finger scholars like yourself am i right absolutely that this is the problem of writing about this there is developed over the last 50 plus years since john f. kennedy appointed me george bundy to this position there is developed a consensus among analysts and people who work in the government about what the national security advisor should and should not do and a lot of that has involves a low profile being a reliable broker between the president and other aides in the in the president's office and generally making the policy process work smoothly but he and bolton has essentially been the antithesis of this plan the problem is of course the president chooses presidents don't necessarily read our books or even if they do they don't follow our recommendations but on the other hand when the ball tonight was a point of it sanjay others around the world many thought that this white house

would be the most hawkish average and we know that mr bolton did push for getting more mass killer so to say on iran i mean is there eleanor korea god knows what other country the fact that trump was able to filter and resists he's persisted advise isn't dotted the president's credit he passed the bolton task didn't hear yeah i suppose it was i mean he recognize that both and was not was getting him in trouble and wasn't always put giving him the support that he needed but it's there's i mean the president did choose him bolton's appointment sent tremors around washington to at least among those who are out of government in many of those and government because he has a long track record of being very strong polemical very savvy a man who understands how to make the government work. but very much polarization i

mean he's been anti arms control he was for it and various times arguing for invading iran for invading north korea etc and this was very much not what where the president wanted to go so why he pointed it was a bit of a mystery that trump once described ball to as a tough cookie and i heard one russian observer of this to suggest that the reason while trump appointed here was because he liked trump him both to and you know this reputation for a no b.s. negotiation and resolute action and it looks like to me at least i've been in john bolton trying got a taste of his own medicine don't you think that bolton ironically may have made president trump more moderate than more cautious in his decision making serving made him look more moderate and cautious and i think it's become increasingly clear that the president doesn't want or doesn't want conflict but he's up for suing

policies that are tend to be confrontational can do challenge others around most notably and but he doesn't want to follow through with use of military force that's fortunate in my view but it doesn't help the president's credibility because he seems to me across is trying to be tough until the until he has to fish or cut bait and then he doesn't do something that he doesn't i. indeed recent iraq apparently attack apparently from iran or saudi oil facilities is a good example of a plausible result of the very tough hooey as the united states has been putting on the iranian economy but again the surtur state of said iranian bombing in saudi arabia was an act of war which is certainly words but arguably some of what the united states is doing toward iran is either an active or very close to

her but i think professor death that's the real also have to keep in mind apart from the united states nobody is sure that iran is actually behind that attack i mean and no security agency be the russian frank or even saudi for that matter came out strongly in support of them american version of events now you mentioned secretary of state and i know that historically tensions between national security advisors and secretaries of state. have been quite common and there has been speculation that john bolton and mike don't get along all that well do you think this bolton pump aoe mismatch played any role at all or was it only about trump and he's disagreements with bolton or i think it's important for the national security adviser to give the wrong with secretary of state and they're going to number of cases where they have been rivals and this was another one it's clear that bold

that compare on who was unhappy with bolton in he was presumably played a role in some sense in the dismissal bolton he can is obviously the president's call but bolton is brace of he doesn't work as a colleague so they don't so it's a difficult he's a difficult person to deal with if you're a high level officials we government. as well as a former official a lot of experts foreign policy experts afa size the role of personality in the national security adviser position that he or she should have full confidence off of not only the president but as you said the entire cabinet that they should be more even handed down disputatious it was i think clear from the start that john bolton was anything but even handed or fair minded for that matter and yet he lasted for 519 days longer than 2 of his predecessors how do you explain that

well i think initially on a couple of issues that israel and iran he was supporting tough policies that the president wanted to pursue and i think also you can't keep a president who may have already fired 2 national security advisers you not going to be quick to fire a 3rd and so i think for a while he thought well i know john is a rougher race of guy but i can handle it i'm the president i made the decisions and he said recently in a very curious interview that you know it does terribly matter who the next your advisor is because i make all the decisions so it's a very easy job he says i don't remember who is sad that but i heard john bolton being described as a this is a quote a key stop get down type of guy don't you think that perhaps he's propound city for being disputatious up least be of his superiors is it be they exaggerate it i don't

