knew henry kissinger and very kindly sort of said to kissinger, look, this historian would like to interview you and don't worry, she won't ask you impossible questions, anyway, vouched for me. and i met him the very first day of the conference, it was a cocktail party, we'll talk at the end. i won't tell you anything now. and then started telling me wonderful stories, because he's a wonderful raconteur, and then we had lunch at the end of this particular session. we had a very, very, i thought very interesting conversation. i made all sorts of notes. and he i don't think told me anything that he hadn't already said in his memoirs or said in other interviews but what was so helpful was just the flavor. it's wonderful to be able to say to someone you were there, what was mao really like, and what was richard nixon really like and what did you feel when you were in china, that was fascinating. >> what's the moment like when they met, mao tse-tung and richard nixon? >> it's a funny moment. i thought when i started writing the book, the hour when they met, nixon's first day was 35 years ago and

nixon and then henry kissinger who at first was also not determined to pursue this were the ones

even during the period that henry kissinger himself was secretary of state, he was. along with margaret thatcher what was going on in the soviet union when ayatollah khomeini was on the rise in iran. that's not a criticism of kissinger per say, and it isn't animus' as far as i know on his part towards religion. a desalt position that isn't. i think we can no longer conclude that religion is something we shouldn't be engaging on in the diplomatic policy. is it christian centric? >> that's a good question. the perception is the answer is yes. out there in the muslim world, the perception among some here in the united states, it's not true enough. that is a blueprint for this. it doesn't mention any religion, yet they do for all people, and of course. everybody has strong feelings about it, and christianity is proselyting michigan. it does nothing to grapple with. you have to take industry but the idea is not to make the world safe for the christian missionaries, it is to focus on the religious liberty as a constituent a limit of human dignity can societies in the politi

nixon and then henry kissinger who at first was also not determined to pursue this were the ones who finally raised the issue to something of importance for mr. nixon. and then the question is so how did he respond? the first thing he did was to seek prior injunction against "the new york times" to suppress the public press from reporting the immediate story. not simply what american presidents typically do in a leak case which is order an investigation for the leaker, but to actually enjoin the american society from discussing the subject. it was the same kind of an approach to an issue that mr. nixon displayed when he ordered air attacks on north korea when a reconnaissance plane was shot down. now, since i thought about this point earlier, i ran and looked for this little piece of paper, which happens to be the record of the national security counsel meeting, the first and only national security council meeting that mr. nixon held in the context of the pentagon papers leak. it was held at 3:30 p.m. on the 17th of june, 1971. mr. nixon both opened and closed the meeting. he opened

so the phrase "decent interval" comes from an article henry kissinger wrote, which he published in the journal of foreign affairs in the months before the 1968 election, when people, especially foreign affairs experts, positioned themselves for potential appointments in new administrations by putting out news and opinions that potential presidents can take a look at and decide they like these people and kissinger did this very thing in the article on foreign affairs. well, lo and with behold, the phrase becomes controversial because of what happened in the vietnam war. in 1969-'70, when he's appointed to richard nixon, he publishes a little book called foreign policy in which he includes decent interval. in 1977, after kissinger has been burned by controversy and the vietnam war has rounded its course, kissinger publishes a new edition of the book "american foreign policy," during the time that mr. carter was president. and lo and behold, it does not appear in that republished edition of kissinger's work. so the historian must ask himself, why is that? what happens there and what does

remember, the henry kissinger example. part of it is we don't have the leadership from the secretary of state and the president of the united states to say hey, we need to make this a serious effort of our foreign policy. >> host: any lessons learned from the fall of the soviet union and the opening up of religious freedom there? >> guest: yes. some tough lessons by and large. when the soviet union was overthrown, we were successful in getting the soviet to pass a law -- a religious freedom law, and my friend and colleague, bob, who was the first ambassador for religious freedom -- the way he tells the story, as soon as the law was passed opening up russia, all the christians in the world threw their bibles into their wagons and went off like it was the gold rush in the 1900s in the -- 1800s in the united states. without regard, in other words, to the culture of russia and particular the culture of the russian orthodox church which views itself as part of mother russia and they have been suppressed, many of them, horribly,

