Joe Lieberman on partisan political divide over US strike that killed top Iranian general

close

Video

Joe Lieberman on partisan political divide over US strike that killed top Iranian general

President Trump's decision to authorize the targeted attack on Gen. Qassem Soleimani was bold and unconventional, says former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," January 6, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Iranians are taking to the streets, as massive demonstrations continue in Tehran today, more planned. Protesters are demanding death to American troops after Iran's top general was killed by that U.S. airstrike.

The president, meanwhile, is tweeting out that Iran will never get its hand on nuclear weapons, ever, ever.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto and this is "Your World," and what a world. The killing of General Qassem Soleimani also dividing Congress, curiously, along party lines, Democrats slamming the move, Republicans praising it.

The former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman says both parties need to come together on this. He will be joining me in a moment.

First to John Roberts on how the White House is dealing with all of this.

Hi, John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon to you.

The president was on "The Rush Limbaugh Show" about an hour-and-a-half ago defending his decision to order the airstrike on Friday that killed General Qassem Soleimani, saying he had it coming and that it was long past due.

Listen here to the president.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: He should have been taken out a long time ago. And we had a shot at it. And we took him out. And we're a lot safer now because of it.

Now, we will see what happens. We will see what the response is, if any.

But you have seen what I said our response will be.

The country is a lot safer.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

ROBERTS: You mentioned a little bit of this at the top, Neil, the president also responding to Iran's announcement that it will no longer abide by the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement, even though that agreement is still in force among several European nations, Russia and China.

The president tweeting simply -- quote -- "Iran will never have a nuclear weapon."

The administration is planning to provide a classified briefing to Congress on Wednesday. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the secretary of defense, Mark Esper, Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gina Haspel, the CIA director, will all be up on Capitol Hill to brief the House and the Senate.

But before even hearing the evidence leading up to the airstrike, Democrats are moving to clip the president's wings. In a letter to colleagues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday saying -- quote -- "This week, the House will introduce and vote on a war powers resolution to limit the president's military actions regarding Iran. It reasserts Congress' long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further congressional action is taken, the administration's military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days."

The president dismissing Congress' attempts or at least Democrats' attempts to rein in his ability to respond to threats from Iran, the president tweeting -- quote -- "These media posts," talking about his tweets, "will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly and fully strike back, and perhaps in a disproportionate matter. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless."

The president has come under criticism, Neil, for what he said over the weekend, that he has 52 Iranian sites in mind as possible retaliation for any Iran -- Iranian revenge. And he said that some of those would be sites of cultural significance.

Despite the criticism, the president doubling down on that last night on Air Force One, saying that Iran and Qassem Soleimani had been allowed to target American forces, kill American soldiers, and we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? Doesn't work that way -- Neil.

CAVUTO: John Roberts at the White House, thank you, my friend.

Now to Washington, where we're awaiting remarks at any moment from the Democratic Senator Tim Kaine. He is expected to call for passage of his own war powers resolution.

Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill to explain what that is all about -- Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon.

Yes, Senator Tim Kaine has been arguing for a long time Congress should debate and vote on issues as serious as military action, in this case against Iran. And so that's something he will be calling for on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was just on the Senate floor a short time ago calling on his colleagues to put a pause on partisanship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Can we not at least wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred of national unity for five minutes, for five minutes, before deepening the partisan trenches?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: Then it was the Senate Democratic leader's turn, Chuck Schumer, saying essentially that he has many, many questions about this military strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: President Trump had promised to keep the United States out of endless wars in the Middle East.

The president's actions, however, have seemingly increased the risk that we could be dragged into exactly such a war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: A Republican who is previously a CIA officer says Tehran has been provoking the U.S. for decades.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. WILL HURD (R-TX): Let's be honest. The Iranian government has been at war with us for almost 41 years.

To think that they're going to change overnight is impossible. And we need an international coalition in order to show the ayatollahs that they have to change their behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: A Democrat who previously served as a CIA officer says the commander in chief has the power to take action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Every president, this one, past, future, all have the right to self-defense, always. And they don't have to go to Congress to deal with that. If we are under imminent threat, we should go.

And that's exactly why I want to know the basis of that, right, because I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the larger conversation of where this leads.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: Lawmakers are expected to vote on a war powers resolution in the House this week seeking to limit President Trump's military actions against Iran -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Mike, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, we have got former Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman with us right now.

He wrote a very powerful op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal outlining in part that the president's order to take out Soleimani was indeed morally, constitutionally and strategically correct.

Continuing here: "It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats."

The guy who wrote that, again, with me now, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Senator, good to have you.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Thank you, Neil. Great to be with you.

CAVUTO: What have Democrats told you about your column?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I haven't heard of any -- from any of my former colleagues yet today.

