>> into an award winning career...from hell. >> it's thrilling when it's working. >> i lived that character. >> go one-on-one with america's movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. good for american politics. my thought on the potentially dangerous approach the crop of presidential candidates have taken on foreign policy. i'm ali velshi and this is third rail. after the atrocities in paris and san bernardino, polls show that americans fear more attacks from killers inspired and led by i.s.i.l. presidential candidates say they

know who is to blame >> we have people across this country who are scared to death. unsafe. >> we need to restore the defense cuts of obama to rebuild our military, to destroy i.s.i.s. before it destroys us meanwhile, it despite a worldwide threat of refugee crisis and the latest attacks, president obama insists that his strategy to degrade and defeat i.s.i.l. is working >> we are hitting i.s.i.l. harder than ever. we're taking out their leaders, commanders and killers one-by-one. our next message to one is simple, you are next joining me now is a michigan republican, a chairman of the house intelligence committee. currently the senior fellow at the investigative project on terrorism, an organization that doesn't shy away from making controversial claims about muslims in america. he is also the author of architects of disaster, the destruction of libya. good to see you. thank you for being with us.

polls are showing that many people are justifiably terrified after bandanna and paris-- san bernardino and paris. they say the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack in america are one in four million which is worst than the odds of drowning in a bathtub. i.s.i.l.? >> it is a significant threat. it continues to grow. when you've got four countries in the middle east today that are no longer nation states and are ungoverned areas, yemen, libya, syria and iraq, the threat has moved closer to the west. it has moved closer to europe and united states. the trend lines are not good. that's the problem. people like to see solutions and americas in the west efforts and the efforts by regimes in the middle east to control, contain and defeat i.s.i.s. have not been successful jeb bush said we need to destroy i.s.i.l. before it

destroys us. these kinds of statements, we heard a lot in l.a. whip up people's fears. the issue, of course, is whether exaggerating the threat that it is terrifys people needlessly. a number of people we've spoken to, lee hamilton, often says cyber security is a much greater threat. i.s.i.l. is entirely defeatable and maybe it's not even the u.s.'s problem. >> i think it is very much defeatable, but if you talk to the people in the middle east, go to yemen and libya, syria or iraq, millions of people in the middle east will tell you that i.s.i.l. is a real threat. i agree. it can be defeated. i again agree that it can be defeated by ememploying the resources that are in the middle east and not necessarily utilising american or european forces on the ground what about the intelligence side.

this is something you know about. f.b.i. director comey said on wednesday that there's no evidence that the san bernardino killers had any direct contact. those are his words, with any overseas group and that they were radicalized before the rise of i.s.i.l. so, again, the concept of jihadist threats in america, home grown threats may be something that the trend line is up, but do we need to look at this in perspective. we're talking about the problem in mulcts east and radicalization in america. i think the rise of i.s.i.s., i.s.i.l. and these radical groups and the success they're seeing in the middle east increases the threat vector here in the united states and in europe. i pretty much - i relate the two. i think that just because the folks in san bernardino did not have direct contact with folks

in i.s.i.s. or al-qaeda or in other radical jihadist group doesn't mean they were not inspired or they might have had access to the materials on the internet from these various groups you've schedule you agree that president obama is more responsible for the rise of i.s.i.l. than anyone else in the world. more than george w bush or more than the founder of the group that became i.s.i.l. >> what i've said is that his policies, the policies of in president, this administration, have not been successful. they have led to the destabilization of a number of regimes and a number of geographic areas in the middle east, in northern africa that have let the groups control territory and begin to claim that they have established a geographic caliphate talking about the refugee crisis which is of remarkable proportion. you have said that there's no

way to vet syrian refugees who want to come to america. james comey have said similar things. if the u.s. can't vet them they're going to be told they can't come in here. in other words, we're not vet. >> i think that is a good and a reasonable policy. if the objective is to maintain the security here in the united states. again, as people have said recently, many of these people would much rather return home. so the process here is not of faking millions of people and displaced individuals and moving them to europe and the united states. the focus needs to be on defeating i.s.i.s., reclaiming that territory and then helping those advisory build their homes and their communities so that they can stay in the region that they can stay that's a long-term process. syria didn't get burnt down in a day and we have millions of people.

