so all they did was turn that combat ready ship into grenada. >> marines took control of grenada's airportsadcasting a soothing message. >> your cooperation will ensure that peace and democracy are restored in the near future. >> at least a psychological, maybe moral level, reagan was doing something in grenada that he wanted to do in lebanon but couldn't. he could do it in grenada and show the united states would take action to defend its interests. >> reagan was lucky. he had the good fortune to have an easy military victory just eliminating our memory of what happened in beirut and replacing it with this scene of the military rush ashore in the caribbean. >> our world has changed. today our national security can be threaten inside far away places. it's up to all of us to be aware of the strategic places of some places and identify them. the events in lebanon and grenade, although oceans apart -- it provides direct support through a network of surrogates and terrorists. >> what he really cared about was this cancer on the world. so if there was a marxist regime anywhere and somebody was t

that reminds me of grenada invasion a couple decades ago. we still have the same situation. weren't effective. that reminds me of grenada meat and potatoes basically investing in common everyday technology to make the personnel much more effective. multienergy system that you're talking about, mr. owen. i took a tour of a san diego -- i'm not mentioning the name -- of a manufacture in san diego a apparently some delayed some of the systems in the middle east not here but in the middle east yet they were able to detect organics of drugs. you could drive the trucks through and i believe it was 10 to 20 seconds they could fully check a truck if they saw anything negative you pull them over to the secondary inspection. so, again a lot of tools in the tool box. a lot of technology. yet the meat and potatoes stuff needs to be addressed. that's where the matrix of measuring what is most cost effective from the perspective of the taxpayers and public safety is important. like the chair pier person was saying right now now you're talking about direct shipments from china directly thr

various crises, such as twa 847, the capture of achille lauro, the rescue of american students in grenada and the restoration of democracy on that small island, and the us raid in libya in response to their terrorist attacks. and, as some may be willing to admit, there were efforts made to work with the congress on legislative programs. there were many problems. i believed that we worked as hard awe could to solve them, and sometimes we succeeded, and sometimes we failed, but at least we tried, and i want to tell you that i, for one, will never regret having tried. i believe that this is a strange process that you are putting me and others through. apparently, the president has chosen not to assert his prerogatives, and you have been permitted to make the rules. you called before you the officials of the executive branch. you put them under oath for what must be collectively thousands of hours of testimony. you dissect that testimony to find inconsistencies and declare some to be truthful and others to be liars. you make the rulings as to what is proper and what is not proper. you put the

that in death reminds me of the grenada invasion. it is the same kind of situation. basically investing in common everyday technology and make your personal much more effective. multi-energy systems that you are talking about. diego it to her of san and apparently they had deployed -- not here but in the middle east -- they were able to detect 10 or 20 seconds they could check a truck. if they were negative they can pull them over. a lot of tools in the toolbox. stuffat and potatoes still needs to be addressed. that is where this matrix of measuring this respective of the taxpayers is important. no you are talking about directions from china, directly through the mail. that is another challenge and i would not even know how to begin to address that. these are challenges we need to look at. we need to come back to this matrix. does anyone care to address that? >> i would add from our perspective that there are two kind of key steps part of that process. mess --to set the metrics can we have been recommending it for several years. makeactually need to decisions on what

not seek it for the bombings in the balkans and president reagan did not seek it before invading grenada. as candidateng trump that obama needed congressional consent to attack regime targets in syria, president trump has attacked regime targets in syria without congressional authorization. powers havear seemed not to be too much of a hindrance on the executive. 's power of thess person to have much bite will stop it simply a clinical reality and common sense that the american people have a deep attachment to their sons and daughters in harms way regardless of their commitment or lack of commitment to a war and its of check to's. congress may disapprove of a unilateral use of force, but unless the public is deeply opposed to american participation in a conflict, lawmakers will be leery of being seen as cutting off support for the troops. , here is the dynamic. the president has a relatively abdicatesand congress its responsibility, content to waive the pom-poms when things go well and excoriates the administration, but not cut off funding when the going gets tough. , we can see the const

not seek it for the bombings in the balkans and president reagan did not seek it before invading grenada. after insisting as candidate trump that obama needed congressional as sent to attack targets in syria, president trump attacked regime targets in syria without congressional authorization. the congress's war powers seem not to be too much of a hindrance on the executive. nor does congress's power of the purse seem to have much bite. it is simply a political reality. it is common sense, that the american people have a deep attachment to their sons and daughters in harm's way, regardless of their commitment or lack of commitment to a war and its objective. congress may disapprove of a unilateral presidential use of force but unless the public is not merely indifferent, but actually deeply opposed to american participation in a conflict, lawmakers will be very leery of being seen cutting off support for the troops. so here is is the dynamic. the president has a relatively free hand. and congress abdicates its responsiblities, content to wave the pom-poms when things go well and excoriat