I hope they read it. This is -- we're at another turning point here. And it -- look, what President Trump did was bold, it was unconventional. It would be natural if there was -- were questions about it, but it's not natural that all the questions are coming from Democrats and all the praise from Republicans.

And that tells me that this partisanship that has really disabled our government is now standing in the way of us getting together across party lines, even about the killing of a man who's responsible for the deaths of a lot of Americans.

CAVUTO: A lot of them are saying -- Senator Wyden now, why go after him now? Some going so far to say it's sort of like a wag the dog moment, wait the tail moment, where you are trying to take people's attention away.

That's why maybe Democrats are ignoring what you're saying today, that this was all political on the president's part.

What do you think?

LIEBERMAN: Well, maybe the reason -- I don't think it's a good reason or an acceptable reason.

Look, in my opinion, we had reason to go after Soleimani 15 years ago, when he was overseeing the Quds Force.

CAVUTO: Why didn't we?

LIEBERMAN: I don't know.

CAVUTO: Yes.

LIEBERMAN: I think part of it was that we were engaged in the Iraq War then. We didn't want to open another front.

But, when you think about it, as I said in the column, he oversaw Quds Force training camps, three of them, in Iran, where he brought Iraqi militias there for training and equipping. They went back, and by the State Department's totally, more than 600 Americans were killed.

CAVUTO: No, you spell that out very well.

You go on to say the double standard here, because you said: "On many occasions, President Obama sensibly ordered drone strikes on dangerous terrorist leaders, including U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, did so without specific congressional authorization and without significant Democratic opposition."

LIEBERMAN: Yes. Right.

CAVUTO: "Mr. Obama also brought justice to Usama bin Laden," you wrote, "without prior explicit congressional approval."

So this does have like a political feel to it.

LIEBERMAN: It has a political feel to it.

Incidentally, now, there are reasons why you would want to strike Soleimani. I mean, in the last couple of months, the Iranians have shot down one of our drones. They attacked the Saudi oil fields. They just attacked our embassy.

CAVUTO: We never responded to those.

LIEBERMAN: Never responded to those.

And I think what was happening in the air there in the Middle East was that our allies on the ground, particularly in the Arab world, were saying, can we rely on the United States as Iran escalates?

And I think the president decided to make it clear that they could rely on us.

So, I think it was the right thing to do. I hope my fellow Democrats...

CAVUTO: But now Congress is going to lead -- Senator Kaine first, your old colleague, and others are looking at ways to sort of rein in the president's war powers.

What do you think of that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, this is classic and traditional wrestling between Congress and the White House when this kind of thing happens. I saw it happen in my time in the Senate with different parties and the White House different and Congress.

But the reality is, it's very clear from the Constitution and common sense today that, if a president decides to take action like this, he doesn't have to tell the country, the world or have a vote in Congress, particularly the way modern warfare is, when you think about it.

He didn't commit a lot of troops. He didn't commit any American troops on the ground, because of our extraordinary technological intelligence capabilities. We dropped a drone on those vehicles.

Five people were killed, including Soleimani, and no -- no other injuries as a result.

CAVUTO: Then let me ask you a little bit about how far this spreads.

You already have the Iraqis telling us, get out of Iraq.

LIEBERMAN: Right.

CAVUTO: And you have the defense secretary, who says there's been no decision to leave Iraq.

But how far have we come that Iraq and Iran seem to be on the same page?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, I don't think they're going to be on the same page for very long. I hope I'm right.

In other words...

CAVUTO: Do you think Iraq means it, they want us out, all our soldiers out?

LIEBERMAN: No.

CAVUTO: What happens to them if we do?

LIEBERMAN: No, I think what -- I think, after this first wave, when Shias particularly and a group within Iran that -- loyal to the supreme leader, ayatollah, expressed their rage.

Obviously, Soleimani was a hero to some people. So they're -- they're emotional about his death. But, in both countries, Iran and Iraq, there's been remarkable protest in just the last half-year against Iran.

There's probably as many people in Iraq don't that want Iran out of Iraq today as would protest.

CAVUTO: Do you think it would be dangerous for the president to pull troops out now?

He has already said, well, even if I were to consider -- I'm paraphrasing here, Senator -- you owe on this multibillion-dollar facility we got...

(CROSSTALK)

LIEBERMAN: Yes. Yes.

I think it would be dangerous if the president pulled our troops out of Iraq. And, frankly, it would be dangerous for the Iraqis. I think most Iraqis understand that, including most Iraqis in their government.

And yesterday's resolution in the Iraqi Parliament was urging the prime minister, who's going to leave office soon, to ask the Americans to leave.

I think, ultimately, that's not going to happen because the Iraqis are the first beneficiaries of our presence there. They can't take on ISIS alone.

