president obama's authority. >>> new trier high school's plan to get former defense secretary donald rumsfeldan alumni award is causing controversy. rumsfeld is a 1950 graduate of new trier and one of ten people chosen to receive the first outstanding alumni award. former board trusty and new trier heights senior class president are asking the board to reconsider the decision. they say rumsfeld doesn't deserve the award because of his role in the inaccurate assertion that iraq had weapons of mass destructions. >>> ballerina's, royalty and computer programmers, what do they have in common? the golden globe nominations, we will run down the big nominees next. why children may be at risk for secondhand smoke in the home. >> and top a bowl of this with tortilla strips, chopped onions or shredded cheese. a recipe for chicken verde soup is coming up in lunch break. >>> timing isn't my strong suit. >> the mf eat king's speech leads the golden globe contender with seven nominations including best drama and acting honors for colin first. the movie follows king george the 6 struggle to beat his battle

. >> when you went out to take command, how long did you meet with donald rumsfeld? >> ones are twice. >> what was on his mind? >> that was more discussion about whether or not i should take command. he looked to my military history. >> how is that possible? you are sending a commander out to fight a very important war, and it there is a discussion about, you have had all these jobs only for your or 18 months. how could you have any impact? >> that was more a critique of the military personnel system. >> it was a valid point. >> i find it strange. these are your marching orders. i want you to report. what you think? give me a 60 day assessment. >> those are discussions that i would have had with the centcomm commander, which i did have. >> to you think it was a mistake when we turned command in afghanistan over to nato, and i think donald rumsfeld in 2005, did he not announce 2500 troops will be withdrawn from afghanistan? >> i think we sent the wrong message in 2005 twice. it was well ove 10% we had in country at the time. that was a message that the u.s. is moving

but also thanks to secretary of defense donald rumsfeld. now, he was the secretary of defense, if you remember, for the first six years of the bush administration. he was succeeded in the last two years by robert gates who has carried over into the obama administration along, in fact, with various bush military policies particularly. but also thanks to secretary of defense donald rumsfeld's urge to bring covert activities that once were the province of the cia under the pentagon's wing. by the end of george w. bush's second term in office -- think of that map again -- special operations forces were fighting in the, training in or stationed in 60 countries around the planet. and that was under the ages of the global war on terror. less than two years later, according to "the washington post," 13,000 special operations forces are deployed abroad in approximately 75 countries. fifteen more than at the end of the bush era. as part of an expanding global war on terror even if obama administration's ditched that actual name. in other words, speci

and then as donald rumsfeld told me, we need new eyes. the truth of the matter is i needed -- in order to make the plan work, i had to have a new secretary of defense. in other words, people would not believe it was necessarily a new plan unless it was somebody else says it was a new plan. and it was introduced to bob gates, as an option. and then that led to needing new generals. so we need a lot of things to happen. really what happened was the 2006 campaign. and i feel very strongly the commander in chief would not be making key military decisions in the midst of a political campaign. it sends signals to our troops, you are nothing but -- you are being used for political purposes. that would be a major mistake. so one the lessons for future presidents, if they choose to read the book. if you unfortunately are commander in chief, don't play politics with military strategy. [applause] [applause] >> we have time for three more questions. >> okay. mitch getting ready to put the hook on me. [laughter] >> in the book you had experience with

>> reporter: donald rumsfeld, you remember him?ontroversial figures of the bush administration. he's got a new memoir coming up and first on our ticker. he never actually e-mailed before. you may not know that about him. he's all about social media. he sent a tweet really to create some buzz about his memoir that's coming out. and he said that along with his book, he's going to be releasing hundreds of documents on the internet to back up some of the claims that he's going to make. i would imagine it's going to be about the iraq war. but as you said, it's not going to be about like wic kileakswiks gotten approval. number two on our ticker, a very interesting interview with the incoming house speaker john boehner. take a look at some of this. >> so what do you think about him being speaker of the house? has it hit you? >> no, it sure hasn't. real proud of him. he'll do a good job. we're all proud of him. >> you know what's happening over here? >> no, my nose is running. >> no, it's not. >> what set you off that time? >> because she'

