ribs linked to al qaeda and isil have strengthened their foothold. is the islamic whichthe greater sahara, does not prevent us from fighting against all armed terrorist groups, but they are the most dangerous we have seen. we are changing methods by implementing a joint military coalition. concentrating our efforts in this zone. >> we will hear from natasha butler, who has been following the summit. correspondent: at the end of this summit in southwestern and thethe g5 leaders french president agreed to cooperate more closely militarily and politically to fight what they called growing terrorism. the president of burkina faso said 2019 has been a difficult year, with an increasing number of fatal attacks against the military and against civilians. he talks about there being a humanitarian crisis that was unprecedented in the region. with the leaders said they needed to do was basically bolster the region, the border region between burkina faso, ager, and molly, -- and mali, volatile region where attacks have taken place. france sending 220 extra troo

everything else, what was it like when you told american express, no, that wasn't me that was my al-qaedas ordering ray bands? >> citibank believe it or not was a nightmare because they were accusing me of not following timely following guidelines and i apologize for not escaping sooner, but -- they were a nightmare, paypal reimbursed me overnight. leland: interesting, we are glad you are back home and back with your parents, we know that you have interesting things as well, come chat with us as things continue with this case, we want to put out the copy of your book, the dawn prayer, otherwise known or how to survive in a secret syrian terrorist prison, something that we hope none of our viewers have to endure but lessons not only captive of al-qaeda but partly everyday life and getting through it, matt, we appreciate it, god speed. >> thank you so much, all the best. gillian: issuing warning to un's nuclear watchdog a couple of days after the country's supreme leader lashed out at the u.s., we will tell you exactly what the regime has been saying after the break into a smaller life? are

i'm about 6 miles away from the al qaeda which is behind me and since we've been here this morning we've seen it spew clouds of smoke that were like white and gray and black it's been both a terrifying and mesmerizing scene for the people around here in this area but still it is very tense the alert level is currently on 4 out of a 5 point scale so that means that an eruption could be possible at any time and. the volcanic ash that comes out from the volcano has coated the towns around this area with thick volcanic ash it's very great and it's kind of deceptive because it's very fine but still it is very dense so large amounts of all kind of ash that can accumulate on rooftops and structures can actually cause it to collapse to al-qaeda no to summarize is like a pressure cooker that can explode at any time you said 4 out of 5. hours the danger level goes what does that mean in concrete terms what could happen. i mean that the volcano could erupt at any time that can be anywhere between days or a couple of hours and that uncertainty is causing a lot of anxiety among the residents here now

what -- well, the 2001 aumf specifically authorizes all appropriate and necessary force against al qaeda and its affiliates for the planning of the 9/11 attacks. it has been interpreted very broadly, but i think you have to make a very tenuous connection to soleimani to bring it under that. though, the white house may try to do that. but i think that because it is more tenuous than what has usually been the targets of drone strikes, you know, against isis or al qaeda, i think what you're seeing, chris, is that there is a higher onus on the white house to justify this than perhaps what has been typically used as a legal basis for targets that have been clearly authorized. >> all right. thank you for that. all right, so, pj, good to see you, brother. as always. happy new year. >> happy new year. >> we -- you go after a terrorist organization, that's bad. you go after a country like iran, that's worse. this president says, had to do it, won't explain why. says, i want to stay out of the middle east, is now, you're hearing every day, more and more units being deployed into the region. what's

al qaeda, isis, all the offshoots. you could say we are in an era were nonstate actors can inflict the kind of damage that once only states could, and as murky as it is, you have to develop new rules, and the army has been trying to do that with our own constraints. different, he is not an al qaeda leader, he is not an isis leader, he is an iranian official. you can say he was there with iranian backed militias, but they are acting in iraq with mostly the approval of the iraqi government. this looks like a very worrying and blurring a state versus nonstate. the final thing i will say, is it legal? no, i think it is illegal under international law. it precedential? in dangerous ways. i immediately thought of iran, russia, north korea, designate any of our senior military officials as a terrorist, or whatever designation they want, and come after them in washington. remember, the iranians try things, the chileans try things way back when. the final thing i will say, you see almost no mention of the united nations in the