And they know that, if we go out, Iran will totally dominate their country and make them like a colony. And they don't want that.

CAVUTO: All right.

Well, apparently, all the Democratic presidential candidates, including Joe Biden, who has likened this to sort of throwing a dynamite stick in the middle of all of us, are, to a man or woman, saying big mistake.

Yet the argument that you just worked up a hornet's nest, this guy's killed and hurt a lot of people in the process.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

CAVUTO: Leaving him be would have been better?

LIEBERMAN: No.

First off, what he got from the U.S., which was death, he deserved for years and years of murdering Americans and our allies in the Middle East and a lot of innocent civilians in places like Syria.

There was no question that, if he stayed where he was, he would continue to murder.

Here's a more basic principle, pulling back. We're a great nation. We have a mighty military. Iran is an enemy. Soleimani led the enemy actions against us.

We have come to a bad state if we are afraid to act against our enemies because we worry what they're going to do to us.

CAVUTO: Do you think a President Biden would have passed up the opportunity to take this guy out, knowing what he has done?

LIEBERMAN: Frankly, I think, if he were president, he might not have, because I watched what President Obama, who he was vice president for, obviously, did to Anwar al-Awlaki, to a bunch of other terrorist leaders who -- who President Obama ordered drone attacks on and killed them, and, of course, in the SEAL attack on Usama bin Laden.

CAVUTO: Yes.

LIEBERMAN: So, you're -- when you're in the Democratic primary or the Republican primary -- in this case, Democratic -- you're in a bubble.

You're appealing to a relatively small group of Americans.

CAVUTO: And it can come back to bite your heinie here, right?

LIEBERMAN: It can.

That's my final warning to my fellow Democrats. Be careful what you do, either out of a general feeling of opposition to President Trump or partisanship, thinking about the Democratic primary, because, in the end, the American people are not going to vote for anyone for president who they don't think is willing to use American force to protect our security.

CAVUTO: Senator, thank you very, very much. Very nice seeing you.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Neil. You too.

CAVUTO: We are following these developments very, very closely.

We're also waiting to hear from Senator Kaine, again, who is going to make the first formal move to sort of limit the president's war powers and just how much he can do without a congressional OK, which, to the senator's liking, will be very little.

In the meantime, the markets finished up today, despite all of this. Oil prices were shaken today, but hardly stirred. It's a reminder that, as far as the market see things, this crisis too shall pass, but will it?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: You know, the people who bet with their money aren't betting on a crisis just yet.

Oil did hit an eight-month high, before closing today off session lows.

That was mirrored in a lot of other key products we watch.

Jeff Flock at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange with why oil traders are responding this way.

Hey, Jeff.

JEFF FLOCK, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CORRESPONDENT: It was a knee-jerk reaction in some ways, Neil.

You have problems in the Middle East. Oh, must be -- oil must be skyrocketing. Well, it went up $1.70 today, but at the close down 22 cents.

And I'm looking in the after-hours. We're still down 22 cents. So why is this the case? Well, if this had happened three or four years ago, you would have seen a big spike. But we are a lot more energy-independent now, thanks to drilling for -- in the shale regions, fracking. We are a huge energy producer.

So what happens in the Middle East doesn't have as much impact on it.

Now, there is fear about the future. That can be seen in gas prices, potentially in gas prices, although right now we're not seeing a whole lot of movement. In fact, in the last month, we haven't seen a lot of movement. Take a look at the price for an average gallon a regular, $2.58 today. It was $2.57 a month ago, so not a whole lot of movement there.

Same way in premium and diesel.

And a lot of people tell us, Neil, that, as we go forward, because we're now January, February, the weakest driving months of the year, we may not see much of a spike in gasoline prices. So, well, those naysayers that said, oh, we're in for a disaster, hadn't happened yet.

CAVUTO: You know, and I can dare say, my friend, you and I are old enough to know just talk of something like this developing would have sent prices rocketing in the old days, right?

FLOCK: It's amazing how much it's changed, isn't it? Yes, really, pretty crazy.

CAVUTO: Oh, we should tell kids to get off our lawn.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend, very much.

FLOCK: Get off my lawn.

CAVUTO: Exactly. That's very well explained, as only he can.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is a key oil shipping route in the Middle East, and really for much of the world's oil supply. So, how do you protect it if -- and things get more volatile?

The former USS Cole Commander Kirk Lippold.

Commander, we talk about the Strait of Hormuz, I don't realize that, at some points, it's 21 miles' wide. I mean, anything can happen and, in the past, has happened.

And the Iranians have always gone back and forth threatening to rig it, so that things will explode and tankers would never get through there.

If that were to happen, if that were to happen -- and I know you don't think it will, but if that were to happen, all bets are off, aren't they?

