to learn details about malik nadal hasan, the army psychiatrist believed to be honor for yesterday's shootings that left 13 dead and 38 wounded at the fort hood military base.- now hasan was shot by police and authorities say he remains in a coma but he is expected to survive.- now, we are just receiving the first video of the suspect, seen here at an event sponsored by george washington university's homeland security policy institute about the israeli-palestinian conflict.- meanwhile, the search for a motive for this seemingly inexplicable crime is now underway.- underway.- authorities searched hasan's apartment and the a.p. reports that they seized his computer.- this comes after news hasan came to the attention of federal authorities six months ago for authoring radical internet posting, one that reads, quote, scholars have paralleled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save muslims by killing enemy soldiers.- if one suicide bomber can kill after spending six years at the walter reed medical center, he was moved to fort hood where he received a poor performance evaluation. as investigators pieced together this war, a clear motive remains a a mystery. tell us the mood. >> you know the mood is very tense and very somber. investigators spent the day coming through the wreckage. they were looking to see if they could find any answers in the home. we are told it will be taken to the air force base for an autopsy. this is blank for the deaths of 12 soldiers. neighbors said that he was moving out. he asked another one to clear his apartment. witnesses saw him yelling "god is great," during the rampage. as forhasan, he is on a ventilator. he will be taken to a hospital away from fort hood. sean: joining me now is a former marine corps counter-terrorism specialist. i am also joined by dr. dale archer. he helps soldiers deal with posttraumatic stress. you were provided with a brief, what does it say? >> it is interesting what it says and what it does not say. under the religious preference section, he said he had no religious preference. religious preference. he only has a total of three ribbons, decorations. none of them are personal decorations. they are called so-called fire watch ribbons. sean: these reports that he said "god is great," before the shooting. shooting. he condemned our foreign policy. he thought that people should rise up against our forces. why was he allowed to stand military? >> there are two reasons. the u.s. army paid for his entire medical education including a fellowship, his internship, his presidency over at walter reed. sean: if he has radical opinions like this, shouldn't alarm bells been going off in everyone's head? >> they will look into the context. he is a practicing psychiatrist, not a very good one. with the people coming back from iraq and afghanistan with posttraumatic stress disorder, only 17% have shown to have this. it would hope to have as many psychiatrists available as possible. >> dr. archer, apparently his cousin who called into the fox go to war and similarly had hired an attorney to get out of the to pay the money back. there were a lot of warning signs, right? >> yeah, the warning signs were everywhere. the big issues i have here, he was treating our soldiers coming back who needed help. if you have a psychiatrist who doesn't believe in what you're doing, not only do you not have someone who won't be able to provide you hope because that's the most important role of a psychiatrist, you let the person know i've treated conditions like this, you can overcome it and get better. he didn't believe in what they were doing and as a result, he would have them thinking, you know what, not only am i physically injured, emotionally scarred, psychologically traumatized but i was doing it in a war you don't believe is right or just. sean: there were even reports that perhaps, and this has not been confirmed, he might have even been proselytizing his religion. at one point there seems to be one indication after another that he had views that were fairly rat cal, out of the mainstream, and according to some reports, the a.p. reporting he had gotten rid of all his possessions in his home, that this was a planned terrorist attack. is that a fair assessment? >> you know, i think that he had the bad review at walter reed. you have to take them off the front lines of treatment. put them in an administrative role while you see what is going on. where the supervisors? where were his superiors? it is tough to know what is going on. if they knew that his performance was bad, then it becomes on them to take the steps necessary to get him out of that scenario. >> it seems to be that there is a fear. based on what he is saying,allah akbar, potentially proselytizing, speaking out against the war, getting rid of his possessions, it sounds like at least pieces are being put together that this could have it been a planned terrorist attack. your thoughts. >> that is exactly what happened. you cannot catch ptsd from someone that has it. this was a planned attack. we don't know how long it was planned. the fbi get to the bottom thaof that. sean: is it possible that we have other people i have radical views in our military? people have to worry not only when our troops are abroad but they have been infiltrated by others? >> in my personal research at the rocky mountain foundation, this is a possibility. that is what we have the fbi all over it. >> it is the hold and upon the superiors to know what is going on with these doctors. this is a very scary scenario. sean: any indication -- >> you have to take action. sean: we will bring you the latest details. we will turn to some of the other news. nancy pelosi is scrambling to come up with the votes for health care bill. major questions about government-funded abortions and whether