robert: the president at a crossroads as congress seeks answers. president trump: we took action last night to stop a war. we did not take action to start a war. >> and i canssure you that americans in the region are much safer today. robert: iran's top general is killed by a u.s. air strike. sparking unrest in the middleea . and debate on capol hill. >> this action may well have brought our nation closer to another endlelyss war, exa the kind of endless war esident promised he wouot drag us into. robert: next. announcer: this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- >> before we talk about your investments, what's new? >> well, audrey i expecting.

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

that decision came days after pro-iranianrotesters attacked the u.s. embassy there. and on friday, secretary state mike pompeo said this. >> there was in fact an imminent attack taking thplace. american people should know that this was an intelligence-based assessment that drove this. robert: democratic leaders, however, are concerned about the president's handling of the strike. a senior aide to house speakere nancyi told me this morning that she got no advance notification but did spea later to defend secretary mark esper. republicans remain united.y senate majeader mitch mcconnell said this. >> i recommend that all senators wait to review the facts and hear from the administration before passing much public judgment on this operation. d its potential consequences. robert: joining us tonight to discs this crisis moment in foreign policy as the 2020 election countdown begins, lisa

sjardins, congressional correspondent for "the pbs newshour." toluse oloruipa, white house reporter for "the washington post." susa, washington bureau chief for "usa today." michael crowley, white house porter for "the new york times." just back from mar-a-lago with presidentp. tr and nancy yousseff, nriional se correspondent for "the wall street journal" joining us from capitol hill. as michael and his colleagues wrote on the fnt page ofy' to "new york times," quote, general soleimani was the ash tec of nearly every significant -- architect of nearly every assistant operationn military forces over the past decade and his death was a staggering blow for iran at a time of sweeping geopolitical conflict.ik the s was a serious escalation plaintiff trump's growing confrontation with tehran. michael, thanks so much for being here. i know you needed a little coffee, back from florida and now on our take us inside the decision in terms of the intelligence.e we said --aw from

secretary of state mike pompeo that there was intelligence ed to this. what do we know about that intelligence? itical thises a cr question. and part of the problem here for people who want to know what happened and for democrats on capitol hill who are very frustrated right now is that we don't have a lot of details. now, the administration did not brief virtually any members of congress about ts ope ition befohappened. there was no congressional buy-in. i say virtually any becausy lindraham, senator from south carolina who is a friend of president's was down golfing with him a nd was apparent looped into this. and people don't know exactly what the basis for this extraordinary act of aggression agains itan, this essentially provocation that the iranians will see as an act of war, why -- why was this catalyst for the united states to take this action, at the administration officials are saying is that specific was planni new attacks that had the potential to lead to the deathsd of hun of americans in the ddle east, military members

and diplomat but we're not getting more details than that and a lot of skepticism on capitol hill. number onee history of intelligence being cooked up in the example of the iraq war with weapons of mass destruction andr two, let's be frank about this. the trump administration has squandered a lot of its credibility throughho aand small falsehoods over the past several years so ere's real doubt that soleimani was doing something much different than he has been doing for many years, menacing americansot and rs in the region. robert: nancy, you've been at the pentagon all day talking to p u.s. officials. can you add based on your reporting any new details to what michael just sa in terms of the intelligence, in terms of the rationale? >> so one of the things that they said at the pentagon today was that qassem soleimani been traveling from damascus to beirut and to baghdad where he was struck. as part of this plot that this was a targeted campaign, multifaceted thatxtded across syria, potentially the troops in northeast syria, to lebanon, potentially to -- maimr

matic qua there and to iraq -- diplomatic quarters iraq.and to they said it was imnent and potentially within days but they haven't offered ifmore sps than that. and on reason people have a lot of questions is that qassem soleimani has posed a threat to u. ierests and troops for some would argue decades. and one could argue that the threat that he posed through his para mitary and militia troops in countries like lebanon andria and iraq had continued and was not markedly dierent. with the pentagon sought to say was that this time this threatad to be acted upon quickly and through the strike campaign. robert: na incy, how win respond based on your conversations with u.s. officials? >> well, what'ser iting is you sensed within the pentagon an tanxiety about w the response could be because in a way, there are endles possibilities. qassem soleimani controlled dozens of para military antid mi groups in -- throughout

