frustrated with prime minister malik you a shia, that moderate sunnis started supporting and even joining al qaeda. so they also rebounded because of that. then the syrian civil war breaks out. the syrian civil war breaks out and al qaeda wants to be part of the action and syria. so they go across the border, and that's when they change their name. you can't be fighting in syria and be called al qaeda in iraq. they simply rebranded themselves. and three things happen that made them really, really strong. the 1st was they got their hands on a whole bunch of new recruits, both syrian sunnis joined them as well as all these foreign fighters were flowing into syria to fight the civil war and joined isis. a isis. a lot more men. they also got their hands a lot of money.

the way you get money in the terrorism businesses to be successful. that's a you get donations, financing for being successful, conducting an attack taking territory. they got themselves a lot of money. they also got they also got themselves a lot of weapons because they were overrunning the syrian government weapons stockpile. stockpile. they got themselves some very sophisticated weapons. so they went from their weakest.at the end of 2,011 to an incredibly strong position by late 2013 early 2014. they take a lot of territory in syria, and they go back into iraq and do this blitzkrieg across iraq which would not have been possible without what he said happened which is the iraqi military just melted away. and the iraqi military melted away as far as the because of prime minister malik's mismanagement of the military. he put in copper and shia

officers in charge of the military and in a short amount of time they destroyed with the united states had created and trained in terms of the iraqi military. that's what happened. that is where we are. isis is -- isis is a very significant threat to the stability of the middle east that is that is why we're doing what we're doing. they are a -- they are a moderate terrorist threat to us today. al qaeda actually in yemen and in another group in syria and pakistan still are a greater threat but given enough time isis will pose the kind of threat that al qaeda pose just before september 11. >> thank you, director. please give both john a round of applause. [applause]

>> the director will be available the sign your books and take photos. please come back tomorrow. >> book tv is on twitter, follows to get publishing news, scheduling updates author information and talk directly with authors during live programs. twitter .com/book tv.

>> next on book tv afterwards, "usa today" columnist and fox news contributor kiersten powers argues why liberals were once champions of tolerance and free speech and are just the opposite today. she is interviewed by cheryl atkinson, atkinson, author of stonewalled and a former cbs news correspondent. >> so great to be speaking with you. welcome. >> thanks. great to be talking to you. >> let's start with a couple definitions right off the top. what would you say is a liberal and what would you say is a conservative? i think you can -- every conservative doesn't believe the same thing. every liberal doesn't believe the same thing, they both share some basic ideas about the role of government. they both see the role of government as being a positive force. conservative seeing -- see

it as being more the problem. >> your book talks about what you call the liberal left. i'll just read part of one paragraph. with no sense of irony ashamed the air liberal left will engage in a tax of their own an effort to delegitimize people who dissent from the already decided worldview. it seems to be the basic they buy the book. >> right. i distinguished them from liberals who i think -- i consider myself a liberal. i think most liberals are principled and do still value the idea of free speech and dissent and debate and are not seeking to silence people and the liberal left on the other hand while they may -- i probably share a lot if not most of the policy goals and policy positions, when it comes to tactics and tolerance for differing

ideas, that's where we part ways. and what they do is very illiberal and this is that they try to shut down debate and silence people. and that is the.of the book they use differing tactics to silence people one of them is what you just talked about which is they will at the same time be complaining about misogyny and calling people who they disagree with misogynists why people. it's not that they care for the unborn but at the same time they turn around and watch misogynists attack against a conservative woman because they want to delegitimize her. they don't want her seen as someone who should be listened to in the public square. >> when did the sort of realization -- wanted this realization of what you view as a separation between the true traditional left in the illiberal left come about in your mind, or was it sort of

a gradual thing? >> i think it was gradual and then all of a sudden. you know it was one of those things it was happening and then something happened in the last couple years where i think a lot of people started to notice that there is just this level of intolerance that is pretty unprecedented command i started to notice it. the 1st time i noticed that i actually, and i wouldn't have been able to really put in the paradigm i haven't amount the silencing idea was the so-called war on fox news. have. have a chapter in the book about that. the obama administration came out and announced that fox news is not a legitimate news organization. white house chief of staff and anita dunn and senior communication person and all the various senior white house administration officials going on the shelves and telling

