and they started chanting mubarak and you had egyptians go out and say mubarak must about. >> he's helder 30 years and the police response flood the internet. >> mubarak unleashed his security forces all across egypt. so for four days he unleashed everything he had. four days of information, the government cuts off the internet. mubarak thought he could wreck the revolution by putting egypt on information lockdown so he literally shut down the internet. ♪ norra eunice is for an independent news source. nora and a colleague hear about a hotel in central cairo that still has internet service. they try to get a room with a view of tahrir square. >> they said they have orders from state security not to sell any rooms overlooking tahrir. we settled for a nile view of the room. >> while organizing their coverage of the day's events, nora notices something happening outside their window. she grabs her camera and begins to film a chaotic scene coming into view across the nile river. >> we heard many bombs and we couldn't see anything and the bombs were just going and going and going and then we

mubarak made an easy target, an aging military strongman with the grim record on human rights.the fact that he had been for 30 years a staunch ally of the united states and to key partner in securing israel. the google fueled revolution was a heady moment it seemed a 21st century rebuke to their oppression of the past. mubarak's fall was hailed as an opportunity for egypt to chart a new and more hopeful democratic future and plans were made for a speedier election. no selections came however the results were disastrous for the united states. as mohamed morsi who had close ties with the muslim brotherhood came to power. but barack obama insisted that all that mattered was the morsi was ducey -- duly elected and for that reasons the egyptians would have to suffer under his brutal rule evo wiley started to undermine american interests, destroy the egyptian economy and allow jihadists to flow from libya into the sinai. while the second uprising in the summer of 2013 would not be the ideal way to change government we should all shudder to think what could have happened in egypt had

talking about her efforts to destablize president mubarak in egypt, colonel gadhafi in libya and president assad in syria. in order to bring about that destabilization, she succeeded in egypt, she succeeded in libya, she failed in syria. she as secretary of state authorized the sale of american military equipment to qatar. qatar? little tiny country, beholden to the muslim brotherhood? what business would the united states have arming qatar. ah, qatar was delivering those arms and did to rebel groups. some of the rebel groups were al qaeda. so she is responsible for getting trump's, allegation is borne out by emails in the public domain which i have seen, which anybody can see. american heavy-duty military equipment into some of america's deadliest enemies, that's a felony, provide material assistance to terrorist organization. as a result, people died. it is not unlikely that ambassador stevens himself was killed with one of those weapons. martha: could be. a lot there. judge, thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> good to see you as always. bill: 17 minutes past the hour. disturbing

we did not depose mubarak. millions of egyptians did. because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of the regime. we had a working relationship with blew -- with mubarak. the notion that somehow the united states was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world is a mistake. what is true is at the point the choice becomes, mowing down millions of people or trying to find some transition, we believe, and i would still argue, it was more sensible to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. with respect to libya, libya is in some ways because by the time the international coalition interceded in syria, chaos had broken out already. you already had the makings of a civil war. you had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the slaughter of large numbers of people. we worked under u.n. mandate with a coalition of folks in order to try to avert a big humanitarian can tass rove -- catastrophe that would not be good for us. those would arg

. >> two presidents have been overthrown, wakasi mubarak and his success -- hosni mubarak and the latest president. >> abdul fatah al-sisi has come down hard on decent. he is reviving the state that the revolution tried to change. >> the protests were hijacked by powerful groups with political agendas. the president of 33 years was deposed during the arab springs, but is a powerful figure. loyalists battled the party, an affiliate of the muslim brotherhood for control. rebels overran large parts of the country in 2014, including in sanaa. now there was a battle for power. saudi-led coalitionses and air strikes, it's seen as a regional conflict between saudi arabia, sunni allies and arch rivals. still, the arab springs tragic results is the almost complete disintegration of syria. more than 200,000 syrians have been killed. millions displaced. causing an exodus. part of the worse crisis. president bashar al-assad remains in power supported by russia and iran. the islamic state of iraq and levant or i.s.i.l. grew in this chaotic environment. it drew thousands of the fighters to its ranks.

