it has been written specifically on the sanctions from work and saddam hussein. . . the sanctions from work and saddam and what he does when he comes to the so-called smart sanctions as he said there were seven preconditions to the smart sanctions and then he goes on to explain one of them what actually happened. >> let's just summarize that then and by all means since the book, please. we have no shortage of material to read what we are always ready for more. contender for is a policy that contender for is a policy that is in question at you are clearly aspirin minister in the first half of 2002 not very -- based on the advice coming to you you are not very happy about the way that it is working. so what are your other strategic options at this point and by what process did you read you what your options were? >> that is the reason we called for the options paper. i mean, the options were basically these: we had taken the decision, post-september 11, that this issue had to be confronted, and there were a number of different ways it could be confronted. it could be co

so, surely, if we had gone more calmly and slowly and got -- i would have liked saddam hussein to be sent to the international court for crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, as we got milosevich. it was never seriously looked at, so i am saying we could've gone more slowly and carefully and not had a totally destabilized and angry iraq, into which came al qaeda, that was not there before, and that would have been safer for the world and that tony blair's account does not stack up to any scrutiny whatsoever. we have made iraq more dangerous as well as causing more suffering. >> preventing him from becoming a more serious threat. >> saudi arabia and jordan, we're talking about exile. there was the criminal courts. he was not popular in his country. there is an argument about a very strong sanctions that to actually bloc countries and, and it is better to open them up -- you actually bloc countries in -- block countries in. >> what about the argument that he would have become a supporter of international terrorism, saddam hussein? >> first, the american people were misled b

i'm also sure that offer and the sun disagreed and the passion about saddam hussein. i think there's a lot to learn and it's a matter of time, perhaps a long time until we do. >> we have time for one more question. >> i want to thank all three of you for making all of these presidents very interesting. one question that kind of relates is to part. one is the impact of economics, because it seems like with former president bush he was hurt, i think the economy also turned kind of sour in the last two years and was living off the laws the first two years. herbert hoover was also hurt by that as well. i don't know about the tyler -- areas of the economic impact and then specifically with herbert hoover, was he also impacted? i thought up until that point it was up to the private charity. companies were not supposed to donate the money. it was supposed to be wealthy individuals. government was supposed play the role and it seemed to herbert hoover got caught in the whole quagmire of the time. >> if we can come by those two questions that would be great. >> and quickly. >>

i think we should have said saddam hussein you can't go on forever. you can't keep fooling the00 we got blix back in. we got to mean it. we've got to -- you know, we're willing to use military action if you obstruct. i think given what the saudis and the jordanians were saying we could have gotten saddam hussein out. there would have been all sorts of ways that would have been better. i agreed with the policy as it was formally stated. i don't think it was the policy. the policy was we're going to war and we don't care about the u.n. and blair's policy was, i've got to go through the u.n. because i got to do it that way or you can't get britain there but i'm going with the americans. come what may. it's a very sad story. >> what about resources? do you think more resources would have made a difference in the aftermath? >> oh, i mean, i went to the spring meeting of the world bank and i knew all those people very well and the world bank and the imf were desperate because they thought some of the divisions in the security council might come in to their

they were going to tighten the screws on saddam hussein and to the could justify going there anyway. i.t. 9/11 happened and it explains it, but i think my explanation of the project for the new american century is pretty much generally accepted amongst people that that is what they were about. they were going to fill the power of communism and americanism and if necessary at the peril of the gun. yes? >> has henry kissinger senior book and have you gotten feedback from him? >> i would hope he's seen the book. i know people who have read the book and like the book who have access to henry kissinger. i would certainly like to hear his version of the relationship with general hague. i would be totally intrigued by that. interestingly enough he has written and written very little about kramer. that intrigues me. i want an explanation of his relationship. i got the kramer interview that kramer was the man of principle and ideology and kissinger was not so yes i would like to hear that. i think this book is fascinating because of the end of the day this hague who has all the power and henr

now with a bang but with a whimper and create international coalition that reversed saddam hussein's reversions of kuwait in desert storm. he advanced the cause of arab- israeli peace. his administration skillful diplomacy brought arabs and israelis together in madrid. it was the first time the israelis and the arabs collectively met face-to-face to negotiate. the creation of a climate of trust that made possible the oslo accord and the treaty of peace between israel and jordan. there's no question that the professional and personal relationship facilitated the conduct of u.s. diplomacy in the most successful manner. on a personal notes, bush 41 and president bush 43, and secretary baker worked together at this morning at the funeral of one of their closest friends, robert mosbacher sr.. i have mentioned a few of his many accomplishments. they stand the test of time two decades later. historians will undoubtably said the same. president bush represents patriotism and public service at their very best. those are themes our speakers will address. executive director of the president bus

