iraq a crisis. >> to stop the advance on erbil. i directed our military to take targeted strikes against isil terrorist convoys should they move toward the city. we init end to stay vigilant and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in iraq, including our consulate in erbil and our embassy in baghdad. >> late on thursday, president obama directed the u.s. military to launch air strikes against the islamic state. that is the radical muslim movement that has already seized large segments of iraq

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

after the islamic state because that is our principle enemy, i think, in the region. >> the islamic state seized 425 million a bank takeover. they have american humvees, 50 american, 155-millimeter -- [ indiscernible ] small arms and millions of rounds of amunition all seized when they overran iraq bases and outposts. what do you think in the light of that? >> they're well-funded and they're brutal. if you don't convert to their brand of islam, they behead you and they have been putting heads up on speaks in the vill- - spikes in the villages they have overrun. i think the humanitarian that the president begun is just and appropriate. it's a genocide, the extinction, basically, of a religious group that is up on these mountains. so, the u.s. military action has to do with helping the pershmerga, who are a well- trained and effective fighting force in iraq.

it's their fight, it's iraq's fight. i agree with pat. this is not a war between the u.s. and isil or isis, whatever you want to call them. i think the u.s. is in a position to certainly greatly assist the iraqis who new time seam to be in a position where they're about to create a new government, it looks like, maliki mean out, and i think there is an alliance between the u.s. and whatever the new government that emerges, but 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. airpower combined with an iraqi ground offensive, some believe. do you believe that? >> i think it's true that the u.s. is going to have to take tougher steps. now that we're committed, the reality on the ground is going to shape how we deploy going forward. isil is not going to give up, faced with even limited airpower. they're going to continue to

attack different targets, they can. it's a mission of ordained purity, as they see it. the great tragedy here is the withdrawal in 2011 enabled that in some degree. we have to face up to that isil is solely concerned with the regional project involving syria, lebanon and unless the united states can provide both our military influence and a interlocketter political influence and bringing parties to the table, which we did effectively with ryan crocker and general petraeus, we have to have influence on the ground. doesn't mean a re-invasion, but it means we have to be there for the longer-term. >> do you events are proeling obama? >> if they're not propelling him, i don't know what he's doing in his job. this is a very, very important issue for the united states. it's not only that whole region, but, frankly, it will have an enormous effect on the entire oil producing countries, and we're going to be hostage to all of that. we can't 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 stagef the game as the united states being a backup to a lot of the forces on our side who are literally on some levels, outgunned and outmaneuvered. we captain allow this to continue -- couldn't allow this to continue. it's directly in our national interest to find a way to stop the people from their influence. >> airpower can't win the war. >> i am not saying that. >> we're going to be drawn in by using the air power that can successfully hole themselve back from erbil. can't win the war and there is a possibility we can be drawn in and people push us into the war. it's not our war to fight and win. >> well, it's always a problem. it's always a problem. >> we have interests. we have interesting. it may not be our war, about you we have national interests that are involved, and we have to find some way to hold back these people. otherwise, we will suffer greatly as a country. >> tom. >> yeah. >> go ahead. >> absolutely. i think we have to be involved. whether it's the interlocker

relationships or putting military pressure on them, they will keep e paning. >> obama is approaching this through a politicalulence and not a national length. he knows the quasi promise he made to the american people he wouldn't get into this kind of activity. >> morally and politicate, it would have beenmpo believe for him not to respond to the humanitarian situation. >> correct. >> but he is responding on a national security basis because the grounds for his, the air strikes are that he's protecting u.s. personnel. >> uh-huh. >> but it's not a direct war against isil. >> well -- . >> and the pershmerga are a good fighting force. wimaybe they can defeat. i agree that isil has a moral religious fervor, but now, the iraqis, it's an exis tentual issue for them now. maybe they will get is this, too. >> this is not a question of relieving the salvation of people. it's a question of protecting our embassies and consulate and personnel. >> right.