or not illegal immigrants will be covered. americans continue to wait in line for their shot. shocking details about the plan to vaccinate gitmo detainees has emerged. >sean: the democrats are moving full speed ahead on their health care plan. they are running into roadblocks from their own party. into bloomberg news, a pro-life democrats want to have assurances that the government plan will not cover abortions. other are asking party leaders to insure that in legal immigrants will not be covered by the bill. given that unemployment hit double digits, he would think that the democrats would be focusing their efforts on the economy. i guess that the health care is now taken priority. joining me with reaction is the gop chairmen, michael steele. >> good to see you. sean: even with a huge advantage, nancy pelosi cannot get her democrats to support the health care bill. now we are hearing that they might have to put off the vote. >> right. this is a train wreck that is imploding before it becomes a train wreck. the reality is that this is what we are talking about. this is it, 2000 pages. you cannot even get their own party behind it. the reality is that what is in this bill does not guarantee that abortions will be escalated from funding by the federal government, does not guarantee that illegal immigrants will not be able to access the system. they cannot even make these guarantees to their own members. all of this noise you hear from the white house, nancy pelosi, republicans this, republicans that. their problems are internal. they have put together a monstrosity of a bill and they cannot get the support behind it. >> thethis will probably be pushed into next week. my position is that there is no bill. you cannot get blue dogs to agree. sean: what do we know about the amendments that were added to that 202000 page monstrosity tht we haven't looked at? >> we don't know anything about them. you have democrats that have added but democrats are not allowed to submit their at amendments come other suggestions on how to streamline this thing and make it cost-effective. on top of all of this, you have layer of lyayers of things that no one knows about. you had the president telling us that everything would be transparent. we want to share exactly what is inside this thing. nancy pelosi said that we cannot to do this. we will take a technical thing and this. there are managers at amendments that you get to look at. what kind of nonsense is that? we want to know if you are funding abortions, providing health care to illegal immigrants, create and nationalized health-care system. sean: can we keep our current plan or will we be funneled into the government's system? >> right. sean: that is my read of it. the question now is, you saw the political earthquake that takes place in new jersey. virginia, a 25 point swing in a year. how will the blue dog democrats in turn to those results and will it impact their vote on this? could this bill die as a result of the election on tuesday? >> i think that they have already determined the impact of the past election. but we say congratulations to the governors elect for an excellent campaign and providing those concerns the principles for the people of their state to wrap around those policies. with respect to health care, they have to find that this is a loser. that is why all of the guarantees about the vote to have fallen apart. sean: there were more conservative set were angry in the process of the new york 23. you pointed out that you are not responsible for selecting a candidate. there was not a single conservative position she had but yet the republican party funneled $900,000 to her. what assurances can you give your conservative base as the chair of the republican national committee that this does not happen again? >> i am in a quandary. let me address this in two ways. the $900,000 that the congressional committee spent was not on the campaign. there were advertisements that were run against owen. when they were not ad that s that went into her account. those would have been run against the nominee regardless. i am the national chairmen and i don't get to make these choices. they are chosen at local level. in this case, by a small group of individuals, not by a primary process. this cynical part was not about electing a congressman but getting a hands on the seat of that owens was holding. sean: was there ever one issue that you agreed with the candidate on? >> no. she was not my pick. she was not the choice i would have made. i am stuck with the nominee that the party puts out there. sean: thank you for being with us. nancy pelosi might say that they want on tuesday night but some democrats are singing a different tune. we will tell you what they're we will tell you what they're saying, that is coming up@nsqñg [ kick ] stronger, healthier babies. it's what the march of dimes is all about. learn more about healthy babies at... sean: hospitalizations and deaths continue to rise things to the shortage occurs h1n1 right here in the u.s. many americans was surprised when the pentagon confirmed that gitmo detainees would soon be vaccinated. almost immediately after that, robert gibbs said this. >> there's no vaccine in guantanamo or on the way to guantanamo. