she's lived on grenada for 15 years. she aims to bring home to her guests how the many hurricanes have devastated the coral reef over the past few decades. >> in mouliniere bay here where the sculptures are, the reef was once very beautiful. when we first came here, it had canyons and so on, just fantastic. that was destroyed in 2001. the reef practically no longer exists, so that's why we created an artificial one. >> the caribbean island of grenada lives off the tourists who come to enjoy its beaches and the sea. but the sea is becoming a problem. rising sea levels are eating away at the coastline here. aria st. louis works for the agricultural ministry. dieter rothenberger works for the german agency for international cooperation. the erosion of the land is just one of the challenges they're facing. on the east of the island, they meet with fishermen. they tell them that once there was a white, sandy beach here. they're using primitive means to try and stop the water. >> more and more waves are coming and they take it

his >> an hour's drive beyond grenada.nada, the mediterranean. unlike much of spain's coastline ruined by real estate speculators and overdevelopment, the coast around here is largely unspoiled. i'm on my way to a moraga, a tradition in these parts best described as the local version of a beach barbecue. working the grill, chef juan andres moria. he heads the highly regarded el claustro in granada. we're joined by fellow chef rafael luca. and some friends. jeff, you killing us with good-looking food here. >> some of that simple salmarejo on toast. one of my favorite things. >> amazing. >> dried tuna flavor packed like tuna prosciutto. >> some olive oil. >> extra virgin from granada. >> it's spicy. and bitter. >> that's good. so good. ♪ >> spain is a beautiful country. we're not even eating yet and it's good. >> pate. >> oh, sweet. want mas. that is like the best thing in the world. >> you want to eat this? the whole thing? >> this? yeah. chocolate. this is the chocolate of the gods. >> some grilled octopus, and sea bream,

grenada is tucked against the sierra nevada mountains of andalucia in southern spain. not line san sebastian. it ain't madrid. any reasonably sentient person who looks at spain, comes to spain, eats in spain, drinks in spain, they're going to fall in love. otherwise, there's something deeply wrong with you. spain is the sort of place that never really made any sense anyway, and in the very best possible way. this is the country that gave us the spanish inquisition. also anarchy. this is where devout catholicism mixes with surrealism, modernist cuisine with traditional tapas. christianity and islam spared space and traded places. the effects of influences of all those things are right here to see. you can almost look back through time and through the mists of history and see the phoenicians marching up across the vegas, or are those feral hippies? many of them made things interesting. >> when you ask what do you do? and you say we are staging the moon landing. wherever you are on the ideological spectrum, some things are constant, it seems. some stereotypical expectatio

and rising sea levels -- how grenada is battling to save its freshwater resources.

years ago i went to grenada on the first anniversary of the american invasion of grenada. and i went with a tv news crew. and the correspondent, we were walking in the hills outside a big city there in grenada, and he came across some man, and they obviously knew each other and they embraced. and he said, so good to see you, how are things? and the guy said, the local person said great. he said now they're not going to torture me anymore. and the correspondent said, what do you mean torture? and the guy took off his shirt and turned his back and you could see the scars on his back. the correspondent said, how long have we known each other, five years, ten years? i've been talking to you and you never mentioned this. why did you never mention it? and the guy looked at him like he was a madman. right? and you cannot expect journalists inside countries, where people are routinely tortured, killed, locked away and so forth, are going to have reliable sources, they're going to tell them the truth about what's really going on in that country. it can't happen. >> that completely

we had the beirut disaster, advisors said not to go no grenada. i spoke to an aid saying regan asked a question "are americans in danger?", they said "we have medical students that could be in danger." he said there was no question, he wouldn't play into the politics, sensitivity and made the case to the american people. we know from the fdr talks, the fireside chats, it was a difficult war. we'd been attacked. that was the job of the president. he has to explain and make the hard choices. >> you mention in the fireside chats you write about it in your book and talk about franklin roosevelt and say: >> more bad news for atlantic city's badly wounded gambling industry. tuesday morning, two years after opening, the newest resort closed its doors. that follows the shuttering of the legendary new orleans themed casino show boat, open since 1987. up next, the trump plaza ceases operations in two weeks. that's 7,000 lost jobs in just a few months. many fear that could be a critical blow to the city's already shaky status as a gambling destination. for m

