so and mr gorbachev has pointed out also the the what mr putin says is they greedy on the abrogation of the a.b.m. treaty by the by bush by mr bush in two thousand and one was a vast mistake it and it undermines the the nationals the the balance of power that exists between the two countries on top of that you have the american support putin the scent of terrorists in the caucasus on top of that you have opposing points of view on ukraine obviously and mr putin states his case very clearly in this book what his case is which americans don't hear and on top of that you have syria which again it's amazing to me how under reported that war is. orci has covered what about yemen. reportedly and. i want to talk more about this and the context in which this book came out fills in a weird way that when the actual cold wars in place it was just clean cut you know you had to sidestep where against each other now for me it's so much more scarier because the world is paul or and there's so much house around and everyone's trying to pull it on themselves. and all those conflicts that you just men

and mr gorbachev as pointed out also the the what mr putin says is they greedy on the abrogation of the a.b.m. treaty by the by bush by mr bush in two thousand and one was a vast mistake it and it undermines the the nationals the the balance of power that exists between the two countries on top of that you have the american support putin the scent of terrorists in the caucasus on top of that you have opposing points of view on ukraine obviously and mr putin states his case very clearly in this book what his case is which americans don't hear and on top of that you have syria which again it's amazing to me how under reported that war is. archie has covered a lot of our yemen aren't you guys how are some to report any and i don't have a laundry list i want to be at more about this and the context in which this book came out fails in a weird way that when the actual cold war is in place it was just clean cut you know you had to sidestep where against each other and now for me it's so much more scarier because the world is marked by paul or and there's so much house around and everyone's tr

so and mr gorbachev has pointed out also the the what mr putin says is they greedy on the abrogation of the a.b.m. treaty by the by bush by mr bush in two thousand and one was a vast mistake it and it undermines the nationals the the balance of power that exists between the two countries on top of that you have the american support. putin the scent of terrorists in the caucasus on top of that you have opposing points of view on ukraine obviously and mr putin states his case very clearly in this book what his case is which americans don't hear and on top of that you have syria which again it's amazing to me how under reported that war is. archie has covered one of our yemen aren't you guys how are some to report any and i don't have a laundry list i want to be add more about this every and the context in which this book came out fills in a weird way that when the actual cold war is in place it was just clean cut you know you had to sidestep where against each other and now for me it's so much more scarier because the world is my pipe holler and there's so much house around and everyon

had lost control of this of this empire so it's a whole different view of it and i've been see mr gorbachev since then i've been through his criticisms of mr putin and i have to say the last time i saw him he said that mr putin is the guy for now whatever they say because america has violated that compact he made in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine that nato would not go east one inch if the germany's were united he allowed for that. that has not happened nato has been accelerated under the not go under the americans under clinton and and bush and obama so and mr gorbachev as pointed out also the the what mr putin says is they greedy on the abrogation of the a.b.m. treaty by the by bush by mr bush in two thousand and one was a vast mistake it and it undermines the nationals the the balance of power that exists between the two countries on top of that you have the american support putin the scent of terrorists in the caucasus on top of that you have opposing points of view on ukraine obviously and mr putin states his case very clearly in this book what his case is which americans don't

mr gorbachev saw the enormous capital that would have been needed to compete with the u.s. at that time and that essentially ended up shutting down the cold war to a large extent so let's fast forward michael to today and we see the north koreans were all about talking about what their weapons kasab capabilities are and president putin in his state of the nation address actually showed a video a sort of a striking video and said it could not be evaded that that that the video could be evaded the missile could be evaded so. where are we today how much money is the soviet union the u.s. spending on these things and are is the same sort of cast of characters with regard to defense contractors who are trying to pile on and make a buck out of these things and response to your last part yes defense contractors see the new golden age again because basically the policy has. been changed now to back more to more strategic systems and were seen as a reason as in response to the north korean threat more development of missiles that can shoot down. the incoming missiles if if if we hav

mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall.ause] even as he battled darker forces in the world, he remained touched by what abraham lincoln once described as our nature. americans have sung about freedom and prosperity since the founding of this great land. our national discourse grows ise course and crude increasingly harsh winds blow across the globe. it seems that our leaders can't do the people's work at home. i miss them even more. ronald reagan came from the midwest, with a background as diverse as the country he loved. he studied economics at eureka a radioand became broadcaster, labor leader, corporate spokesman, and then governor of california. as he matured, he demonstrated the power of big ideas about taxes and spending, about regulation. held those conservative principles very viscerally. they were indeed part of his dna. he never wavered from them. he was a decent, humble, and graceful soul. a man that paid attention to small kindnesses that also defined a good life. some didn't like his policies. it was impossible

mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall.] even as he battled darker forces in the world, he remained touched by what abraham lincoln described as the better angels of our nature. to his ear, the mystic chords of memory worth unifying verses that americans had sung about freedom and prosperity since the founding of this great land. as time goes by, as our national discourse grows more course and as increasingly harsh winds blow across the globe, and it seems that our leaders either won't or can't do the people's work at home, i .iss him even more ronald wilson reagan came from the midwest with a background as diverse as the country he loved. at eureka economics college. broadcaster, aio labor leader, then governor of california. as he matured, he demonstrated aboutwer of big ideas taxes, about spending, about regulation, about national defense. he held those rock ribbed conservative principles very viscerally. they were indeed part of his dna . he never, ever wavered from them. a decent, he was humble, and graceful soul. and

mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall.plause] battled darker forces in the world, he remained lincolnby what abraham described as the better angel of our nature. to his ear, the mystic chords of memory where the unifying verses that americans have sung about freedom and prosperity since the founding of this land. are nash -- by, as as our national discourse grows more course and crude as increasingly hard winds blow across the globe and it seems that our leaders either won't or cannot do the people's work at home, i miss him even more. ronald wilson reagan came from the midwest with a background as diverse as the country he loved. he studied economics at eureka college. , abecame a radio broadcaster labor leader, a corporate spokesman, and governor of california. he demonstrated the power of big ideas. about regulation. he held those rockribbed conservative principles very viscerally. they were indeed part of his dna. he never wavered from them. decent,e, he was a humble, and graceful soul. he was a man who asked -- who as

expensive technology to develop and developed it well and your but your contention is that that mr gorbachev saw the enormous capital that would have been needed to compete with the u.s. at that time and that essentially ended up shutting down the cold war to a large extent so let's fast forward michael to today and we see the north koreans were all about talking about what their weapons kasab capabilities are and president putin in his state of the nation address actually showed a video of service striking video and said it could not be evaded that that the. video could be abated the missile could be evaded so. where are we today how much money is the soviet union the us spending on these things and are is the same sort of cast of characters with regard to defense contractors who are trying to pile on and make a buck out of these things and response to your last part yes defense contractors see the new golden age again because basically the policy has been changed now to back more to more strategic systems and we're seen as a reason as in response to the north korean threat more development

security and dignity and if we would recall the year or so mr yeltsin the ninety's or the late mr gorbachev years. dignity is not there any longer for the country for the nation prosperity is not there any longer for the country for the nation and security is not there any longer for the country for the nation russia it was during the ninety's the country was no board there is no security arrangements nothing of that kind then in all these three aspects has succeeded to give that back to the russian people and you know i think twenty four years is too long for one person to be in. well they have many other examples and it's not about number of years it's about each humans by a certain leader of the country if he is accepted by the people if people is happy with what he's doing in his position it may be ten years it may be twenty years it may be fifty years and sort of to put it differently but all according to the existing constitution definitely all right so things going pretty well as far as public opinion for him here in russia but of course outsiders. russia different matter looking at

expensive technology to develop and developed it well and your but your contention is that that mr gorbachev saw the enormous capital that would have been needed to compete with the u.s. at that time and that essentially ended up shutting down the cold war to a large extent so let's fast forward michael to today and we see the north koreans were all about talking about what their weapons kasab capabilities are and president putin in his state of the nation address actually showed a video a sort of a striking video and said it could not be evaded that that that the bin. it could be abated the missile could be evaded so. where are we today how much money is the soviet union the us spending on these things and are is the same sort of cast of characters with regard to defense contractors who are trying to pile on and make a buck out of these things and response to your last part yes the fence contractors see the new golden age again because basically the policy has been changed now and back more to more strategic systems and were seen as a reason as a in response to the north korean threat more

mr. gorbachev tear down this wall, it's terrible.sident and this is what i'm going to say and he wrote it back in the speech. that turned out all right. >> martha: fascinating, joining me now retired four-star general jack keane and now fox news military analyst. great to see you. always interesting to hear jim baker's thoughts, we haven't heard from you in quite some time. i thought it was refreshing to hear his take on russia and how the president is handling it. >> i think he gets the trump strategy that unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to appear at president trump's administration has confronted russia more than his predecessors have, that's an established fact now. at the same time, president trump has not singled out potent and that's by design i think what's happening here, trump knows full well that putin is a thug, he is a bully, he manipulative trump's predecessors quite successfully. i think he's itching, martha, to be getting into a room with this guy and confront him and try to work out a relationship that could

