♪ john: the global response and what the 2016ers are saying, and -- that, let's get the news from our colleague mark crumpton. mark: john, thank you very much. secretary john kerry is in paris, showing support. after friday costs deadly terror attacks. secretary kerry: these terrorists have declared war against all civilization.

mark: secretary kerry arrived in the french capital under unusual security, and they were not allowed to report about his planned visit. it is the first like this for a visit to a european capital, and some are saying they will no longer accept syrian refugees, the states of alabama, arkansas, florida, and north carolina, although it is not clear how they would stop the refugees from settling in their states, and advising vigilance in the wake of the paris attacks, and a new video reportedly posted today by the islamic state. a fighter vowed to attack washington and said they should take all precautions including taking the secure underground tunnels between buildings.

you can get all of this information on the new bloomberg.com. i am mark crumpton. john: i now bring in another mark. my colleague, mark halperin. today, president obama set the agenda in turkey with questions are swirling around what the global response will be for the attacks, including more call for troops in iraq and syria. the president recommitted to the strategy to fight isis. the president's frustration showed through. president obama: there had been a few who suggested we should put large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground, and keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world, and we have the finest military mines in the world, and i have been meeting with them intensively for years now, discussing the various

options, and it is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that that would be a mistake. folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do. present a specific plan. if they think that somehow their advisors are better than the chairman of my joint chiefs of staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, i went to meet them. and we can have that debate. john: so, mark, why is the president's standing pact with his existing strategy, and why do you think he seems as frustrated as he dies? mark: he had that extraordinary press conference, and it was extraordinary, if you have not seen it, you should go watch it.

he is frustrated because he thinks his critics do not actually have a plan that work better than what he is doing. he is standing pat because where we are right now, he does not think that any of the facts -- nothing has changed. it is tragic what happened in paris, but it does not change anything as far as he is concerned. john: a lot of political grandstanding taking place from all sides, from every angle, people making macho, tough talk about how we have to kill isis and destroy them. i think if it was that easy, i think it is something that even this president, given his relatively restrained approach, would embrace. it is not that easy, and if this discussion now moves to what would be required in terms of troops on the ground, people's views will so were pretty quick, and i think president obama knows that. mark: what is surprising to me

today if he has laid down a lot of markers about staying the course, but there are things that can change that. i do not think opinion of the public will change, and i think that is what he is basing this on along with the opinions. i think there is rational analysis that may come into play here. john: i think the president is tired of listening to people criticize who are not in the position to actually do anything about the problem, but they are criticizing. mark: in a speech today to the french parliament, french president hollande says they are at war with isis, and he extended this for three more months. the world is wondering -- is france going to evoke article five of the nato treaty, which would compel other members to come to their defense, which would be, including the u.s..

john, how likely is it through nato or through some other way that france is going to bring the international community robust, on a more the ground operation in syria? john: not that likely. certainly, there will be a lot of solidarity express. certainly, i think intelligence sharing will increase, but i think the reality is as was written in the new york times today, a sharp op-ed making the case that, as tragic as it might sound, france is really the only country in the world for whom the eradication of isis is a top priority. there is not another country in the middle east or elsewhere for whom that is true. it is the case that everyone would like to see isis go away, but not in the way that france does, and in some ways, france is isolated, and that would make it hard to generate the kind of coordinated, tough military response that some people think is coming. mark: you cannot build a coalition from a standing start.

it is not clear what kind of private conversations have been going on. i have been trying to figure that out all day. if they evoke article five, it is not clear exactly what that means, who would lead that effort, and france come as you say, is isolated, not just in terms of the current posture but in terms of the downsides for other countries who do not have the same emotional need politically to respond the way france needs to. john: i was in france over the weekend, not to cover this story, but over the weekend on my own, and there is no doubt what has changed is the tone and tenor of the french response within france, where after charlie hebdo, there was a different kind of feeling. there is now a lot more fragility, a lot more fear, a lot more sense of the, and on the international stage, and things are going to change them -- change domestically in that country.

