robert: the president a crossroads as congress seeks answers. president trump: we took action ast night to stop a war. we did not take action to start ouwar. >> and i can assurhat americans in the region are much safer today. robe: iran's top general is killed.y a air strike. parking unrest in the middle east. and debate on capol hill. >> this action may well have brought our nation closer to another endless war, exactly the kind of endless war esidentd pro he would not drag us into. robert: next. announcer: this is "washington week." funding isrovided by -- >> before we talk about your investments, what's >> well, audrey i expecting.

>> twins. >> grandparents. >> we want it put money aside fo them so change in plans. >> all right. let's e what we can adjust. >> we would be closer to the twins. i>> chanplans. >> ok. >> mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. >> let me guess. change in plans? >> at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. announcer: additional funding is provided by -- koo and patricia yuen through the yuen foundation. committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions toour pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again, from washington, moderator robert costa. robert: good evening. president trump ordered a drsto rike this week that killed iran's leading general, qassem soleimani in baghdad, iraq.

that decision came days after o-iranian protesters attacked the u.s. embas there. and on friday, secretary of state mike pompeo said this. >> there was in fact an imminent attack taking place. the american people should know that thiss an intelligence-based assessment that drove this. robert: democratic leaders, however, are concerned about the president's handling of the strike. speaker aide to house nancy pelosi told me this morning that she got no advance notificati but did speak ter to defend secretary mark esper. republicans remain united. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said this. >> i recommend that allrs senaait to review the facts and hear from the administration before passing much public judgment on this at opn. and its potential consequences. robert: joining us tonight to hi discuss crisis moment in foreign policy as the 2020 election countdown begins, lisa

desjardins, congressional correspondent for "the pbs newshour." toluse olorunnipa, white house reporter for "the washington post." susan page, washington bureau chief for "usa today." michael crowley, white house reporter for "the new york times." just back from mar-a-lago with president trump. and nancy yousseff, national curity correspondent for "the wall street journal" joining us from capitol hill. as michael and his colleagues wrote on the front page of "new york times," quote, general soleimani was the ash tect of nearly every significant -- arcitect of nearly every assistant operation in military forces over the past decade and his death was a staggering blow for iran time of sweeping ict.olitical con the strike was a serious nscalation plaintiff trump's growing confrontatith tehran. michael, thanks so much for being here. fknow you needed a little coffee, back frrida and now on our set. take us inside the decision in terms of the intelligence. we said -- we saw from

secretary of state mike pompeo that there was intelligence hi that led to what do we know about that intelligence? >> well, thises a critical question. and part of the problem here for people who want to know w dhat happened and focrats on capitol hill who are very frustrated right now is that we don't have af details. now, the administration did not briefvirtually any members of congress about ts operation before it happened. there was noongressional buy-in. i say virtually any because lindsay graham, senator from south carolina who is a friend of president's was down golfing wi him and wparently looped into this. and people don't kno what the basis for this extraordinary act of aggression ainst iran, this essentially provocation that the iranians will see as act of war, why - why was this catalyst fo the united states to take this action, what the administration officials are saying is that soleimani was planning specific new attacks that had the potential to lead to the deaths of huneds of americans in the ddle east, military members

and diplomats. but we're not getting more details than that and a lot of skepticism on capitol hill. number one the history of intelligence being cooked up the example of the iraq war with weapons of mass destruction and number two, let's be frank about this. the trump administration has squandered a lot of its credibilitthrough a thousand small falsehoods over the past several years s there's real doubt that soleimani was doing something much different than he has been dog for many years, menacing americans and others in the region. ronrt: nancy, you've b at the pentagon all day talking to top u.s. officials. can you add based on your reporting any new details to what micel just said in terms of the intelligence, in terms of the rationale? >> so one of thegs thhat they said at the pentagon today was that q hsem soleimani been traveling from damascus to beirut and to baghdad ere he wa struck. as part of this plot that this was a tarted campaign, multifaceted that extended across sia, potentially the troops in northeast syria, to