mr. gorbachev, we have a president saying don't agitate mr. putin.ld any of this sound out of place against a strategic adversary. the u.s. imposed sanctions on russian entities as punishment for 2016 meddling in the election. then the government expels 60 russian diplomats and demands the russian consoulate in seatte but shut down but notice who announced these moves. the white house. the trump administration. not the president himself. for a president who isn't shy about breaking news on his twitter feed, there remarkably is not a word about any of those new policies. the president didn't say anything yesterday either after russia had retaliation with diplomatic expulsion at a consolute closure of its own. and the only mention of putin is this phone call to congratulate him on the win. and he said get ago long with russia and others is a good thing, not a bad thing. and they can help solve problems with north korea, syria, ukraine, isis and iran and even the coming arms race. but listen to the trump administration and its officials and you'll hear

mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. you'll create a terrible problem. he said listen, i'm president and that's what i'm going to say and he wrote it back in the speech. that turned out all right. >> let me turn to twitter. a president fires his secretary of state on twitter, and calls kim little rocket man. >> i thought that was humerus. >> how does that affect america's diplomacy and america's position in the world? are diplomats overseas don't know which president is going to be show up -- >> to be effective as secretary of state, you have to have the full support -- you have to be seen with the president, you're in his lane, in his turf. secretary of state has to be supportive, protective and defended by the president if he's going to be effective. and i thought that firing rex tillerson that way was absolutely the wrong thing to do. i don't think -- i just think it's too bad that happened the way it did. i'm proud of rex for being willing to serve. i called him and told him that and i'm sorry that it ended the way it did. >> could you be secretary o

mr. gorbachev. this is about 1:15. >> we have a great panel. so phillip zelikow is going to chair the panel. i think everybody knows phillip and he's written a terrific book on the end of the cold war the bri principal author of the 9/11 commission report and he's writing a book on decisions for war in ways that illuminate old crises and old decisions like going to war in 1898 or wilson going to war, reassessing these decisions so we're looking forward to phillip's next book. at the same time he's doing about a dozen other things none of us can keep track of and sometimes we don't know about. so phillip. thank you. >> thank you. i'm sorry to say we need to wait for james wilson to show up and so he's probably out there somewhere having a good conversation. if we can send the search party out. >> the state department is always late to the table. [ laughter ] >> one of the messages of this. >> so far it's been a great panel. [ laughter ] >> it's rather intimidating when you're sitting next to somebody who can refer to his book. >> we had grandchi

mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall! (billy graham) i don't care what ideologies arise in the future...ltimate winner is going to be the kingdom of god. (announcer) coming up... billy graham's life impacted the meek and the powerful... (charles gibson) the presidents reached out to him because they wanted what he had. (announcer) but when the public figure faced his final years what were his private thoughts? i've been asked so many times lately do i fear death? some of my closest friends and relatives and especially my wife are already in heaven... next, on an extraordinary journey... are already in heaven... are made with smarttrack®igners material to precisely move your teeth to your best smile. see how invisalign® treatment can shape your smile up to 50% faster today at invisalign.com sarge, i just got a tip. that'll crack this case wide open! turns out the prints at the crime scene- awwwww...did mcgruffy wuffy get a tippy wippy? i'm serious! we gotta move fast before- who's a good boy? is him a good boy? erg...i'm just gonna go. oh, you wanna go outside? you gotta go tinky poo-poo?

mr. gorbachev tear down this wall, it looks like russia is behind the deadly attacks in the u.k. >> who was behind this, mr. president? >> it looks like it. i spoke with the prime minister and we are in deep discussions, a very sad situation. it certainly looks like the russians were behind it. something that should never, ever happen, and we're taking it very seriously as i think are many others. >> peter baker with "the new york times," the writing, quote, in keeping with his reluctance to blame moscow for meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, mr. trump did not mention the sanctions or election interference. the president has repeated lid dismissed the suggestion that russia sought to influence the vote in his favor as a hoax and fake news. even as the special counsel robert mueller has concluded it did and investigates whether mr. trump's campaign collaborated with russian agents. mr. trump said once that he accepted vladimir putin's denial of any involvement. peter baker is here now along with jeremy and the rest of the panel. peter, let me start with your piece. >>> your analysis

mr. gorbachev tear down this wall and advised and multiple advisors don't say that word and it's one of thechoose to say but need to understand they carry the weight of the entire united states so i hope every president is careful in what they say including this one. >> well, before we run out of time, stephen colbert had a little fun at your expense, you and your colleagues yesterday. i'm sure you have seen the video. we want to play it and hear your reaction to it. >> i had a call with president pu putin and congratulated him on his electoral victory. >> today a bipartisan group of senators gave a press conference about our response to russian cyber attacks and they were asked about that call. >> election integrity here, can you comment on the idea that the president today called vladimir putin to congratulate him on winning his election? smoke bomb! >> oh. all right. they've gone. >> senator, hope you've got your sense of humor this morning. >> i do. >> did that -- did the question throw you or did you guys just decide we're not going to answer it? >> what did you think about ta colbert

