bush voted for hillary clinton. barbara bush didn't like hillary clinton much either. and so barbara bush wrote in jeb bush's name for president. it says something about the couple that helped establish the g.o.p. in the state, neither of them voted for the republican president or candidate in the last election of their lives. >> the other thing is, we talked about probably the accomplishment of george herbert walker bush that he will get the biggest place in the history books for guiding, not just this country but the whole world through the end of the cold war. i mean, he was so sure footed. he had these relationships. the president talks about america first. george bush had relationships with the key players that went back decades. envoy to china. head of the c.i.a. do you think that this kind of internationalist strain of the republican party still exists or has donald trump taken it to a different place? >> well, he's the leader of the party so he does define foreign policy. republicans don't have to agree on every single issue there is. if you look back on the time of my grandfather

bush andeorge h.w. first spouse barbara bush coin act. the clerk: coins honor honor president bush and direct the secretary of the treasury to offer billion coins in 2018 in the honor of barbara bush. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters and the gentlewoman from north carolina, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of s. 457, the president george h.w. bush and first spouse barbara bush coin act. this bill directs the treasury to issue $1 coins honoring the push and egacy of commemorating his wife. the dollar coin was one of the first coins minted in the united states first the first dwolar coins were struck in 1794. he coin has on occasion been minted with the various images whose actions and

as a bill 50 of shield full blown bush bush speech will coming in the face. and then i'm a cheap shot and the frontrunner of the all is you please do no more trying. to . here's a thought experiment and a bit of a prediction for 2020 going back to saudi aramco around town as it went public just recently at a market valuation an excess of $1.00 trillion dollars i think at one point was. 2 trillion dollars i think that we're going to see them make a hostile buy of a company maybe facebook for example and it could be the 1st trillion dollar hostile raid in history because they've got the balance sheet out if you've got a 2 trillion dollar balance sheet that means you've got you know the ability to borrow another trillion so you've got a 3 trillion dollar war chest if you go after an apple or even a berkshire hathaway 5 or $600000000000.00 why wouldn't saudi aramco buy berkshire hathaway just as a hostile right and then they own a huge portion of the whole global market the american market why not they've got the balance sheet now they want to diversify away from

he came in determined not to attack pointed or bush. -- clinton or bush. he was going to talk only about his ideas. -- any time i try to get him to criticize the clinton's, he would not take the bait. who is very conscious of rules and timing. i was afraid it was going to say you're not , i useme enough time somebody nine which to say it was going to be ok -- used some body language to say it was going to be ok. one of those was half with panelists and half moderators. the first 45 minutes was the most difficult and short 45 minutes of my life. there were no rules and we were experimenting. we did not have time plucks -- clock's. it was all how i perceived it. people were counting and telling me but there was nothing that could be done. minutes was over, i only had one thought in my head, was it perceived as being fair? was -- and it was. gloria: people don't understand that there were people talking in your ear. say is theey would 2 over bushinton up or one over. these folks were real pros. us folks who did a lot of live speak very quickly. nobody wastes

as firefighters in australia take advantage of cooler temperatures to contain the bush the bush fires that have ravaged much of the country authorities are beginning to assess the economic impact the government has committed more than a 1000000000 dollars to relief efforts saying it will do whatever it takes to help affected communities. charred and deserted this beach in the village of eden in science the eastern australia is usually teeming with tourists not all you can find here is dead wildlife the impact on local businesses has been immense. for. the area. you know. the truth of our good life tourists that's without income which is claiming that profit rights which we carry for we. the fires still raging in many places are having a huge economic as well as environmental impact insurance companies say they've received around 8500 claims so far amounting to the equivalent of some 430000000 euros in losses but the scale of devastation suggests the eventual figure will be significantly higher than the us. is before we even begin to count the cost to business to those people who might

certainly thank the bush family, the extended bush family for all they have done for the secret service over years, and we told some stories here tonight but when you go to the bush library and see the enormity of what they have done for this country, it just makes you very proud so mrs. bush, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you to expense, joe, nick and larry for a fantastic program. i told you it would be both informative and entertaining, and they delivered as we knew they would. thank you all for coming. tonight you'll be exiting through the museum. please take a few minutes if you can to stop by and visit our new special exhibit, presidential retreats away from the white house which will be open until 8:15, and remember tickets are available at bush center.org for our next engage program, our annual highland capital lecture, on june 12th, dana perino, global flash points with ian bremer, and neil ferguson. thank you and have a good evening. >>> all week we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available on c-span 3, lectures in history, real america, the civil war, oral histories, the presidency, and special event coverage about

bush debate in boston 2000. i was sitting where i am now and bush was to my right, and gore was to my left. i have a rule that was, and i would suggest this to anybody who moderates any debate, keep your eye on the person who's talking, not the person reacting. because if you watched the person reacting, you can distort the reaction. at any rate, to make a long story short, i would ask the question of bushand bush would be giving an answer, and al gore started sighing remember that, , he kept going like that. well, that hurt him terribly, because the public saw that in split screen coverage, but when it was all over, i'm walking down the hall with my family and one of my daughter says, dad, that was incredible what al gore did. i stopped and i said what did al , gore do? she mentioned about the the sighing and grimacing and all that. i didn't see any of that. people who listen that on the radio thought al gore was the debate. people who watched on television -- kennedy-nixon, exactly the same parallel. -- gore won the debate. gloria: you made an interesting point about your role as a moderator. we see you on the news hour all the time as an interviewer, and i would love you to talk more about the difference between the role of the interviewer we see you as on the news hour, trying to make some news, get some news, versus the role of the person sitting in that little seat in a -- that mi

