>> from washington, the mclaughlin group. the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue one, hillary. >> i think hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we have had. it has been a great collaboration over the last four years. i'm going to miss her. i wish she was sticking around. but, she has logged in so many miles i can't begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit. but i want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she has played during the course of my administration and a lot of the successes we have had

international have been because of her hard work. >> what a difference 18 months makes. in january of 2013 when president obama and out going secretary of state hillary clinton shared that interview, president obama's ratings on foreign policy was 49%. this handling of foreign affairs was one of the pillars of his presidency. fast forward to this summer as isis overran iraqi forces. president obama's foreign policy approval was dropped. 58% disapproving of mr. obama's foreign policy. his former secretary of state appears to have joined the critics. in an interview with the atlantic magazine, hillary clinton placed the blame for the rise of isis on obama. namely, his refusal to equip and train rebels.

quote clinton, the failure to help build up the protesters. there were islamists, secularists, there was everything in the middle. the failure to do that left a big vacuum which the jihadists have filled. she rejected one of mr. obama's trademark mantras. don't do stupid stuff. why does the maddame secretary knock that? "great nations need organizationing principals and don't do stupid stuff is not an organizing principal." question, why is hillary clinton no longer wanting to share the limelight with president obama, pat buchanan? >> obama is at 36% in foreign

policy. as low as you can get. hillary says he failed to support the democrats in syria and isis may not have taken over. and barack obama called that a synonym for horse manure. hillary clinton came out much more in support of israel. she is staking her claim basically for the democratic interventionists neo conservative democrat in the upcoming race. i think strategically, she is making a bad mistake because in the democratic party, the come home america no more wars focus on our own country, that thought, that sentiment, is really almost dominant inside the democratic party and she is inviting opposition in the primaries. >> i think this is the same fault line that emerges between hillary clinton and barack obama in the 08 primaries. she has always been more of an interventionist than he has been. and of course, you know, don't

do stupid stuff, david axlerod, obama's key adviser tweeted don't do stupid stuff as in invading iraq. by the way, hillary clinton supported that. so there is some tension i think between the two camps, but she has to separate herself from the president. i think he understands that. but it is a little early for a general election campaign. she is misraiding the polls to think this represents the democratic party. obama's numbers may not be great overall, but democrats still love him and she is really kind of picking a fight here that she doesn't need this early in the game and she has done it in artfully which is a bigger problem as we gear up to watch her run which i think she is almost certainly going to do. >> well stated. tom? >> it is clear that hillary clinton is running for president in 2016. i know people don't want to say that yet, but it is obvious in the way she is making the statements. deliberately entertaining a series of difficulties with the

administration. not simply on this, but if you look at her book as well. the interesting counter side to the neo con line. she is having all these elements of the democratic party getting behinder but she is trying to insulate herself from the criticism of the president because of what is going on. >> was it a slip of the tongue on hillary's part? >> it was a deliberate move to try and generate distinction between her and the president. hillary clinton is a politician who has been around a long time. she knew what she was saying. >> how about her subsequent phone call to hug it out with obama which happened by the way? >> i happened to be at a dinner with her a few months ago. she said the same thing. i don't believe she is doing this just for political reasons. this is what she genuinely believes. if you look through the record in which she separated herself from the obama administration when she was secretary of state, she had a much more

robust and stronger line in terms of american policy and american forces to back up that policy. that is where she comes from. this is not just a political issue for her. i think that really degrades her commitment to this. she was just as explicit and outspoken when politics wasn't the issue. >> hug it out. that telling me. i agree with eleanor here. hillary thought she had moved too early and moved too far to separate herself from barack obama and she doesn't want ... i mean, she has her message and her position out there, but she does not want to be that far away from obama as she is right now. >> i think that is true. i had that piece this morning talking about that. both the president and mr. clinton need each other to come degree going forward. but i think hillary clinton's issue is she should have spoken up. with the syria situation is, as serious as it was at the time.