mr. gosh gorbachev, he said let's build a wall. what's the role of the presidency?hat is the role of the president of the united states no matter who he or she is to set an agenda. the president undermines that. both when he's serious and when he's kidding. at this particular moment it is a chance to stand up for measuring's democratic values, not to make light of it. >> i probably could lose that point now that we have fleshed it out. you're much smarter. that's why you have it. another place where we need to lean on you guys is the mueller investigation. to david's point, we have often been discussing what's going to happen long term on mueller. if a resolute and understanding that this is going to be over any time soon is nonsense. these take a long time. now with see proof of that. axios has reported that mule or's subpoena for a witness show they want all things back to 2015, november, and this long list of boom that are connected to trump. there is one indication. the bigger one is now they are looking at an adviser to the uae and how money may have mattered i

mr. lukacs: i do not know. something which is very telling -- and i don't want to talk to you about personal things. of 1985, this was ing which isy a few months after gorbachev became the head of the party. he said, you know, this man is about to dismantle the soviet union. this is very telling. ofthis is private conversation. said publicly, for god's sake, said publicly, for god's sake, we cannot and should not expect russia to become anything like a parliamentary democracy, to which we are used to in europe and america. i think he was absolutely right about this. two more questions. >> i am a political scientist. i am wondering whether you might how thespeculate about rest of the cold war, say post differentkd have morehe u.s. had politicians, more people in like -- mr. lukacs: this is a very good question. question.what-if kennan thought, especially after stalin's death, that the cold war should be wound down, there a reciprocal russian and american withdrawal. i think that was a very reasonable proposal, but no one was in favor of it. if that would have happened, i do not know. i certainly think it was worth trying. reasonablehe thought it would hn worse

mr. putin 100%. we did not have this propaganda crap when ronald reagan was dealing with mikael gorbachev, we did notave it when bush was dealing with saudi arabia. we did not have it when obama was making -- not him himself, but when they were making deals. it is ok for russia to get involved with our money but not ok to treat each other with respect? it is crazy. it is like people are wanting more all the time. does it matter overall because of concerns about russian involvement in the 2016 election, should that have been a factor in the phone call? caller: it doesn't matter what we are involved with half the world interfering with their governments and their stuff. it is really hypocritical. host: jeff in virginia. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. on the russian meddling thing, they always say russia, but when you look at it, it is a known meddling all of this originated in ukraine. it is the ukrainian people retribution appearing in our election. there may have been russian backing. host: to the nature of the phone call that took place, what about that? caller: that is just

mr. chairman. general, thank you for your service. in discussing ukraine, i think it's important to look at some of the historical content. when secretary baker met with gorbachev there's a discussion about expansion of nato. our country made no formal mittments to gorbachev as putin claims but gorbachev recent leadership did say the spirit of the conversations very much suggested that we wouldn't expand nato. then when the next one came to power in the ukraine and wanted to do business with the european union, the russians asked the united states whether we would be okay with a tri-patriot economic agreement, where europe would do business with the ukraine and russia. european union rejected that. then when the russian president was ousted he came to united states and said why don't we call early elections and call a coalition. it's unclear whether we worked diplomatically for that. we then supported the regime change. i guess my first question in sort of three parts is do you think we made a strategic mistake by insisting that ukraine join nato, you believe we made a mistake by recognizing the coup, and do you think we made a mistake by not having tri-patriot

mr. chairman. general, thank you for your service. in discussing ukraine, i think it's important to look at some of the historical content. when secretary baker met with gorbachev there's a discussion about expansion of nato. our country made no formal commitments to gosha chof as putin claims but gorbachev recent leadership did say the spirit of the conversations very much suggested that we wouldn't expand nato. then when the next one came to power in the ukraine and wanted to do business with the european union, the russians asked the united states whether we would be okay with a tri-patriot economic agreement, where europe would do business with the ukraine and russia. european union rejected that. then when the russian president was ousted he came to united states and said why don't we call early elections and call a coalition. it's unclear whether we worked diplomatically for that. we then supported the regime change. i guess my first question in sort of three parts is do you think we made a strategic mistake by insisting that ukraine join nato, you believe we made a mistake by recognizing the coup, and do you think we made a mistake by not having tri-patr