the region where u.s. troops are based. and so -- and this is specheation. but were some of the possible responses. you could see see attacks on allies in the regn and you could see attacks o u.s. interests in the region. you could see an uptick in terms of how tse milit react. i should point out that the other challenges that iranes t necessarily control the response. ctcause some of these groups, potentially could out on their own in response to their own anger about qassem soleimans death. you could see a group say in lebanon begin to target israel oromething along that not because they've been ordered by iran but chosen to act out onei n to express their frustration by u.s. actions. oubert: michael, following up on that, what an escalation look like, thu.s. is now sending thousands of more troops to thewoegion. d it be boots on the ground? would it be cyber warfare? what have you heard inside this administration about what w 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. there are a lot ofthifferent gs the iranians can do in trying to prepare for all of them is not easy. and in particular, i think there is a real concern about iran's cyber capabilities. you know, viewers, anecdotally i had a lot of frids and relatives sending me text should i be afraid, friend in new york city was going to take his family to see the lion king in time square and i don't want to go to time square on sunday.a i'm woieut this. and my responseo people like hat is i think that -- the threat of something blowing up in time square seems low. but the way this could affect- ordinary robert: is that what u.s. officials are saying there's a lower -- not too much of a threat of attack here in the u.s.? >> well, let me phrase it this way. what u.s. officials are saying is that iran hasery good cyber capabilities in a way many americans may not appreciate. and thnthreatf attacks american critical infrastructure, for instance, computer systems, banking systems, corrupting data, spreading viruses, that is very

plausible scenario. that's the thing that i think the average american could worry about. then you have thishole bucket and nancy touched on this threats in the nation, diplomats, u.s. troops, a small contingent still in syria. they do not have a lot of force protection. and 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 tod pull back aing in the whole table here. because president trump made such a cticaecision for his presidency. here's what he had to say today about that decision. president trump: soleimani has beenrp rating acts of terror to destabilize the middle east for the last 20 years.te what the ustates d yesterday should have been done long ago. we do not seek regime change. however the iian regime's aggression in the region including these of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors must end and it must end robert: toluse, you and i have been working together all day for "the washington post" trying t figure out why this happened. based on your conversations

with your sources, was the hawks? or were the hawks perched on the president's shoulders, the generals in his administration urging action? were republicans pressuring him? why did he do this? >> that's a really good question. and the fact that the president doesn't seem to have sort of a core foreign policy means that sometimes when people get in the room with him, they can convce him one way or the other. the president is battling dual impulses. he's ie somnse an isolationist and says america first and i don't wantvo to be ed in these quag myers in the middle east but also wants to be a tough guy and project strength and say if any of these countries or leaders . threaten anyone in the u threaten americans abroad then i'm going to go after them with fire and fury and i tnk he's battlinghose two impulses, the fact that the iranians had stormed into t embassy and -- in iraq, the president saw tha as an affront to his presidency and wanted to take strong actions and the that according to the intelligence that he had t n briefed on, he saw tha there was wh -- what he

called an imminent threat to americans in the region and for that r he took this drastic step. but let it be very clear that i still apprehensive about this idea that he is sending more troops into the middle east. he's going back on some of his promises of the campaign trail that he will get americans out s the middle east and actually having to doomething that's opposite of that. i think he's concerned about that. bert: so apphension but also taking action. sun, is there arump doctrine? >> i think if you -- if you would have said 24 hours ago at the trump doctrine was it would have been end endless wars. let's get out of afghanistan and iraq and this action he has guaranteed an iranian retaliation, a war of some sorta maybe no traditional looking war and maybe something more like michael was talking about. and there is -- there are no defenders in the united states of general soleimani an no one saying avenues good guy and didn't deserve to di this way. there is concernhat presiden trump is not -- has not thought through the consequences of what's going to happen next.

this is something that is going me degree shape and define the rest of his presidency. dealing with theonsequences of the action that was taken last night. robert: we heard mromichael, lisa, that senator graham when michael was down at mara-lago playing golf with the president and briefed by the president, familiar with the plans. wh about congress? democratic leaders, were they in the dark?he >>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, theact thatne member of congress lindsay graham knew about it days ago is something thatarticularly rankles and concerns members, but this speaks to you earlie question, what is motivating this president? of the raham is one top hawks on iran. he's not the only one. tom cotton is another one. so is ted cruz. they have been working t try and keep up the pressure and military pressure on iran for months. who's been working on the 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 the president a that point. and he was advising him not to retaliate. nowe've had this strike, after he has spoken to lindsay graham. we don't know what happened. but it does seem like he has these two voicesround him, rand pul, lindsay graham, rand paul sha cricism today for the president. he said this is a president, as susa pointed out, who campaigned on ending perpetual war. news rand paul said on fox today, this could lead to exactly that. which is a striking comment from anlly. robert: nancy, when you hear what lisa just said about senator cotton and senator graham really being concerned about the president's policy in the middle east, does that reflect concer of u.s. allies in the reon about the u.s. withdrawal of troops and what fthat could me israel and other u.s. allies in terms of stability? ne of the think challenges for the allies is that they are now susceptible, arguesly, because of strikes. there's a coalition of dozens

of countriesn iraqg operat there. the message that the u.s. has sent is that the americans can't be killed. but one way iran could potentially retaliate is to target its allies. th p other thing i woulint out is that the u.s. has said its presence in 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 tnk will be a challenging argument for the administration to make. because they made a promise to the' lice that they were there to stop the counter-isis not to go after iran. robert: we heard from lisa the republican side and nancy howrl the sees it. what about speaker pelosi ha cincinnati w does she do now? one of the most powerful people in washington. does she push for an authorization of use of military force? do thouse democrats have any options in terms of countering the president's military actionav >> democrats talked about trying -- the need to get an authorization for the use of military force.