lebanon, potentially to - matic quarters there and to iraq -- diplomatic quarters there an i toraq. they said it was imnent and potentially within days but they haven offered more specifics than that. and one reason people have a lot of questions is that qassem soleimani has posed a threat to u.s. interests and troops for some would argue decades. and one could argue that the threat that he posed through his para military and militia troops in countries like lebanon and syria and iraq had continued and was not markedlye diff and so with the pentagon sought to say was that this time this threat had to be acted upon quickly and through the strike campaign. robert: nancy, how will iran respond based onourco ersations with u.s. officials? >> well, what's interesting is you sensed within the pentagon anan ety about what the response could be because in a way, there are endless possibilities. qassem soleimani controlled dozens of para military and

militia groups in -- throughout the region where u.s. troops are based. and so -- and this is speculation. but these were some ofhe ibpo responses. you could see see attacks on allies in the r and you could see attacks on u.s. interests in the region. you could see an uptick in terms of how tse militia react. i should point out that the other challenges that iran doesn't necessarily control the response. because some of these groups,t tially could act out on their own in response to their ownn ar about qassem soleimans death. you could see a group say in lebanon begin to target israel oromething along that not because theorve been red by iran but chosen to act out on their n to express their frustration by u.s. actions. robert: michael, following up on hat, what would an escalation look like, the u.s. is now sending thousands of more troops to the region would it be boots on the ground? would it be cyber warfare?yo what hav heard inside this administration about what war

or conflict would look like? >> i think one thing we heard is an apprehension within the administration which says we don't know what's coming next. ere are a lot of differe things the iranians can do in trying to prepare for all of them is not and in particular, i think there is a real concern about iran's cer capabilities. you know, viewers, anecdotally f i had a loriends and relatives sending me text messages. should i be afraid, fend in new york city was going to take his family to see the lion king in timre and i don't want to go to time square on sunday. i'm woied about this. and my responseo people like that is i think that -- the threat of something blowing up in time square seems low. but the way this ordinary -- robert: is that what u.s. officials are saying there's a lower -- not too much of aat thf an attack here in the u.s.? >> well, let me phrase it this way. what u.s.fficials are saying is that iran has very good cyber capabiliti in a way many americans may not appreciate. and the threatf attacks on american critical infrastructure, for instance, computer systems, banking systems, corrupting data, spreading viruses, that is veryb

pla scenario. that's the thing that i think the average american could worry about. then you ha this whole bucket and nancy touched on this threats in the nation, diplomats, u.s. tops, a small contingent still in syria. they do not have a lot of forc protection. d that would be the more traditional way the iranians could hit us or allies like israel or saudi arabia. robert: nancy, stay with us. i want to pull back and bring in the whole table here. because president trump made such a critica decision for his presidency. here's what he had to say today abouthat decision. president trump: soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the middle east for the last 20 years. what the united states did yesterday should have been done long ago. we do not seek regime change. he however, iranian regime's aggression in the region including the use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors must e and it must end now. robert: toluse, you and i have beenhe working tog all day for "the washington post" trying to figure out why this happened. basedn your conversations

with your sources, was it the hawks? or were the hawks perched on e president's shoulders, the generals in his administration urging action? were republicans pressing him? why did he do this? >> that's a really good question. and the fact thatpr theident doesn't seem to have sort of a core foreign policy means that sometimes wh people get in the room with him, they can convince him one way or the other. the president is battling dual impulses. he's in some sense anis ationist and says america first and i don't want to be involved in these quag myers in the middle east but also wants to be a tough guy and proct strength and say if any of these countries or lead as threatone in the u.s. or threaten americans abroad then i'm going to go after them with fire an and i think he's battling those wo impulses, the fact that the iranians had stormed into the embassy and -- in iraq, the president saw that as an affront to hins presidency wanted to take strong actions and the fact that according to the intelligence that he had been briefed on, he saw that there was wh -- what he

called an imminent threat to nd for ns in the region that reason he took this drastic step. but let it be very clear tt he is still apprehensive about this idea that he is sending more troo into the midd east. he's going back on some of his promises of the campaign trail that he will get americans out of the middle east and actually having to do something that's opposite of that. i think he' concerned about that.o robert: apprehension but also taking action. susan, is there ap trum doctrine? >> i think if you -- if you would have said 24 hours ago what the trump doctrine was it would have been end endless wars. afghanistan and iraq and this action he has guaranteed an iraan retaliation, a war of some sort maybe not a traditional looking war and maybe something more like michael was talki t about. anre is -- there are no defenders in the united states of general soleimanind no o saying avenues good guy and didn't deserve to di this way. there is concern th president trump is not -- has not thought through the consequences of what's going to happen next.

