from washington, the mclaughlin group. the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. issue one, iraq in crisis. >> to stop the advance, i directed our military to take targeted strikes against isis terrorist convoys should they move toward the city. we intend to stay vigilant and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our facilities anywhere in iraq. including our consulate in arbeal and baghdad. >> president obama directed the u.s. military to launch air strikes against the islamic state. that's the radical muslim movement that has already seized large segments of iraq

and syria and declared itself an islamic califate. question, is president obama a day late and a dollar short intervening against the islamic state? pat buchanan? >> no, he's not. this is not our war, john. i think he has done the right thing in using air power to stop a successful attack on kurdistan and keep the enemy away from it. american air power can only do so many things. it can keep characters out of baghdad. and out of kurdistan, but in the long run, the folks in that region, the kurds, they are going to have to fight this war themselves. one point, john, who has been fighting them? the iranians are against them, and hezbollah has been fighting them. we could put together a coalition with a specific

objective with going against the islamic state that. is our principle enemy in the region. >> the islamic state seized 425 million in a bank takeover. they have american humvees, some 50 american -- 155- millimeter houses. small arms and millions arms of ammunition, all seized in outposts. so who what do you think in the line of that? >> they are well funded and brutal. if you don't convert to their brand of islam, they behead you and they have been putting heads up in the villages they have overrun. i think the humanitarian intervention that the president has begun is totally just and appropriate because it is a genocide. it's the extinction of a religious group that is on these mountains. the u.s. military action has to do with helping the people, who are well trained and effective

fighting force in iraq. it is their fight. it's iraq's fight, i agree with pat that this is not war between the u.s. and isis, whatever you want to call them. i think the u.s. is in a position to certainly greatly assist the iraqis who now seem to be in a position where they are about to create a new government that looks like maliki might be out and i think there is an alliance between the u.s. and whatever this new government emerges. this is iraq's fight and the president is pretty strong about not sending american troops back into iraq. >> the only way to stop isis is heavy u.s. air power combined with an iraqi ground offensive, some believe. do you believe that? >> i think it is true that the u.s. is going to have to take tougher steps, now that we are committed. the reality is going to shape how we deploy force going forward, isis are not going to give up. faced with limited air power. they are going to continue to

attack different targets because it's a mission. and i think the great tragedy here is that the withdrawal in late 2011 has to some degree enabled that. but what we have to face up to is the fact that isis aren't concerned with iraq. they are concerned with the regional project that concerns syria, lebanon, and unless the united states can provide military implements, but political influence in bringing parties to the table, which we did very effectively to people like ryan crocker. we have to have influence on the ground. that doesn't mean a reinvasion, but it does mean we have to be there for the longer term. >> do you think events are propelling obama? >> well, if they aren't propelling, i don't know what he's doing in his job. this is a very, very important issue for the united states because it's not only that whole region. it frankly is going to at some point, have an enormous effect on the entire oil producing countries and we are going to be hostaged to all of that. we cannot allow that to happen. it's bad enough that we have,

for example, walked away from our commitment on syria, which the president did. there is no real confidence at this stage of the game in the united states, it's backup to a lot of the forces on our side who are on some levels out gunned and out maneuvered. we cannot allow this to continue. it's directly in our national interest to find some way to stop these people from expanding their influence. >> can't win this war. >> i'm not saying air power is the only thing we can do. >> by using this air power, which can hold them back from the bill, cannot win the war and a real possibility we could be drawn in and people try to push us into the war. but it is not our war to fight and win. >> well, always a problem. it's always a problem. >> we have interests. it may not be our war, but we have national interests that are involved and we have to find some way to hold back these people because otherwise we will suffer greatly as a country. >> go ahead. >> i think very much we have to be involved because whether

it's the relationships or putting military pressure on them, they will keep expanding. >> eleanor, obama is approaching this through a political lens, not a national security lens. and he knows the promise he made to the american people that he will not get into this kind of activity. >> morally and politically, it would not be responsible to respond to the situation. he is responding on a national security basis because the grounds for his, the air strikes, are that he is protecting u.s. personnel there. but it's not a direct war against isis and they are a good fighting force with help, maybe they can defeat. i agree that isil has this religious ferver, now the iraqis, it's an issue for them now. so maybe they are going to get some of this, too. >> it should be pointed out that this isn't a question of relieving the starvation of some people. it's also a question of protecting our embassies and our consulates and our

