despite the weeks-long pressure from conservatives in the reagan administration, i did not back down cause i knew the policy was on my side. in this process, i stood up to pressure from president reagan, defense secretary caspar weinberger, secretary barry goldwater, senator john tower, chairman of the committee, and many others. i remember a meeting it he white house where i reminded the president that he had been talking through the campaign about the welfare queens fraudulently on the budget. it happens that i reminded him that there was defense queens as well. i started doing oversight on the defense department. it wasn't long before the evidence of waste and fraud began appearing. we uncovered contractors that billed the defense department $435 for a claw hammer, $750 for toilet seats, $695 for ashtrays. we found a coffeepot that even cost $7,600. i had no problem finding democrats to join my effort -- oversight effort back then, but it's somehow kind of interesting how hard it is to find bipartisan help when doing oversight in the current democrat administration. nevertheless, 1

last year of the carter administration is defined by the hostages and in the first hours of reagan's administration free. that's the case with the image absolutely defines the reality. >> i just won't call them hostages. they were prisoners of war. >> if the hostages had not been released, reagan would have been forced to focus on the hostage crisis. with the hostages back, he was free to focus on the economy. >> inflation and unemployment are threatening the american way of life as never before. and without a change of policy, these intolerable conditions will get even worse. >> inflation flared again last month, almost doubling the rate of the month before. >> in 1967, inflation was 2.9%. last year it was 12.4%. >> people were afraid. people had begun to think that america was in a kind of relative decline. >> we had high unemployment and high inflation. which at the time was thought to be impossible under the existing economic orthodoxy. it required something new to change that problem. >> if we can lower the rate of increase in government spending, up there ahead is daylight. >> today we have f

last year of the carter administration is defined by the hostages and in the first hours of reagan's administrationy're free. that's the case with the image absolutely defines the reality. >> i just won't call them hostages. they were prisoners of war. >> if the hostages had not been released, reagan would have been forced to focus on the hostage crisis. with the hostages back, he was free to focus on the economy. >> inflation and unemployment are threatening the american way of life as never before. and without a change of policy, these intolerable conditions will get even worse. >> inflation flared again last month, almost doubling the rate of the month before. >> in 1967, inflation was 2.9%. last year it was 12.4%. >> people were afraid. people had begun to think that america was in a kind of relative decline. >> we had high unemployment and high inflation. which at the time was thought to be impossible under the existing economic orthodoxy. it required something new to change that problem. >> if we can lower the rate of increase in government spending, up there ahead is daylight. >> today we ha

you were in the reagan administration. hasn't this been going on for years and years?, this kind of thing has been going on for years and years, and perhaps that's part of the problem. i phleb 1976, i think a delegate from the midwest a affirmer, in the middle of 9 forthe ford/rea fight, was invited to have dinner with the queen of england at the white house. he went and i believed switched his allegiance to gerald ford. this can go on all the time. the question is, is it proper? rules what you can and cannot do, ethics rules et cetera. those rules simply don't apply. >> but so he may not like the rules, but we're at a point in the race where every single delegate counts. seems donald trump has been throwing in the towel in certain states like colorado last weekend. and wyoming this weekend. given the fact he has such a large lead in new york, ahead of the primary, do you think that's a smart strategy, jeffrey? >> want to concentrate on where you win. people can agree or disagree on a strategy. his strategy, pla to his strengths. marco rubio campaigned in florida, alas

so for months i endured pressure from the reagan administration and from my republican colleagues thatued a freeze on defense spending would constitute unilateral disarmament. president reagan had put together a less aggressive deficit reduction plan. it went farick enough. my bipartisan plan was attacked for being dangerous and causing for coney and cuts to the defense budget. listed -- is really knew it was a realistic response and i did not act out. we 2, 1984, budget committee forced a vote on the senate floor and that particular year we were not successful. required the senate and the nation to have a debate about the growing defense budget. about the that debate waste and the growing federal despite theits weeks-long pressure from conservatives and the reagan administration i did not back down because i knew the policy was on my side. , i stood up to pressure from president reagan, defense secretary caspar weinberger, secretary barry goldwater, chairman of the committee and many others. i remember meeting at the white house. i reminded the president ian khama talking to the campa