the his is honoring a handful of distinguished alumni including former secretary of defense donald rumsfeldrk rainn wilson, playboy executive kristi hefner. here's hoping to next the popularity contest, you know the one for chicago mayor, goes as well as this one did. [ male announcer ] t's be honest. no one ever wished for a smaller holiday gift. ♪ ♪ it's the lexus december to remember sales event, and for a limited ti, we're celebrating somef our greatest offers of the year. see your lexus dealer. and go everywhere. to help revitalize a neighborhood in massachusetts. restore a historic landmark in harlem. fund a local business in chicago. expand green energy initiatives in seattle. because when y're giving, lendg and investing in more communities across the country... more opportities happen. ♪ >> sean: and welcome to media mash where we expose the most outrageous examples of mainstream media's liberal bias. back to go with us through this week's better is brent bezell. welcome back. >> thank you, sean. >> sean: we have mutual friends in afghanistan and abroad, marines, to i want to sent

the his is honoring a handful of distinguished alumni including former secretary of defense donald rumsfeldrainn wilson, playboy executive kristi hefner. here's hoping to next the popularity contest, you know [ male announcer ] millions of men 45 and older just don't feel like they used to. are you one of them? remember when you had more energy for 18 holes with your buddies? [ glass shatters ] more passion for the one you love? more fun with your family and friends? it could be a treatable condition called low testosterone, or low t. c'mon, stop living in the shadows. you've got a life to live. [ male announcer ] so don't blame it on aging. talk to your doctor and go to isitlowt.com to find out more. ♪ so delicious... your mouth will be strangely attracted to them. everything pops with pringles cracker stix. >> sean: and welcome to media mash where we expose the most outrageous examples of mainstream media's liberal bias. back to go with us through this week's better is brent bezell. welcome back. >> thank you, sean. >> sean: we have mutual friends in afghanistan and abroad, marines, to i

. >> rose: meaning dick cheney, donald rumsfeld. >> exactly. but when you work for president bush, you really felt like you were a member of his team. that you didn't have to worry about your vi o clock, as a fighter pilot would say. that was very kind of reassuring ringz what is behind you. >> what is behind you, protecting your sides. i mean a very, very intelligent guy. very astute. >> rose: very intelligent. >> very intel ghent, could pick up on, take a very complex military plan and immediately ask about the things that posed the greatest risk in that plan. and what are we doing to make sure that we've got those risks covered or whatever. and i would also say very concern approximated about america's men and women in uniform, about their lives, and making sure the decisions he made were not goinging to-- you know, were going to pose the least risk dush -- risk. >> i liked president clinton, i do. >> rose: how was he? >> the same way. he was very good to work with. very good to work for. very intelligent, needless to say, could pick up thes

. >> when you went out to take command, how long did you meet with donald rumsfeld? >> ones are twice. >> what was on his mind? >> that was more discussion about whether or not i should take command. he looked to my military history. >> how is that possible? you are sending a commander out to fight a very important war, and it there is a discussion about, you have had all these jobs only for your or 18 months. how could you have any impact? >> that was more a critique of the military personnel system. >> it was a valid point. >> i find it strange. these are your marching orders. i want you to report. what you think? give me a 60 day assessment. >> those are discussions that i would have had with the centcomm commander, which i did have. >> to you think it was a mistake when we turned command in afghanistan over to nato, and i think donald rumsfeld in 2005, did he not announce 2500 troops will be withdrawn from afghanistan? >> i think we sent the wrong message in 2005 twice. it was well ove 10% we had in country at the time. that was a message that the u.s. is moving

we don't know what we don't know in many cases, to quote donald rumsfeld.that is one of the issues out there. and as someone who live to our expenses in iraq in 1991, when i can remember my friends who worked at the technical side, who worked the nuclear program, you know, assuring us, the u.s. will take on everyone else, we knew exactly what the program look like, three major the sulleys, 10 or 11 smaller facilities, flatten them during desert storm, they went and asked was thinking that they were just going to catalog the rubble and lo and behold there were three other massive facilities that we didn't even know that they had anything to do with the nuclear program. at least two of those three facilities probably could have produced a nuclear weapon. it gets to this larger question which i will come to any second, what do we deal to the iranian to do with the issue that reuel table which i think is an important one in terms of the retaliation. i will start by saying i largely agree with a depiction that reuel just put on the table. i think he is right. i

maybe you want to listen to what donald rumsfeld said to the foreign relations committee a few years ago -- quote -- "i don't know that we would ever want symmetry between the united states and russia in tactical nuclear weapons. their circumstances is different. and their geography is different." general chilton said, russian tactical weapons do not directly influence the stratigic balance between the u.s. an russia. -- and russia. numerical symmetry exists in a number of weapons, we estimate that russia possesses when considered in the context of our total capability and given forced levels of structure in new start, this acemetery is not adessed to affect -- affect the stratigic ability of the united states and russia. we have a couple of other colleagues who want to say something. let me say to my colleagues about the process as we go forward here. there's some talk now that we're reefg a point we're on day -- reaching this a point. we're on day five, wednesday afternoon, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday. start i took five days. if we filed a cloture petition at some point in t