now we have a message to the , syrian refugees. you are not entirely welcome here. governors and more than a dozen states mostly republican, all , announcing intentions to close the door to syrian refugees arriving in their states. those declarations arrived in a flurry this afternoon after the president implored americans to act compassionately towards those refugees. president obama also took a direct shot to presidential candidates, suggesting only christian refugees should be accepted into this country. president obama: when i hear political leaders suggesting this, that there would be a aligious test -- for which person fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted when some of , those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution,

that is shameful. that is not american, and so i think it is very important for us right now, particularly those who are in leadership, particularly those who have a platform and can be heard not to fall into that trap. not to feed that dark impulse inside of us. john: mark, a handful of governors say they will take syrian refugees, and house speaker paul ryan says they are looking at it. here is the question. the white house has previously called for settling 10,000 syrian refugees in this country. how much of a problem do you think it is for this growing list of defiant states to president obama and his policy? mark: this dynamic brings out the worst in politicians, including the governor of new hampshire who is a democrat , running for u.s. senate.

the white house hopes that this cools down, the gases can interfere with the budget process. it probably will not interfere with people resettling the refugees. people do not think through this. if people settle in one country, then they can go to any other state that they want. john: if we were doing our new segment, i would be calling out the governors of all of these dates. it is not clear if they have the legal authority to do this. this is the worst kind of shameless posturing. i am with president obama and that this is un-american, but it is also widely impractical and potentially not legal, but it is something we have seen play out, and the issue over gitmo. the president knows how difficult it is when you have recalcitrant states. it could be a problem for him, but i think what we want to focus on now is how shameless these politicians are you are doing this, i think, for political reasons. mark: on the one hand, we are saying the president is not

doing enough to help those that are suffering under the hand of president assad, and then we do not have a way to bring them in. john: those who are suffering the most in the country. mark: when we come back, a few of the presidential candidates are responding to what is happening in paris and how that can help shape the republican nomination. back in 60 seconds. ♪

john: since friday, many of the republican presidential candidates have been weighing in, and some have called for more troops on the ground in syria, and others have blamed president obama for what they say is an alleged lack of leadership and we will go through some of those responses now, starting with the two front runners discussing muslims in america. today, ben carson was in nevada, and donald trump phoned into "morning joe" to talk about his suspicions about muslims in this country. so, john, let's start with donald trump. he has not done as much as the other candidates, but on "morning joe," he discussed that some other countries looking at this in europe, allegedly, that perhaps you have to consider doing more surveillance on mosques and maybe shutting down mosques. john: yes, to the extent he has been able to get traction by playing from the very beginning on a lot of fears of a lot, and

about fears of others in america, it is not a surprise to me. i think the question i have is whether the establishment views about donald trump and ben carson, that both of them will now have a hard time if the policy gets elevated in this race. i am not sure that is true. what we see in the countries where candidates are outside, candidates who are strong men, they sometimes get a lot of traction from moments like this. that could actually help trump, not necessarily carson, because trump is a different kind of candidate. mark: looking at john kasich, having the experience to fight someone like isis. both men argued that the election is not a time to take a chance on choosing an untested candidate.

>> we should have no empathy for our enemies. we should destroy them, played and simple, which means a strategy in the middle east to do just that, and i believe that the american people are anxious for a leader to create a strategy, to go in, settle this, and move on, and get back to fixing things in our own country that are broken. >> i am talking about specific action on the intelligence level. we do not just need bomb baths. we need a plan. this is not about soundbites. we need real policy, and you need to understand the implications of all of this to be effective. mark: and then there is senator ted cruz, trying to be an antiestablishment candidate and demonstrate that he understands public policy quite well. his campaign put out a video over the weekend that shows the darkest images of terror and , they cut in video of him.

>> we stand in solidarity with the people of france, with president hollande, and these families of the victims of the perfect terrorists. these attacks underscore that we are facing an enemy who is fierce, who is relentless, who is at war with us, even if our own president does not understand it is at war with us. mark: so, finally, even mitt romney weighed in, and he criticized president obama for not doing what romney thinks is required. mr. romney: when you are fighting a war, you say we're going to win. we are going to do whatever it takes, and the president has not been willing to do this, so it is time for us to get serious about this and come together as nato and get rid of isis. savanna: would you run in 2016 under any circumstances? mr. romney: savanna, i have said it before. i am not running. this is an issue of great consequence, and the fact is, i