of our troops to the region and specifically to iraq and those actions are strengthening isis and al qaedaarily putting our troops in harm's way and they're not going there to prevent this resurgence of isis and al qaeda. that's the real national security threat that we have. that's why i'm saying we should pull our troops out of iraq and syria. if there is a growing threat, we can have troops go in and fulfill that very specific achievable mission of defeating that threat and getting back out, but the current existing policy of the administration is essentially holding our troops hostage with the policy that is strengthening isis and al qaeda and it is strengthening iran's threats and capabilities. >> one more question what is your red line, when should the u.s. get involved? >> look, if there is a direct imminent and direct threat against american forces, and american interests, then that is where the assessment of intelligence and that decision has to be made. but here's the issue with that is -- and why i'm so hesitant to talk about red lines is the constitution has to be respected. an

they are linked with al qaeda. now al qaeda and isis aren't always on the same page, nor is the hezbollah, the group that the forces control. so you have three different groups. the one in east africa. a service member and two of them contractors. that base is where they do a lot of the counterterrorism operations for east africa. and there are a lot of u.s. forces all across africa. we have that attack with the four americans died two years ago. so let me just reset again. macron is basically celebrating and cheering and says there's a good idea the leader has been taken out of the frame. what he's concerned about is that this could have effects on the counterisis coalition. the u.s. troops in iraq as well as french troops in syria and other countries in iraq, that's a counterisis operation. and remember the forces worked not in tandem, but towards the same goal as the u.s. in trying to force out isis. so you have macron raising concerns about that. you have the british prime minister raising concerns about all th

they were supposed to be there to prevent a resurgent of isis and al qaeda.hat's not what's happening now. the u.s. commander in iraq announcing our u.s. troops will no longer be putting any efforts towards preventing al qaeda and isis from mounting a resurgence because they will have to dedicate all of their resources and efforts to mounting a defensive poster against iranian forces -- >> tucker: i'm not endorsing iran, obviously. >> of course not. >> tucker: just a point of fact, even in 2020, wasn't iran one of the forces that overcame isis? am i imagining? >> yes. and in iraq, there was this -- this kind of long-standing uneasy alliance between u.s. forces. >> tucker: yes. >> iraqi government forces. iranian and iranian-backed shia militias and the kurds there all coming together to defeat and prevent a resurgence of isis and al qaeda. and this is where, unfortunately, president trump's actions are actually undermining our national security in two important ways. because our troops are no longer able to focus on that mission of -- of preventing isis from

assassinating general saw the money the in capitals the most effective force fighting dyess isis nuestra al qaeda et al is extremely dangerous and a foolish escalation the u.s. bears responsibility for or consequences of its road adventurism let's go to georgia bar and our who joins us from tehran endorse or as you've been reporting to us that iran is making very clear that there will be a response to this strike today. yes certainly we have heard from the former head of iran's revolutionary guards more center as a who tweeted that there will be severe consequences and revenge against the united states we've also heard that there has been an emergency meeting called for the national supreme national security council in the islamic republic now this is a body that's headed by president hassan rouhani as well as the head of the country's judiciary as well as the speaker of parliament this is a very powerful organization that deals with iran's foreign policy decisions and it is visors by the supreme leader himself ayatollah ali khamenei and we've also been waiting to find out what friday prayer serv

it applies to international terrorist organizations like al qaeda. members will recall that al aeda in iraq later became ice isz, a -- isis, a brutal transnational terrorist organization that continues to american lives and interests and our homeland. that reason, president aumf, as the 2002 legal authority for his military against isis in iraq. urrent administration opposes repealing the 2002 aumf because, an important ins source of additional authority for military operations against in iraq and to defend the national security of the united emanatinginst threats from iraq. s my colleagues know, these vital counterisis operations continue. that authorization without a replacement endangers the united states' national security but our partners, most notably, iraq. he 2002 aumf was most recently a vote for january -- was the attack on or terrorist imani, a who orchestrated the fiery new the u.s. ack on embassy in iraq. t was a targeted defensive strike in iraq who threatened forces with inside iraq. wo months before-hand, soleimani and his proxies laun