. >> mubarak? >> mubarak. the biggest benefit of this explosion of protest was that the fear barrier had been broken and continues to be broken because people still come out and protest until today. that might be the biggest positive of the arab spring. what has happened since then in many of these countries? in egypt, we have an elected government that is extremely repressive. under the current government we have up to 230 deaths happening in police custody. >> is this the outgrowth of arab spring or something else? >> this is an outgrowth of a return to authoritarianism. currently in egypt there are 40,000 political prisoners. we have a president who just until the last parliamentarying election was legislating under presidential fiat. the antiprotest law, the antifreedom of assembly law, all of these came to dismantle the civil structures. >> let me give mr. bannerman a chance. in your earlier comments the parliamentary elections in egypt, on the other hand, our other guest says there's so much repression t

perceive events and that's difficult but in this case everybody assumed assad would be gone quickly, but mubarak was much more powerful, more powerful apparatus around him, dishappened in a matter of days and everyone assumed that say sad would goo goh the same way and didn't anticipate that it would become a stale nate which very powerful opposing armies were developed and which side we go on, how much leverage for one side versus the other, whether assad would have -- we ha bev been better off with assad in power. all good things gut no question that we failed to anticipate what a horrific challenge that would be, and it is really helped get news the situation we are in right now. >> host: the book, black flag, the rise of si is, joby warrick is the author. >> thank you. >> there were witch hunts at many universities, including the university where i was first a freshman and then returned to do my work for my ph.d. when i started ucla in 1958, all of us freshmen had to take a battery of psychological tests, all manner of questions on those tests, but one kind of question just kept cropping up

the dom, qaddafi, mubarak. you engage u.s. power for regime change in how would you strike a balance between human rights and stability in a region? mr. bush: it has to be in our national interest, clear and compelling interest. it cannot be based simply on the brutality of the regime. it has to be based on is this the best interest for our country, first orf -- first and and wet, and our allies? have to have a clear strategy. if you don't have a clear strategy of how to get in and win with compelling force and how to get out, you've got problems. so the lessons i think in libya being a good example of this. if you are serious about regime change and it is in our national security interest, you better have a policy that is not just, all right, we got rid of qaddafi, and then leave. the net result now is that libya has become a greater threat to the region. and perhaps ultimately in the long haul, a threat to our country. the has to be a significant strategy for the completion of the mission and then i think we should do this w

we did not depose mubarak.illions of egyptians did because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of the regime. we had a working relationship with mubarak. we didn't trigger the arab spring. and the notion that somehow the u.s. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world i think is mistaken. what is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or trying to find some transition, we believed, and i would still argue, that it was more sensible for us to try to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. with respect to libya, libya is an alternative version of syria in some ways, because by the time the international coalition interceded in syria, chaos had already broken out. you already had the makings of a civil war. you had a dictator who was threatening, and was in a position to carry out, the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. and we worked under u.n. mandate with a coalitio

shortly thereafter, the obama administration led the effort to topple mubarak in egypt. the consequence of that, the muslim brotherhood, a terrorist organization, became the government in egypt. and now we see the obama administration with the support of politicians in both parties trying to topple the government in syria with no plan for what will replace it. if we are to defeat our enemies we need to be clear-eyed. that toppling a government and allowing radical islamic terrorists to take over a nation is not benefiting our national security interests. putting isis or al qaeda or the muslim brotherhood in charge of yet another state in the middle east is not benefiting our national security. instead, we need a president who focuses clearly and says we will utterly destroy isis. [applause] senator cruz: who makes abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the earth, if you go and join isis, if you wage jihad against the united states of america, you are signing your death warrant. [applause] senator cruz: and then finally, we have the iranian nuclear deal. if i am

