♪[ music ] from washington, the mclaughlin group, the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. issue one. considering or target isis in syria. >> last night on my orders america's armed forces began strikes against isil targets in syria. we were joined from this section by our friends and partners, saddam rain, united arab emirates, jordan, about hurricane and qatar. this makes it clear to the world this is not america's fight alone. >> the war against the islamic state, isil, escalated this week. for the first time early

tuesday the u.s.-led coalition hit targets inside of syria. expanding the war beyond the country of iraq. the barrage included police sills fired from u.s. ships and dropping bombs on multiple targets. the first day of bombing hit rob ca? northeast syria, the city isis had control of for more than a year and where it has training facilities and command centers. other isis areas also hit dar al sur, abull ca mall and has adebt. second strikes hit syrian oil refineries isis had seized to fuel their vehicles on a black market that netted isis more than $15 million a month. isis was not the only group in the crosshairs. an al qaeda offshoot called the khorasan group was hit solely by the u.s. because the u.s. central command are advised an

attack on khorasan on u.s. targets was imminent. the pentagon called the strikes very successful, but stressed these air strikes are only the beginning of a long haul. >> we know this is going to be complicated, going to take a serious effort by all involved. and we do believe that we are talking about years here. i can't put an exact number on that, but this is not something that we are going to be done with this days or weeks or months. >> question. will these kinds of targeted strikes be enough to deter or defeat isis? >> pat buchanan? >> from a word, no. i think we can degrade isis john but we can't destroy or defeat it with aware strikes. the key to isis is it is in syria right now and it is going to take ground troops to defeat it but the only ground troops are isis in al qaeda in the north and in the south a syrian army backed by hezbollah and iran. we have no cards on the table in terms of ground troops from syria. in iraq we have no ground

troops there, none of our allies are going to provide ground troops. in the north you can defend with american air power. you have the shy adominated government, you get to tick crete, months sull, no way we can take that back without ground troops. john you cannot defeat isis ever unless you send in ground troops into syria and iraq. >> eleanor? >> well the air strikes can brush back, they are brushing back isil and they are necessary, because you can't just let isil continue to take ground at-will. they have already got like a third of iraq and a safe harbor from syria, so i think the air strikes are appropriate both in iraq and syria and i think the weak link, as pat says, is ground troops and who is going to commit ground troops and the $500 million to train syrian fighters, the so-called moderates, that is going to take awhile anyway. but the president is doing the right thing. because this is really more it

is their fight. these countries over there are much more on the line than the u.s. is and the coalition he put together with the five monday ark can is that stretch from jordan to saudi arabia is pretty impressive. whether you have a female fighter pilot leading the battle for the united arab emirates, a forward thinking company, this is looking at the future that has to come together. they have got to protect their governments from extremism and if they don't get in the fight, it is lost. the president is right to stand aside, do what we can, but they have got to get in it. >> okay. syria reacts, or doesn't. which speaks volumes. shebean is a media and political advisor to syrian leader al assad. when president obama raised the possibility of the u.s. striking within syria, two and a half weeks ago, he had this

reply. >> we are ready to be part of any coalition against terrorism. b, any strike in syria, without coordination with the sitting government is considered an aggression against syria. >> the u.s. did not coordinate with the assad regime. but shortly before the strikes, informed syria's envoy to the un that the strikes were coming. as to whether assad considers the strikes quote an aggression against syria, unquote, he certainly did not intercept or use antiaircraft power to stop the bombardment on his territory. >> question. why hasn't syria protested the violation of its sovereign air space? i ask you. go ahead. >> john what is happening here is the syrian regime of assad is basically content now to see the united states air force, as

well as sunni arab nations in the middle east come together to bomb the opposition that assad has been effectively trying to fight for the last three years. let's roll it back a year ago. the obama administration was calling for assad's ouster. now we have gone 180 degrees and the united states is bombing that opposition that assad has tried to describe as terrorists all along. >> doing assad a favor? >> i think we are absolutely doing assad a favor. >> right. >> we didn't hilt syrian targets at all during these strikes. i am not saying we should have, but we need to look at how this exposes the vacuum of our strategy. we don't really have one. what comes after this? whose side are we trying to pick here? we are just reacting to violence in the middle east by basically going and bombing the sandbox. eleanor pointed this, this week, the gc c, gulf corporation council, has finally put jets in the air to