. >> the shoulders went up, al qaeda. hezbollah. you don't say america with an intensity.before and i still don't quite know what to say. when i see it and i hear it, and you see the smile, and she is making fun of anybody that says hezbollah or al qaeda and gets upset when they utter those words, and she wonders why we don't say america the same way we say al qaeda or hezbollah. her anti-semitism and total lack of american patriotism, 9/11, some people did something? she leads the country in this anti-israel and anti-semitic direction is dangerous. per pushing their party towards israel-hating policy. the dems issuing letters of support for the advocacy group cair. an organization with a checkered past linking them to terror groups and anti-semitism. joining me is a man who says they should be truly ashamed. it's insulting to him as an american muslim, that americans think cair represents their beliefs. dr. jaser, welcome back. ilhan omar, it's not just her. you are talking about people running for the president of the united states. when you look at this list. i will loo

associated with al qaeda but doesn't protect our diplomats. doesn't protect american citizens. it says it will protect property , territories military assets and military personnel but there are some failures in it and it's a messaging built more than anything else. at this point in time what we have with the angst and the tension in the middle east with iran and the united states battle president trump of the war powers resolution that says you have to come to us i think it would send up for the wrong signal to iran so for that reason we are going to support it. >> host: is there a changed a due to the aaa u.s. and the president in particular? >> guest: is not just this president. it's any future president. congress wants the authority to declare to work back to congress where it needs to be. it was taken away back in the 70s. >> host: the war powers resolution you've probably heard senators mike lee and rand paul would support a similar version in the senate. when it comes to the briefing they say was the worst briefing is ever heard. >> gue

al qaeda-linked terror group al shabaab is claiming responsibility. of nairobi, faira sevenzo. >> reporter: this happened shortly before sunrise near camp simba took place. this is a place where the united states special forces usually train their african partners like the kenyan defense forces. what we know is that since this morning, the u.s. african commander released a statement saying one american serviceman and two u.s. civilian contractors have died in that attack, a further two have been injured and we believe that they are stable and, according to u.s. africa command they are being evacuated. now, of course, manneda bay, where this took place, is one of the most beautiful places in kenya. unfortunately its proximity to the somalian border means it's prone to so many attacks from this al qaeda-linked terror group known as al shabaab. last sunday they killed 80 people in mogadishu in a truck bol. it's their mode of operation. nearly a year to the date on january 15th, they attacked a hotel here, killing 21 people. of course, their audaciousness

in afghanistan, if al qaeda cells begin to pop up there again, we can send in special forces unit. there are smarter ways to be able to take out the threats that we face that do not require wasting of taxpayer dollars and needlessly sending more and more of our men and women in uniform into harm's way. just in afghanistan alone, we are spending $4 billion every month. 4 billion with a b. i looked it up to see, how does that apply to new hampshire? i saw that your annual statewide appropriations budget is roughly $6 billion $6 billion. about six weeks in afghanistan pays for your annual appropriations for your entire state. when you think about, what can we do if we brought our troops out of afghanistan and stopped spending all of this money? there is a whole long laundry list of things. when you look at what six weeks in afghanistan could do here in new hampshire. we are talking about the cost of war. there are different situations across the middle east. the point is that as president, i would make these decisions about where and when our troops get involved. always knowing there

