john: i'm john heilemann. mark: and i'm mark halperin. and "with all due respect", to jeb bush we're going to break so much news tonight, not even you can fix it. ♪ john: on the show tonight, the former interview with the former florida governor later in the show. but first, the over governor and a lot more. a majority saying no to syrian refugees. a bill is coming that would "pause the flow of refugees" coming into the u.s.. and the heat from the president's feisty monday press

conference has him going to the philippines. following the massacre in paris, what is the biggest fallout in american politics? john: first of all this issue has become the predominant issue. that is the simple thing to say. there are 2 different discussions on 2 different tracks. one that is taking place about refugees, in which the republicans are largely united in substance, if not in town. another discussion about what to do about isis or the islamic state in which the candidates are having divergent points of view and their strength and weaknesses are different relative to those with actual experience and others who are the more outsider candidates with less traditional experience. mark: on the refugee question, one thing we talked to jeb bush about is what should be done with refugees i want to come to this country? listen to what he said. jeb: we have systems in place. if there is any kind of concern, we should not allow people in.

i don't think we should eliminate our support for refugees. it has been a noble tradition. john: you don't want to band muslim refugees from coming into the u.s.? jeb: the answer isn't to ban people from coming. it is to lead ultimately in syria. that is my focus. mark: bush, who later clarified there is a new wants. he doesn't -- there is a nuance. he had a pretty inclusive rhetoric about the importance of eating the door open to syrian refugees. john: i find his clarification confusing in the sense of what the campaign assets, is that he's against a federal ban, like ted cruz is proposing. but if there are verification ages, he is fine with the governors having their own bans. i don't think there is a lot of intellectual consistency there. jeb bush said something that was humane and compassionate and realized it might be politically problematic and is trying to

walk it back. mark: right now, refugees. i think that will subside. he has teased out a wide range of views. a lot of political posturing. the candidates right now -- clinton and sanders will be in the same boat. they don't know where they want to be. john: and if they hard, hard is sue. -- it's a hard, hard issue. when you see on the record criticism of resident of candidates in the press, it's usually a pretty big deal. this today, is a huge deal. the call is coming from inside the house. the house in question is the house of carson. a story today in a new york times which quotes a top carson advisor on terrorism and national security saying "nobody has been able to sit down with him and get one iota of intelligent information about the middle east." when we saw that i think it's great to say we thought -- wtf?

what is up with that, and how big is this story and the underlying issue for ben carson? mark: this guy has been around for a long time. he is talking about foreign policy and national security. some of carson's folks is citing this is not someone that was giving a main advice on foreign policy. some of them think he is not actually a smart man. they have been waiting since this fox news interview on sunday, where he gave response to a question, where this is the moment where carson will be exposed as not ready for prime time. i think this will unravel that will have an impact on him. not to say he knows the most about foreign policy. this story is going up and it's going to blow away. john: this reinforces a narrative which many people have in their gut that they think is true. secondly, there is more than one thing in this story. there is that quote. there is also the question of

where dr. carson got his information about the claimant that the chinese are in syria. there is the foxnews performance and quotes from other person advisers saying that -- carson advisers saying that he knew he would and that he seemed depressed after the interview. -- he knew that he blew it. mark: this is just like ben ca rson and when he was exaggerating in his biography. there are real questions on foreign policy. the ones you just cited are not . he did not say there were syrian refugees -- chinese in syria. john: he invited. mark: one of dr. carson's closest environs -- closest advisers will join us later. on republicans gone wild, rand paul of said in a radio interview that marco rubio opposed for controlling. then jeb bush in his interview with me and john told us that

rubio and cruz are bellicose and that trump could not be trumped -- could be trusted to be president. a wall street double event in washington to collect ted cruz and rand paul for the past positions on u.s. intelligence gathering. >> it's a distinctive issue and debate in the presidential race. at least two of my colleagues in the senate are aspiring for the presidency have voted to weaken the u.s. intelligence programs in the last month and a half. the weakening of our intelligence gathering capabilities leaves a miracle vulnerable. that is exactly what has happened. mark: john, we've now seen enough republican on attacks to ask the question, which is important going forward -- which one of the candidates seems to have the best skills in taking on and taking down his colleague? john: i want to put the module beside. he has been throughout the campaign an expert on getting the heads of his rivals. you have to put him in his separate category. --put aside trump.