know that in 6 rated i think. i'm sure there were times in situations where bolton was more cooperative than his general reputation but i think the you know he's has a long track record and different levels of government and when he was nominated ambassador to united nations. president george w. bush he. he was sufficiently. controversial that the senate would not confirm him even though it had a majority republican majority at the time and the president had to give him an interim appointment so he's been a controversial figure one thing that if you stay united bolton and was there dislike for the formal policy process and you wrote recently about as a very skilled bureaucrat bolton was dangerous because he knew the inner workings of the system and therefore he knew how to are in their mind the best do you think

he succeeded in that you know i think so i think i mean i don't know all the details of the decision for the united states to withdraw from the intermediate nuclear forces agreement but it's the sort of thing bolton would do like he doesn't believe in arms control agreements generally and he apparently just came up and he had an opportunity to push says. the military who didn't want to leave the agreement don't get russia or voice a new situation and others don't he just he can on certain issues he could because he was close to the president when he was the president agreed and they could run in this run a decision through the minimum consideration in times of solution that after bolton's firing he and president trump already exchanged some unflattering comments about one another and i got there it from your writing that you don't hold

president trump in the very high regard you called him a decidedly america president i wonder if you feel sympathy for both the now that he joined the camp of president trump's critics are yes i mean i think. one of the persons who is an expert in foreign policy making a comment after reading our book about national security advisors and manuscript said this is the advice for future. their names for security advisors choose your president wisely. which is of course a joke because you don't get if you're asked of it you don't get to choose your president however brant scowcroft when he said the model for how to be careful are strong but behind the scenes negotiator policy manager worked for h.w. bush who was an easy a good president to work for a serious president on policy who would who wanted. scowcroft to make connections

to build a harmonious team when you have if but when you have a different kind of president who is very willful very loose and chronic is much harder obviously others have had problems as aides to try to not just the national security adviser well professor dessler we have to take a short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments stay tuned. they are 2019 when they get interest rates and multi $100000000000.00 trillion dollar venture capital unicorns are all going bust and the colossal fail out is being selfish in every corner of the global economy and that's why countries are buying

gold. join me everything on the alex simon shore and i'll be speaking to guest of the world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then. liz. lead. the 4 lead. lead. lead. play. play play.

play. play. play. place. to. live. the play. place. and a very warm welcome to you watching us in such. in 2040 you know bloody

revolution to tell the demonstrations going from being relatively peaceful political protests to be creasing the violent revolution is always spontaneous or is it your style or hiccough what a pretty meaningless put pretty would put him in the new bill is that i mean you believe it or the former ukrainian president recalls the events of 2014. those who took part in this today over 5000000000 dollars to assist ukraine in these another call that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic. are . on the back of well the part that baghdad flared professor of public policy at the

university of maryland professor bassler president trumps new up point he is for national security advisers definitely much less colorful and much less known for what you have heard about robert there brian do you think he is a good pick or he is probably better suited to working for it with trump and bolton he seems to be a basically cooperative conciliatory character he has moderate credentials in foreign policy he wrote a book published during the 2016 presidential campaign which was mainly polemics i just sent a very short essays attacking various forms of elements of obama foreign policy so we have some knowledge he also seems to have a reputation for working smoothly with others he worked in the presidents who come up with presidential campaigns so i think he is not mean it's hard to know how.