reporters and anchors that fox news was not legitimate, there were no longer going to treated as legitimate, and madison other media. that struck me as an unusual thing to be happening for a white house to be doing, for the government to be doing doing, to be deciding what is legitimate news outlet and what is not. i think it was obvious that george bush has done a similar to been seen as authoritarian and what obama did it there were people in the media that push back against it, but for the most part they get away with it. >> it's interesting to hear you describe the silencing what you see in the last couple years because as a journalist who worked for cbs i used almost the same language in trying to describe the collies and friend and families can we will talk about it i size a trend away from wanting both sides are many sides of a story to be discussed to this increasing idea that

certain stories should be censored entirely were silenced entirely and you talk about it in the beginning of the book. you start with an anecdote, very telling about smith college. can use enough size that and say what it explains in the bigger picture? >> yeah. it is a very telling story. story. wendy tanner, a liberal feminist, free-speech advocate was making a case at the smith alumni event having a panel to talk about -- i think i think it was called the ideological echo chamber, how to combat that. she was tackling the idea of trying to ban certain books colleges they use words that are offensive. you know mark twain using the n-word. she was kind of trying to make the.that in this context of great literature that this is something that actually we should be able to tolerate. it's not the same thing is using it as a racial -- racial apathetic attack. and

she said to the audience, we say the n-word. what you think of? they said the whole world. and while okay. is this something i would've done? i don't think so, but i i understand what she was doing this for trying to make a.about having an ability to hear things that are upsetting command it's important as a part of education to do that. that was reported by the student newspaper this alumni had used racist comments' completely past was she is said. they took what she said, they know what she said and turned it into an act of violence and created this firestorm and release their somebody who was towing the line with them on those issues and compared her to basically having committed a

hate crime. these are the kind of stories that are throughout my book. make a very clear argument without having the reputation completely destroyed. >> you introduced me to something new in your book, talking about the smith incident. the incident. the campus paper ran a story or transcript of the event it was headlined backlash follows use of racial slur and then at the top is said trigger content warning racism, racial slurs of a slurs, anti- somatic language anti- immigration language, sexes and references since through

constant warnings on campus are all about. this is a move to basically warned students if they going to encounter something that could basically trigger them. triggering triggering is a word associated with people who have ptsd. they come back and hear a loud noise a loud noise in the triggers of ptsd. they are literally comparing encountering a reference to something in literature or in a conversation to that. they actually are being sold triggered by. they have been demanding that they are put on syllabus so the students can opt out of going to certain classes. things that can trigger them a reference to colonialism or sexism for suicide. and that they and that they believe that they should not have to encounter the. one of the worst examples of

this fight talk about a professor who teaches criminal law about how she when she teaches right spot in a section of the course that the women's groups and told the students of the basically have a right to come up and demand trigger warnings before and it's gotten so bad that she's heard from criminal law professors all across the country of decided to start teaching myself because it's become such a hot issue. what happens to the little darlings of a graduate college and life doesn't come with written. >> i think were going to find out. i also think they have gotten to the.where they believe that they shouldn't have to hear things were confront things that upset them, this is a one-way

street. this does not apply the conservative students, pro-life student who would be perhaps triggered by seeing a pro-choice demonstration, nor should it. but it is a one-way street. the professor street. the professor at the university of california santa barbara is triggered by a pro-life demonstration and therefore has to attack a student. but i would like to see how that will work out if it was a pro-life professor triggered by a pro-choice demonstration. thank you for play out differently. >> we might discuss that further, but i'm wondering if you send -- and i didn't get to the whole book before about half of it, but to you since this is an organized

effort, for example, that are warnings on is because they are spreading campus to campus? and i mean a grassroots organized effort by students really feel this way or or is there some money effort our national advocacy force behind this, somehow going campus to campus or to the professors in making this happen? >> i haven't seen anything like that, and i don't think it is orchestrated in some sort. there is a systematic way that it is done. and the systematic way that the silencing is done is that they delegitimize the people who are expressing ideas that they don't like where the delegitimize certain ideas is not being worthy of debate. a lot of the debate is over and certain things. things. the way they do that is demonize people and dehumanize them and that is consistent across the board in every instance's. that is how it goes down. it is never about the idea. it is never a debate about an idea never treated as if the could be there could be two sides the together and debated. treated that this is the