is is something that is going to some degree shape and define the rest of his presidency. dealing with the consequences of t action that was taken last night. robert: we heard from michael, lisa, that senator graham when michael was down at mar-a-lago playing golf with the president and briefed by the president, familiar with the plans what about congress? democratic leaders, were they in the dark? >> they were completely in the dark and they were not briefed on this. not the first time a president has had a very sharp and important military sensitive operation and has not briefed congress. not the first time. however, the fact that one member of congress lindsay graham knew about it days ago isething that particularly rankles and concerns members, but this speaks to you earlier question, what is motivating this president? lindsayeraham is one of th top hawks on iran. he's not the only one. tom cotton is another one. so is ted cruz. they have been working to try and keep up the pressur a military pressure on iran for months. who's been working on te other side? senator rand paul.

now, remember, when that drone strike happened when iran shot down our drone? and we did not retaliate? rand paul had recently been talking to theresident at that point. and he was advising him not to retaliate.ad now we'vehis strike, after he has spoken to lindsay graham. we don't know what happenoe. but it seem like he has these two voices around him, rand pul, linay graham, rand paul sha criticism today for the president. he said thiis a president, as susa pointed out, who campaigned on ending perpetual war. here rand paul said on fx news today, this could lead to exactly that. which is a striking comment from an ally. robert: nancy, when you hear what lisa just said about senator cotton and senator graham really being concerned about theid prt's policy in the middle east, does that reflect concerns of u.s. allies in the rethon aboutu.s. withdrawal of troops and what that could mean for israel and other u.s. allies in terms of stability? >> well,e i think one of challenges for the allies is that they are now susceptible, u arguably, b of these strikes. there's a coalition of dozens

of countriesn iraqoperating there. the message that the u.s. has sent ithat the amerins can't be killed. but one way iran could potentially retaliate is to target its allies. the other thing i would point out is that the u.s. hs said its presence i iraq is a counterisis campaign and yet carried out a mission, excuse me, targeting arguably the number two most important person in iran. and so how that will sit with allies i tbehink wil challenging argument for the administration to make. because they made ase to the' lice that they were there to stop the counter-isis not to go after iran. roisrt: we heard from the republican side and nancy how the world sees it. what about speaker pelosi cincinnati what does she do now? one of the most powerople in washington. does she push for an authorization of use of tary force? do the house democrats have any options in terms of countering the president's military action? >> democrats have talked about trying -- the need to get an authorization for thuse of military force.

but without very much i'success. ansure we're going to hear that talk again, senator kaine of virginia has been a leader in that push. just don't know if that's realistic. if she can show that she will complain aout this andangry about this. you know, the idea that the president didn't bother to brief the congressional leaders so-called group of eight which is a very elite group and one does not leak. presidents have briefed the group of eight, the congressional leaders and ths lead the intelligence committees before big military actions in the past. and it's not bee a leaky process. and it gets congress to feel like they're parof it. remarkably, maybe members of congress might have something to say to the administrationbe that wouldseful for them to hear. they've lost that opportunity. robert: does the president understand how pivotal this o decision was his presidency when you're talking his advisors? do they know that he't the center of the combustible situation? >> i'm not surehat e president fully grassance how much has changed in the middle east with ohe deathf this

commander who had been as the president said a tho in the side of the americans for 20 years. but he had been someone who other presidents had the ahance o g after. but they did the calculation and said taking him out could possibly make this worse. it could lead to a war and could cause perpetual fighting with americans for years to come. and think the president has -- his decision making process the ed to leon panet former defense secretary earlier today, and -- robert: what did he say? >> he said he was very ut concerned ahe decision making process of president trump goes through when presidents make these type of ecisions they usually have t national security team around them. they have a large number of options that they'reiven d tche make a decision based on all of the president. panetta is concerned president trump is making decisions based on theast person he spoke to and listening to fox news and people who are outside of the national securitbe process and use of that he's making what appeared to be from the outse impulsive and rash decisions that have led to circumstances where the president may not kno fully