he did not have the permission from congress to send army troops into grenada -- granada. neither did he have permission to send thousands of combat , where over lebanon 400 men got killed. i wonder if you could answer that? guest: the constitution, legal scholars say -- there are two views on it. one is that congress declares war, and the other is the president is the commander in chief of the military. modern presidents, including reagan, say that are able to -- say that article two gives them powers such as were used in grenada. in the case of what we are envisioning now against isis, by the president's own admission, it is a long war, not just weeks or months, a couple of airstrikes and then we are out. that is one factor that plays in. i'm not a lawyer. i think that is an important difference. there is a broader point beyond the law. what we saw in the bush years was that despite even a resolution authorizing the iraq war, once that war went badly, once there were no weapons of mass destruction that were found, it became a partisan issue. when you have a resolution th

in germany that did not prevent the soviets from intimidating western europe been sent troops to grenadathe first time a communist regime was actually overthrown. even though a small operation and sent a signal to the world the wes was becoming a major player again. the by the time the first iraq war k along it was completely transformed and in terms of lyndon johnson and vietnam the books written about this comet that was treated as the insurgency with a handful of people instead of recreating a battlefield, there would be a different results. even by 1972 the north vietnamese undertook of major offensive. we threw that way. you could say we should not be there in the first place. >> you have one minute. >> we did see that counter insurgency didn't that failed? gimmick when they finally got our act together it was not the search that we sent 20,000 more men. that counter insurgency war work to. it went against everyone's expectation to work with local san learn to fight at night that is why the militia came to our side to realize what we're doing but vietnam was thrown away. >> thank yo

his advisors told him not to go into grenada when we had a problem. i spoke to a very close aid of him, reagan asked the questions are americans in danger. we said we have students there that are in danger, then there was no question. he wasn't going to play into the politics, he made the case to the american people. we know from the f.d.r. talks, the fireside chats, a very difficult war. that's the job of the president. he has to explain it and make these hard choices. >> mentally on the fireside chats, you right about that in your book, you talked about franklin roosevelt and then say barack obama has often seemed too detached and cool, bush acted out of bravado. what kind of emotion do we want in our presidents. we don't want them to react solely out of emotion but do want them to reflect the passion we feel. we've got israel, syria, iraq, is that perceived lack of passion one of the problems that has led to this kind of -- these multiple international crises? >> i believe so. we want to see in our president someone firm, but isn't rash, someone wh

but i was in grenada it was a very limited operation. it was to save medical students from a direct communist coup. in a case of what we are envisioning against isis by the person's own admission it's a long war. not just weeks or months. it's not a couple of their strike somewhere out. so that's one factor that plays in it. i'm not a lawyer but i think that's an important difference. i think there's a broader point beyond the law and that is that while we saw in the bush years was that despite even a resolution authorizing the iraq war, once that war went badly, once there were weapons of mass distraction that were founded became a very partisan issue. when you can have the kind of resolution that authorizes a war like this it's a way of having a political body and so that you avoid having that were becoming a partisan issue. this should not be considered, in my view it shouldn't be a democratic or republican were. it should be an american war and that's one benefit of having one of these authorizations a thing. >> host: cluster virgini

