♪ john: i'm john heilemann. mark: i'm mark halperin. "with all due respect" to the -- ♪ first, a majority of american governors are saying no to syrian refugees. paul ryan says a bill that is coming that would cause the flow john,se refugees, and

based on what has happened so far, the fallout from the paris attacks, what is the biggest fallout in american policy? john: first of all, this issue has become the predominant issue. that is the simple thing to say. there are two different discussions on two different tracks. one that is taking place about refugees, in which the republicans are largely united in substance, if not in tone. and there is another discussion taking place on what to do about isis or the islamic state in which the candidates are having divergent points of view and their strengths and weaknesses are different relative to those with actual experience and others who are the more outsider candidates with less traditional experience. mark: so on the refugee question, one thing we talked to jeb bush about is what should be done with refugees that want to come into the country. listen to what he said. gov. bush: 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: including muslim refugees? you don't want to ban muslim refugees from coming into the u.s.? gov. bush: i don't. the answer to this, though, is not to ban people from coming. the answer is to lead and resolve in syria. that is my focus. mark: bush later clarified that there is a nuance to his position -- he doesn't begrudge the governor's or their views. , but he did have inclusive rhetoric on keeping the door open to syrian refugees. john: i find his clarification confusing in the sense of what the campaign now says, is that he's against a federal ban, like ted cruz is proposing. but if there are issues with verifications and vetting, he is fine with the governors having their own bans. i don't think there is a lot of intellectual consistency there. to me it sounds more like jeb bush said something that was humane and compassionate and then realized it might be politically problematic for him and is trying to walk it back. mark: the impact is an two

areas. right now, refugees. i think that will subside. but he really teased out in the republican party 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 exactly they want to be, and it is forcing them to think about it more than before. john: and it's a hard, hard issue. when you see on the record criticism of presidential candidates in the press, it's usually a pretty big deal. this today is a huge deal, because 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?

mark, what is up with that, and how big of a problem is this story and the underlying issue for ben carson? mark: there's no question that this guy, who has been around a long time, he has talked with them about foreign policy and national security. but some of carson's folks are saying this is not someone that was giving main advice on foreign policy. the elites think dr. carson does not know anything about foreign policy, some of them actually think he is not smart, and they have been waiting since this fox news interview on sunday, where he gave response to a question, -- halting responses to the question, where this is the moment where carson will be exposed as not ready for prime time. i think this will unravel as something that will have an impact on dr. carson. not to say he knows the most about foreign policy. but this story is going up and it's going to blow away. john: the problem with this story is it 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 claim that

the chinese are in syria. there is the foxnews performance and quotes from other carson advisers saying that he knew that he blew it and that he froze and seemed depressed after the interview. it's the composite picture, and again, the story may or not -- may or may not be perfectly accurate -- mark: this is just like the stuff about carson and when he was exaggerating his biography. he did not say there were chinese troops in syria. john: the implication was clear. mark: later on the program, one of dr. carson's closest advisers will join us. on today's edition of republicans gone wild, rand paul said in a radio interview that marco rubio previously opposed border control efforts, then jeb bush in his interview with me and john told us that rubio and

cruise are bellicose and that donald trump could not be trusted to be president. night, marco rubio gives a wall street journal event in washington to call out both ted cruz and rand paul for their past positions on u.s. intelligence gathering. senator rubio: 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, senator ted cruz in particular, have voted to weaken the u.s. intelligence programs in just the last month and a half. the weakening of our intelligence gathering capabilities leaves america 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 through iowa and beyond -- which one of the candidates seems to have the best skills in taking on and taking down his colleague? john: i want to put donald trump aside for a moment, because he has been throughout the campaign and expert on getting the heads of his rivals and taking them down. you have to put him in his

separate category. but i think marco rubio is doing a nice job taking care of ted cruz. even though rubio has big vulnerabilities, every time cruz goes at seven, rubio finds 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. but i think ted cruz is the second best after trump. ted cruz, i lawyer, 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 they need to fight back the minute they are punched. cruz is a guy that understands the importance of timing in politics. i think he has shown he can wait and counterpunch at the place and time of his choosing. john: here is something we are going to agree about -- 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 both really do not like each other very much. this will get very ugly and nasty very quick. mark: they're also not a lot about including jeb bush, which we learned today in a rearview. 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 in 60 seconds. ♪

