well. >> evidence of what? this man killed 600 americans. >> got it. there was an imminent threat. >> martha: thank you very much but we'll pick it up. that's "the story" for >> good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." yesterday as you know an american air strike killed a general called qassem soleimani. for the past 11 years soleimani operated -- in that role, soleimani was believed to be a patron of the shia militia that attacked u.s. troops during the iraq war he appeared he was also a major player in syria during their civil war as well as in the campaign against isis. he was little known to the american public, soleimani was among the most famous living figures in iran and also one of

the most powerful. second only to the supreme leader. the iranian government is already vowed to extract forceful revenge against the u.s. and in response to his death. whether that was formed is remains to be seen. by the next time the show airs, we could be engaged in a conflict, a real conflict with iran. from iran's perspective we are already there. if the iranian forces killed the chairman of our joint chiefs of staff, would you consider an act of war? what happened yesterday wasn't just another symbolic bombing of the kind we've seen in syria, it was a pivot point. washington understood that immediately. congratulations to all involved in eliminating qassem soleimani tweeted grist disgraced john bolton. hope this is the first step to regime change in tehran. that of course has been the neoconservative objective all along. the president has for years

opposed that objective in the statement said that regime change in war are the point at all. >> we took action last night to stop a war. we did not take action to start a war. we do not seek regime change, however the iranian regime's aggression in the region including the use of proxy fighters to destabilize its enablers must end and it must end now. if americans anywhere are threatened, we have all of those targets already fully identified in the i am ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary. >> tucker: according to secretary of state mike pompeo, soleimani was killed for leading attacks on america. those attacks would've happened in the middle east, not on america. >> the president's decision to remove qassem soleimani from the

battlefield saved american lives. there's no doubt about that. he was actively plotting the region to take action, big actions as he described it, they would up at dozens if not hundreds of american lives at risk. last night with the time we need to distract and make sure this imminent attack that he was working actively, was disrupted. >> is there any imminent threat to the u.s. homeland? speak of these were threats that were located in the region. >> tucker: threats in the region. if you don't live in washington come here is the translation that would be in hostile middle eastern countries. places where american troops would never be in the first place if not for the insistent demands of john bolton. no one in washington is in the mood for big picture questions right now. questions like the obvious one like iran is the greatest fraud threat we face or who is benefiting from this and why are we continuing to the ignore the decline of our own country? by the way, if were still in afghanistan 19 years later what

makes us think is a quick way out of iran? nobody is thinking like that right now. instead, chest beaters like senator ben taff of nebraska are making the usual warlike noises like they usually make. this is very simple, he wrote in a statement last night, general solo money is dead because he was an evil basard who killed americans. does that make killing him simple? it is not. nothing about life and certainly not killing it's ever very simple and any politician who is otherwise is dumb or is lying. yes, soleimani was linked to the depths of americans come in the nobody mourns his passing. but mexico and china are also linked to americans dying. not that anyone in power cares. does that mean we get the bomb them? can we start assassinating

generals and the people's liberation army? maybe. maybe he will call for that too. is a very tough character. before we enter a single and the war, there's a criteria that ought to be met. our leaders should explain to us how that conflict will make the united states richer and more secure. there's an awful lot of bad people in this world, we can't kill them all. it's not our job. instead, our government exists to defend and promote the interest of american citizens. that's why we have a government. has the killing of soleimani done that? you may be. nobody in washington it's explained how. instead they are telling us what an awful person he was. he clearly was. that's irrelevant it's pretty clear that things will start to move in the wrong direction pretty quickly. were praying they don't, but they could. we saw quite a number of wars in the middle east across the decades. we've made it in an occupied

afghanistan. we toppled muammar qaddafi in libya. we fought isis in syria and stuck around. we are still there. we are special forces have been fighting in yemen, pakistan, who knows where else. in every single place, each of these conflicts has turned out to be longer and bloodier and more expensive than we were promised in the first place. often the benefits have been none existed. a lot of lectures about how the people we are killing deserve to die. i hope that makes you feel better. we do the american people think about all of this? just five months ago, after months of supposedly iranian provocation, americans didn't seem to view iran as a major concern. not even close. in a gallop poll taken last august, just 18% of americans say they backed military force to shut down iran's nuclear program. 70% they prefer diplomacy and

