Obama: Paris attacks a 'sickening setback' in fight vs. ISIS

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," November 16, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino and welcome to a special hour of The Five, a brand new developments and reaction to Friday's Islamic terror attacks in Paris. Today, the president of France declared his country is at war. The nation retaliated last night with a series of air strikes bombing targets into Syrian ISIS, stronghold of Raqqa. ISIS meanwhile has released a new video threatening new attack on other nations including ours, singling out Washington, D.C. But earlier today, when speaking of Friday's horrific act of terror, the president called it a setback.


BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: We have always understood that this will be a long-term campaign. There will be setbacks and there will be success. The terrible events in Paris were obviously a terrible and sickening setback. Even as we grieve with our French friends, however, we can't lose sight that there has been progress being made.


PERINO: And when it came to the strategy, and starts different from that President Hollande, President Obama defended his plan about ISIS, saying it would not be fundamentally altered.


OBAMA: I don't think I've shown hesitation to act, whether it's with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, but what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough.


PERINO: All right. We're going to get our first The Five's first comments on this since last week. Eric, I want start with you because -- this is one of the things I was thinking this morning. President Obama, every time he has a chance to talk one of these situations that unfortunately there's too many of them, he always starts with, "what he will not do" rather than telling us what he will do. I find that strange.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Well, he's defending his stance of non-strategy -- listen, I'll say it first. Wake up, President Obama. Wake up, America. He's lost control of the situation, completely lost control. He's out in the woods. You listen to that 45 or 50-minute speech, and all it was defending the non-strategy. We're not going to change anything because we have them where we want them. Three things he said during that speech, Dana. You pointed out the Paris is a setback. Really, a setback, 129 dead? Then he also said, and I'm quoting him, ISIS is a quote, "network of killers who are brutalizing local populations." Now that doesn't tell you where his mentality is, local populations, they went from Syria and Iraq and went to Paris and killed 129 people.

BRIAN KILMEADE, GUEST CO-HOST: Local as in earth (ph)?

BOLLING: Local as -- I have no idea what the hell he is talking about, Brain. And then this one, a handful of people who terrorized Paris, a handful, so ISIS -- he's still on the JV team. How many Americans are going to have to die before President Obama wakes up and starts taking them seriously the way French President Hollande is doing. What we really should do is get to NATO and gets the 28 NATO countries together, declare war as a collective group, which we can. I understand in Article 5, you can do this and declare war on ISIS, and have 28 countries defeat ISIS. But that would take leadership and balls, but apparently neither one of those are required for a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

PERINO: The one thing that when you say -- how he said, there was a handful of people, I actually -- they carried out the attacks, so it was eight. I actually find out the most disturbing, Brian, that there were only eight. They were able to attack and kill 129 people.

KILMEADE: Right, so those 129.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: And injured how many?

KILMEADE: Should feel better now that they were only killed by eight people as if they weren't a formidable force to begin with. Then you think about the plane that was taken down. How many people it takes to have a plane go down? Let's think how many people who took to, take down those flights in 9/11, 2001. Because it was only a handful of people, it doesn't mean it wasn't substantial threat? And al-Qaeda isn't a legitimate threat against us? And why does the president get mad at only one element, one thing he got mad at. Where did he show emotion? He showed emotion at.

PERINO: Refugees.

KILMEADE: Republicans who found criticism with him about his refugee status. Unbelievable to me for him to go out and bring up candidates for president's name at a G20 summit, when he's addressing a global terror threat.

PERINO: And you can bet that if those candidates had been on foreign soil and criticized him, there would have been you-know-what to pay by them in the media. Kimberly, I want to play for you this sound bite from the former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell because he actually contradicts President Obama. I want to get your take.


MIKE MORELL, FORMER CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR: We've had the second largest terrorist attack in Western Europe since 9/11, since, the largest since Madrid in 2004. I think when you put those two things together and you put together this attempt to build an attack capability in the west, I think it's now crystal clear to us that our strategy, our policy vis-a-vis ISIS is not working and it's time to look at something else. What we saw in Paris was a manifestation of a year-long effort by ISIS to build an attack capability in Western Europe. They said they were going to do that, they did that. They've also said they are going to do that here. So I do think it's a matter of time before they make that effort, and unless we degrade them, unless we push back on them, they will be successful.


PERINO: So Kimberly, the president saying he's not going to change the strategy, but Mike Morrell is saying that it has to be changed because we're not ahead of it.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, well, because he's completely committed to his ideology and the decisions that he made previously without showing any capability to pivot, evaluate the new fact pattern, the new situation and the current dynamics. I mean, they are actually are growing and evolving and we have a president who is, just mired in stagnation. And it's actually crippling the country and it's impacting our national security and it is also impacting our allies. I mean, can you imagine at this point that France -- even Putin, willing to do something. What is the United States going to do? He wasn't even willing to say that he would make any kind of additional modifications, even increase in airstrikes.

KILMEADE: Lesson (ph).

GUILFOYLE: To do -- that's it. And then instead, he went on to lecture and chastise those who would dare to criticize his ideas and his policies or statements, and essentially bad-mouthed good Americans that are concerned about national security and our safety on these borders. When are you going to take ISIS for their word? When they say they're coming here. American blood is best. God help him. This happens while he's president.

PERINO: I actually think that there are some democrats who are trying to get the president to change his mind or showing -- are saying that we will help you, and that was Senator Dianne Feinstein.

GUILFOYLE: Feinstein.