♪ 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 tomorrow at the citadel military college. we asked about the threat of handle syrian refugees in the united states, and his philosophy on sending

american troops abroad. mark: i want to start with one of most basic questions for any commander-in-chief. in cases where the united states is not directly hit, but when security is implicated? -- where security is indicated, 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. gov. bush: because they have declared war on us. mark: yet you have not answered directly when asked about the number of american roundtrips. -- ground troops. if this is a case when we should declare war, why aren't you for substantial ground troops?

gov. bush: because i can't 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 involve substantial ground troops? gov. bush: 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, from egypt, from 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, for sure, and certainly with our air power, where 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, there are members of your party who want to invoke article five. do you want to do that? gov. bush: if france calls for

it, 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. and we should use awesome force, not incremental force, which is what we are doing today. john: so when you talk about declaring war, there is a broad view that america is a war weary country. do you agree? weary, forit is war sure. and the use of the declaration of war was not a formal statement, but to recognize that islamic terrorism and the terrorists that headed up have declared war on us, we should take it seriously. sometimes when people say things, we should believe what they say. mark: how do you muster the kind of support necessary for aggressive action against isis? how do you get over that? gov. bush: i think 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 with us. and that we are quick and decisive, and then we move on. but 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 inists in the conflict an afghanistan now? gov. bush: there is better stability today. we are moving towards a stable afghanistan for sure. but it's the longest war in american history. mark: but are americans right to say, look what has happened in afghanistan? gov. bush: in the case of afghanistan, if we can provided force that allows for security to exist, similar to iraq, 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. but the reason -- i'm answering honestly. your question is a good one. people are weary of war. so the commander-in-chief has to create a clear strategy for people to know that this is something that will not go on forever. this president has said we don't have a strategy. that is pretty breathtaking when you think about it. we have 3500 troops in iraq and no strategy. we have, what, 50 special operators in syria with no strategy. war fighters that are risking their lives, fighting in the air with no strategy. john: let me ask you about refugees. president obama yesterday said that 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. first of all, 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?

gov. bush: he did not mention my name, but yeah. i've had this view for a long while, that religious minorities are deserving of our support. so 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 do have a duty to act. john: but you don't disagree with the fact that muslims are the primary -- the vast majority of sufferers, and the majority are muslim. gov. bush: the vast majority are mulsims for sure. john: so why disseminate against muslim refugees? gov. bush: the solution as it relates to the innocents 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 just responding to a crisis buyer in action, creating an overflow of refugees, that is not an answer. that is once again reacting to events that you did not help to deter. so 26 or 27 governors have said no to syrian refugees in their states. senator cruz introduced a bill saying no syrian refugees at all in the u.s., muslim syrian refugees. do you support that bill? gov. bush: i have not seen the bill. i think people are legitimately concerned about the efficiency and competency of the obama administration as it relates to screening processes. but 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: including muslim refugees? you don't want to ban muslim refugees? gov. bush: i don't.

the answer to this, though, is not to ban people from coming. the answer is to lead to resolve the problem in syria. that is the ultimate answer. that's my focus. 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 -- that the west needs to lower the concern and has had about civilian casualties and bombings. how do you grapple with that? gov. bush: in my briefings on this, 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 bombing basel, whatever he is saying -- you

don't do that. you need ground troops. 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: but at this point, would you say targets would have to be hit, even though there is more risk of civilian casualties than would've been acceptable before? gov. bush: my position has not changed. this is war, and we need to treat it as war. 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. they have lawyers on top of it. that is not the attitude that you need to be successful. mark: one more time -- civilian casualties are just part of war? gov. bush: of course they are, mark. look at history, has there been a time where we don't have -- you have to -- 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. john: we will have more from our sitdown with jeb bush on bashar al-assad, muslims in america, rhetoricm's -- jeb's on islam is different from what his brother's was, after this. ♪

♪ mark: now for more of our interview with jeb bush in columbia, south carolina on his foreign-policy vision and principles. we asked him about a recent remark about president obama about his brother bush 43. point of your a

brother saying -- avoiding saying we are at war with islam. those in your organization said that the administration not only avoided that, but avoided the phrase "war with radical islam." you now say we must say the word war. what is the difference between your and your brother's posture? gov. bush: 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 terrorists 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.