economic sanctions alone. so in a democracy you would think this would matter. a body, as is so often the case, the preferences of actual americans don't enter the equation at all. they are immaterial. in 2016 donald trump ran on a promise of fewer foreign adventures. he vowed instead to focus on our problems here at home, which are growing. against the odds come he won that election, probably because of that promise. but ever since, washington, including some are on the president, have been committed to ignoring the result of that election and its implications. washington is wanted to war with the wrong for decades. they've been working toward it. they may have finally gotten it. douglas mcgregor is a retired u.s. army colonel, is an author of the fantastic book margin of victory. he joins us. colonel thinks forward coming on. where do you think we are likely to go from here? >> i'm told that tomorrow the iraqi parliament is going to

vote overwhelmingly to demand the removal of our forces from iraq. if that is the case, i sincerely hope that president trump will take advantage of it and get us out. we should have been out of iraq and syria along time ago, as the president pointed out, as you have reiterated. we gain nothing by staying in the country whatsoever. if these strikes, the follow-up strikes that we've had this evening, are designed to ward off the iranians, we are going to leave but don't follow us, that makes some sense militarily. but if we are going to fight the iraqi order to leave and insisted that we stay, we are setting ourselves up for a larger disaster. as for the act of killing soleimani come i think we can say with some certainty that iran will respond. probably not in the way that we would. the iranians are not like us, they do not email it. you've been listening to people emote about how much they hate soleimani and blame the failure

in iraq on soleimani. that's nonsense. we failed in iraq. the generals on the politicians are responsible for the loss of american life and the squandering of our opportunities in iraq. soleimani simply took advantage of it. in iran, no controls iraq. after this air strike and killing of soleimani, we've actually forced them together. the people of iraq may not like the iranians but they don't necessarily want their country turned into a battleground between the united states and iran. i hope we will just leave. that's the key. if we get out, then we are going to have to watch for what the iranians are likely to do. we could talk about that if you like. >> tucker: my strong sense is that the president's preference is to leave, that it's always been that he is sincere when he says he doesn't want regime change and he's not trying to start new wars. he understands that those are not in america's interest and they are not in his interest either politically. i am wondering though if the people around him understand that. >> looked, he walked into a room

at mar-a-lago with senators rubio and graham come secretary of state pompeo, national security advisor o'brien, the secretary of does fence as prayer, and i assume jared kushner. you're talking about a room full of neocons, the people that you have been discussing that up and urging war with iran forever. they seem to have persuaded him that this air strike made sense and that we should take the opportunity and do it. publicly he has said that. i think it's probably unnecessary for the reasons that i've already outlined. this is not going to do anything for us strategically. as far as sending the message is concerned, his deputy is already taken over. the deputy has been with them since '97. this is going to stiff and resolve against us and it's going to make any attempt to reach any arrangement with iran virtually impossible. so from that standpoint i don't think it made a lot of sense. is not necessarily helping us and what the president says he

wants to achieve in the persian gulf with iran. >> tucker: quickly, do you think it is likely if the iraqi parliament issues a demand that americans leave iraq tomorrow, that we will? >> again, i hope so. we have to recognize that iran is a sovereign state ended as a sovereign government, whether we like it or not. if they tell us to leave we should get out. no question. i think president trump should seize the moment, frankly, and get us out. >> tucker: i think he would be relieved to do that a period in which case this would all be a win for our country. thanks so much. great to see you. jones is a veteran of the war in iraq, he lost his likes to an iud there. soleimani is believed to have mastermind hundreds of ied attacks during the occupation of this country. he thought it would be interesting to speak to john scum he joins us tonight. thanks so much for coming on.

you have a very personal connection to the story of course, we just explained it. i'm interested in your reaction to what happen yesterday. >> i think is impossible to separate the emotional appeal of killing someone who deserved to die in the overall strategic cautionary tale of what are we going to do next. i wrote for foxnews.com today that the tactical decision to send troops in iraq that i was a part of come of the troop, god al qaeda out but what do we do next? what is the strategic goal after that? same thing. as a part of a troop surge in afghanistan when i lost my legs. we got the taliban out of the poppy fields and away from the opium trade, but what do we do the next a question like that was the problem. a lot of this is politicians don't hold each other accountable and they hope throw each other out of the bus. when we change president sometimes we change policy for that purpose, so we can be an contrast. so it's not so much that i take issue or have an opinion over killing this guy yesterday. it's what are we doing next?