KIRK LIPPOLD, FORMER COMMANDER, USS COLE: I think all bets would be off.

And I think that the world at that point, knowing that their economies are going to be very adversely affected by Iranian actions like that, would, in fact, sanction Iran even further.

And they would also call for military force to be used against it. I mean, that is one of the key things that we, the United States, have in that area, that others don't.

And that is a good intelligence apparatus that allows us to get the intelligence and warnings necessary to determine, number one, do the Iranians even have that capability? And if they do, how long can they sustain it before it could be taken out and eliminated as a threat?

CAVUTO: But they do, to your point, have the ability to take out tankers and to bomb oil facilities or through their proxies to do so in Saudi Arabia.

So they have the means and the wherewithal do it. Do you think they will do something like that?

LIPPOLD: I don't think they will, unless the mullahs feel that they're backed into a corner and the existence of their government is threatened, because they know that the retaliation that they would experience from the United States and others would, in fact, jeopardize the regime even further, possibly toppling it, because the world is not going to tolerate having the supply of oil coming out of the Middle East affected, or, worse yet, cut off, even for a short period of time.

CAVUTO: So, what do you think they do, especially now working closely with the Iraqis, who apparently want us out of Iraq?

That doesn't seem likely, especially if the defense secretary said there are no plans to do that. What do you think of all that?

LIPPOLD: Well, first, that resolution that was passed was nonbinding.

CAVUTO: Right.

LIPPOLD: You have to remember, all the Kurds and Sunnis never even showed up. So it was only the Shia and the people that are supporting Iran that voted for that.

So, right off the bat, we will wait and see what happens. The defense secretary is correct. But I think, at the end of the day, Neil, we're going to stand back.

And, right now, we are probably taking a very close look at, where do the Iranians have the capability to affect the shipment of oil through the Strait of Hormuz? How are we going to interdict and prevent it, first and foremost, from them taking any action? And then, if they do it, how quickly can we eliminate that threat?

CAVUTO: All right, we will watch it closely, Commander, as always.

Thank you for joining me, and more for your incredible service to this country, Kirk Lippold.

By the way, the Iranians have ample experience in cyberattacks, from banks and utilities and transit systems, at one time even with a U.S. dam. They have been there, done that, and done a lot of damage to all of that -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, when it rains, it pours.

This development, we're watching live right now.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, he is delivering a speech on the floor of the United States Senate, a motion to dismiss the two articles of impeachment against the president of the United States.

Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): It's been 19 days. It could be 90 days. It could be 190 days.

There is nothing that will stop the speaker from sitting on these articles indefinitely. They could persist into the president's second term, if and when he is reelected. That's the situation that we are now facing.

And if Americans are sick of this impeachment saga, this partisan circus now, just wait when we're still sitting here in October or January of next year or January of the year following, or who knows when, without a trial, without adjudication, without any resolution.

That's why, Madam President, it's time for this body to act. It is time for the Senate to act to preserve the Constitution's separation of powers, to preserve the Constitution's guarantees, the right to due process, the right for the president to be heard, the right for the American people to have...

CAVUTO: All right, continuing to monitor Senator Josh Hawley, not a fan of the impeachment process, but the first on record to say, just drop the articles, let's move on in the Senate, this is a waste of time.

Meanwhile, we're getting new warnings of potential cyberattacks from Iran's government targeting U.S. interests in response to the killing of General Soleimani.

We have got Hillary Vaughn, who has been monitoring all of this, and amply points out there have been cases before.

Hi, Hillary.

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.

Yes, there have. I talked to the director at CISA, the Cybersecurity Agency, at the Department of Homeland Security. And he tells me they are actually more concerned that Iran will target financial institutions, big banks or large companies, in a wide-scale cyberattack.

Director Chris Krebs says, on Friday, they held a mass conference call with over 1,700 private partners, including major banks and financial institutions, to go over how to fend off an incoming attack, and also defend their networks from compromise, because, in the past, Iran's most notorious attacks have actually targeted the private sector from wiping out a casino's entire network after its owner, Sheldon Adelson, made anti-Iran comments.

The country levied mass cyber-warfare against Vegas Sands Resort and Casino, targeting their entire network. They have also targeted energy companies and all also U.S. machinery, like attacking the New York state dam eight years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIERSTEN TODT, CYBER READINESS INSTITUTE: I think no company is off- limits.

We saw in 2012 them have an attack against the financial sector. We saw them in 2014 against the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. We have seen different examples of how they're attacking U.S. companies' infrastructure.

So, really everything is a target right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: Two days ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a national terrorism advisory bulletin, warning that Iran has a robust cyber program, strong enough to attack critical U.S. infrastructure that could put entire industries at risk, like airlines and utilities.