>> and if that angle is played up to the american people, they will accept that. >> they will do that. but how does airpower, john, save the 20,000 or 40,000 people up on the mountain? i don't know. >> it stops mobility. >> that is the question. is this a tipping point for iraq and how commander in chief obama handles this crisis will determine whether or not iraq survives as a nation. yes or no, pat buchanan. >> i think iraq is verbatim i willing to split a part. -- a part. it's how the iraqis handle it. it's not on president obama. >> i think the iraqis can bring parties together and cooling sections. request we did it with ryan crocker and we can do it again. >> dream on. >> no, it's not a dream. >> look, i have shared that view. i 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, it seems to me, than we are 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 a huge effect. >> and well-stated. i can't approve on that. don't forget the mclaughlin group has its own program. you can watch this program and other programs on the web from anywhere in the world at mclaughlin.com. could anything be simpler or enticing? the mclaughlin group.com. /bsnk

issue two: israel and gaza. eir future.

this issue addresses the legal, political, and moral dimension of israel's recent bombing and land invasion of the palestinian territory of gaza. a conflict in which 1,886 palestinians and 67 israelis 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 siegman whose biois crossed by the tv program anytime democracy now ." >> henry seeingman, the former executive director of the american jewish congress long described as one of the nation's big three jewish organizationings along with the american jewish committee and the antidefamation league. he was born in 1930 in frankfurt, germany. three years later, the nazi's came to power. after fleeing nazi troops in belgium, his family eventually moved to the united states. his father was a leader of the

european zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a jewish state n. new york, henry siegman stud -- studied and was ordained as a rabbi. he later became head of the synagogue council of america. after his time at the american jewish congress, he became a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. he now serves as president of the u.s. mclease project. >> rabbi seeingman on israel's military operations in gaza. unjustified, he said. >> couldn't israel be doing something in preventing the disaster of that flaying out now in terms of the destruction of the human lives. couldn't they have done something that didn't radioir that cost? >> rabbi siegman continued to ask pointedly why the u.s. government has not identified the ideology of israel's political right wing as being 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're not a peace partner and you are a terrorist group. if, in fact, you use violence to implement the policy as hamas does. so, the hypocrisy in the discussion that has taken publicly is mind-boggling. >> is the u.s. government hypocritical for not negotiating with hamas? rabbi siegman. >> we're happy to meet with the taliban and negotiate with them, and they cut off hands and heads of people and they kill girls who go to school. that didn't prevent the united states from having negotiations with the taliban. that is nonsense that we don't talk to terrorist organizations. >> how is the israeli- palestinian crisis solved? and what is the role of the united states? >> the issue is america

removing itself from being a collaborator in diplomacies. if at some point the united states were to say we can't, this is not what we can do, you want to do it? you're on your own. that could change. that could still chanthe situation. because one, israelis don't want to do is have the country live in a world where america is not there to have their back. >> question, is raabesiegman right, is america wrong to support israel as we do? if so, what should we be doing differently, as you understand the rabbi. tom rogan. >> i think the rabbi makes points on a number of issues generating a lot of concern across the world in terms of israel's conduct in gaza. i would say in contrast to what he's suggesting, the difficulty for israel, and you see this at the moment with hamas having broken another ceases fire, is how does a demak rose stand and allow itself to be continually

attacked without responding? gaza is a populous, dense populated area. inevitably, there is going to be high civilian casualties. israelis are being more targeted for their operations, perhaps. in the ultimate end, any israeli 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 the eradication of jews. >> mort, is this excessive for us? >> i think so. let me say a little bit of background here, and i will read here a little bit. israel withdrew all of its citizens, uprooted the settlements and completely disengaged from gaza in the year 2005. it wanted the new palestinian state to succeed to help it economically. israel left behind 3,000 working green houses. they disassembled four smaller settlements in the northern west bank, a sign they wanted to live peacefully side-by-side with gaza and how do the palestinians respond? they demolished the green houses, 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 brimming with weapons to make endless war on israel. they built miles and miles of intricate underground tunnels to hide weapons and extended the tunnels into israeli territories so that they could carry out surprise attacks against israeli citizens. since then, hamas has indiscriminately launched over 3500 missiles against israel. the rocket programs one that hamas could have stopped at any time and ended the conflict, but they have a different measure of victory. it's in the court of public opinion. former president bill clinton captured it well: hamas, he told on a television program in india, has a strategy designed to force israel to kill its own palestinian citizens so that the rest of the world will condemn israel. that, bill clinton said that on television, excuse me. hamas operates by grating -- creating grief and exploiting