what is the strategy? not the tactical, but what's the overall point here. >> tucker: i think that's the always unasked question. it should be the first question posed. what do you think the guys serving there right now are thinking or the ones who have just deployed to kuwait, what's on their mind now? >> they're thinking let's get some. that's what they are trained to do. that's their job. their job is to be there and be ready and deny questions so much why as to how and when. that's their job. when they go, and the experience wore like i have done twice and they come back and maybe they have an injury, maybe they lost buddies. they get ten years older, ten years wiser, they pay attention more to politics and they say why was i there? what was i accomplishing and what was i told and how much of it was true? i think president trump at this very moment is as inclined from military as he is diplomacy and is throwing the ball in the court of around today with a tweet to see you're not going to win a war but you might win at the negotiating table.

that is his end goal. he may have made it through advisors and through his own wisdom to the point that he understands maybe that's all iran will respond to. that's our hope today is that iran responds to military force. we really don't have a playbook to see if they will and it's quite a risk and a gamble and it's ultimately the gamble of men and women just like myself. spew what i think that's right. thanks for reminding us of that. johnny thanks for coming on tonight. drew mantel is the editor in chief at the american conservatives, thought about the yellow political implications peer think so much for coming out tonight. where do you think this leaves the president politically? >> a lot of it depends on what's going to happen next. i think president trump campaign on the idea that we were going to shrink our footprint in the middle east. i think that's what he would like to do. i think he is trying to balance the fact that he would likely do that with the desire to be tough, the desire to protect american personnel that are still in the region.

he has a lot of advisors who are committed to the things that he ran against. he has a lot of george w. bush retreads were giving him advice on what to do with iraq and with iran. the danger is that once you've done some of these things, once you've committed to some of these moves, you're going to draw more troops then rather than drawing down as i think the president would prefer to do. there is no easy exit strategy, that there is no easy way out. the hope is that the strike is going to cripple iran's capacity to be able to threaten our people. we can move on and if iraq does in fact decide that they don't want us to be there anymore, as was always likely once we put a shiite government in charge of iraq that they were going to be friendly to iran than washington was never going to prefer. we use that as a reason to get out, having accomplished everything that we were going to accomplish there. there's no guarantee that that's going to be the case. the big risk is that unwittingly, just as

barack obama thought the iraq war was a mistake, donald trump thought the iraq war was a mistake, but people end up doing some of the same stakes and repeating some of the same mistake that they campaigned against. what we really want to do is avoid in iraq like war with ir iran. >> one group that does not think the iraq war was a mistake is most republican senators that are living in a world that very much resembles 1999. they are part of the reason this happened. they are the group pushing the white house onward towards a regime change. i'm wondering how long it will take to get representatives in washington who represent the views of actual republican voters. one is that process going to come to fruition? when are we going to get senators who agree with republican voters? >> or even military veterans that have served in some of these wars that think this was a mistake, they believed they should not been waged in the first place. the people that know this combat

situation the best don't think our politicians and our bureaucrats and our generals made the best decisions. so we do have this big leg, especially in the republican side when we had a situation where the president called for drop downs in afghanistan and syria in the vast majority of republican senators voted to review command in the case of syria we are talking about a war that congress never voted to authorize in the first place. here we are in iraq and we have most republican senators saying that they don't want congress to vote on whether we have further strikes against iran as a result of yesterday's strikes. i think that's a very big mistake and in a closely fought election, which we might have this year, and with the types of people are working to undermine and impeach the president on cold war 2.0 to. republicans are behind the times and they are allowing democrats to sort of take away some of the issues that help trump win in