care about this country. when you run for president, and i did, and you lose, you do not stop caring about the country. we have to change course. this situation is not acceptable. mark: so mitt romney weighing in there, very similar to the other candidates, but, john, back to the topic you raise, which i think is the key one, the conventional wisdom is that their candidates are going to rise up, and particularly ben carson and donald trump are going to have a harder time making the argument that they should be nominated. is not going to turn out to be correct? john: i think one of the things this depends on is how much this issue stays with us, and it seems today, having gotten off of a plane from paris, having spent the weekend there, this issue is in the front of my mind as well as everyone's mind in the world, but what we have seen repeatedly is how fast

things move, and what seemed to be seminal issues turn out to be so, and is is going to be the predominant issue we are talking about three weeks from now, three months from now, or is this going to fade away, as appalling as this sounds? that is one of the questions that i have. it has an impact on what we are talking about, whether the candidates get a search from this or if the insurgent candidates get a rush from this. mark: there will eventually be a day and record it where the party is going to have to say which of these seven nominees is actually ready to be commander in chief, ready to face off against the democrats on national security. in some respects, i think trump is going to do well, because he is appealing to people who already support him on things like immigration. i think all of the establishment candidates. chris christie, very outspoken. bush is getting a big speech on

wednesday at the citadel. marco rubio. all of them, and john kasich, who is giving a speech tomorrow on national security, all of them have the chance to overcome the idea that they have not established a signature profile, and none of them have served in the military. none of them look like a normal person republicans nominate, even mitt romney, who was very fluid on foreign policy when he ran. john: there are two issues. we are hearing a lot about the refugee issue. it is an easy issue and the republican party because it plays right to the republican base. everyone now is going to want to crack down. to me, the threshold is that these establishment candidates, and like bush is talking about, we need a real plan of action, so what would their real plan of action be? not just do whatever it takes. this is really a war, mr. president. what is your plan? how many boots on the ground? what are you going to say that

puts some meat on those declarations? that is what i want to hear from this candidates. that is how they win the argument. they show they have credibility in detail and mastery of what they would do in a situation if they were president. mark: i talked to ben carson's manager, and he said they were ready to go toe to toe with the establishment candidates on these issues. john: we will see how that works out for carson, i am sure, in the days and weeks ahead. when we come back, we'll talk about paris and the democrats. after this. ♪

john: so far, the tenure of hillary clinton as secretary of state has been an asset and a liability, but there is no doubt that her experience dwarfs those of bernie sanders and martin o'malley, her remaining two opponents. is there anyway that hillary clinton does not benefit from these attacks in paris in terms of the democratic nomination fight? mark: i think unless sanders and o'malley find their place, other than criticizing her, which there was some over the weekend, convincing people they should be commander in chief, i think the crisis will be good for her. they are focused on domestic policy, and i do not think they will find a way to get to that point. john: one of the things that

came out in that debate that you attended over the weekend was the sanders campaign being upset about the questions shifting. it gives you a sense of how uncomfortable they are on that terrain, there is a pacifist wing of the democratic party, but i do not think it is big enough to overcome the weakness that they have compared to the strength that hillary clinton does have, the let's move on to part two, the longer-range question. could this week in her against republicans in a general election? mark: yes. if republicans find a strong national security nominee i , think the president's record is in the balance bridge she will distance herself, not only because she was secretary of state, but because they are both democrats. john: president obama is the weakest part of the legacy that she would be inheriting. and at the same time, talking about foreign policy and

national security, she is so much more fluent than any of the other candidates. they can obviously grow, but she has a big start when it comes to talking about these issues with confidence, with authority, and with intellectual dexterity. you do not see that from anyone in the republican field. mark: the national security will be one of the areas where they will opt to fight. can someone find their voice on national security in a way where the party says this would be a great president, this would be a great commander in chief, and can that person come through unscathed or at least not fully dented or they can say, "national security is something i want to talk about"? as you said, hillary clinton is

knowledgeable and formidable on these topics. john: there are so many unknowns and known unknowns about what can happen as far as further terror attacks, and god forbid in this country, or anyplace else in the world that can change the contours of the race, so up next, we have a former state department official. a friend of both mark and mine, and the international response. we will be right back for that. ♪

mark: welcome back to "with all due respect." i am mark crumpton. on this monday, department of defense says france is

officially off-limits to american troops and employees on their free time. department wide ban applying to all contractors, family members, civilians, and keeps them from going within 30 miles of the french capital. it is also excluding military assigned to diplomatic posts, and the french president says he will ask to extend the state of emergency, increasing police powers and limiting public out -- public gatherings. the president addressed lawmakers and called on the u.s. and russia to join forces with france in the fight against islamic date, and it was a moment reminiscent of world war ii. after addressing parliament, president hollande led his countrymen and a moment of national pride. [singing] mark: and you can get these and more breaking news on bloomberg.com. john, back to you.

