khrushchev. and that's a sign that all of these things may change. i'll give you an example because it's absolutely essential to understanding this story. because we're here at the museum of american finance i thought i'd concentrate on a single element and that is how america took over from britain as the ruling country in the world and it wasn't very pretty actually, because america really became the preeminent nation in the world at the time ofy world war i and at the time woodrow wilson tried to get america to live up its responsibilities that went with its wealth and extraordinary population to take partner governance of the world through the league of nations and the tried hard to encourage come to pass the treaty that would allow the league of nations to be set up. that, as we all remember, went terribly wrong. wilson suffered a traumatic and compromising stroke, which meant that for the last 18 months or so of his presidency he was hopeless. but before that, this is why we're talking about dysfunctional marriages and on with the aristotle ona

khrushchev backed down. the u.s.secretly say that it would withdraw the obsolete missiles, of course, which we do need anymore. but take a look at the balance of power that was assumed to be legitimate. we have to establish the principle that we have a right to surround anyone with lethal offensive weapons that can obliterate them in a second. but they can't do anything anywhere near us. take a look at the conflict with china over the maritime conflict. where is it taking place? is it off the coast of california? the caribbean? no, it is off the coast of china. this is part of the concept that we basically own the world. and that we have a right to do anything anywhere we like and nobody has a right to stand up to it. in the case of ukraine -- again, whatever you think about putin you can think he is the worst monster since hitler they still have a case and it is a case that no russian leader is going to back down from. cannot accept ukrainian move of the current government to join nato, even probably the european co

one of the things as i look act to khrushchev of the late 50's, he had far less nuclear weapons than the united states, yet he was willing to engage in a incredibly risky behavior, and if one looks closely, you can see one making the calculation that the united states would be responsible and back down, because it using nuclear weapons is so terrifying. leaving nuclear weapons in certain hands, you can exploit people's responsibility to get what you want. this is something that congress shelley did -- congressman shelley did point out. he thought that they would get the united states to back down and get berlin, and then his advisor said, what if they don't? that is absolutely terrifying. there is to completely different arguments are. and how you -- arguments here. and how you answer that seems fairly clear, that if you are a state like france with a status quo power, you got your weapons, and you probably want them for your own deterrent purposes, that is why sweden wanted them, that is why australia wanted them, and there are other countries like north korea where it is not clear

when you are talking about explicit nuclear test what khrushchev did come is terrifying.there's two completely different arguments and how you answer that. again, it depends on the state in question. it's fairly clear that if you were a state like france a status quo power you probably want them for your own deterrent purposes. that is why sweden wanted them. that is why australia wanted them when they wanted to. other countries like north korea that it is not clear that they just want them for deterrent purposes. the debate centers around are ran. if you think are you think a win just once and for deterrent purposes, you prefer them not to have it, but it's not the end of the world if you think iran will behave more like khrushchev for more like north korea that makes it far more dangerous than far more worrying. i am of the belief that they would be more likely to happen for deterrent purposes. again, one can't know. you are absolutely right. it all turns upon general kehler was absolutely right. these are used and how they are threatened with purposes of blackmail coer

affiliate here wusa that what you did was akin to during the cuban missile crisis if senator had called khrushchev told him he couldn't be certain that president kennedy could back up any deal he made with him, do you see a comparison there? >> no. i would disagree. secretary albright was part of the clip ton administration that entered into the fundamentally flawed agreement. what we did was to send clear message to a dictatorial regime we didn't conciliate with the dictators we told them that the american people 71% of the american people will not accept the deal that puts iran on the path to nope. 71% of the american people are right, that is where we're speaking. >> schieffer: what do you want to happen here? what is your alternative here? let's say that the deal falls through, then what? >> prime minister netanyahu said alternative to a bad deal is a better deal. the iranians frequently walk away from the table if they block this week, call their bluff. congress stands ready to impose much more severe sanctions, more over we have to stand up to iran's 'teams drive for regional dominant they a

which was before khrushchev. i think that citizen way, this murder is presented that it is against putin, it was done as a provocation, that is a stalinesquesque technique, you n go to opponent morse than you would before. kennedy: almost in crow broad daylight. is vladimir putin a russian castro, is he in it for life. >> i am not comfortable comparing putin to other leaders, i compare him to stalin, he was there for life. he is putin's predecessor, i think that putin needs to stay their -- stay there for life, i don't know why casto, in fact, cast vo not there focastro is n. but putin needs to stay the minute he gets out of power he will probably be killed. that is the system he created and enforced. kennedy: is it going to get worse? >> unfortunately, my fear that is phaoeufplt because i think that we may be facing the time when after, you know stalin went to his opponents but then actually acting as if he investigating a murder is prominent communist, and that is how the great purges began in 1937, my fear is