it's actually the last paragraph in the book, and it's a comment that was made by henry kissinger whoe, was richard nixon's national security adviser and secretary of state, and has joined with these three men and the assistant at stanford to raise the ability of nuclear weapons, to raise the steps that can be taken to reduce nuclear threats and also to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. so the comment by henry kissinger speaks to what the world might think if there were to be use of a nuclear weapon, either by a terrorist group in an american city or a foreign city or perhaps a nuclear exchange somewhere in the world between india and pakistan. there are a lot of different scenarios out there that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. and i think this sets the stage for the discussion that we're going to have. and this is what dr. kissinger said. once nuclear weapons are used, we will be driven to take global measures to prevent it. some of us have said, let's ask ourselves, if we have to do it afterwards, why don't we do it now? so let me begin the conversation by talking abo

the idea for the secret trip of henry kissinger in july '71 didn't come out of the head of zeus. it began with the fullbright hearings of 1966. that showed what max frankel said that, despite the beginning of the cultural revolution -- and this is the irony -- a growing american support for a new china policy. that's why we had the national committee on u.s./china relations formed at that time. that's why nixon just had a brief mention in his '67 foreign affairs article. in '68, our harvard m.i.t. group gave nixon and kissinger the idea for the secret trip. this was coming. the democrats were trying very hard to be the first in china. the democrats were split. the administration was saying, we're in vietnam because china is behind it. on the other hand, mcgovern and kennedy said, we need a new china policy. and jim thompson and others who saw the need for this were pushing it. so you had a gradual evolution in the late '60s and henry and company were trying gingerly to take this issue away from the democrats. teddy kennedy went up to ottawa in may '71 to see the new ambassador in

so the comment by henry kissinger speaks to what the world might think if there were to be a use of a nuclear weapon, either by a terrorist group in an american city or a foreign city or perhaps a nuclear exchange somewhere in the world between india and pakistan. there are a lot of different scenarios out there that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. i think this sets the stage for the discussion that we're going to have. and this is what dr. kissinger said. "once nuclear weapons are used, we will be driven to take global measures to prevent it. some of us have said, let's ask ourselves if we have to do it afterwards, why don't we do it now?" so let me begin the conversation by talking about, and asking the gentlemen here questions about some contemporary nuclear threats and then we'll move through the evening to talk about their efforts to reduce nuclear threats. so let me start with secretary perry. and let's discuss iran for a moment. what is your the nuclear threat that is posed by iran today? and if you were secretary of defense today, what advice would you give president

our main event, henry kissinger. we'll talk about the middle east, iran, russia, china, all the current hot spots, all places he knows well. is that the drums of war we hear? certainly from some corners. how does the iran-israel showdown end? i've got a great panel. i'll also bring you an amazing story. free and fair electrics in china. i'll explain. first, here's my take. president obama has been trying to cool down the war fever that suddenly gripped washington earlier this month. prime minister benjamin netanyahu's visit and the flurry of statemen surrounding it have created a dangerous dynamic. it is easy to see how things move toward war. it is difficult to see how they don't. the pressure is building on iran, but there are no serious discussions of negotiated solutions. israel has already discounted the proposed new talks. republican candidates will denounce any deal no matter how presencive the inspections. either iran suddenly and completely surrenders or israel will strike. and bebe netanyahu knows that the