she would have left the administration then. >> she didn't want to go public with it when she was secretary of state and i respect that, too. >> changing gears for a minute. mort, you just returned from a unique visit to israel and gaza. can you tell us who you went with and what you saw? >> i went with the governor of new york among others. governor cuomo. and several other public officials but essentially what we did was to see the tunnels that the radicals have built coming from gaza into israel and it was like being in the empty version of the new york subway system. there was a huge open room. they had electricity and phone lines in it and a three-and-a- half mile tunnel. there were 35 feet of height in this thing and it was supported with concrete. this was a huge effort on their part. must have taken them a long time. because there are another 33

tunnels like this. i don't know how in the world they did it without any major equipment and they just over the years just dug it out. it is clearly going to be a platform for whatever attacks they anticipated making against the israelis but to see it is just staggering because you can't imagine that people could build this without the heavy equipment you have when you are building a subway in new york city. >> does this create a big problem disabling the tunnels? >> it will certainly be a major problem. the israelis don't know if they have all of the tunnels. there are 33 of them which you can imagine this thing. some of them go three, four, five miles because they extend further into what is now israel with the idea that they would come out of them and really attack local communities. >> what do you think is going to happen? >> well i don't know what is going to happen. i will say the israelis all see this now. okay? they know how serious it is. and i think they are going to put much more military pressure on the radicals coming out of

gaza. >> did you tour any of the devastation in gaza? >> yeah, i did. and there was. but the devastation if i may as you describe it, was attempted, was created on the part of the israelis to interject the missiles flying out there. they were going after the missile targets and the missile launchers. it wasn't just indiscriminate bombing. >> but there was a lot of devastation. >> there is. and this is what the radicals were willing to absorb. but israel can't not respond. >> i'm not getting into a debate. i'm just asking. >> question, is hillary's foreign policy beat down of president obama prove positive she is running for president in 2016? yes or no, pat buchanan? >> it is perfectly consistent with a candidate for president of the united states. >> eleanor? >> another marker on the way to the campaign trail. >> tom? >> yeah, i think she is

running. you know, everything in the book, trying to play to different sides but one interesting thing going back to what mort was mentioning about her from policy consistency. one thing she talks about in positive terns is calling the russian reset a stroke of brilliance. i call that straggerring and an interesting contrast. >> mort? >> i think she is running. i would be amazed if she doesn't run. i don't think ... the book sales are below expectations. >> is that a reason why she is doing some of this? >> no i don't think that has anything to do with it. that is the last issue open her agenda. but beyond that, she is a very serious person and a very confident person and she is a highly principled person. from everything i have seen her do and say and act on. >> and there is no daylight between her and israel. i mean, she is very strong on israel. >> i think the book is a big

plus. i read good parts of it. she has gone through what we are going through in israel. >> the only good review john. yours is the only good review. >> not true. >> let's say it is blah. blather. written by a committee. >> that is because they are looking for ... she is very good on analyzing situations. >> to be fair to her, she is very popular with exmilitary people. bob gates. >> absolutely. and i tell you, i had dinner with her, six foreign ministers. three of them were from the arab world. she was the star of that eveningful she was unbelievably lucid. >> she got it wrong. and she admits she got it wrong. the vote for the war. then she said i supported the surge for political reasons. that's a statesman. >> i'm not going to debate this with you. i have known great politicians

that have made mistake. >> debate with him. >> there is nothing to debate. he doesn't have a valid case. issue two, another war in iraq? >> for the past few days, american forces have successfully conducted targeted air strikes to prevent terrorist forces from advancing on the city of erbil and to protect american citizens there. forces on the ground continue to defend their city and we stepped up military advice and assistance to iraqi forces as they issue the fight against isil. >> by sending 130 military advisers to assist them, president obama has expanded america's military involvement in iraq. a u.s. military team landed on a mountain with thousands of the minority groups remaining trapped by isis.

