of a nationstate. but if you are a rebel group or a separatist group, you're guessing as to what you're shooting at and very easy to make a missed eight. at 30,000 feet, you can't tell what is a tour and what is a civilian aircraft. >> do we know who was manning the weapons? >> i don't think so. the interesting question is the that was three levels for me. this is clear to me that we were at this level. encouraged them, he has funded them, he has equipped them. way, he is already complicit in to what they did yesterday. the second level of complicity would be, did he actually give them this particular antiaircraft missile system and did he train the separatists on how to use it? that would be a second degree of complicity. the third degree of complicity is, were there russian special forces that were there and who assisted the separatists in the shooting down of this aircraft? that would be as far as you can go. that would be difficult. complicit ine is supporting these guys which are well known public

organized crime that would likely get access if you have social security information, you had nationstates that would like to steal trade secrets and defense secrets, you have competitors that would like to understand your pricing strategy and your and all of strategy, a sudden there is a new frontier it is not a technology problem. it is a business risk. i think in time the corporate community is going to realize the dollars they expand the build a risk management environment around this new business risk will be a very, very good investment. troublet they have convincing the cfo this is in an insurance policy. we need to do it, and we need to do it now. >> you are the former governor of pennsylvania. and the threats that individual states face from the climate that comes from their neighbor. the cannot necessarily control that based on state boundaries. tell me about climate change and your perception of what is going on. quick somebody could characterize it as a security problem in an entirely different as opposed to security posed by the threat of a nationstate or terrorism. we know th

the traditional nationstate all over the world is under stress, which is driving some people to support more authoritarian governments. we don't want that in america. it's not like you can't have a minute meaningful life. for the rest of everybody in this room, you will live in a. where power is more dispersed. the power will go to the people who are most effective in recognizing the new realities, organizing, and going for it. she decides to do, she's going to do good. >> what is that mean about you? you have spent more than a decade out of office devoting your life, creating and extort a foundation for the public good. what would the return to the white house for your family mean for the foundation for the work you are engaged in? be ablee that we would to continue to do that with what we do. that we would set up certain transparent,ally thatat no one would think someone was helping the clinton foundation with the federal government. when hillary was secretary of state, i cleared every speech i >> i cleared in advance on what the policy would be. the white house developed the policy t

the new world order was about nationstates treating each other well.is one of the reasons why the nicely with understanding what the united states response should be. terrorists were not the prevalent issue in bush's worldview. >> [indiscernible] will hitchcock at the miller center in the history department. before we came in, we had an opportunity to talk to secretary card about his expenses as chief of staff. raised in the conversation was the kaleidoscope of burdens on the president at any time. i think each of your commentators in different and sophisticated ways has brought some attention and criticism to what you have done so far by suggesting there is much more on the plate of george h.w. bush than foreign policy. of course, that is your subject, that is your focus. here is my question. i think i know what you have to say. for the purposes of discussion about the methodology you are pursuing, i want to ask if we can write a good presidential a study of presidential leadership without taking into account domestic politics, congressional relations

the nationstate really is one of those structures. it was rated the cult at the end of the cold war -- the new world order was all about the united nations and nationstates treating each other well, which is one of the reasons why the to in iraq works so well understand what the united states response should be. was not the tension prevalent issue in bush's worldview. >> [inaudible] here at the miller center, history department. before we came in, we had a nice opportunity to talk to secretary card about his experiences as chief of staff. one of the things in our conversation was just the le wasust the kaleidoscope of burden that fell on the president. i think that jeff, each of your commentators in teeth -- in different ways and sophisticated ways has brought some criticism to what you have done so far by suggesting there is much more on the plate of george h.w. bush van foreign policy. of course, that is your subject and that is your focus, but here is my question. i think i know what you are going to say. you have to say this. for

the traditional nationstate all over the world is under stress, which is driving some people to supportuthoritarian governments. we don't want that in america. it's not like you can't have a meaningful life outside of politics, but it's not like politics isn't important. for the rest of the life of everybody in this room, you will live in a period where power is more dispersed and the competition to exercise it in positive and negative ways will probably go to people who are in recognizing the new realities, organizing and deploying according to it. whatever she decides to do, she's going to do good. >> what does that mean about you? in other words, you have spent more than a decade out of office devoting your life, creating a foundation for the public good. what would a return to the white house for your family mean for the foundation, and for the work you are engaged in? >> i hope that we would be able to continue to do that with what we do. that we would set up certain rules, be totally transparent, so that no one would think that someone was helping the clinton foundation because th