work with us. so sunni muslim nations in the middle east, for the first time, and this is historic in its worth, and it is worth remembering right now it will affect where there goes in the next 25 years. >> okay. >> they are bombing sunni extremists right from the middle east. lessons from the vietnam war? >> air action is now in execution. against gunboats and certain supporting facilities in north vietnam, which has been used in these hostile operations. our response, for the present, will be limit and fitting. >> in 1964, president johnson announce the first u.s. air strikes against north vietnam. operation rolling thunder. was supposed to last eight weeks. but went on for three years. president johnson opted for bombing north vietnam, because he wanted to avoid the issue of

u.s. ground troops. ultimately, he committed more than 500,000 u.s. forces to the vietnam war. >> lyndon johnson's military escalation in vietnam is the textbook study of mission creep. is president obama in danger of going down that same road? >> mort? >> sure there is always that danger. but we are in a position i would like to describe as the evil of two lessers. we have no good choices here. so we have to pick the one that is most in our interest and the one with least risk and least damage to us and going after the isil people is, in fact in my judgment, the right decision. it doesn't mean syria is a great, syria is going to benefit from that, because these are the opponents to assad's government and assad is not exactly someone you want want to send to a christmas party. having said that, he is still not as bad as the isil people and not as threatening to our

interests from the region. that is why we are doing it. how far it goes is not to be determined. >> and not an expansionist he is not looking to expand where isil is looking to expand. >> i want to say the comparison with lyndon johnson, president obama does not have the resources that lyndon johnson had. first of all the economy was booming then, we had gun and his butter, and secondly there was a draft, so you had an unlimited amount of manpower. >> what is the point? >> the point is that this president is constrained by lack of resources, plus his own inclination. he doesn't want to get involved in another ground. >> excuse me pat i get to finish a sentence. he is not going to send in 500,000 or 168,000 troops. >> but the policy is incoherent john. >> .well taken. go ahead. >> look, you had the qatar and saudi arabia were bombing isil in syria, which, just up until

a couple of months ago, they were aiding in syria as the sunni alies to overthrow assad. the policy is cannot succeed without ground troops. it is incoherent, inconsistent, we are making it up as we go and we are really in a no win war. eleanor is right we are not going to send 100,000 troops into iraq or syria, but i don't know how aware this thing ends. >> we have a number of allies in the region, okay? saudi arabia, egypt. >> turkey. >> well turkey is not exactly an ally. >> they are a nato ally. >> we all understand. >> but they are not going to help us. that is the difference. it doesn't matter. >> we have to work to save those people and to prevent those people because if vial really begins to explode, and may explode in terms of their expansion they are going to threaten all of our allies. >> our allies have been aiding isil, turkey included. >> i'm in the going to justify turkey. >> but saudi arabia and jordan.

>> why do we have to say. >> why do we have to keep. >> we don't. that is why we are doing air power and that is it. hold on i want to raise this question about khorasan. khorasan. before this week nobody has ever heard of khorasan. what does this emergence signify? and can you describe it? >> this is an absolutely eye opening development in all of this. the leader of this group, okay, is a guy named al fadley. we don't know yet if he was killed by monday's strikes. he was hiding out in iran, outside of tehran for the last eight years, identified by the u.s. intelligence. i mean there are reports out there of there character and his role in financing people from the original core of al qaeda as the narrative win that pulled off the 9/11. >> al qaeda? >> the original osama bin laden

core. >> this guy it turns out was hiding out in syria and was targeted by the strikes on monday night. it is kind of amazing that this was going on accept rat from isil. >> are there any americans in khorasan? >> no. the administration has been. >> 12 in isis. 12 americans fighting with isis. 100 americans overall in syria. >> an important point here. this group is different from isil islamic state movement. this is the group that the obama administration is now claiming is the very same as the original core of al qaeda that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. this is politically important. politically important because the administration needs cover to have the authorization to make war in another country, other than iraq. in the 2001 authorization of military force, from congress, allowed the bush administration to go after al qaeda, the people who perpetrated 9/11 anywhere from the world. the obama administration it is very convenient these al qaeda

core guys showed none syria. >> the administration has been tracking this group no two years. teledidn't go public they didn't want the public to know. >> only about 30 people, expert bomb makers looking to create bombs that can get on aircraft and evidently there was some evidence they were quote about to go operational. i think it was an opportunist being air strike. >> any americans in khorasan? >> no. >> guy's point is very important. we hit khorasan because we had a right to hit al qaeda. what it tells you is congress has got to come back here in december and they are going to have to vote for a new authorization for this war. you can't use the subterfuge. >> khorasan is the fig leaf for congress? >> the fig leaf to get strikes into syria. >> to take some action that has been requested by the president? >> they have got to get something new. >> khorasan was not a fig leaf. if you have evidence your national security is at stake

and imminent attack the presence had every right to do that. look john boehner the speaker just said no vote. they don't know which way the policy is going to go and they are scared to vote. >> exactly. they are scared to vote. >> are we finished with. >> that is not going to happen. >> are we finished with sovereign air space? sovereignty being a cording to kissinger's latest book where he derives, he attaches so much importance to soften seventy. >> they need a new authorization to continue bombing syria that is not khorasan. because we have no right to bomb that country. >> we have no clearance to bomb syria and sovereignty dictates we should not bomb syria that what you are saying? >> unless congress authorizes a war inside syria. >> why did obama call them up?