illegitimate thing that we will silence anyone who just talk about. some people listening right now are probably at the point and i'm sure you have been asked to what makes you not a conservative? you still describe yourself as a liberal about the way you speaking about criticism makes you sound like a conservative. you still identify with liberalism. >> people to last me the last me that. i don't really understand the question. for me it's more about my ideological or political views. so if you go down the line asking where i fall on immigration were taxes on the rich or the iraq war and those issues, obama care i'm not going to change my position on those things because there are people who are behaving this way. this is not ideological, what

they're doing. it is tactical. it's not is tactical. is not that they believe something is actually different about the policies that the government should be adopting. i support same-sex marriage. am on their side. it's not about that. i don't believe. i don't believe that i have a right to silence people and delegitimize them for having different views. views. i think we live in a culture or at least we used to where we were able to disagree with people and have relationships with them and debate things and have dissent and allow for this very rich diversity in our country, and it frightens me, frankly, that i feel that we are headed toward a place where we are no longer debating things. >> maybe the idea is more of the things of which you speak in the book if your going to criticize anything about certain liberals that you can yourself peelable.

i think that's kind of what you talk about. >> absolutely. >> the response that you have gotten so far. i no it's early, but are you surprised? i don't really no what the responses. tell us what your thinking about. >> yeah. obviously yeah. obviously we writing a book like this and you see what's happening i expected to help low back i character assassination because of sin and do it to other people. and i -- and so you do expected. i still think what happens to you for some reason is still surprising especially because one of the attacks i got is that i'm homophobic and don't support same-sex marriage for gay rights because i'm defending people. i talk in the book about brendan aiken was forced out of his job as ceo because he had given money to an anti-same-sex marriage initiative. and the fact that i defend his right to

have that you were to make that private donation is something i don't support but the fact that i do i do that makes me you know a homophobe. is so beyond the pale that i guess i'm still surprised by it even though i wrote a book about its. another thing important to.out is this is not a book about conservatives being victimized. it's about all kinds of people being victimized. you don't have to be a conservative to be silenced. what you have to be as someone who is questioning one of the liberal issues or criticizing somebody that they don't want you to criticize. it your level. it your level. it all caps your moderate democrat. they don't care if you have any political views. what makes a difference as you say something they don't want said that i don't want to debate about it. i've heard it said that people who feel as though the science of switched because long time ago that sort of suppression of thought was more associated with conservatives of republicans and now many

people associate that instead of rules and i don't think that's a partisan thing. i think the positions in the minds of many people of switched inexplicably and you talk about mccarthyism, in essence what i think you said the mccarthyite impulses come. cold. what you mean by that? >> and i do talk a lot about in the book the very rich history of liberalism that free speech this country. country. one thing people say to me is in a classical liberalism of it i say, no. it's american liberalism in our understanding of free speech in this country comes indisputably directly from this very hard work of liberals and leftists. leftists. at the university of california berkeley the berkeley speech movement the supreme court justices were liberal supreme court

justices are now being cited by conservative supreme court justices really helped shape our conception of untraveled free-speech i think a pretty pure view. the aclu did important work that was opposed by conservatives. they were attacked by conservatives when they were defending nazis being able to walk through the neighborhood the holocaust survivors and then of course, you talk about joe mccarthy quex, frankly, a lot of the attacks on getting right now remind me of joe mccarthy. guilt by association the fact am speaking to conservative outlets i have excerpts i have excerpts that will running conservative outlets is somehow proof of something. they are not engaging me on the issue. it's more trying to say you are actually -- a been accused of being paid by the heritage foundation. but even if i had a not really sure what that would have to do with anything. and these tactics, they use them to try to silence any

kind of debate they don't want to hear. >> what is your affiliation with fox news? >> on the contributor. of the contributor of five through ten years. >> do you feel as though that made you an outlier in some respects even though you were providing i think at the time liberal viewpoints or counterpoints to things. for you see in some respects as a traitor by the liberal left or even -- >> sure. yes. the book is not about me. i don't have that much in fact, there were a couple places where the council of the things that have happened these misogynist attacks by keith olbermann when he was at the height of his power at msnbc for me working at foxnews. it's just this -- i think for people who watch fox news it seems strange because is quite clear that my views are liberal. the idea that i'm not supposed to be there because

