. >> there's a picture of gadhafi's yacht? >> yes, that's actually right. that particular image was not taken by the nro, it was taken by another middle eastern spy agency, but in the book you'll find why that is relevant. you bring up a nice point, but -- but, yes, the incredible amount of detail that these photographs were able to show as the nro improved its capabilities have been instrumental in winning wars. and, in fact, the work that brian regan did during the first gulf war, he wasn't the only one, of course, you know, those were sort of critical to -- so easily overpowering the iraqi forces when iraq had invaded kuwait. >> the imagery that the u.s. special operators and seals had in the raid of bin laden compound was through nro sources. >> yes, in fact, one of the individuals who was involved in collecting the intelligence that led to the bin laden raid which, by the way, has written a terrific piece for the new yorker a few years ago, that -- one of the individuals connected to that intelligence was called to testify in the brian regan trial and

i feel more at risk for terrorists organizing in libya now with gadhafi gone. it doesn't mean i was an advocate of gadhafi or mubarak or any of these people. and yet you have to look at what comes after. if you decide that your world view is to displace these people. i think we should try on determine what is in our best national interests. we shouldn't think, we're going to make the world a perfect democracy and topple assad. what comes after is a very important question. and what comes after the government in iran, what comes next if we bomb iran. so i think we need a more reasonable sort of person and not a bomb thrower to be head of it. but i support donald trump. i want donald trump to pick someone who supports his foreign policy, that understands the iraq war was a mistake and it hasn't always been to our benefit. >> i will tell you something i haven't told anyone else. i've had some conversations with republican senators and i'm not the only ones with misgivings over rudolph giuliani and bolton. and i haven't met a democrat for either one of them but i'v

where we removed -- muammar gadhafi who i agree was a bad guy but what has happened since in the vacuum of power since then? that's just made it another hotbed of civil war, and a safe place for our enemies like isis and al-qaeda. so i think that if we remove ourselves from this situation, that's obviously not an immediate solution. but it is one that is going to put us back on the ending the hostilities over there. and ending the threats to the united states. >> the second thing you mentioned was the spending of washington. >> oh yes. >> as we have seen and continue to see, government has to be funded. >> of course. >> libertarian, how would you seek to structure that funding differently? >> well, i think the main budget cuts that i look forward to get spending under control is basically what i talked budget is spent on our military. and i agree with our presidential candidate gary johnson who we need to do is bring our troops home and focus on having you know, perfect defense of the united states. and not be involved militarily all over the world. we could save a whole lot of money th

so, he sends these to the libyan embassy, and he addresses the letter to gadhafi. he has a separate letter that goes to saddam hussein. all of these letters get intercepted by the fbi by a source they had in the embassy. i never got much clarity on that and the fbi needs to protect its sources and methods and that's how the hunt began and it took several months for the fbi to figure out who sent those letters. how much did you struggle with wanting to uncover the sources and methods to see how they did it and also respecting the fact that the fbi had the sources and methods like your own personal journalistic ambitions hell did they contradict the ambitions of the fbi in their own sort of protection sources and methods? >> i knew that this was an important part of the story but i knew that there was the beginning of the story and so i was happy enough to let that fly because after all i need is always a chance to talk to me for the next two years telling me how they crack the case and if i had gotten hung up on how they got the tip and adjust insisted on finding th

saddam hussein, gadhafi, go across the region and name them one by one. these military men took over the control of their countries and why did they start doing this in the late '60s. even in the late '40s and '50s and in a big way the late '60s and '70s. they claimed it was the only way to protect their country and protect palestinian rights and fight for our rights and developments. they were broads. they couldn't do this. they weren't able to martial their national resources. the development of doctors, the development of education for a woman. it was very impressive across the arab world in the '70s and '80s. arab world was not totally incompetent but have now shown to be completely and without any exception unable to govern in a manner that achieves both sustainable socioeconomic development or true national sovereignty that allows their country toss achieve their full potential. not a single arab country has been able to do this. the pressures we are feeling are significant. about 45% of young arabs are not learning anything in school. they can't re

that we ourselves may be partly responsible for causing it by toppling saddam, by getting rid of gadhafier, the fact is it is there. remember, in these countries women are at very best second class citizens. so at best we're bringing in a problem, a cultural problem that will be very difficult to assimilate and maintain our values. at worst, we're bringing in people who actually want to kill us. >> and that's what our top intelligence and security officials have been warning, dr. gorka, good to see you again. it would be great to see you in the trump administration. >> thank you. >> look, donald trump supports safe zones, victims of a civil war, food, medicine, clothing, supplies, safety, baby formula, whatever is needed, cots. there is this clash of cultures though that nigel farage is talking about, and that is if you grow up and you believe you can tell women what to wear and they can't drive and go to school without a man's permission and guys and lesbians can be killed and marital rape in some of these countries is legal, and the persecution of christians and jews are institutionali

opposition, neck and neck with sarkozy, and you have these new allegations that sarkozy was too close to gadhafi, and there was money that shouldn't have been flowing between the two. >> to your first point there, she's worked hard on what she calls de-demonization of her party, which was considered a political pariah under her father. she stepped away from the racist or anti-semitic language he would use and softened the rough edges of her party. that said, a lot of people still consider it beyond the pale. >> and could francois stand a chance? >> he's now in the running certainly for that center right republican primary. we think whoever does win that primary will go on through to win the presidency. >> emily, thank you very much. emily mansfield joining us from the economist intelligence unit. >>> we have to take a quick break. check out world markets live, our blog, which runs throughout the european trading day. . >>> welcome back to the show. yes, you're still watching "street signs." i'm carolin roth. >> i'm louisa bojesen. your headlines this morning -- bank stocks in europe losing some