khrushchev had sent a letter to kennedy offering to end the crisis by simultaneous, public withdrawalussian missiles from cuba and u.s. missiles from turkey. these were obsolete missiles for which withdrawal order had already been given because they were being replaced by much more lethal u.s. missiles and polaris summary and's -- submarines. that was the offer. they would withdraw the missiles, we would withdraw obsolete missiles, which were our to being replaced by more lethal ones. kennedy refused. his own subjective assessment but whatever that means, of nuclear war was 1/3 to 1/2. that has to be the most horrific decision in history. down. the u.s. did secretly say that it would withdraw the obsolete missiles, of course, which we do need anymore. but take a look at the balance of power that was assumed to be legitimate. we have to establish the principle that we have a right to surround anyone with lethal offensive weapons that can obliterate them in a second. but they can't do anything anywhere near us. take a look at the conflict with china over the maritime conflict. where is

home to graves of former soviet leaders khrushchev and yeltsin. >>> in the u.s.kup truck crashed into a kitchen where the dad has been feeding the baby. >> the high chair parts were in the living room. >> happened yesterday. outside philly. the parents and the baby are all okay but they had to move out of the house for now. cops say they arrested the driver who may have been drunk. >>> we're learning more about the thousands of e-mails hillary clinton's office apparently deleted from the personal account she used when secretary of state. secretary clinton said she turned over more than 30,000 e-mails but her office reports it deleted 30,000 others claiming they were privity. hillary clinton's spokesman says staffers read every one of those e-mails before getting rid of them. secretary clinton made her first appearance today since holding a news conference last week, and ed henry was there, and now he is here on the knocks -- fox news deck. i understand the secretary is trying to shift the focus. >> the clarification that came last night was the fact they put out

you can imagine during the 1960's, the republicans in congress had written to the soviet leader khrushchevarning him not to negotiate with kennedy over the cuban missile crisis because the united states would bomb the soviet union two years later if the republicans won the election. it is tantamount to that kind of reckless interference and dangerous, reckless interference for u.s. interests. the effect here, the conventional wisdom i think in washington is the effect has serves to just portray the republicans as somewhat ignorant or really ignorant and marginalized. a but i think it is having a little bit more of an effect that should be taken seriously. in that letter, the letter that nermeen read the quote from specifically honed in on how republicans warned that this agreement would be just between president obama and ayatollah hominai is very insignificant. any agreement between you and i states and iran, first of all, secretary kerry said yesterday before congress would not be legally binding, so whether someone finds it to begin with is a question, but even if they were to sign it,

nikita khrushchev are among those buried there.t's not clear how bad the damage is or whether anyone of hurt. >>> the kremlin is trying to shut down rumors about russian president vladimir putin's whereabouts and his health. they released these photos here on friday of mr. putin meeting with the head of the supreme court there. >> but putin hasn't been seen in public for more than a week. and in that time he canceled several appearances that were previously scheduled. now the big where is putin question could actually be answered later today as he is scheduled to meet with the president of kyrgyzstan. for more i want to go to our senior international correspondent, matthew chance live in moscow. so obviously a lot of rumors swirling around. we've heard rumor that putin maybe stockton apparently his girlfriend may have -- putin may be sick to apparently his girlfriend may have gone birth. what is the kremlin doing to quash the rumors? >> reporter: it's just denying them. every time that we've spoken to the press secretary of vladimi

i remember if the congress had gotten in touch with khrushchev in the middle of the cuban missile crisiss guy kennedy, deal with us, you know, that's essentially what we're talking about here, the president leaves on foreign policy and as i say i believe congress should have a role, but let's exercise the role once we know what the deal is and in a responsible nonpartisan way. that's the way it ought to be handled. >> do you think that what the senators have done with this letter could materially affect the likelihood of a successful deal being achieved? >> it's possible. i think the possible real downside here is that iran has politics just like we do. they have factions. they have people that were really wanting to move forward with these negotiations because the sanctions were having such a negative effect on their economy but there are also people in the regime who never thought the negotiations were a good idea, they view this an atomic weapon as part of national sovereignty and prestige and didn't want this to happen. my concern is i don't think it's going to happen. i thought zari

