president george w. bush campaigned in the year 2000 as a compassionate conservative. cidedly not focused overseas. >> the bush administration understood itself to be a domestic policy administration prior to nine over 11. there wasn't much of a foreign policy strategy in place. >> bush, of course, wanted to be taken seriously on the international stage. but just three years earlier, he couldn't name the leaders of foreign powers who had nuclear weapons. after 9/11, of course, all that changed. >> the most powerful individual on this subject was vice president richard cheney. >> vice president dick cheney, architect of a neoconservative foreign policy that reshaped the middle east, and adding to his menacing public persona, drew comparisons to darth vader. a public image he ultimately embraced. >> we're going to talk about star wars. we might as well invite darth vader. >> he had developed a reputation as kind of a very pithy tough guy. >> if you provide sanctuary to terrorists, you face the full wrath of the united states of america. >> he was arguably the most powerfu

george w bush's approval rating was in the low twenty's. that's the process we're undergoing right now. we're the american public sort of waking up from the propaganda and trump's position on this proxy war will continue to strengthen over time. all right, donald trump junior re posted a video of, of, of, of conscription, sat in the mobilizations in, in ukraine. and commentators express us todd surprise and disbelief of what they saw up give us an idea how. where are the american people in public about what is really going on on the streets and in ukraine generally. what is the point of a proxy war, or the hybrid war that the american national security state prefers, is that the american public are unable to see the human dimension. because we're using a proxy, we're using slobs who cares about them. they're dying, but they're dying for freedom. we'll just, we'll just, uh, we'll accept a few of them into our hospitals and you know, a few amputees into our hospitals and pat ourselves on the back for standing up against the evil putting. but

a letter was written to george w. bush asking for his support. being a good texan, he was more enthusiastic about supporting the feisty countries of georgia and ukraine. this was after the united states well and truly waited -- wad ed into iraq. bush thought that ukraine and you georgia should be -- and georgia should be supported. and he said if they made an appeal, and on military terms looked like they had the wherewithal to contribute to nato and georgia already was come and ukraine at that time still had a sizable and capable army, certainly in terms of being able to keep the russians someone at bank, then he would support the membership action plan. the problem is no one else supported in europe, partially because of perceptions of him in his role and others new ukraine was not fully on board at this point and there was a loss of resistance. what happened, we actually briefed against it because we think if you push for something you cannot get it is not a great idea because it just shows weaknesses and division, once president bush decided

of the willing of course is a used by course is a phrase used by president w during president george w bushiraq we�*rz'meny unanswered of the iraq wa�*rz'many unanswered of course some nations what some european nations will contribute. both keir starmer and mark rutte, secretary agdiyairk rutte,. nate secretary touched on commitments atthat at that meeting in private made at that meeting in private from �* european leaders. == what are they? i suppose but what are they? i suppose because they have their mgyeflieir awn audiences, met—tabeveflw ewe audiences, they mgyeflieir awn audiences, they maybe mgyeflieir awn to audiences, they maybe mgyeflieir awn to get diences, they maybe mgyeflieir awn to get approval they maybe mgyeflieir awn to get approval from 'naybe need to get approval from cabinets or their own parliaments. we may �* more parliaments. we may hear more later this week and certainly von der the european commission president, leaving the meeting talked the 77 the summit 7 the summit on thursday —e wwejqmil ” ” ' w "mfgiie'hili be” ' w "wigiie'hilibaha's’tih; she will be hosting. and t

you distances were agreed with george w. bushings and it plenty disagreed with but you know this congress role here. that is our job coming to call out the truth to power. and so, this idea no foreign aid should be suspended yes and attack on common sense and it's an attack on national security for this country and we should be more careful and i agree, let's look at what were spending on for native area and away that is goodu. for the u.s. national security and let's get rid of the stuff and some of you pointed out, that is not an hour best interest and thins a good process that i would like to engage in. >> thank you kneeled back. >> and i now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, for five minutes. summa colleagues across the aisle quick to judge the actions of this president everyday in his administration pretty but i did not hear any loud voices from across the aisle when prest biden was clearly experiencing severe cognitive decline, friends country and i wonder who was running the country making decisions i don't know