it. it places missiles, batteries next to playgrounds, private homes and mosques, inviting retaliation, okay. israel uses its arms to protect its civilians. hamas uses its civilians to protect its weapons. this shameful tactic to callously use women and children as human shields while hamas military leaders hide in their deep tunnels and the lead plots from a sector in catar. other senior hamas officials deliberately shelter among civilians and in hospitals. i can go on and on. this is a clear strategic decision on the part of hamas to make it look as if it's just civilians who are being attacked when it's not the case. >> yeah. >> it's israel being attacked. >> it's not clear. >> and just to point out to the listeners, you're reading your own copy. >> that's right. >> you put that in your publication. >> my own editorial. >> it's not clear that hamas is even in control of everything. you know, the islamic jihad movement is alive and well in gaza, and, you know, we could spend a lot of time litigating who is more right and yong on

all of these various points. what happens now is going to be a rebuilding in gaza. do they -- are they going to rebuild it so another five years is another one of these war reps in israel, israel destroys it? i think there is a real push on the part of the administration to try to bring the parties together to take this to use a cliche, to another level and try to find some sort of enduring -- >> sure. >> and i am not hopeful because nobody changed their position. >> let me get back to mr. seigman. >> rabbi. >> the rabbi. okay. there is no doubt the israelis have a right to defend themselves against rockets. they have a right to go in and destroy the tunnels. overall to secure their people. 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 are basically a carbon copy of their policy. what the united states, given $150 billion of oil these years, we should have insisted stop building the settlements in the west bank.

you're giving us trouble and don't overdo it in gaza because you're hurting us. you're the custodian of our reputation. in other words, we need a pro- israeli policy. nobody believes you should cut ties with israel, but we have to defend the national interests of the united states. what mort was talking about in the whole middle east and they're notco-term news with the interest of the state of israel. >> you think that they should have -- the israelis should have let the palestinians be palestinians, is that what you're say something. >> i think we should have had two states by now and the americans should have forced the solution. >> what about that, mort. >> the problem is that hamas is the one that defeated the plo, the palestinians in gaza, in an election. okay, see the palestinian people did not support abu mazan and the plo. i might say to you, there were five different cease fires offered, every one of which israel agreed to and the palestinians does not agree to it. >> tell me -- . >> you have radical islam there. it's not the issue. >> tell me why there are

600,000 israelis 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 obviate and throw out the possibility of a viable palestinian state. >> you think that -- . >> they have offered so many times to develop the states to agree with the abu mazen, the leader of the country. and that is unfair to say they're not prepared. they have been prepared to do it. >> the best and most peaceful guy you have ever had to negotiate with. >> he's now being invited to gaza. >> abu maza has not been willing to do a deal. the israelis have been willing to do a deal on see many levels. i have been a part of that and i can tell you that. i know that for sure. >> they can't do the deal as long as the settlements keep going on. >> that is not the issue. >> again, to bring it to the here and now, abu mazen is being invited into gaza and there is some effort that maybe they can put together a united -- >> make clear that abu mazen is

who? >> mahmoud abbas. >> okay. >> and he was thrown out persona non-grata there. he has a house there that hamas has not touched. >> the israelis are not an opposition to the palestinians but the muslim radicals and it's the radicals involveed on the other side from abu mazen. >> the policy is to radicalizing everybody. >> you're saying prime minister benjamin netanyahu could have accomplished what mort described as a zeng without this 185,000 -- . >> 1800. 1800 dead. >> hen hundred deaths. excuse me. 1800 deaths. one,800 deaths. >> i think there is a difficulty for benjamin netanyahu in the sense he has a coalition government with the people on the right of him who have, quite frankly, their idea of a peace deal is quite different to what he believes it could be. >> is he -- . >> no, i think he is -- let's call him a centerrist talk.