i want to make sure the administration is aware of the history of stalin and khrushchev and the terror famine. the starvation of the ukrainian people. the displacement, deportation, reestablishment of russians into the ukraine. so, when vladimir putin says he is going to protect these russian-speaking citizens, with all due respect they were moved into the ukraine by killing ukrainians. it is important to add knowledge that when we talk about legitimate grievances. i, too, agree that we should send defensive weapons to ukraine. i am in the agreement cap. -- agreement can't. -- agreement camp. how does that fit in? how does their decision not to send defensive weapons fit into strategic patients? >> nobody has been patient. >> the ukrainians have been patient because they have no choice. you get all that other stuff. defensive weapons. i imagine you have been to a war zone. blankets do not stop bullets. blankets do not stop tanks. we will get back to, we will deciding that does not help. i am talking about strategic weapons. how does that fall together? >> some of the things we have sen

kennedy endured weathering republican attacks for his decision to negotiate with soviet leader nikita khrushchev during and after the crisis. kennedy's vice president, lyndon johnson, paid close attention. fearful of appearing soft on national security, johnson repeatedly invoked the munich analogy to defend his administration's commitment to bolstering south vietnam. when he announced, johnson, when johnson announced the escalation of the u.s. amendment in vietnam in 1965, he referred confidently paid close attention. to history. this is johnson, 1965. we learned from hitler at munich that success only feeds the appetite for aggression. the battle would be renewed in one country, then another, bringing with it even larger and crueler conflicts as we have learned from the lessons of history. that is lyndon johnson. parenthetically, let me ask and answer parenthetically, did this historical explanation drive johnson's decision to escalate the war? i don't think so. i will come back to that in a moment. in terms of justifying it, in terms of explaining it to the american people, in the middle of 1

but i want to make sure the administration is familiar and aware of this history of stalin and khrushchevn the starvation of the ukrainian people in the deportation in the reestablishment of russians in to the ukraine so in putin says he will protect the russian-speaking citizens with all due respect ever moved into kreme by killing them and it is important to know that history when we talk about legitimate grievances. i am concerned and i agree we should send defensive weapons i am an agreement camp song that. does the current posture or the strategic patience that i hear about how does that fit in with strategic patients are is that a part of its price. >> the ukrainians have been patient because they have no choice senate we have 118 million. >> defensive weapons. and defensive weapons. i imagine you have been to a war zone. diddles stop bullets or tanks you must defend yourself. harsh words and we will get back to in the year deciding does not help. i am talking about defensive weapons how to the fall together? gimmicks some of the things we have sent to fall under defensive nonlethal

finally, president kennedy put a blockade around cuba and called khrushchev possible off. i don't think we are at that place yet by any stretch of the imagination but you spend a lot of your careers looking into the future and saying, what if. what senator johnson was saying, what if things get worse, we need to be prepared to have the same kind of response to match the threat with the force necessary to support that threat. in my right or wrong? >> senator, at the department of defense, we are always worried about the threats right in front of us and also the threats of the future and we do a lot of planning to look out ahead and the military monitors nation of russia and its activities in central europe have no doubt got the mind focused on looking ahead at various permutations of what russia might do. this is definitely an area of concern and we are giving a lot of thought and attention to. >> i know you have to be careful in your answer and i respect that and understand that but i think it is a fair enough comparison to underscore the need that the committee feels in i

i believe in 2015, christian of will be in -- khrushchev will be in -- -- and also, it is about political security and cooperation. second, we have to stop violent extremism spreading in south africa. we must help libya, because we cannot have a failed state run by warlords and fanatics. anarchy, just 100 miles from the southern coast of europe. and, ukraine is united on the need for full implement of the minsk agreement and allow a determination to maintain these sanctions from russia until the minsk in agreement is fully -- and [indiscernible] the politics of fait accompli --this is why it is so important to us into americana that we must talk in unison. because, who we are tomorrow depends upon what we do today and i believe that now is the best time for some kind of renaissance of faith in our community and you americans express this need with the most convincing phrase i know. united we stand. divided we fall. i am convinced. [applause] >> thank you. >> what was that? i think it is somewhat ironic to see some members of congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in ir