a social conservative and key member of the reagan administration. >> i felt we could not allow the election1992 to go forward without having our different views from president bush represented in the primaries. >> and the first primary is in new hampshire. bill clinton is up and running, he's pitted against lawyer and former massachusetts senator paul tsongas. >> what's your name? good to see you. you been doing this? >> yes. >> clinton really knew how to talk to the good old boys, the pickup truck people. >> how long has this pig been on? >> he could sound like america. and he understood what they cared about and how to get to them. it wasn't for nothing that they called him bubba. >> by mid january, clinton has edged in front of rival paul tsongas. but his world is about to come crashing down. [ phone ringing ] >> hello? >> the phone call was from bill clinton. >> he told me what was being published, what was coming out the next morning. at that moment i was scared to death. m medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo preve

they were fearful that ronald reagan administration would take advantage of the weakness. the soviets are reactive. >> if you are watching this broadcast, you went to sleep with the same impression that we did. we lead you to believe that the plane landed safely on soviet territory. that was sadly not true. >> at 1,600 hours. at 10,000 meter, at 18:26, the soviet pilot. the target was destroyed. sglp spies or anything like that? >> think the russians are gears up for war, doing everything. and the savalue of human life, and the timing. particularly bad. the united and the -- united states and the soviets, two great power presidency are afraid of each other. and klz 007 happens, this is one of the most dangerous years of the cold war. >> causing the suspicions about ronald reagan, the soviet intelligence agencies thought, under the cover of a military exercise, called able archer, a first nuclear strike on moscow could be launched. >> when ronald reagan discovered that soviets did think that united states might launch a pre-emptive strike, it was like, i will look upon them

despite the weeks-long pressure from conservatives in the reagan administration, i did not back down because i knew the policy was on my side. in this process, i stood up to pressure from president reagan, defense secretary caspar weinberger, secretary barry goldwater, senator john tower, chairman of the committee, and many others. i remember a meeting it he white house where i reminded the president that he had been talking through the campaign about the welfare queens fraudulently on the budget. it happens that i reminded him that there was defense queens as well. i started doing oversight on the defense department. it wasn't long before the evidence of waste and fraud began appearing. we uncovered contractors that billed the defense department $435 for a claw hammer, $750 for toilet seats, $695 for ashtrays. we found a coffeepot that even cost $7,600. i had no problem finding democrats to join my effort -- oversight effort back then, but it's somehow kind of interesting how hard it is to find bipartisan help when doing oversight in the current democrat administration. nevertheless,

so for months i endured pressure from the reagan administration and from my republican colleagues that argued a freeze on defense spending would constitute unilateral disarmament. president reagan had put together a less aggressive deficit reduction plan. we didn't think it went far enough. my bipartisan plan was attacked for being dangerous and causing draconian cuts to the defense budget. i knew it was realistic and a responsible approach. i didn't back down, was forced to vote that year may 2, 1984 in the budget committee. we force a vote on the senate floor and that particularly her we were not successful. this effort required the senate to have a debate about a growing defense budget. we started that debate including the waste and inefficiency in the pentagon and the growing fiscal deficits. despite the week long pressure from conservatives on the reagan administration i did not back down because i knew the policy was on my side. in this process i stood up to pressure from president reagan, defense secretary caspar weinberger, secretary barry goldwater, senator john tower, germany

bush came into office, he was vice president with the reagan administration. they were obviously very close. jim baker culled it a hostile takeover in trying to separate the h.w. bush administration from the predecessors in the reagan administration. they wanted to kick out all the reagan appointees and put together their own new team as well. and that was part of this larger strategy of saying look, we are going to come in, run our own ship. we're also going to take time and really reflect on what that's going to look like. and we're not going to just rapidly try to distance ourself from our predecessors, nor are we going to blindly accept what we're inheriting. >> thank you. i remember the transition i lived through. it's a time that's particularly vulnerable to mistake because you have a few people that have been confirmed and a few more that can't sign a memo. basically, nobody yet know what is their telephone number is or where their desk is. and people pick up on signals that the president has given in his inaugural, racing off with initiatives. and my fi

airport -- reconfigure reagan administration at our -- recon reaganation at our airport. the bill also addresses human trafficking. imawf imawf w we adopted my stog on planes act that i'm doing with senator warner on the amendment. and the bill that senator warner and i introduced would require training for flight attendants to recognize and report suspected human trafficking. flight attendants are on the front lines in the battle against trafficking and this amendment will ensure that they have the training they need to help prevent the horror and violence of women, children, victims that they suffer when they are victims of human trafficking. obviously senator cornyn and i will add a significant bill last year on this issue to make -- give our law enforcement some better tools to be able to go after these perpetrators. this is really a continuation of that work. there is another important safety priermt a concerned this bill doe does not address. i have filed an amendment with senators moran and inhofe to clarify that the oklahoma city aircraft registry office provides

