. >> brown: mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. plus, a special report with our own macneil and lehrer on covering the watergate hri

david brooks, what did this mean?776 feet. david brooks, what did this mean?> finally, a little recovery. it took a long time. i've been up on the top of that thing. >> i would never go to the top of that thing. >> the building, not the top of that. >> okay. >> and you know, it took a long time. >> yeah. >> but it means a lot to the city just to walk around the city and look up there and see that's back up there. >> i was with president bush when he first saw that 9-14-01 and the lattice work sticking up. to see that level of recovery on a gorgeous day in new york means a lot to the country we'll take a break here. be right back. aw, shoot. i missed a payment. discover card. i missed a payment. aw, shoot. shoot! this is bad, isn't it? oh no! we're good! this is your first time missing a payment. and you've got our new card, so we don't charge you a late fee for for that. plus, we won't hike up your apr for paying late either. man, that's great! it is great, man! thank you. well, thanks for your help. yeah, no problem. call back anytime. at discover, we treat y

"the washington post" this morning, david brooks, kind of a second term curse.e got the benghazi investigation going now, questions about the irs. does this further poison the well in washington? >> yeah, i mean, second terms are generally hit with scandal. the obama administration you're not going to having monetary scandal. these people are not financially corru corrupt. the irs story is going to be big and confirm a lot of suspicions a lot of republicans have. you combine that with the benghazi thing and even the red line. syria where that looks like a political thing because you wouldn't carry through it. what the president needs is a group of people put out there the clearly above politics, senior older people show that a significant part of this administration and the core of this administration is not hyper political and that has been a problem for the administration i think since the get go. >> huge story this week is the sexual assault in the military and the figures that were revealed this week katty kay, from 2010 to 2012, an increase of 35% within th

about things because all i know comes out of that in the public media but we do have people like david brooks saying david brooks the conservative commentator in the new york times saying that this was a cia installation a cia operation we have a look of a source very close to david petraeus at that point he was head of the cia and she says her name was broadwell or something like that she said publicly in denver that the cia was trying to interrogate people at a see the installation there in benghazi and that the locals knew these people were their brothers and sisters and that was the reason now no one has even looked into that so we have all manner of explanations as to why it happened what was going on and got to see why the ambassador was in benghazi is a question that hasn't even been addressed among all these talking points stuff but the thing that i would like to stress is this in mid october before the national election here in this country darrell ice the head of the government oversight committee held a hearing and they had star witnesses and they had this fellow big strapping dipl

that's "new york times" columnist david brooks and "washington post" columnist ruth marcus. mark shields is off today. and whether they're watching us on television or their laptop or their smarthone, we're gl yore here. >> or stone tablets. (laughter) >> warner:. >> woodruff: so the president's big speech on national security, he said we need to redefine as a country our approach to the war on terror. you said if we don't -- he said if we don't define it, it will define us. david? >> i think "redefine" is a little strong. i think we're fine. we had a period of intense expansion of the national security state in the early bush years. by the middle of the bush years we'd begun to try to normalize things and they tried to figu out how to scale things back and get out of guantanamo bay and things have been slowly returning to some sort of permanent normalcy since and i think with the speech the president gave this week was a very mature speech and serious speech and moved us another step in the direction. rhetorically it was big, substantively it was uncertain and small but a s

. >> brown: mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. plus, a special report with our own macneil and lehrer on covering the watergate hearings. >> good evening from washington. in a few moments, we're going to bring you the entire proceedings in the first day of the senate watergate hearings. >> we are running it all each day because we think these hearings are important. we are doing this as an experiment to give you the whole story, however many hours it may take. >> woodruff: 40 years after the scandal that brought down an american president. robert macneil and jim lehrer reflect on watergate's legacy and the gavel-to-gavel coverage that gave rise to the program you're watching tonight. >> public television was doing something that commercial networks, for all their brilliance in news, wouldn't and couldn't do. >> that was before there were things like c-span. going gavel-to-gavel, the way we were going, in the daytime and in particular, repeating it at night. this had never happened before. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's

mark shields, david brooks. and mark and david keep up the talk on the doubleheader, recorded in our newsroom. that will be posted at the top of the rundown later tonight. and don't miss our special, live doubleheader, when the guys will take your questions, on june 21. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day. the obama administration announced the outlook for medicare has improved modestly, and social security is unchanged over a year ago. a separate federal reserve study found some americans are rebounding from the economic recession, but others continue to struggle. and, president obama pressed congress to prevent student loan rates from doubling in a month . >> woodruff: online, sizing up the state of economic inequality. kwame holman has more. >> holman: is the 99% falling even further behind the 1%? one of our readers posed the question, and so we put economics correspondent paul solman on the case. he picks up the discussion on our "making sense" page. all that and more is on our web site, newsh