canada is taking 25,000 of them in short order. at smn point we do have some obligations. we said the same thing about the juice in europe in the second world war. they would better be resolved died >> the end result is just because it is a long-term problem, i'm not sure that taking in refugees, who are not vetted, who i.s.i.s. has said that they will use the refugee process as a way to seed radical jihadist into europe and the u.s. and it didn't make sense for us to say when our national security experts say we can't secret them, we don't know who is coming in, i'm not sure that it makes april lot of sans saying we've got a responsibility. let them in that's what the statute of liberty says to me. we do have a responsibility to refugees. >> i'm an immigrant. we went through a process. we went through a series of

steps that determined whether we were entitled to come to the united states or not. it is a privilege to come to the united states. it is not a right that we guarantee to the rest of the world. we are a humanitarian nation. we are a compassionate nation. the most effective way to be come payings eight in this case-- compassionate in this way, defeat i.s.i.s., liberate the lands, allow them to return home but the first responsibility here is not to say that they have an onpath into the united states we're both immigrants and followed a set of rules, neither of us are refugees who have had our homes destroyed by people who want to kill us by virtue of our faith or political views. we do in the world treat refugees differently than we treat immigrants who wish to come in, in a lawful fashion. we fast-track refugees. situation. >> we fast-track refugees, but

one of the things is you fast-track them and put them through a process so you have an understanding of who's coming in. we have folks that are trying to sneak in one way or another. congress, the president, they have a responsibility first to the people of the united states to keep us safe all right. talking about the strategy. you have said that the u.s. armed and equipped i.s.i.l. is the obama administration in your view directly responsible not just for the rise of i.s.i.l. but for arming them? >> i love the way you're taking the quotes. what i've said is that the - this administration beginning in - actually beginning in egypt, but then in libya made a concerted effort and a concerted strategy to engage with what i believe are groups that have ties to radical jihadists. they helped over throw gadafi. they at that point in time gained exactly to weapons that nato had shipped into libya, they gained access to the

weapons that the u.a.e. and gutter had shipped into libya. then they got a hold of gadafi's cache of weapons. the u.s. allowed the transfer of those weapons from turkey into syria to the groups that over threw gadafi, groups with ties to radical jihadists which morphed into i.s.i.s. i'm not trying to get you on a got you statement. i wouldn't have you here to clarify it. us. >> great. thank you next. >> i think that donald trump is the natural backlash to the left. >> is it a bad thing it that if he is given a voice to politics on the far right, do we not have a now complete conversation? >> we are getting a more

nation. >> "inside story" takes you beyond the headlines, beyond the quick cuts, beyond the soundbites. we're giving you a deeper dive into the stories that are making our world what it is.

when you're on hold, your business is on hold. that's why comcast business doesn't leave you there. when you call, a small business expert will answer you in about 30 seconds. no annoying hold music. just a real person, real fast. whenever you need them. so your business can get back to business. sounds like my ride's ready. don't get stuck on hold.

reach an expert fast. comcast business. built for business. tand that's what we're doings to chat xfinity.rself, we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20. it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around. welcome back to third rail. the most recent debate talked about several tactics which many would say would qualify as war crimes. >> you would carpet bomb where i.s.i.s. is. >> where you have these terrorists, you have to take out

their families >> if you're going to kill the family of terrorists, realise there's something called the geneva convention. crimes? >> every american president would be subject to them >> there's no such thing as a politically correct war our panel. a journalist and host of the open mind on pbs. kerry sheffield is a contributor to forbes and a senior writer. you got to know clay aitken on eye doll. unicef emwas door. we have been, depending on how you want to determine the geneva convention, we've been commit war crimes forever. innocent people get killed in wars. the degree to which some of these candidates is embracing the idea that we're going to kill innocent people getting the bad guys is surprising >> the rhetoric in that viewss

to illegal democracy. innocent civilians are vulnerable. it is essential that we realise collateral damage is inevitable we're not saying innocent people dying >> right. the fact that they were debating whether the families of terror suspects should come under the gun i think is so counter product itch >> there is a complete difference between accepting the fact that sometimes there is collateral damage, understandings intentionally, we don't mind killing innocent civilians. that what ben carson said. there's an interesting point here with donald trump and carson and cruz, this rhetoric is geared to a very specific subset of the republican party. in my opinion that still sort of believes this is 1945 where we can drop a bomb and therefore win a war.