marco rubio is doing a nice job taking care of ted cruz. even though ruiob has big vulnerabilities, rubio has another way to take cruz down a notch. lumping in ted cruz with edward snowden is good with the republican base. mark: i think rubio has been surprisingly cutting and good. cruz is the second best after trump. a very sharp mind. has the courage of his convictions and is fearless about choosing his moments. you see with rubio and rand paul and john kasich and jeb bush -- they always feel the need to fight back. cruz is a guy that understands the importance of timing in politics. i think he has shown he can wait and counterpunch the the time and place of his choosing. john: even though we read this completely differently, we both agree that they both thought they would be the nominee.

both sides have been preparing for this moment for a long time. the second is that they really do not like each other very much. this will get very ugly and nasty very quickly. mark: when we come back, that very interview with jeb bush. a long discussion, quite interesting, with jeb bush on national security and more. we did it earlier today in columbia, south carolina. we have that for you when we come back. ♪

♪ john: this morning, mark and i were in columbia, south carolina where we sat down with former florida governor jeb bush. he will give a foreign policy speech at the citadel delivery college. we asked about the threat of isis, and dealing syrian refugees, and his philosophy went sending american troops

abroad. mark: i want to start with one of most basic questions for any commander-in-chief. what is the jeb bush doctrine for when and how you commit american troops overground? jeb: you need a compelling national security interest. in the case of islamic terrorism, we have it. this is a unique circumstance not seen before in history. where you have a caliphate that has been formed, whose energy is maintained and strengthened by its existence and its ability to provoke acts of terror around the world. i think this is a direct threat to our national security. mark: you have said you wanted to declare war against isis. jeb: they have declared war on us. mark: you do not answer directly when asked amount number of troops. if this is a case when we should declare war, why aren't you for substantial ground troops?

jeb: i cannot give you a number. the president of the united states would tell his military advisers, give me options for a strategy to take out isis. i don't know what the answer would be to those options. i can't tell you that. mark: it doesn't necessarily involved substantial ground troops? jeb: not necessarily. if we could mobilize the support of the neighborhood, which has got to be essential -- we can't do this alone. support from europe, support from turkey, egypt, jordan, all of these countries directly impacted by this great threat. certainly the persian gulf countries. we could have an international force led by americans, certainly with our air power. we could destroy isis. that is the goal. it is not to contain. that is a joke. containing only gives them energy. it makes them an even greater threat. john: when you talk about declaring war, members of your party want to invoke article five. do you want to do that? jeb: there should be a serious

conversation about that. this requires american leadership. whether it is nato or directly. the net result is that we need to lead. we need to be the leader of this effort. there should be a clear, stated objective. we should use awesome force, not incremental force, which is what we are doing today. john: when you talk about the clearing more, there is a --declaring war, there is a feeling that the country is war weary. do you feel that way? jeb: it was not a formal statement as a declaration of war. but to recognize that islamic terrorism and the terrorists to head it have declared war on us. we should believe what people say when they say them. how do you muster the kind of support necessary for aggressive action against isis? had you get over that? jeb: you have to give people a sense that there is a clear strategy. that we are not doing this incrementally.

that we are not going to be stuck in a quagmire. if we do it, we are doing it with all of the resources that we can bring to bear in the international community. and that we are quick and decisive, and then we move on. i think the fear of weariness is legitimate. if we get into extended wars and there is no clear strategy and we get stuck, the costs are high and americans lose their lives. mark: is that the condition that exists in afghanistan now? jeb: there is better stability today. we are moving towards a stable afghanistan for sure. it's the longest war in american history. mark: are americans right to say, look what has happened in america -- in afghanistan? jeb: if we can, similar to korea and japan, provide a force that allows for security to exist. similar to iraq with 3500 troops now. that is not necessarily prolonging the war.

that is creating a secure country that will allow us not to have to come back in. i think that is appropriate. i'm answering honestly. your question is a good one. people are weary of war. a commander in chief, the president, has to create a clear strategy for people to know that this is something that will not go on forever. twice in the last year and a half, this president has said we do not have a strategy. that is breathtaking when you think about it. 3500 troops in iraq and no strategy. 50 special operators in syria with no strategy. war fighters that are risking airr lives, fighting in the with no strategy. john: let me ask you about refugees. president obama yesterday said we should have no religious test for compassion when it comes to syrian refugees. he went on to say that it was shameful and not american suggest there should be a difference. let me ask you -- you said we should focus on christian refugees from syria. did you take president obama's