it was not built in the principle of a nationstate. in stand, it was from a political philosophy that reflect and stalin as a regional leader. >> president said overcoming militarism had made germany into the country it is today. >> we learned much later that military measures are fundamentally the wrong means to achieve political change. the federal republic of germany was the first country in the world to make conscientious objection a basic constitutional right. >> delegates also highlighted present-day conflicts in the world and said it was necessary to learn from the lessons of the past. >> we are going to a short break but when we come back. >> and its looser for port on what it is like to be a parent of one of the nigerian schoolgirls who had been kidnapped by boko haram. we will have another story. >> don't go away. we will be right back with that anymore. >> day with us. >> welcome back to the show. it has been 80 days since more than 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped in northern nigeria by the islamist group, boko haram. >> the

i wonder if you are pages on the -- if fewer pages on the historical trajectory of other nationstatesand more pages on how the white house under bush perceived these key nations and how they perceive the united states might make for a sharper analytical approach to the role of sharper leadership in the role of the leadership in bringing the cold war to an end. to some extent, i hope you see that my critical concerns here are just a way to see that i have read the manuscript and have earned my reputation here. -- my invitation here. many thanks to the miller center to read this. i cannot wait to see the rest of this manuscript. thanks so much. [applause] >> wow. i got friday afternoon at 1:00, huh? [laughter] it is great to be here. i am really happy to be a part of this discussion. thank you so much for letting me be a part of it. i presume jeffrey might had -- might have had something to do with this and i am very happy to have had the opportunity to get to read this manuscript as it is. he read about -- a little less than half of the final manuscript. one of the great things is that

maybe it is most likely, nationstates usually have these types of systems unless they wind up in thehands of separatists. you're not talking about that kind of threat happening to these commercial airliners. you're talking more about the lower-level threats. host: who gets the contracts? what companies work in the space? guest: it is almost entirely the traditional defense contractors. as the department of homeland theyity moved ahead, solicited five bids. they took it down to two. there were others involved. one of the companies that bid and made it further along was united airlines teaming with a more traditional defense company. it's not like they were all defense contractors. the vast majority were. yes. they do want to expand their business in this area. there was a gold after 9/11 where people thought homeland security was going to have an enormous budget. it has got to be a pretty big budget. it it never quite materialized. host: carl is calling from colorado. you say complex safety issues. the european airlines used to prevent people from tampering with their airliners. if a

and we are not at war with the nationstate. this includes be underwear the underwear bomber, but shoe bomber and some suitcases and this includes bringing the united states our and then eventually taking over and they hide among the good people and if you are living in chicago in a street and three doors down you see too many people with a gun breaking into the house, and then after they break into that house or comes next for you, and sees the you are seeing a report after i break into this house until these people, i'm going to come and break into your house. >> are there other questions. >> this includes how we might handicap the horse races right now. >> it's always a problem. it's not about a panel of ideas and many of us on the media fueled this because it is, it is competition and the battle is more exciting than a real exchange of ideas and improving the country. so you knew who they are and it's still a debate whether hillary clinton will marco rubio, ted cruz, i don't think so, and they are all out there. we have to d

but unfortunately it's been replaced by the united states which is just another degraded nationstate 200 of which are covering the world like a skin disease at this point. [applause] >> don't hold back. what do you really think? [laughter] >> the u.s. government and around the world is the enemy not only of the people killing around the world of the average american because of all of the enemies that it is making around the world. it serves no useful purpose at all. >> you have extensive experience with investments. investment. do you find the foreign-policy is making a sensible investment for people around the world, what is the affect? >> that's the big thing. it's not just the people that are built into the material around the country it is bankrupting the u.s.. i expect to those 20 some aircraft carriers, told big ones and another dozen little ones that we have some of them will end up at the dock like the soviet navy did order argentina did recently actually it tilted 45 degrees at the dock. why is that? because it takes tremendous economic power to prevent that kind of force an