but grenada was a limited operation, to say the medical students from a coup.isis is, by the president's own admission, a long war. it is not a couple of airstrikes and then we are out. that is one factor that plays in it -- i am not a lawyer, but i think that is an important difference. i think there is a broader point beyond the law, and that is that what we saw in the bush years is that despite even a resolution authorizing the iraq war, once therear went badly, once were no weapons of mass destruction found, it became a very partisan issue. when you can have a resolution that authorizes a war like this, it is a way of having a political buy-in so that you avoid having the war become a partisan issue. in my view, this should not be a democrat war or a republican war, it should be in american war. that is the benefit. >> robert is on the line for the democrats, good morning. >> i served with the 82nd airborne, a couple of decades ago. ics not being able to squander our resources anymore. --n you have an iraq he army iraqi army that throws on his weapons and r

we had the beirut disaster, advisors said not to go no grenada. i spoke to an aid saying regan asked a question "are americans in danger?", they said "we have medical students that could be in danger." he said there was no question, he wouldn't play into the politics, sensitivity and made the case to the american people. we know from the fdr talks, the fireside chats, it was a difficult war. we'd been attacked. that was the job of the president. he has to explain and make the hard choices. >> you mention in the fireside chats you write about it in your book and talk about franklin roosevelt and say: what kind of emotion do we want in our presidents. we don't want them to react solely out of emotion but do want them to reflect the passion we feel. iraq, is that perceived lack of passion one of the problems that has led to this kind of -- these multiple international crises? >> i believe so. we want to see in our president someone firm, but isn't rash, someone who makes the case pointedly and simply, tells the american people where our interests lie

i would say on grenada, it was a a very time limited operation. in it was to save medical students from -- after a communist coup. in the case of what we are envisioning now against isis ist by the president's up admission, a long war. airs you know, not just weeks or out months, not a couple air strikey and then we're out. m not so, that is one factor i think that place, i'm not a lawyer, but i think that's an important difference. i think there's a broader point beyond the law and that is that, you know what we saw in the bush years was that despite even a he resolution authorizing the iraq war, once that war went badly, once there were no weapons of mass destruction found, it became a partisan issue. when you can havetiar l a kind t resolution that authorizes a war like this it's a way of having a political buy-in so that you avoid having that war becoming partisan issue. this should not be considered, in my view, it shouldn't be a democrat wore waer to ar republican war, it should be an american war and that's the one benefit of having one of

ronald reagan did the same thing when we attacked libya, when we went to grenada.ite houses have to do that particularly today where you've got this social media as several of your guests have said tonight, social media is up instantly. that's how we learned the strikes began was eventually confirmed by the pentagon, centcom and by the white house. >> they have no choice. >> no, they don't. not anymore. >> standby because we've got a lot more to cover. i just want to tell our viewers, so we had jennifer griffin on earlier reporting as you heard it's the united states plus these five arab countries. the uae is in the lead among the muslim countries. the united states is in the lead in the overall coalition, as you might imagine. joining me now bret baier, anchor of special report live in the d.c. bureau. >> remember the president went to central command in tampa. we're told then he was presented a specific battle plan, that is essentially the blueprint for what we're seeing tonight. you mentioned the key part is the coalition and the five arab nations, uae, saudi ar

and the stomach for going into a place like grenada just wasn't there. and this cabinet member or cabinet head told me the president was given the advice, mr. president, do not go into granada. this is the worst thing you could do right now. you'll never sell it to the american people, and it's going to be politically damaged. and he told me the president turned around and said is there a potential for american lives to be in danger? and the intelligence officer that was briefing said, sir, there's some american medical students that could be at risk. he said, then the decision is clear, we go in. no if, ands and buts. my job is to explain it to the american people. but he had a clear purpose in mind, you know? however politically difficult it might be, there was a higher order that went into his decision making. you know, rightly or wrongly. in this case it was the risk to americans, you know? american interests, but more than that, american lives that might be at risk. this battle of the narrative now has become significant. i was doing an assessment i