despite the weeks-long pressure from conservatives in the reagan administration, i did not back down use i knew the policy was on my side. in this process, i stood up to pressure from president reagan, defense secretary caspar weinberger, secretary barry goldwater, senator john tower, chairman of the committee, and many others. i remember a meeting it he white house where i reminded the president that he had been talking through the campaign about the welfare queens fraudulently on the budget. it happens that i reminded him that there was defense queens as well. i started doing oversight on the defense department. it wasn't long before the evidence of waste and fraud began appearing. we uncovered contractors that billed the defense department $435 for a claw hammer, $750 for toilet seats, $695 for ashtrays. we found a coffeepot that even cost $7,600. i had no problem finding democrats to join my effort -- oversight effort back then, but it's somehow kind of interesting how hard it is to find bipartisan help when doing oversight in the current democrat administration. nevertheless, 12

now even the reagan administration consulted with democratic senatorsbefore they nominated robert bork . they were consulted, they didn't listen. and that nomination was voted down by the senate judiciary committee, was reported to the senate with a negative recommendation and was ultimately, the nomination was defeated by a vote of 42 to 58 with both republicans and democrats voting against judge bork. so consultation makes good sense. it makes good governing sense. it certainly makes good constitutional sense and i might add especially in this city it makes good political sense. when a bipartisan consultation, the supreme court battle can be avoided. on the other hand, if the consultation is simply a phone call five minutes before fox news announces the president's choice, that doesn't really cut it. it's reported the supreme court the appointment process, the congressional research service said plainly quote, it is common practice for president as a matter of courtesy to consult with senate party leaders as well as with members of the senate judiciary committee before choosing a nom

kt mcfarland is a former deputy assistant in the reagan administration much thank you for joining us.heard kerry's response today and stronger than yesterday. but is it all words and no action be? what should we do? >> it is good you point it out. let's contrast what secretary kerry said and with what the russian press release was and the general was. bad and provocative and note ru russians said this is just fine. there is no problem here. and yet look at what they were both doing. secretary kerry, the united states, and president obama are not doing much about it. they cut back on the defense budget or defense program and cut back on missile defense in europe and same time, russians increasing their aggressiveness and challenging the united states everywhere in the baltibs and balkans and black sea and even on the coast of the united states with alaska. the increase of fly byes of the russian bear bombers. we talked about the cuts in the military and impact it is having with your military members and putin's goal is show they are bigger and badder and president obama's administratio

ronald reagan's administration is accused of secretly selling weapons to america's most dangerous enemy>> i have a few words here before i take your questions. >> with the profits diverted illegally to fund a right-wing guerilla group in nicaragua, the contras -- >> your credibility has been severely damaged. can you repair it? what does it mean for the rest of your presidency? >> well, i imagine i'm the only one around who wants to repair it, and i didn't have anything to do with damaging it. >> bad news for reagan, but worse for his loyal deputy george bush. iran-contra could kill his own presidential plans. >> news of the widening investigation comes as vice president george bush is trying to put some distance between himself and the arms deal. >> i remember him kind of coming back into his office in the west wing of the white house as though the wind had been knocked out of him. he knew that this would become a very large and evolving story, that he would have a very hard time separating himself from president reagan, and yet it really was not something of his making. >> in february

create a minimum wage that would actually be in real terms, a bit higher than it was under the reagan administration. >> right, but a long way from being universal across the united states, how long would it take for that to happen? >> with the, it's not going to happen except by federal legislation, and right now, the republican party won't vote for any material rise in the minimum wage. the aei, a conservative think tank in the united states in brooks has just voted for a substantial increase in the minimum wage, and this is one of the issues that cuts across party lines in the united states. while the increase in the minimum wage is strongly supported by deputies, it's actually spored by the majority of republicans as well. >> strongly supported by the majority of republicans, and supported by democrats, but there are arguments, not least from the american action forum that says that the increase could cost several hundreds of thousands of jobs. what do you say to that. >> that doesn't track with any of the economics. the economic studies find that there are very modest effects on employment. in