>> responsibility, but not a regret for moving saddam hussein.circumstances that we face then, but i think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to deal with it, to remove him from office, and i do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result. and i know sometimes, because this happens out in the region, sometimes people say to me, well, saddam was a break on iran. let's be clear, there is another view of foreign policy in this instance, which is the way -- if we left saddam in place, he would have -- he would have controlled iran better. i really think it is time we learned, as a matter of sensible foreign policy, that the way to deal with one dictator threat is not to back another. the best answer is to allow the iraqi people the freedom and democratic choice that we enjoy in countries like ours. >> thank you. this brings us, i think, to the end of today's hearings. is there any final comment beyond those you already made that you would wish to add before we close? >> no. >> in that case, can i say two thin

the appeals panel rejected a bid to exclude politicians for links to the saddam hussein's party. this could help defuse tensions before the election. four men denied murdering a journalist on in 2008. the trial to start. two others are being to -- tried in their absence. he was killed alongside his marketing manager. it is thought that organized crime is behind the attack. three american soldiers have become the first known u.s. military fatalities in pakistan. they died on in a bomb attack near a girls' school. the taliban claims responsibility. three schoolgirls are among the dead. another 63 schoolgirls and two u.s. soldiers were affected. we have this promise, but. >> the three soldiers were training pakistan's military. there had been heavy fighting over the past year, and many bomb blasts as the militants struck back. the americans were on their way to the inauguration of a girls' school, rebuilt with u.s. support. that was after it was destroyed by the militants to remain opposed to girls' education. the soldiers never made it. the huge explosion madoff as it drove past an

on the other hand,. >> host: saddam hussein had the iraqi flag -- >> guest: he used sunni islam for his purposes. the other side, is the language used by the bush administration, before the war and after the administration, which was you've you've mystic, was misleading, was bad language, the kind of bad language that allows bad political thought, which is the subject of politics in the english language, and orwell would have been merciless in stripping away the rhetoric of george bush, dick cheney, don rumsfeld, and karl rove, for that matter. so which orwell would have had his -- the antitotalitarian orwell who would have seen iraqi exactly as it was to stand up against saddam was to stand up for the kurds, to stand up for mass of iraqis who did not want to continue this way? he would have understand that something learned been going to iraq, that most iraqis were relieved to have that regime -- >> host: let's not forget. >> guest: exactly. that's been forgetten. on the other side, the orwell who hated political lying and -- >> host: propaganda. >> guest: exactly. so, hard to say. >>

and in 1989, made my first trip to iraq, and in 1990 senator shelby and i had a talk with saddam hussein. it was a very professional conversation. iraq at that time had just launched a three-power rocket system, and i led the conversation by asking president saddam hussein if he would be willing to negotiate with israel because they would take out his new weapons just as they had taken out his reactor october of 1981, and he dismissed it, saying, no, he wouldn't negotiate with israel. they weren't a border state. then he asked me a question. he wanted to know why all of the russian jews were going to israel. i saw him shuffling some papers, and i knew that he knew that i was jewish. i wanted him to know that i knew that he knew, and i said my father was a russian jew who emigrated to the united states. i believe the russian jews ought to go wherever they want to go, and there is a -- and there was a 50,000 limit at the time on russian jews who could come into the united states. in the course of an hour and a quarter discussion, it was a substantive talk. and i came back and told a number

one is, that he would have seen in saddam hussein's rule other than perhaps north korea the nearest thing to the world he imagined in 1984. i mean, you say that totalitarianism is a klee tay and iraq is a great example, saddam was big brother and he had big brother's mustache. his face was on toasters all over baghdad, and it was on television all the time -- posters all over baghdad and it was on television all the time and you couldn't escape the eye of saddam's many secret police. >> iraqis used to say they thought he knew what they were dreaming. >> and he was inside them, even after he was overthrown they continued to suffer from the effects of... >> and we both saw it in action and the pornographic element of power, had never been -- >> and saddam's son was sort of the human incarnation of the pornography of totalitarianism, with rape and all kinds of crimes. so that one is easy to say. orwell would have seen that regime as it was, and there would have been no defenses of sovereignty, or state sovereignty, or of, you know, it somehow is an anti-islamic war, an anti-arab war and woul