personnel. and if that angle is played up to the american people, they are going to accept it. >> they will do that, how does air power save those 40,000 or 20,000 people up on that mountain? i don't know. >> it stops mobility. >> exit question. is this a tipping question for iraq and how commander in chief obama handled this crisis will determine whether or not iraq survives as a nation. >> i think iraq will split apart. >> it's how the iraqis handle this. this is not all on president obama. >> the u.s. can play a constructive role by bringing the various parties together. we did it before with ryan crocker. we can do it again if we are showing commitment over the longer term. >> dream on. >> no, it's not a dream. >> go ahead. >> look. i have shared that view. i do think that we can do a lot more than what we might seem to be doing now. i'm not disagreeing with what pat says. we're going to have to be more involved than we are right now because we have major national interests involved. not only in this immediate war,

but in terms of what it means for that whole region and that whole region has an effect on the interest. >> don't forget the mclaughlin group has its own website and you can watch this program on the web at any time from anywhere in the world, mclaughlin.com. could anything be simpler or intiesing? the mclaughlingroup.com. >> israel and gaza, their future. >> this issue addresses the moral dimension of israel's recent bombing of the palestinian territory of gaza. a conflict in which 1,886 palestinians and 67 isrealis were killed. an area slightly more than twice the size of washington, d.c. the heavy lifting in this piece will be done by rabbi, henry seigman. of the tv program, democracy

now. >> henr the former executive director of the american jewish congress. long described as one of the nation's big three jewish organizations along with the american jewish committee and the antidefamation league. henry seigman was born in 1930 in germany. three years later, the nazis came to power. after freeing nazi troops, his family eventually moved to the united states. his father was a leader of the european movement, pushing for the creation of a jewish state. in new york, henry studied and was ordained. he later became head of the synagogue council of america. after his time, he became a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. he now serves as president of the u.s. middle east project. >> ran bycouldn't israel be

doing something in preventing a disaster that is playing out now in terms of the destruction of human lives. couldn't they have done something that didn't require that cost? >> he continues asking pointedly, why the u.s. government has not identified the ideology of the right wing as being actually the same as the ideology of the quote, unquote, terrorist group hamas. >> why hasn't our government or anyone said like hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner and you are a terrorist group. if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as hamas does, so the hi pock hypocracy is mind boggling. >> is the u.s. hypocriteal for

not negotiating? >> to negotiate with them, and they cut offhands and heads of people and they kill girls who go to school and that didn't prevent the united states from having negotiations with the taliban. that's nonsense that we don't talk to terrorist organizations. >> how is the isreali palestinian crisis solved? and what is the role of the united states? >> the issue is america removing itself from being a collaborator in the policies. so at some point the united states were to say, this is not something we can do. you want to do it, you're on your own. that could still change the situation. because isrealis do not want to have the country live in a world where america is not there to have their back. >> question, is rabbi right? is america right? what should we be doing differently as you understand

the rabbi. tom. >> i think that the rabbi makes points, including israel's conduct in gaza. i would say in contrast to what he is suggesting. the difficulty for israel and you see this at the moment with hamas having broken yet another cease fire is that how does a democracy stand and allow itself to be continually attacked without responding? gaza is a very populous area. inevitably, there are going to be high casualties. isrealis are more targeted, perhaps, but i think in the ultimate end, any isreali prime minister would have to respond with force to force from a group that is openly and absolutely committed not just the destruction of israel, but jews. >> mort, was this excessive force? >> i certainly think so. let me say to you a little bit of background here. i'm going to read a little bit because israel withdrew all of

its citizens, uprooted its settlements and disengaged from gaza in the year 2005. it wanted this new palestinian state to succeed, to help it economically israel with left behind 3,000 working greenhouses. they also disassembled four smaller settlements in the northern west bank, a sign they wanted to live peacefully, side by side with gaza and how did the palestinians respond? they demolished the greenhouses, elected hamas a radical group and instead of building a state, they basically spent most of the last decade turning gaza into a massive military base with weapons to make endless war on israel. they built miles and miles of intricate tunnels to hide weapons and extend these tunnels into isreali territories so they can carry out surprise attacks. since then, hamas has launched over 3500 missiles againstist rielle. the iraq program is one that hamas could have stopped at any