2016. >> tucker: that's exactly right. that's the difference between the parties. when democratic primary voters want something to give it to them. when republican voters say they want something the party gives them the finger and ignores them. that tells you a lot. drew mantel, thanks for joining us. well another war in the middle east probably would not be in the benefit, to the benefit of the united states. instead, it is our real number one follow that would benefit, and that is china. what does china think of what's happening between the united states and iran? that is next. ♪ - do you have a box of video tapes, film reels, or photos,

that are degrading? legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

>> we don't know where the situation with iran is going but we can be certain if it breaks into a full-blown war a few things will be true. it will likely cost much more than they tell you, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars. at the end america's likely to be weaker than it was at the beginning and we know this for certain, our biggest rival will be stronger. who's our biggest rival question mike it's not a ron. it is china. we are considering to squander money and blood in baghdad and many other capitals in that region, china is growing its economy at home. even if as it expands. one person is paying close attention to this, one of the few who cares, is j.d. van. were happy to have him at our show. thank you so much for coming on. i don't think anyone mourns the

depth of soleimani, but i wonder what the chinese think as they watch this. >> i think one thing they are thinking is just as the past two american presidencies have been bogged down in the middle east and various ways, this conflict risk escalating in a way that makes america focus on the middle east for yet another few years, may be another ten years, even as the chinese growing military might and power. we know they are planting various institutions all over africa and asia, that their entire economy is growing and yet again, we risk focusing on the small region of the world is important but not nearly as important as our biggest rival continuing to gain strength and power. >> that's exactly right. now that this country's energy independence we were promised for decades once week became energy independent we wouldn't have to focus all of our energy in the middle east.

our energies are still focused there and we are still ignoring china. why do you think that is? >> i think for a couple of reasons. one we have an entire generation of american intellectuals on the left on the right who grew up thinking that the middle east was just the most important region of the world. one way to think about american policy for the last 20 years, the barack obama administration's as we have these successful wards. we basically have one new war a term. iraq, afghanistan, lebanon, and syria during the obama terms. that's obviously terrible in the think you can make a good argument that one of those wars have been good for america's interest. viewed from the chinese perspective it's because it does constantly bogged down. the people who predicted the focusing on these regions would be good for america's national interest are still advising presidents, are still advising senators and diplomats in the few people that recognize that

china was a major threat are still a little bit on the sidelines of mainstream foreign policy conversation. i think it's a disaster but if you understand the american foreign policy establishment is not so surprising to understand why that's happening. >> tucker: just a macro question to end on, why is it so hard for elites to police themselves. if we allowed our heart surgeons to keep working with that kind of track record, nobody would survive surgery. why do we allow our policymakers to be wrong time and time again? >> well, tucker, i will give you a cynical answer and then the less cynical answer. the less cynical answer is a lot of people are not very smart at what they do. honestly i hope that's the answer.

there is of course a group of people who have gotten very wealthy off of china's growing power and that is the financial leap to run the country that produced the policy papers that so many of our politicians rely on. i think one way of recognizing that there's been a massive failure here is that the people who have not been in service of the american national interests are still collecting a paycheck and the people who have gotten it right are still largely on the fringes. that's fundamentally a story of incentives and a story of who donors are benefiting from and who voters are paying to effectively issue what is propaganda. >> i don't think that's cynical i think unfortunately you are exactly right. it's great to see you. one arm civilian seems to have saved dozens of lives at a church in texas. it's an inspiring sort of story.

the left, an op-ed in "usa today" argues those people shouldn't have been protected. will tell you what they said and why after the break. ♪

>> tucker: like most of party leaders, julian castro believed in taking away your second amendment rights. but don't worry, he said good guys with a gun is a myth, like

bigfoot. >> more guns are not the answer. this idea that a good guy with a gun is going to stop a bad guy with a gun, it doesn't work that way. >> tucker: yes, that's not true actually. we were reminded of that just last week. in arm civilian halted what could have been a massacre in texas at a church. likely saving many lives. override usa today they were distressed. the op-ed said we should be, and we are quoting canal, "horrified so many civilians in the church were carrying guns." so, dana, we should be horrified about a scenario that work does good is it possibly could. in arm civilian stopped a massacre. what's good about that? >> i agree with you, tucker. i find it horrifying that anyone