power struggle between the religious and secular fashions but for decades the united states backed mubarak as a dictator yes there regularly waged war against islamic fundamentalists in his country after the era of spring they chose to back the government of the leader of the egypt muslim brotherhood in essence he decided to back a leader who represented the essence of the islamic fundamentalist and we know how that worked out. and in the end things to know efforts by the president a more moderate party was elected into over in egypt. now fast forward to the war as a drag on for almost 50 days the war started by hamas president of bomb and secretary kerry searched for the intermediary to negotiate a truce. we know full well the most important party to implement is egypt simply because they share a border with gaza and can help to enforce of the land and asea just as it can only be enforced by egypt themselves but to whom did they turn? turkey end catarrh beside the fact it is hosting hamas of a regular basis and called israeli policies worse it just so happens egyptians seed turkey and cat

we had a working relationship with mubarak. we didn't trigger the arab spring. and the notion that somehow the u.s. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world, i think is mistaken. what is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or trying to find some transition, we believed, and i would still argue that it was more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. with respect to libya, libya is an alternative version of syria in some ways. coalition interceded in syria, chaos had already broken out. you already have the makings of a civil war, you had a dictator who was threatening, and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. and we worked under u.n. mandate with a coalition of folks in order to try to avert a big humanitarian catastrophe that would not have been good for us. those who now argue in retrospect we should have left gaddafi in there, seemed to forget that he had already lost legitimacy and con

. >>> and mubarak on the cbs evening news, the justice department opens up an police department. >> the chicago police have a long checkered history, of course, particularly with regard to the use of deadly well now, the department of justice, the federal government is going to investigate the chicago police department. we'll have the details on what spurred this investigation and the very latest on san bernardino. all coming up on the cbs evening news at 6:30. 86 million adults have a serious medical condition called prediabetes, but 90% don't know it. you may be one of them, and your risk of developing type 2 diabetes is higher. the good news is that you can prevent or delay diabetes. talk to your doctor about a simple blood test for prediabetes. sponsored by naccd with support from the centers for disease control and prevention >>> a brawl erupting at a high school football game not on the field involving players. it's between parents brawling in the stands. it was caught on video during the championship game between brick and jackson at rutgers on saturday. the brick township school

shortly thereafter, the obama administration led the effort to topple mubarak in egypt. the consequence of that, the muslim brotherhood, terrorist organization, became the government in egypt. and now we see the obama administration with the support of politicians in both parties, trying to topple the government in syria with no plan for what will replace it. if we are to defeat our enemies, we need to be clear-eyed. that toppling a government and allowing radical islamic terrorists to take over a nation is not benefiting our national security interests. putting isis or al qaeda or the muslim brotherhood in charge of yet another state in the middle east is not benefiting our national security. instead we need a president who focuses clearly and says we will utterly destroy isis. block who makes abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the earth, if you go and join isis, wage jihad against the united states of america, you are signing your death warrant. and then finally, we have the iranian nuclear deal. if i am elected president, i have pledged on the very first

short think thereafter, the obama administration led the effort to topple mubarak in egypt. the consequence of that, the muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization became the government in egypt. and now we see the obama administration with the support of politicians in both parties trying to topple the government in syria with no plan for what will replace it. if we are to defeat our enemies we need to be clear-eyed. that toppling a government and allowing radical islamic terrorists to take over a nation is not benefiting our national security interests. putting istiss or al qaeda or the muslim brotherhood in charge of yet another state in the middle east is not benefiting our national security. instead, we need a president who focuses clearly and says we will utterly destroy isis. who makes abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the earth if you go and join isis, if you wage jihad against the united states of america, you are signing your death warrant. and then finally, we have the iranian nuclear deal. if i am elected president, i have pledged on the very first

we did not depose hosni mubarak. millions of egyptians did because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of the regime. we had a working relationship with mubarak. we didn't trigger the arab spring. and the notion that somehow the u.s. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world i think is mistaken. what is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or trying to find some transiti transition we believe, and i would still argue that it was more successful for us to find a peaceful transition for the egyptian situation. with respect to libya, libya is sort of a alternative version of syria in some ways. because by the time the international coalition interceded in syria, chaos had already broken out. you already had the makings of a civil war. you had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. and we worked under u.n. mandate with a