under the bush administration, how you feel about the contrast between the bush administration and the trump administration, with escalations in iran? peter: i feel quite a contrast with the bush, president bush and president trump, on all sorts of grounds. [laughter] because they are completely different human beings. and i have a much higher viewpoint of one than the other in that realm. trump's strike on iran, we could have taken out soleimani, just like president obama could have taken out soleimani if we wanted to. i am wary about the decision to have done it. i understand. i don't shed any tears for him. he was really a malevolent figure, and has figurative american blood, and lots of blood, including non-american blood, on his hands. he was really one of their nastier actors on the world stage. , ithe fact that he is gone don't shed any tears for him, and i don't think others should. if it turned out, and i don't know, i don't have access to the intelligence, that even if you do, as we learn the hard way, sometimes intelligence is wrong -- was he planning imminent attacks, is the phrase the trump administration used against americans, and american targets, if that is fa

bush beat him there. bush beat dole in part because of governor john sununu, who was good about getting george bush out of limo and into the streets to show the everyman thing. i think in iowa, dole had done better. sununu arranged for a great camera shot of bush driving a snowplow around. and he also prevailed upon the tv station to run a fresh set of ads on the weekend of the primary, which apparently you don't -- it is difficult to do unless you know the station. it was quite a moment. dole came back. host: senator dole had won the iowa caucus, and president bush had come in third. on the democratic side, and our time is going to run out quickly, that was the year of joe biden's plagiarism issue, 1988. does that still have resonance for him as a candidate? guest: i don't think a lot of people know about that, but it has resonance because it was in response not from a nosy news man, but a guy who was holding a coffee in his house for biden. and he asked innocently something about biden's curriculum vitae. biden started inventing things. he took offense to the question. i don't think that is biden's prob

bush beat him there. bush beat dole in part because of governor john sununu, who was good about getting george bush out ofhe limo and into the streets to show the everyman thing. especially because i think in iowa dole had done better. sununu arranged for a great camera shot of bush driving a snowplow around. and he also prevailed upon the tv station to run a fresh set of ads on the weekend of the primary, which apparently you don't do or it is difficult to do unless you know the station. it was quite a moment. dole came back. host: senator dole had won the iowa caucus, and president bush had come in third. on the democratic side, and our time is going to run out pretty quickly, that was the year of joe biden's plagiarism issue, 1988. does that still have ance for him as a candidate? guest: i don't think a lot of people know about that, but it has resonance because it was in response not from a nosy news man, but a guy who was holding a coffee in his house for biden. and he asked innocently something about biden's curriculum vitae. biden started inventing things. he took offense to the question. i don't t

the bush administration, how do you feel about the contrast between the bush administration and the trump administration with escalations in iran? >> yeah. the well, i feel quite a contrast with the bush president bush and president trump on all sorts of grounds. because they're completely different human beings. and i have a much higher view of one than the other in that realm. in terms of the strike on iran, i mean, we could have taken out soleimani just like president obama could have taken out soleimani if we wanted to. i'm wary about the decision to have done it. i understand, i don't shed any tears for him. he was a really malevolent figure and has figure rative american blood and lots of blood including nonamerican blood on his hands, so he was really wan of the nastier actors on the world stage. and so the fact that he is gone, i don't shed any tears for him and i don't think others should. if it turned out, and i just don't know, as i'm not don't have access to the intelligence, and even as you do as we learned the hard way sometimes intelligence is wrong, was he planning imminent attacks? that's the phrase that the trump administration used, against americans and american ta