so, many, many questions still to be answered, samantha. by president george w bush during the iraq warkeir starmer and mark rutte the nato secretary general touched on commitments made at that meeting in private or their own parliaments. we may hear more later this week, and certainly ursula von der leyen, the european commission president, leaving that meeting, talked about this unanswered questions, of course, on the sort of political elephant in the room, donald trump. will donald trump shift on security guarantees from other european leaders. but what are they? i suppose because they have their own domestic audiences, but they maybe need to get approvalfrom cabinets or their own parliaments. we may hear more later this week, and certainly ursula von der leyen, the european commission president, leaving that meeting, talked about this summit on thursday that she will be hosting. unanswered questions, of course, on the sort of political elephant in the room, donald trump. what will the us�*s role be in all of this? will donald trump shift on security guarantees or on sovereignty? and

. - george w. bush used tariffs on steel. trump is proposing something much broader. how do you reflect on the republican party's shift on trade? - first, i have to say that jeane was a friend and colleague of mine at the american enterprise institute, and i used to hang out in her office all the time, and it was really wonderful to see that clip of jeane. you know, jeane's discussion right there is a discussion that is 100% admissible in a world where all of our trading partners, you know, have our own best interests at heart. they're not ramping up their militaries, getting ready to invade other people, stealing the intellectual property from the u.s., and so if you think back to a world where there were never any countries that had malice towards others, then absolutely the adam smith free trade answer is the optimal answer in economic models. but if you look at what happened when china entered the wto, china came in and basically created distressed communities by shutting down factories throughout the u.s. because the chinese were outcompeting those factories. and

coalition of the willing, which i find facts, as you mentioned already, is a blatant rip off from george w bush's iraq invasion brands. and because yeah, that turned out so well, how would it for you to remind people of it, make it a 2.0 version of the coalition of the willing to provide the best part. european leaders can choose whether to commit their troops to this boat and they would venture or not. but even that most europeans vehemently oppose selling their own country strips to drain. any leader who signs up for this might be fast tracking their own political career straight into oblivion and globalism along with it, given their ideological meanings. now speaking of people who should be packing instead of grass, that is why the heck is canadian premised or just into the even there is a monday. he's just days away from being allocated by his own party as they select a new leader. yeah, he's squeezing in and one last taxpayer funded euro trip wellbeing up strategically on big us, you can say about sending canadian troops every step of the way canada has looked at the ways it can best help. a

here's a little history lesson, putin invade other countries invaded other countries under george w. bushent who was in office for four years when he didn't invade was donald trump, when he was in power. this is so dumb politically and just to make this comment and we all want to escapism when we watch the oscars of course we couldn't get it. now here it is again, we will probably hear this this was the lowest rated oscars of all time half the country reflexively says i don't want to watch this because i don't want to get lectured to. they got lectured to. not surprising. i thought conan was a little above this of course he went there. >> todd: no one seen the movies themselves either. in my house we were not watching any of these most. we were too busy making movies for aunt carley telling her how much we love her. >> carley: i got a couple videos from your daughter. oscar winning performances. >> todd: they weren't performances they truly love you. >> joe: i want to be able to call carley aunt carley. >> carley: sure. >> todd: move away from you can't carley and joe. calling on democrat

it's going to be a strong ukraine audience for sure but we've seen the previous presidents and george w. busho a bashing session and you wonder the numbers with which trump was reelected this time, they don't even consider they may be turning off 70 million plus americans from giving up money and seeing the movies. >> one would hope it would be's in solidarity or their own friends in the palisades have their homes burned up. if you are going to do you know, you want to express a message of solidarity, that's where you go but they are offering audiences something that nobody asked for. conclave is about the pope with the uterus, amelia perez is about a drug dealer looking for one so it's not what anybody had on their bingo card and i don't think it's what we imagined. let's go have a great date night, will watch an intersex get elected. nobody except people of a certain ideological but that's a shame when that's the defining worker of most films nominated this year. >> you got a prediction for who wins? >> a nora will win best picture and it will probably -- it will be the lowest grossing dome