>> they are on vacation. i mean they are out campaigning. they are not going to come back. and unless he knows he is going to get support what kind of signal does it send to the world if they don't step up? >> the 2001 authorization for military force. >> he doesn't have to go to them and i think it is a good thing. excuse me please. it is a good thing if the congress and the executive do go together but it is not essential. >> you can play the president. >> he can play a presidential war another presidential war? >> i don't know what your point is. >> my point is. >> we will live, we will live in mystery. we are going to live in mystery on that. issue two. a bush is back. >> republicans can show they lead if they gain a majority status. so i am working as hard as i can to help candidates when they have asked for it. >> former florida governor jeb bush stumped for republican tom tillis this week in one of the most closely watched races in the country. mr. tillis is in a tight

contest with sitting senator democrat kay hagen. so tillis has been calling on republican heavyweights to lend support. at the event jeb bush expounded on issues he is he perfect vent about. one, immigration reform. a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, and two, education standards, the common core. disliked by gop activists. the new york times noted that candidate tillis quote gently put distance between himself and his guest of honor, unquote, on these issues. and voiced far more conservative stances on immigration and education than did mr. bush. question. if jeb bush decides to run for president in 2016, is he too moderate for the republican base? or is he just what the doctor ordered? pat? >> too moderate for the republican base. bobby jindal was very much out in favor.

>> who is bobby jindal? >> the governor of what la. marco rubio was for. >> who is marco rubio? >> the u.s. senator from florida. >> right. right. >> damaged deeply by his support for immigration reform. jeb bush 1 john he doesn't look to me like he's got the fire in the belly. he hasn't run from a dozen years or more for anything. >> he is getting warmed up. >> these two issues will see him torn apart in a very huff primary. >> to his credit, he is not walking away from those issues like the other two people you cited. >> they ran away. >> he is not running away, he is doubling down on immigration reform and doubling down on the common core. if you look at the field, other than i suppose chris christie, it is a field that is filled with conservatives and social conservatives, and libertarians. so you can imagine he could carve out a piece in that landscape.

i think it would be refreshing if you had someone who actually is saying what they expecting isn't backing away from earlier positions. he may be in the wrong party throw. >> are you against posturing? >> i'm for posturing for a good cause. >> are you? >> wow, we are making progress here. >> >> what do you think of jeb? >> you know, i met him. i have met him before. but i met him for a good period of time a number of weeks ago when he came to new york and he are a very small luncheon. i will tell you he is as knowledgeable and effective and thoughtful as any republican i have talked to in a very, very long time. he is he is absolutely first rate. he is a real talent. he speaks with authority not overwhelming in any sense. he is going to be a very effective candidate. he also peaks perfect spanish so this is helpful with the hispanic community. i think he is going to be in my lungment the leading candidate for the republican nomination.

i'm not going to say he is going to win it but by far the most outstanding candidate they have and the one who has the best chance to win the presidential election and the conservatives in the republican party if they aren't careful they do not want to be in the wilderness for another eight years after the obama presidency and they need a leader who can be elected and he can be elected. >> take questions from the floor? >> yes. >> when asked whether or not he was going to run what did he say? >> the national polls have not been good for jeb bush. >> he said he hasn't made up his mind yet. >> his mother said we have had enough bushes in the white house. >> his mother may have said that. he done, you don't travel all the way to new york for example to have lunch with 10 or 15 people unless you are interested somehow or other in your political future. i have no idea if he is going to run i suspect he is. >> i agree with everything all three of you said and

appreciate mort's seal but frankly i don't know who jeb bush thinks he is at this point. there is only so much room for rational, middle of the road, honest republicans in this upcoming race, okay? the space is filled physically and. >> he fits that don't you? >> by chris christie. put him on a stage with christie, christie will blow him away. he hasn't run for anything since 2002. >> i think they have some kind of deal if one goes the other doesn't. they would split up the moderate vote. >> romney and bush? >> romney christie and jeb bush. >> romney gets in, bush gets in. but i haven't talked to either. i'm not like mort, i don't talk to them at lunch. basic question is the gop ready for a third bush candidacy? yes or no? >> it may be but i don't think. >> candidacy? >> you mean for his run something he has a perfect