"nuclear tipping point" is one where we are discussing like we are tonight with henry kissinger. those are available on the nti.org web site. i think the public needs to get familiar with these issues as hard as it is to think about. you need to talk to your congress members and senators about them. when arms control agreements come up, you usually only have a small number of people weighing in. the public needs to weigh in on these things. they are very, very important. in terms of very briefly what our nuclear threat initiative organization would do and john and debra and others are here from the organization. we have set up an organization in vienna called world institute and security. it is basically a non-governmental organization. we have over 500 members. it is a best practices peer review on handling nuclear material. in addition, we already talked about the fuel bank. warren buffett put up money. it is now in a back up. people do not feel the need to go into enrichment. the more enrichment, the more problems we have. i have been sponsored by the foundation where a former

did not really come back into much discussion until the op-ed piece that these three men and henry kissinger wrote that appeared in "the wall street journal" in 2007. and coming from men with the history that these gentlemen have, two republicans also and two democrats, so you have an unusual bipartisan agreement or nonpartisan agreement, as secretary schultz sometimes says. really put this back into discussion. and gave it a credibility that it had previously not had, at least not for many years. and president obama has essentially made the nuclear agenda of these gentlemen the nuclear agenda of obama administration. so i'm interested to know, and i think people here -- >> i think it's important to point out that during the campaign, both senator obama, candidate, and senator mccain, candidate, endorsed our initiative. so it wasn't an issue in the campaign. and to the extent we can, we would like to keep it that way. >> right. so i think people would be interested to know two things. one, what do you all plan to do in coming months to keep your initiative moving. and secondly, what can peop

pakistan was the gateway for henry kissinger to go secretly into china. how did that come about? >> once nixon decided that he wanted to have sort of opening to china, the real problem is how to do it, because the mistrust and suspicion and the hostility on both sides was so long, the americans could not simply say publicly to the chinese, we want to talk. nor did they have any way of actually getting to the chinese, so what nixon did is talk to people he knew had good relations with the chinese and, for example, in, 69 he talked to charles de gaulle in paris. paris already had a relationship with china saying would you let the chinese we want to talk and he did the same with the lovely dictator of romania. and he finally found a route through pakistan. pakistan was on very good terms with china, partly because china was an enemy of india's which pakistan was also very hostile to. and pakistan was one of the few countries that actually had direct flights into china. and pakistan had the further advantage at least for this of being a dictatorship, and general khan could do what he

the comment by henry kissinger speaks to what a world might think if there were to be use of a nuclear weapon either by a terrorist group in an american city or a foreign city, or a nuclear exchange somewhere in the world between india and pakistan. there are a lot of different scenarios out there that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. i think this sets the stage for the discussion we will have. this is what doctor kissinger said -- "once nuclear-weapons are used, we will be driven to take global measures to prevent it. some of us have said, let's ask ourselves, if free have to do it afterwards, why don't we do it now?" let me began the conversation by talking about and asking the gentleman here questions about contemporary threats and then we will move to talk about their efforts to reduce nuclear threats. let me start with secretary perry. let's discuss iran for a moment. what is your sense of the nuclear threat that is posed by iran today? if your secretary today, what advice would you give president obama about how to respond? >> i believe iran has been moving seriously and

he is a close friend of henry kissinger and he has a number of friends in the senate. this move is a very american move, if you like, in terms of ritual. this is unprecedented in australia that someone from outside of the party would come into such a senior position. this also reflects the need of the prime minister to stamped herself on the party and the leadership position. she had a resounding win last week. she has had to overcome a lot of the problems that the party makes for itself. and >> as you say, the government seems to have a problem with miscommunication, do you think that this will boost the chances next year? >> there is a chance that it will tend to of the real problem is that she is not a great communicator. -- there is a chance that it will. oushe is not a great communicator. the electorate is shifting its allegiance from the labor party and moving towards the alternative which are the greens. it will take for a long time to create a stronger leadership base. australian politics is enormously masculine in its nature. the language is about as well. she

increasingly, as henry kissinger has said, it looks like this is all about exit, not strategy. if we are focused on getting out of afghanistan rather than on what kind of country we're leave behind, you can understand why politically back leer at home you are seeing the numbers we're seeing in those polls where people are saying well, if it's all about getting out, let's get out now. chris: the american people may have not gotten that, liz. the polling after the fresh horror of the american soldier killinging all those people over there is let's get moving. do you know if they're thinking, so what if the taliban gets back in there, we got bin laden? what's the american thinking when they say get out? >> i think there are two dynamics at work. one is what katty just described, analogous to when you have announced you are getting divorced you don't want to sit around for two years waiting to leave. why not just do it now and do it faster? the criticism i -- you keep hearing from republicans and i think there is validity to this is that the president didn't really spend any politi