PERINO: Who said -- and Senator Gillibrand (inaudible) said, we know we need to do something more, something different, and they're willing to actually help the president change. Do you think he'll take up on this?

JULIE ROGINSKY, GUEST CO-HOST: You know, I think the question and the difficulty is I -- look, I get the frustration, this happens, everybody wants to go do something. The question is, what exactly are we gonna do? And this is to me, this is what it sounds it would take, right? It would take a multi-lateral, as you talked about, all the NATO countries, Article 5, going in to Iraq, into Syria, into Libya, possibly into the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, going into Lebanon, going into Yemen trying to eradicate these people. And furthermore, it would take, France for example, since France was attack, looking very carefully at the fact they have radicalized Frenchmen, the only person that was actually identified, that the only killer that was positively identified is a French-born French citizen. These are not people who are necessarily coming. There -- I hate to break this, they're here. They're among us. And so the question is.

KILMEADE: That they're inspired by what's happened in Iraq and Syria.

ROGINSKY: I don't disagree. But understand Brian, so we're now committing to a generational -- probably, a multi-decade war with tens of thousands of boots on the ground, millions probably with the course of multi -- several decades and America boots on the ground and.


GUILFOYLE: What's the alternative?

ROGINSKY: I don't know.

GUILFOYLE: Is the alternative, die? It's all over.

BOLLING: There are only 20 or 30 or maybe 50,000 ISIS fighters. Now you're talking about multi-generational decades.


ROGINSKY: Right now? How many more will join up?

BOLLING: With millions of boots on the ground?

ROGINSKY: How many more will join up?

BOLLING: I don't know, but I know there is an opportunity to wipe them out now or at least.


BOLLING: Dramatically push them back.



ROGINSKY: And here's the problem. We will eventually leave, unless we want to be an occupying force for the next 50 years, and they will come back. And that will be happen.

BOLLING: That's in NATO. Why you are saying we? When you say.

ROGINSKY: I mean it will be.


GUILFOYLE: We finally have a coalition.

BOLLING: That's different.

KILMEADE: What I think hysterical.


KILMEADE: Is that we act like we're making the decisions. We're responding to a threat against us.


KILMEADE: We could decide to ignore that threat and next thing you know, every other block is gonna be blowing up. So if we pullback, nothing.

ROGINSKY: I'm not suggesting that.

KILMEADE: I know that. So, I ask you this. How successful is the surge? There was not one person in 2012 who ran for president or was supporting for a candidate for president that thought that Iraq wasn't a success story. So why is it going to take generations and years to take down al- Qaeda in Iraq? Why did it take forever there and why it's gonna take generations and decades to take these guys out again.

ROGINSKY: Because.

KILMEADE: Especially if the French are committed on the ground, especially if the British are committed on the ground. Especially if a Jew in Egypt can play a role.


ROGINSKY: Let me answer.


ROGINSKY: Let me answer that question.

KILMEADE: You take them out. They foolishly have called out every country, France, Russia, America, Belgium, they all have reason to help right now.

ROGINSKY: Let me answer that question, first and foremost, unless we are there permanently or at least for a generation or two.

KILMEADE: Like in Korea.

ROGINSKY: Like in Korea, for example.

KILMEADE: How is that going?

ROGINSKY: That's my point.

KILMEADE: Pretty good.

ROGINSKY: Well, are we committed to doing that? I'm just -- I'm not suggesting we not do it. I'm suggesting.

GUILFOYLE: What's the alternative?

ROGINSKY: Well, Kimberly, that's great, but all I'm suggesting is that.

GUILFOYLE: Answer the question.

ROGINSKY: Let's put it on the table. If that's what it will take, that's the conversation use to have. We can't just keep saying we need to do something.

BOLLING: Really logic.

GUILFOYLE: But we already decided that. We already said what we needed to do. We already know that it's imperative. Listen to all the intelligence officials. To do nothing is acting like a lamb to slaughter.

ROGINSKY: Kimberly, I don't disagree, but are you suggesting that the American people are now are ready to go back into five or six countries in the Middle East?

PERINO: I think that's actually very unfair, Julie.



PERINO: Because, I think that serious people who are at the Department of Defense and the NATO community.


PERINO: Have said, they need to change the rules of engagement, first of all, so that they can go after targets, and if they hit a civilian casualty, we're going to have to accept that. Number one, that is their point.

GUILFOYLE: Mr. Jack Keane said that.

PERINO: Exactly.

BOLLING: Please. We've been saying that for years.

PERINO: No, I'm saying.

BOLLING: We've been saying level Raqqa. We have -- we know their headquarters is there, we know their training ground.

PERINO: No -- I know that.

ROGINSKY: You don't think they move around?

BOLLING: Level the place. By the way, you want to give civilians a week notice, you say, get out now. In one week, we're going to level the place. If they stick around.

ROGINSKY: Where are they gonna go?

BOLLING: I don't -- where they're going now, Julie? Become refugees.


BOLLING: But level the place.


BOLLING: Now it takes 129 dead Parisians.

GUILFOYLE: If we level it, they can move back in afterwards.


ROGINSKY: And they're going to move back in. They're going to move back in. By the way, do you know who is not doing anything about this? The Saudis, the Turks are more concern about going after the Kurds and anybody else.

PERINO: While you are willing to wait for them to do it?

KILMEADE: Why would they support?

ROGINSKY: And why.

PERINO: I'm not.

ROGINSKY: I don't know. Don't you think that should.