al qaeda has largely been -- they moved out of afghanistan. if it turns out there are al qaeda cells that are starting to pop up again, we can spend in special forces units to take out that threat and get out. there are smarter ways to take out the threat that we face the do not require endless wasting of taxpayer dollars as we are seeing in afghanistan right now and needlessly sending more of our men and women in uniform into harm's way. in afghanistan alone we are spending $4 billion every month. every month. i looked it up a couple of days ago to see how would that apply here, to new hampshire? annual statewide appropriations budget is roughly $6 billion. so about six weeks in afghanistan pays for your annual appropriations for your entire state. so when you think about what could we do if we brought our troops out of afghanistan and stopped spending all of this money there? there was a long lunch -- a long list of things. weeksou look at what six in afghanistan could fund in new hampshire for an entire year across your entire state governm

jon: you mentioned al qaeda. up to mention of an al-shabaab attack that claimed american lives. is that related to iran? >> i don't think so although anything is possible. it depends on the degree of influence of these other groups. so i'm not going to pronounce that the intelligence committee would do so but they have a guideline to be able to attack the u.s. and allies every time they have the opportunity. jon: so we should expect more trouble from iran but essentially in your view we should believe that the president is correct when he says any response from iran will be met with overwhelming force >> it could be other than this position because if we let the iranians advance and strike and were not responding as was the case in previous year, what is that reaction? there to move forward because they have geopolitical holes. it's not just economic goals. of course the president, the administration and i hope more congressional leaders will support this firm position that we have but more important we have an op

your loved ones died while protecting the american people from the very real threat of al qaeda and al shabaab terrorist groups. i'm here this morning with my battle buddy, shipment and friend admiral craig faller to discuss shared challenges and opportunities in both our areas of responsibility while we further joint readiness of the giant force. africom is critical to maintaining this ability as africa overwatches a global crossroads with strategic choke-points and sea lines of communication that are essential to global commerce and criticals to u.s. operations in the world. our future security, and prosperity rest on this access. in times of crisis and ensure these waters remain free, open and secure. u.s. africom is engaged in an ongoing blank slate review. we've developed a prioritized list of objectives and actions to protect the homeland and secure our strategic interests in africa while ensure the american tarxpayers investments are in the right area. china and russia are aggressively using economic and military means to expand their access and influence. i believe africa offer

and as you know a big part of the job is isis certainly the biggest and al qaeda and we. we've got them down very low numbers donald trump has been saying for years he wants to get us out of afghanistan it doesn't seem to be doing that even though in principle he's the commander in chief he can give the order for them to leave and they will leave but i don't expect that to happen. so i think unfortunately we're stuck they are still for the foreseeable future and there isn't a whole lot in the way of a coherent mission that's stated for our being in afghanistan of the 1st place except i would say that the mission of being an afghanistan is essentially to stay in afghanistan he a footprint and a very strategic piece of ground in the middle of eurasia that triangle and has both our chinese and russian interests and that's the real purpose of being there the taleban perhaps respective or simply i do but annoyance. to. france's interior minister has announced the withdrawal from the police forces of the notorious jail i asked for a grenade which has been responsible for seriou

forces harboring al qaeda and the number of other terror groups from its nuclear deal.alk about the nuclear deal but said everything else aside. what the iran administration trumpadministration is saying te iranian regime is fundamental. for the mental how we approach in the future and this strikes taking out qassem soleimani who is the most powerful man in iran sends a clear and unmistakable message that that's not going to be a power anymore. a big change. >> bret: mollie, republicans say strength is powerful in this region couple weakness is provocative. this is joe biden and bernie sanders. >> this is and was an enormous escalation. it follows a string of dubious actions that president trump has taken and drastically increases the prospects and the risk of war with iran and danger to americans. >> this is a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to another disastrous war in the middle east. >> bret: i should point out it's not along strict party lines. other republicans like rand paul and others who have problems with this action. >> there been many wise people