bush the bush family you see the families out trump people are talking about his family in 202-820-2020 extension 32 maybe his son or daughter running it just stays in the rich billionaire family and i think that there's something in the is really gross to me when we consider that like money equals free speech that it's not about like who's actually xander stand like look if an individual wants to donate to a campaign whether they're rich or poor they have every right to do that but when you start treating the corporation as a person not just in regards to you know elections but across the board that's a very dangerous thing it's a group of people it's not one person and i think that's where we're kind of we really jumped off track with this in the original decision justice anthony kennedy who wrote the rewriting opinion said we now conclude that independent expenditures including those made by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption he went on to say that the fact that speakers i.e. donors may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. was justice kind of the completely naive to how politics works in the modern world or was this decision made with the direct intend to allow the super wealthy and these corporations to legally control the direction of our government i mean do you think it was just my of a tale that got this passed you know i think in the center of that case it was very well discussed it had been years of presidents where people had said money does equal speech right and we sort of look at the democratic party today even without this in the united just in who the candidates are now it's already eliminated many of the black candidates and some of the hispanic and the diversity on the stage but money alone so money alone does have an influence in deciding who even the candidates are who will be affected by this is united so it's an oversight an overreach in just a way to sort of button these continual continuation of what sort of putting the system which members you go back to these lobbyists i mean who are really behind the scenes creating this policy and lobbying these people in congress people in office to vote this way our own way and it's that risk that trust or that credibility that they really rely on these people and where does that come from so it's interesting to see how easily they trust certain people after building relationships because it's again following the money absolutely and i think that's a really good point too especially when you go back to the 26000 election we had donald trump and hillary clinton with the 2 most unpopular candidates across the board and yet you still have hundreds of millions of dollars going into these campaigns and it raises a lot of questions about ok what else could we be doing with that money what if we were in a system where the candidates took that money and then were able to give it back to the public and to help out and that's within their popularity in stead of this sort of race that we're in now where it's just who raises the most and who has the biggest names behind this interesting and it's really interesting you know what also strikes me too is the fact that both individual donors and corporate donors i mean individuals 1400000000 go what we could've spent that money on outside of buying people in washington corporations almost 5 i think 500000000 almost half a 1000000000 do you think that this system will ever get fixed or is it too entrenched in how politics does business here and watching. and d.c. i mean we ever see a congress or a president say we need to stop this we need to pull back from this but because remember one of the part of hurdles is the fact that they're also then promised jobs when they leave office a lot of these same donors then when that when that candidate no longer going that politicians has done with public life it's the revolving door they get to walk back and get that cushy corporate job are we ever going to see this changed. i don't think so i mean k. street is full of people who make their living off of sort of influence and connections and so that's sort of what the problem is and the problem with democracy is the whole of the concept that we want to hold out that we have is one person one vote and when you only get to vote for the person who is put before you by a corporation who has no vote then your vote really doesn't matter that much right because you're sort of limited to this pool of people who are sort of protecting the interest of that specific cohort so that's really the problem with it all and it sort of say all of a sudden when you look at the senate and everybody's a millionaire in the door and you go to the house and everybody's on their way there so that sort of a floor that says you're not going to have that big of a change i think the president has been president has been set so i agree with alan that it's almost too late and the case tree is full of just people trying to lobby these politicians one way or another and grab support from all these other companies and that's where it kind of gets lost in translation so to speak where we've come so far i don't think it's even worth and it's interesting because even these these candidates who are lobbying for are saying that you know talking about medicare for all or trying to make that change unfortunately like rachel said earlier sometimes it's just talk because once presented with that with that issue and that argument it's not as easy to specially with with all your supporters and where all your money is coming from to make it happen i think it's going to be far easier to. move forward. that's a good point but i believe in you know i mean when you see this might be a little preview of the next topic but candidates such as bernie sanders when they do say get the money out of politics you see them get ostracized and silenced so it's going to be tough to ever get a candidate. can't wait we're going to go to break right now but we'll be back with this amazing panel we have right here all right don't forget to let us know my friends during the break what you think of the topics to cover social media be sure to check out watch. which is now available on spotify apple music and all those other places you listen to your favorite. coming up we discussed the follow up to what many are calling it disastrous performance by c.n.n. on its own democratic presidential debate and then we look at the decision to ban political protests at the olympic games. to watch the whole. just one magic bullet you could actually come up with some of the top of these baby bonds talking about ways we get access capital in capitalism is important so we could actually have programs that actually help folks who want to do that but when you give everybody a $1000.00 i'm a poor person i'm going to consume that you're rich you're going to invest that. the wealth disparity is going to grow because you're you're not using your money to consume you're literally buy more crazy things and then my landlord knowing that i got a $1000.00 and you just go raise my rent so then you get your inflation going on and there. was this financial survival. with customers go find your just. did now. that's not what's good for the market it's not good for the global economy. this week c.n.n. host of the last major democratic presidential primary debate before the much ballyhooed i will caucus is candidate who made the biggest election year face plant at this debate. c.n.n. yes many critics are calling out c.n.n. this week for their coverage and handling of the democratic debate in fact the criticism of c.n.n. got so heated that after the debate hashtag c.n.n. is garbage and hashtags. we're trending on twitter at the heart of the criticism of the news agencies handling of the great elizabeth warren bernie sanders he said she said campaign trails of 2020 with award winning journalist matt taibbi writing in rolling stone that over a 24 hour period before during and after the debate c.n.n. bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical area and heavy handed messaging episodes like this are why people hate the media many also pointed out see the lack of questions on immigration or prison reform just to name a few when confronted with the day s. featuring all caucasian candidates. so how soon is handling of the suppose a burning war and scandal and the democratic debate in general finally expose them to be just as biased and agenda driven as say a fox news or a muslim b c i will watch the paddle. face plant this week expose them as being agenda driven i think it absolutely did but this isn't the 1st time we've seen this but it's nice to see that twitter is finally figuring it out and talking out about it but i think a lot of people like to say that fox news is right and c.n.n. is left these are 2 networks that have continually pushed the same standards when it comes to our prison population when it comes to our endless wars in the middle east when it comes to government surveillance a number of issues but you don't see people like bush or obama or trump questioning c.n.n. and fox news don't really question those either and so i think that guys it's nice that c.n.n. is finally getting called out for that specifically where this is concerned i agree with rachel i think it's happened before i mean we saw this in the 26th election where it came out there working with the hillary clinton campaign we've seen this time and time again and twitter is catching up to this and i think viewers especially were disappointed because they want to know these these tough questions they want answers to these and where c.n.n. really lacked that and of course they were going to spin the war and sanders he should need to because what gets ratings to them it was that but i'm glad that they receive some backlash on twitter that these people the viewers want to know more about the real issues and not about what he said she said and the timing of of that and the fact that it all came out now it was just pretty interesting you're skeptical of

bush administration officials describe their roles in president george w. bush's two dozen seven decision to increase american troop levels in iraq. here is a preview. so, at the risk of -- not disagreeing, continuing on this, but i think it is at the heart of this project. difference between policymakers and epidemics -- academics. i was struck in the course of this project and reading the final project about something i had realized earlier on in my career when i was working on the issue of sanctions. this was before i went into was a fellow at the brookings institution. you had academics who said sanctions did not work, and policymakers said sanctions were abandoned. i realize policymakers and areemics -- academics interested in different questions. i think this project reveals that in some fashion. as a policy maker, or at the time, the question i was interested in and is still interested in, is did this advice andvide and was the best decision open to the president at that time? that is what i'm interested in. as we see in many of the academic chapters, which were really useful and interesting, there is a lot of other questions at play. animatese things that a lot of the scholarly take on it is, how does this process compared to some kind of ideal? again, i think as a policy maker you're much less interested because you realize there is no run -- no one ideal that works in any circumstance. if you are asking what i'm asking, does this process produced the best decision for this president at this moment? you realize that the process will different >> this weekend on the presidency, former bush administration officials describe their roles in president george w. bush is 2000 seven decision to increase american troop levels in iraq. here's a preview. history, grovein city college professor paul kengor explores the tense days of october, 1962 when the united states and the soviet union faced off over missiles in cuba in one of the "hottest" episodes of the cold war. he explains how the ideological militancy of cuban leader fidel castro worried leaders in both moscow and washington who did not truly desire nuclear conflict despite their tough talk. dr. kengor: all right, welcome. here good we have c-span today. and we are going to talk about the cuban missile crisis. and specifically, fidel castro leading into the cuban missile crisis. so we will hit a. of 1957 until 1950 nine until the missile crisis itself in october, 1962. aboutst class we talked july 20 6, 1953 launch of the