david brooks is off tonight. so, gentlemen.had good jobs numbers today but you listen to that report just now from paul solomon and it makes you angry, doesn't it? >> it does. you look at geoffrey weglarz who has had 481 job applications and no job. i mean, the long-term unemployment -- unemployed in this country, more than four million out of work for six months. judy, there's been a study done of employers looking at resumes and if your resume comes in and it's the same and michael has not been working for a month and i haven't been working for seven months, 11 month miss and we have identical resume it is employer will go to the person who's worked most recently. there's almost a stigma that attaches. it become asterbly vicious cycle. when you're out of work you remain out of work and obviously that was cited as you're expected -- younger workers are more flexible in salary, they're more flexible supposedly on training or employers willing to invest the time and the money and training. i mean, it's a terrible, terrible dilem

mark shields, david brooks. >> bwn: and that bring t our look back at watergate through our own very personal lens. first some context, as the scandal was unfolding in 1973, public broadcasting was still in its infancy. lyndon johnson had signed the public broadcasting act, which created pbs and npr, in 1967 and pbs was founded two years later. its mission, especially when it came to national public affairs programming, was very much still an open question when before the era of c-span, before cameras were regularly trained on the congress, a decision was made to present gavel-to-gavel coverage that would then be repeated that same evening. that was the backdrop, as the watergate hearings began 40 years ago today. >> good evening from washington. in a few moments we're going to bring you the entire proceedings in the first day of the senate watergate arings. eangs to bear the truth about the wide range of illegal, unethical or improper activities established or still merely alleged, surrounding the reelection of president nixon of the historic senate hearings that would, a year later

we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with david brooks and ruth marcus, among others.nk you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> more than two years ago, the people of b.p. made a commitment to the gulf. and everyday since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we shared what we've learned so that we can all produce energy more safely. b.p. is also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> this is "bbc world news." funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york,

we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among othersyou and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among othersank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> more than two years ago, the people of b.p. made a commitment to the gulf. and everyday since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we shared what we've learned so that we can all produce energy more safely. b.p. is also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. >> i want to make things more secure. >> i want to treat more dogs. >> our business needs more cases. >> where do you want to take your business? >> i need help selling art. >> from broadband, to web hosting, to mobile apps, small business solutions from a.t.&t. can help get you there. we can show you how a.t.&t. solutions can help your business today. >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental prob

that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson david brooksl return next week. nooirchtsdz welcome, gentlemen. let's talk about immigration. mark, huge bill, 800 pages, 300 amendments started moving through the senate yesterday. what do the prospects look like? >> the prospects, judy, it's fragile. the 844 pages represents something we don't see a lot of in washington, which is compromise, consciou consensus,g something together, both sides of the aisle, eight senators submerging their high profiles and healthy egos for a work product. what we see are people who would like to sabotage that effort in the committee. senator cruz of texas has an amendment anybody who has ever been in the united states illegally at any time cannot be eligible for citizenship. that, of course, would preclude a six-year-old who was brought this country by his parents, joining the marine corps, going to iraq, serving honorably, being wounded, coming back and beingineligible. this is the sort of amendments that we're going to see that will be intended, some to strengt

david brooks had a fascinating column in "the new york times" defending the focal points of republican attacks. david brooks, the conservative columnist for the times saying guys, you are making something out of absolutely nothing here on the substantive lefshlings i don't think there was gamesmanship there. there is nothing there. >> right. i read that it looks column and i thought i hope john boehner and darryl issa read this. probably wouldn't page any difference. how do you read the irs? are we making too much of this? is this clearly a case of mismanagement or worse? >> we don't know yet because this is one where the paper trail will have to be pursued to find out whether it goes above and outside the irs. let's recognize it as a very simple political level. this validates the paranoia of the right. in other words, you know, the old cliche because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you. >> right. >> this is it. the tea party and those who want to see a government that is over bearing and oppressive and taking away their guns and their rights, bow boy, now they c

david gregory, you can always count on conservative republican david brooks is on meet the press he givesrect perspective to the benghazi tragedy, basically, one line that he said in response, my reading of the evidence is the very terrible event happened at basically a cia facility. they tried to shift responsibility on to the state department, and the state department pushed back. period. end of story, and that comes from a conservative. it's incredible. it's like the president said yesterday, from day one i don't understand where the there there is. >> obama: americans died in benghazi. we also know clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected, and suddenly three days ago this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. >> stephanie: and we talks about his counter terrorism advisor. matthew olson went to capitol hill and said i would say yes they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. so michael tomasky said, there it was. that very day the wall street journal reported but they didn't have time to tell her, but as the pres

david brooks in "the new york times" said yesterday the state department talking points were only changedo protect the cia that was having very secret operations in benghazi. what do you think about those different factors introduced to this story eight months later? >> you know with the presence of a large number of cia operatives in this annex in benghazi, there isn't any happening. you have a bunch of americans in the city who are out doing something, probably buying weapons. believe me it was no secret. the whole argument that the cia was being covered by the consulate doesn't hold water since they were in two different locations. how much cover does that provide to have them so separate? so i think there are a lot of issues but again, i don't think the arb tells us that much because its mandate was specifically limited to looking for responsibility within the state department. jenna: and specifically focused on security. >> on security, yes. jenna: not necessarily some of the policies. speaking of policy, what is the effect of this internal political debate on how our enemies perceiv