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know what the pentagon said. i asked about this and i was told there was no vaccine going. sean: the defense department is confirming that the prisoners will be vaccinated. they say that "we have the obligation to care for people in custody and we take that seriously." mr.gibbs, please make sure you check with the other departments. the president has not voiced concern about the elections. other democrats are not so sure. some are very concerned. nancy pelosi declared that democrats "one last night." mark warner is concerned and conceded that democrats got beat. they're not looking forward to the midterms. parker creegriffith said -- as people look for the health care reform bill, they might want to keep all of this in mind. voters rejected a law that would allow same-sex couples to marry in that state. according to a national gay- rights leaders come the man to blame for the loss is barack obama. despite supporting gay-rights, he refused to give his opinion before election day and that is not sitting well with the leader of a group called "freedom to marry." subtle statements from the white house are not enough. don't worry, this week is almost over. next wednesday, americans will honor the selfless men and women that have risked their lives to keep this country safe parent of the incident at fort hood reminds us how lucky we are to hold them. apple bebee's offering a free ml to all veterans and all active- duty military. they are invited to come by one of their 2000 restaurants nationwide and they will be able to choose from six of their signature dishes. for complete details, you can go to their website. i want to congratulate them for taking the time and being generous to offer america's soldiers. that is a news. coming up, daniel hammond joins me to weigh in on what of the copenhagen - hi, i'm halle berry, and as a new mom, i can tell you that childhood is a magical time. but for children with diabetes, life is not quite so carefree. the barbara davis center for childhood diabetes is fighting hard to find a cure. know the signs: irritability, excessive urination, weight loss. if you have any of these signs, please call your doctor. early detection can save your life. give to save lives and reach for the cure. call now or log on to childrensdiabetesfoundation.org. sean: next month, leaders from around the world will converge on denmark to go to a climate change summit. this could produce a new global warming agreement that requires countries to drastically reduce their carbon emissions. the raises very serious questions right here in the u.s.. sweeping reductions could damage our economy. it is frightening to think that the president could hand over this country's sovereignty with one signature in copenhagen. joining us is the british member of the european parliament. thank you for being with us. >> hello, always nice to see a. sean: it is a broad consensus that during the summit on the issue of climate change which i think is a farce that that is a separate issue, the u.s. will bear the blunt and to the brim of responsibility -- and the blame of responsibility. >> that is usually the starting position regardless of the reality. the u.s. has had a better record on carbon emissions than some of the countries that are its loudest critics. this is really about showing that you are a nice guy rather than doing anything. the traditional place of america is in the wrong. sean: is it accurate that the u.s. might be giving up some of its sovereignty if they even go along with what is proposed and discussed? >> i think that this is the really concerning issue. and you said at the beginning that you were a big skeptic about the climate change. i am not. i see people with whitecoats telling me one thing and equally impressive people with white coats telling me another. i envy some of the moral certainty. i am worried about the direction of these talks that are taking in the sense that this is completely disproportionate. even if you take the figures used by the most optimistic supporters of the whole process, they're talking about a very small reduction in the climate change raite. look at the price that they want us to pay for it. with thalong with europe and the u.s., we don't contribute that much right now. sean: we can go back to the first earth day and i can show you pictures of the very same people who are saying that global warming is about to say the world. they were cold and signs that say the i s change is -- ice age is coming. there are scientists who are suggesting that this is a hoax. there is no scientific data. we have come off of one of the coolest years on record. should we be making decisions like this that have such a broad economic impact without the scientific community being in full agreement? >> it seems to be the case that if it is getting more hot, that is global warming, if it is getting cold, that is global warming. i think there are good people on both sides of this debate and one of the slightly unpleasant things is the way in which people in cute loan note of -- impute low motives. most of the people that agree with you have reached their own conclusions. similarly, some people have reached a different opinion. i hope that we can keep the debate rational and scientific. environmental is too important to be left to the left. we shouldn't accept the only solutions because we all would agree on climate change, we all want cleaner air and water. we shouldn't accept the argument the only way of getting those things is with less sovereignty, more bureaucracy, more intervention, more regulation, more global power. the real solutions to those things are property rights, you know, extend property rights to things like air an water, give people ownership and they will make things cleaner. the great adam smith once said if you give a man a sevenyear lease on a garden he will turn it into a desert. but if you give him ownership of the desert he will turn it into a garden. >> you're quoting smith, i'm all for it. let me ask you this, is it a conspiracy theory or is it a real possibility, because we hear about redistribution of the wealth, we talk a lot about socialism versus capitalism, is it a conspiracy theory that is based in reality, those that would like to see industrialized countries take their wealth and redistribute it to less prosperous