so -- and i think the interesting thing donald rumsfeld did on this is that he did not accept a an advance on this book. he wanted to write at his own pace. i thought i was interesting. i think it's also interesting all of the proceeds from this book will be going to his foundation for promising young people. so he wanted to do it in his own way and his own time and good for him, hands off. 500,000 is a really nice print run. >> host: that is being published by mary matalin. two other books that came out this past year, secret history of mi6 by keith jeffrey and william f. buckley's dalia aires, athwart history and its by reason some of his columns. new hampshire, you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: what impact will the books have on people in the library system? will that cause a centralization of fluttery conflict because we can download it from one source rather than look at the library, the local provider? >> host: jenn risko? >> guest: i'm not sure what impact is when to have. i don't think electronic books are going to meet the local library go away although it seems to be makin

maybe you want to listen to what donald rumsfeld said to the foreign relations committee a few years ago -- quote --i don't know that we would ever want symmetry between the united states and russia in tactical nuclear weapons their circumstances is different. and their geography is different." general chilton said, russian tactical weapons do not directly influence the stratigic balance between the.s. an russia. -- and russia. numerical symmetry exists in number of weapons, we estimate that russia possesses when considered in the context of our total capability and given forced levels of structure in new start, this acemetery is not adessed to affect -- affect the stratigic ability of the united states and russia. we have a couple of other colleagues who want to say something. let me say to my colleagues about the process as we go forward here. there's some talk now that we're reefg a point we're on day- reaching this a point. we're on day five, wednesday afternoon, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday. start i took five days. if we filed a cloture petition at some point in the evenin

so -- and i think the interesting thing donald rumsfeld did on this is that he did not accept a an advance on this book. he wanted to write at his own pace. i thought i was interesting. i think it's also interesting all of the proceeds from this book will be going to his foundation for promising young people. so he wanted to do it in his own way and his own time and good for him, hands off. 500,000 is a really nice print run. >> host: that is being published by mary matalin. two other books that came out this past year, secret history of mi6 by keith jeffrey and william f. buckley's dalia aires, athwart history and its by reason some of his columns. new hampshire, you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: what impact will the books have on people in the library system? will that cause a centralization of fluttery conflict because we can download it from one source rather than look at the library, the local provider? >> host: jenn risko? >> guest: i'm not sure what impact is when to have. i don't think electronic books are going to meet the local library go away although it seems to be makin

in addition to which the major argument is also that henry kissinger and donald rumsfeld has said theanguage is just an expression of reality. we have a relationship. are we not capable in the united states senate of overlooking nonbinding nonlegal, nonimpacting language that acknowledgeing a sample truth about the relationship of offense and defense in the nature of arms control? that's all it does. that's the major argument. it just happens to that no impact on the defense or impact in on the binding, in addition to that it also requires going back to the russians and renegotiating the treaty. as we'll show in the classify session today, there are a lot of reasons why that doesn't make sense from the security interest of the united states of america. so, you know it's not that we shouldn't do our job as advise and con spent but our job of advise and consent requires us to process the fact it requires us to think seriously and how it impacts the treaty. if the senate does it's job of thinking seriously about the treaty, it will separate out language that has no impact and no meaning

in addition to which the major argument is also that henry kissinger and donald rumsfeld and secretary gates have all said that that language that has no legal impact is just an expression of a truism, the reality that offense and defense have a relationship. i mean, are we not capable in the united states senate of ov overlooking nonbinding, nonlegal, nonimpacting language that acknowledges a simple truth about the relationship of offense and defense in the nature of arms control? that's all it does. that's the major argument. it just happens that, in addition to having no impact on our defense and no impact legally and no impact that is binding, in addition to that, it also requires going back to the russians and regorkting the treaty -- and renegotiating the treaty. and as we'll show in the classified session today, there are a lot of reasons why that doesn't make sense from the security interests of the united states of america. so, you know, it's not that we shouldn't do our job of advice and consent, but our job of advice and consent requires us to process the facts. it requires

and we don't know what we don't know in many cases to quote donald rumsfeld.hat is one the issues out there. as someone who lived through our experiences in iraq and in particular in 1991 when i can remember my friends who worked the technical side, who worked the nuclear program, you know, assuring us, the u.s. military, everyone else, we knew exactly what the iraqi program looked like, the three major facilities, ten or 11 other smaller facilities. we flattened them in desert storm. the iea went in afterwards, and low and behold, there were three other massive facilities that we opportunity know had anything to do with the nuclear program. at least two of those three could have been produced a nuclear weapon. that's one thing that i worry about. it gets to the larger question, which i'll come to in a second. what do we do with the iranian program? i want to deal with the issue of the well table which is important in terms of retaliation. i largely agree with the depiction that reuel put on the table. he's right. there will be a response from hezbollah, regar