PERINO: But also.

ROGINSKY: Answer the question.


PERINO: Julie, I think it's important that people -- nobody actually that is serious and in charge of any of these military efforts has suggested anything more than 10,000 troops. Maybe that will grow, maybe in terms of the future, but nobody knows that. Right now, on the table, they have said they could use 10,000 troops in the area. And I believe that our military wants to go and fight this now, because we have seen, if you don't fight them there, you are going to have to fight them here. But to your point also, we are now at a point where -- they are, basically, we are infested with.


ROGINSKY: We are infested.

GUILFOYLE: Look how quickly we've gone from Obama's JV team, to a complete crisis and (inaudible). They took down a Russian airplane. They tried to blow up on that -- but thank God, the three Americans were on there to thwart that attack, and the information in Intel.

KILMEADE: The train attack.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, on the train, is that those individuals that were responsible for that, is the same selling group that had tried to get this to happen. I mean, that's terrible.



PERINO: And Eric, some credits too because I thought about this over the weekend. For a long time, you've been saying, we should level Raqqa. Like why aren't we going after Raqqa? So France gets hit Friday, by Sunday evening they've leveled Raqqa.

BOLLING: And that -- there is another thing I said about a year ago too. It's take out the oil installations then, because I even pointed out, you can wipe those out. You can wipe out the production, the transportation, the storage, and it can be rebuilt over time, very easily.

KILMEADE: Absolutely.

PERINO: That's funding.

BOLLING: The dessert. It's very easily rebuilt.

KILMEADE: Saddam blew it up the first time in '91.

BOLLING: It's a great way to cut off the funding. Guess what happens within 24 hours of a Parisian attack. You know, they.

GUILFOYLE: Here we go.


BOLLING: Strong bombs on Raqqa.


BOLLING: And take out the oil installation.


GUILFOYLE: And they took out recruitment centers, their headquarters, and we knew what those.

BOLLING: One more quickly. Did you hear Hollande today?

GUILFOYLE: Really quick, we knew what those headquarters were already, why didn't we do it before? Why did they take this?

BOLLING: We do because we know where they are.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah. We should have done it before.

BOLLING: Do you know what Hollande said today? He said we're not gonna contain ISIS, we're gonna beat ISIS.


BOLLING: You know what that was? That was a shot in Obama.


BOLLING: Who on Thursday said.


BOLLING: We have ISIS contiguous.

KILMEADE: But still isn't showing up.


KILMEADE: By the way, he said merciless. He said merciless.

GUILFOYLE: And act of war.

KILMEADE: An act of war, OK, fine. Now he's got to back it up. Twenty strikes about existing targets that we supplied to them, that's fine. We said the same thing for Jordan. Then they lost interest. Maybe because of lack of leadership, that's fine. Whatever the reason is, U.A.E., we're in. We're gonna fire a woman over there. We're going to show you men and women are all in-charge of taking out ISIS. They haven't bombed since March. So we have the worst coalition ever assembled.

BOLLING: Canada.

KILMEADE: Maybe it is the last.

BOLLING: Canada is pointing out?

KILMEADE: maybe -- why would wouldn't they? Where is the leadership? Where is the face on the coalition?

BOLLING: That everyone needs to be united.

ROGINSKY: Wait a second.


ROGINSKY: If you're invoking Article 5.

GUILFOYLE: (inaudible).

ROGINSKY: If you're invoking Article 5 that means every NATO country.


ROGINSKY: Including the ones that you just talked about not wanting to be involved, the Turks and the Canadians, for example, are gonna have to be a part of this. They are not willing to -- are you stepping out?

PERINO: Well, if there was a leader.


PERINO: If there where somebody that stood up and said, let's get this going, you have to actually try to lead them.


GUILFOYLE: What kind of excuses is that? Because other people won't step up, that means we should.


ROGINSKY: That is our boots on the ground.


BOLLING: Article 5 requires them to step up.


BOLLING: It requires them before to stand on NATO.

ROGINSKY: It requires them to send x amount of troops. It doesn't specify how many. It's going to be us. It's going to be our boots on the ground. That's what you guys are suggesting. I'm not disagreeing with that point. All I'm saying is let's be clear.


GUILFOYLE: We're suggesting to be mission adaptable.


GUILFOYLE: To use your brain.

ROGINSKY: Let's -- no, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: To figure out what needs to be done and show that we have the wherewithal to do. We certainly have the capability and we have men and women that are willing to serve. The only person that seems confused is the president.


PERINO: Julie, we have to go, but we are going to stay on this topic. Much more to come this hour on the battle to extinguish ISIS, including, what both democratic and republican presidential candidates think is the best strategy. But first, CIA director John Brennan's take on how to prevent attacks on the homeland.


JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: Their agenda is to kill, pure and simple, and it's referred to as murderous sociopaths. That's why we have to do everything we can, as urgently as we can, in my view, to contain that growth inside of the Middle East, but also beyond.



BOLLING: Back now with more on the Paris terror attacks. President Obama went on a defense today when asked why he won't send the troops into Syria to fight ISIS.


OBAMA: Let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria, what happens when there is a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we need to send more troops into there or Libya, perhaps, or if there is a terrorist network is operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia. So a strategy, it has to be one that can be sustained.


BOLLING: A few months ago, former DIA Chief Michael Flynn spoke about Obama's policies and said this was a willful decision.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around and you saw this analysis.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you are arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?

FLYNN: I think administration.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did administration tend to blind eye to your analysis?