john: thank you, mark. it is time to bring in jamie rubin, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs and state department spokesman during the clinton administration. he is now a columnist for "the sunday times" of london. he wrote a piece this month titled "beware, isis is now a threat to the entire world your code he joins us from london. thank you for coming in so late there. my first question for you, at this moment, in the wake of a horrific attack, everyone blames president obama or someone else, and at the moment of widespread blame casting, who do you think deserves the most blame? mr. rubin: i can give you many answers. obviously the colonial system , created an arab world in which

these people never learn how to govern themselves. the sunnis are fighting the shiites, which is crucial with what is going on with islamic state. there is the question of saddam hussein getting it all started by invading kuwait. there is president bush invading iraq in the first place. there is president obama pulling the troops out perhaps prematurely, and then there is the whole question of syria creating basically a vacuum into which the islamic state now has a place, a home, in which they can plan, train, and organize, and as the french president said, this operation in paris was planned there, so i think there is plenty of blame to go around, and i just hope that the politicians, the leaders can get this blame throwing phase over with quickly and start to focus on what is really, really important, which is how will the world be organized to gather itself, its powers together and

eliminate this, essentially a , terrorist state in the heart of the middle east, where terrorist acts can be planned and organized, and terrorist can be trained to come and go, and that is what needs to be done. john: jamie, president hollande has called this an act of war. he is calling for solidarity with russia and the u.s. in terms of fighting isis. do you think he will now try to invoke article iv with nato, and if he did that, what do you think will be the likely outcome? mr. rubin: well, john, i did some checking on this, and it seems the french are resisting and avoiding nato altogether. not only are they not interested in evoking the clause, which is article v, about an attack on the country, but article iv, which you talked about, where they get together and talk about what an attack might mean, and

it appears that the french do not want to involve nato in this, which is a shame, because what is a problem, president hollande is saying nations should work with france, the united states should work with france. we do not have a very good system in our world for organizing a coherent burden-sharing operation so that those that are good at one task are doing that task, and those that are good at other tasks do that. the only way that has happened successfully in the past is when washington, the president of the united states, organizes the world for that purpose, and that has not been happening either, so that is what worries me, is the french are not looking to nato to do that. they are just saying the russians and americans should work with them, but how do you organize this? who is in charge? what are the lines of communication? knowingmilitary spheres

who has what responsibility is absently critical if you are going to do a good job. mark: what do you think vladimir putin thinks about what happen in paris and what the implications are for his country? mr. rubin: putin has had a big, big problem, in that he has taken the side of the shiites, the iranians, hezbollah, obviously assad in damascus, and that shiite side now has a majority -- the majority of the world muslims are sunni, and they have begun to see russia as their enemy, and the first sign of that was the taking down of this plane last week, which was the sign that isis was going to move away from action in the middle east and take the fight to their enemy, which in this case is russia, so that is a long way of saying that i think after paris, putin doesn't feel

so alone -- that having the french who have always had a , relationship with russia, different from other countries, and i think he is hoping that he can work closely with the french socialist president, after all, and, perhaps, see russia get the kind of international stature and international respect that putin craves. mark: so if france does not ask for nato's help in an official way, what do you think the role of the united states is? mr. rubin: well, it is tough. we cannot tell them exactly what to do, but i would certainly hope that regardless of what hollande says, or regardless of what putin says, it really is only the combination of political, economic power of the united states in the world to

diplomatically organize a combined operation, because this is going to have to have many components. it is going to have to have a law enforcement component, and intelligence component, and it will obviously have to have troops on the ground, not american, but there are countries in the region that have offered forces under the right circumstance, and a greater american air component, and that has to be de-conflicted with the russian air component and i do not think any of that , will happen unless the president of the united dates takes this task on as the major final function for him as president in his last year in office. if he does not do that, i fear it will be much more ad hoc, and there will be far less seriousness of purpose, and i fear that the mission may not be achieved as quickly as it should be. john: jamie, really quickly in about 30 seconds or so, what about what the governors have said who have said that no more syrian refugees should be