time and ended the conflict. they have a different measure of victory. it isn't in the court of public opinion. hamas said on a television program in india has a strategy designed to force israel to kill its own palestinian citizens so the rest of the world with condemn, bill clon clinton said that on television. replaces missiles, batteries, next to playgrounds, private homes, and mosque, envieding retaliation. israel uses arms to protect civilians, hamas uses civilians to protect its weapons. this shameful tactic to use women and children as human shields while hamas military leaders hide in their deep tunnels and theilead plots from qatar, other officials deliberately shelter among civilians and in hospitals. i could go on and on, but this is a clear, strategic decision on the part of hamas to make it

look like it's just civilians being attacked when it is not the case. it is israel being attacked. >> just to point out to the listeners, you are reading your own copy. you put that in your publication. >> it's not clear that hamas is even in control of everything. you know, the islamic gihad movement is alive and well in gaza. we could spend a lot of time litigating who is more right. who is more wrong on all of these points. what happens now? there's going to be a rebuilding in gaza. are they going to rebuild it so in another five years, there's another war erupts and israel destroys it? there's a real push on the part of the administration to try and bring the parties together to take this to another level and try to find some sort of enduring solution. i'm not hopeful, because nobody changed their position. >> there is -- the rabbi. there's no right the isrealis

have a right to defend themselves against rockets. they have a right to destroy those tunnels. they are right to secure their people. but where i agree with him is this. the united states of america, i don't think we have been a truly good friend of israel. we're a carbon copy of their policy. what the united states, which given $150 billion over all these years, we should have insisted, stop building settlements in the west bank. you are giving us trouble and don't overdue it in gaza because you are hurting us. you are the custodian of our reputation. we need a proisreali policy. nobody believes you should cut ties with israel. what mort was talking about in the whole middle east and they are not coterminus with the interest of the state of israel. >> you think that they should have -- the isrealis should have let the palestinians be palestinians. >> we should have two states by now. >> the problem is, that hamas

is the one th defeated the plo, the palestinians in an election, okay. so the palestinian people did not support the plo. i might say to you, there were five different cease fires offered, every one which israel agreed to and the palestinians did not agree to it. you have radical islam there. that's not the issue. >> tell me why there are 600,000 isrealis in arab east jerusalem and on the west bank, which was occupied in 1967. i was over there with richard nixon when there were none. if they are not trying to throw out the possibility of a viable palestinian state. >> they have offered so many times to develop a state to agree with the leader of that country. and absolutely unfair to say they are not prepared. they would be prepared to do it. >> he is now being invited to gaza. >> he has not been willing to

do a deal. the isrealis have been willing to do a deal on so many levels. i have been a part of that, so i can tell you that. >> can't do a deal as long as the settlements keep going on. but you know, again to bring it to the here and now, now being invited back into gaza and there's some effort that maybe they can put together a united front. >> ma mewedabbas, the head of the palestinians, he has not been invited in. >> he was thrown out. apparently he has a house there that hamas has not touched. >> they are in opposition to the muslim radicals and it's the radicals that have involved on the other side. >> do you think that the prime minister could have accomplished what mort describes as his aim, without

this 185,000 -- >> 1800 dead. >> 1800 deaths, excuse me, 1800 deaths. 1,800 deaths. >> there's a difficulty for netanyahu. he has a coalition government for people on the right of him who their idea of a peace deal is quite different to what he believes it could be. i think he -- let's call him a sensorrous talk. it's easy for us to sit outside the box. if you are caught up in the emotion of the conflict, when you think of hamas, they weren't in the interviews. fund mentally -- >> hamas offered a ten-year truce. what i would have done when they won the election is recognize hamas as the winner and say it's conditional. if you said any rockets into israel, we're going to derecognize you. we will work with you economically, but there are conditions on our recognition.

we should do the same with hezbollah. >> netanyahu said -- >> absolutely. i know this from direct personal knowledge. i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i have been working directly on this issue. don't tell me he can't do it, because i have been a part of it. >> let me tell you what he said. we are never going to give up, take our security personnel off the west bank, which means it's not going to be a palestinian. >> when did he say that? >> a couple weeks ago. >> exit question. in terms of the battle for public opinion, who has come out ahead in this latest fighting between israel and gaza? or between netanyahu and who? >> hamas has regained a measure of prestige because it stood up to the isrealis. it was flat on its back. israel has won a military victory, but been hurt very much in terms of support in europe and parts of the united states. even in the jewish community. the people who come off best is

