're going to take this tragedy and blow it up, put that outrageous cover on there, and then come back with this op-ed, which is ridiculous.

I, like Dana, am pro-free speech. Say what you're going to say, Linda Stasi, but I'll give you an example of what you're basically saying. She deserved to be raped, because she was wearing a short skirt. You're saying the exact same thing in another way. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't ascribe to that.

WATTERS: That's a great point.

Kimberly, tonight on "Hannity," we're going to hear from Jennifer Thalasinos, the wife of this victim. Let's play some sound, and let's have you react to what she says.

GUILFOYLE: OK, Jesse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER THALASINOS, WIFE OF VICTIM: Because of my husband being a Messianic Jew and because of the discussions, I think the shooter was intending on getting my husband.

I also think some of the other people that were killed were also intended targets because of their religious views and because of discussions that they had had with the shooter, as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: It's incredibly painful to listen to her. How do you react to that?

GUILFOYLE: My heart breaks for her. I think it's terrible. People should have the right to be able to express their opinions and beliefs and different political or religious viewpoints in this country, but you can never condone violence.

I think to besmirch this man's memory when he was slaughtered, for doing nothing wrong being there, I'm quite certain that the jihadi monsters wanted to make sure, in particular, the husband, not to miss them.

WATTERS: I think there is -- this is some kind of terrorist propaganda when she puts this stuff out there. You know, this gives license to people.

WILLIAMS: I think that in this country, you can have different religious points of view without someone shooting and killing you. I mean, so you've got to put that into your logic if you're going to write that column.

WATTERS: But I would put her on a watch list if it was up to me.

WILLIAMS: Oh, stop.

WATTERS: All right. "One More Thing" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: All right. Time for "One More Thing," and Dana kicks it off.

PERINO: All right. I wanted to do this last week, and now we have a chance. I went to an amazing event hosted by L'Oreal Paris. It called Women of Worth, and every year -- this was our tenth anniversary -- every year, they choose 10 women through a nomination process who are doing amazing philanthropic things.

Just a couple of them that I will mention here. Melanie Smith founded Books for Keeps, and that helps improve children's reading ability, and they make sure that children have books to read over the summer.

Alyssa Davey (ph), she established Garden of Innocence, which provides abandoned and unidentified children with respectful and heartfelt ceremonies and burials, all through volunteers.

And Teri Kelsall, who created the Jonas Project, which helps veterans who want to start their own businesses.

And I loved meeting -- Juan, you might even know her -- Schinnell Leake. She's from Washington, D.C. She does extraordinary birthdays for homeless children in the Washington, D.C., area. Every one of them was a huge winner. I was very humbled, and they deserve a lot of great recognition.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, that was a great event. You were super excited about it.

PERINO: I was in tears the whole night.

BOLLING: OK. So my turn. Something very, very proud of, something very humbling to me. Today Twitter announced their top trends of the year. They have different categories. They have music. They have sports. They have news. They have politics.

Take a look at the politics. Look at that, guys. This is one year we've been doing this. Wake up America is the No. 1 -- No. 6, I'm sorry, Twitter trend for 2015. #TCOT is a huge conservative hash tag. A little bit lower, #UniteBlue is 8, #Obama is 9. We were sixth. No. 5, #GOPDebate. So something I'm extremely proud of.

Remember, #WakeUpAmerica, put it on all your tweets. And it's growing.

GUILFOYLE: You should have been the head of LoveWin (ph). Am I wrong?

WATTERS: I don't know what that is.

GUILFOYLE: OK. So I'm really excited about this one. Take a look at the video. This is so incredible. You might have seen this today, but you can never get enough of this. God bless. This is a video of Santa signing with a deaf little girl. This is in England that this happened. He saw that she had a hearing impairment, and can you believe it? So he actually knows how to do sign language and communicated with her, and I think that's just so sweet.

BOLLING: Very nice. Very nice. OK, Jesse, you're up.

WATTERS: This is what not to do when being pulled over by police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is that? Are you kidding? You're about to snort coke on the side of the road?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would possess you to do that on a traffic stop with a police officer right behind you? I just don't understand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't understand, either. I've never had a traffic ticket.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just saw that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: That's not how you wake up, America.

BOLLING: Exactly, exactly, Jesse. That guy was 73 years old.

WILLIAMS: All right. So it was a Christmas tree weekend, and let me tell you: with grandkids, it's just a delight. There's Papa Patrick and Eli and Pepper and Wesley. They got the tree. They're putting on the ornaments, you know, sugar plums and fancy in their heads as they hang the stocking.

And of course, there's the big dog, Dana, with the Santa hat. We've got to leave it right there. We want to wish everyone a happy Hanukkah tonight. "Special Report" up next.

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.