grasp what he's gotten himself into. >> who knows how much president trump thought through this bu this decision is classic trump. oh, my god, old stroke. he can't do that,an he? there was a real debate last night among people who followed this, did they mean to hit sole ani? could threally have hit to hit soleimani and h the other guys and soleimani wasat coal damage? this is what donald trumpoeoes. he what everyone says you can't do that. robert: did he mean to do that? it seems quite clear he did mean to do it and we're quite confident of it at this point. that this is something that had been -- in the quorks for days and multiple people have t attestthat. and 40% of the country says this is an aolute brilliant masterstroke. 40% of the country is terrified and horrified and somewhere in the middle there are people trying to figure it all out. >>nd the president makes a fair point in saying his predecessors have tried to deal with this issue andd to solve it. and -- >> classic trump al. >> on north korea and on iran he has tried a new and

different approach. and think that is -- i think you could think that's a good idea to try to be disruptive. the problem is in both of those cases this week, think we've seen the situation become not better for thenited states but more threatening for the united states. robert: and you think, lisa, when heuert the capital a pending senate impeachment trial. negotiations stand amid talk of possible war? >> yes. good question. we're waiting to see -- we're waiting for speaker pelosi essentially to transmit the articles of impeachment, why isn't she doing it? part of it is actually this time frames out of line with kline done and not really a delay yet. soo speak. the clinton impeachment. however, she does -- she is e ying that lieves the senate process is unfair. she wan to know that tnesses will be called. that is not something that -- robert: does all this change the negotiations over a trial? >> yeah. not y. i don't think it does. we heard from senator mcconnell today. he seems to be very confident that he controls the rules of the senate. the real question about

impeachmens co down to four republican swing senators and wh they want to do. and they have signaled so far that they're willing to start out with p mcconnell'an. we'll know more at the beginning of the next week. but right now it looks liket. robert: nancy, i really appreciate you joining us. we're going to let you go herea let you get back to the pentagon. i'm sure on a friday night you're still talking to your sources. thank you very much. >> thank you. robert: as we move on from the white house, we got t remember that this escalation of tensions happens in the shadow of not just the impeachment trial but the 2020residential race. i was in iowa all week covering senator bernie sanrers. what he had to say about the military strike. >> trumpigred the advice of his own security officials. and listened to right wing extremists, some o whom were exactly the same people who got us into the war in iraq in the first place. robert: so n we have, susan,

a democratic presidential race perhaps with new fault lines. the anti-war democrats versus those who s intervention in the early 2000's like former vice president joe biden.rs >> bernie san did not mention biden's name when he said the people who led us into war iaq. but you know he -- implicitly was thinking about biden when he said that. you know, bernie sandersas been i think underestimated by all of us for thest year as he was i 2016. he had an incredible fundraising quarter. $35 million he rheaised. as a base support that's going to be with him from start to finish. he knows exactly what he thinks and no variation in the past decade in what be rnie sande -- robert: including on iraq. >> including on iraq. he is -- he is -- i think we -- reporters won't in the end be the nominee. he's just too far left. but maybe we're wrong. robert: i saw himlo up for four days, five days. a very real movement. tolus when you think about

president trump, is he watching biden, vice president bide h and doe see biden perhaps using this moment to underscore his own credential yeah. well, president trump has been obsessed with joe biden for the better p sart of the laeral months. going back to why he's being impeached. because he tried to get theia ukra to investigate the bidens and the fact that he's now sort of embroiled with this iraq suation in which he -- you know, authorized the str ie q against this iranian mmander. he's trying to contrast his role in the middle east with the bidens, with thebama administration, he said it, the previous administration should have handled this. he said that, you know, the obama administration had not done enough tourtail iran's aggressions in the region. and he's trying to use that to con trast himself with -- wi joe bind who right now is -- biden who is right now leading in a number of polls nationally for the nomination. >> two other campaigns talking to campaigns that can seize on this moment in addition to biden and sanders.