bush the bush family you see the families out trump people are talking about his family in 202-820-2020 extension 32 maybe his son or daughter running it just stays in the rich billionaire family and i think that there's something is really gross to me when we consider that like money equals free speech that it's not about like who's actually xander stand like look if an individual wants to donate to a campaign whether they're rich or poor they have every right to do that but when you start treating a corporation as a person not just to regards to you know elections but across the board that's a very dangerous thing it's a group of people it's not one person and i think that's where we're kind of we really jumped off track with this in the original decision justice anthony kennedy who wrote the writing opinion said we now conclude that in the. expenditures including those made by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption he went on to say that the fact that speakers id donors may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. was just this kind of you completely naive to how politics works in the modern world or was his decision made with the direct intent to allow the super wealthy and these corporations to legally control the direction of our government i mean you think it was and i have a tape of that got this passed i think in the distance that case it was very well discussed there been years of presidents where people had said money does equal speech right and we sort of look at the democratic party today even without this in the united just in who the candidates are now it's already eliminated many of the black candidates and some of the static and it's the diversity on the stage but money alone so money alone does have an influence in deciding who even the candidates are who will be affected by citizens united so it's an oversight an overreach and just a way to sort of fund these continual continuation of what sort of putting the system with human reason you go back to the lobbyists i mean who are really behind the scenes creating this policy and lobbying these people in congress people in office to vote this way or vote one way and it's a risk that trust or the credibility that they really rely on these people and where does that come from so it's interesting to see how easily they trust certain people after building relationships because it's again following the money and i think that's a really good point here especially when you go back to the 26 female action we had gone trump and hillary clinton were the 2 most unpopular candidates across the board and yet you still hundreds of millions of dollars going into these campaigns and it raises a lot of questions about ok what else could we be doing with that money what if we were in a system where the candidates took that money and then were able to give it back to the public in to help out and that's within their popularity and instead of this sort of race that we're in now where it's just who raises the most and who has the biggest names behind the thing that's really interesting you know it also strikes me too is the fact that both individual donors and corporate donors and in the. jewels 1400000000 the good what we could have spent that money on outside of buying people in washington corporations almost 500000000 almost half a 1000000000 do you think that this system will ever get fixed or is it too entrenched now how politics does business here in washington d.c. i mean we ever see a congress or president say we need to stop this we need to pull back from this but because remember one of the part of hurdles is the fact that they're also then promised jobs when they leave office a lot of these same donors then when that when that candidate no longer going that politicians is done with public life it's the revolving door they get to walk back and get their cushy corporate job are we ever going to see this changed. i don't think so i mean k. street is full of people who make their living off of sort of influence and connections and so that's sort of what the problem is and the problem with democracy is the whole of the concept that we want to hold out that we have is a mockery that is one person one vote and when you only get to vote for the person who is put before you by a corporation who has no vote then your vote really doesn't matter that much right because you're sort of limited to this pool of people who are sort of protecting the interest of that specific cohort so that's really the problem with it all and it sort of say all of a sudden when you look at the senate and everybody's a millionaire in the in the door and you go to the house and everybody's path on their way they're right so that's sort of a floor that says you're not going to have that big of a change i think the president has been president has been set so i agree with alan that it's almost too late and it's the case tree is full of just people trying to lobby these politicians one way or another and grab support from from all these other companies and that's where it kind of gets lost in translation so to speak where we've come so far that i don't think it's even worth and it's interesting because even these these candidates who are lobbying for are saying that you know talking about medicare for all or trying to make that change unfortunately like rachel said earlier sometimes it's just talk because once presented with that with that issue and that argument it's not as easy to specially with. with all your supporters and where all your money is coming from to make it happen i think it's going to be far easier to get hair to grow might have a good to see this move forward right steve. that's a good point tara but i believe you put it no i mean when you see this might be a little preview of the next topic but a candidate such as bernie sanders when they do say get the money out of politics you see them get ostracized and silenced so that it's going to be tough to ever get a candidate very true it's very very true i want to say i can't wait stick with me we're going to go to a break right now but we'll be back with this amazing panel we have right here all right don't forget to let us know my friend during this break what you think of the top of the group over social media be sure to check out watching the hawks the podcast which is now available on spotify apple music and all those other places do listen to your favorite. or not for faber podcast coming up we discuss the follow up to what many are calling it disastrous performance by c.n.n. on its own democratic presidential debate and then we look at the decision to ban political protests at the 2020 olympic games you don't want to miss this face to the watching the hawks. that money printing leads to the stock market going higher which makes anyone think there are geniuses in the crowd like in that see our strategy of bombing innocent people makes sense released a crack at bridgeboro money and then the bed accommodates of course because we do so for national security and the stock market it's an all time mark when everyone gets really smart thinking oh my genius i'm making so much money is go bomb more people go kill more civilians the school system our soldiers our money and then the stock market go siren that's the cycle that we're in now it's called genocide for profit it's called america. and we're going to fulfill the repeated promises apologise to the people and promise to be you know weeds or buts to. be. free from. their burka now you want to 1st correct that. no. all. the link i link up by your. description sound up even for the owners so how to choose the pet food industry is telling us what to feed our pets really more based on what they want to sell us than was necessarily good for the pet turns out may not be the best people belief we have animals that have you know diabetes and arthritis they have auto immune disorders allergies we are actually creating these problems it's a huge epidemic of problems i believe can be linked to very simple problem of diet and some dog owners tell heartbreaking stories about their pets less treats the larger corporations are not very interested in proving or disproving the value of their food because they're already making it a $1000000000.00 on it and there's no reason to do that research. well it's finally begun the impeachment of donald trump the president and his supporters say the process is nothing more than a political witch the democrats in the liberal corporate media say trump is a national security threat and must be removed but in the end it would seem democracy itself being impeached. this week c.n.n. host of the last major democratic presidential primary debate before the much ballyhooed i will caucus is the candidate who made the biggest election year faceplant at this debate was. c.n.n. yes many critics and viewers are calling out c.n.n. this week for their coverage and handling of the democratic debate in fact the criticism of c.n.n. got so heated that after the debate hashtag c.n.n. is garbage and hashtags. we're trending on twitter at the heart of the criticism of the news agencies handling of the great elizabeth warren bernie sanders he said she said campaign trails of 2020 with award winning journalist matt taibbi writing in rolling stone that over a 24 hour period before during and after the debate c.n.n. bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor the a remarkable stretch of back julie dubious reporting commentary and heavy handed messaging episodes like this are why people hate the media many also point out c.n.n. black of questions on immigration or prison reform just to name a few when confronted with the day s. featuring all caucasian candidates so has c.n.n. handling of the supposed burning war in scandal and the democratic debate in general finally exposed them to be just as biased and agenda driven as say a fox news or and imus and b. c i will ask the panel did c.n.n. space plan this week expose them as being agenda driven. i think it absolutely did but this isn't the 1st time we've seen this but it's nice to see that twitter is finally figuring it out and talking out about it but i think a lot of people like to say that fox news is right and c.n.n. has left it these are 2 no words that have continually pushed the same standard when it comes to our prison population when it comes to our endless wars in the middle east when it comes to government surveillance a number of issues but you don't see people like bush or obama or trump questioning c.n.n. and fox news don't really question those either and so i think it's nice that c.n.n. finally getting called out for that specifically with concern i agree with rachel i think that it's happened before i mean we saw this in the 26 election where it came out the working with the hillary clinton campaign we've seen this time and time again and twitter is catching up to this and i think viewers especially were disappointed because they want to know these are these tough questions they want answers to these and where c.n.n. really lacked that and of course they were going to spend more and sanders he schumi to because what gets ratings to them it was that but i'm glad that they receive some backlash on twitter that these people the viewers want to know more about the real issues and not about what he said she said and the timing of of that and the fact that it all came out now it was just pretty interesting. skeptical of all of it so let me just go that