comments personally as a direct shot at you? jeb: he did not mention my name, but yeah. i've had this view for a while. religious minorities are deserving of our support. i believe that we should take a stand to help people. in mosul, mass is no longer given after 1500 years. the yazidis are being exterminated. you have enslavement, beheadings. the brutality of islamic terrorism is such that i think we have a duty to act. john: but you don't disagree with the fact that muslims are vast majority of sufferers-- jeb: the vast majority are mulsims for sure. john: so why disseminate against muslim refugees? jeb: the solution as it relates to the innocence in syria and iraq is to create a strategy to destroy isis and to bring about

change as a relates to the assad regime. that is where american leadership needs to be played. if we are creating an overflow of refugees, that is not an answer. that is once again reacting to events that you did not help to deter. john: many governors have said no to syrian refugees in their states. senator cruz introduced a bill saying no serene refugees at all in the u.s., muslim syrian refugees that is. do you support that bill? jeb: i have not seen the bill. i think people are legitimately concerned about the efficiency of the obama administration as it relates to screening processes. i think we have systems in place. if there is any kind of concern, we should not allow people in. i don't think we should a limited our support for refugees. it has been a noble tradition. john: including muslim refugees? you do not want to ban then.

jeb: no. the answer is not to ban people from coming. the answer is to lead to resolve the problem in syria. that is the ultimate answer. mark: you mentioned air power before. some are saying that now isis is not showing respect for human life, that the west to lower the concern it has had about casualty, civilian cavities. how do you grapple with a? -- with that? jeb: there is frustration that lawyers are on top of everything. if we view this as a fight for our time, that this is a threat to western civilization, then we need to be aggressively pursuing a strategy to take out isis. the war fighters needs to have their hands untied. you can balance this, perhaps, recognizing that there is a lot of innocent people embedded. trump's idea of the bombing basel, you don't do that. you need ground troops.

the needs to be an international fighting force. in the case of iraq, it would be the iraqi military along with sunni tribal leaders and the kurds. we would be partners in that. mark: i this point would you say targets would have to be hit, even though there is more risk of civilian counsel these? -- civilian casualties? jeb: my position has not changed. this is where, and we need to treat it as war. jeb: you don't go out of your way to kill innocents. this administration has not viewed it -- they view it as a law enforcement exercise. that is not the attitude that you need to be successful. mark: one more time -- civilian casualties are just part of war? jeb: of course they are mark. has there been any other time in history? it's not a videogame. this is why is a serious endeavor when you are inspiring to be president of the united states to send men and women in harm's way. it's a serious undertaking. you have to do it recognizing

that we want to win. and do so in a way that allows for a more secure world. mark: more from our sitdown with jeb bush on bashar al-assad, muslims in america, and how his views are different from what his brothers was, after this. ♪

mark: now for more of our interview with jeb bush in columbia, south carolina on his vision and pencils. we asked him about a recent remark about president obama about his brother bush 43. avoided saying we were

at war with islam. those in your organization said that the initiation avoided the phrase "the war with radical islam." you now say we must say the word war. what is the difference between your and your brother's posture? jeb: we may have a difference. but it's the avoidance that seems to be amazing. these democratic candidates and president obama get twisted up like a pretzel to avoid the term islamic terrorism in the same sentence.this is an ideology . this is a political ideology. they have co-opted a religion. but they are muslim extremist terrorist. s and they need to be taken out. this is a question of semantics. the simple fact is to avoid this conversation creates a whole set of policies that is defeatist in its nature. i don't think anybody would have suggested my brother wasn't focused on destroying radical islam. he didn't use the term, but no

one would have thought he wasn't week on this. john: part of the reason he used it, they went to avoid using that term because they do not want to have this tacted is a religious war. jeb: the world changes. in 2017, as isis gains strength, there's a possibility of the black flag going up in medina, in cairo. the rest of the world sees this is a different threat. john: let me ask you about donald trump. he said we might need to surveillance some mosques in the united states in the a more intense weight than we do now. he's open to selling some of those mosques down. have you feel about that issue? jeb: i have confidence in the fbi doing their job. protecting civil liberties and doing their job. donald trump has been all over the map on the question of isis. he said at one point, let russia take isis out.