if they have them, with the behavior like -- and would they behave more like khrushchev or like northea? you are absolutely right though, i think these things are used even when they are not used. whether they are used for purposes of blackmail, coercion, is what makes him so terrifying. >> i have a couple of questions. my first is a follow-up to a question. you mentioned the boston bombing. how would nuclear weapons deter acts such as the boston marathon bombing? is my first question. my second question is you are speaking about the importance of holding up our nuclear arsenal and modernizing it, how can we do that without setting off a new arms race? gen. kehler: i will take a stab at both of those. i think it is a stretch to suggest that nuclear weapons would deter someone, who is going to do some they like the boston bombing. in the tway first century, with a variety security situations that we face, i think understanding how nuclear weapons play in our overall deterrence calculation is very important. there's a lot of work that still needs to be done in that regard. we find is al

finally, president kennedy put a blockade around cuba and called khrushchev's bluff. i don't think we are at that place yet by any stretch of the imagination but you spend a lot of your careers looking into the future and saying, what if. what senator johnson was saying, what if things get worse, we need to be prepared to have the same kind of response to match the threat with the force necessary to support that threat. in my right or wrong? >> senator, at the department of defense, we are always worried about the threats right in front of us and also the threats of the future and we do a lot of planning to look out ahead and the military monitors nation of russia and its activities in central europe have no doubt got the mind focused on looking ahead at various permutations of what russia might do. this is definitely an area of concern and we are giving a lot of thought and attention to. >> i know you have to be careful in your answer and i respect that and understand that but i think it is a fair enough comparison to underscore the need that the committee feels in i

he made a compromise diplomatic deal with khrushchev. sometimes diplomacy can do great things. i would say this. i wouldn't point the finger at israel. israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors in the middle east. israel has been continually assaulted by the sabres over the last -- assaulted by those neighbors over the last 60 years. they have a strong military because they have a right to defend themselves. a have to be tough-minded. i think we ought to be supportive of israel, defendant when we can. as good friends, you will have differences. you saw differences between netanyahu and president obama. i would have preferred that that disagreement was behind closed doors in the oval office. instead, it had to be on television. one more point, my friend did say about prime minister netanyahu's speech in his column that he raised the bar and president obama now needs to meet higher expectations. what he meant by that i think is that that was a very powerful speech and in many ways effective. he raised a number of questions about the wisdom of the nuclear deal with iran. it

like khrushchev takes his shoe off. the guy's amazing. retweeter, too. >> he is.ow. >> 24/7 everywhere. even spencer from zillow had to take a backseat yesterday. spencer's retweeting him. a big retweet circle. >> the modern model for a ceo, certain type. >> a piece today critical of kent in the "wall street journal" saying he canceled a meeting with the google. t-mobile's not canceling meetings with social media people because he's a dominant social media force. >> you might be asked about rite aid, 3% gain on no real news that we can see. >> people feel it's a takeover situation. i've been recommending earnings situation and the fact they made a brilliant acquisition of a pharmacy benefit manager which what is turned around cvs. rite aid, i begged them to come on. my picture's in my rite aid now because i recommended. >> your local rite aid. >> my picture. greatest guy, tom and jerry, guys behind the counter, fantastic. this is a better run company than it used to be. you shouldn't own it on takeover talk. the pharmacy benefit manager strategy's brilliant. i thi

i just want to make sure that administration is familiar and aware of the history of stalin and khrushchev in the 1920's and the terror famine and starvation of the ukrainian people and deportations and the re-establishment of russians into the ukraine and so when putin says that he's going to protect these russian-speaking citizens, with all due respect they were moved into ukraine by killing the ukrainians and it's important to know that history when we talk about legitimate grievances. so i'm concerned -- i, too, agree we should send defensive weapons to ukraine. i'm in the agreement camp on that. so does the current posture of -- the strategic patience that i hear about, how does that fit in? how does their decision not to send defensive weapons at this point, how does that fit into strategic patience or is it part of it? ambassador nuland: nobody's been patient what we've been seeing in eastern ukraine. mr. perry: the ukrainians have been patient because they have no choice. ambassador nuland: we have sent, as you know, $118 million in -- mr. perry: defensive weapons. forget all that