bush administrations, george w. bushtions both had him in their sites. but they both felt in their sites. but they both felt in their calculations that in killing him, the repercussions would simply be too huge. clearly, donald trump feels differently. he feels that it is worth the risk of whatever huge consequences could now america's way. but neck thank you very much indeed. thank you very much indeed. lisa nandy, the mp for wigan, and jess phillips, the mp for birmingham yardley, have both announced this evening that they will join the race to replacejeremy corbyn as labour leader. theyjoins shadow foreign secretary emily thornberry and shadow treasury minister clive lewes in confirming their candidacy. 0ur political correspondent nick eardley is in westminster and we can speak to him now. lisa nandy, the latest to throw her hat into the ring. yes, that wiccan mp was another one of those people who had said over —— wigan, that she was considering whether or not to stand, and tonight she has confirmed ina stand, and to

bush george bush plan roadmap and so on and so forth but yes none of them come through and that's why the palestinians when they look at their trump plan they think its destiny is the same like the bush plan and they are a good plan and that is the dust bin of history i mean who remembers the bush plan who remembers the reagan plan who will remember the thrum plan 340 years down the road i said doesn't mean the situation is getting any better for the palestinians yeah it's a way that we have seen a difference because i believe it's about 2 years as it is since the move of the us embassy to jerusalem from tel aviv that the palestinians actually backed away not seeing the u.s. as even trying to be impartial in the shoe so if the us is no longer a partial arbiter in this then who do you think at this moment from the international community could come up should come up so i guess you know make their voices heard and perhaps help find a different kind of solution than the one on the plate from the americans what the short answer is no one because the united states already made it its exclusive area of influence on authority no one is allowed in the world including russia europe china in w

news reports back when you served in the national security council under former president george bush the bush administration officials debated how to confront him and his operatives in iraq. they never tried to kill soleimani or launch attacks inside the iranian territory former officials said. why give us some insight into why that it wasn't taken at that time? >> you had an extensive assessment of what the benefits would be versus the cost. i think it should be no surprise, is no surprise to anyone who has worked in the circles that soleimani has been in the sights potentially on target lists for a long time. there's extensive long standing information that connects him with threats to americans. so that is no surprise. i don't think that that necessarily undermines any kind of sense that it could have been coupled with some kind of imminent threat. we don't, again, haven't seen the details but to me the fact that soleimani has been identified as someone who is threatening to u.s. interests is no surprise. particularly, let's not lose sight of the fact that over the months running up to thi