allowed in their states? mr. rubin: i am so proud to be an american. i represented america. when i hear statements like that, it saddens me. we are a nation of immigrants, who came to our country in time of need, the famous side on the statue of liberty. this is not a big job to separate the dangerous people from the men, women, and children who are suffering. as a minimum, you can take the elderly and children, but to just say no muslims or no syrians is not the generous, american people that i know, and it certainly does not do any credit to those states where the governors are saying that. john: all right, jamie rubin, thank you, and coming up, we talk about how the paris attacks

changed the 2016 equation, after this. ♪

john: we are joined now by two of the most really ends political strategists we know and friends of the show, steve mcmahon, and republican strategist ben ginsberg, both in washington, d.c., and, guys, it is taken kind of for granted that the paris attacks and the fallout will have a big effect on the 2016 presidential race, and i want to ask you both to talk about this, starting with you, ben. about the republican side.

look at the field of candidates and tell me who you think is strongest and weakest, in terms of the response that they have offered up so far. and the potential that they have to capitalize politically on what is going on in the world right now. ben: so far, the candidates who have managed to talk to the anger in the grassroots and on the state level are the ones who have done the best. this sort of more washington-based answers about process i think have not resonated as well among the primary electorate. those who have shown a grasp of the issue and sort of fluidity of thought obviously benefit also, but appealing to the sort of outright anger and shock of the grassroots has been, i think, the most successful response so far. john: steve, there is a little bit of tension in ben's answer, and i want to ask you about republicans even though you are next for democrats -- there is this a view that the establishment candidates who have run something before or govern some thing before, that

they are going to benefit because they are grown-ups, as opposed to what the people see as fringe candidates, like donald trump or ben carson, that they will be hurt by this, and ben says that the fluid is good, but appealing to the base is good. untangle this for us. steve: i think he is trying to explain why donald trump was doing well and why he is still doing well. normally, the establishment would be right. subjectluidity with the and having experienced managing something that is significant and approaches the kind of seriousness that this will require will be an advantage, and here in the republican field, it does not seem to be. mbast and to ever can be the most bombastic and outrageous and that is is donald trump, and people think he is strong and decisive, and they might think he is a little reckless, but the bases going to reward that in donald trump

right now. we shall see. it should be a moment for jeb bush, but it is not clear it will be. mark: if you were working for bernie sanders, what would you tell him he knew to accomplish on foreign policy and national security before the iowa caucuses? steve: well, he needs to sit down and think about what to say. i thought that his opening statement where he gave two sentences to it and then moved on to his stump speech was a little tone deaf, to say the least. the fact that he does not really seem to show much interest in foreign affairs and foreign policy is a little bit of a problem or the right now. it has worked for him when it was not an issue in the campaign, but they are now front and center. that works for hillary clinton. mark: ben? ben: i would certainly agree with that. i think wearing the social democrat label is really, really more challenging when foreign

affairs like this -- the country feels ill at ease -- come to the fore, so he has a lot when it comes to convincing people he can be a commander in chief at this moment. mark: between john kasich, marco rubio, chris christie, who do you think has the best chance to impress everybody before i'll? ben: well, look. marco rubio is the guy on the foreign affairs committee. >> but he never shows up, ben. >> he can still talk about the issues really, really well. jeb bush has the name bush, which ought to be helpful to him. chris christie is a former prosecutor, so being appropriately bellicose at times like this -- mark: which one has the best chance to break through? ben: i started off with marco rubio, and steve did a partisan

plug, which i cannot blame him for. john: steve, let me ask you this question about hillary clinton if you were advising her. i'm going to presume that you and i both agree that she is by far the most likely democratic nominee -- if that is the case, and if you were advising her on the politics of foreign policy, what would you tell her was the biggest vulnerability that she has going into the general election? steve: i would say the biggest vulnerability that she has is her vote for the iraq war. the one time when bernie sanders prosecuted his debate pretty effectively was when he was talking about the instability that resulted from the invasion of iraq. she has admitted that that was a mistake, and she has apologized for it. i do not know what you can do, and there will not be a republican on the other side who did not support the war with enthusiasm and pom-poms, and i do not think it is an issue. i think in the primaries, it will be something that will be