in "the new york times" today, david brooks is writing about these talking points and basically saysdepartment was trying to protect the intelligence community by editing these talking points to protect them because there was important work that wassing with done on the -- that was being done on the ground by the cia, and that wasn't public knowledge. so it brings us to the final question about whether or not the debate that's happening about who knew what when is overshadowing, perhaps, the important work that needs to be done on the ground overseas and whether or not we're finding and bringing to justice the people who murdered americans. >> well, you're absolutely right. the american public are looking for justice and accountability, and for two weeks, an entire two weeks after the 9/11 attacks in benghazi, the president went on univision, he went on "the view," and he even went to the united nations and still tied this to a video and not calling it the act of terrorism that we know was actually what happened there. and i think misleading the american people as he did has set him

the second, the middle on in this continuum i call -- and i'm stealing this from david brooks which explainswhy he writes for "the new york times" and i don't, he calls it shambolic messiness where there will be literally years of confusion; delays in opening many of the exchanges, serious problems with the federal hub being able to interface with the exchanges, there may be waivers to these rules while they're worked out, etc., there may be premium increases, there may be a whole lot of stuff. but in the end, the act will prevail. and finally, at the complete other end of the continuum is what i call the repeal scenario and, obviously, large numbers of people in this town and around the country called republicans are rooting for this one. in fact, they seem to like this idea so much that they voted 37 times for it. so the question is, will this go at the err end of the continuum -- other end of the continuum, the route of the 1989 medicare catastrophic care act which was passed, signed into law by president reagan and then repealed 16 months after its enactment making it the shortest-lived

there's a terrific piece in the "new york times" by its conservative columnist david brooks today puttingsense into benghazi. question which is really separable from the rest of this. eric holder and the investigation into leaks and wiretapping is not about eric holder because it's about administration policy. >> so you actually said on this one -- >> on this one. >> this one goes to the top. this is the president's -- >> it's a matter -- >> this is the president's policy. >> it's a matter of policy, it's not illegal, there's statutory authority for it and it's wrong. >> it's abusive. >> it's a terrible policy. and the white house ought to be held account able for a terribl policy. this is not the criminalization of the white house. but nonetheless, there's no excuse for what's happening there. >> carl, you say that, you know, benghazi is separate from the others. i would agree with that. but there is an underlining fundamental point here in how the administration handles bad news. handles situations in which it exposes itself sometimes unnecessarily, often times prematurely. and you're l

this is what -- who's the conservative column, david brooks said as well on "meet the press" this weekendrlying problem is. benghazi face that test and with no clear charge. the public is confuse and bore and not terribly interested. he says judgment worn out by pew survey showing fewer than half of americans show they're following the hearings. the i.r.s. says in the i.r.s. scandal, he said it bears no resemblance to what he saw when he was in the nixon white house. speculation the scrutiny of tea party groups might have been directed out of the white house is baloney says dean. if that were the case, it wouldn't have come out this way meaning disclosed by the i.r.s. people. pick up a history book about what nixon did. he talked about that whole thing. that's what the whole enemies list was about. nixon ordered it personally. okay. >> so the obama administration must have done the exact same thing. it's logical. >> stephanie: to review what i said last hour, his infamous enemies list, which listed targeted political opponents and journalists working directly with a person in the i.r.s. w

those kinds of problems but within a normal startup. , andiddle of the continuum i still this from david brooks, which explains why he writes for "the new york times" shambolic messiness where there will be inerally years of confusion serious problems with the federal of of being able to interface with the exchanges. there may be waivers to these roles while they are worked out. there may be premium increases and a whole lot of stuff. in the end, the act will prevail. finally, at the complete other end of the continuum is what i call the repeal scenario. large numbers of people in this town and around the country, called republicans, are rooting for this one. they seem to like this idea so much that they voted 37 times for it. this go?ion is will at the other end of the 1989nuing, the way of the medicare catastrophic care act was signed into law by president reagan and then repealed 16 months after it was enacted making it the shortest lived of -- piece of social policy in the united states. .hat is the continuing i will ask all of you to place ourselves on that, but do not do it yet. i want ea

and one need only look at "the new york times" today and read republican conservative columnist david brooks. he outlines it pretty well saying this is just not right what they're trying to do. the president's made it clear his focus is on bringing these terrorists to justice. recommendations headed by ambassador pickering who will go down in history as one of the best foreign service officers this country's ever had, and, of course, the patriotic admiral mullin. and the state department implementing the recommendations right now as we speak. in the senate the committees of jurisdiction have investigated this issue extensively and heard testimony from those involved. but, again, i ask, where were the republican outrage, where was it when dozens of attacked posts were under president bush? 64 posts were attacked under the bush administration. this is about generating headlines and campaign foughter for republicans and nothing else. i've read, i repeat, that my colleague, speaker boehner, is obsessed with these attacks, benghazi attacks. he wants to say they're ignoring the middle class in ord