Iran's cyberattacks may have already started, though. Over the weekend, several Web sites were hijacked by hackers displaying pro-Iran and anti- U.S. messages. One of them was a government Web site.

But, so far, they still have not officially tied those front-page takeovers, Neil, to Iran -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Hillary Vaughn, thank you very, very much.

So, are we prepared for something like that if and when it happens, because, as Hillary pointed out, it has happened again and again?

Former CIA officer Mike Baker, cybersecurity expert Leeza Garber.

Leeza, are we ready for that?

LEEZA GARBER, ATTORNEY: It's important understand that we can never be 100 percent ready. We can never be 100 percent protected.

And the point to make is that the U.S. went after -- U.S. and Israeli cyber-intelligence went after Iran back in 2010 with Stuxnet, and, since then, Iran has been bolstering its resources. And we have seen it in the past decade. They are ready to make some attacks.

CAVUTO: You know, Michael, when I was going through the history of their Iranian-led hits on U.S. interests, including 2011, again in 2013, U.S. banks, computerized system, again in 2014, the Las Vegas Sands that we alluded to there, a cyberattack on Saudi Aramco that wiped out tens of thousands of computers.

In fact, there was a big push for hard drives that were in short supply, because the Saudis were so wiped out. So, they have perfected this.

Do we have to worry about it?

Mike Baker, can you hear me?

MIKE BAKER, FORMER CIA COVERT OPERATIONS OFFICER: Well, we do.

Yes, I can. And thank you.

Look, the -- all those previous attacks that you're talking about have been a learning experience for Iran. They started out with fairly simple denial of service attacks back in 2010-2011 or so.

Over the past eight, nine years, they have been devoting a lot of time, a lot of resources, a lot of effort. And they have moved into more destructive attacks, and several of which you have already outlined.

Look, they're not -- they're not us. We're at the top of the food chain when it comes to the capabilities, offensive and defensive, for cyber- warfare, cyberattacks. They're not China, they're not Russia.

But they are increasingly focusing this effort. And I think what we have to understand is, look, they have already got the targets, right? Any country that has these capabilities has a binder with nothing but targets and priorities, and they have been looking at this.

So you can guarantee that, as we're talking, there are individuals in Iran that are sitting looking through. They're ticking off which targets to go after.

CAVUTO: All right, guys, I want to thank you.

I'm sorry to abbreviate this for some breaking news right now.

Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is delivering a speech on limiting the powers of the president when it comes to when and how he can get an act of war going. Never mind the fact we're not even there. He's trying to limit those powers ahead of time.

The senator.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): I believe that the U.S. shouldn't be at war with Iran, and that, indeed, another war in the Middle East now would be catastrophic.

But I recognize that some of my colleagues may have a different point of view. So, I speak in the hopes of forging a consensus on at least one issue.

And that issue is this. If there is to be a war with Iran, it shouldn't be initiated by this president or any president acting on his or her own. It should only be initiated by a vote of Congress, following an open and public debate in full view of the American people.

Every member of Congress should vote and then be accountable for the question of whether another war in the Middle East is a good idea.

The demand for congressional accountability is constitutionally required.

In the unique constitutional framework that we have, we pledge to support and defend the principle. It's up to Congress to declare war, not the president.

If we engage in a war, the odds are high that young American men and women will be killed or injured. Some will see their friends killed and injured.

Some will have the remainder of their lives affected by physical and emotional injuries, post-traumatic stress, the pain of losing friends.

And their families and friends will bear those scars as well. If we're to order our troops and their families to run that risk, then it should be based on a public consensus, as reflected in an open congressional debate and vote that war is in the national interest.

And if Congress debates the matter, in full view of the public, and reaches the conclusion that a war is necessary, so be it.

Even if I were to vote no, if the majority of my colleagues voted yes, I would agree that the decision to go to war was a legitimate basis to order our best and brightest into harm's way.

CAVUTO: All right, you're listening to Senator Tim Kaine.

He is leading an effort right now supported by many Democrats to limit how far the president can go without first consulting Congress. They already say that the death of Soleimani was a step too far, because it was never broached with Congress.

Never mind the administration is planning to outline the details that they had on what Soleimani was planning and attacks on U.S. soldiers and other interests in the region. For now, the senator is taking the leap to say, limit his powers right now.

It's, again, something widely supported among Democrats, not so much among Republicans, including my next guest, Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally. She sits, by the way, on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator, thank you for taking the time.

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Absolutely, Neil.

CAVUTO: So, what do you make of what Senator Kaine is doing? Other Democrats have been leading this charge to say, go slow, Mr. President.

Consult us, Mr. President. And, oh, yes, when it comes to your war powers, we're going to clip your wings, Mr. President.

MCSALLY: Well, Neil, more importantly, my background, I served 26 years in the Air Force. I deployed six times, to include this region.