whether he didn't use the term a lot, i don't think anyone thought he was weak 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 known as a religious war. gov. bush: the world changes. in 2017, as isis gains strength, there's a possibility of the black flag of isis going up in mecca, in medina, in cairo. the rest of the world sees this as a different threat than they might have 15 years ago. john: let me ask you about donald trump. he said yesterday we may need to survey some- mosques in the united states in a more intense way than we do now. he's open to selling some of those mosques down. have you feel about that issue? gov. bush: 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. now he wants to bomb isis. he does not want to create a strategy and have the u.s. military lead an 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? gov. bush: no, i can't, unless there is identified 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 just in the region, but in the world. why when intent be appropriate to do what a previous president did with saddam hussein, and go into damascus and take them out? gov. bush: that is appropriate, 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 terrorists. the notion that somehow we are going to trade sides, if you

will, in complicated way. i think we need to simplify this. there are terrorists, sheena and sunni -- shia and sunni, that want to destroy the modern arab world and civilization. that is where our focus is to be. we need to attack both sides of that. mark: should the american military or renewed him? gov. bush: -- mark: remove him? gov. bush: we should create a no-fly zone. mark: that is not going to get him out of office. gov. bush: it could, but if we are serious about building a force trained by the u.s. the third option. it used to be called the syrian free army. supported the you removal of saddam hussein by force -- this is a guy that used weapons of mass attraction against his own people, a threat to israel and the region. gov. bush: i think assad can be removed diplomatically when he has no other options. that requires american leadership and a presence that 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, what jeb bush told us about marco rubio and ted cruz and their foreign policy credentials, right 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. ♪ and now, the grand finale of our conversation with jeb bush in columbia, south carolina. mark: you're going to talk

tomorrow at the citadel about a lot of things, including homeland security. do you think the homeland is safe now? gov. bush: it is safe, but it needs to be safer. in the reauthorization of the patriot act, and eliminating the metadata program. we need to look at that. you can protect civil liberties in the homeland and identify terrorist messages that are coming in to do us harm. there is no evidence that anybody's civil liberties were violated. it's part of a mosaic of efforts to keep us safe. i think it ought to be reinstated. mark: national security is serious stuff. you and other people running are pretty intensely critical of the president. but talk about your optimism about america winning despite. talk about what that looks like. what a victory looks like and how americans can be hopeful about what's going on rather than just scared. gov. bush: history is rife with examples of the united states leadership creating better outcomes for us and the world. it's when we lead that gets people confidence that they will

follow. what we see now are arab nations going to consult with putin. never has that happened before. we see an aggressive china. we see nationstates that are taking advantage of our weakness. the respect, that sounds pretty negative. gov. bush: it is negative. we live in a very negative time, but i can fix that. we have military superiority to do with this. the caliphate can't deal with american technological force that is second to none. if we garner the international support, which is my point. right now our potential friends no longer trust us, i don't think that we have their back.

our people the to know that when our president was to act, he is going to do it. john: some say we are still dealing with the foreign-policy legacy of the past two administrations. when you think about president obama, think about discrete national security decisions -- what is the biggest mistake he has made, and what is the best thing he has done other than taking out bin laden? gov. bush: i wasn't going to give him credit for that. i think continuing to use the drone efforts and pakistan had a positive effect. it was against what he said in the campaign -- the only place where he reversed himself a political position to after one being briefed was the right thing to do.

it is the grandiosity of his language without following it up. it is the red line. it is the russia is a regional power, isis is the jv team, isis is contained. all of this puts him in a vulnerable position for the rest of the world. the geography of this is the whole world. any time 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. move on. repair for the future. whether it is the previous presidents, my dad, clinton, my brother, obama, learned from all the lessons, the good and the bad to protect america's leadership in the world. talking about your

brother, what is the discrete holocene decision that was the best thing and the biggest mistake? gov. bush: both relate to iraq. was against popular will, jeopardizing his legacy. huge threats. all the stuff that the president is supposed to be thinking about in there six year. -- their sixth year. it was a great success. i think at 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. mark: you have been pretty clear about donald trump and his capacity to be commander-in-chief. as well as ben carson. not to pick you against him, but your view on senator cruz and senator rubio -- in

terms of their crew -- in terms of their views of foreign policy, how are you morph into being commander in chief? -- how are you morph it at being commander in chief? gov. bush: probably more consistent. i have less bellicose. i try not to use language -- on syria, both of them voted against the authorization of force. vote because they never got to the floor, and one voted against the operational force. and now marco 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 the effect, we should not be a ssad's 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. i have been consistent about it. mark: so that's one vote, and i

take your point on it for both of them. but more broadly, how would you say you're better than senator cruz and senator rubio? gov. bush: i just think i could be a good commander in chief, i am not saying they would be bad ones. mark: do you put them in the same category as truck and carson? gov. bush: i would not put them in any category. of all the people running, i 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 principle, a set of guiding principles to act and stick with it. are 20 years you have on those young citizens -- young senators, is that helpful? gov. bush: for sure.