we haven't really won one since 1945 like we won ww 2. >> think about the time. there were hundreds of thousands of people who were killed but millions of lives saved. >> that's the difference between 2015, 16 and 45. we were the only people who had the atomic bomb. trueman made the decision to end this war. if we do that today there are a number of countries that are capable of getting a bomb or have one. we're not fighting a war the same way as we did in 1945. they're appealing to a subset of voters who believe that if we had not won that war, trueman might have been a war criminal. >> it's a counter factual issue. there may be of concern to that subset within the republican primary electorate, but in all honesty we're a peace-loving

people and that needs to be conveyed through future debates we are a peace loving people? >> it's world war three for some >> everybody wants peace. i'm a realist. to be honest, why aren't we bringing in obama to this conversation. which president has had the most global refugees since world war ii. it has happened under this president, this white mouse. to say it's the republicans fault is not true a lot of innocents have died under the obama administration. i don't see the glee when he talks about it that i've been seeing from republican candidates. it's not glee, but embraced or shame at the killed. >> i don't think there is aborigine acknowledgment by the american people that what has happened with this president is

a complete loss of leaders or responsibility in our position you've only got a year and a half left. instead of talking about what he done in the past seven years, let's talk about what is going to happen. my point is saying that we're willing to kill innocent women and children is not the american value. it goes against the geneva convention. there is a bravado that is attracting the voters there's something to be said on two hours of debate, outdoing each other. i'm happy to gave them another go at it. we've got a lot of time to listen to listen. donald trump's campaign rhetoric has troubled people in both correctness. has it been good dpor the debate and the country? >> donald trump knows how to drive the conversation. he is projecting strengsdz and passion. no political correctness. he has created a dialogue.

gotten people engaged. that's what democracy is >> he has forced them to pay attention and that is good for america donald trump is forcing a discussion. some of it is really ugly, some of it doesn't seem to be in line with our beliefs and our constitution, but he is forcing a discussion and we have to have it >> let's remember the show for which he is famous, the apprenticee they might believe that we have to amuse ourselves to be a governing country, to be an effective country. the question for me is whether we're going to amuse ourselves to death or if we're going to amuse ourselves for some greater purpose he invoked the apprentice. you know donald trump. you think there are different donald trumps >> certainly. i've equated him to the pt barno of our time and sometimes to the

uncle i never agree with, but i still sort of love. i do in a way have some respect for him. it's not the same person that i know. that said, i don't necessarily believe that he has improved things for a number of reasons. one, he has not changed the way other politicians do thing. his lack of political correctness has not all of a sudden made jeb bush being less politically correct or anyone else. he hanged changed the landscape of how to run to office. i don't think he has started a conversation or gotten people to pay attention. instead, i fear that he has awakened a mentality that has lied dormant the kkk has had increased interest in their membership as a result of donald trump and things he has said making it okay to be cool to be

islam afob ic ted cruz was not seen as a credible candidate but now that he seems not as outlandish as donald trump, amongst conservatives he has gained ground thanks possibly to donald trump >> i think there is a certain subsection of the republican electorate who never believed that it was possible to have an anti establishment candidate. donald trump made anti establishment candidates viable and that, therefore, lifted ted cruz for a regular republican in new york city who just wants to lower factiones and have balanced budgets, it's hard to find a candidate who someone who would want out there. this outlandishness that donald trump has brought to the discussion, you can hate deficits and everything but it shouldn't cause you to be an islam afob >> no, nor condone the tactics he uses in his rhetoric. i wish the media would distinguish between ad hominen