5 regional countries have files ins of troops fighting groups some of whom a link to eisele and al qaeda but anger against the operation and against france is growing now president micro is hosting a summit to discuss whether french soldiers should stay natasha butler reports from paris. in december the bodies of 71 soldiers from the asia nates a military base in the capital niamey a grim reflection of growing violence in asylum they were killed in an attack claimed by i saw in the west of the country this is i decided to come myself to give my nation's gratitude inconsolable but not all defeated to these men plucked from the affection of the loved ones in the prime of life for what they are to us our heroes our martyrs the french president emanuel micro visited me shared to pay his respects just 3 weeks earlier in paris microland led a memorial for 13 francs. soldiers killed in a helicopter crash in mali more than $4000.00 french troops are fighting armed groups in the sile alongside forces from the share bikini faso chad mauritania and mali the g. 5 countries but is the casualties moun

memory has been britain's enemy i says to al-qaeda how do you view what happened what was happening in syria with hindsight now the war the main boards of the war appear to be over. i think you. are. a civil war that goes on for what 8 gives 9 years. can start for the most legitimate of reasons and i'm i think in this case it did it was part of the arab spring in the aftermath of that and syria is a country made up of many ethnic groups of people and perhaps it was in the inevitable that something like this happened but the longer a civil war goes on the gnostic of it becomes and the more subgroups full stop with the 1st year or 2 years it's black and white that it becomes an amorphous mass i think that perhaps some of the reporting on some of the alleged. crimes by the cid regime probably either untrue or unbalanced i'm not pro syria or oprah anything given my rank i do war and civil war other than us the host kind because critics of british foreign policy and american foreign policy did compare. foreign policy of these gundry's to foreign policy in afghanistan when britain is of cour

funding isis, who are allies of the united states, who are funding, who are supporting unsavoury al qaedaern syria, who are also responsible in part at least for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of syrians. i mean, iran, this is a civil war in which iran is supporting one side but civil war means supporting one side but civil war m ea ns let's supporting one side but civil war means let's fly both ways and people are escaping not just means let's fly both ways and people are escaping notjust a side's army, they were escaping isis and groups that were also act by friends of the united states. so in a way, syria is not a very good example of iranian, of what the united states wants to sort of describes bad in the region. let me then tap into your insights into what is going to happen in the short and medium term in iran. obviously you have connections because of your own family history. you seem to suggest to me earlier in this interview, you think the iranian government has been strengthened by what's happened because it's taken the focus away from the internal political dissent and it'

so he is a key person who saved damascus from falling into the hands of isis and al-qaeda, the same al-qaeday seven, which was aided by those regions, so he helped save syria from collapse and he was also sent from collapse and he was also sent from iran to baghdad to defend the iraqi capital so again he prevented the black flags of isis from taking over iran's neighbouring country so people in iraq have seen the images of the funeral of qasem soleimani in several countries. the crowds were enormous and it shows how the iraqis feel for him and his companions and for the iraqi commander that the americans murdered as well, who was a senior military official that was also assassinated by the americans along with general qasem soleimani. the argument that it is advanced by the americans is arguably a very straightforward one, it is that qasem soleimani, in pursuit of iran's strategic objectives was the organiser of a large number of attacks, one of which come on friday of last week, killed an american civilian. they were carried out by reigning militia groups operating in iraq but they were dir

to al qaeda like afghanistan iran wasn't in that picture at that time.s common sense application. the more important question here is, congress has largely abdicated its war power responsibility under the constitution. go back to 1787, the framers said congress shall declare war. congress has not declared war since 1942. we've had these authorizations to go into the gulf and iraq. aumf is authorization for the use of military force. congress has abdicated this power to the president presidents haven't seizes it so much, as congress has given it up. i felt strongly along with tim kaine and others that this is something congress ought to be taking responsibility for. and we ought to be getting this power back. in a democracy, one person should not be able to take the whole country into a full scale war. >> you're an independent senator who caucuses with the democrats. what did democrats achieve do you think by withholding the articles of impeachment. >> well, i think it gave -- number one, that was a decision by speaker pelosi, neither i nor anyone on this