about the money trail that connected the anti-shah revolutionary movement in the 1970s to colonel gadhafi's libya and the plo's yasser arafat. we now know that in 1977, for example, the libyan embassy paid the iranian mujahideen $100,000 every three months. that's 1977 dollars. every three months to buy such high-powered weapons as armor-piercing rifle grenades, assault rifles and mortars to use against the iranian security forces. their maoist counterpart was supplied with polish, czech and east german weaponry that included tungsten armor-piercing ammunition, machine pistols, submachine guns and high-powered hunting rifles. this was 1977, before the revolution starts. presenting this evidence does not detract from the fact that there was a high level of dissatisfaction in iran in 1978. but neither can scholars now overlook compelling evidence that that shows the level and presence of an organized, foreign-backed opposition to the pahlavi state. one of the reasons why i believe these groups mobilized against the shah was in reaction to his decision to support his friend anwar sadat's searc

and also leads to things that have unforward consequences, so for example, in wanting to eliminate gadhafi in libya, we now have isis controlling a third of the territory. in pushing back assad, isis has been released from the vacuum. $6million of fighter or more. they sent ten of them to war and i sort of tragically said to people, what kind of president sends 10 people to war? they were captured in 15 minutes. that doesn't happen if a country votes and becomes unified republican and democrat to fight a war. we have done that after 9/11 we were unified as a country. after pearl harbor we were unified as a country. one thing we need to do better and i will force votes on, is whether continue sending arms to country that are allowing arms to go to isis. hillary clinton was aware according to podesta emails arms were going from u.s. to saudi arabia to isis and she did nothing about it. that's one more thing why we should never ever let her go 10 miles from the white house. >> senator paul talks a lot about balancing the budget and he never got it done. he never came close to it, really. even

that is a particular concern for nato because it was nato's military operation that took out the gadhafi government. unlike bosnia, kosovo or afghanistan, nato did not do a follow-on operation in libya to try to gather weapons, create a monopoly of security and a single security sector and build the mechanisms of a state. that is still something that needs to be done while nato is vital for the united states looking forward, if issing an environment that is more dangerous and more challenging than anything we have seen since the cold war. and nato's adaptation after 1989, i think, was all in the right direction. it was all moving and doing many of the right things. this is continued emphasis on collective defense, a new focus on crisis management such as in bosnia or kosovo or afghanistan. focus on building partnerships, so nato doesn't view the world as a theater of operations but also a theater where we work with partners to try to deal with security challenges together. nato enlarged, it went from 16 members during the cold war to 28 and soon to be 29 today. it built -- it sought to b

gadhafi's presents was the civil war. would argue that iraq is much worse because of saddam's actions. and by the way, if you want to talk about long-term insurrections, if i were approved and i would say those be an 30 years. if not with the united states is doing with colombia? what's the difference. >> i know you're playing devils advocate, but i sure hope the devil had a better argument than the one you made. >> way to question down here. can you identify yourself? [inaudible] >> i'm going to try and combine them be the devil's advocate because if i shared most of your analysis of the witch is very and very testing, if you keep assad and all the important underlying refugee crisis and the crimes against humanity, and decided that you have de facto countries. even if you don't pay attention and you just try to focus on bashar al-assad, is nt at the core of this hair with them and be existing of the isil movement. what you saw, even if you decide that's forget about trying regime change. let's keep them where he is. you

that is a particular concern for nato because it was nato's military operation that took out the gadhafi government. unlike bosnia, kosovo or afghanistan, nato did not do a follow-on operation in libya to try to gather weapons, create a monopoly of security and a single security sector and build the mechanisms of a state. that is still something that needs to be done. so while nato is vital for the united states looking forward, it is facing an environment that is more dangerous and more challenging than anything we have seen since the cold war. and nato's adaptation after 1989, i think, was all in the right direction. it was all moving and doing many of the right things. this is continued emphasis on collective defense, a new focus on crisis management such as in bosnia or kosovo or afghanistan. focus on building partnerships, so nato doesn't view the world as a theater of operations but also a theater where we work with partners to try to deal with security challenges together. nato enlarged, it went from 16 members during the cold war to 28 and soon to be 29 today. it built -- it soug

think feeling quite a global because of the protests in the arab spring, the toppling of moammar gadhafi. he really thought that there was a western, you know, campaign two topple dictators starting into niche and making its way to syria, next up moscow. >> but there has been, hasn't there? >> acer dudley south. >> hillary clinton is the candidate of america as the indispensable natured and also steve would say is the candidate of militant democracy and militant liberalism. that's just going to be a point of friction for the leader of a country whose view of the world is very different from hers. trump in a sense is in a probably more congenial figure because putin sees a similar sort of mindset in terms of politics. let's do a deal, even if you don't like somebody, let's find common ground. ironically, i don't think they see that in the clinton administration. >> interesting. i sort of want to ask a follow-up but maybe it would be too argumentative. do you mean 12 is not a military democrat or militant liberal? >> i think he's made that very clear. that one of the breaks he would make w