. >> what was said is a guy like mubarak, 30 years a dictator but pro-american running a roughly okay regime, not a murder factory is in the same league as someone like saddam hussein or assad responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. i think senator paul put his finger on something usefulle. this is a debate the republicans are having now. whoever becomes -- next year when this debate takes place with hillary the republicans are going to offer foreign policy and say what about iraq? republicans have to come up with the idea of how to intervene sensibly in the middle east without bogging us down. >> thank you all. when we come back, a split over surveillance spills onto the debate stage, setting up a showdown between two republican front runners. who had the better argument when it comes to nsa data? yes. you know, that reminds me of geico's 97% customer satisfaction rating. 97%? helped by geico's fast and friendly claims service. huh... oh yeah, baby. geico's as fast and friendly as it gets. woo! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. you can't breathed. through you

. >> what's astounding by what cruz said is that mubarak running a roughly okay regime and it wasn't a murder factory is in the same league as someone like saddam hussein or assad responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. i think senator paul put his finger on something that's useful. a debate that is good that republicans are having now. whoever becomes the candidate next year when the debate takes place with hillary, the republicans are going to offer foreign policy and say what about iraq and what about iraq? republicans have to come up with an idea how to intervene in the middle east without bogging us now. >> when we come back, a split over surveillance spills onto the debate stage setting up a showdown between two republican front runners. who had the better argument when it comes to nsa data collection? ...... wanna take holiday decorations to the next level? use this. if you want to take holiday enjoyment to the next level, use this. aarp member advantages, the aarp credit card from chase and avis want to help you and your family enjoy more this holiday season with win

egypt's hosni mubarak . . . and syria's bashir al-asad. each was a brutal leader. but they generally ran secular governments. islamic extremism was kept under control. israeli officials didn't like syria's leader . . . or his father . . . the previous president . . . hafez al-asad. but they knew what they had. and they were experiencing a neighboring enemy. what worried israelis was who would follll the asads. now we know. there e e seseral reports the u-s was secretly training anan arming isis to oust asad. additional reports suggest u-s officials were in benghazi to ship libyan arms to syrian fighters.behind the headlines reported exclusively on one of the reasons for our presence in benghazi. we were reportedly there to recover thousands of shoulder-fired . . . surface-to-air-missiles . . . looted from libyan armories.now the pentagon i-g is investigating whistleblower claims by 50 intelligence analts that intel reports were a aered. ththanalysts allege their reports were changed to support the administration's narrative downplaying the isis threat. in an email

we did not depose mubarak. millions of egyptians did because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and dictatorship of the regime. and the notion that somehow the u.s. us was in the position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world, i think is mistaken. what is true, is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or tries to find some transition, we believed, and i would still argue that it was more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. with republican to libya, libya is sort of an alternative version of syria in some ways. because by the time the international coalition interceded in syria, chaos had already broken out. you already had the makings of a civil war. you had a dictator who was threatening, and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people, and we worked under u.n. mandate with a coalition of folks in order to try to avert a big humanitarian catastrophe that w

libya, iraq, we helped bring down mubarak. we've been trying to do something with syria.e just seem to knock off these jokes and these dictators and getting worse. we always get somebody worse. >> the idea is that we go in on the premise of regime change. no one asks the question, so when you change the regime, what are you left with? this has been going on. i got into trouble when i was chairman making this point. other republicans have been drowned it oas you mentioned. now it's got a space and a voice and a party. i think overall it's a healthy space for a party to be in for a country that comes into grips and to terms. standing closer where the people of the country are. >> does rubio know he's fighting the old neo-con war that they don't like right now? >> i think the cruz/rubio dynamic on foreign policy a the central dynamic right now. >> it's a debate. >> rubio trying to cast cruz as more like rand paul on foreign policy. cruz is trying to seek a balance. he wants to be between rand paul, ron paul and john next mccain. not totally for intervention in the way some o