countries in the world and is this a mechanism or means by which that goal can be achieved? >> definitely some people have jumped on to this agenda in order to advance a different one. the language is green but the motives are red. and it's weird in a way that this has happened. my point is we conservatives should be natural conservationists it was marx who taught the environment was out there as a resource to be exploited, and that teaching found a brutal realization in the spoke stack industries of the eastern block states, so we shouldn't give the other side a clear run on this. you know, there was a wonderful case as long ago as the 17th century in england where a man successfully sued his neighbor because his neighbor had a pig farm and the smell of the pig farm was delitarius to his property. and he used our common law to enforce his property rights in a way that now would be called cleaning up the environment. so we don't need to go down this road towards bossy global egotechnocacies, we should encourage ownership and local action. the greenies say think global and act local. they're good at the first bit but i think we can do better as the second bit. >> i agree a pig farm moving next door would be quite delitarious to my way of life. i don't think i'd disagree. how much of this is an attack on capitalism itself, the environmental agenda? >> definitely some people have jumped on to the environmental agenda to advance a whole bunch of other positions about global redistribution of wealth, about regulation of business, about seeking to have less trade and less international commerce, and about generally making people in wealthy countries feel bad about themselves. that's ultimately the case with some of the people backing the agenda. i think it would be wrong to say that's the whole of the agenda. i think there are also, as i say, good and sincere people who are worried about climate change. by the way, i've never met anybody who believes in climate stasis. we believe climate is changing but it's a question of what we do about it is proportionate. sean: on top of this it wouldn't be a level playing field and we know developing countries, be it china or india wouldn't be participants in whatever agreement comes about which would mean the united states and britain and some other countries would bear the burden of putting themselves in a position where economically, as they go forward with manufacturing they would not be in a very enviable position because there would be a great advantage for those other countries, no? >> that's right. and we're talking, as i say, about a tiny amount of the total co2 emissions that are likely to come from western europe or america. there's a great hypocrisy in this, i'm talking to you from brussels and the european parliament will meet here next week and next week will meet in straussburg, every month it shuttles back and forth and there's a great fleet of trucks that carries all the papers and the members and all the interpreters and the committee generating hundreds of thousands of tons of co2 from the organization that more than any other preaches about the importance of greenhouse gas emissions. i think a lot of this is about posturing and about being seen to take the right position and say the right things rather than trying to effect any real change. sean: we've got an image of al gore getting on a private jet but daniel, thank you for being with us. >> ok, sean. thanks. sean: let not your heart be troubled. when we come back, the great, great, great american panel. straight ahead. sean: tonight on our great american panel, he's a former chairman of the republican national committee, was an advisor to president george w. bush and is the founder of resurgent republican, ed gillespie is here. she was a political outreach manager for rock the vote. democratic strategist alicia menendez is with us and she's a chicago radio personality and parenting columnist for "the sun times," betsy hart is here. well, unemployment, we were promised wouldn't go above 8%, otherwise there would be a catastrophe. barack obama said unemployment would go to 9% if we didn't pass this stimulus plan. >> i'm shocked. i'm shocked it didn't turn out the way it was supposed to in the barack obama administration. sean: now unemployment is 10.2% and experts suggest it's going to go higher. >> here's the really bad news. of course this is the highest unemployment rate since 1993. and some bright spots. temporary employees, there's higher hiring rates and that potentially looks to the future. sean: 10.2%? >> listen, a tiny bright spot. here's a big downside is that in 1993 ronald reagan was president so he knew how to turn this around and the tax cuts that came after that in the excited economy turned that around. we have barack obama as president now, guys. he is not going to get us out of this with the terrible economic policies and the big sucking sound coming from washington lapping up the economy. sean: these were his promises. it's his stimulus, it's his record deficit spending, he quadrupled the debt in a year. how many more are the democrats going to say it's george bush's fault? this is barack obama's economy now. even as a democrat, do you agree? >> i do agree and we have to look at it in context and they knew it would be tough. i think it's been tougher than they imagined it would be. but they agree they have to answer to the american people. sean: they got it wrong. >> i think there are people on the right who for a long time have been saying they're spending too much. there are those on the left that are saying that stimulus package wasn't big enough and now is the time we have to look forward and see how we actually release the money we do have. i'm not putting myself in that boat. i'm simply saying there's a spectrum of