he then said, let isis take assad out. he does not want to create a strategy and have the u.s. military leading effort. it's a pretty good example why he can't be trusted being president of u.s. in my mind. mark: can you envision any circumstances where you would say mosques should be shut down? jeb: i can't. unless there are i divided threats to the national security of our country. we have to be cautious about the world we are moving towards. this is to protect our freedom, not to take freedom away. mark: assad you mentioned a couple times. he seems to be the cause of a lot of instability. not in the region, but in the world. why would it be appropriate to do what a previous presented with saddam hussein, and go into damascus and take them out? jeb: that is what i have been saying. i gave a speech at the reagan library saying you can't deal with isis without dealing with a thought. he has killed over 200,000 innocent people in his country. he is supported by radical shia terrorist. the notion that somehow we are

going to trade sides, if you will, in a comic it away. -- in a collocated way. we are needing to simple by this. shia thatsunni and want to destroy the modern arab world and civilization. we need to attack both sides of that. mark: should the american military remove assad?jeb: we should create a no-fly zone. mark: that is not going to get him out of office. jeb: it could, if we are serious about building a force trained by the u.s.. the third option. it used to be called the syrian every army. -- free army. mark: this is a guy that used weapons of mass attraction against his own people, a threat to israel and the region. jeb: i think assad can be removed diplomatically when he has no other options. thatrequires a presence would create a third force between isis and assad. that is what has been lacking.

that is what the president promised and backed away from. mark: up next with jeb bush, what he told us about marco rubio and ted cruz and their foreign-policy collaterals straight after this. ♪ the only way to get better is to challenge yourself,

and that's what we're doing at xfinity. 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. john: and now, the grand finale of our conversation with jeb bush.

you're going to talk about a lot of things, including homeland security. is the homeland safe? it is safe but it needs to be safer. you can protect several civilies -- liberties;, but also identified messages of terrorists to do is us harm. national security is pretty serious stuff. other people running for the nominee are intensely critical of the present of credit talk about her optimism about america winning this fight pride moment that looks like, and how americans can be hopeful that one is going on. jeb: history has many examples of united states leadership making better world for

ourselves and others. we see now are revelations going to console with putin. never has that happened before. we see an aggressive china, we see nationstates that are taking advantage of our weakness. mark: that still sounds negative. jeb: we are living in a negative time commitment we can fix that. we have military superiority to do with this. withaliphate cannot deal our military that is second to none. our potential friend of longer trust the strength of spirit in than forcingst that we are not serious is when we disrespect israel. betweencreate a space the united states and israel, others wonder how do you get a version.

this request president that is consistent, horrible, and does not use grandiose language. what you will know he is going to act he will do it. a forcegoing to have for being successful. john: many people will say we are legacy of the -- dealing with the legacy of the past two administrations. i will ask you several questions. when you think about president obama, discrete national security decisions cannot want things, what is the biggest mistake he has made, and what is the best thing he has done other than taking out bin laden? to usethink continuing the drone efforts and pakistan had a positive effect. where he only place reversed himself a political position after being briefed was the right thing to do. , i think the

grandiosity of his language of the following is the. it is the red line. it is russia's regional power. ice is this the jv team, isis is contained. all of this is him in a vulnerable position for the rest of the world. the geography of this is the whole world. the president says something and does not act on it, it has an impact thousand miles away. that is the problem. i would say from a foreign policy standpoint, i think we have to stop being reactive in our foreign policy. the past is the past. learn from it and move on. repair for the future. the previous presidents, light, clinton, my brother, obama, learned from all the lessons, the good and the bad. you were in the general is that questionable but i want to ask you specifically, obama

biggest mistake, and best success. what about your brother? discrete policy decisions that with the best things of the biggest mistake? jeb: both relate to iraq. the bigch that was thing that was against his legacy. was the right thing to do and it was a great success. the beginning of the iraq war, not bringing security to the country, focusing on other things was an error that created the need for the search. you can pretty clear about what you think about donald trump's capacity to be commander-in-chief. can you talk about ben carson? not to against them, but each are few -- but your view on senator cruz and senator rubio? probably more consistent.