reagan administration consulted with democratic senators before the nominated robert bork. they consulted but they did not listen. [laughter] that emanation was voted down by the senate judiciary committee as reported to the senate with a right -- negative recommendation. it was ultimately defeated by a vote of it certainly makes good constitutional sense. especially in this city, it makes good political sense when there is a partisan consultation, the supreme court battle can be avoided. on the other hand, if consultation is simply a phone call five men's before fox news announces the president's choice, that is not really cut it. researchessional service has said plainly that it is common practice for presidents to consult the senate party leaders as well as numbers of the senate judiciary committee before choosing a nominee. this is not a novel suggestion. this has been done throughout the history of this nation. the president choice unites and invigorates only a narrow wing of his party and ends up dividing the american people. who should the president nominee be? i'm n

brian lamb: here is a man i used to see a lot of in the reagan administration. he was the u.s.id administrator, building things in the middle east. let's watch this interview we did in the middle east back in 2003. >> we will see an improvement in public service that affect the great mass of the iraqi people within the next two months, electricity system, water system, a critical part of what you need in an arid climate and what you need for public service. you have to have electricity and we now have made an agreement to andambassador for bechtel the other contractors we have in year two essentially provide the overall management and the accountability system and the purchase of equipment like generators. brian lamb: i understand he worked for bechtel before he had this job. sally denton: i think he oversaw part of the eight-day project, not -- oversaw part of the big dig project. there was some sort of historical relationship there. brian lamb: did paul grammar work for bechtel bechte? sally denton: he obviously oversaw the distribution of the contracts, the major contracts t

ronald reagan's administration is accused of secretly selling weapons to america's most dangerous enemyan. >> i have a few words here before i take your questions. >> with the profits diverted illegally to fund a right-wing guerilla group in nicaragua, the contras -- >> your credibility has been severely damaged. can you repair it? what does it mean for the rest of your presidency? >> well, i imagine i'm the only one around who wants to repair it, and i didn't have anything to do with damaging it. >> bad news for reagan, but worse for his loyal deputy george bush. iran-contra could kill his own presidential plans. >> news of the widening investigation comes as vice president george bush is trying to put some distance between himself and the arms deal. >> i remember him kind of coming back into his office in the west wing of the white house as though the wind had been knocked out of him. he knew that this would become a very large and evolving story, that he would have a very hard time separating himself from president reagan, and yet it really was not something of his making. >> in febr

there's a stasis at the top of the leadership, they were fearful the reagan administration would takege of their weakness. as a result, the soviets are very reactive. >> if you are watching this broadcast last night, you probably went to sleep with the same impression we did. there had been some kind of hassle between soviet fighter jets and korean airline 747, and we led you to believe the plane landed safely on soviet territory. sadly that was not true. >> at approximately 1600 hours, the aircraft strayed into soviet air space, the korean aircraft was recorded at 10,000 meters. at 1826 hours, the soviet pilot reported that he fired a missile and the target was destroyed. >> they went on a peaceful trip, they weren't any spies or anything like that. >> i think the russians are gearing up for war and doing everything that they can to prepare for it. >> it was not an intentional hostile act against korean airlines, it was a mistake of a system that was falling apart. >> this crime against humanity must never be forgotten here or throughout the world. it was an act of barberism, born of

couple of them before the speech got going here and, you know, some of them are veterans of the reagan administration and go back to previous republican administrations and so what donald trump is ctrying to do a others said a few moments ago, he has the foreign policy. and donald trump said he wants to bomb the hell out of isis and take the oil, it might make the people in the think tank fidget in their seats a bit, out on the campaign trail, lines like that, wolf, are the reason why donald trump racked up the huge victories in the five northeastern victories. people want to hear that kind of rhetoric and want to hear that donald trump wants to bomb the hell out of isis but at the same time, said he's opposed to the iraq war. how do you square that circle? that's the details people may be wanting but i'm told by advisors, we should not a expect a whole litany of details or specifics. this is broad outlines, a thematic and getting back to some of the things that donald trump has talked about on the campaign trail. you know, he has talked about whether nato is obsolete. he's said nato outlived its cur