at "usa today" would actually find it horrified to save lives, the defendant's and people. that's exactly what happened. i was also, and the reason to remind everyone that we have this video to go by is because sadly the church was live streaming their service at sunday morning, as they always do. it ultimately was captured. you see in that video there are about five other law-abiding individuals who also draw their weapons, which is probably what would happen at my church and i'm one of the law-abiding people who carry in my church. we are encouraged to do so. five other people also drew their lawfully carried firearms and they held, they watched and waited and took in everything that was happening before them, which indicates a level of training and a skill set that shouldn't horrified people. in fact it should encourage individuals, because we were always told that if there is more than one firearm present in an area such as this, there is a mass casualty incident or somebody armed comes into do murderous intent, that it would

turn into the wild west. it didn't. it took jack harris one shot and six seconds to neutralize this threat. god bless him and god bless texas. >> tucker: it so interesting that you can look at the scenario and say people who are literally in church on sunday, who are the most decent and responsible people in our entire society, that it bothers you that they are exercising their second amendment rights? the contempt for those kinds of people baffles me. don't you want more people like that? >> yes, when you talk about castro and pato or rourke and michael bloomberg and all of these other individuals that want to circumvent our psychonomic movement rights, when they talk about criminal usage we can't have a conversation about firearms unless we are also including, tucker, defensive gun usages. these are individuals who are lawful possession of their firearms. these numbers, defensive gun

usage according to the cdc from barack obama when he commissioned this in 2013 in harris, and it's bit affirmed many times over. they vastly outweigh instances of criminal possession. my actual fear is that people find this bad. that there are good people out there who take the time to educate themselves, to learn about their firearm, and to train all those congregants of the church do just a week or so ago. then jack cares probably train some of them as well. people should want to be able, they should be able to defend themselves and we should encourage and empower people to do so instead of trying to shame them or smear them or malign their character. i find that disturbing. >> tucker: me while they are telling us that we are not allowed to take illegal firearms away from people. stop and frisk is immoral. but we need to disarm churchgoers? i'm starting to think this isn't about public safety, call me

cynical. >> i agree. by the way i said harris earlier, i have no idea where that came from i mean jack wilson. this whole situation with legacy media and many other individuals looking down their noses and good people who want to be able to protect themselves. for crying out loud let's look at maryland for example. back up a couple of years ago when they passed their national firearms act, this is 2013 or 2014. it was all with the promise that law enforcement is going to take care of you, the state is going to protect you, you don't need your firearms to protect yourself. then look what happened. baltimore's homicide rates spiked by 300%. it's insane. people want to be able to defend themselves because they know the state, they never make good on it. in fact some of the biggest errors that we have seen with previous mass casualty incidents has been because people in government have dropped the ball. >> tucker: of course, trust us. you will be fine. no thanks. great to see you tonight, thanks

so much. >> good to see you, tucker. >> tucker: it turns out this arming you is just one part of the plan to remake your life. imagine a place where the streets are lined with syringes and human where the police no longer have power and criminals operate with impunity. there are literally more drug addicts living on the streets than there are high school students enrolled. there is no need to imagine a place like that, unfortunately it already exists. it's called san francisco. for centuries san francisco was the crown jewel of the west coast, the single prettiest place in america's richest data. our cape town. today it's become a kind of household that only left-wing leadership could create it. no mistake. they want to make sure your town become san francisco. on monday, at 8:00 p.m. eastern comeau are unveiling a five-part investigation into what exactly is happening to san francisco. we sent a crew out there for a week. the footage and interviews they came home with are shocking.

here's a preview. viewer discretion is advised. ♪ >> it's like a mine field because he never know what's coming around the corner. >> tucker: america dystopia reviews monday and continues all week. it's important, don't miss it. up next, the trump administration has allowed individual states to opt out of refugee resettlement. it turns out virtually every republican governor is asking for more refugees. why is that? plus, boeing's outgoing ceo put his company into dire straits. in return, he could be getting $50 million. what does that tell you about the way businesses are run in

the modern american economy? we will tell you just ahead. ♪

>> tucker: if you can remember that far back, during president obama's second term republican leaders in congress made a big show of opposing the obama administrations refugee policy. obama wanted to settle tens of thousands of refugees who fled. the time 25 republican governors demanded the right to keep them out. the left accused them of racism of course. there are good reasons to take the position they did. to properly vetting refugees is really hard. often impossible. some of the refugees they pointed out might not even be syrian. that was true for sure.