knocking off libya, knocking off gadhafi, mubarak.d we could have spent $3 trillion to build this country up. >> i don't even think they have any idea how much it is. >> how do we go forward and find that money again to rebuild the koun sfli. >> we're going to have to do it. we're going to have to zabl stabilize the middle east. we knew each other many years ago. and i have a lot of respect for you. the fact is if you look at what we did in iraq, we just totally dezabl stai destabilize the middle east. i've been against it since 2003, 2004. >> four guys tonight, carson, you, cruz and paul. you had a pretty good fight going with the neo-con crowd led by cruz. >> what did we get out of it? >> rubio is the other side. it was a good fight. >> $4 trillion, we have a country that's falling apart, our infrastructure, our roads, our highways, our schools, our hospitals, our airports are falling apart. i go to some of these countries they have airports the likes of which we never see. >> i know. i took the plane with my son two weeks ago. you

egypt had been identified with the pro western camp under mubarak. after the ouster of mubarak there was a sense among the egyptian elet that the united states turned its back on the country in its time of need and when the new government under sisi son solidated its, the fact that the united states is a kind of fair weather friend, and so while egypt is not shifting out of the united states camp, the fact it has engaged in diplomatic overture to moss scour, there's been -- moscow, agreements on military sales and other cooperation, it's indicative how russia is seeking to promote itself as an alternative, as a kind of balance on the scale in the region for countries that don't think they can necessarily rely for their security entirely on the united states. and in doing this, russia gains additional whichs it can play in this larger global game that it's playing with us. and there's one other piece of this that i think is important. and that is the context beyond the middle east. so, of course, it's not coincidental, that's would have saved back in

egypt's hosni mubarak . . . and syria's bashir al-asad. each was a brutal leader. but they generally ran secular governments. islamic extremism was kept under control. israeli officials didn't'tlike syria's leader . . . or his father . . . the previous president . . . hafez al-asad. but they knew what they had. and they were experienng a tense peace with their neighboring enemem whwh worried israelis was who would follow the asads. now we know.there are several reports the u-s was secretly training and arming isis to oust asad. additional reports suggest u-s ofofcials were in benghazi to ship libyan arms to syrian fighters.behind the headlines reported exclusively on one of the reasons for our reportedly there to recover thousands of shoulder-fired . . . surface-to-air-missiles . . . looted from libyan armories.now the pentagon i-g is investigating whistleblower claims by 50 intelligence analysts that intel reports s were altered. the analysts allege their reports were changed to support the administration's narrative downplaying the isis threat. in an email direct

wakasi mubarak and his elected successor, mohamed mursi. the leader now, abdul fatah al-sisi came down hard on dissent. he is reviving the state that the revolution tried to change. >> the prot tests in yemen were hijacked by more powerful groups. the president, ali abdullah saleh, was deposed during the arab springs, but is a powerful figure. his group battled for control. houthis overran large parts of the country in 2014, including the capital, sanaa, they are part of the battle for power. the saudi-led coalition started air strikes to try to defeat them. it is seen as a regional conflict between saudi arabia, and arch rival iran. the arab springs tragic result it the almost complete disintegration of syria. more than 200,000 syrians have been killed, millions displaced, causing an exodus to europe, part of the worse crisis since world war ii. president bashar al-assad is in power, supported by russia and islamic state of iraq and levant. islamic state of iraq and levant or i.s.i.l. grew. it has drawn thousands of foreign fighters. multi

they were assisting us, at least gadhafi and mubarak in fighting radical terrorists.ll be isis will take over syria. it will worsen u.n. national security interest and the approach, instead of being a woodrow wilson democracy promoter, we ought to hunt down our enemies and kill isis rather than creating opportunities for sis to take control. >> thank you, senator. senator rubio. you supported the removal of moammar gadhafi in libya. now that country is in turmoil as isis is clearly growing there. senator cruz says you haven't learned your lesson. do have you any regrets for supporting president obama's intervention in libya? >> to begin with, moammar gadhafi and the revolt was not started by the united states. it was started by the libyan people t. reason i argue we need to get involved is he was going to go one way or the other. my argument for them has proven true, that is the longer that civil war took the more militias would be formed, the more unstable the country would be after the fact. as far as moammar gadhafi is concerned, he is the man that killed those peo