. >> kroft: john lehman, who was secretary of the navy in the reagan administration, says that he and the others make up a solid majority of former 9/11 commissioners who think the 28 pages should be made public. >> lehman: we're not a bunch of rubes that rode into washington for this commission. i mean, we, you know, we've seen politics of national security. we all have dealt for our careers in highly classified and compartmentalized in every aspect of security. we know when something shouldn't be declassified. and the, this, those 28 pages in no way fall into that category. >> kroft: lehman has no doubt that some high saudi officials knew that assistance was being provided to al qaeda, but he doesn't think it was ever official policy. he also doesn't think that it absolves the saudis of responsibility. >> lehman: it was no accident that 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis. they all went to saudi schools. they learned from the time they were first able to go to school of this intolerant brand of islam. >> kroft: lehman is talking about wahhabism, the ultra- conservative, puritanical f

. >> what are your thoughts of the reagan's administration handling of the aids crisis. >> reagan likey people, particularly politicians, was got a rationalizing things that were convent for him and as a way of rationalizing why he didn't speak out on the aids crisis he could point out that he was the head of a political party that was, well -- in those days, that generally believed -- there was a large faction in the republican party who believed that aids was god's judgment on homosexuals, and -- or the president of the united states to take a position on that would contradict this large run party. -- large republican party. he could also say we're funding aids research has much as he conveniently can, as much as we usefully can. he could note that opinion was divided on what the appropriate public health measures were, and so what should he say? but that really was rationalization. reagan was made uncomfortable by much of the social agenda of conservatives. reagan was a conservative, but his conservative was primarily politics and fiscally. he was opposed to abortion but never spoke

>> well, deirdre, i served in the second term of ronald reagan's administration because i'm way too young to serve in the first one. deirdre: i knew that steve. >> i think this is really important for the left. they don't have a narrative why the economy has performed so miserably over the last seven or eight years, compared to the big boom we saw in the 1980s under reagan. so they're coming up with all sorts of excuses. we had quarters under ronald reagan, you will not believe this, deirdre, we had quarters where the economy grew 7, 8%. which had 0.5% under obama. 7 or 8% growth quarters under ronald reagan. something happened in early '80s. was combination of i believe reduction in the tax rates. at that time the highest tax rate was 70%. reagan brought it down to the 28%. by the way we had increase in tax revenues rates went down, and economy did so well. we deregulated key industries in the economy. reagan got control of inflation pulling back on money supply. what ronald reagan's theme was he said in 1980 and 1984, government is not the solution. government is the problem. that is ex

casey mcfarland, in the reagan administration, as well as others and she's a fox news national security to see you. one of the things that americans are wondering about this deal, whether or not the u.k. should exit from the e.u. does it make us safer as nation? >> that's a good question. what do we care what they're doing in europe? i think we should care. and president obama gave one argument, which is that we americans should care, because we want britain in the european union. it's a strong trading partner, it will help us stand up against the russians. i looked at it and say, hey, wait a minute. europe has a lot of problems, a wave of migrants are coming in and that has economic problems. it's bogged down in regulation for trade. so maybe if britain gets out there's an opportunity for the united states and britain to have a new kind of relationship. a trade alliance that we don't really have right now. >> would we be safer as a nation, the united states f the u.k. got out? >> i think so. >> you do? >> here's why. what's happened in europe, all the migrants coming from the middle ea

. >>> after winning their first national title since the reagan administration, villanova decided toe seconds at midcourt gives it to jenkins for the championship! double honors! >> kris jenkins certainly has his one shining moment while nova's coach jay wright kept his poker face on the sidelines, check out charles barkley's reaction to the buzzer beater. >> who was he pulling for last night? >>> good night, that is a huge fish! >> our catch of the day goes to joel sakamoto who pulled this in and two weeks later a 38" leopard shark in the same spot. way to go back to the hot spot. do you think you can do better? look at paul deanno! >> look at that. >> send your picture to catchoftheday@kpix.com. >> salmon and tuna in the same day. >> right. >> only right here. >> have you ever caught a fish without having to go to the store and actually buy it? >> i have fished in my formative years but i found that with two kids at home, it is a little quicker to go to costco. [ laughter ] >> without the experience, paul. captions by: caption colorado comments@captioncolorado.com announcer: it's t

the reagan administration and the bush administration are not talking about how you can avoid getting it, what safe sex is, what clean needles are. mr. brown: we should talk about it. politics is such a decrepit art these days. it is all about they nowadays and little lists -- all about ities and little lists that you could pick up at any office of any think tank in washington and circulate them around and a chattering class promotes in and beats us up in the process. the chopped liver at the end of the road continues the process we are in and i'm trying some way that i believe is imaginative to open the process. talking about aids and how sexual activity is going to transmit hiv is going to be part of the process of truth. >> ray, do you have a question? >> throughout the campaign today, you keep talking about political corruption. a very general term. who is corrupt and give us some examples? mr. brown: i'll start with the derivation of the word corruption. a latin word mean to break apart. if you think of a corpse as it corrupts, it is breaking down. i'm saying the political proces