mississippi central railroad which you could see their advancing south from grand junction down towards grenadatowards oxford. grant began advancing along that line. on a route that could at least theoretically eventually taken him to a position from which he could attack vicksburg from the east or from the rear. that would be an advantageous position if he could pursue that line all the way down to the rea r of vicksburg. during that advance, grant had his army to what amounted to three different corps. as far as the war department was concerned, as far as what the war department authorized at that time, all of grant army was still designated as one corp. it was too big to be one and grant subdivided it. the central column that advanced the command into of general james mcpherson. we find mcpherson commanding a corps. for a colonel now to a major general commanding a corps. what would be a three-star general in today's army but they did not have that rank at that time. a very responsible rank. mcpherson did well in that position although he was not committed to any severe tasks. because of the

democratic republic and denmark, dominican republic, guinea, egypt, and france, georgia, germany, grenadanduras, hungary, iceland, iraq, italy, japan, jordan, kazakhstan, kenya u curd stan, lebanon, liberia, libya, lithuania, malaysia, mally, val disease and marshall islands and federated states, monaco, montenegro. morocco, ma nippia and nepal, netherlands, new we will have land, the nigeria, norway, panama, papua new guinea, poland, portugal, qatar, republic of korea, republic of mull dova. romania. rwanda, samoa, sanç marino and serbia, sierra leon, slovakia. slovenia. solomon islands and south africa, south sudan, spain, sri lanka. suriname, sweden, switzerland. thailand. macedonia, togo, trinidad, tunisia, turkey, uganda, ukraine, the united kingdom of great britain and northern island, the united states of america, uruguay, vietnam, yemen, and zambia. i shall put it to the vote now. will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in document s-2o 14-673 please raise their hand. the result of the voting is as follows. the draft resolution received 15 votes in favor. the draft

this is not grenada. this is not panama. this is at least two or three years. it is not nation building, we assume. but anytime our country is expected to have a military action, especially in the middle east again, it needs to have the full support of the american people, and that starts here. so i'll wait until wednesday night to hear what the president has to say. but the senator from virginia has given some very careful and reasonable advice, and i hope that the president and his advisors will consider that -- will consider that very carefully. i'm here today, mr. president, to speak on another subject. i'm here today because senate democrats want to amend the bill of rights, at least 48 of them do. 48 of them want to say, let's amend the united states constitution and the free exercise clause of the first amendment. let's amend the guarantee of free speech. that's an extraordinary development. if passed, the senate joint resolution 19, which is the subject on the floor today, would give congress and state governments the power to decide which americans can

reagan and clinton did not get express authorization from congress for lebanon grenada, libya. >> clintonserbia, bosnia, middle east and kosovo. so i frankly think that the cone administration in the compressed congressional commander in september relied on 2001 aumf in small part to stimulate this t r debate knowing that congress wa- going to- get out of town and that there was going to be a debate post-election. >> all examples are telling because at least thus far this doesn't look that different but it will soon. which is to say the longer we're involved in iraq and syria, the more widespread the strikes against isis becomes the less this looks like all of the examples of noncongressionally authorized unilateral war making that cully just invoked. >> thanks for hanging on the'm line, robert. >> caller: please don't cut me y off. i amgr surprised that you broug on two professors who just totally agree with each other ou this issue. the republicans lost control of congress in 2006 because they o supported george bush's unconstitutional invasion of iraq for no reason. and, you know, thes

. >> grenada right there. >> show me where biloxi is? geography. >> down there. >> your husband was right. take a look at the weather maps right now. show you this really nice picture from biloxi. very fortuitous that you came right now. beautiful sunrise. from yesterday in biloxi at love mississippi gulf coast: right before your sunrise. going it up to 84 with with a chance of a thunderstorm. mostly cloudy. a lot of rain down across that area. keep sending me your pictures, rick reichmuth on twitter or put them on facebook page. here is the first alert forecast across the northeast for today. take a look at that no clouds, no rain at all. just a ton of sunshine and beautiful temperatures. down to the southeast, we will see some rain across parts of florida. very spotty showers but overall not that bad of a day and in towards the northern plains, one of your nicest days you have really had all summer. enjoy it today, that will not last for much longer. all right, clayton, send it back to you inside. >> thanks so much, rick. leaders on bo