they were outraged in the fact that we were going to allow part of the nationstate that wasn't a nation to exercise and break off and if you listen to the russians now they are saying we have the right to do in ukraine and maybe in latvia what you did in the balkans because we have russians living there that said those shouldn't live among them and us uanswer from the legal ad historical standpoint, this is in part because of the ambitions whether we regard them as legitimate or not and in part because we help model things and de facto encourage or forced him to act on those ambitions. am i wrong on that? >> i agree with a lot of what you said about the balkans. when they became the russian foreign minister in the '90s, he had a foreign policy that he and others were discredited when they were used offensively in the balkans because their arguments against the hardliners have always been no need to fear the last strictly defensive organization. but let's go back to ukraine and other parts of the former soviet union that putin has designs on her. russia passed the law in the expansion of

maybe it is most likely, nationstates usually have these types of systems unless they wind up in thehands of separatists. you're not talking about that kind of threat happening to these commercial airliners. you're talking more about the lower-level threats. host: who gets the contracts? what companies work in the space? guest: it is almost entirely the traditional defense contractors. as the department of homeland theyity moved ahead, solicited five bids. they took it down to two. there were others involved. one of the companies that bid and made it further along was united airlines teaming with a more traditional defense company. it's not like they were all defense contractors. the vast majority were. yes. they do want to expand their business in this area. there was a gold after 9/11 where people thought homeland security was going to have an enormous budget. it has got to be a pretty big budget. it it never quite materialized. host: carl is calling from colorado. you say complex safety issues. the european airlines used to prevent people from tampering with their airliners. if a

only nationstates that have these kinds of weapons. we have these sorts of individual interest groups that can get their hands on dangerous weapons. sure. i think the airlines will make more strenuous efforts to avoid any area where these weapons might be used here responsibly. as i said, that will impose incremental costs and inconveniences. >> just stay with me for a moment. we will be back with you. up, better not have a craving for a big mac in china. i meet isll you temporarily off the menu there. plus, we will have a real check. our players going national with the new york state start up. we will be back. ♪ >> you are watching "in the loop" live on bloomberg tells bloomberg- television. announcing a public offering to finance growth despite a first-quarter net loss of 22 main dollars. a virgin america ipo. i want to bring back the former american airlines chairman and ceo bob. what do you make of this ipo? >> i assume, they look at the airline industry and they figure they will approve their own results and this is the time to gi

israel, like any nationstate, has the right to self-defense. the problem with the israeli strategy -- it is really the israeli predicament -- is that it cannot illuminate hamas politically or militarily -- eliminate hamas politically or militarily. to some extent, it could because hamasas will survive even if it is weekend. it would reinforce its standing as the only palestinian group willing to stand up to israel. in the short run, the best strategy for israel is to figure out a way of getting what the promised her called calmk for calm, a cease-fire which does not resolve the situation but at and i think the israelis need to reconsider their diplomatic or political strategy and what they can do to away fromplit hamas the less radical palestinians and see if they can get serious about negotiating a deal with those palestinians who essentially run the west bank. but havingwith that been directly involved, i can say they have been trying to negotiate with them. anyone who sees what hamas does or says not only to the israelis , hamas isown people

but, unfortunately, it's been replaced by the united states, which is just another degraded nationstate, 200 of which, are covering the face of the world like a skin disease at this point. [applause] >> don't hold back. what did you really think? [laughter] >> so no, the u.s. government and its depredations around the world is the enemy, not only of the people it's killing, but of the average american because of all the enemies that it's making around the world. no, it serves no useful purpose at all. >> mr. casey come you have extensive experience with investments. do you find that u.s. foreign policy is making us a more sensible investment for people around the world? isn't bankrupting as? >> yes. actually addicting, it's not just that people that are killed and the material that's destroyed around the country. it's bankrupting the u.s. .. if it hadn't been for the united states military adventures, we would be further, more advanced over china today than we currently are over uganda. we would already be colonizing the outer planets. if we have destroyed all this capital. we've destro

and from nationstate to give comfort and aid to the terrorists. so i would like to see that the congress of the put aside all the nonsense and all the appeals and preening around and come together to protect this nation. that is the first obligation of government. the first obligation. nothing else can be done for this country if we are not secure and to this point, the congress of the united state is failing us and failing us fast. >> thank you jim. commissioner? >> i would like to say briefly three things. first of all, i would like to recognize the extraordinary leadership of tom kane and lee hamilton. from the first meeting that we had of the 9/11 commission when they pledged to do virtually everything together never appearing on the tv show without the other one. lessons to the other eight commissioners were extraordinarily profound as we had been attacked, we had lost almost 3000 of our citizens and we were going to get to the bottom of this and work across partisan lines and produce a room where that would make america safer. so all the way