bush 41, bush 43, and clinton. she's co-author of "going to tehran: why the u.s. must come to terms with the islamic republic." hillary, listening to president trump, listening before to the secretary of defense, mark esper, even this morning to the secretary of state mike pompeo, we keep hearing about how suleimani was a bad guy, right. that he had -- the phrase i keep hearing is blood on his hands, which he absolutely does, right. and we heard that echoed from each of those individual men speaking about him today. what we have yet to truly hear is what intelligence, why this president, why this administration, this is a man, a bad man who had been tracked by multiple administrations past. why did they decide to take him out? >> yes, and you know, i worked in multiple administrations as you point out including the bush 43 administration. when there was a similar caricature of saddam hussein which everybody knew, iraq, saddam hussein, was a dictator, a horrible person. and if we just took him out, everything would be fine. we sent over 100,000 troops there, spent a trillion dollars there, and here we are nearly 20 years later, and we're about to be expelled from the country. so the idea that everything rests on whether someone is a good person or bad person really misses the point of u.s. interests, u.s. strategic interests, and what lays in store for the united states. >> i want to come back to the u.s. being expelled from the country because that is precisely what iran wants. but playing it forward, the big question mark is what does retaliation look like? fred pleitgen talked to zarif, the foreign minister of iran, who said that the response, whatever the retaliation is, that the response would be a proportionate one. listen to this, colonel. >> this is state terrorism, this is an act of aggressio

focused, to your point about debate and how he did, pete who is then bushes press secretary met with bush after the debate and said, bush says what's the good news and he says well the bad news is you lost the or you manage, the good news is known's paying attention to the debate any loss that to. >> so he wins three days later, by the way is the same weekend that the u.s. the russians and hockey. >> you know the miracle on ice is the greatest sporting event in my history so i'm still celebrating that two days later reagan just cleans up in new hampshire and winds like two to one and i was such momentum that it's a good thing we won by such a big margin because we already spent most of our money and we had no money left but i mean, you know,. >> bush that money and he spent it anyone, he won michigan. >> almost one texas, so you know money still counts we had nothing, but the momentum was so large from that that i never had it out that we would be the nominee and of course that's when the new nominee would be reagan. >> right after new hampshire. >> that was it. >> all things being, we still had, one of my states in wis

bush's presidency. the berlin wall falls down. why did you not recommend that george bush go over there to berlin and kind of remind everybody we'd won the cold war? - and dance on the wall. - that's exactly right. why not? this was president bush's decision, and it was absolutely the right decision. he got a lot of griefor it. if he had gloated and been triumphal, we would never have been able to conclude what we were able to subsequently conclude wirbachev- the two lead, s of the soviet union w the way, made the decision not to use force to keep the empire together, an history will treat very, very well in my op david: what do you think was the reason you were so successful? was it that you were trained as a lawyer, that you are harder-working than everybody else, smarter than everybody elre clever, better surrounded by better people? what sas the reason you wesuccessful? - lucky. - [laughter] david: well,tle bit more than that, probably. well, i had wonderful parents who instilled a solid work ethic in me. i think--and by the way, i never wing it. lways foowed the "prior preparation prevents poor performance" mantra. i think those things made a difference. but i was brought up to believe that if you start something, you finis

bush george bush's 2003 road meet the road map for peace it's almost like very similar to what except now much much much worse in the sense that is there it is already being. rewarded with all the things that bushcould have only promised them but the point being is in 2003 also bush invision a palestinian state down the road somewhere. also used the war in iraq in order to bring some arab support to his international roadmap for peace and then force a number of dictates on the palestinians that they have to submit to in order for them to do to deserve some sort of saw that their mission well does anyone remember the roadmap for peace what i tell you are probably just woken up a lot of people that they're probably shaking their head what the road map for peace where that wasn't 2320 years later president is providing something different something similar but much much worse promising a provisional a half a state or half of the west bank some time some place within the west bank where we'll get to see the map and at the same time imposing all sorts of the dots on the palestinians to prove that they are not terrorists it is an amazing picture which i think would leave the at a people you know and

in 1980, george h w bush defeated reagan in iowa and people thought they got cheated because the computers went down when bush was ahead. busheople say they went back and verified. but the parties are trying to develop systems to provide verification and limit the ability for someone to hack into it. it would take a very big conspiracy to manipulate the results at most points along the way and we would certainly hear about it. but anything is able to be hacked and it has to be a verification that the numbers reported on caucus night is what happened at the precinct and you do not have a situation like in 2016 when a republican did not get the results and went to bed and had a fiasco over santorum and romney. so they are aware of it, but i am not sure they will ever have a 100% ironclad system. host: let's talk about hillary clinton and donald trump on caucus night. hillary clinton: as i stand here tonight breathing a big sigh of relief. thank you, iowa. [applause] i want you to know i will keep doing what i have done my entire life. i will keep standing up for you. i will keep fighting for you. i will always work to achieve

bush-- self-effacing, modest, a great sense of humility, and it was the right thing. he was absolutely right. rubenstein: you saw him recently. you were at the barbara bush funeral... rurice: i was. you saw him recently. rubenstein: and did you have a chance to talk to him at that time? rice: i d. i did. i had a chance to talk to him and tell him how much i love him and loved mrs. bush. they--that's a generation that's going to beissed. they were people who understood kindness and humility and gentility. they made their mistakes, most certainly, but whenhink about that family and what george h.w. bush did a public servant, it makes you think of a wonderful time for our country. rubenstein: bill clinton came along, and in the 1992 election, he deated your boss. rubenstein: were you shocked by the outcome? rice: i was. i'd already gone back to stanford. rubenstein: oh, you had. rice: i became provost. i was surprised,neut he had done what hed to do, at the end of the ar with respect for gorbachev, never humiliating viet union, not dancing on the wall. one of the last things gorbachev did before he went out to sign the paper that would collapse the soviet union and allow bboris yeltsin to become president of russian federation, "we did good things, didn't we? story will judge us well," and i said to president bush, "do you realiz i how extraordinary th" well, he was ge