. >> there was a phrase used by henry kissinger that was repeated ad nauseam. the phrase was peace with honor. could you put it in context? did you have an effective effect, what was the desired effect and was it successful? >> it was during the '68 election, am i correct? and from what i know, it was a deliberate slogan to capture the vote of those who wanted an end to the war whether they were to the right or the left. honor was an appeal, i think especially to those right of center who either wanted to get out by using more military first and just want -- it was his way of running that middle line, walking the teet rope during the election. if. >> if you look at it the new york times does headline, it appears that nixon is for, and it does spar rows as well as hawks. owls -- owls is the other name, right? owls. on the other hand, owl, if you interpret it in a particular way, you're not going give up on the other side. you knew that's what the war was all about. it was about preserbing that of, as and you could protect that, but it was aed if way of a approac

threat to russia no actually i think that down further in the article he talks about meeting with henry kissinger former secretary of state and security advisor. who's one of the wittiest figures we have in the united states who is that we've been advised to try to but he also keeps a strong rope with russia and he and putin makes it very clear. when he meets with kissinger the message he takes away is they both agree that the united states and russia at times of instability need to work together that is they don't need to overturn anything create any new orders. so i don't i think he stresses that i think that there is somehow a call for partnership that putin was issuing many years ago when he first became president that has basically been not entirely accepted by the united states in fact it's a it's been ignored even if they formally have accepted and i think he's not closing doors there. but it's definitely take the gist of the article is taking a stance against something like the idea for spectrum domiciles look so what you are implying that you being an american and you having seen a lot o

. >> there was a phrase used by henry kissinger repeated ad nauseam. the phrase was peace with honor. did that have any -- can you put it in context? did it have an effective effect? what was the desired effect, and was it successful? jishs. >> well, that was nixon's term during the '68 election. am i correct? and from what i know it was at deliberate slogan to capture the vote of those who wanted an end to the war, whether they were on the right or the left. honor was an appeal i think especially to those right of center who either wanted to get out by using more military force or just wanted to get out if you weren't going to use more military force, but i think it was his way of running that middle line, walking the tightrope during the election. if you look at, for example, "new york times" headlines during this period covering nixon's campaign, it appears that nixon is for peace, and so that made lots of people who wanted peace happy. dofs, sparrows, as well as hawks. owls, owls is the other name, right? owls. and on the other hand, honor, if you

and henry kissinger told me when he came to the white house that nixon's national security adviser that he met at nixon's request with eisenhower to get eisenhower's point of view about various foreign and domestic problems, and the next day that story ran in "the washington post." and he had not leaked it. but somebody did. and he picked up his phone and it was ike from his hospital bed and kissinger said to me, i have never been cursed out that way in my whole life before or since. i have never, ever been cursed out that way. he cursed kissinger up and down as only an army man can. turned out that it wasn't kissinger who had leaked it. butk kissinger said having ike vent his anger on you was -- and when ike was an >> i and he thought somebody hadn't done their best or tried their best or was not obeying an order of his, his temper could be ferocious, and yet completely concealed. you can read biographies of ike and supposedly he's a smiling and genial fellow, he was. but behind that was something else a much tougher guy. >> 1999 when you were last here, if i'd asked you the same quest

they discuss the partnership between richard nixon and henry kissinger, the president's approach as commander in chief and the pentagon papers and the administration's response to dissent. >> welcome back to "understanding richard nixon and his era," a symposium. i'm ken hughes. i'm a researcher with the presidential recordings program of the university of virginia's miller center. co-sponsor of this, the first scholarly conference after richard m. nixon library and museum. returning now to nixon and vietnam. a tragically timely subject when america finds herself embroiled in an inclusive war or two. and the editor of foreign affairs and the pages of the "new york times" has suggested that president obama model his exit from afghanistan on president nixon's exit from vietnam. we have some amazing, amazingly good scholars to discuss the subject with you today. i'll introduce each one right before he or she speaks. we'll start off with jeffrey kimball. no one has done more to bring richard nixon's te cent integral exit strategy to life than jeff kimball. he has written two pathfinding books on