last saturday, however, the president insisted that america would not become embroiled in another iraq war. >> as commander-in-chief, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. american combat troops will not be returning to fight in iraq because there is no american military solution to the larger crisis there. >> but on thursday, the president told americans to expect further military action in the weeks ahead. >> wherever we have capabilities, and we can carry out effective missions like the one we carried out on on mount sinjar, we feel a great urge to provide humanitarian relief to the situation. >> question, is the president engaging in mission creep? should we support the arms and advisers as we are currently doing? is america being sucked into another war in iraq? eleanor clift? >> no. mission creep is when the nature of the objective changes

and when you really do pour in a lot of added resources. i think it is very clear that he is doing everything he can to restrain our involvement. it is a humanitarian mission. we can be rightly proud that the humanitarian intervention has helped and there was another bit of good news this week. prime minister malachi has stepped down and there is another prime minister in iraq who has 30 days to form a government. so you have the potential of a unit government there that may be more egypted for the fight and the brits and the french are coming in. the pretties are going to supply arms to the curds. so i'm not going to say things are in hand. i mean, it's a chaotic situation. but there is more good news than there has been for a while. >> u.s. air power can keep the isis state out of erbil. kit keep them out of baghdad.

but there are no ground forces, iraqi who can take back anbar province. you will have an islamic state there festering and growing unless you get ground troops from someone. the logical place could be from the turks and the syrians and the curds and the iraqis but that would take a real diplomate to put that together. >> who is supporting the u.s. in its mission in iraq? >> our key allies with important qualifiers. here is the commander-in-chief. >> i want to thank in particular the united kingdom, france and other countries providing assistance to the arookie people. >> while france is now providing arms to the curds, others are supplying only humanitarian aid. the british prime minister is

considering equipping the kurds to fight. but for now, direct military strikes are being left solely to american air crew. question, is this further proof that america whether you like it or not, has once again donned the uniform of the world's solitary policemen? if so, how can we persuade our allies to support us? tom? >> i think if you look at the realities of the ground. the american air crews are only the ones putting themselves in harm's way. and the simple fact is that the europeans though they are now beginning to provide arms have very little interest in doing more than that. they believe that the united states can fulfill that role. i believe it is a big problem going forward because the americans are getting sick of

it. >> wait a minute, what's the exit strategy. >> how does the u.s. compel them to get involved? >> i think we have to talk about realigning our bases from germany. >> you have an islamic state. it will be festering there. somebody has to go in and clean that out. >> but here's the thing. >> nobody has told me who is going to do it. the americans aren't going to do it with ground troops. >> in anbar province, one of the hopeful things over the longer term is the belief in islam. they are fa gnattal. so what will happen is like al- qaeda in iraq. they will lose their support on the ground because they can't stop themselves from crucifying people. >> hang on. the iraq toll, march 2003, december 2011. >> u.s. soldiers killed, 4,425.

u.s. soldiers wounded in action, 319,147. u.s. soldiers with serious brain or spinal injuries, 20%. u.s. soldiers with serious mental health problems, 30%. war costs, $806 billion. money lost or unaccounted for, $9 billion. u.s. veteran care, $894 billion. iraqis killed, military and civilian, 134,000. >> why did i read these numbers? well, i want to illustrate if there is another intervention, it is not going to be cheap. that is right. but the other issue is, it is what i call the lesser of two evils okay? what happens if iraq becomes a radical state opposing all of

our ally ins the region, in the part of the entire energy world of that part of the world which is critical to the entire western economy. we simply cannot just sit by and let that happen. >> how likely is that? >> what? >> what you just said. >> if we don't get involved you are going to have a radical kurdish community. everybody will lose hope we are going to back them. you will have an unraveling in that part of the world. >> that is why in the short term it is urgent. in the long term it resolves itself. but in the short term, it becomes politicized. it forces people in corners. and talking about the direct threat of isis. [ talking over one another ] >> good fighters, we are now helping them. the brits are helping them. >> start again. >> all right. it is iraq's fight. they have a new government. there is a potential of them

getting their act together. they are good fighters. the europeans are supplying weapons. the u.s. is not going to go back into iraq. >> all right, thank you general eleanor clift. >> they are not going to defend anything else. >> question, a direct threat to national interest scale? 0 to 10. how much of a threat does the islamic state pose to american interests, 0 to 10? >> if there was a terrorist threat? i would say now it is a 3. establish that, take it up to a 6. >> eleanor? >> um, 5. [ laughter ] >> do you want to go? >> no, i'm at an 8. i think this is an unbelievably serious threat to the united states and to all of our allies and to the world of energy. >> i think it is an 8 because of the regional dynamics. the sunni monarchies. the iranians will go on the