i have a different view is kind of nonsensical. but if it's very much in the silencing idea which is we don't need to engage in people, we need to delegitimize them. we need to shun them. this is a word they use. we need to shun them and make them not acceptable to the rest of society. i just disagree with that. i think we should be debating topics and talking to people who disagree. >> you mentioned a moment ago the attacked by a professor at the university of california upon i think, a 16-year-old who was carrying a pro-life sign that the professor found offensive. can you kind of recount that incident and again what that tells us about the trends today? >> yeah. this is a demonstration at the

university of california santa barbara, the students to go to the school. they went to a nearby school. the 15-year-old was a sister of one of the college students command they had a big sign of a bloody fetus that was quite graphic. graphic. you know, they said that they had that sign is a way to try to start conversations that they wanted to have. and the professor came over and started berating them. them. i interviewed the girl who was attacked another one of the demonstrators. it's very -- it's alarming, alarming, the story they tell of being bullied by this professor who ultimately stole the side and with a 16 -year-old when after her try to get back she attacked her in the end of calling the police. the professor was arrested. and the police report she portrays herself as a victim. a victim. the police officer sorry i don't understand, what you think they did that would justify you attacking them.

and she just said, i was found by the. setting it up that somehow she is unfazed because there's something there that she doesn't want to see, she was triggered by c&s and she even says she was setting a good example for students who were with her. she has never been publicly censored. she has, in fact, been defended. i quote a lot of different professors it came their defense, and she still works there. >> it was interesting. >> am sorry. >> to here description of the people stood up for headset she was actually a wonderful professor at the very kind person, some of her actions have been captured on video that seem to say otherwise. you said you didn't doubt that she functioned well as long as she was surrounded by like-minded people and not presented with ideas that disagreed with her worldview >> right. yeah. i think people will look at this way

if you just looked up the story and didn't remail book my say this woman is unstable. but i don't think that's right. this is a person and probably is very highly functioning, a very successful professor at the people who i called defending our are very successful professors as well. so i think the problem is that they now are construing disagreement as violence in this happened recently not in my book because it happened after my book went to prep, she went to speak at all will and in georgetown able, and in both cases -- it's almost like a terrorist for coming to talk about her views on feminism in a different are different than the views of the campus feminists and the fact that she was questioning's race statistics. question is ray statistics. she was color race to buyer. they had a sign outside. you can handle the fact that she is here talking about

sexual assault. and in overland they had an open letter saying we can't stop this beat the stand together against this violence. again, the idea that somebody coming in and giving a lecture to a republican group who invited her somehow violent against people who disagree with her you know, this mentality is extremely pervasive. ..

>>

>> i still have the same political beliefs but i have learned a lot about people who think differently than i do. >> you talk rather a matter realization of moments you had in the past you suddenly discover to your own disbelief was not logical or rooted in the type of liberal you wanted to be. can you describe that? >> guest: after i started to make friends of people who were evangelicals. and i just remember that's

familiar with their coming from. it is easy to stereotyping and demonize them. an argument for diversity is to read what is evangelical forces the nine evangelical

christian? >> but it is such a loaded term but ha where it to be a right to swaying question but it is somebody i think the bible is true it is the guiding force in my life. and to see that from a theological perspective. lead church i go to is nondenominational bedews orthodox christian. >> host: that is a brief discussion of what you see and what i see of any unusual viewpoint of the treatment of media when it

comes to crash soon as verses' members of religion or no religion. >> the lot of examples in the book how christians have been targeted and i interview one woman busied fellowships at vendor built in the group that has been on campus and 10 years. the campus said bin is a trader said they could not be a campus group because they were not allowed to have those beliefs. that is a very difficult saying and i have a long interview with her she was told by the administrators she could not even require the bible study teachers to believe bin the trinity.