heroically are the palestinian civilians. >> eleanor. >> yeah, i agree with that assessment, but hamas has been strengthened because they managed to kill 60 odd idf soldiers. >> they managed to lose so many of our own citizens. they do have a website. >> that has won the world sympathy. i think it's a pr disaster. >> hamas in contrast to israel are very happy that innocent palestinians have died because it's a political effect for them around the world. there is, in my mind, they are happy those people are dead. so we can debate about the politics for important diplomacy, but hamas have absolutely no authority. >> look, just think -- >> did you hear what they said? >> happy those people are dead. i'm not going to go along with that. >> you don't think hamas? >> no, i don't. >> do you want to say something? >> look, what did the palestinians do with all the money and support they got? they didn't spend it on the

welfare of their people. they spent it on arms, building tunnels, preparing for an attack. that's what has been going on for the last decade. how do you think any other country would respond when they suddenly said, 3500 missiles launched against them. what do you think we would do if canada and mexico were flying missiles into the united states where 75% of the population had 60 seconds to get into a shelter. what do you think we would do? what do you think we have done? >> i think they have the same war every couple years, we would think of something different. >> the palestinians may have felt we're going to have to fight for it to work. >> they have been fighting for it. they haven't been negotiating for a settlement. >> issue three, nixon remembered. >> i'm a fighter. i just didn't want to quit. >> nevertheless, president richard nixon did quit. 40 years ago this weekend, leaving behind a one line letter that read quote, i

hereby resign the office of the president of the united states. unquote. >> question, nixon stepped down because he didn't think it was in the national interest to cling to office. did he get the credit he deserved for resigning to spare the country a pore tracted ordeal? >> i don't think so. to be truthful. nixon did resign because he realized and we realized he was going to be impeached by the full house. he was certainly going to be convicted and what used to go through six months for a trial through the election and everything, when the outcome was foregone. let me add something. gerald ford was attacked for the pardoning of richard nixon a month later and i think it was a statesman-like act. it cost him 40 points in the polls, but he avoided the trial and the indictment, prosecution, conviction, you know, should he be imprisoned and all that. i think he cut it and ended it and i think one thing that look, this impeachment thing, i have second thoughts about

whether the republicans should have attempted. that is political capital punishment in american politics and we reverted to it too often and tried to revert to it too often. >> was there a deal? >> there was no deal for the pardon. i think ford did it. i heard -- >> did haag arrange it? >> there was this in mind, ford was going to pardon the dodgers and do nixon and do them both at once to get the vietnam thing done as well. >> since the situation was unraveling, did alexander step in? he was then chief of staff and approach a jury and say, you're the vice president? >> no, no. we discovered it, haag was at camp david. we discovered the tape and the solution was drop the tape out there. it will explode. it will dynamite underneath the president's support and by friday, he'll be gone. and ray price on monday or tuesday was already writing the resignation statement. >> how did you plan the tapes

gotten rid of? did you literally dump them? what? >> you can run a magnet across them. >> get rosemary woods back in the act. >> that was the year before. >> are you young enough to remember richard nixon? >> only to the degree that as an experience. the celebrity factor around nixon in terms of everyone knows about. what they don't know about, i'm sure you read pat's book. >> widely respected in the environment you were growing up in? >> he was not widely respected. as a young republican growing up during the bush years in europe -- but you know, i agree with you on the point of ford. that you have leadership in that sense. helped move the country forward. >> i was trying to make the point earlier. initiated or stimulated by

alexander hagg. there was no fix. a lot of them in europe, what are they impeaching this guy for? wiretap? what he has done all these things for. >> across the wide number of areas. >> very hard for me to say that it was just a wiretap. there's a lot more to it than that, pat, i'm afraid. and i think there was frankly, however it came about, i think it was the right thing for him to resign and leave the office because pat says, it would have been a compounding effect. >> what do you think was going on that required his resignation? >> i mean, there were a whole series. there was a break in. >> yes, there was, let's just start off with what pat said, okay? there was going to be a hearing. there would have been an impeachment. it would have been a trial. it would have been a disaster. it would have destroyed any ability to do anything other than focus on that. the country did not have to go through that and in that sense,

however it happened, whether it was a deal or wasn't, it was the right thing to do. in the end, he would have been impeached. >> you think the negatives surrounding richard nixon was enough to warrant an impeachment. >> he was hung by the biggest horse thieves in the county. >> out of time. bye bye. this week on moyer

company, going home with maya angelou. >> is that all the size of the bridge? we lived with our grandmother and uncle in the rear of the store. these little white kids would come in and call her annie. it was terrifying that this great powerful woman, who was my protection, couldn't protect herself. >> 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 lines of social change worldwide. the herb alpert foundation,