ted cruz saying we somehow gave up egypt and that we destroyed mubarak. it does -- it doesn't make any sense. i don't have a relationship with what the people are talking about. >> and nor are you scared. he is a libertarian. libertarians are not scared. they are worried about one thing. you are worried about libertarian stuff. >> weed. >> then i'm a libertarian. >> it is like the patriot act and invading iraq and stupid crap and now everyone realizes it is stupid so let's not do more stupid crap. >> women want security. i watched adele instead. i talk to you guys and i can see what i should be looking for and i am not into the libertarian crap. >> do you believe they are fear mongering? >> definitely. i don't think they are fear mongering, but they play on that with us. you have to have an angle. >> there you go. you have to have an angle. >> the thrill is gone or maybe it is not. chris matthews doesn't want to talk about his infamous 2008 comments about covering barack obama and it gave him a thrill up his leg. here is the media research center asking a

but they were assisting us at least gaddafi and mubarak in fighting terrorists. isis will take over syria and it will worsen u.s. national security interests. and the approach, instead of being a woodrow wilson democracy promoter, we ought to hunt down the enemies and kill isis rather than creating opportunities for isis to control new countries. >>> senator rubio, isis is clearly growing. senator cruz says you haven't learned your lesson do. you have any regrets for supporting president obama's intervention in libya? >> the revolt against gaddafi was not started by the united states, it was started by the libyan people. and i argued we needed to get involved because he was going to go one way or the other and the longer the civilian war takes, the more militias would be formed. and the more unstable the country would be after the fact. as far as momar gaddafi, by the way, he is the man who killed those americans over locker by, scotland and bombed that cafe and killed those marines. and you know why he cooperated on the nuclear program? because we got rid of sad

looking at the region, for many years we were looking at the region, and we had mubarak rack, and saad -- assad, and it was very stable. now you have to open every day and a new fight for new organizations and new people that are becoming active in the region. at some point i told my team let's start looking at ountries and institutions. we tell the institutions in the region that you can count on to be influenced. when it comes to your question, what are the execution that is we can embrace and run fornd ru egyptian army, for example, people are not very prone or they don't like in the west the egyptian army, and i can understand it. when it comes to israel it, is not very encouraging. there is this joke about -- it is not famous, maybe it will be now about when the muslim brotherhood had broken the cease-fire between israel and hamhuis. many nationalists in egypt were saying he is a zionist, he is cooperating with israel. and when they brokered a cease-fire, the muslim brotherhood were saying he is a zionist. they were both saying it and both wrong. here is the situation we have. whe

why would we send it there in so they could distribute to rebel groups and depose mubarak in egypt.depose qaddafi in libya. some of the military hardware got in the hand of al qaeda and some of them were used probably to murder the ambassador chris stevens. those leaders after they fell, the countries fell, too. we'll talk about that more coming up. but for now we are waiting on president obama to step up and talk about what came out of that national security council meeting today. he's getting updated on what we are doing to fight the after ands of isis -- fight the savages of isis. what will it include? americans are saying terrorism is leading in the the issues of what they are most concerned about at home. the president has some work to do during this christmas holiday season. will he do it here? stay close. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so s

she said, i didn't want to topple mubarak. she said i don't want any iranian troops there. why is she doing this? part of this to reflect the fact that the country is not comfortable with president obama's policy, but it's also an inoculation. if there is a black swan event, if there is a mass casualty attack in the next year, she's now put herself in a position of, that's obama over there, i'm over here. >> she talked about syria too, she said i was advocating arming the moderates. it seemed to be her emphasis on saying i was trying to do things differently than the way they turned out than what this administration did. >> i think so. but the republicans are all over the statement of saying we are where we need to be. they're taking that one statement and saying gotcha, this is what we're going use against you. >> let me read this so people know what she said. she was talking about isis in syria. she said, we are finally where we need to be. we have a strategy and commitment to go after isis, which is a danger to us as well as the region. and we have this u.n. security cou