the comment by henry kissinger speaks to what a world might think if there were to be use of a nuclear weapon either by a terrorist group in an american city or a foreign city, or a nuclear exchange somewhere in the world between india and pakistan. there are a lot of different scenarios out there that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. i think this sets the stage for the discussion we will have. this is what doctor kissinger said -- "once nuclear-weapons are used, we will be driven to take global measures to prevent it. some of us have said, let's ask ourselves, if free have to do it afterwards, why don't we do it now?" let me began the conversation by talking about and asking the gentleman here questions about contemporary threats and then we will move to talk about their efforts to reduce nuclear threats. let me start with secretary perry. let's discuss iran for a moment. what is your sense of the nuclear threat that is posed by iran today? if your secretary today, what advice would you give president obama about how to respond? >> i believe iran has been moving seriously and

that morphed with henry kissinger to peaceful coexistence. we would try to be friends with the communist. reagan in thought i will kill them. others say they treat the people like barnyard animals. he made a value judgment but he made it. here is his initial problem. everyone died on him. kept thinking these guys were 80 years old drinking vodka. gorbachev was well educated. he was an educated man and reasonable. reagan thought he could reason with him but it did not start off well. he got a lot of flak when he came back and gorbachev would not do it. reagan, from the very beginning of his presidency he went to some mountain in nevada or idaho with the central control and asked this guy went are our defenses? we don't have any. what? we cannot do it. what do you mean? furthermore if the soviets decide on strike it would kill everybody. reagan went back to berkeley where he had good connections and said we have to get something going. they call it "star wars." it could have worked if they kept on doing it but it terrified the soviets because t

national security study memorandum two hundred which is candidly probably nine hundred seventy four henry kissinger who at the time was opining that. overpopulation in third world countries was the single greatest threats to american national security interests and because of that we had to start asking the questions of whether food aid could be used as a tool or an instrument of national power that's almost a direct quote from the document itself and i think that idea has lingered for decades and so as this tool of so-called real politic which is really just really a mask for he had. the ability to use this food aid as a geopolitical weapon and i think if the u.s. was serious about actually challenging north korea and of course its ongoing nuclear program developments they'd be looking into such things as. the european energy giant which concluded a two hundred million dollar contract back in two thousand to provide light water reactors to north korea which formed part of the basis of their nuclear program but of course that won't happen because one of the board members of a.b.b. during that time

"the nuclear tipping point" is one where all of us discussed the issues with henry kissinger. those are available on the nt i.org website. the public needs to get familiar with these issues, as hard as it is to think about. talk to your congressmen and senators about them. when arms control agreements come up, usually we have only a small number of people waiting in. the public needs to weigh in on these things, because they are very important. in terms of briefly what our nuclear threat initiative organization will do, and others are here from the organization -- we have set up an organization in vienna called world institute of nuclear security. it is a non-governmental organization. we have over 500 members. it is best practices, peer review, on how to handle nuclear material. any entity handling nuclear material can join our organization. we have talked about the fuel back. warren buffett put up $50 million, matched by the world. it is being set up as a backup fuel supply so countries do not feel the need to go into enrichment. the more enrichment, the more problems we hav

fall into this whole cynical category specially i think we had a clip you don't find a plate of henry kissinger saying that screw it our intelligence agencies say run of the nuclear but we shall we go into this is a this is a lot of are you guys thanks so much for coming in and i thank you. i thank for another great week that he said it i read it and then his germany occupying greets you speak with author william black about the plight of green.

into this whole cynical category specially have people we had a clip you don't find a plate of henry kissinger saying that our intelligence agencies say wrong once a nuclear but we still we know is it and this is a this is the logic are you guys thanks so much for joining me tonight. hi thanks for another great weekend back and you said it i read it.

into this whole thing to call category space when you have people way to clip around a plate of henry kissinger saying that has screwed our intelligence agencies say iran wants a nuclear but we shall we know if this is a this is the logic.