well he will function in the job and he may or may probably will not the odds are against him becoming a really strong and effective force for foreign policy simply because it's not clear that his relationship with trump will develop in that direction and also the secretary of state has very much has established himself as the primary presidential adviser and welcome pay or permit him supported recommended the appointment of brian nevertheless. is not likely to want him to play a major role now you mentioned mr a brian's foreign policy credentials and. for many russians in particular. that's interesting because he served as a foreign policy adviser to mitt romney during his presidential run again barak obama in that campaign is memorable to this country you because of romney characterizing russia as america's number one geopolitical foe which

a many people now take as a sort of a geopolitical prophecy do you think mr brand of real be trying to influence the chump's policy on the russia in in the same kind of brave russia being america's number one geopolitical foe. i have no idea i think that he will. tend to support firm policies these are very russia but whether he will initiate these policies is hard to say obviously the president has tried to at times to be more conciliatory with mr putin and the president will probably continue to try to be that so how but how is hard to know what. what are brian can do on this clearly he's not. not a great. positive supporter of russia mr brime is the 4th national security adviser on to tromp after general flynn who i think do. and

really got a chance to get the ball rolling general mcmaster who is remembered as a bit of a for a want to try to put it mildly both i think intellectually and temperamentally and mr bolton who we already discussed do you see any math to you how troubling hires and fires people for what is arguably one of the most influential positions within any administration and yes the only method i find is very situational when flynn was appointed he was probably one of the few people that trump knew in the nicer security field and he had been a loyal supporter during the campaign and his problem and he was obviously one of sympathetic relations with russia and this all seemed to be what trump wanted now flynn unfortunately messed up very early and so he became the most rapidly fired some security advisor in the history of the position mcmaster was

widely praised in foreign policy in defense communities as someone who is careful ripper fresh you know and cetera but as sometimes has been the case money advisors he is a master established an elaborate policy process trying to for a thorough review of issues and trump didn't want that he didn't want to participate in it and he didn't he want didn't want his hands to be tied by a process so rick aster where's there's sort of 2 jobs the national security advisers typically has to do one is to manage the process 2nd is to advise the president now that master tried to manage the process in a very elaborate way and many presidents don't want that. but that he also presumably gave advice to the president it's not clear how much his advice was welcome or not well professor dr trump is often ridiculed for saying that he

trusts his god all for advise and process. given that these policy process lab he's predecessors tsu many am i would say disastrous very expensive and repeated mistakes at least in the middle east isn't he justified in distrusting that policy process the process hasn't been able to operate too well under trump maybe you should just trust a but it's also a process very much in the process depends very much on what the president's operating style is how he wants to work and in this case is president who has assured attention span he wants to follow his gut instincts rather than a broad announces and he wants to have it done with people who are congenial pump aoe is the only senior foreign policy official so far who seems to have mastered the art of working affectively with strong friends and he is therefore emerged

secretary of state as the primary adviser whether he's whether trump is right or wrong to distrust the policy process he is the creator of it whether he knows that or not but it's no secret that. trump pretty much the national security council and organizationally he's white house is often criticized for being too disorganized absent conscious for example to his predecessor barack obama who tried to put at least try to put the basque practices into the policy works i mean you know if we look at his decisions let's say his decision on libya you know we just heard not only that country but have major consequences for europe with being searing migration a crisis that doesn't strike me as too well thought through this a with syria his secret order authorizing the cia to work with saudi arabia in

trying to overthrow bashar al assad and in that country i mean to use. president obama's phrase and to modify the a little bit don't you think that trump with all his mere cure mere curial temperament with all his disorganization that he has done much less stupid stuff than president obama himself who like the policy process so much i mean it's harder to give a quick comparison i think obama was much more thoughtful much more careful the libya intervention turned out badly at the time it was a time urgency about it because. gadhafi is forces were heading toward benghazi and they were likely to that he could offer you promise to have a very bitter screw me shoot up all the demonstrators that were going to be there and so it was it was a time when the allies were supporting it so so he could do it with a coalition not alone and it was amply you it could be done obviously it was