karl rove served as senior advisor to president george w. bush.rder, unbridled success. there was a particular weekend day they were tracking and the number of border crossing was less then 300. less then 3% of what is normally coming across the border. when it comes to the border and border security, great success. more complicated when it comes to the other things the president talked about in the meeting. inflation, we got a report for january up 0.3%, that works out to 2. 5% annualized for the headline number and 2. 6% % for the core inflation number so this, before we start putting tariffs in, we are still not at the 2%, we are stuck above that but the target is 2% and the question is going to be how the coming round of tariffs, 10% on china, 25% on canada and mexico, tariffs on europe. the question is will they have an inflationary impact or not? the president seems to think they won't. finally, the doge savings. the money is not saved until it is saved. that is to say congress lowers the baseline for future spending at those moneys are spen

federal judge a george w. bushppointee joined the executive order on the ground that " contradicts the text of the 14th amendment and the century old untouched precedent that interprets it. these judges have concluded that the trump administration's arguments in favor of the executive order are historical a textual and illogical. i will not spend any more of my time here. detailed in my text of my written statement. i will move on and talk about the devastating consequences of this order. 3.5 million american families that welcome a new child into their family. that alone is disturbing enough. in doing so it excludes hundreds of thousands of newborn children from citizenship. including the children of immigrants became legally to the united states. all of these newborn children will be declared undocumented immigrants from the moment they are born. some will be born stateless and all would be at risk of being deported away from their parents , denied all the rights and privileges of citizenship at the most vulnerab

it was really about this sense of the--the failed george w. bush administration.ing out of katrina. we were heading into an economic crisis. the war in the middle east was so badly managed and prosecuted. with so much at stake, elizabeth had the idea to target young voters as a break with politics as usual. i was hired by the campaign because they were looking for bloggers. blogging was really new, and that was the edwards campaign trying to stand out from the more traditional campaigns at the time. elizabeth had been out front. she had joined the blogosphere. she was writing about universal healthcare and progressive policy, generally. for the first time in 15 years, we're actually trying to fix a broken healthcare system and deal with the twin problems of the, uh, status quo, which are skyrocketing healthcare costs and millions of americans living without healthcare coverage. i first met elizabeth edwards, um, on the campaign trail, and she was at the front of the bus working on something. by the time we get to our campaign stop, um, elizabeth says, "i have this

district judge, george w. bush appointee blocked leadership on this one. now let him enforce it. this was an obvious effort to the fig dishes story about language supposedly used by andrew jackson in suggestion he would defy the order. do you stand by your tweet? >> thank you for reminding me of this tweet, ranking member, durbin. what this reflects is a conservative view in the role of courts and their ability to bind parties that are not litigants to the case before it which is a mainstream view with debates and captured and, you know, 140 characters on a tweet. >> bottom line, should an elected official be allowed to defy a federal court order? it would be too specific for me to send a blank statement about that. a legal court order should not be followed under some circumstances. >> what i'm saying is that there are some instances in which a public official is lawfully bound by the holding of a particular court. i cannot think them for all instances in the dynamic for a certain lawsuit. the hypothetical. such a hypothetical. a direct court order that binds a federal official.

for those who need to be reminded of this again, putin invaded other countries when george w. bushma, joe biden, when they were president. the only u.s. president in office and the 21st century when putin did not invade anyone was when donald trump was in power. in this case, just watch the full 46 minute video from today. because it is clear zelenskyy came in and tried to dictate u.s. foreign policy as if he was holding a full house when he doesn't even have a pair of threes. and to publicly challenge trump in front of the worldwide media in his own dojo, and his own house, that was 31 of stupid. so perhaps this was the breakup before the makeup, zelenskyy would be wise to apologize, sign the deal. but during his interview earlier, it appears that is not going to happen. overall 72% of american voters, this is a harvard whole, they want to negotiate a settlement to end this war so the media thinks there's a groundswell of support for zelenskyy to end this war, they're completely disconnected from the public again. and by the way, would it kill him to wear a suit when he goes to th

i know when george w bush who was a texas governor had his advisors, one of them was laura bush, his wife so you have the right to have advisers. >> let's say 2028 comes along, we see a big swing in the electorate, we get president aoc's decides to hire mark mark cuban to go through the government and say look for anything that first they declare a climate emergency htand they say look for anything that might tie the us to stranded fossil fuels which environmentalists can agree, do you think doge gives the pathway to do that? >> there's an old saying, to the victor goesthe spoils. if the democrats are given power that's whatthey choose to do . >> i talked to an oil lobbyist during the first trumpet ministration who mentions , he had a drink. but he said the trumpet ministration, he liked the trumpet ministration. >> they didn't all agree just so you know. >> we going to order? no, they were in favor of president trumps energy policy but he said trumps trade policy is a dagger in the heart of this energy policy, what would you say to that? >> i don't think so because we watch presiden