the arab people rising up and toppling mubarak. it was stunning and hopeful. and you couldn't help but let your heart go out to the young people making that ham. as your piece by roxanne just pointed out, through social media, or the more serious political activists, the labor movement and the muslim brotherhood coming in from the underground and really exerting itself in ways as well. you could not help but get the idea that this is a dramatic moment. and we're going to see dramatic change in egypt. but to look at where egypt is now. the first democratically elected president was arrested and put in detention with the muslim brotherhood, and people didn't like that government and the constitution that the muslim brotherhood they felt was trampling on. but it was an elected government. and somehow, the united states allowed a coup a coup to happend allowed it to go back. >> that's where i want to go next. i was in the region at the time it was happening myself. and did we underestimate the tenacity of power, and the reluctance of power to let go of it? for exa

we had a working relationship with mubarak. we did not trigger the arab spring. the notion that the u.s. was in the position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world is mistaken. , at thetrue is that point in which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or trying to find some it wasion, we believed more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. , libya isct to libya an alternative version of syria in some ways. by the time the international ,oalition interceded in syria chaos and already broken out. you already had the makings of a civil war, you had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. mandated under u.n. with a coalition of folks in avert ao try to rev a big humanitarian catastrophe. those who argue we should have left muammar gaddafi seem to forget that he had already lost control of his country and we syria and had another libya now. the problem with libya was the ont that there was a failure the part of the

look how the united states abandon mubarak and how well we're doing with assad, backing him fully.at explains the great friendship between vladimir , the new dictator in egypt. that is the basis of it. it is reaping fruit. you have countries like egypt who are regarded as u.s. clients are now buying weapons from russia. so to believe that russia will get, you know, in order to peace or anything like this, get rid of assad is just dreaming. the only way to bring this kind of result would be if there was a serious support to the opposition, giving it the means seriously to defend itself, especially with regard to airstrikes. and then -- then, this, of course, would create a situation compelling p bothutin, iran -- amy: you're saying the u.s. should militarize the opposition? ,.s. isn't even taking on assad they say they're trying to strike isis in syria now. >> militarize the opposition is not the proper turn. it is militarized. it is -- i'm just saying, they needed it from the beginning and had this been done in 2012, we wouldn't be here now. they need defensive weapons. they need a

virus of liberty and audacity spread to egypt, the biggest arab country, and we saw the removal of mubarakent a message of hope of change throughout the arab world. >> speaking of the spread of revolutions, social media, we can't discount the role that it played in having this ripple effect on the different countries. >> reporter: over the last five years i have been looking at one study after another trying to evaluate, estimate, study the role of social media, and certainly we're getting to know more and more about the central role that was played by the knew media, but certainly it was played in this conjunction with satellite media. the fact satellite television like al jazeera arabic were broadcasting to the whole world so people were in some ways tweeting and facebooking, and so on, and so forth, and those were picked up by television stations, verified, and sent back to the people, and again tweeted. there was a full circle of synergy between traditional satellite media, and new media that certainly helped people communicate, coordinate, and basically activate their street movements

just a few years ago under mubarak, there were no journalists in jail.here are other countries which are worrying, one of which is turkey, which the number of journalists in jail has doubled in the last year. >> china, no great surprise, even our own correspondent there in beijing being hassled on the streets, and he said this is in spite of the fact that free speech is supposed to be enshrined in china's constitution. >> it is, but the constitution is not respected. you have nearly 50 journalists in jail in china. many are doing the kind of work which you would get prizes for if you did it elsewhere like investigative reporting into corruption. these are the kinds of journalists that are getting in trouble. because they are doing the kinds of work that we all take for granted. >> as far as turkey and egypt, just to play devil's advocate for the moment. people running the country have big decisions to make. who is to say why they can't put pressure on journalists not to report certain unpalatable facts. >> because that's against international law and hum