some of them might be islamic extremists. terrorism was not the only where they had. america's middle class is in decline. we already have more than 20 million illegal immigrants living here. the last think many struggling communities need is more migrants who may be good people but need a lot. they stress the schools and social programs will not fully integrating. that's just true and anybody who lives in a community where it has happened will tell you that it is true. as with illegal immigration, the long term agenda of refugee settlement is to bring in future democratic voters obviously. before she became the first most anti-american member of congress ilhan omar was a refugee. by the time republican governors got their wish. in 2019, he issued an executive order allowing cities and states to opt out of refugee resettlement. that's the last time we checked in on the story. here's the amazing part. for some reason, no republican

governors are taking advantage of that. in static, he probably didn't read this in "the new york times," but 18 republican governors have explicitly requested that more refugees be sent to their states. have there voters demanded this? no. so what is going on here? ned ryan is the founder of american majority and author of restoring our republic. he joins us tonight. ned, i don't think there's any evidence that republican voters in the states have been begging there republican governors to move more refugees in. so why are these governors literally asking the federal government to do is this? >> this is unreal talk. that trump gave a strong backstop thing you could back out of this. now you have these 18 republican governors saying we want more. they are saying we are following our hearts commences christian charity and action. i have to say this, as an active

evangelical christian, refugee resettlement has nothing to do with christianity and is everything to do with the immoral behavior of these government errors and quite frankly, a perverse incentive for these government-funded charities that are acting as refugee contractors. drifting of the american taxpayer. michelle malkin has written about some of those, but the u.s. state department is paying these refugee contractors over $2100 per refugee, of which they get to keep 45%. then they are doing this campaign on these governors saying you have to put your christian charity into action and in an act of cowardice, most of these governors from red states are giving into this. first of all, -- >> tucker: i don't understand how this works. >> people who hate christianity are demanding that in the name of christianity, christian governors admit refugees. the governors aren't actually housing any of the refugees in their own homes or paying any of their own money, so how is it christian virtue to take other

people's money by force and give it away? it's fraudulent. i don't member the part of the gospel. >> tucker: christianity to me is obviously living in preaching the gospel of christ and living a moral life. i find this deeply immoral and i can assure you they are not preaching the gospel of christ. it's fraudulent behavior using taxpayer dollars to fund this. the amazing part to me is the immoral behavior of these governors. they have one moral imperative. their moral imperative is to advance the interests of the citizens of their state to do otherwise be immoral. we have entrusted them with political power and our money to promote our interests, not the interests of noncitizens. i have to tell you, tucker, this is idiotic on so many levels but this is so red states become fluent how america ceases to be america. you can't continue this behavior. at some points there are consequences. these are red state republican governor is doing this and trump is doing all the right things and they are abandoning him on

this. >> tucker: i really wish we had run their names on the screen, i'm sorry we didn't. i hope you will come back. i think we should continue this topic because it is important. for more than 100 years, the boeing company has led international aviation. to this day is measured by dollar amounts boeing remains america's single largest foreign exporter. but now, like so many american institutions, boeing is in trouble. last year the company's latest generation of 737 air planes was grounded worldwide following several horrifying crashes. there still no sign that plans will be allowed back in the air anytime soon. production is being suspended. in business terms this is a disaster for the company and for the airline. how did it happen? at least part of the responsibility lies with dennis muilenburg, who has been in charge of boeing since 2015. fittingly he is now being fired, which on the face of it sounds like good news. someone in corporate america is finally being held accountable

for screwing up. before you celebrate away for the fine print. according to recent as sec filings, he's walking away with more than $26 million in cash and stock. $26 million. that's his punishment. by the way, that figure could more than doubled to over $50 million depending upon the final terms of the settlement. here's some context for how much money that is. our. a rank-and-file employee at a public might make $60,000 a year. that's a decent salary in many places. it would take a worker more than 400 years to earn as much is the supposedly disgraced dennis muilenburg is getting in the severance package. in other words, for his work presiding over deadly airplane crashes, wallenberg is walking up with enough money to pay the median income for 420 american households. if that sounds perverse to you, keep in mind it's no longer unusual. since 1978, ceo salaries and america's corporations have risen by a factor of more than ten. meanwhile average workers have

