during world war ii, and they looked at me puzzled, and i thought, "oh, my god, they don't know who rommel is," so that just says a little bit about how we're teaching history in the high schools. rubenstein: subsequently, president bush decided to invade iraq to topple saddam hussein, so in light of hindsight and had you knn were no weapons of mass destruction, would you have still gone forward? rice: weay, you know, i alwayso peop, "what you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not what you did yesterday," animply believed, as all the intelligence agencies around the world did, that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was reconstituting theui that he was doing itly, and it was on that basis that we decided that you finally had to do what the international community had been threatening to do, which was to have serious consequences. in retrospect, i don't know if we had known, what we would have done. i will say this. i still think the world's better off wiout saddam hussein. he was a cancer in the region, and while iraq went through an extraordinarily difficult time--

on the other side but those who have written endlessly about field marshal rommel and his companions in north africa generally exhort a critical part of this assignment -- generally ignore a critical part of this assignment. he was originally sent their in april 1941 to salvage italy's conquering of libya, lest the italian people dump mussolini. was a major worry for hitler's. africa corps the onto egypt and the middle east in 1942 and do this at a time when the primary military theater for germany was the eastern front? thanks, obviously had not gone the way the generals had confidently anticipated. -- things. the germans intended italy to have egypt and the middle east while germany would get its oil .rom the caucuses in spite of these realities and aans, and in spite of necessity for a resistance against the soviet union, in the summer of 1942 it looked as if the africa corps might get to cairo and beyond a commander attached to it. because not done settler wanted the members to or that hitler's expected them to dismantle one of the pyramids so that it could re-erected.d -- that a

he was there rommel, so to speak, and he's been doing this for literally decades.et just let syria doing the same thing. just let lebanon doing the same thing, and then this was him doing the same thing in baghdad. but there are, it is an active combat zone. we do have an authorization of force. we caught him in a place where he wasn't in a crowd of civilians, and again i think we took effective proportionate action to stop, to save more american lives. >> host: texas, democrat's line, josÉ, hello, thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm a three-time combat veteran, and besides what political party a present is from, i don't understand why they're not focusing on the fact that our president spoke and accused president obama of attacking iran in 2011 for political and personal gain. what is it that fact be looked at? and the fact that he happen to take the opportunity to take this got out, and i condone that and i applaud that, that the timing. nobody is looking at the timing. he did this assumes he came down for impeachment. also, he did it right before reelect

there is no indispensable general officer, not stonewall jackson, not irwin rommel, not patton when we sidelined him in sicily. so if it really was an imminent attack why would we think killing the general officer at the baghdad airport was going to actually be a defense of the united states. the other thing we've got to take into account, we are tactically vulnerable on the ground in iraq. we've got pacts of troops, 5,000 spread all over the country, the embassy, oil executives, contractors. our tool that we're going to have to use to respond if they really get a hit on us like the beirut marine barracks bombing is to use strategic power to go after the mainland. we started with a decision that's not working out for us. >> frank, let's hope if they hit us overseas, they'll be met by a superb military force, but you get our attention when you talk about things domestic, like atms, like the phones we all carry now. give us some more examples of how they could hit us electronically. i'm assuming there's a wait list before they get involved in our elections, correct? >> there is -- there

he wrote five other books on the bulge and rommel. just to name a few. with thesteel begins early planning stages for d-day, but he breaks away from any of the other books on d-day, challenging some of the long-held perspectives and narratives about certain events and even the landings themselves. he takes a look at the unity among the allied partners until late 1943 about the fundamental thatts of the allied talk we are all unified. rangers and the historical analysis and critique of some of the other works on d-day. questioning some of the long-held myths. i think you are going to find that he adds value. taking a different approach, sarah rose will bring the insides of a journalist and a best-selling author. her works are featured in a number of top magazines, including saturday evening post, and a recent book, the subject of today's talk, d-day girl: the spies that armed the resistance, sabotaged the nazis, and helped win world war ii. we always thought it was the higgins boats, but -- [laughter] dr. mueller: we are open for new studies. i can tell y

house of congress gets its authority only by resolution from the parent body, united states versus rommelhe, watkins versus united states, makes this very clear and it is common sense. the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house of representatives, to the house, not any member, not a subcommittee and that authority can be delegated to a committee to use only by a vote of the house. it would be the same in the senate, the senate has the sole power to try impeachment. if there were no rules adopted by the senate, would you think the majority leader himself could simply decide that he would have a committee receive evidence, handle that, submit a recommendation to the senate and that is the way the trial would occur without a vote from the senate to give authority to that committee. i don't think so. it doesn't make sense. it's not the way the constitution assigns that authority and the same in the house. there was no vote to authorize a committee to exercise power of impeachment and this law has been boiled down by the circuit to explain it this way, to issue a valid

house of congress gets its authority only by resolution from the parent body, united states versus rommelhe, watkins versus united states, makes this very clear and it is common sense. the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house of representatives, to the house, not any member, not a subcommittee and that authority can be delegated to a committee to use only by a vote of the house. it would be the same in the senate, the senate has the sole power to try impeachment. if there were no rules adopted by the senate, would you think the majority leader himself could simply decide that he would have a committee receive evidence, handle that, submit a recommendation to the senate and that is the way the trial would occur without a vote from the senate to give authority to that committee. i don't think so. it doesn't make sense. it's not the way the constitution assigns that authority and the same in the house. there was no vote to authorize a committee to exercise power of impeachment and this law has been boiled down by the circuit to explain it this way, to issue a valid