flip side. with the united states, with the european holders who learned from snowden specific facts. they know to stay off the grid. they will go back home. they will smile at their neighbors an then western intelligence services will fear they will get on planes and come to the united states. no, no, no ... i'm talking about relations. i'm talking about more than just throwing a few bombs. [ talking over one another ] >> what do you want to do? >> relationship building. >> how can he protect american interests? >> i'll climb it to a 10. issue three, africa. i stand before you at the president of the united states, a proud american. i also stand before you as the son of a man from africa. [ applause ] the flood of africa runs through our family so for us, the bonds between our countries, our continents, are deeply personal. >> leaders of nearly 50 african

nations gathered in washington dc today for the u.s. african leaders summit. the three day affair spanned lots of issues from education to political tolerance to trade. and investment. by the summit's end, mr. obama announced $33 billion in new u.s. corporate spending. fill anthropic aid and foreign aid for africa. $96billion in trade. in contrast, africa's trade with china was double that at almost $200 billion. business in africa may boom in our 21st century. population growth rates are higher in africa than any other continent and it has a large young population. the middle class is already

bigger than indias giving it the potential to become one of the bigger consumer markets and chinese markets from telecommunications are targeting africa as the next big thing for beijing's export dominated economy. china is making a long bet on the emergence of vibrant middle classes there and with each year, this wager is looking smarter and smarter. so says howard french, author of the second continent. how migrants are building a new empire in africa. >> why does president obama want to boost trade with africa? to compete with china's growing influence in africa? >> okay. mort. >> yeah, i mean, i don't think that is the reason. i think africa is an improving dynamic area of the world, but it is nowhere near the kind of size at this stage of the game that will have a major effect on our exports, our economy, or

on the world. but it is an area we should nurture for good reasons and we will. >> six of the ten fastest growing economies are in africa. cell phones, smartphones, the energy grid. such potential there for american, africa growth. and this country is probably 15 years behind africa going in there and ripping off a lot of their natural resources and i think the president is basically saying, you know, we are not totally altruistic, but we can give the africans a better deal than the chinese. >> he also has an emotional attachment to the third world and africa. but the chinese are drawing the resources out of africa while we put our money into foreign aid and curing aids. a lot of what you might call the exercise of soft power, but i think also, it can be seen as competitive, you know the

population of africa is over 1 billion, it will be 2 billion at middle century and 4 billion in 67 years. >> and are all going to want smartphones. >> africa is exciting. think about it. okay, americans in africa share a similar work ethic. >> 85% of africans said hard work pays off in a recent gallop survey. in north america, 84% agree. the union is 17% below africa and north america. and get this t a mere 67% think that hard work is rewarded. >> tom rogan? >> i think shared work ethic is important between the two continents. africa and america. the laws of the united states can bring to bear as a democracy, aikona destroy that has developed justice system is something that africa will find increasingly important and china will not provide and has

no interest of providing because of the nature of their government. going forward over the longer term and i think that is what this is. it is about a slow process. that is something that helps both continents and it does so in economic ways. >> symbol of changes, rwanda, we think of genocide. it has now come back, it is a thriving country, a lot of promise and american investment. just rwanda, is really the analogy for the potential of africa. >> the ferguson, missouri racial crisis metals sizes this week. >> they are calming down with the police officer who committed the crime. justice will prevail. >> expect significant changes in ferguson in terms of transfers of military equipment to police forces. >> foreign policy will become a major issue in the presidential election as a result of what we

have been talking about. >> president obama's liberal true believers will be so mad at hillary's jabs at the foreign policy legacy, they will try to get elizabeth warren to run against hillary clinton in 2016. bye bye! captions by:caption colorado, llc 800-775-7838 email: comments@captioncolorado.com err

this week on moyers & company, "facing evil" with maya angelou. >> they laugh to shield their crying. they shuffled through their dreams. they stepped 'n fetched a country and wrote the blues in screams. i understand their meaning, it could and did derive from living on the ledge of death. they kept my race alive. by wearing the mask! >> 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