And in my last assignment, I oversaw counterterrorism operations against a lot of lower-level terrorists out there in Africa.

And I can't imagine, as someone in the military, that we would have to, in the middle of these potential strikes, with the intelligence coming together and the decision-making of the commander in chief, that we would have to go to 435 other people in the moment in order to protect Americans.

This strike was clearly authorized. Soleimani was an evil man. He was a terrorist leader. It was a legitimate, lawful target.

And the commander in chief, President Trump, did the right thing to take him out. There's over 600 American families who don't have their loved one because of Soleimani killing them through his proxies in Iraq, and thousands of others who were maimed by his deadly IEDs that brought destruction on our troops.

And so he was continuing to ratchet up that pressure. He was continuing, despite warnings saying, do not kill an American, do not cross that line, to plan. They killed an American, and then they continued to plan for that. He deserved his fate.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, you are aware of more reasons for this than some of your colleagues are.

MCSALLY: Yes.

CAVUTO: Do you have a heads-up on what will be presented tomorrow by administration officials to justify this take-out?

MCSALLY: Well, I look forward to that briefing from the leadership, Secretary Esper, General Milley, Secretary Pompeo, intelligence agencies.

CAVUTO: Right.

MCSALLY: I mean, these are appropriate things to do after the fact when an important strike like this happened, probably very similar -- I wasn't in Congress -- but when Usama bin Laden was taken out, probably very similar process.

CAVUTO: And they came after the fact, in other words. And that might be fine.

MCSALLY: Exactly.

CAVUTO: So, I think I misstated. That briefing will be Wednesday.

MCSALLY: Yes.

CAVUTO: But let me get your take then on this.

I mean, if he was taking out so many Americans, as he has over the years...

MCSALLY: Yes.

CAVUTO: And you're accurate about that, to say nothing of his role in Syria, and killing and helping to kill many of the refugees many in both parties sympathize with today...

MCSALLY: Yes. Yes.

CAVUTO: ... I guess I'm curious why prior presidents, Republican and Democrat, haven't taken this guy out when they had the opportunity.

MCSALLY: Well, I -- I can't speak for that.

I can just tell you in the -- again, in the weeks and the months past, despite repeated warnings and tremendous restraint by this administration - - I was over in the Straits of Hormuz in October on a Navy ship. I was at the Saudi Aramco facility, as the first senator to show up with Joe Manchin right after the bombing there.

I'm very familiar with this region. They have ratcheted up the pressure.

We have shown restraint, but said, do not kill an American. Yet they continued, under Soleimani's leadership and approval and direction, to rocket against American bases. They killed an American. And they were planning more attacks.

This was an attack in order to disrupt those plans, to de-escalate the situation, and hopefully deter future action. The next step is up to Iran.

Think about it for a second, Neil. They didn't say...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But let me ask you that, Senator, if you don't mind, just to be clear.

MCSALLY: OK. Go ahead.

CAVUTO: The president has already promised a response on their part would lead to a response on our part to go after 52 different targets, and presumably many of them historical shrines or something unique to the Iranian heritage, et cetera.

Others, Democrats, have cited that as a violation of the War Powers Act in and of itself. What do you think of that?

MCSALLY: Well, I think our hope is to de-escalate and to deter future action.

Certainly, nobody, when we went after Usama bin Laden, said that we should be afraid of what Al Qaeda did next. We have to make sure that we protect Americans and our interests. And the hope is that Iran realizes that the price is very high for them if they choose to engage further and kill Americans.

So they need to take a different direction. Their own people are protesting. They want a different path. It's now up to the Iranian leadership.

But we shouldn't be afraid. We should defend our troops and our interests.

And then we should make sure that we do what we can to deter any future action. And that's using military, economic deterrent actions, diplomatic as well.

CAVUTO: I'm sure, as someone who served this country very honorably, Senator, you must be a little shocked to hear the response we're getting from Iraqis...

MCSALLY: Yes.

CAVUTO: ... many of them working with the Iranians, and now advocating that we leave Iraq altogether. What do you think of that?

MCSALLY: I think of all the American families who lost a loved one serving over Iraq.

If we were to leave -- look, we don't want endless wars in the Middle East.

My constituents don't want that. We need others to step up. We need the Europeans to be engaged.

But if we were to leave based on this moment and this pressure, this is exactly what Iran wants. And Iraq would continue to become more of a puppet state of Iran and collapse in the vacuum as a safe haven for terrorism. And...

CAVUTO: But do you worry that it sends a message that, looking at all the blood and sacrifice American soldiers have made and the sacrifices you made, that, what the hell? What happened?

MCSALLY: Yes, what the hell?

I think, at this moment in time, we need to make sure that we're clear-eyed about what our interests are now, protect the Americans that are there, have others step up and deter activity, so these American sons and daughters didn't die in vain.