bush and going after bush. it seemed like she was going to look to impeach bush and get him out of office personally i think wouldbeen a wonderful thing. >> impeaching him? >> for the war. he lied. he got us into the war with lies. look at the trouble bill clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant and they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. bush got us into this horrible war by lies, saying they had weapons of mass destruction and all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. >> jeffrey, i want your reaction. >> how can i add to that? what can i possibly say other than just watch it and see what he said? donald trump has been on every side of every issue. he used to be pro-choice and now trying to get abortion outlawed in the united states. this is who he is and how he's behaved his whole life. >> what do you say? >> it's rather rich talking about kicking president bush out of the office when this president has made 15,000 false statements. unbelievable. >> i think he is trying to establish his anti-war bona fide for you, but he essentially made the case for his own impeachment. >>

punjab and the 2nd biggest ethnic group pushed around and there's a fear that munjal bush seems message is resonating that bush soon officers and soldiers over the forces so it becomes a case of sort of divided loyalties and sort of pakistani army wants to ensure that this doesn't carry on and david do whatever they can to stop him washouts it was just talking about the message being spread omar i'm curious if there is a media blackout against reporting on this movement how is the message spreading it is true indeed the has been a media blackout and you can't really cover or talk about the movement by maneuver seen on on local media. unless it is taking cues from the military and sort of. beating the talking points of the establishment but but as you said they have been a huge following both on the ground and on social media and i think it's partly due to the use of social media like twitter and facebook i've been following them for the last week. to begin and they have been using social media to cause their protests across pakistan and across across the word and they have been light streaming. you know the pr

bush and barack obama. 2007, president bush named him deputy national security advisor to coordinate the war in iraq and afghanistan. before being assigned to the white house, he served as director of operations both on the joint staff in washington, d.c. and on the united states central command. then we have on the panel, professor brett mcgurk, currently based at stanford university. before moving to stanford, mcgurk served as a special president envoy for a global coalition to defeat isis. in that capacity he led the fight against the terrorist network. previously mcgurk served in senior positions in the george w. bush and barack obama administration, including in the bush white house as senior director for iraq and afghanistan and as deputy assistant to secretary of the state for iraq and iran under president obama. mcgurk has led several diplomatic missions in the middle east over the decades. for example he led talks with russia over the syrian conflict under both president obama and donald trump. finally, the panel will be moderated by professor hal brands, henry kissinger distinguished professor of affairs. he is also a columnist for bloomberg opinion and scholar of american enterprise institute. dr. brand is author and editor of many books, including american grand strategy in the age of trump, published just one year ago. professor brand served as special assistant to secretary of defense for strategic planning from 2015 to 2016. so please join me in welcoming a very distinguished panel this afternoon. [applause] mr. brands: thank you very much. i would also like to thank our hosts here at sm

bush administration. there were very different personalities. your interactions with them, at least my interactions with them, were very different. i had less access than meghan or certainly than steve had to president bush. but particularly with president bush, the overwhelming impression i had was how different he was from the cartoon caricature that my academic friends back at duke held of him. their version of him was not smart, not thoughtful, not well read, inarticulate and reflexive, making impetuous decisions. and that was not the person that i saw. i saw someone who was deeply committed to the integrity of the office of the president, and the notion that he was a custodian of something greater than himself, that he was temporarily a steward of, but that he had to hand onto the next person, and he had to make sure he left the next person better off than he had been. and that was the job of the president, to leave the next person better off if you could. i'm not saying he did not make mistakes. of course he made mistakes. but there was a commitment to something that was greater than just his own legacy, his own standing, the way people thought of him. that was inspiring. he also was so much smarter than people gave him credit for. i w

after 2003 when president bush told us after 2003 when president bush told usjob accomplish. after 2003 when president bushh. now the americans are back to their crime theatre. donald trump now is sending 3500 troops and we are waiting for the iranian retaliation. how it is going to be, are they going to actually bomb the american military bases inside iraq? all the military bases in the gulf? or they're going to hit the israelis? we don't know yet. their proxy for example, the military arms in yemen and lebanon and iraq, it is actually a huge mishap. the most important thing is what will happen after the retaliation, the iranian retaliation, the iranian retaliation, are the americans going to bomb iran for example? there is much bigger things, i believe. the iranians could surprise us by saying that we are pulling out completely from the nuclear deal. ok, if you are going to bomb us what we will go for is a nuclear deterrent.” are going to bomb us what we will go for is a nuclear deterrent. i spoke toa for is a nuclear deterrent. i spoke to a former obama aide who was involved in counterterrorism in the m

bush's 2007 decision to increase american troop levels in iraq. former bush administration officials meghan o'sullivan and peter feaver talk about their subsequent efforts to document these events in an oral history entitled, "the last card: inside george w. bush's decision to surge in iraq." this is the first of three programs on the surge hosted by the center for presidential history at southern methodist university in dallas. >> i would be remiss if i did not recognize my great friend, colleague, the best president of the best world affairs council in the united states. i know we have a lot of world affairs council members here. jim faulk, very grateful to jim for this help. -- for his help. we have players, including stephen hadley, who will be speaking tonight. a truly great public servant who was the director of the nsc under bush, and i say public servant in days when that meant something and it really mattered. and we respected people who hold these high positions. we look forward to hearing from him tonight. and i think now without even leaving the stage, i will get the first panel underway so that we can start this. as a college professor, i would say, get your notepads out. there will be questions, discussion. we are going to start wi

but another big issue pressing australia right now is bush fires, unprecedented bush fires.ow do we sleep, well, your nation's burning. is that your message? >> yes, it is. i live in the blue mountains where the fires have been particularly vicious and it's been absolutely exhausting. >> what would be your message for the u.s. president donald trump about climate? >> australia's not the only country. this is a warning to the whole world of what could happen. >> amy smith, thank you so much. you have dozens of fires burning as we speak threatening thousands of peoples homes, putting lives in danger. more than two dozen people have already been killed. australia is suffering from an unprecedented drought, and they say the rest of the world is going to see more natural disasters if they don't wake up to this issue. >> so many homes destroyed and it's just the beginning. >>> all right, to the soap opera in the u.k. the queen wasn't just caught off-guard. prince harry and meghan's decision to step back from senior duties directly defied the queen's wishes. cnn's max foster is liv