affective to throw out to overthrow gadhafi not effective in terms of any sort of stable regime that followed syria obviously obama did not succeed there but then is a terribly difficult problem or obama's very his or his or ran agreement iran's deal was i think the polar opposite of trump's dealing with that he would work very hard and logically he put together a team of analysts he were patient and then when there was an opportunity to get the iranians to make significant commitments to constrain their nuclear development obama went for doubt it was controversial because people who criticize him for saying he didn't solve the problem of river bridge did solve it for 10 years and then well i think temper troubles big problems with iran started when he had

bolton's urging wanted to blow that up and did but professor just there i think he . the policy should be judged by its intentions by by by its output you mentioned the iran deal as good as it for us it didn't last long as we all know but the libyan deal you know i believe be an affair if left huge impact i mean we still don't know how it's going to affect the entire continent 2 continents and both africa and europe i would blame mr obama for not considering joe graphic strategic factor is around there the role of the migration flows and how it could the fact that america's closest allies i mean we have been talking about the policy process but isn't the policy process is its whole purpose to think about things like that when you deal with the emerging before you have an emergency situation on your hands all that is true i don't. so i think

libya at the time in libya looks like a success for about a year afterwards now it looks like a mistake and you may exaggerate how important it is is a relatively low copulation country at its height about most national security council had there around 400 personnel people on it and i know that it produced a lot of discussion in washington about the correlation between the size of that body and it's a factor in this. is it clear how these body operates on the trump it's not at all clear on operation under trump i was in on record criticizing the size of the national security staff under obama i would do so at a conference at west point and i argued that at the problem is you get lots of people who are very competent policy people put don't have the ear of the president or maybe even the ear of the national security advisor if you have maybe maybe just

maybe it wasn't 400 policy people but maybe there were 250 policy people there that's just too many in this they're. almost bound to take over functions that are better performed in the state department the pentagon and cetera so i think it is it was a problem so far as one can tell trump and his 2 systems have mostly dismantled the process or people's it with people with like minded ideologues at least that's the way flynn started out and that's the way bolton started out you know bringing in people who have his his views and in france you need nicer security council staff to be looking at alternative views and to present these to the president and to the cabinet too so that they can get. a sense of what the issues are and what their choices really are i mean somebody like libya as you say needed needed to rethink people need to think ahead it's not at all clear what the

what the good options were if gadhafi was a mess president that i just want to add that i was on the ground in libya in benghazi in fact at that time and i think their reporting in western media hugely hugely exaggerated the threat posed for gaddafi he in fact never threatened blob out but it was very expedient for the american foreign policy to exaggerate the threat unfortunately we have to leave it there we run out of time but. i greatly greatly appreciate your being here with us thank you very much thank you very much for the opportunity our viewers can keep this conversation going in our social media pages and i hope to see your get on the same place the same time when i was a part. of .

the. this is a story about what happens auster a stray bullet kills a young girl in the streets. what happens to her family and daughters in florida the mother daughter is buried in a cemetery it really messes with your head what happens to the community the public was screaming for a scapegoat the police needed a scapegoat so why not choose a 19 year old black kid with a criminal record who better to pen this than him and what happens in courts be.

shocked shocked as far as i feel. we don't know still just from. the end of this trial unfortunately you too will still not know what childress. the world is driven by shaped by. the dares thinks. we dare to ask.

but if she won you cross the ballot and i did the dishes at the balls more than those jeans nudist beach and you see me you blue truth. a lot of you will see sawing earring. if i could to condense out to both sides. doesn't need a list of initiated as if i choose. the. cabinet foundation doing. a thing people who simply loosely knew she would include in.

this hour's headlines stories the complaints which sparked impeachment proceedings against president trump is released but the whistleblower admits to being a direct witness to most events this crowd meanwhile rivals democrats for blood's are sticking to their guns. we were presented with the most graphic evidence yet. that the president the united states has betrayed his oath of office. betrayed us to defend our national security and betrayed his oath to defend our constitution don't trump his desire for a key have to investigate the alleged corrupt activities of.