an attack by al qaeda affiliate al-shabaab resulted in the death of a u.s. service member and two department of defense contractors and wounding two other american personnel. on behalf of the entire department, our thoughts are with the family and friends of army specialist henry mayfiel mayfield jr.. he was in kenya and supportive an operation working to protect american interests in the region and improve security and stability. we honor him and his colleagues who lost their lives and assure you that the perpetrators of this attack will be brought to justice. the united states conducted over 60 air strikes against al-shabaab safe havens and assets last year and our forces continue to provide training and counterterrorism support to our east african partners. moving to iran, at this time, our top priorities remain the safety and security of american personnel and our partners and second, the readiness to conduct operations to respond to iranian aggression. since the strike, i have spoken with commanders on the ground to make sure they have the resources the

the somali with linked with al qaeda claims responsibility. ays the attack has nothing to do with the ongoing tension with iran. kenyan military said five of the attackers were killed. jackie joined us in the near city news you broom with the latest. >> militaries officials confirm one military and two

they are certainly full of faults, the end of the day, they are not al qaeda. they are not wanting to go out and kill americans, its sin not work outside of their borders. they want to control their country, yes and that is bad because they should understand the tribal structure and does not allow for that. they are now being forced into a corner. when they started out there is zero iranian interest in yemen are the hood sees. the members of parliament in tehran did not know who they were. but as saudi arabia intervenes and as the war went on, they had to go more and more to iran. so the assistance is there in the longer it continues, the stronger iran's influence will be, mainly through has belong experts, the technicians that iranians don't send many of their own people but they send money. and to the extent they can smuggle in some equipment they do smuggle in equipment. but is not anywhere near what we give the saudi's who are after all invading yemen. and have been in control between them and the emirates for much of the south. and what have they done? it

i will remind everyone that quds force is a declared terrorist organization like al-qaeda, like isis, and like many others. it was declared under the obama administration and he was the head of that force. from an authority standpoint he is to be treated like al-baghdadi, like osama bin laden, like some of the terrorists across the united states. if we have the chance to take content and prevent future loss of life, which was by the reporting going to happen. i'll take the sensitivity of it is that many of these intelligence sources and many of the tech domains, weather satellites or interception would have you are still ongoing. we're still -- they're still actually being used and the lasting what to do is divulge the sources and methods to her enemies. this isn't from decades ago. they are active and ongoing. right now i'm off a from my perspective, i find it much because members of the armed services committee that with actionable intelligence to stop the future loss of life and did not take it, i would be screaming from the rooftops about why that wasn't done. because like you and

out he is the architect he's the mastermind of the proper play and the strategy to defeat isis and al-qaeda in syria he went to russia in 2015 with this plan and met with putin saying this is about to fall a series about the fall we've got to do something about it his plan was successful they eliminated isis now god so every american should ask themselves why only on the side of al-qaeda rather than the guy who defeated al qaida just finally finally there's something that. we're in journalism school done even if you follow the money. the trail back in $27.00 as you well know donald trump did a deal worth $350000000000.00 over dollars over 10 years with saudi arabia saudi arabia of course the arch enemy of iran and has been for millenia. do you foresee this as an extra almost something that can go to saudi arabia and say look we did this let's get more arms. well interestingly the saudis and the israelis have been very quietly in fact it's been reported that netanyahu has told the israelis did not say a word about this they'd rather sit back and let americans take all the do all the fighting

that's al qaeda. here's where it gets sticky. the sentence continues. such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future attacks. get this. only one member of congress, barbara lee, voted against the 2001 aumf. and she may have had a point because the 2018 congressional report says it's been used by three presidents to justify 41 actions in at least 19 countries, literally from a to y. afghanistan to yemen. skip ahead to today and you can see why vice president pence tweeted some of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through iran. remember that harboring part. or the administration saying that general soleimani was planning imminent attacks. that future part. or secretary of state pompeo, back in april, claiming that iran and al qaeda were connected. >> no doubt there's a connection between the islamic republic of iran and al qaeda. period. full stop. >> but there's a reason why presidents may be so tempted to rely on these aumfs. remember the last time a president tried to wage war the right way and go through congress? it was obama's infamous syria