. >> it used to be henry kissinger that it it has no foreign policy, only domestic politics.rue. >> i have to go to shameless plugs. michelle, you go first. >> march 14th look for the bernard center in hartford, connectic connecticut. >> on the subject of iran, read the great interview jeff goldberg did on the atlantic.com website. >> it's all out there. >> i second that. for people who want a break, allie wentworth has a new book out. >> i know. atlantic city's e-mail es. the weirdest stories come from there. that's this edition of "the daily rundown." it's super tuesday tomorrow. coming up, "jansing and co." have a great day. ? . bye-bye. hi, i just switched jobs, and i want to roll over my old 401(k) into a fidelity ira. man: okay, no problem. it's easy to get started; i can help you with the paperwork. um...this green line just appeared on my floor. yeah, that's fidelity helping you reach your financial goals. could you hold on a second? it's your money. roll over your old 401(k) into a fidelity ira and take control of your personal economy. this is going to be helpful. c

and then that's sort of morphed over with henry kissinger tow policy of peaceful coexistence when nixon got and. going to try to be friends with the communists. and reagan thought that, i want to kill. those people, they treat the people like barnyard animals. people who live under communism live like slaves. he doesn't like it. he made a moral value judgment that he was supposed to make, but he made it. and so he said -- here was his initial problem. all these old guys, whenever it was, everyone, he kept these guys radius of. and finally he got gorbachev. gorbachev was a lawyer, well educated. these other guys educating, and reasonable. reagan got a lot of flak because he came back from iceland to where you is supposed to have a big arms talk to get rid of some of these missiles. gorbachev let al wouldn't do it. well, reagan had from the very beginning when out and made a visit the first year to some place, some mountain out in nevada, idaho or someplace, a big central control, all the buttons the press to blow the world. here is this guy, colonel a general. what are our defenses? we d

i'm the sort of morphed with henry kissinger to a policy of peaceful coexistence when nixon got in.e're going to try and be friends with the communists. and reagan, i want to kill them. the other people or creed of slaves. they treat the people at trying again to malls and people who live in communism live like slaves. he made a moral value judgment that u.s. was to make. but he made it. and so, here was his initial problem and all these old guys, they all died. everyone, the soviet cat taking these guys who are 80 years old all day long. and finally he got gorbachev and gorbachev was a lawyer. he was well educated. a lot of these other guys were communists. the gorbachev was an educated man and he's reasonable. they thought he could reason with them, but it didn't start off well and reagan got a lot of flack said he came back from iceland but they were supposed to have a big arm tzatziki bit of some of these missiles. and gorbachev said i wouldn't do it. but reagan had from the very beginning of his presidency, he would not admit of this is probably the first year to someplace, so

and of course what would he make of henry kissinger writing speefive does an word "new york times" essay on some ice appropriating while saying he disagrees. >> guest: he would've been thrilled at that. he very much admired him and would've loved that for sure. >> host: it was a highly complimentary one. it is the first, but not about the last. so, what have you been most surprised by intern says response to the boat? >> guest: ideas to writing books they get back reviews. the field that i work and you cannot work in cold war history getting bad reviews. you get some good ones, but you get bad ones too. whenever you send something out there, you just hunker down because you are really accepting artillery to come in from both sides. and that it's been my experience that most of the books i've written in the past. the astonishing thing about this one is how that'll criticism there has been, how it is these people on both sides. the greatest moment i think for me was the date at the weekly standard and mini republic came on on the same day, both had rave reviews. i thought that was quite a