we did not depose mubarak. millions of egyptians did because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption of the regime. we had a work relationship with mubarak. we didn't trigger the arab spring. . the notion that somehow the u.s. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world i think is mistaken. what is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people, or trying to find some transition, we believed and i would still argue that it was more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. with respect to libya, libya is an alternative version of syria in some ways because by the time the international coalition interseeded eed in syria, chao already broken out. you already had had the makings of a civil war. you had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. and we worked under u.n. mandate with a coalition of folks in order to try to a

we did not depose hosni mubarak.illions of egyptians did because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of the regime. we had a working relationship with mubarak. we didn't trigger the arab spring, and the notion that somehow the u.s. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the arab world i think is mistaken. what is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people or trying to find some transition, we believed and i would still argue that it was more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the egyptian situation. with respect to libya, libya is sort of an alternative version of syria in some ways because by the time the international coalition interceded in syria, chaos had already broken out. you already had the makings of a civil war. you had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people, and we worked under u.n. mandate with a coalition of

lack of foresight, whether talking about overthrowing saddam in iraq, gadhafi in libya, arab spring, mubarakypt. >> you disagree with secretary clinton, you do not think we are where we need to be? >> we are not where we need to be. we should have been -- >> yeah. >> president obama told npr the biggest lem in t problem in thes that the administration could be communicating better what they could be doing and the media ov overcovering the terrorist attacks. are those the main problems in the fight against isis? >> i respectfully but completely disagree. this is not a so-called communication problem for issue. there is far more that we should be doing, there should be adjustments and corrections made to this strategy so that we're actually focusing on defeating and destroying our enemy, isis, al qaeda, other islamic extremist groups. i keep pointing back to syria because it makes so sense how on one hand we can be -- the united states can be waging war to overthrow the syrian government of assad what isis wants and on the other hand fighting to destroy isis. you can't be doing to things at th

she said, i didn't want to topple mubarak. she said i don't want any iranian troops there. why is she doing this? part of this to reflect the fact that the country is not comfortable with president obama's policy, but it's also an inoculation. if there is a black swan event, if there is a mass casualty attack in the next year, she's now put herself in a position of, that's obama over there, i'm over here. >> she talked about syria too, she said i was advocating arming the moderates. it seemed to be her emphasis on saying i was trying to do things differently than the way they turned out than what this administration did. >> i think so. but the republicans are all over the statement of saying we are where we need to be. they're taking that one statement and saying gotcha, this is what we're going use against you. >> let me read this so people know what she said. she was talking about isis in syria. she said, we are finally where we need to be. we have a strategy and commitment to go after isis, which is a danger to us as well as the region. and we have this u.n. security cou

ridiculous line, i cannot remember which candidate, i think it was cruz who said that obama toppled mubarakmehow we could have prevented the millions of egyptians from taking to the streets in their demand for democracy. the united states is not omnipotent. when we try to have this hubris and think we can shape the world, that is when we get blowback. i have been studying the middle eastf -- i have been styling the middle east for 45 years now and the more the u.s. has militarized the regent, the less secure we become. americans used to be able to travel through the region without fear and it is really becoming -- amy: one issue not addressed in tuesday's debate was climate change. a higher governor john kasich held the distinction of being the only candidate to even say the word climate. >> first and foremost we need to go and destroy isis and we need to do this with our arab friends and friends in europe aired when i see they have a climate conference in paris, they should have been talking about destroying isis because they are involved in virtually every country across the world. amy: i

short think thereafter, the obama administration led the effort to topple mubarak in egypt. the consequence of that, the muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization became the government in egypt. and now we see the obama administration with the support of politicians in both parties trying to topple the government in syria with no plan for what will replace it. if we are to defeat our enemies we need to be clear-eyed. that toppling a government and allowing radical islamic terrorists to take over a nation is not benefiting our national security interests. putting istiss or al qaeda or the muslim brotherhood in charge of yet another state in the middle east is not benefiting our national security. instead, we need a president who focuses clearly and says we will tterly destroy isis. who makes abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the earth if you go and join isis, if you wage jihad against the united states of america, you re signing your death warrant. and then finally, we have the iranian nuclear deal. if i am elected president, i have pledged on the very first d