of analytics.e co all they know for sure is that a nationstate gain access to the nasdaq and we don'tinal objective was. how can this be prevented in the future? the attitude of prevention, you pretty much already lost the battle in my opinion. i will give you an example. surgein iraq during the as an intelligence officer. when my unit to the ground, we took an attitude of prevention to prevent the attacks happening to our base. when we did, it actually cause the attacks to increase. will he took an approach on intelligence and risk man -- when we took an approach on intelligence and risk management where we dealt with bad things that were happening, we reduced the risk to a manageable level. it is the same thing for ciber and the same thing for nasdaq was up once you understand where they're going to attack, you can use your resources. that is the approach they have to take going down the road. >> and different approaches require different government agencies. the fbi, the nsa, the white house, the secret service, they are all informed or involved. does that help or hurt the process?

who do not want to join the euro can stay out of the integration and actually return powers to nationstatesll stop i explained in these detailed negotiations that we made some progress on ever closer union's and setting out specific concerns that britain had. but we have a long way to go. the job has gotten harder but there are many who understand you need a totally different approach to eurozone immersed. >> i commend my most honorable friend. on that overriding principle, national or laments are the root of our democracy. for which people over the years have fought and died not only to save this country but europe as well. the european commission recently asserted -- and is now headed by mr. juncker, that the european parliament is really effective armament for the european union. does he agree with me that we must assert our national parliament and it must avail and therefore he is completely right in what he did this weekend? >> my honorable friend makes an important point. there are those in europe that say the only democratic legitimacy in europe is the european parliament and somehow

that project and we are working intensively with the european union on the larger issue with the nationstates of energy diversification giving them other options enter connectors, lng other sources energy to reduce their dependence and what we are involved with. i think it's an issue of continuing to talk to the europeans about our larger strategic interest of creating less dependency on countries that are autocratic in countries that use trade as a weapon and countries that use energy as a weapon and more of a vibrant market set of principles within europe. >> so my default is to do this in concert with europeans but when we are in bulgaria we saw the effective unilateral sanctions. we sanctioned russian individual not exactly sure why bulgaria decided to hault construction but there's a lot of speculation was part of a was they were worried about the consequences being sanctioned by the newsday said the question to you mr. glaser is you think about the impact of unilateral sanctions there shortly seems to be evidence that if europeans are willing to move because there is impact with the uni

maybe it is most likely, nationstates usually have these types of systems unless they wind up in the of separatists. you're not talking about that kind of threat happening to these commercial airliners. you're talking more about the lower-level threats. host: who gets the contracts? what companies work in the space? guest: it is almost entirely the traditional defense contractors. as the department of homeland theyity moved ahead, solicited five bids. they took it down to two. there were others involved. one of the companies that bid and made it further along was united airlines teaming with a more traditional defense company. it's not like they were all defense contractors. the vast majority were. yes. they do want to expand their business in this area. there was a gold after 9/11 where people thought homeland security was going to have an enormous budget. it has got to be a pretty big budget. it it never quite materialized. host: carl is calling from colorado. you say complex safety issues. the european airlines used to prevent people from tampering with their airliners. if a good

most of it is held by nationstates. commodity.ket it has markets at prices. no one is squeezing the market to do this. it is oil and it is expensive. emand fortremendous da it. reaction in the rise of the gasoline, you know what politicians act to this. host: we left iraq when they wanted us out, was that too soon? guest: i think we left too soon. argument of our operations in iraq after 2003 and our activities around the world -- you may disagree, but i was on the ground. part of the purpose was to promote democracy and help constitutionalh systems. you have to listen to the people and their representatives. when the representatives say we do not want to give you special legal status and when a maximum -- 60% wanted the american troops to stay, it was hard to keep troops on. we tried. the troops can stay, but we will not give you special legal immunities. said we cannot work with that deal. we will have to try other ways. title 22, essentially, foreign affairs authorities and programs was not successful. that is where we are now. host: our conversation is wi