"the nuclear tipping point" is one where all of us discussed the issues with henry kissinger. those are available on the nt i.org website. the public needs to get familiar with these issues, as hard as it is to think about. talk to your congressmen and senators about them. when arms control agreements come up, usually we have only a small number of people waiting in. the public needs to weigh in on these things, because they are very important. in terms of briefly what our nuclear threat initiative organization will do, and others are here from the organization -- we have set up an organization in vienna called world institute of nuclear security. it is a non-governmental organization. we have over 500 members. it is best practices, peer review, on how to handle nuclear material. any entity handling nuclear material can join our organization. we have talked about the fuel back. warren buffett put up $50 million, matched by the world. it is being set up as a backup fuel supply so countries do not feel the need to go into enrichment. the more enrichment, the more problems we hav

former secretary of state henry kissinger will also speak at today's events. >>> 5:23 right now.ites are buzzing as apple prepares to unveil its newest version of the ipad. bob redell joins us from san francisco with some of the fanfare and some of the features that apple is adding to the device. good morning, bob. >> reporter: good morning to you, laura. anyone expecting what is expected to be the third generation of the i pat to be light-years ahead of the ipad 2 might be disappointed. you might recall that one had two new cameras and was slimmer and lighter in size. but the speculation surrounding what would be the third generation is that it would have perhaps serie, the voice-activated assistant you find on our iphone 4s, speedier access to wi-fi, faster processor and a high definition display leading some to think they'll be calling this not the ipad 3 but the ipad hd. there are some thoughts from our own tech and business guru, scott buznick. >> not a radical change in design but on the inside, a lot of new software, a faster processor, some new apps certainly, maybe even

much more dovish creature, so there is that school, and then of course what would he make it henry kissinger riding a 5,000 word "new york times" essay of in some ways appropriating his legacy while saying he disagrees because it was the recognition. >> guest: he very much admired henry and she would have left that for sure. i did, too. >> host: it was a highly complementary one. it's the first but not tall of the last use of the term to describe the book. so, what have you been most surprised of in terms of the reception to the book? >> i am used to writing books that get bad reviews it seems in the field by working you cannot work in the history getting bad reviews to get some good ones but you get bad ones, too. and whenever you send something out there if you just hunker down because you are expecting the artillery to come in from both sides, and that's been my experience with most of the books i've written in the past. the thing about this one is held little criticism there has been and how it has pleased people on both sides. the greatest moment i think for me is the day "the weekly st

so there is that school and then of course what would he make of henry kissinger writing a 5000 page new york book review essay in some ways appropriating his legacy while saying he disagrees with it? because it was recognition of him. >> guest: very much and he would have loved that for sure. i did too. >> host: it was a highly complimentary one. is the first but not at all the last. use the word magisterial to describe the book. so what have you been most surprised by in terms of writing the book? >> guest: i am used to writing books that get read reviews. [laughter] in the field i work and you cannot work in cold war history without getting bad reviews. you get some good ones but you get some bad once too and in every sense something out there you just kind of hunkered down because you are really expecting artillery to commend from both sides and that has been my experience with books i've written. the astonishing thing about this one is how little criticism there has been, how it has please people on both sides. the greatest moment i think for me was the day that "the weekly stan

. >> and henry kissinger would be very supportive of that in his crumb he raised -- >> he already mentioned maybe i stole the idea from henry. >> rose: well. >> >> rose: you both could make that point that we really need to get involved here and see, people who who have a vital interest get involved right away. but you have the problem that they ride to have, you know,, a resolution about syria in the united states and russia and china were not prepared to go but now they are -- >> this is something that they can all agree on. now, look. >> rose: you think so? in other words, they, china would come, russia would come, iran would come? >> rose: turkey would come? >> i don't know that they would but they have a national interest in coming. he might get attacked from -- by the republicans for saying, well we would be sitting down with iran, you don't want to sit down with iran, well, guess what? the first time, iran helped us. we asked them. they -- >> well pqv had a rob with the taliban, a, they lost 40,000 people. >> and they will have another big problem if this thing unravels there. that's