. >> but as as an alum of the george w. bush white house, i have an old fashioned view of this and a pretty hard line. tie jacket, no jeans, oval office. that's where i stand on this. but if we're going to hold on, hold. can you let me finish? because that's exactly what. >> i was about to say. didn't even if we're going to have, you know how zelenskyy well played. >> president zelenskyy for what he's wearing, then we should also criticize elon musk for wearing a hat and a t-shirt. >> tell it to. donald trump and. >> jd vance. so i mean, i just did being you're being consistent, but the white house isn't being consistent. and they have no credibility to talk about decorum. i mean, the reason why this question was asked is because this so-called reporter from one american news was there. why was this person even in the room? why was there a reporter from the russian news agency tass, state media from russia in the room, in the oval office? that's that's what i'm talking about. i talk about the incompetence of this, this administr

that is about judge john bates in the district of columbia, who was appointed by george w bush, is ange, a well respected one. and the case that representative ogles was trying to impeach this guy for was one where judge bates said that it was improper for the government to take down public health information on hiv, sexually transmitted infections, contraception, in vitro fertilization. you know, he was, by all appearances, following the facts and the law here. but this goes to the second point, which is i think what these folks are trying to do is prime their audience for this administration to ignore judicial orders. that's what they are trying to prepare people for. >> yeah, that sounds about right. i mean, you have the fbi. i mean, the number two at the fbi is now a podcaster, and i ain't got nothing against podcasters. but lord jesus. >> shouldn't be the number two at the fbi. >> i don't think so. and apparently, neither do some fbi agents. nbc reporting says fbi agents expressed shock and dismay over the naming of right wing podcaster. number two post on his podcast. former sec

state of new york's democratic committee and former white house spokesperson under president george w. bush. pete, see, friends, i'm going to change focus a little bit to this speech tomorrow night. and what else the president will or will not discuss, because the wall street journal and politico and a lot of people are writing this morning about what donald trump, the president, has not been focused as much on stephen moore, who is a fierce ally of president trump for years and years, now raises some concerns about how this white house isn't addressing the economy so much. stephen moore says, quote, i'm nervous about it. stephen moore, a veteran outside adviser to trump on economic issues. we have a graphic of this. the trump administration needs to keep its eye on what's happening with prices. it should be a top priority. the trend is a little bit troubling. what do you think of that, pete? >> i don't know. >> well, presidents. >> have. >> to walk and chew gum at the same time. >> and particularly when it comes. >> to president donald. >> trump. >> there was a lengthy. to do list that. >>

. >> i mean, andrew natsios, who was the head of usaid for george w bush, was on the program and made the argument that usaid keeps us safe from. it kept us safe from another nine over 11 in the years after 911, because by stemming catastrophe and human suffering, you also counter extremism in some of the most brutal and hostile corners of the globe. that that that aid isn't just philanthropic, which seems to be donald trump's misunderstanding of it, that aid is one of our most mighty soft power tools, not just for ending human suffering, but for keeping us safe here. another person described this as the worst 24 hours in modern american history that we dismantle programs to spare children from dying of malaria and measles, mumps, preventable deaths and diseases, and we dismantle the world alliance. what is trump's end game? if you're an adversary or an ally looking at everything he's doing? >> i think his end game is to undermine the security and stability of the united states. and that brings us back to the question that you asked earlier, why there's no other way to look at this in