FLYNN: I don't know if they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it's a willful decision.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A willful decision to go support the insurgency, to have (inaudible).

FLYNN: A willful decision to do what they're doing. Which you have to really -- you have to really ask the president what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that's in place because it is very, very confusing.


BOLLING: So Dana, can I talk to you a little about that press conference today? The questions asked by a lot of liberal media types, they weren't happy with President Obama today.

PERINO: Well, reported -- they were asking him tough questions, which is what you would expect in a press conference. And I think the president -- he came to a fork in the road and he could have said, "OK, here, I'm going to be the leader of the free world, or I'm going to just defend my self- interest," which is what he decided to do, and that built upon each other. And so then the reporters continued to press him on that and then he got more defensive. So the more he gets defensive, the more it looks like he's confuse. I admire Michael Flynn for going on Al Jazeera because we need because we are talking more and not less. And the other thing I would say about what he -- Flynn is describing on a point of confusion is that, there has been a divide is weird thing going on between the Intel community and the DOD and White House. And there's -- it's like they're not talking to each other. If you look at the John Brennan SOT, the sound bite that we played going into the previous break, he is being very clear-eyed about things, and the president is saying, our strategy is working. You have somebody who used to be at the (inaudible) center saying, I'm confused. So if he's confused, you can bet that our allies are confused. There's one group that is not confused, and that is our enemy. They're very clear about what they want to accomplish.

BOLLING: K.G., Brennan.

GUILFOYLE: And they are clear.

BOLLING: Brennan, Flynn, Mike Morrell, they are all saying kind of the same thing. President Obama says, "Don't worry, everything is cool."

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Everyone seems to be in unison. All the credible -- the intelligence report, the heads of the different agencies.


GUILFOYLE: DOD, Pentagon, CIA, former, current, all the above -- Comey, like everybody is like, yeah, we got this. We got the memo, we signed for the package. Obama, where is the president on this? That's the problem. So there's a real disconnect, but this isn't something that we can afford to have like the training wheels on with respect to national security. It's got to be go time with smart decision making, and I don't want to talk about Yemen, however many -- whatever, down the road. What if there is a terrorist that is operation here in the United States and you've got to put some, you know, a National Guard or put some security or put people there. You've got to do whatever it takes, is the point.

KILMEADE: I know exactly. Here's the answer to the president's question, what do I do with Yemen if I put 50,000 troops into Syria? No one said put 50,000 troops into Syria. I would -- I guarantee you, there is no battle plan that says, "Mr. President, here's 50,000 troops or we have nothing." No, but he makes these numbers up to create a strong argument and everybody else is a lunatic to bring it up.


KILMEADE: That's why it brings with the negative argument. To your point, if you go ahead and you take out, begin to take out the nexus, the nucleus of ISIS, and there is something that have, something in Yemen. We don't need an announcement or a press conference to say there is gonna be a team that is gonna there.


KILMEADE: And it's gonna suppress. And if there is a problem in the Philippines, guess what we did. We had a team go in there, we did get all the headlines, we took care of it. There was a problem Nicaragua.


KILMEADE: There was a problem in South America, we have people being held hostage, they were taken care of. Yes, Mr. President, when you took the job and got the keys to the White House, your job, number one, is to keep us safe. And right now, Salafists, extremists, Muslims, are the number one enemy of America. Russia is working hard to be that, but until then, he still have -- they still have the number one slot. That's your job.

BOLLING: Julie, a lot of people say that there is 430 days left in this presidency, he's just running out the clock, trying not to make any major strategy changes until, just handed it off toward the next president.

ROGINSKY: I think it's unfair to say that he's the president, especially the national security concern, I think, I would never say -- I would never that about George Bush and I don't think anybody should say that about any president.

BOLLING: Is it unfair to say that things are changing and evolving in the terror world? And then.


BOLLING: We are becoming more.

ROGINSKY: And I think.


BOLLING: Shouldn't the president, commander-in-chief, also evolve with the changing dynamics?

ROGINSKY: He should. He should. I guess my president is for the president, the reason you're not getting a clear answer from him is, I think he's not prepared, for whatever reason, to level with the American people about what this would take. And to Dana's point or to Brian's point.

BOLLING: He said 50,000.

ROGINSKY: Wait a second.

BOLLING: He's trying to level.

ROGINSKY: Right. Let me put -- no. no, listen. Let's say it is 10,000 troops. Let's say it is 50,000 troops. Let's say it is a million troops, whatever it is right? After we leave, what comes next? Because that's what we saw in Iraq. What comes next? Eventually, after you leave.

KILMEADE: Don't leave.

GUILFOYLE: I don't get it.

ROGINSKY: No, no, no.


KILMEADE: All you need is an active set of people in the right area.


KILMEADE: That would have been fun. You graduate 10 years from now. You gradually pull out. That's what the military.

ROGINSKY: Brain, we gradually pull out 10 years after.

KILMEADE: No, you rapidly pull out.

ROGINSKY: No, Brian. You gradually pull out.

KILMEADE: No (inaudible)?


KILMEADE: We pull out overnight.

ROGINSKY: Excuse me. First of all -- overnight? We are still there. Let me put to you this way. You have Saudi Arabia, one of our allies. One of our greatest allies, funding these people.


ROGINSKY: Funding these.

KILMEADE: Who's our greatest ally?

GUILFOYLE: They're not.

ROGINSKY: Excuse me. They're one of -- oh, they're not one of our allies, Middle East?