he has hard line hawks in his administration. i have to come down with mort. it's easy for us to sit outside of the box. if you're caught up in the emotion of the conflict and think of hamas, they were still not in the interviews. do you still believe -- it's not just anti- israel but fundamentally -- . >> even hamas offered a 10-year truce. what i would have done when they wond election is recognized hamas as the winner and say it's conditional. if you send any rockets into israel, we'll derecognize you but we will work with you economically, humantarily and there are conditions on our recognition. we should do the same with hezbollah. >> do you think that benjamin netanyahu has been convinced from the beginning that a two- state will work? >> benjamin netanyahu said -- . >> i know this from direct personal -- i am sorry. >> yes. >> i am sorry. i have been working with him directly -- . >> i don't care -- . >> -- on this issue. don't tell me he can't do it. i have been a part of it. >> let me tell you what he said recently. we're never going to take our security personnel off of the west bank, meaning it's not

going to be -- . >> when did he say that? >> a couple of weeks ago. >> a question. in terms of the battle for public opinion, who has come out ahead in this latest fighting between israel and gaza. or between benjamin netanyahu and who? >> well, hamas -- . >> and abu mazen. >> hamas gaped a measure of prestige because it stood up to the israelis and flat on its back. israel won a military victory but hurt very much in parts of europe and the united states and the jewish community. the people who have come off best heroically are the palestinian civilians. >> yeah, i agree with that assessment, but hamas has been strengthened because they managed to kill 60 odd idf soldiers. >> and they have been strengthened because they have managed to lose many of their own citizens. >> yes. >> they do have a blood -- . >> and that has won the world sympathy. i mean i think it's a kind of a pr disaster for -- . >> i would say hamas in contrast to israel are happy

that innocent palestinians died. >> well -- . >> it's a political effect around the world and propaganda. they are happy those people are dead. let's, we can debate about the politics but at the level of moral purity, hamas have no authority. >> and a quarter charge -- . >> think. [ ovlapping speakers ] >> did you error what he said? >> happy those people are dead, i'm not going to go long with that. >> hamas are, i think. >> no -- . >> you don't think hamas are? >> no, i don't. >> you want to say something? >> what did the palestinians do with all the money and support they got? they didn't spend it on the welfare of their people but on arms, building arms, building the tunnels, preparing for an attack. ha that is what has been going on for the last decade. how do you think any other country would respond when they say they're 3500 miss hims launched against. >> well? >> what do you think we would do with canada and missile flying missiles into the united states where 75% of the population had 60 seconds to get into a shelter as the missiles.

what do you think we would do? what do you think we have done under those circumstances? >> the same war every couple of years, maybe we would try to think of something different. >> the palestinians may have felt if we want this to work, we will have to fight for it to, woke. >> they have been fighting for it and haven't been negotiating for a settlement. >> we'll be back with predictions.

sure... hey canyou bet! this? that's our new interactive speaker wall. 'sup? thinks it's a speak-ing wall. this can even dim your lights. your 3-d-printed girlfriend will love that. real mature. a laser drone for cats. i wish i had lasers. i don't. pew pew pew... the new radioshack is finally here. the store of your past is now the store of your future. come see one of our remodeled stores and get a free portable power charger with a $15 purchase.

. out of time. bye-bye.

welcome to government contracting weekly, sponsored by aoc key solutions, inc. government contracting weekly is the only television program devoted exclusively to the competitive and dynamic world of government contracting, a world where coming in second place is not an option, but where principle-centered winning is the only approach. good morning, and welcome to government contracting weekly. i'm jim mccarthy, the owner of key solutions and the host of this show. having spent decades in the government contracting community, it never ceases to amaze me at how many myths surround the area of proposals. in today's show, we're going to make every effort to bury these stubborn myths once and for all. helping me with this daunting task are three of my colleagues from key solutions. first i'd like to welcome shelby rudd,