also pete buttigieg military experience as a comfort zone for him talking about this. he feels like he has authority there. the other one to watch tullsi gabbard. i know her polling putser her at the how end but this er issue. she likes to say she is again perpetual war. had a family member text me tonight, i'm -- doning to tulsi gabbard because of what the president did. robert: you look at the past. we've seen presidential races before turn on foreign policy. the democratic primary race in 2004, around this time in the. ra you saw -- you saw a real move with the capture of adam hussein -- zamede hussein and moved away from howard dean toward kerry and move to mccain in the surge in iraq. could th be a critical juncture? >> it could be. it can play in different ways. is this a moment where the bernie sanders and tulsi gabbards of the race focus voter attention on foreign policy in a way that it has been beforend say we're headed into a dangerous moment

and look, all the forces that pushed us into war with iraq which was such catastrophe and democrats hate so much, they're back at it. and you neee some strong like me like a bernie sanders who has been -- you know, wavering on this to be the nominee and prevent that from happening. or are voters looking foran experiencthe guy who has been in the situation room for ds of hours, has travele all through the middle east and that's a joe biden. and that's a guy who knows how the machine riff of foreign pocy works and knowsth ho national security machine works. and i think it's unpredictable. remember,n kerry may have benefited from the capture of sad am but a lot of democrats were ve frustrated he wasn't standing up more firmly against george w. bush when t insurgency was taking off and still managed to grab the nominati in iowa which is a dovish state overall. so it's very unpredictable. robert: susan, any thoughts on that? >> only time will tell. robert: only time will tell. a lot of time. robert: we shall see. >> not a lot of time. >> iowa coming up. 've had we've been tking

about 2020 since 2016 butight the weeks leading up -- >> we're a month away from iowa. >> the first vote wilhave a big impact on the second vote in new hlampshire which w have a big input and third vote and we are into it. robert: toluse, we were talking to white house officials all day who said the president is paying very close attention to he thinks the democrats are stepping into a political trap. in the sense that they're criticizing him over this strike. and he believes he can get a lot of crit from independent and swing voters. >> yeah. trump campaign officials have pushed this message for several weeks in that whenever president trump does something national f security the democrats cry foul. they whine and can't root for america and can't be happy the cent h done something well and president trump has keyed into that and you will hear that from him on the campaign trail we got baghdadi and tubing out siseimani. s something that the whole country should be proud of and the democrats are quanning about it complaining. robert: we're not hearing the phrase regime change yet, are we?

>> he's only said that in that he's not pushing forme re change. he knows how much of an undertaking that would be fr the country. and he knows that he has campaigned none not trying to change the cultures of the middle east. robert: past presidents thought they could control situations like this. >> exactly. the two biggest risks for approval ratings for any president are an economy tha tanks, and a war that goes south. robert: we're going to have to leave it there. sometimes i ally do wish we had an hour. thanks for sharing our evening with us. and make sure to check out our "washington week" extra and we will continue this conversation on 2020 and it will aive on social mia and be posted on our website. i'm ro.bert cos good night.

announcer: corporate funding for "washinon week" is provided by -- addtional funding is provided by koo and patricia yuen through the yuen foundation. committed to bridging cultural differences in oucommunities. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption coent and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: you're watching pbs. n

masters:before sandy koufax threw dodger stadium's first pitch and even before the first residents moved into chavez ravine, there were the elysian hills. raised up by tectonic forces and carved into deep ravines by the ancient precursor of the l.a. river, these hills have meant many things to many people. thousands of years ago, they were a refuge from floods for the region's nativtongva indians. later, they were a source of timber for the pobladores of los anges and then a source of quarried stones soon after the city beca american. in this episode, "lost l.a."he exploresarious ways southern california's inhabitants have used the hills around dodger stadium. 'll look at an old, lithographic view of l.a., the vanished and a masve construction project that reshaped the land. much of los angeles' past is lost to history. landmarks that once graced uvenir postcards vanished,