KILMEADE: This person is totally abandoned.

ROGINSKY: Listen to me.


ROGINSKY: So you've got Saudi Arabia sponging these people. You're talking about Jihadism? Who is funding them? Are we prepared to go to Saudi Arabia? Are we prepared to talk to them? And talk to them about they are doing?

KILMEADE: I don't know.

ROGINSKY: This is a complete.

KILMEADE: And you're often.


GUILFOYLE: Why do we not? Why do we take care of what we need to do? Stop deflecting and try to find.


BOLLING: Listen to this. We have more on this topic coming up next. One of the terrorists responsible for Friday's attack entered Europe as a Syrian refugee. So, should President Obama suspend his plan to bring 10,000 refugees here in the coming year? That's next.

GUILFOYLE: That's what we gonna get at.



SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is a 9/11 coming and it's coming from Syria, if we don't disrupt their operation inside of Syria. I'm trying to protect American from another 9/11, and without America boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, we're going to get it here at home. And if you don't understand that, you're not ready to become commander-in-chief in my view.


GUILFOYLE: GOP presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, predicting another catastrophic attack in America, if we don't send ground troops overseas to destroy ISIS. One very serious concern here at home involves the upcoming arrival of thousands of refugees from Syria. Will it be possible to weed out any terrorists who could be among them? The White House isn't concerned, but Congressman Peter King, certainly is.


BEN RHODES, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We're still planning to take in Syrian refugees. We have very robust vetting procedures for those refugees. We have to recognize they're tragic victims of this conflict. Their women, children, orphans of this war, and I think we need to do our part along with our allies to provide them a safe haven.

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: This should absolutely be suspended, unless they can show 100 percent that a person is not involved with ISIS, because right now there is no responsible way to do the vetting and that's the reality. And why, people like Ben Rhodes continue to say this is, is beyond me? To me it's misguided, as the president saying that he has contained ISIS.


GUILFOYLE: All right. That's just a little sampling of the tremendous, outpouring of opinions on this subject matter, because obviously, a real cause for concern as it relates to our national security here at home with an influx coming in. Brian, you got to talked to him, you spoke to him yesterday, here, when he was at Fox.

KILMEADE: The influx (ph) doesn't exist. So he was former chairman of Homeland Security and now, he's working on a subcommittee on terrorism and a lot of people respect him on both sides of the aisle. As you know, he (ph) sided (ph) with Bill Clinton during the time of impeachment and things like that. At times, and when it comes to Homeland Security, if there was a vetting process that he disagreed with, he would speak up.

This thesis (ph) is one that doesn't exist. Michael McCaul said the same thing.


KILMEADE: Here's why. It's not even the president's fault, because that - - that government has collapsed, we have no idea of who's who. We also interviewed somebody -- it was today on Fox and Friends, who said in a matter of a couple of days, he had his own authentic passport saying he was a Syrian citizen and he's a British citizen.

So why would you -- if you were president of the United States and your chief concern is keeping America safe, why does it make sense to take that type of chance?

GUILFOYLE: You're absolutely right. McCaul actually went so far to send a letter imploring the president, saying we do not have the capability to properly vet these individuals coming in. And again, you look at the -- the pool that's coming in, approximately 70 percent males -- of adult males of fighting age. Like, I don't where exactly the women and children are, God bless.

But at least you owe it to this country to give a little bit of, you know, due measure and circumspection to be able to vet these people properly.

BOLLING: So here are the numbers. So far this year, 19,087 Syrian refugees alone are here, 293 in California; Texas, 219; Michigan, 199; 148 in Illinois; 132 in Pennsylvania. Those are the top five states. The point is this. These could be Trojan horse -- Boston bombers were refugees. Let's not forget that. The point is who's following these...

GUILFOYLE: To refugees with a crock-pot. Look what they did.

BOLLING: Who's following these 2,000 Syrian refugees and who's paying for the following of those 2,000 refugees? So we already know that one of the seven bombers in Paris, at least one, maybe another one, is -- was...

KILMEADE: Was a refugee.

BOLLING: ... a Syrian refugee. Came over with a -- either a real or fake passport. Who's to say one-seventh of the 2,000 of these aren't radicalized? You're talking two or three hundred radicals that are -- that are roaming freely around the country. This is a bad idea. Fifteen governors agree. They say, "Don't bring them to our state." Even though I don't think they can legally say that, but they're trying to say it.

But they're making the point. Don't bring them to our state. I think this -- this -- one bad thing happening by one of these Syrian refugees, I'm telling you, President Obama, it's -- it's on him. You've got to stop it. You've got to stop it right now.

KILMEADE: Do we have a say in anything? Is anyone going to ask us what we want?

GUILFOYLE: And what about the people in the communities that are being forced, compelled to take people that perhaps they don't know enough about? Because perhaps our own administrators have said that we lack the ability to properly vet them to say, "I'm going to make you take this guy next to you, but I can't actually really tell you anything 100 percent about him. But please be -- you know, open your humane heart."

BOLLING: And we're not going to follow them. The biggest issue is what happens after they arrive in a family and they're being taken care of? Then what? Where are they going to go from there?

KILMEADE: I have no idea.

BOLLING: Going to follow them with the FBI?


PERINO: Well, most people that are fleeing Syria are fleeing the violence because Assad has been actually using, you know, chemical weapons against his own people. We decided, as a country -- the president decided not to do anything about that three years ago, hence what we have seen was (ph) a major refugee crisis. Not just here in the United States, Europe has the majority of the problem and they're going to have to deal with it for years to come.