have lived overseas, traveled overseas, i have been student of foreign policy. i think i have what it takes. that is not to say that others don't. i think any candidate has a better foreign-policy dan hillary clinton, who said she would not be any more aggressive than president obama as it relates to foreign-policy. mark: if supporters of dr. -- john: if supporters of dr. carson and mr. trump or to say beingll due respect, governor gives no more relevant experience of being commander in chief than what our guys have done, running a business or what a neurosurgeon -- would you say particularly about your experience in office that makes you more qualified to be commander-in-chief -- gov. bush: i was commander-in-chief of the second or third largest national guard deployed in iraq and afghanistan during the life of my tenure.

probably 5000 guardsmen and women served in iraq, kuwait, and afghanistan. i have done 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 intellectual curiosity. i haven't gotten it all figured out. i love to talk to people who are smart about things and can relate to foreign policy and convert their ideas into a practical plan. when you are governor, you take ideas and you turn them into reality. you develop strategies. and you fight to make sure that those strategies achieve the desired results. i'm not sure in the world of dr. carson and mr. trump, that they have had the breadth of experience that i have had. mark: governor, thank you. he ready to be president? i am.ush: damn right john: our thanks to governor jeb bush for spending all that time

with us. when we come back, we will unpack what to said with our bloomberg politics chief reporter after this word from our sponsors. ♪

♪ john: here to talk to us about all things jeb, a reporter, mike. today, after our interview we put a little bit of it out. you wrote off it. governorion i asked bush about refugees was a little confused because i mentioned that both governors were trying to keep refugees from coming in, and senator cruz was trying to institute a federal policy keeping them from coming in. those questions were not cleanly

asked, and the bush campaign said we had misconstrued his answer. just explain to me what you saw when you saw the interview, and how this played out the rest of the day. guest: i saw the interview and i talked to some foreign-policy experts. what bush said in the context of how he would handle the syrian refugees is not controversial within foreign-policy circles. who pushed back on bush for recruiting james baker, this is noncontroversial. this is controversial on the republican primary trail, where bush's team is very sensitive to the former governor seeming to be critical of republican governors, which she wasn't. he ignored that part of your question completely. for being described as soft on syria. which i do not think is true from the interview. he says there should not be an outright ban on syrian refugees

, but those who cannot be vetted should not be allowed in. if there is concern. i think there is concern. mark: did he say anything different today than what is currently the republican mainstream on the position of syrian refugees? did he say anything different from the other candidates? this has been bush's struggle from the beginning. most foreign-policy experts say this is a reasonable position for bush to have. he has been penalized for being reasonable. he wants to explain these issues. was to make government work -- he wants to make government work better. he tried that in florida, if you agree with his results are not, but primary voters do not want to be persuaded. they want to be validated. john: he seems to be saying that he did not want to stop syrian refugees from coming into the country, and that many of these governors do.

that's where it seems to me that there seems to be some disagreement between him and the way other governors feel about this. guest: other governors are saying don't want them -- are not saying don't let them into the country, don't let them into my state. thank you. up next, we have been's personal advisor and friend to talk about the "new york times" story we mentioned earlier. ♪

♪ john: joining us now to talk about that "new york times" story about ben carson and his foreign policy is a longtime personal advisor to dr. carson. thank you for coming in. the candidate has a statement

, about mr.w about claridge, in which they say he is an elderly gentleman taken advantage of, and says he's clearly not one of dr. carson's top advisers. in the "new york times," your quoted as saying he is a mentor to dr. clarkson. -- dr. carson. can you explain the contradiction? guest: 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, mr. claridge and his team reached out to dr. carson, and they have been advising him ever since. they have met twice and spoken by telephone four times. the quote is pretty damming. it says carson was able to give