seen their wages stagnate and decline. in 1965, ceos in this country to earn 25 is much as regular employees. as recently as 198090 out orange employees 58-1. today that ratio was risen to 278-1. no wonder people are sending money to bernie sanders. that's what happens when you abuse the system. you discredit capitalism and business will make big business has in many ways done exactly that. keep in mind, this isn't happening everywhere in the globe. in europe the disparities are much less stark. airbus ceo tom enders made $10 million in 2017. that's a lot, but it's half as much as boeing's dennis muilenburg made. airbus planes didn't even crash. this is an ugly trend, but it's actually worse than that. it's dangerous for our country. why? because when normal people save their lives getting worse while failures like dennis muilenburg get rich beyond description, many conclude that our system is

rotten and not worth keeping. the polls sure they'll make sure that that is happening right now. attitudes are changing fast. thanks to stories like this one, americans are warming to socialism. six months from now a socialist could be the democratic nominee for president. in a few years this could easily be a socialist country. what would that look like? of course it would be a disaster. socialism doesn't work. it never has worked. especially not in sprawling diverse countries like this one. under a socialist regime, hundreds of millions of americans would see their lives get dramatically worse, while the mcgoldrick like alexander oco zero cortez would become vastly more powerful. that's socialism. you think america is stratified and unequal now? wait until we get a socialist system. it would be so much worse. that's coming by the way, and at high speed. why? because my list chamber of commerce libertarianism has allowed greed and stupidity this version corporate board rooms. in this we read that in right

now we are going to lose the system that made this country great. as of tonight, and america's sending thousands of additional troops to the middle east, but the iraqi government inmates and said that they are not welcome there. what will happen next? we will tell you is our coverage of the iran crisis continues. ♪ having to live with bad teeth for so long was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed and all of the feeling bad about myself that was unnecessary. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com or call today. a general dentistry office.

>> thousands of american troops headed to the middle east

tonight after iran's promise to retaliate for the death of qassem soleimani soeimani. thousands of forces in iraq may be ordered out of the country. benjamin hall is in jordan for us tonight he joins us with more . >> good evening, tucker. the whole region has been on high alert all day waiting for some kind of retaliation from iran. what we heard reports of in the last couple of hours are parsable strikes by the u.s. these are unconfirmed great we've heard conflicting reports that there are suggestions that two cars we're hit just north o baghdad a few hours ago that contained more irradiance militias. including one facilitator. some people say the second most powerful man in iran and the ma responsible for so many hundred of u.s. deaths. he was killed living baghdad airport early this morning having flown in from lebanon an

was waiting to take them home. alongside him the man in charge of the storming of the u.s. embassy. people are saying now that this strike may be severely strain the iraqi relations by the iraq prime minister spoke out today and didn't mince his words. he said they condemned the targeted killing is a violation of the terms which underpin the u.s. troop presence in this country. he goes on to say he submitted full request for parliamentary reconvene in order to protect the dignity and sovereignty he didn't say what those measures would be. while some people are suggestin they might ask u.s. troops to leave the country, the u.s. is sending more troops over. they are coming from the 82nd airborne headed to kuwait. 750 have become into baghdad to protect the embassy. somewhat conflicting ideas at the moment. president trump says he does no

want war they killed captain qassem soleimani because he was having landing attacks on the u.s. high tensions here tonight at. >> we are out of time here tonight. we will be back monday. >> sean: welcome to this breaking news addition of hannity. we begin with a fox news alert. tonight the world are safer as one of the most ruthless evil war criminals on earth has been brought to justice. qassem soleimani was evil personified he was a terrorist and a murderer with american blood on his hands. as the leader of the reigning codes force, their elite military unit, no man was more responsible for the death of ou american treasure and civilian deaths in the middle east then him. thanks to president trump, thanks to the greatest fighting force on the face of this earth our amazing military, thanks