i have less bellicose. i try not to use language -- on syria, both of them voted against the authorization for. one did not vote because they never got to the floor, and one againsttions many voted the operational force. and now marker has a different reason why he didn't. back then he did not think we had an interest there. i think we do. and ted cruz said something to be affect, we should not solid air force. there is a broader issue at stake here. it is the fact that there's a group of people that have declared war on western civilization and our country. i think we need to be resolute. mark: that is one vote i take your point on. but more broadly how would you

say you're better than senator cruz and senator rubio? commanderld be a good in chief by i would not say they are bad ones. i know anybody in any category. running, ipeople think i have the leadership skills the ability to make tough decisions, the ability to draw with a little humility enough information before you feel like you are compelled to act. some of this relates to life experience. i have lived 62 years. i've gone through good times and bad. i have had to make difficult decisions across the board. this is a tough job and it requires a principal, and recited -- a set of guiding will to act and stick with it. mark: test 20 additional use everything that is a big thing? jeb: i have lived overseas for my troubled overseas extensively. i have been a student of foreign

policy. i think i have what it takes. that is not to say that others do not. i think any candidate has a better foreign policy to include dustin hillary clinton who said she would not be any more aggressive than president obama as a relates to for policy. dr.: if supporters of carson and mr. trump were to say with all due respect, this gives no more relevant experience and being in commander-in-chief than what our guys have done in red -- running a business empire or being a neurosurgeon who what would you say about your experience in office than it should more qualified to be commander-in-chief? jeb: commander-in-chief of the second or third largest national guard that was deployed in afghanistan during the life of my tenure.

served in guardsmen iraq, afghanistan, and kuwait. i have done for your treat -- three or four trade missions in my years as governor. i've lived overseas, i have done business overseas. as i have said, i have an and thoughtful curiosity. i do not have it all figured out. i love to talk to people who are smart about things and can relate to foreign policy and convert their policy into practical plan. when you are governor you take ideas and you turn them into reality. you develop strategies. fight to make sure that those strategies achieve the desired result. in the world of mr. carson and mr. trump, they have had the breadth of experience that i have had, i'm not sure. mark: thank you. our thanks to governor jeb bush for putting all the time with us. when we come back we will unpack what to said with our bloomberg chief reporter after

this word from our sponsors.

us aboute to talk to all things jeb bush, our reporter. weay, after our interview put a little bit of it out. aboutestion that i asked refugees was a little confused because i talked to him mentioning that both governors were trying to keep them out. those questions were not very cleanly as, and the bush campaign ended up pushing back

and saying that we had misconstrued his answer. he complained to me what you saw when he saw the interview and how this played out the rest of the day. >> i saw the interview and i talked to some for policy experts. what bush said in the context of how he would handle the syrian refugees is not controversial within for policy circles. that type of robust military, those who pushed back on bush recruiting james baker is a for policy advisor, this is noncontroversial. this is controversial, where they are very sensitive to the former governor seeming to be critical of former government's, which he was not. being described as soft on the syrian refugees issue. i do not think that is true from the issue. he says there should not be an outright ban on syrian refugees

rate those who cannot be that it should not be allowed in. i think there is concern. i think-- mark: did he say anything different from the republican mainstream? did he say anything different from the other candidates? been his struggle from the beginning. the most for policy experts say this is a reasonable expectation for him to have. he has been penalized for being reasonable. he wants to explain these issues. was to make government work better. bemary voters do not want to persuaded. they want to be validated. that he seems to be saying he did not want to stop syrian refugees from coming into the country, and many of these governors do.

that is rather seems to be some disagreement between him and the way others feel less that feel about this. >> not don't let them into the country, but do not legitimacy because i do not want to be responsible. carson personal advisor and friend to talk about the new york times story we mentioned earlier.

♪ john: joining us now to talk about the new york times story about ben carson and his foreign-policy is a longtime personal advisor to dr. carson.

the candidate has a statement unity know about about esther claridge in which they say essentially that he is eventually gelled but has been taken advantage of it is says he's clearly not one of dr. carson's top advisers. in the new york times you are quoted as saying he has a mentor. can you explain the contradiction? mr. claridge is a wonderful human being who has served his country well. he has put his life on the line. when dr. carson was thinking about running for president, he and his team reached out to dr. carson and they have been advising him ever since. i have met twice and spoken by telcos. -- they have spoken by telephone and met twice. says no one has --n able to get