with us now is david frum, staff writer for the atlantic, former speechwriter for president george w. bushd, nice to see you. you write in the atlantic, a fascinating piece where you basically argue. you're glad that this played out in the open for the world to see in the oval office. why? >> to date, supporters of the trump administration who also want to be patriotic americans and support our allies, uphold nato, defend ukrainian democracy, they have said, look, it's true that trump looks very pro-russian and vance looks worse. but back of it, they actually have a secret plan to help ukraine. they want to do things for ukraine. they're trying to negotiate a deal. they're concerned about mineral rights. there's something else going on. this is not just simply pushing the united states to obey russian foreign policy. well, after that meeting, the oval office, i think all of that is dissipated. we can now see clearly. there is no agenda in the trump administration other than to help russia win the ukraine war on russia's terms. >> you in this piece, compare alger hiss favorably to the presi

but that contract was signed by president george w bush and was completed in 2005.e, the repeated errors have raised questions about the quality and veracity of the information that the musk team is putting out, including whether it's being misled by other departments. the mistakes also seem to call into question the team members competence, whether they understand the government well enough to cut it while avoiding catastrophe. i think that's an open question. and joining us now, senior strategist with the democratic governors association, haskell ophira. first, your reaction to that reporting that we're talking about there, that dodge is claiming credit for things that were ended that it didn't even have a part in. it's just kind of adding it to its tally. and the larger question about the way that elon musk talks about this, saying we might make mistakes. clearly, you're making them even just in the basic accounting of what dodge is and isn't doing. >> well, it's clear. >> to me that elon. >> musk needs a little guidance about how to. get things done. and i think

fishman notes that a key insight from the george w bush era, under which economic warfare was revolutionizedia to support certain foreign policy objectives, such as isolating iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power. the u.s. could bypass these countries altogether and go directly to wall street to sever iran's financial ties. the reason is that the u.s. dollar is the linchpin of the global financial system, making it a critical choke point. nations, businesses and banks don't want to lose access to it. secondary sanctions imposed by the u.s. threaten to do just that. cut off banks from the global financial system. if they did business with iran and the plan worked, it led directly to the iran nuclear deal. as iran's exports to the west and its access to things as basic as international bank transfers, credit cards that could be used outside the country, it ground to an absolute standstill. experts called it the most successful use of economic warfare in modern history. fishman writes that doing business in the global economy without the u.s. dollar is like trying to travel the world

it's imposed in 1993 really it's, it's and it's, it's negotiated by the george h w bush administration. but clinton is the one who gets it through the senate and house and ratifies it and signs it. and what it does is it, it, it allows capital and commodities to flow freely across the border, but it has no provisions at all for labor. but what it also did was it, it, it did nothing to take away subsidies to us agro industry, right. the 14 trillion dollar palm bill never. it is still in place. the multi phone bill which, which funds cargo and phones once on the when makes kansas cool and you know, cheap that gets dumped into mexico and mexican mexican mexican bomb is mexican epicene. those can compete with it. and so, so within the 1st 5 years of nap, the, something like 5000000 people lost that farms in mexico and, and the people sign after and design after new. it would create this dislocation and that's why they simultaneously move starting to get them to withdraw as the border and shut down the board obviously thought that that would keep that would last. so you post policies that t

coolidge house where i had a chance to appreciate that statement, she was nominated by president george w bush to the federal bench. she served on the united states court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. from 2005 until her retirement 2017. today, judge brown will speak about the meaning of the concept of the pursuit of happiness and where it came from. will also speak on the common law english tradition of, property rights and its crucial role in the formation of our republic. judge brown. well, i will first of all want to thank the coolidge foundation. deciding on this conference. we may be starting a little early, but i think it's well worthwhile that we would begin thinking about this particular universe. three. and since of my colleagues here have told you about the legacies that we are oh, i'm sorry. it just occurred. the legacies that we have benefited from from all of these different streams of. i like henry of the eighth, told several of his wives dating long. i want to speak just a couple of ideas that i think have helped us to form the kind of legal. ideas that that that are part of

what would it look like, for the culture and the country, if the evangelicalism of the george w bush era, the roman catholicism of pope john paul, the second what remained of protestantism, sort of the real, i think load bearing wall, religious load bearing wall for most of american history. and we can get into that question and what it means in the discussion. but what would happen to america if all of those forces in, different ways went into decline, if were discredited by scandal, if they had bad leaders. if they got enmeshed in partizan politics, ways that were discrediting in certain ways. and if under the pressure of a general movement away from institutions, some of the specific forces unleashed by the internet and digital technology and, a range of other factors as well. lots and lots of people who were sort of loosely attached to organized religion cut the cord and drifted away. would we, in fact develop, a culture that was more rational, more scientific minded, less polarized less bitterly divided over questions, you know, would we achieve a reign of greater enlightenment