arguments here. sean: ed, you know, it's amazing to me this president never seems to be held accountable. >> right. sean: he promised it would not go above 8%. >> yeah. sean: it's 10.2%. >> we lost three million jobs in our economy since we passed the stimulus they said would hold us from going above 8% unemployment and their answer now is maybe we need another stimulus. we need to have massive health care costs in our government put on the american people and on the taxpayers. we need to hammer small businesses with about $500 billion plus in new taxes which is where we get our job growth is out of small businesses. this is exactly the wrong approach. they're going to compound this and make it worse, sean. that's the scary thing about today's numbers. sean: but she's right, they are talking about a second stimulus. >> i mean, how much longer can the obama administration denigrate business, strangle it, do everything they can to demonize it and say by the way, where are the jobs? i'm sorry, you can't do both. what you need to do is do what reagan did and cut taxes and cut regulations and grow the economy through the private sector, not through the public sector. if he doesn't do that, we're doomed. sean: now we have a big vote on health care, so you have massive majorities in the house and the senate. nancy pelosi is delaying the vote. she can't get enough democrats. do you think it's a result of tuesday's election? >> i do and i don't because i think there are sort of mixed messages coming out of that. i think new york 23 showed when you stick with the president's agenda you can win. so they're sort of tricky because we learned two different things. a mixed message. >> the two people we sent to washington, d.c. are democrats. let's not pretend it's simple. sean: it's pretty simple. there was a 25point swing in virginia and a 20point swing in new jersey. >> a democrat has not won in 120 years. >> that democrat in new york 23 ran against the health care reform bill and the day he got here he said forget all that stuff i said, voters, i didn't mean any of that stuff i said last week. by the way, sean, he won't be the only one who votes for that bill and loses within a year. there will be a lot of the members of house democratic caucus. sean: why can't pelosi get the votes and is it related to what happened on tuesday? i believe it is. >> i do, too. i think it's a big factor, people saw the break you point out the 25% swing in virginia. in virginia there was a 12% swing with independent voters and in new jersey a 13% swing with independent voters a in pennsylvania an 8% swing with independent voters as they picked up 67 statewide races and that's got to scare a lot of those democrats in the house. sean: i've got to believe why are they still tone deaf. we'll take a break. we have a lot more with our great, great american panel straight ahead. sean: and we continue now with our great american panel. did the republican party learn anything from the 23rd, in as much as they cannot ignore their base, in as much as they cannot nominate pelosi-supporting republicans? they >> that was a very unique circumstance. it was 11 county chairs in a closed room. i understand, by the way, that those county chairs were weighted in their votes and that the republicans did not even get a majority of people in the road. it is not often that we have a nominee that is that far left that endorses the democrat other than the republican in the race and is your nominee. i think that is an aberration. this is not going to help us win. sean: what is amazing to me, and you have got to give bill clinton credit, after his health-care fiasco, he moved to the right. the end of big government is over. the end of welfare as we know it. i do not see anything but ideological purity from president obama, nancy pelosi, and harry reid. >> the republican congress won overwhelmingly in 1994, so he was forced to face that reality, and we may see that again. nancy pelosi is a left-wing ideologue. in some ways, i have to give it to her. she does not care. she does not care. sean: vote for cap and tax. the latest rasmussen poll, double digits, the american people are against it, and you are going to tell the blue dog democrats to vote for it and lose their jobs? >> at the end of the day, win or lose, i think house democrats really believe -- sean: in the latest polls, about 15 points -- >> there are different polls. sean: every legitimate poll shows the vast majority of americans are against it. the blue dogs are having their arms twisted, being offered bribes with taxpayer money. >> what are you talking about? i think they are going to deliver health-care reform because americans want health- care reform. sean: and then the blue dogs walk the plank? >> deliver nothing. you lose. you have consequences to that. sean: there is a controversy. there is this program called "gossip girl," and there is a threesome being depicted on the show, and the question is, how do we handle this? >> want to kiss. >> what this was a huge mistake. sean: what a shock. television pushing the envelope. >> all i would say about this is i had a great parent, as i was telling you earlier. she thought "three's company" was sexist. >> this is one more example about how people have to get engaged in the politics as well as the culture to try to produce things on television that have good values. sean: i agree with you wholeheartedly. you are a parenting expert. >> i do not know about that, but my parents did not even like "hogan's heroes" because of how they portrayed the nazis. we cannot just by the culture in our own home. we have to be able to tell off the television. sean: that is a good thing, turn off the tv, and that is all the time we have tonight. we hope to see you monday. have a great weekend. 27. had a little parade today