CAVUTO: But what if we're saying to them, you don't want us here, you're on your own?

MCSALLY: Well, again, we have got to protect our interests. This isn't -- they have their own ideas, but we have got to make sure that we protect Americans in the theater and in the region, that there's no safe haven for terrorism, and we protect our -- also -- and support our strong ally Israel.

Look, Iran has been screaming death to America and death to Israel since the revolution. They need to pick a different path. And Iraq has been -- in its weakness, Soleimani created tremendous power there through his proxy forces.

And now that leader is dead. So, Iraq now has a choice to pick a different path as well.

CAVUTO: All right. We will watch what happens.

Senator, thank you very, very much.

MCSALLY: Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO: Meanwhile, I told you earlier on we were watching Josh Hawley, the senator, Republican senator, who was saying, enough with this impeachment talk, let's move on here, drop it, because nothing's really going on here.

How big is that movement right now?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, just a little earlier you're hearing for Josh Hawley, senator, who is saying, enough with this ongoing impeachment madness.

Let's stop it right now and move on with other issues.

That is not one that is universally shared, certainly, even within the United States Senate, where it looks like something will happen. We just don't know when and the timeline of all that.

But I know who does, Chad Pergram following all of this on Capitol Hill.

Chad, what do we -- what do you make of this?

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, we remain at an impasse, is the bottom line. Yes, we remain at an impasse right now, as long as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to hold onto the articles of impeachment.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, indicated Friday that he can't start a trial without the articles. We might start to learn a little bit more about this when the House of Representatives comes back to session sometime tomorrow.

But Mitch McConnell said today, send us the articles.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCONNELL: Democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy, like a political toy, treating their own effort to remove our commander in chief like some frivolous game.

These bizarre stunts do not serve our Constitution or our national security. They erode both.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: Now, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, he accused Republicans of the ones playing games. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUMER: Leader McConnell has sort of exempted himself from fair debate.

He doesn't want a fair trial. He wants a quick and sham trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: Now, the thing that we know that's new today is John Bolton, the former national security adviser, has indicated that he would be willing to testify in a Senate trial if he were to be subpoenaed.

Now, what Democrats are trying to do, notably, Chuck Schumer, is put pressure on, say, four or five Senate Republicans to go along with that, and then you can't have any agreement whatsoever on the Republican side to go ahead with kind of just a motion to dismiss a Senate trial without really considering the articles.

You mentioned Josh Hawley. He was just on the floor a couple of minutes ago, indicating that he wants to move to dismiss the articles.

Now, I'm going to take you down the rabbit hole here, Neil. There are 44 standing rules of the Senate. There are 26 Senate impeachment rules. If you're going to end a filibuster on changing a standing rule of the Senate, you need 67 votes.

That's going to be pretty hard to do, because they treat those impeachment articles -- or -- excuse me -- those impeachment rules as the same -- the same as the Senate rules, the standing rules of the Senate.

We don't even know that they could get 51 votes to adopt what Senator Hawley is talking about here, let alone 67.

So if they're going to get anywhere with Senator Hawley's resolution, they have to get a lot more people on board. And that's going to be a far cry.

We should know a little bit more about the Senate's disposition tomorrow, because they meet tomorrow for the weekly caucus lunches. And I just talked to John Cornyn, the Republican senator from Texas, and he said, right now, there's not a whole lot for Senate -- senators to do, until they get those articles of impeachment from the House of Representatives -- Neil.

CAVUTO: You know, it also takes 51 votes to get approval for witnesses, right?

PERGRAM: That's right.

CAVUTO: And there are at least a couple of Republican senators open to the idea.

Now, let's say all 47 Democrats were in lockstep to push that. Could you get four Republicans to do that? Because that's -- unless that happens, this goes nowhere, right?

PERGRAM: Well, that's why Chuck Schumer is trying to put pressure on vulnerable Republican senators.

Look at Martha McSally in Arizona.

CAVUTO: Right.

PERGRAM: Look at Cory Gardner in Colorado, maybe someone like Mitt Romney, someone who's willing to go across and say, let's have a bona fide Senate trial. Let's just not dismiss these articles.

CAVUTO: Thank you, my friend, brilliant, as always.

PERGRAM: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Chad Pergram in the middle of all that.

In the mean -- then we're going to go down under in the middle of all of these brushfires that are really doing a number on Australia, and they're a long way from out of it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, Australia is still in danger with these massive wildfires, some of them equaling the size of two Marylands.

FOX News' Jeff Paul on the ground there with much more -- Jeff.

JEFF PAUL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Neil.

It has been some sad news earlier today, when we learned that the death toll has now rose to 25 people dead since these fires started back in September. And the real fear moving forward is, what's going to happen over the next couple days?