attacks and political correctness. until we make that distinction, then he will have a pulpit that raises many things >> he has tapped into this identity politics. he is the mirror image of that of the left. it is about racial politics and about identity politics. it's all about me, me i'm a woman, just being a human being first. i think donald trump is the natural backlash, negative toxic backlash, the things he said about women, mexicans, about islam. i completely disagree with it. i am a person who thinks that he has brought the conversation more to the right. to that degree i actually think that's a good thing, but i disagree with how he has done it. i understand that he is a perfect mirror image to this political correctness to the left which is all about identity politics

is it a bad thing that if he is giving voice to voices on the far right, do we now not have a more complete conversation because there are americans who believe in what donald trump is saying. they are scared of something, perhaps muslims, days, hispanics, whoever, but there is a voice to have a strings >> we are getting a more clearer picture of a bigoted demographic. we have seen a positive role in ensuring the safety of the world. everything he says is counter to that. it's counter to that positive narrative about american is a force for good what if the near five isn't that positive. what if america has a fairly large proportion of bigots. do we need them in the conversation? >> there's a little piece of me that wanted to say i sort of liked them more when they were

dormant. when you see what happens at donald trump's rallies and the crowd attacks verbally and physically, light them on fire, you look at the colorado shooting, someone empowered to take their deep held beliefs and act on them in a way that killed people. i don't like the fact that this sort of bravodo from donald trump has empowered people november on their beliefs. >> i don't think you can link the shooting to donald trump. >> no. me is telling people it's okay, not only to be angry, because it is okay to be angry, it's okay to be violent about it. it's not healthy in america. >> especially when you have a country that endorses the idea of mentally-ill people carrying weapons that is quite a turn. that's another show entirely. great to see all three of you. thank you all for joining us.

straight ahead, i just don't understand how presidential candidates can be so simplistic and misguided when it comes to foreign policy. my final thought is next. >> we're here to fully get into the nuances of everything that's going on, not just in this country, but around the world. getting the news from the people who are affected. >> people need to demand reform... >> ali velshi on target.

>> the only live national news show at 11:00 eastern. >> we start with breaking news. >> let's take a closer look. before we go my final thought. i was in l.a. for last week's republican presidential security and foreign policy debate. a lot of what i heard left me wondering why so many candidates offered tired old dumbed down, even criminal solutions, to the

caldron of complex problems we face with i.s.i.l. and the middle east. i don't get it. they're all complex problems. you would think that they would apply the understanding that comes from that experience now that they are running for president. instead we of jab bush claiming we have to destroy i.s.i.s. before it destroys us of the i.s.i.s. is a vicious deadly foe but it's 30,000 killers aren't going to destroy the u.s. a. john kasich is calling u.s. to go into syria. that is a call to deploy 4345,000 u.s. troops - 435,000 troops. ted cruz calls for carpet bombing i.s.i.s. terrorists. someone needs to tell him that presags guided mew nations made carpet bombing obsolete, which is a war crime. risking world war 3 doesn't seem to bother chris christie last

heard threatening to shoot down russian fire planes. not to be outdone, donald trump repeated his call to be much tougher and target the families of i.s.i.l. killers. another would kill others. the obama administration has made a terrible mess of its policy towards syria and libya to name two now failed states in the middle east and the iran knee clear deal has its critics. i don't see how our world will be more safer and secure for americans and for everyone else, daring to offer complex adult solutions to complex demanding problems, that would really be >> this is it. >> oscar winner alex gibney's "edge of eighteen" marathon.

>> if i said that i'm perfectly fine, i would be lying. >> i feel so utterly alone. >> in this envelope is my life. >> if you don't go to college, you gonna be stuck here... i don't wanna be stuck here. >> catch the whole ground-breaking series, "edge of eighteen" marathon. ♪ ♪ >> first, megamergers created two beer giants. in bev and sab miller. now the two titans want to become one. and produce one of the two brews people consume, brewnanza, on "inside story."