One of the reasons that they go to places like Pennsylvania -- so like in Allentown, Pennsylvania, there's actually a pretty big Syrian Christian community. The -- that community says, "OK. Yes, we can accept more." I don't know what law enforcement does, but they're probably pretty well aware of what that area entails, and so there probably is some surveillance that nobody would want to talk about because it should be secret.

Here's the problem. I'm all for being open and humane, the problems is that you have eight people able to carry out an attack in Paris at the same time, kill 129, wound scores more, that I do -- I don't think it's unreasonable for the administration to at least take at least some sort of a pause.

GUILFOYLE: That's all.

PERINO: That's -- a pause. I don't think the governors can actually say, "We're not taking these people." That's not allowed.

ROGINSKY: In fairness, unlike Europe, they're not coming over the border. It's about an 18 to 24-month -- about an 18 to 24-month period where they're vetted. They're not...

GUILFOYLE: But they're trying to expedite it.

ROGINSKY: They're not just -- they're not just coming here the way they are to Germany or -- or to France or certainly to (inaudible) places like that. The difficulty for me is this, if you're not going to let them come here, you're essentially consigning them to certain death there.


KILMEADE: We should a refugee center in the UAE (ph), in Saudi Arabia on down. And Jordan's already set up...

BOLLING: How about -- how about in a safe area of Iraq?

ROGINSKY: What safe area of Iraq?

BOLLING: Half of Iraq is -- Southern Iraq is safe.

ROGINSKY: OK. Well, listen. The problem here is that they're...


BOLLING: That's less of a culture shock than coming to America.

GUILFOYLE: The problem is they don't want to to Iraq because Iraq's not stable.


GUILFOYLE: OK, but you say it as like you're -- it sounds like the concern is misplaced. It's more concerned about you're consigning them to this horrible fate, but what about the people in the communities that could be hurt or injured or killed because it was involved with one of these terrorist cells, just like ISIS told us?

So far, ISIS has actually been good to their word. Every time they say they're going to do something, we're going to get (inaudible), they do it. Then they said they're going to do -- how many times? Three times now they've...


GUILFOYLE: Russia, Hezbollah. I mean, let's...


ROGINSKY: Let's be...

GUILFOYLE: They're increasing their boundaries. Boko Haram declaring allegiance. I men, they're bleeding borders out because they're winning and they're establishing a caliphate and we're sitting here being nuanced (ph).

ROGINSKY: Let -- but let's look at this in the face, you know? These people in France, the ones that master minded this, were European citizens, born and bread. And so the problem is forget the refugees, what are you going to do about those people?

BOLLING: Those eight people -- one at least was a refugee.

ROGINSKY: We don't know that. There was a Syrian password (ph) found next to him. He was never identified.

BOLLING: How about the -- I don't know, maybe could be hundreds that helped plan this. It could be...

GUILFOYLE: No, that's not true. They took his finger and identified as a positive ID on him...

ROGINSKY: Eric, the problem is what are you going to do? Are you going to go start rounding up all the Muslims in Paris? Are you going to start rounding up all the Muslims here?


GUILFOYLE: Nobody's talking about doing that. That is just...

KILMEADE: There are 10,000 people. We don't know where they come from...

ROGINSKY: Of course we do. We vet them...


GUILFOYLE: That's jumping to an illogical conclusion not supported by the facts. When "The Five" returns, how the 2016 presidential candidates are responding to the terror attacks in Paris. Democrats and some major issues defining the threat of the debate this weekend. Stay tuned.


KILMEADE: All right, the Democratic candidates tried to talk tough on terror Saturday night at their second presidential debate watched by 8.5 million, but failed miserably to properly define who and what we're fighting.


FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't think we're at war with Islam, I don't think we're at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists.

I think you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists.

SEN. BERNARD SANDERS, I-VT., DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't think the term is what's important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaida who do believe we should go back several thousand years, we should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted, that they are a danger to modern society.

FORMER GOV. MARTIN O'MALLEY, D-MD., DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe calling it what it is, it's to say radical jihadists, that's to call what it is.


KILMEADE: He seemed even surprised he came up with that, in the big picture, that's Governor O'Malley. So, the Democrats saying that, Julie, does it worry you that we're in the middle of a terror attack weekend, and that Democrats had to pivot to this issue, and do you think they were strong enough on it?

ROGINSKY: Does it worry me, no. What worries me is some of the rhetoric I'm hearing about how we have to profile mosques now, we have to go into mosques, by Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party.

KILMEADE: Just in terms of what Democrats said.

Are you happy with the way they were unable to say anything coherent?

ROGINSKY: Well, in terms of what Democrats said, I actually...

KILMEADE: Are you happy with the way they were unable to say anything coherent?

ROGINSKY: I'm unhappy -- well, I disagree with you, they were -- all right. I think she wasn't very coherent on the 9/11 question about Wall Street, but that is a separate issue. I do think that she was fairly coherent about the fact that you can't paint an entire religion as a horrible...


KILMEADE: ... Islamic extremists, that's what we have to say. Now, here...

ROGINSKY: Fine. But let me put it to you this way, you want to call it Islamic extremism, go for it. Rhetoric, to me, is not what's important. Action to me is what's important, and I'm not hearing anybody lay out a vision for how to...

KILMEADE: That's true. If don't know your enemy...