right to run and i think there is a chance he will. more likely romney will run and more likely christie will run. >> no fire in the belly? >> doesn't show me fire in the belly. americans have a short attention span. if he gets in the race, he's got a chance. >> i hope he runs. he will get clued apart by the crazy right wing. he absolutely will. >> i don't agree with that. i think if they do that okay they are in the wilderness again forever. they are not that, i was going to say stupid, they are not that unwise is a better way to put it. they don't want to be in the wilderness after the obama administration. if you have an obama administration and a clinton administration and you are a conservative republican. >> jeb bush's gubernatorial career in florida was a masterpiece and he is totally beloved by the people there. >> yes. >> he got that state through a horrible hurricane. >> right. >> and governing and the fact

that he has a hispanic wife and that whole aspect of it, a lot to bear in his what he brings to the picture. >> issue 3. is the science settled? >> this is not fiction. it is science. unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. >> let me set the stage by saying that the science here, itself. >> these words on climate change were ordered by president obama at the copenhagen while that mat conference five years ago and in a town hall meeting four months ago. this week at the united nations general assembly in new york, more than 120 world leaders met against the background of mass marching to call attention to the need for an international

climate change treaty, when december gates meet in paris next year. rope president obama says the scientific debate on climate change is several but not everyone concurs. in an important dissent the obama administ secretary for science in the u.s. energy department dr. steven could be an called mr. obama's claim that the silence is settled quote unquote misguided. he said it chills scieientific inquiry and inhibits a much needed examination of why the computer models scientists rely on are consistently wrong. item, missing ice. computers accurately forecast shrinkage in the arctic sea ice but completely missed the record growth in the ant arctic sea ice. item. missing heat. the models predict a lot spot developing in the tropics, but no such hot spot exists.

item, more missing heat. the models missed the fact for 16 years now temperatures have not risen, despite a 25% jump in global carbon emissions. item, missing carbon. the models cannot explain why, 70 years ago, when carbon emissions were far lower, sea levels rose by one-fourth percent friday, the same rate as today when carbon emissions are ubiquitous. dr. could be an says climate change is real and man plays a part but quote while the past two decades have seen progress in climate science the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. and any serious discussion must begin by acknowledging not only scientific certainty tis but also the uncertain tis in projecting the future.

unquote. >> is the science truly settled? >> i read the could be an piece and it made good arguments, but i think we have to ask ourselves, despite this guy's past relationship with the obama administration, he is now in the private sector and is he a shell for the oil companies? the oil companies and essentially fossil fuels lobby? i want to seize on it though and point something out. the debate whether or not the science is settled is going to go on for awhile. we should be looking at on any segment on there is the fact that people on both seeds of the debate can agree that air pollution, around the world, in the american cities, but especially in the far east, beijing, i can't cart ta, it is horrific. this is something that can be explained all the way down to mothers of children regardless of where they sit on the associate yo economic scale. eleanor? >> climate change is real and it is happening and now you see

both sides drying trying to lower the rhetoric now let's just try address the changes. it may be too write to reverse the warming of the planet that is already underway but we can do something to help the pacific island nations, which are beginning to drown, california, florida, new york, coastal cities are all taking action to prepare for what's ahead. i don't understand why conservatives have touched this into such an idealogical mission. it is clear that the pollution we are putting putting into the atmosphere is not helping, it is not helping the ocean not helping anything. >> there is no doubt we can measure things scientifically how warm it is, global warming stopped in 97. >> we can measure that, the size of the arctic ice pack and ant arctic ice pack. what they can't do john is science is predictable.

we have unpredictable things they haven't predicted anything right in all these areas. they are trying to transfer wellth and power from people and nations to global bureaucrats. jeb bush will run for president in 2016 yes or no? >> one in three chances. >> yes. >> i would say no. >> yes. the answer is yes. bye bye. ♪ [ music ]

>> this week on moyers & company -- >> is this really our model for the middle east that we are going to bomb countries, continuously, take part in civil wars, sometimes supporting one side, maybe supporting the other, with no means or no real desire or effort to achieve a peace? >> as much as president obama wishes we weren't the world's policemen, perhaps we are, and there's no escaping that curse. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- -- anne gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security at carnegie.org. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front li