one iota of intelligent information about the middle east. does that ring true? guest: it is not true. but mr. claridge, it is a statement that he cares about dr. carson. dr. carson is someone that he believes in. mr. claridge is probably is not aware that dr. carson talks to 13 or 14 different people on foreign policy all the time. mr. claridge at his state in life feels very strongly about what he believes and his feelsience, that he v few people share. and he feels very deeply that he could enhance after carson's foreign-policy. obviously, because dr. carson mr.s to many people, claridge's probably non-dr. heson's calendar because rarely gets to washington, d.c. 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: but you know they have only met face-to-face twice? guest: i know it as a fact. i set up all the meetings. i've been on the phone call with every meeting and conference call. "the new york times" characterization of his role the campaign seems overstated. guest: i spoke with mr. gabriel. i take responsibility for that. i think mr. claridge has played for dr. carsonle over the last two years, and i will not diminish anything he said. john mark: the reason is causing such a stir because there are people in the establishment, elites, who say, well, this shows what we have thought all along, that dr. carson is not a smart man or doesn't have any foreign-policy credentials. this comes on the heels of that interview in which he failed to sunday answer questions that caused a lot of chatter. to see that you

say he froze. i would not say that question as interesting. who do you call first? you call everybody. would you say that this answer on fox news sunday was a bad answer or not? guest: dr. carson is very dismissive of the question. he did not think it was a question because was hypothetical. and dr. carson does not like answering hypotheticals. and so he intentionally did not answer the question. mark: so you say he has been briefed on it so many times, i guess he just froze. that is different from what you're saying now. used the word i froze with trip gabriel, he is absolutely correct. when you're talking, that is the word i use. but the fact is he was very dismissive. mark: thinking about that answer now, no questions that elites have said that the answer is some kind of iconic moment that shows that ben carson does not know what is talking about.

in new stories that way, is if it were some sort of huge thing. you saved from dr. carson's point of view, it was silly and he chose not to answer. guest: that is a fact. the reason i know that, i had a discussion with him early this morning. he said he was very dismissive. he thought it was a silly question. i said, look, when you are on these national forums and debates, when you ask these questions, while you may think they are silly, if you don't answer then people will think you don't know the answer. that noe concluded matter what, if he is in his forums, he has to answer these questions. john: the claim that dr. carson made in the debate about the being withsident syria provoked a lot of skepticism and criticism. whatever level of advice mr. 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.

let me ask you to bang questions about that. first, dr. carson no longer believes that the chinese are in syria, correct? he is basically knowledged that that was wrong. hear: sometimes you don't what dr. carson was saying. he never said there were troops on the ground. of advisers and intelligence, the chinese are in syria. he stands by that statement. he saidat he meant when the chinese were in syria, he still believes that to be the case, and this intelligence operator, who claridge is now saying is totally wrong, he is still standing by his original statement in saying that the statement in the new york times about the information being erroneous is false. thet: that is if you assume information only came from mr. claridge's source. dr. carson got the information from many sources. mark: what you're saying is in iss case, the new york times

leading a misleading impression. basing he is -- it is what dr. carson said on china basic -- strictly on what mr. claridge said. that's why said when i appeared on msnbc last week, that dr. carson and a plethora of advisers. let's go to the underlying reason why this story is getting so much attention. do you think dr. carson is well briefed and well-versed in national security issues? thet: listen, guys -- landscape of foreign policy and the dynamics are changing everyday. you take any of those presidential candidates, you tell me what foreign-policy dr. carsonthey have, i was to immerse himself into detail, like he did in his carsonogy course, dr. learns from 13 or 14 different

people. he wants to learn it just as well as any. so bottom line, any of these questions can be altered -- asked a question about foreign-policy that they cannot answer. carson is still in a learning curve. he is not perfect and never will be, but he continues to surround himself with people that can enhance his foreign-policy credentials. that answer,ciate but it is such a dangerous time for the world. shouldn't voters be looking for someone not on the learning curve but is ready today to be commander-in-chief? guest: listen, all of us, no matter how well you know your profession there is something , new that you learn about it. if you're going to find a 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 foreign-policy, he continues to learn it, and 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. thanks a lot.

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 are live always on bloombergpolitics.com. out you are online, check our campaign tracker. it has all the latest news easily digested about 2016. john: tomorrow we will talk to senator lindsey graham. until then we say to you , sayonara. ♪

rishaad: it is wednesday, 18th of november. i am rishaad salamat. this is "trending business". ♪ here's a look at what we are watching. mixed messages from the market. the yen declining. pull down by metals. recovery interrupted, china home prices slowing down. keeping disputes

in the headlines today. he said he is committed to free passage through the reason -- region. don't forget to use that #as well. hashtag as well. . a mixed bag out there here we are seeing gains thanks to japan. shanghai doing a reverse of fortunes. that recovery sloping in october -- slowing in october. the hang seng continuing its rebound. the miners continue to drag down the index by a fifth of a percent. in terms of the miners, bhp.