The last few days have proved to have some favorable conditions. It's been rainy, colder temperatures. That has helped give some mental relief for the people who've been so greatly impacted by this fire, but also given firefighters a chance to get some of these fires contained.

Where we at, here in New South Wales, there are 130 fires. Only half of them are contained. And the fear is, once the temperatures warm up, those fires that they battled back against will reignite in the next few days.

The numbers, though, are very staggering. You mentioned twice the size of Maryland as fires burn. That's 12 million acres, 2,000 homes destroyed.

And listening to some of these people who have had to leave everything behind, they say they didn't have much time to escape, only with their lives.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN AISH, FIRE VICTIM: I'll tell you, it was like a hurricane. It was just bloody quick and just hard to describe. The noise was just like a bloody jet -- jet engine, like just got louder and louder, and it just -- just the roar of the wind and that sort of thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Now, in terms of business, where we are at, here along the coast, this is an area that really relies on tourism.

And you got to imagine, after having such a devastating fire wreak havoc here for the last couple months, not a lot of people are coming down here, places like boat tours, wildlife exploration, tours, those kind of things.

Hotels are empty. People aren't going to restaurants.

So, this fire will be devastating in multiple different ways -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Jeff Paul, thank you very, very much, my friend.

In the meantime, what is more dangerous than an Iranian politician threatening to attack the White House? No one in the Iranian government criticizing him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, you hear "Death to America" out of Iranian politicians, you hear it so much, you don't even pay attention.

But when a top Iranian politician goes so far as to say, you know, attack the White House after our killing General Qassem Soleimani, then the question should be asked, why didn't anyone in the Iranian government chastise him, because, as of yet, no one has?

Former secret agent Dan Emmett on whether that makes this threat a little bit more worrisome.

What do you think, Dan?

DAN EMMETT, FORMER U.S. SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Hi, Neil.

Well, any time Iran says anything, you have to listen to them. Most of the time, it's rhetoric, saber-rattling, but every so often, they're actually serious about what they're talking about.

So, the Secret Service takes every threat on the president of the United States seriously. It doesn't matter if it's a drunk in a bar at 3:00 a.m. or the government of Iran. They're going to take it seriously. And they're going to do everything possible to ensure the safety of the president.

So, if Iran or any of their co-optees decide to attack the White House, they're going to be in for a pretty nasty surprise.

CAVUTO: You know, there's already bounty that they were advocating at one rally, saying that there are 80 million of us. If we each put up one American dollar to take out the president of the United States, we will succeed.

I mean, this is really scary, crazy times we live in. And there are more than a few who have the disposition, or lack of it, I should say, to see if they can make that happen. What do we do to protect the president of the United States?

EMMETT: Well, Neil, the president of the United States is surrounded essentially by a circle of steel and human bodies 24/7.

So, in order for anyone to get to him, they're going to have to go through an awful lot of technological devices. They're going to have to go through a lot of armor. And the last line of defense, they're going to have to go through the agents.

CAVUTO: But would you restrict his travels, Dan? Would you restrict his travels? Would you -- some have said that, maybe in this environment right now, he's maybe got to be extra cautious.

What do you think?

EMMETT: Well, currently, sure, I would say you have to be extra cautious.

But the Secret Service maintains a certain level of alertness around the president at all times. It doesn't really matter where he is.

CAVUTO: Yes.

EMMETT: If he travels, he takes the White House with him in terms of the security there.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

Dan, what was -- what became crazy talk vs. a credible threat that you couldn't dismiss?

EMMETT: Yes, there really is no such thing as differentiating between the two.

Any threat, any threat is taken by the Secret Service as being the real deal, every single one. They're all run out. They're all thoroughly investigated, until it's determined that they are or are not legitimate.

And, if they are, the Secret Service and other federal agencies, along with the intelligence community, goes after that threat.

CAVUTO: So, when you have a foreign government that is barely acting like a government at all, and more like just a bunch of thugs, how do you play that?

EMMETT: Well, you play it pretty much the same.

The Secret Service has a playbook for just about everything. And there's very little that they -- in fact, there's nothing they don't train for, whether it's a rogue regime, whether it's the crazy people running the Iranian government.

All of it really comes down to, it's the same level of protection, no matter where he goes, whether it's at the White House or whether he's overseas.

CAVUTO: All right. Regardless of whether people like this president or not, he is the president of the United States. He is the leader of the free world.

Dan, we will watch it very, very closely.

And, again, there was a time when we looked at Iran and said they certainly would never allow a takeover of an American embassy. Of course, they did, because the government countenanced it.

The fact is, the government continues to countenance protesters who say the craziest things, and they don't call them on it. That is why this is worrisome for a lot of folks, because the crazies are loose.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.