>> it is not true. but mr. claridge, it is a statement that he cares about dr. carson. he probably is not aware that 14 carson talks to 13 or different people on foreign policy all the time. life he feelsn strongly about this experience he feels few people share. he feels that he had more time to speak to dr. carson that he could help enhance his foreign-policy. he is probably not on his calendar able to me to dr. carson because he rarely gets to washington dc for a face to face. i think it is more of an issue that he cares about, and yes it is true he is not aware of all the other people that dr. carson

talked to. but mr. claridge is quite well-meaning. mark: as you know they've only met face-to-face twice to talk about policy? know if artifact. i set up all the meetings. i've been on the phone call with every meeting. john: the new york times characterization of his role the campaign seems overstated. >> i spoke with mr. gabriel. i can muster courage name. i take responsibility for that. i think he has played an notrtant role, and i will finish anything he has said. the reason is causing such a stir because there are people who say this shows what we thought all along, that dr. carson is not a smart man or has no foreign policy credentials. this comes on the heels of that interview in which he failed to answer questions that caused a

lot of chatter. i was surprised to see you quoted in that story. my question to you, is to do think this lets discuss answer was a bad answer? >> dr. carson was very dismissive of the question. he did not think it was a question because was hypothetical. and he does not like answering hypotheticals. he intentionally did not answer the question. mark: he had been briefed on it so many times, i guess he just froze. that is different from what you're saying now. word frozen strip gabriel, that is absolutely correct. that is thetalking, word i use. but the fact is he was very dismissive. mark: no question that elites have said that the answer is some kind of iconic moment that shows he does not know what is talking about. in his new stories that said it

was something. you say was just recently just was just a silly question. >> he said he was very dismissive and he thought it was a silly question. when you're on these national forums and in a debate when they ask these questions. while you may think they are selling, they will think you do not know the answer. we know you know the answer. he concluded that no matter what, and he is in these forums he has to ask -- answer these questions. foreign-policy goal of the claim that dr. carson made in the debate about the chinese the president syria provoked a lot of skepticism and criticism. advice mr.vel of claridge has been giving to dr. carson, the story claims that he was the person who got dr. carson in touch with a freelance intelligence operative who was the source of that claim.

i've to questions about that. did the campaign -- dr. carson no longer believes that the chinese are in syria, correct? he has acknowledged that was wrong? >> he never said there were troops on the ground. ,e said in terms of the issues advisers and intelligence, the chinese are in syria. he stands by that statement. the: his views that chinese, he still believes that does the case and intelligence operatives that he says is wrong, he is still --ing to assume if you are that his information only came for mr. claridge's source. it came from many different sources. mark: 10 this case, the new york times is leading a misleading

perception. he was basing what he said, strictly on other sources. >> that was very clear when i appeared on msnbc last week. that he had a plethora of advisors. and this was not just the source that mr. claridge acknowledged. mark: let's go to the underlying reason why this is getting so much attention. do you think dr. carson's well briefed and well-versed in national security issues? >> the landscape of for policy in the dynamics are changing every day. take any of the presidential candidates can you tell he was for policy phrase they have except some talking mobile or bruising may have. dr. carson is the kind of thinker the needs to immerse himself in the details what you did in his psychology course and were learning medicine. he learns. he learns from 13 or 14

different people. he was to learn it as well. the bottom line on any given day, i could be asked a question that they could not answer. dr. carson is still on a in cardiff. there is much for him to learn. he is not perfect. we'll never be perfect. but he continues to surround himself with people and engage people that can enhance his foreign-policy. they do such a dangerous time for the world. shouldn't voters be expecting be somebody who was ready today to be on commander-in-chief? us, and matter how well you know your profession, there is something new that you learn about it. to find agoing candidate that is perfect, to me that candidate is very dangerous. what distinguishes dr. carson from everyone else, he is transparent, he is authentic, and he's honest. he has a lot to learn about for policy, he continues to learn it. will continue every day of his life. john: thank you for coming in today. for taking these questions. we will probably have more for you in the days ahead.

we will be right back after this. ♪

mark: we are on twice a day at 5:00 p.m. at 8:00 p.m.. but we're always on our website. what is the sides want it to make sure you check out our campaign tracker. it has all the latest news. john: tomorrow we will talk to senator lindsey graham. until then we say to you sayonara. ♪

emily: i'm emily chang. we want to start with bloomberg first word news. france as 10 other fighter jets carried out airstrikes on fresh

islamic state targets. it leaves france for the middle east on thursday. meantime french police are asking for information from anyone recognizes this man. he is one of the suicide bombers believed to have targeted the french national stadium in paris last week. authorities in belgium and france have also issued a warrant for this man. his brother was among the attackers killed last week. we are learning more about why the death toll stabilized after initial reports prepares doctors and emergency staff have been conducting practice drills since the text back in january. authorities credit a readiness drill that was conducted on the very same morning of last week's attack for saving lives. and in germany, twin bomb threats