bush getting momentum, winning over ronald reagan who would get the nomination. in a 1988, reagan's term limited, bush will run for a term. he comes in a third in the caucuses. dole from kansas will win the caucuses. sandwiched in between bob dole and bush is pat robertson. another parallel because here is someone who kind of came out of nowhere, was a televangelist, never held elected office, and is able to bring attention to himself because he beat expectations, gets media attention, not just in the state, but after he comes in, a surprising second to parlay that into making a campaign of it across the country. wounding bush somewhat in the process. bush will go on to win the nomination. another thing we see and 1988, iowans like candidates from neighboring states. bob dole from kansas does win. sometimes that gets a candidate of credibility. we are seeing that potentially with amy klobuchar. races we areew going to skip. 19 92, no republican count. president bush was running for reelection. running forin was the democratic nomination, so democrats bypass the state. came in6, buchanan second behind bob dole, bob dole one. 2000, the bush and gore both win their respective caucuses and go on to win in november. those three caucuses do n

bush, and he said, "we did good things, didn't we? history will js well," and i said to president bush, "do you realize how extraordinary this is?" well, he was geow. bush. he said, "well, i never thought about it." i said, "that the president of the soviet union "in his last act before the collapse of the soviet union "called the american president essentially to seek s affirmation?" that was a very big deal, but that's the way he was. rubenstein: another member of the geor hbert walker bush family decides to run for president-- george w. rice: yes. rubenstein: u become the national security advisor, the first urman to be national sy advisor... rice: yes. rubenstein: so you're there, and then 9/11 happens... rice: ye rubenstein: so where're there, and were you on 9/11?... rice: 9/11, i was at my desk. you'll remember that president bush wasctually at that event in florida, the education event, and, just to show you our pre-9/11 thinking, ati did not go with hima, the edthat day.vent, my assistant came in, said a pne had hit the world trade center. first, we thought it was an accident. i called predent bush. then a few minutes later, we learned the seco

voting for trump or being a republican, not liking trump's compartment, and being say a george bush guy -- a jeb bushuy or a marco rubio guy and finding themselves eventually voting for trump, they are insulted when you say that russia had something to do with their vote. independentery about how they get to their decision. that russian -- that russia influenced them, they find insulting. host: our next colors from illinois, independent line. caller is from illinois, independent line. caller: democrats do nothing but taxes, closeraise factories. they have not done anything by way of legislation to help anyone like the handicapped. patact passed by democrats -- changed life for the handicapped around the world. when the republicans are in, they do not care about anyone but them and to the very very wealthy. the democrats are the party of the people and always will be. i am hoping the democratic party goes down in flames. host: i think she meant republican at the end. confused by i was that. i do not think anything would change janet's mind. and: individualism. it was not. it was about localism and com

bush getting momentum, winning over ronald reagan who would get the nomination. in 1988, reagan's term limit ended. bush will run for a term. he comes in third in the caucuses. dole from kansas will win the caucuses. sandwiched in between bob dole and bush is pat robertson. another parallel because here is someone who kind of came out of nowhere, was a televangelist, never held elected office, and is able to bring attention to himself because he beat expectations, gets media attention, not just in the state, but after he comes in, a surprising second to parlay that into making a campaign of it across the country. wounding bush somewhat in the process. bush will go on to win the nomination. another thing we see in 1988, iowans like candidates from neighboring states. bob dole from kansas does win. sometimes they gets a candidate a little bit of credibility. we are seeing that potentially with amy klobuchar. david: the next few races, we are going to quickly skip. in 1992, there was no republican count. president bush was running for reelection. senator harkin was running for the democratic nomination, so democrats bypassed the state. in 1996, buchanan came in second behind bob dole. dole won. in 2000, the bush and gore both win their res

count in 1980 withened george herbert walker bush defeating ronald reagan in iowa where reagan's people thought they got cheated because computers went down when bushay we went back and verified. the point is the parties are trying to develop systems to provide verification and to limit the ability for someone to hack into it. it would take a very big thoseracy to manipulate results at most points along the way and we would certainly hear about it and see about it. there has to be a separate count, a verification of the to say onported caucus night, the headquarters in des moines is in fact what happened at the precinct. you don't have to situation like you had in 2016 were some republicans did not get the results and went to bed and you had this fiasco over santorum and mitt romney. they are aware of it. i'm not sure if they will ever get 100% with this ironclad system. recentn to the most history in 2016, we are going to start with a video of hillary clinton and donald trump on caucus night. >> as i stand here tonight, breathing a big sigh of relief, thank you, iowa. [applause] know i willu to keep doing what i have done my entire life. i will ke

bush, george h. w. bush lost when he was running for president. place that makes presidents, it's a place that can make or can destroy candidates. neil: is more known for the latter i guess. if you're not getting the momentum. i'm wondering if the surge about bernie sanders, joe biden was never expected originally to do well in this state. does it hurt him if he does not when the state. >> the bottom line he has run there twice before he got less than 1% when he ran against obama and then he dropped out. the reality is is not a natural state for him, he is kind of the alternative. i think if he loses this in new hampshire puts his candidacy and play. bernie sanders obviously is a candidate who has done well in the state. but the crazy system it has is the professor so well articulated, you don't have 50% you get nothing. and no delegates are picked for that, you pick delegates to go to the county process and then a thursday process. so no delegates are picked tonight. just delegates that go on and obviously it's pretrade as a media show. neil: you