how'd you have a bible study teacher if they don't believe what the bible says? but it was a hard experience because she is a democrat, a progressive, that she felt didn't and she discovered there was the absolute intolerance toward christians and made a good point. but they need to be honest about who they are. and if you go to a liberal university together list of things you have to be there but that is not lefthander builder the other campuses do. that we are a bastion that we believe in diversity to

say just be honest. tuesday we love christians and their welcome here because it is not true. >> host: i don't take you will see a campus that requires muslims duded group to except among its leadership, and a question. it is though one-way street. >> exactly. or if this is gay rights and one of those leaders go home for the summer and becomes back to say and no longer believe. think it is the sin but it i want to be on the leadership by would defend that person to kick him out of leadership but the university will say it is sent targeted the apply equally believe now that is ridiculous because there is no way and if anybody would

defend what i just said. and every single way to affect questions than to was a liberal himself to run an organization that is the free speech that he is an atheist to turn gay christians they have been trying to get them off the campus. >> host: what do you think cloy m. brennan would take of the government's five of

how you care about to make things right or fair? >> i think the supreme court justices would be horrified. in particular what is happening or taught in the law school which i interviewed an iconic sculler air and the lawyer in the liberal whose talks about the concept to go against the government is viewed as a legal policy as an impediment for progressive policy. is a radical transformation of the of use though this is what the people are being taught in law school it is no longer the idea of free speech you have to protect

the instead it is use to protect marginalized groups from being insulted. >> from those tactics and techniques for those people that our sense -- sensor from thoughts and opinions why you think that'd so lofted in successful? in a country like america? how can that work? >> people for the most part want to be left alone to work and raise their kids in spend time with their families. they're not interested in cultural debates and that are not interested to have the reputations smeared or the possibility to lose their jobs of i interviewed so many people but people

are afraid to say but they believe some people have said to me quit preaching about the of first amendment. this is completely wrong. i don't know why people think this are rare they got the idea. it is true holy the government can in fringehead -- in french ryan writes all the universities are with speech police and that is a big concern but you have to always err on this side to let people say what they think because if we don't we will never have knowledge. and i quote a harvard psychologist to talks at

length about the free speech supporter who was very alarmed and he talks about the philosopher who says in order to have knowledge you have conjecture and that is wholly dedicated on free speech that people can say what they think the matter how crazy or offensive and rigo back and forth and that is how we get knowledge if we take that out we have no knowledge so for anybody who says the debate is over, it is not people need to be able to persuade and convince people if all they can do is name calling there probably don't have a very good argument.

>> host: five to tell you the debate is over then therefore is not. [laughter] but the people are treated as harshly as african-american conservatives or minority conservatives that are expected to be on the other side and the al will say this is not harsh treatment but the republican presidential field so far when i saw pictures on the screen of food declared zero lament or the black our minority candidates and is the tables were turned it was a democratic field the republican field was all white male we would talk about that but it i have not heard of anybody talk about the republican field being so divers because many viewed as it is not divers

because is the spanish don't cal in the blacks don't count because he is conservative. >> i give a lot of examples of that how women conservatives african-american conservatives latin and hispanics are all treated routinely is not any of those there not a real woman or a real african american or they are traitors michael steele has stories how oreos were thrown at him by liberals. blackguard and the house side and white on the inside but it is a silencing technique to the african-american conservative watching this you are paying attention to

you want to be ostracized that way? very few people went to that kind of feedback for treatment. it is very effective when you treat people that way and liberals always talk about how horrible it is to be racist but then always calling the people that disagree with them resisted homophobic but have no problem to turn around to do this all in the name of justice or something. >> host: in the but you talk about a book that most americans probably never have heard of the yen did is a certain amount of influence from those key people to give that impression called media matters' said is a left wing

organization but they have a lot of propaganda and you say in the book and the first launch you were supportive to find their research helpful but it's apparent that it was a vicious left wing propaganda machine masking as a media monitoring operation and it is clear their purpose, sometimes it is treated as if it is a legitimate watchdog but don't even mention the ties to hillary clinton or the advocacy for obama or specific partisan groups. >> guest: right to. and i quote from these internal memo are they are

as obsessed with fox news that is for the original idea came from for the obama administration but to consider those plans to gather information on fox news employees they talked about perhaps they should shave those democrats to put their names on the internet what is interesting they say fox news is too conservative so it is a legitimate but if a democrat those on we will shave them so which is it? to what mort democrats? of course, not because whole village -- purpose is to delegitimize anybody that will not cover things the way they want them covered they don't all they harass fox news but is the badge of

honor you can be sure you're doing a good job because that means somebody is being balanced to report on republicans and democrats is said of just criticize republicans. >> obviously they consider you more of a threat if their hurts their agenda closer you are the more you threaten them so i agree normally the allotted days clock the war closer you are to the important story. i call one of the anecdotes in your book the bill maher incident -- incident in a very live built -- liberal comedian who has a program when hbo you describe him as extremely far left devoted too many liberal causes.