recruited to new york and shortly thereafter became the ceo of a portfolio company, replacing donald rumsfeld s ceo. he did that for a number of years and was successful, and then became the ceo of nextel. he then became the ceo of xo and it was the fourth company he had run as the ceo. he then left that and joined carlisle in 2003. he left to become the ceo of general motors. i need it was a daunting task, and he did a great job from the time he took over. he was elected to the ceo position on august 11 of this year and they completed the largest ipo in history. i doubt there is anybody that i am aware of who single-handedly has put as much money in the coffers of the u.s. government in as short a time as ban did. -- short a time as dan did. i refer to him as our $23 billion man. in the short time that he has read he has shown his extraordinary skills as an executive and a ceo. the ipo could not have been done in such a short time and less than had been there. he has shown extraordinary skill that i saw at carlisle, and we are very pleased that he is here today. as a taxpayer, we are very pl

hospital going through countless surgeries to restore his life, he was visited by against secretary donald rumsfeld and then by first lady laura bush, and president george bush who personally awarded him a purple heart. it was the least we can do to horn his courage and heroism, being part of the first marines who went in and paid such a heavy price. eric alva tried to put his life together after that devastating injury and finally, after several years, he spoke up and said, there's more to the story. after four years, eric alva told the world that he had lied to become a member of the u.s. marine corps. because he's gay, and he kept that a secret. when he finally spoke out against don't ask, don't tell in 2006, he said, i've risked my life to save this country, but as a gay american veteran, i still don't have the full rights of every american. major margaret whit has also felt the injustice of don't ask, don't tell. major whit was an air force flight nurse. for 17 years she rose steadily through the air force and air force reserves, winning strong performance reviews from superiors. almost no one

now i repeat, when donald rumsfeld was preparing to negotiate the moscow treaty, here's what he said, "we agreed that it is perfectly appropriate to discuss offensive and defensive capabilities together." as those negotiations began president bush said -- quote -- "we will shortly begin intensive consultations on the interrelated subjects of offensive and defensive systems." and he said the two go hand in hand. what's more, seven former heads of the strategic command wrote the senate foreign relations committee this summer saying "the relationship between offense and defense is a simple and long-accepted reality." so the obama administration isn't creating some link. it's acknowledging a reality and it's acknowledging it, i might add, in a paragraph that has no legal standing with respect to the treaty itself, but it is, for whatever benefits or negatives, a sufficient part of that document that it requires under the law to go back to the russians and do it. but as secretary clinton said, it has no legal obligation, obligation on the united states. it's a statement of fact. so henry k

and donald rumsfeld told the foreign relations committee in 2002 -- quote -- "i don't know that we would ever want to have symmetry between the united states and russia. their circumstances are different and their geography is different." what they're referring to is the vast gulf of the atlantic ocean and western europe that is between russia and us and the whole original tactical decisions of russia in terms of warsaw pact versus nato that existed for so many years and of course the cold war. i don't want to be mistaken by my colleagues on the other side. yes, we want to limit russia's nuclear tactical weapons. yes. but a desire to limit those tactical weapons is not a reason to reject the start treaty. frank miller, who was a senior n.s.c. staffer in the bush administration testified to the armed services committee on ju july 27 -- quote -- "i believe this treaty is properly focused on the strategic forces of both sides. the tactical forces are clearly a political and military threat to our allies, but i think throwing this treaty away because we haven't gotten our hands on the tactic

in addition to which the major argument is also that henry kissinger and donald rumsfeld and secretary gates have all said that that language that has no legal impact is just an expression of a truism, the reality that offense and defense have a relationship. i mean, are we not capable in the united states senate of ov overlooking nonbinding, nonlegal, nonimpacting language that acknowledges a simple truth about the relationship of offense and defense in the nature of arms control? that's all it does. that's the major argument. it just happens that, in addition to having no impact on our defense and no impact legally and no impact that is binding, in addition to that, it also requires going back to the russians and regorkting the treaty -- and renegotiating the treaty. and as we'll show in the classified session today, there are a lot of reasons why that doesn't make sense from the security interests of the united states of america. so, you know, it's not that we shouldn't do our job of advice and consent, but our job of advice and consent requires us to process the facts. it requires