drive george w. bush's numbers down. democrats caused this. they own this.ow trump wants to put an end to this. clearly, what we saw yesterday, zelenskyy was advised from democrats, the smear machine. this needs to end. host: carolyn in virginia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have been on here for a while, but i've seen the interview yesterday. i've never seen such despicable in my life. i don't understand what he's thinking. i knew he wasn't going to help him because he didn't want the president to help him at all, but if putin wins that country he is going to march over to the other country, and then we've got to get involved. trump acts like that is what he wants putin to do because he and putin are in it together. everyone is going to -- it's going to affect their children and grandchildren and this country bad. i don't understand what's going on in people's heads. putin is over there killing people now. i don't understand what's going on. come into our country and dictate to the people of the united states, take their jobs and their

a budget surplus is handed over to president george w. bushwho proceeds in 2001 and then again in 2003 to pass massive tax cuts, same playbook, here we go again, massive tax cuts for the wealthy, well off and well connected. that explodes the debt by $8 trillion and at the same time we have a failed war in iraq and a failed war in afghanistan. over time, addings another $8 trillion to our nation's debt. that burden is handed over to president obama. during the period of his time in office when he had a $1.5 trillion deficit, cuts it by a trillion dollars, despite the fact he inherited from republicans, the great recession and had to turn things around. so he cuts the deficit by a trillion dollars from $1.5 trillion to $500 billion. you ask about numbers. here are the numbers. and again, that gets handed over to president trump in his first term who proceeds to follow the same republican playbook and has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, well off and well connected. republicans

they wanted to drive george w. bush's numbers down. democrats on this -- democrats own this and not trump wants to put an end to this. clearly what we saw yesterday, with president zelenskyy, it was democrats to continue the smear machine. it needs to end. host: we will go to caroline in virginia on the one for democrats. good morning. caller: i have been on here for a while but i have seen the interview the other day. i have never seen such in my life. i don't understand what he is thinking. i knew he wasn't going to help him because he did not want the president to help him at all. but if putin wins that country, he will march over to the other country. then we have to get involved. trump acts like that's what he wants putin to do because him and putin are together. everyone is on his side. do you know it will affect his children and his grandchildren and affect this country bad? i don't understand what is going on in people's heads. that man -- and putin is killing people now. we will have one come to our country and dictate the peo

under george h w bush said, calm down, ukraine, no need to rush to independence.you have been struggling for your own national identity for centuries. a brief moment in the 20th century where i talk about some of the deep history, but don't rush. that might not be as bad under this reformed russia that is unfolding or during the discussions around nuclear disarmament where we wanted ukraine to denuclearize. they had 4000 nuclear weapons. they wanted some security assurances. you don't need guarantees. we will give you assurances. we may or not be there. or around the orange revolution what they broke to the west decisively and they were like, thanks, that is nice of you to lean so heavily to the west, kind of burned your bridges with the kremlin, but we are not ready for that yet. we are still concerned about russia. all the way through the different moments of russian aggression. 2014, we attempted resets. try as attempting the same kind of resets he criticized throughout multiple different administrations. he is doing that now by trying to normalize with russia

under george h w bush said, calm down, ukraine, no need to rush to independence.u have been struggling for your own national identity for centuries. a brief moment in the 20th century where i talk about some of the deep history, but don't rush. that might not be as bad under this reformed russia that is unfolding or during the discussions around nuclear disarmament where we wanted ukraine to denuclearize. they had 4000 nuclear weapons. they wanted some security assurances. you don't need guarantees. we will give you assurances. we may or not be there. or around the orange revolution what they broke to the west decisively and they were like, thanks, that is nice of you to lean so heavily to the west, kind of burned your bridges with the kremlin, but we are not ready for that yet. we are still concerned about russia. all the way through the different moments of russian aggression. 2014, we attempted resets. try as attempting the same kind of resets he criticized throughout multiple different administrations. he is doing that now by trying to normalize with russia wi