but yet has crossed paths on certain key issues that has felt of love -- the wrath of the of the liberal left. >> edits as a group of power in tolerant because he is a liberal icon nobody can claim he is not an when he got into an argument about islam is specifically he was criticizing muslim countries for the behavior so for the liberal arguments he was called a racist and a big it in the whole liberal left

machine came against him than there was the attempt to speak at berkeley the place of the free speech movement they called him the islam of farha but the administration some we do believe in free speech so he will come speaks no it doesn't matter how good fl liberal you are if you cross them on something. the former reporter who started a school reform organization and it was classic textbook attacked not on her it is but instead going after her with the teachers' unions that she is just another pretty face

they claim she is a closet republican even though she was independent based on her issue for her husband of was the republican and she has a budget director as working for her bright this is what they do rather than tackle the topics they will try to silence the person he makes the argument they do now wanted the public domain. >> you also a talked-about me a love who has the pleasure to be a black woman but a republican is a she also has suffered she was

portrayed in the of "huffington post" for window dressing as if she could not possibly have her own feelings with her appearance after the national convention in the page was penalized with sexist slurs. by the very people who i think have spent decades to revise all that sort of behavior. >> then your of the wrong side politically but the ends justify the means to know what her to represent those views that they like so they have to silence her in the way to do that is to make waves of attacks to make her see that to be

illegitimate. and aunt but but everybody is probably familiar with the story that a president said he supports traditional family but not gay bearish bet the liberal left launched a vicious smear campaign ended of fake you are suggesting that they don't patronize that restaurant but he points out the restaurant itself did

nothing other than welcome people the matter who they are or what they believe but was it chick-fil-a for someone? >> there was a man coming through the drive through and getting himself more worked up i'm here to protest hate full chick-fil-a said he gets up to the drive-through he proceeds to berate this young woman how could you murkier how can you sleep at night? he treats her horribly is she is always very nice and very kind to him for five years to do serve you he

tried to ring gauge she said please stop taping you don't want to be recorded. and ends up postings' this video of mine. ikea some icon of tolerance to harass somebody betted is just so classic in this sense he thinks he is tolerant and she is intolerant and then rather choose say we have a disagreement on the of view i do support same-sex marriage but that is not how you treat people but i used to say if you don't like something boycott now i do think they're getting a lot of control does the jesuit

case and i don't think that i grew up in a world away didn't care the person who made our coffee believed will lead to the store to buy something of wasn't demanding that they believed in the same things that i believe that something is wrong that now we are to have this exhortation nylon not go into restaurant or a place of this person will wind up with all of my ideas it is divisive. or we can persuade people and debate i talk of the time about same-sex marriage for pro i don't know the a deal for you have to have opinion lockstep.

>> what you describe is irritating and aggravating but if the trend continues. but the large aspect is very scary to me when i hear people talking but i would watch the left call basically the disagreement hate speech and that is

frightening because who decides? it can turn into something where it starts off you cannot do something benefits and some muslims but then according to the professor at university of california the pro-life speech and it goes from there were you get to appointed is hate speech is certainly people think when you criticize barack obama even if not a racial betted is hate speech did you are racists but we're moving into a place that i consider very dangerous and it isn't the right way to think we should always err on the side of free speech to be bowing to tolerate things that will make us a little uncomfortable. i don't appreciate what pamela dillard did i support her right to do it and i do believe she was a victim and did not cause people to cover shoot at her.

but to say that is very alarming to me. >> host: i come from the viewpoint of the free press and free speech but i am not sure how surer free speech is that if it is taught or passed along to the way it could be you rather schools or colleges say and maybe kids today are talking about the rich history and the foundations why a it is about making people think they're right waivers is free speech perforate is not your job to come up with the answer but i would be remiss if you did not see some solutions for anything people can or should be doing to address these issues. >> guest: i wrote the book

because people would say that was one of. it is a couple of crazy people here and there her cry when to establish this systematic campaign to silence people perot is the a conspiracy but there is a lot of self-censorship would that retribution that they will get. just tell us there is a problem to establish this is happening and that you have to push back on the university campus it is in that difficult the alumni need to