nearby police station set on fire in a county near the somali border al-shabaab which is linked to al qaeda has killed hundreds of people in both somalia and kenya in years of attacks aimed at imposing its version of islamic law. meanwhile has declared 3 days of mourning over the death of $89.00 soldiers in an attack on their base says happened on thursday near the border with mali it's the latest incident in africa style region which is becoming increasingly violent leaders will meet france's president emanuel in the southwestern fine city of poll a to monday to decide on the future of the french military presence in the region natasha butler explains. in december the bodies of 71 soldiers from the lay it's a military base in the capital niamey a grim reflection of growing filings in a silo they were killed in an attack claimed by i saw in the west of the country this is i decided to come myself to give my nation's gratitude inconsolable but not all defeated to these men plucked from the affection of the loved ones in the prime of life for what they are to us our heroes our martyrs the fre

. >> to me flashbacks of the al qaeda days to -- >> number two of al qaeda. >> exactly. >> like the world's two whacked and then another new number two but the point of it is though that the administration had a larger target set than soleimani on that specific day so they were going after the kuds force which is different than going after soleimani himself and this -- the failed attempt was in yemen. we don't know what happens next. certainly the force is not going away and will be able to continue to sow terrorism itself and through the other proxies absent -- >> are we having the wrong debate? is the debate whether this was a terrorist organization targeted or was it a commander in a country? you know what i mean? that to me is -- >> the distinction no longer matters. we have to return to the events in december. right? >> right. >> there was we knew implicitly trump would not take violent action against iran if they shot down stuff but if they killed american lives then he would respond so what happened in december? they launched an attack in a base in iraq that killed an american contra

this is not al qaeda. we can help diplomatically.by trying to either mediate directly or invite friends to mediate. or economically. the system has to work for everybody. otherwise, if the government cites and fails to convince - - than the southerners will want to succeed. in the whole country will break apart. it will be worse than afghanistan and then you may have to come in and intervene. he took that to heart. when he came back to washington, he lobbied on the hill for us to get more aid for yemen. he was someone who truly understood that force should be the last resort. and there are preconditions to why young people become radical in the middle east. that we should help governments in a friendly way, succeed. and become more democratic and observe their human rights. the problem has been consistently throughout, we never got out of the cold war mentality. which is get in bed with a dictator. with a military regime because of the security collaboration that's easy. then we can fight soviet influence later on. other bad guys in

bush and donald rumsfeld, who repeatedly linked saddam hussein to al qaeda and other terrorist groupsut providing any evidence >> the reason i keep insisting that there was a relationship between iraq and saddam and al qaeda, because there was a relationship between iraq and al qaeda >> there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations. >> reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns there are things we know, we know we also know there are known unknowns that is to say we know there's some things we do not know [ light laughter ] but there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don't know we don't know >> excuse me, but is this an unknown unknown? [ laughter ] several unknowns - this is an unknown unknown >> i'm not going to say which it is >> seth: oh you're not gonna say? so it's unknown whether it's an unknown unknown? but one known that we do know is what trump knows, which is a known unknown, because he unknows what he doesn't know meanin

we see how his recent actions have opened up the door for terrorist groups like isis and al qaeda toegin to reconstitute themselves and more likely, they will be in a position to mount a resurgence because of that. now,roops in iraq right they are there to fulfill and to try to prevent that resurgence. instead of doing so now, they have been forced to redirect all of their efforts towards mounting a defensive position against iran or iranian backed militias. in afghanistan, we have to get out. this is something i have called veryor years, from my first campaign that i ran for congress back in 2012. i saw and recognized that there was no clear mission that served our country's national security interest. our troops should have come home long ago. conflicts thatl have been going on in afghanistan for generations. we in the united states, nor any other country -- the soviet union when in and tried some things and failed -- no other external force can go in there and try to dictate the outcome to these tribal conflicts that have been going on for a long time and are likely going to conti