from mississippi -- [laughter] clark reid, and he lived famously as the most hated guy by the reagan administrationu have a long memory or anything. >> not at all. [laughter] liz: looking9 at all of you, does donald trump have a point here, or is this just the way it is and you okay with it? >> i'm not okay with it. it's just the way it is. there are a lot of people who don't have a lot of money, they will be welcome for that. but most people take it very, very seriously, and you're down to in that particular case reagan lost by 117 votes. i doubt that that'll be much of a difference this time. so you really, president ford gave sewer grants, i mean, he had the power. no one has that kind of power. of but trump has a lot of gifts. may not fly on a 747, but you can fly down on trump one. liz: julie, what do you think happens come the cleveland convention? >> that's a great question, i don't think anybody knows. it really comes down to, i think, indiana assuming trump garners most of the delegates today -- liz: not california? >> he needs to do well as well, but if he doesn't really clean up in india

. >> reporter: john layman, secretary of the navy in the reagan administration, says he and the others make up a solid majority of former 9/11 commissioners who think the 28 pages should be made public. >> it was no accident that 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis. day all went to saudi schools. they learned from the time they were first able to go to school of this intolerant brand of islam. >> cbs and "60 minutes" doing an explosive report there. bob graham is former chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence and former co-chair, the inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks. thanks for being here. >> thank you, megyn. >> you want the 28 pages released. you've seen them. what are you at liberty to tell us about them? >> not much because i am still under an oath that i took not to disclose classified information, but it has been said publicly that this chapter primarily relates to who financed 9/11 and that it points a finger at saudi arabia. >> when you look at that statement that was in the 9/11 report saying we found no evidence that the saudi gov

in 1984, during ronald reagan's administration, secretary shirts -- scholz declares them. in 2012, the administration state department notes that the current administration's state department assessment of iran's support of terrorism first established in our government in 19 84 as a matter of fact. that,orward to my and china, france, germany. or theout the jc pa joint plan of action, otherwise known as the iran agreement. purposeo talk about the of that agreement and characterize it since it went into effect and talk about why we went into it. the purpose of the agreement is pretty well understood although i kind of think isis made it a better argument than the current administration. it goes back to 2002 when they ,etermined the nuclear program for all the denial and deceit it is a nuclear weapons program that it took presidents when they recognized iran could actually develop a nuclear weapon. the strategic goal was simple. delaying the program and starting in 2010, it came forward again. pressure andmic the goal was very bluntly to force iran to come to the negotiating

. -- the nixon,, ford, and reagan administrations --. radicalsidered nationalist movements to be soviet proxies. because the balance of forces changes over time, the united states has pursued contradictory african policies. on the one hand, has an early proponent of decolonization, the us government -- the u.s. government reportedly championed democratization. factions within the government have sympathized with the concerns of white settlers, and at times their voices were dominant. aere was often misunderstanding of nationalist movements. radical nationalism was frequent reviewed as communism or as an equal threat to western movement. fear of communism, real or imagined, led the u.s. government to support many unsavory dictatorships. though they were pro-western and anti-communist, they did not promote freedom and democracy. area, home to a significant portion of white settlers, conflicting -- rather than proposed colonialism and white minority rule. the three case studies that follow ask for the tensions that emerged from the dual mis

report out of the tower commission which reviewed the arms for hostage activity under the reagan administration. what turned out to happen was the nsc was running on behalf of the cia intelligence operations with respect to iran. that's a very dangerous thing to do. out of the white house. it's not -- it's not what the nsc is supposed to do. it does not have the competence. operations get done by the military or by the intelligence community. and it was one of the things that really was at the center of that tower commission report. you do not do operations out of the white house. very dangerous. we talked about the national security advisor not a cabinet agency, not confirmed by the senate, doesn't testify before congress, and therefore, has to be self-limiting as to their role. which is the way you avoid the conflict with the secretary of state. if the national security adviser is operating mostly off stage and behind the scenes and lets the secretary of state be the face of the foreign policy of the administration to the american people and to the world. that is the right relationship. again