ROGINSKY: We don't know our enemy? We know exactly who our enemy is here.

KILMEADE: Really? We can't even define it.

ROGINSKY: What does it matter? Of course we can.

KILMEADE: Ask any military strategist. It's important to know what your enemy is, because then you have got to find out what they go to do.

And just 24 hours after the deadliest attack in France since World War II, Bernie Sanders wasn't done entertaining us. He still thinks global warming is the biggest threat in the world.

ROGINSKY: Terrible.


SANDERS: Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism, and if we don't get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world, this is what the CIA says. They're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.


KILMEADE: So, the CIA is more concerned with global warming?

PERINO: Oh, my God, I just really can't take it. I hope somebody watched this. I know their numbers were low, but you know, gosh, I hope the 8 million people were kind of like shocked and all horrified by the fact tat they seemed befuddled, completely ill-equipped to talk in any kind of common sense way about national security, I mean, talking about like sex crimes, about women and children and then like climate change, and just like so off topic.

You have to like, 30 flags on play, because he was just like, all over the place.

KILMEADE: But Dana, isn't that what Democrats want to talk about, isn't that their number one issue, global warming, and aren't they doing the right thing by -- by -- because they know most Democrats are watching?

GUILFOYLE: Remember, President Obama said that this is our biggest threat, that is was global warming.


GUILFOYLE: I actually think that there's a very easy way to answer that.

KILMEADE: Which is?

GUILFOYLE: Where you could say, global warming is a big concern of mine, yes, it's one of the biggest threats that we face as a country.

KILMEADE: Absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: We have the capacity to both address that, as well as radical Islam.

On the previous point, when you were talking about the definition of radical Islam, the problem is, our enemy has no problem identifying us, right? We are infidels. OK? So, we know -- I actually think that it would help the Islamic religion for us to be more explicit...

KILMEADE: Absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: ... about who we are targeting, because they are targeting our way of life.

KILMEADE: And they -- and they are Salafist Muslims, who have their very specific line of thought, and they also have guns and grenades.

Eric, in the big picture right now, is it -- does it matter really that Democrats were forced to pivot like that on Saturday night, and they seemed so out of -- out of...

BOILING: I think what they're basically broadcasting that, whatever President Obama's strategy is, that they think the base is enjoying and liking, they're going to be on board with the same thing.

Hillary Clinton -- none of them could say Islamic terrorist, none of -- all three of them had to dance around just even saying that, and Bernie Sanders thinking that the biggest threat to America is climate change, is just completely off base.

If you are worried about the future of the country, if you are worried about terrorism...

PERINO (?): Yeah, he thought the debate was on the weather channel.

BOILING: You don't want any of those three taking over for President Obama, you want someone on the other side, who said within four or five hours of ISIS doing what they did, that they would bomb the "s" out of them.

KILMEADE: Joe, really quick, secretary of -- oh, sorry.

ROGINSKY (?): Still thinking about that one.

KILMEADE: Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of Defense Gates and Petraeus, among two people in the military have nice things to say about Hillary Clinton, and she is a lot tougher than President Obama.

Do you feel like she is reluctant to go against President Obama, because she desperately needs his base, especially in the African-American communities?

ROGINSKY: No, I mean, she has gone against him, she wants the no-fly zones over Syria, which is something that I think even a lot of Republicans don't necessarily support. So, she's, I think, got a lot tougher than he has on some of these issues.

The problem for her, and for the rest of the Democrats right now is this no -- and actually for everybody, not just them is, you have to lay out what you're going to do.

It's not enough to just say, hey, we're going to call it Islamic terrorism, and then what? Then what?

KILMEADE: Right, yeah.


ROGINSKY: I want a plan from somebody, I want a plan from both sides.

Look, I read Mitt Romney's op-ed in The Boston Globe, it was really well written.

It didn't have a plan in it, it was like banging your head, like, I want to do something, I want to do something. What do you want to do?

Lay it out.

KILMEADE: Right. I'll say one thing I would love...

PERINO (?): General...

KILMEADE: Daesh, ISIS, ISIL. Let's pick one. Enough of this.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh.


PERINO (?): ISIS hates being called Daesh. Maybe we should do that.

ROGINSKY: Yeah, let's call it Daesh.

KILMEADE: All right, (inaudible) or President Bush, 41.

All right, 15 minutes before the top of the hour. Next, the Obama administration is forging ahead with its plan to empty out Gitmo, transferring more detainees to the Middle East.

Is this really the time to be letting go terrorists and re-arming the enemy? Let's think about that in the break, and come back with an answer, shall we?

PERINO (?): Yeah, I got one.


ROGINSKY: Welcome back to "The Five."

This weekend, the Obama administration transferred five more detainees out of Guantanamo.

The latest batch were sent to the United Arab Emirates. All are natives of Yemen, who spent more than 13 years in the facility as enemy combatants. House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul argues now is not the time to be emptying out Gitmo.


REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, R-TEXAS: The shutdown in Guantanamo brings in the worst of the worst. I saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammad down there. Evil incarnate. Mastermind of 9/11. I don't want him in the United States of America and I don't think most Americans do. And to say that ISIS is contained, for God's sakes, I would hate to see ISIS unleashed.


GUILFOYLE: Good point.

ROGINSKY: So my understanding is they wanted to originally send them back to Yemen, their home country, but Yemen is kind of whoops right now, right. So they're asking some of...


KILMEADE: They walk in and they walk right out.