discussed a little bit more, and i think that is probably her only weakness in the area of foreign policy, and compared to a republican she will be running against, it is no weakness at all. john: we are out of time, unfortunately, so we will leave that for another day. steve mcmahon and ben ginsberg, our two great friends, thanks for coming in. coming up, what you did not see at the iowa debate over the weekend. we will be back with that in 60 seconds. ♪

mark: coming out of this saturday night presidential debate in iowa, hillary clinton has been taking some heat, mostly about contributions from

wall street. she justified them by saying this. mrs. clinton: you know, not only do i have hundreds and thousands of donors, most of them small and proud, and for the first time, a majority of my donors are women, 60%. [cheers and applause] mrs. clinton: i represented new york, and i represented new york on 9/11, and we were attacked where wall street is. i spent a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. mark: that 9/11 line has been getting hillary clinton a lot at heat, also from her rivals, and we caught up with martin o'malley and bernie sanders, and here is their reaction on that 9/11 moment. mr. o'malley: i thought it was a pretty disgraceful moment when she tried to put out a smokescreen for 9/11 to hide that she has taken money from

the big banks of wall street, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. it is what it is. mr. sanders: i have no idea what the connection is between secretary clinton's efforts and all of our efforts to help rebuild new york city after that disaster but the fact that wall street contributed. mr. o'malley: in the first two debates, we have two major gaffes, both of them from secretary clinton. we understand that a lot of republicans attacker -- but does she have to keep giving them so much ammunition? the first was when she declared in the first debate that she is proud to say that all republicans are her enemies. how are you going to get much help if you declare that all republicans are your enemies? the second was last night in a very, very distasteful way, with a smokescreen for her coziness

with the big banks of wall street by invoking the tragedy of 9/11 and the attacks especially so fresh after so , many were murdered in paris. mark: john, she is taking heat on all quarters. will this linger and be a problem or fade away as the debate fades for memory? john: i think this will linger and be a problem because it does get to i think one of the great vulnerabilities she has. it is the case whether you are a democrat or republican, being excessively close to wall street is not a positive place to be in terms of her politics, and, look, it is the case that she was a huge recipient of wall street cash long before 9/11, and then there is the cheapness to evoke 9/11 to justify yourself. all of it is not great. it is not the kind of thing that will end your candidacy or bring you down, but it is the kind of thing that will be at and picked over for a long time to come.

mark: secretary clinton has not taken any question since the debate, so she has not been asked about this. her aides have been asked about it. they have tried to not seem defensive. they have tried to explain away what she has said. i suspect that when she is asked about it, she will have to remark. there is a lot of grumbling that this is not only something that was unfortunate to say, but to go to what martin o'malley said, an unforced error, which is forced to go off her talking points, when she talks about the wall street contributions, she was not prepared with a smooth answer, and she kind of reached for 9/11 under circumstances like most people including the new york times editorial board thought was not a good thing to do. john: she will hear about it again and again, and the question of clinton money is a question of enduring interest or -- both for the press and for all of her rivals in both

parties. no one is inclined to let hillary clinton ought easy when she makes a mistake like the country made on the debate stage. i do not think anyone will let her off easy this time, any more than otherwise. mark: the fallout from the debate, that is the kind of thing, like i said, that everyone is attacking her for, including her democratic rivals, not only republicans, and you will see it brought up again by o'malley and sanders and ways that are maybe open and a little bit below the radar. all right, we will be back with more after this word from our sponsors. ♪

john: we say it every day, but it cannot be said enough, that we are on the air twice a day. we are live on her website.

make sure you check out our campaign tracker for the latest 2016 updates, and more on how those on wall street are reacting to the hillary clinton debate involving 9/11. mark: we sit to talk about foreign policy and a speech he is giving at the citadel on wednesday. it will be a big day for national security tomorrow. we will have jeb bush, also the john kasich speech, and we will cover a lot with governor bush. we will see you tomorrow with jeb bush. thanks for watching. sayonara. ♪

this is over watching. paris.ing attention in the hunt gets underway this flight is on belgium. the canceled tonight football friendly with pain.

in manila security effective and further as world leaders fly and. 30,000 personnel have been deployed. follow me on twitter. don't forget to use the #. the rebound we saw on wall street. friday having delivered all the market action. >> we're certainly seeing a very different sorry to what we saw yesterday right across the region following the rally that we saw on wall street. european markets seeming to really struggle. looking at the market. also hong kong rebounding. because it led. certainly that rally in oil prices helping keep the long