but without very much success. and i'm sure we're going to hear that talk again, senator kaine of virginia has been a leader in that push. i just don't know if that's realistic. if she can show that s will complain about this and angry about this. you know, the idea that the president didn't bother to brief the congressional leaders so-calle group of eight which is a very elite group and one does not leak.pr idents have briefed the group of eight, the congressional leaders and the leaders of the intell committees before big military actions in the past. and it's not been a leaky process. and it gets congrs to feel like they're part of it. remarkably, maybe members of h congress mige something to say to the administration that would be useful for them to hear. pportunity.t that robert: does the president understand how pivotal this deciison was to presidency when you're talking his advisors? do they know tt he's at the center of the combustible situation? >> i'm not sure that the president fully grassance how much has changed in the middle east with the death of this commander whoad been the

president said a thorn in the side of the americans for 20 years. but he had been someone who other presidents had the chance to also go aer. but they did the calculation and said taking him out couldak possibly this worse. it could lead to a war and could cause perpetu fighting with americans for years to come. and i think the president has -- his decision making proce i talke to leon panetta the former defense secretary earlier today, and --be : what did he say? >> he said he was very concerned about the decision making process um president goes through when presidents make these type of decisions they usually have the nationcurity team around them. they have a large number of options that they're given and tche make a decision based on all of t president panetta is concerned president trump is making decisions based on the last person he spoke to and listening to fox news and utople who arede of the national security process and because of that he's making what appeared to be from the outside impulsive andash decisions that have led to circumstances where the president maylyot know or f

grasp what he's gotten himself into. >> who knows how much psident trump thought through this but this decision is classic trump. oh, my god, old stroke. he can't do that, can he? there was a real debate lastt niong people who followed this, did they mean to hit soleimani? uld they really have hit to hit soleimani and h the other guys and soleimani was collateral damage? this is what donald trump does. he does what everyone sa you can't do that. robert: did he mean to do that? >> it seems quite clear he did mean to do itnd we're quite confident of it at this point. that this is something that had been -a in the quorks for dys and multiple people have at and 40% of the country says this is an aolute brilliant masterstroke. nt 40% of the c is terrified and horrified and somewhere in the middle there are people ut.ing to figure it all >> and the president makes a fair point in saying his predecessors have tried to deal with this issue and failed to solve it. and -- >> classic trump also. >> on north korea and on iran ri he has a new and different approach.

and i think that is -- i think od could think that's a go idea to try to be disruptive. the problem is in both of those cases this week, i think w seen the situation become not better for thenited states but more threatening r the united states. robert: and you think, lisa, when heuer at the capital a pending senate impeachment trial. where do those negotiations stand amid talk of possible war? >> yes. good question. we're waiting to see -- we're waiting for speaker pelosi ssentially to transmit the articles of impeachment, why isn't she doing it? part of it is actually this time frame isof not ou line with kline done and not really a delay yet. soo speak.to the cl impeachment. however, she does -- she is saying that she believes the senate process is unfair. she wan to know that witnesses will be called. that is not something that -- robert: does all tis change the negotiations over a trial? >> yeah. not y t. i don 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 impeachment comes down to four

republican swing senators and what they want to do. and they have signaled so far that they're willing to start out with mcconnell's plan. we'll know more at the beginning of the next week. but right now it looks like it. robert: nancy, i really apeciate you jning us. we're going to let you go here and let you get back to the pentagon. i'm sure on a frid night you're still talking to your sources. tha you very much. >> thank you. robert: as we moven o from the white house, we got to remember that this escalatio of tensns happens in the shadow of not just the impeachment trial but the 2020 presidential race. i was in iowa all week covering oenator bernie sanders. here's what he haday about the military strike. >> trump ignored the advi of his own security officials. and listened to right wing extremists, some owhom were exactly the same people who got us into the war in iraq in the first place. robert: so now we have, susan,