ROGINSKY: Exactly right. So my question for you, Dana, is we do have Americans -- excuse me, we do have terrorists who are actually here in our prisons already. I mean we do have people in Florence, Colorado and other supermax facilities. Why not try them and bring them to prisons here and just shut down Guantanamo? Is that a possibility?

PERINO: I'm not for that. I'm not for bringing enemy combatants onto American soil. Then have them...

ROGINSKY: But we already have them.

PERINO: ... going through a process cause it's nothing left. But not these guys. We didn't bring enemy combatants. They weren't brought to the United States. And they are -- they still have not -- and Congress has actually said to the president, by a wide margin bipartisan vote, saying no, you are not going to bring them here. The notion that Gitmo inspired the attacks in Paris is wrong. And I don't know why the administration has the gift of timing. Why release them on Saturday?

Just hold them for another week or two. Like they've been there for 13 years. Why do you have to do it on Saturday? It was -- it just seems so tone deaf to me.

BOLLING: And God forbid we actually get some information out of this instead of lighting -- back into the...


BOLLING: Well, I'm not sure if we did because you know, we've had to scale back our information gathering techniques.

PERINO: After 13 years?


KILMEADE: This is what you do. There is a beautiful courtroom there. They were on the march to a military trial. Nobody was complaining, they had a defense. They were -- they already confessed to it. They all were done. They -- cause they wanted to die. We're about to kill them and give them their wish, especially the nucleus of the 9/11 attacks but by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and others.

And the president stopped it and had no plan B because they didn't realize how hard it was going to be. As Donald Rumsfeld told them -- excuse me, Dick Cheney told them, how hard it is to actually close it. Nobody talks about Gitmo since President Bush left, ever. He's just trying to keep to his word.

GUILFOYLE: Exactly! Campaign promise! Checking the list.

KILMEADE: Just let that go and to say, you leave them here, America is a better place without them there with them locked up -- it's called life in prison for being a terrorist. That's what you get.

ROGINSKY: But why not try them, Kimberly? Why not at least give them the process and if they're -- right there if you want to. Why not...

GUILFOYLE: They were getting that. Everything was in motion, everything was set, put a nice little justice bow on it, line them up, try them. Boom, end of story. Now all of the sudden we're like, we're not going to do that. We're not going to touch this.


PERINO: And harry potter movies, don't forget that.

BOLLING: Actually, you've got President Obama has implied and actually talked about is you don't want to tick them off. You don't want to make them madder by doing things like holding them at Gitmo or bombing certain areas. It's like an appeasement strategy that frankly isn't working, and as the world gets more and more dangerous...

GUILFOYLE: And why do they have the same rights and privileges as American citizens and should be tried here and soil the rest of us by their criminal acts and have them brought here, creating a security situation? Does that make any sense? That's not a good idea.

ROGINSKY: All right. Some final thoughts tonight, next.


PERINO: Greg isn't here today, he wishes he were, but you can check out a powerful monologue he did this weekend for the Greg Gutfeld show on how America can defeat ISIS. It's up on Foxnews.com and also our show's The Five's Facebook page. Some final thoughts now before we go.

Kimberly we'll turn to you first.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Listen, I think I'm very clear about how I feel about this. I would really love to see some measure of fortitude, some vision, some strength and courage from the president of the United States.

America have always been a nation that has led and has been strong. Shoulders that are strong that other countries can count on and our allies. This is his chance before his time is up, to do something, to do the right thing. To leave a lasting legacy, change our opinions and our minds about him and do something and help our brothers and sisters in France and around the world to make the world a safer place.


BOLLING: So in a 36-hour period you had a president who said ISIS is contained. You had a Donald trump who said we need to bomb the S out of them, and then four hours later ISIS kills 129 in Paris. On one hand, looking forward to the election. You have three people on one side who can't even say Islamic terror and 13 on the other side who want to be tough on terror and one that has actual ideas. Think about that when you go to the voting booth in November.

PERINO: Is it fair to say that nobody else had ideas?


BOLLING: No, I said 13 who want to be tough on terror and one who actually said -- you know, timing is everything.

PERINO: Well, last week Donald trump said we should let Putin do it, so, I mean, I would question that. But I want to say one thing on my final thought is, it was called the Global War on Terror for a reason. It is global. It is a war and it wasn't one of our choosing.

The enemy has chosen us and we can decide to fight it or to try to contain it. But I think the only way to deal with it for the future of our country, the children that we care about and other generations to come, that we need to call it what it is. It is a global war on terror and we should prosecute it as such.

KILMEADE: Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. Finally France talked really tough. They've got to be merciless, they've got to destroy, they've got to take out, they're going to go after ISIS. And they bombed 20 targets.

Not much happened. If they are serious they would put troops on the ground and if we were are seriously going to help them, we will follow them. Not 50,000, enough to get it done. Coordinate it with a great American leader. I'd love to see that happen. And they have to do it because they have now talked tough. They have to back it up.


ROGINSKY: Well, two thoughts. One quickly, on a personal note. My cousins are French and I spent all Friday night getting in touch with them and finally did early Saturday morning. So I'm very glad that they are okay.

Secondly, I want us all to recall what's written on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Actually coincidentally enough by another refugee fleeing oppression and remember what this country is all about. We are a welcoming country, especially to those in need.

KILMEADE: And if we can patch you down and make sure that you don't blow us up, you can stay.

PERINO: All right. You'll see him on great later on tonight. That's it for us. We'll see you back here tomorrow. "Special Report" is 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.