groups of congress had written a letter to khrushchev during the cuban missile crisis and prevented somegreement to be made. i think perhaps if the sign of a brand-new senator who somehow has not even given his late and speech and feels he has to make his name. i feel it is totally inappropriate, and in many ways damaging to the system. i'm surprised it's even legal frankly. i mean, in terms of how you get involved in negotiations. i think it is very, very damaging to us. >> what you think iranian leaders think about this? >> i think they probably think we lost it. i mean, seriously. it weakens us and i think it really makes them wonder where the power is. it makes it very difficult for the negotiators. host: madeleine albright yesterday in an interview with usa today's susan page. saying she is wondering if it is even legal. the "washington post" was able to get an interview with the freshman senator, tom cotton. in the post, take a look. it goes on to say that he has the "new york times" profile on the senator, freshman public -- freshman republican to stir things up is the headline. t

if somebody had written a group, members of congress had written a letter to khrushchev during the cubansome agreement to be made. i'm surprised it's even legal frankly. now of course your republican colleagues in the senate say that they had no choice but to right this letter because they feel they've been cut out of the negotiations and they didn't want some deal to be a done deal before they had their say. >> listen the secretary was getting lectured yesterday about the constitution from people like rand paul. well the constitution is pretty clear. that the executive has the power to enter into agreements with other countries. and if they rise to the level of a treaty then the senate has the obligates to way in and approve those agreements. this is not going to be a treaty and there's nothing in the constitution that disallows this president from entering into an a agreement with a country like iran. they've been up on capitol hill over and over again briefing us on these negotiations and everyone to a person here says they would rather have a diplomatic solution to divorce iran from

ways this is as if the republicans and congress during the kennedy administration had written to khrushchevou in two years. in iran this is perceived as as far as sickle that there's real weakness in washington and a level of incompetence that they didn't even appreciate. but that's why the iranians are negotiating not just with the united states but within the p 5 plus 1 context. i think what you'll see from iran is certainly not leaving the table, not negotiating. they've been committed to negotiations for a long time. i think what they'll focus on is trying to get more international guarantees through the security council rather than relying on the word of the united states which is very dangerous for a super power. our word used to mean something on the international stage but now for it to be made such a mockery by our own congress is dangerous, not just because of negotiations with iran but our negotiations with any country. >> thank you very much for giving us two sides of this situation. appreciate it. mich. >>> ahead we're going to look at this e-mail controversy surrounding hillar

i cannot imagine that the congress of the united states writing a letter to khrushchev in the midst of those discussions and saying don't worry about this guy kennedy he doesn't speak for the country. and yet that essentially is what took place yesterday. i just don't understand the need or the helpfulness of such a statement at a time when we were already moving toward a bipartisan, i believe probably veto-proof bill, to provide this institution with a check on the quality of the deal that's being struck. it's just not productive and helpful to turn issues of this kind into partisan issues. and i hope that we can step back from this posture this partisan posture and meet this solemn responsibility to assess what the president and the administration and the other four countries the other five countries, the agreement that they come to with iran to determine whether indeed, it is in the best interests of the region and the world. that is our responsibility. i hope that we can muster the -- the ability to meet that responsibility in a serious way and not for once turn it into a partisan

i just want to make sure that administration is familiar and aware of the history of stalin and khrushchevthe 1920's and the terror famine and starvation of the ukrainian people and deportations and the re-establishment of russians into the ukraine and so when putin says that he's going to protect these russian-speaking citizens, with all due respect they were moved into ukraine by killing the ukrainians and it's important to know that history when we talk about legitimate grievances. so i'm concerned -- i, too, agree we should send defensive weapons to ukraine. i'm in the agreement camp on that. so does the current posture of -- the strategic patience that i hear about, how does that fit in? how does their decision not to send defensive weapons at this point, how does that fit into strategic patience or is it part of it? victoria: nobody's been patient what we've been seeing in eastern ukraine. >> the ukrainians have been patient because they have no choice. victoria: we have sent, as you know, $118 million in -- >> defensive weapons. forget all that other stuff. defensive weapons. i imag

finally, president kennedy put a blockade around cuba and called khrushchev possible off.nk we are at that place yet by any stretch of the imagination but you spend a lot of your careers looking into the future and saying, what if. what senator johnson was saying, what if things get worse, we need to be prepared to have the same kind of response to match the threat with the force necessary to support that threat. in my right or wrong? >> senator, at the department of defense, we are always worried about the threats right in front of us and also the threats of the future and we do a lot of planning to look out ahead and the military monitors nation of russia and its activities in central europe have no doubt got the mind focused on looking ahead at various permutations of what russia might do. this is definitely an area of concern and we are giving a lot of thought and attention to. >> i know you have to be careful in your answer and i respect that and understand that but i think it is a fair enough comparison to underscore the need that the committee feels in its entirety