a democratic presidential race perhaps with new fault lines the anti-war democrats versus those who supported intervention in the early 2000's likeormer vice president joe biden. >> bernie sanders did not mention biden's name when he t sahe people who led us into war in iraq. 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 thee past y as he was i 2016. he had anincredible fundraising quarter. $35 million he raised. he has a base support that's going to be with hita from to finish. he knows exactly what he thinks and va ation in the past decade in what bernie sanders -- robert: including on iraq. >> including onraq. he is -- he is -- i think we -- reporters tend to think he won't inhe end be the nominee. he's just too far left. but maybe we're wrong. bert: i saw him up close for four days, five days. a very real movement. toluse, when ythink about

president trump, is he watching biden, vice president biden, d does he seeiden perhaps using this moment to underscore his own credentials? >> yeah. well, president trump has beened obseith joe biden for the better part of the last several months. going back to why he's being he impe because he tried to get the ukrainians to investigate the bidens and the fact that he's now sort of embroiled with this iraq situation in which he -- you know, authorized the strike in iraqagainst this iranian mmander. he's trying to contrast his role in the middle east with the bidens, with the obama administration, he said it, the previous administration should ha handl this. he said that, you know, the obama administration had not done enough tourtail iran's aggressions in the region. and he's trygo use that to con trast himself with -e with ind who right now is -- biden who is right now leading in a numberolf 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 boperience as a comfort zone for him talking this. he feels like he has authority there. the other one to watc tullsi gabbard. i know her polling putser her at the low end b this is he issue. she likes to say she is again perpetual war. i had a familember text me tonight, i'm -- donating to tulsi gabbard because of what the president did. robert: you look at the past. we've seen presidential races befogn turn on for policy. the democratic primary race in 2004, arnd this time the race. move -- you saw a real with the capture of adam hussein -- zmede hussein and moved away from howard dean toward kerry and move to mccain in the surge in iraq. could this be a critical juncture? >> it could be. it can play in different ways. ds this a moment where the bernie sanders tulsi gabbards of the race focus voter attention on foreign policy in a way that it has not been before and say we're headed into a dangerous moment

ook, all the forces that pushed us into war with iraq which was such a catastrophe and democrats hate so much, they're back at it. and you need someone strong like me like a bernie sanders who has been -- you know, hi unwavering on to be the nominee and prevent that from happening. or are voters looking for experience and the guy who has been in the situation f roomor hundreds of hours, has traveled all through the middle east and e biden. jo and that's a guy who knows how the machine riff of foreign how the and knows national security machine works. and i think it's unpredictable. remember, h john kerry me benefited from the capture of sad am but a lot of democrats were very frustrated he wasn't standing up more firmly against george w. bush when the insurgency wasaking off andst l managed to grab the nomination 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. >> not a lot of time. robert: we shall see. >> not a lot of time. i a coming up. we've had -- we've been talking

about 2020 since 2016 but right in the weeks leading up -- >> we're a month away fwarom >> the first vote wilhave a big impact on the second vote in new hampshirehahich will a big input and third vote and we are into it. robert: toluse, we were talkingo to white houicials all day who said the president is paying very close attention to thhe. he thinks 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 messageor several weeks in that whenever president trump does something that's good for national securie democrats cry foul. they whine and can't root for america and can't be happy the cent hasone something well and president trump has keyed into that and you will hear that fm him on the campaign trail we goti aghdd tubing out soleimani. this is something that the whole country should be proud of and the democrats are quhining about it and complaining. robert: we're not hearing the phrase regime change yet, are we? >> he's only said that in that

he's not pushing for chregime ge. he knows how much of an undertaking that would be for the country. d he knows that he has campaigned none not trying to change the cultures of the middle east. robert: past presidents thoughtr they could c situations like this. >> exactly. the two biggest risks for approval ratingsor any president are an economy that tanks, and a war thsat g south. robert: we're going to have to leave it there. sometimes i really do wish w had hour. thanks for sharing our evening with us. and make sure to check o our "washington week" extra and we will continue this conversation on 2020 and iwill air live o social mia and be posted on our website. i'm robert costa. good night. r:

announorporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- additional funding is provided by koo and patricia yuen through then y foundation. committed to bridging cultural differences in oucommunities. the cporation forblic 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 content and accuracy.o visit ncicaprg] announcer: you're watching pbs.

koufax threw dodger stadium's first pitch and even before the st 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,me these hills havt many things to many people. thousands of years ago, they were a refuge frofloods for the region's native tongva indians. ter, they were a source of timber for the pobladores of los angeles and then a source of quarried stones soon after the city became american. in this episode, "l.a." explores the various ways southern california's hinhabitants have used tls around dodger stadium. we'll look at an old, lithographic view of the vanished neighborhood of chavez ravine, and a massive construction much of los angel' past is lost to history. landmarks that once graced souvenir postcards vanished,