today, white house correspondent john ernest was asked to comment and he defended the secretary of defensejosh earnest: what secretary carter said is consistent with the analysis he has received from those who are on the ground looking at the situation. he has also indicated on a number of occasions that there is an important role for the united dates and our coalition -- the united states and our coalition partners to play. john: a lot of attention has been paid to what secretary carter said. why did he say it? it was a very brazen thing to come out and they. mark: they're in the midst of a debate about if there should be u.s. troops. the u.s. government does not want to do that. secretary carter, i think, was speaking the truth, maybe letting off restoration, but also sending a message that this is still going to have to be an iraqi thing. they are going to have to do better. john: the other thing is this dovetails perfectly with what president obama said last week when he said, "my strategy is working. the problem here is not my strategy. our strategy is fine. part of our strategy that

john ernest creating a false choice it's either you know all guns blazing, another invasion into iraq doing. >> well that's exactly right. you present a false choice like that and then your only option is indecision passivity and defeat which is what the obama administration has chosen. when you hear josh ernest talking about the situation and saying well it's a setback but really our strategy is working, this is baghdad bob during the invasion of iraq itself in 2003 where the u.s. closing in on the capital and the official spokesman for saddam pretending the americans were on the run. this is embarrassing at this point, and, in fact there was a third strategic advance by isis today. they seized a keyboarder crossing between syria and iraq which will allow them to resupply more easily the anbar province that's under their control and ramadi. so this is a serious threat and i think there is no denying that the strategy is an abject failure. and, in fact you wonder about how serious is the president in the first place. let me give you one example, the pentagon said that in the battle of

ernest: first of all, let me say that john kerry and i are both boston boys and maybe that is part of we obviously have complementary backgrounds. when i was introduced into the negotiation, it was for addressing these technical dimensions, via enrichment, be it the ternium production, reactors. certainly for that part of the agreement, i am working with members of congress, but don't forget there are many other dimensions to this agreement to the sanctions where secretary kerry is the principal spokesman for that and secondly there are broader issues being introduced into the discussion about the nature of the negotiation, not about the results of the negotiation. for those, secretary kerry and the president are quite in the lead. ♪ charlie: the iranians have said at this table we don't want nuclear weapons. they say that all the time. how do you assess that? ernest: first of all, let me say we hope it's true and this is what this agreement is built on for the long-term. we have a specific restrictions that go up to 25 years and some are basically effect forever. the whole idea is ov

conservative, anthony eaton the great trade unionist and labor party member, ernest bev vein,in and then -- bevin, and then a nonparty man john anderson. sir john anderson. furthermore, this man herbert more morrison, member of the -- two individuals flashed through like comets, one was lord beaverbook and the second was the socialist stafford crips. tonight i can't talk about all of them but because i do not discuss the roles 0 say neville chamberlain or kingsley woods doesn't mean they're unimportant. however, for their roles and others who served at one time or another in churchill's war cab not, i have a suggestion. please read my book. led by winston churchill these men successfully steered britain through the greatest crisis in her modern history and churchill's war cabinet has been deservedly celebrated ever since. but the story is more complicated than often thought. the feet of my book "ministers at war" has a double meaning. churchill's war cabinet warred against in the nazi of course, and but also is members sometimes warred against each other. this has been mentioned by historians but it has been generally downpla

conservative the great trade unionist and labour party member ernest bevan and then a nonparty man with conservative inclinations whose name was john anderson. furthermore this man herbert morrison and member of the labour party served for nearly three years in the war cabinet. moreover to quite extraordinary individuals flashed through like comets. when was the conservative lord beaverbrook and the second was the socialists, stafford crypts. tonight i can't talk about all of them but i guess i do not discuss the roles of noble chamberlain for kingsley wood and other conservatives doesn't mean that they were unimportant however for their roles for the roles of others who served at one time or another in churchill's war cabinet i have a suggestion. please read my book. [laughter] so anyway led by winston churchill the men whose names i have mentioned and some whose names i haven't mentioned successfully steered britain through the greatest crisis in our modern history and churchill's war cabinet has been deservedly celebrated ever since since. but the story is more complicated than is often thought. the title of my book "ministers a

the tournament is named for ernest hemingway, who fished these waters during his years on the island. the famous authors' two grandsons, patrick and johnd to reel one back in. the multimillion dollar, high-tech american yachts docked in havana contrasted sharply with the more modest boats the cubans sail when they sail at all. only one government approved cuban team was permitted in this contest. >> good morning. >> reporter: authorities were out in force just in case along the docks. matching and rematching passports to every passenger one of whom was former navy man joe sweeney, whose only other trip before -- to cuba before this was at the u.s. base in guantanamo. >> being a sailor all my life and being loyal to the american flag, there are so many emotions that go through you. i don't think we're part of something political, but in a small way i do believe this is something political. >> reporter: scientist jeffrey boutwell was on board, as well. >> it's finally a normalization of relations that should have happened decades ago. >> reporter: what do you think people will find out about cuba when they come? >> they'll see it for wha

secretary john kerry, secretary of state said ramadi was a mere, quote, target of opportunity. white house press secretary josh errant said yesterday -- josh ernestyesterday that we should not -- quote -- "light our hair on fire every time there is a setback in the campaign against isil." meanwhile ramadi, iraq and the region are on fire. how could anyone -- how could anyone say that we shouldn't light our hair on fire when news reports clearly indicate that the there are burning bodies in the streets of ramadi that isil are going from house to house seeking out people and executing them. tens of thousands of people are refugees. and what does the president's spokesman say? that we shouldn't light our hair on fire every time there is a setback. the secretary of state of the united states of america said ramadi was a mere -- quote -- "target of opportunity." have we completely lost? have we completely lost our sense of any moral caring and concern about thousands and thousands of people who are murdered, who are made refugees, who are dying as we speak? and the secretary of state says that we should not light our hair on fire. and what does the pr

reporter: republican senator john mccain slammed the president for allowing isis to seize the key iraqi city of ramadi. and laid into white house press secretary josh ernest we going to light our hair on fire every time there is a setback? >> we are seeing a dark chapter in american history. and it's getting darker. because in response to a slaughter in ramadi the answer seems to be "let's not set our hair on fire." >> reporter: frustration with the battle against isis has some gop presidential candidates floating the idea of sending u.s. troops into combat in iraq. something the white house has ruled out. >> i don't want to see us put in a million soldiers spend ten years, $1 trillion trying to create a democracy where one hasn't existed. but send in troops destroy their training centers, recruitment centers, and then get out. >> reporter: jeb bush who admittedly mishandled questions about his brother's record iraq is making the case the country was better off under president george w. bush. >> isis didn't exist when am prowas present. al qaeda in iraq was wiped out when my brother was president. there were mistakes made in iraq for surgee. >> reporter:

secretary john kerry, secretary of state said ramadi was a mere, quote, target of opportunity. white house press secretary josh errant said yesterday -- josh ernest said yesterday that we should not -- quote -- "light our hair on fire every time there is a setback in the campaign against isil." meanwhile ramadi, iraq and the region are on fire. how could anyone -- how could anyone say that we shouldn't light our hair on fire when news reports clearly indicate that the there are burning bodies in the streets of ramadi that isil are going from house to house seeking out people and executing them. tens of thousands of people are refugees. and what does the president's spokesman say? that we shouldn't light our hair on fire every time there is a setback. the secretary of state of the united states of america said ramadi was a mere -- quote -- "target of opportunity." have we completely lost? have we completely lost our sense of any moral caring and concern about thousands and thousands of people who are murdered, who are made refugees, who are dying as we speak? and the secretary of state says that we should not light our hair on fire. and what does