saddam hussein was a big brother. he had a big brothers mustache. s face was on posters all over baghdad. it was on television all the time. you could not escape the eye of saddam's secret police. >> host: they used to say they thought they knew what he was dreaming. >> guest: and he was inside and even after he was overthrown they felt they continued to suffer from bob affect of decades. host we saw it in action and the pornographic a lot of power will never be more portable -- >> guest: and saddam hussein's son was the sort of human incarnation of the pornography incarnation with rape and all kind of crime, so that was easy to say that orwell would have seen that regime as it was three there would have been no defenses of sovereignty or state sovereignty were of, you know, that this somehow was an antiislamic war or antiarab war. he would have seen that as a totalitarian regime which is what it was three on the other hand -- >> host: i would say not so secular -- >> guest: toward the end he used islam for his purposes, that's right. the other side

in the end what influenced me was my judgment ultimately was saddam hussein was going to remain a threatand this change in the perception of risk after september 11th it was important that we be prepared to act. our alliance with america was important. to put this very clearly, we beamed down a un partner that i thought would work. i had hoped -- >> you said this morning you were not terribly confident that it would work. >> i wasn't confident about them and personally good reasons. he hadn't changed his intent. i could see a situation in which you might be faced with this tough choice but i was doing everything i could to do it. >> i don't remember his exact words but he saw a case for it. any partial -- they are not sending the troops in. what was your view of his advice? >> our own military was in favor to be wholehearted. >> they don't want to come back? >> their preferences and options? >> i thought you were meaning to say just because the troops were down there? they want to be a whole hearted part of this. it would be kept out of the aftermath as well. the british forces performed

you had one conflict which was the removal of the saddam hussein regime. and that was over pretty quickly. you had the aftermath which was very difficult. but then what started to happen in 2004 and 2005 and full on in 2006, half -- first half of 2007 is you had a metamorphosis of a different type of conflict where you were fighting yes a certain amount of indigenous insurgency with these external factors coming in. in the end we needed four things to defeat this. and two of them take time. one is we needed the political buy-in. the?oo second is we needed to bd up iraqi capability. the third is as you rightly say sir lawrence, the right troop configuration. and the fourth thing is we needed to be prepared to stick at it and to indicate clearly that we were going to stick it until it was done. >> and you've taken us again three, four years further on. and you indicated what happened in those three years. the final aspects of this month, 2004, which was the revelations of what had happened at abu reaction when you q+ii[t76vq:j@ saw the photographs what was y

struck down a ban on hundreds of perspective parliamentary candidates with suspected ties to the saddam hussein regime. the candidates will be allowed to run in next month's elections but will not be allowed to take office until they are investigated. back at home, president obama today told democratic senators to lead first and let politics of this year's elections take care of themselves. senior white house correspondent major garrett reports on how the top democrat tried to rally his troops. >> anybody searching for a lesson from massachusetts, i promise you the answer is not to do nothing. >> president obama preached the politics of conviction to assembly of democrats shaken by the loss of the 60 vote supermajority in massachusetts. fighting to overcome the widening perception of the legislative drift. >> we have to finish the job on healthcare. we have to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. we have to finish the job though it's hard. >> conviction did not come with a compass. the white house continues to dodge questions how or when to resolve thorny healthcare disputes. >> not a

they had been barred for alleged ties to saddam hussein's regime. in afghanistan, u.s., afghan, and nato troops are now gearing up for their largest joint offensive yet. u.s. military officers said today the target is marjah, a taliban stronghold in the south. it is also a hub for the opium trade. the operation could begin within days. secretary of state hillary clinton has ruled out a prisoner swap with iran. iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad had suggested trading three american hikers held in iran for 11 iranians held by the u.s. clinton said the hikers and other americans detained in iran are being held unjustly, and should be freed immediately there was new trouble for toyota today-- this time, involving complaints over brake issues. the company also drew a new warning from transportation secretary ray lahood. >> my advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles-- stop driving it, take it to a toyota dealer. >> sreenivasan: the secretary delivered that stark advice to a house committee hearing this morning. later, after reporters asked abo

he's the co-author of any of the state, the trial and execution of saddam hussein. paul williams is a law and international relations professor at american university. he is the co-author with michael scharf of peace with justice, or crimes and accountability in the former yugoslavia. joseph beth booksellers in lyndhurst ohio hosted the seabed. for more information visit josephbeth.com. >>> coming up next booktv presents "after words," an hourlong discussion between guest host and the author of a new book. this week nobel prize-winning economist joseph stiglitz talks about the 2008 u.s. economic collapse and its effect on the global economy. professor stieglitz offers many to change incentives in the economic system and government oversight is required for the economy to function properly. he's interviewed by lori wallach, director of public citizen's global trade watch. she's the co-author of whose trade organization a conference of guide to the wto. >> host: hello. we are here today with professor joe stiglitz, and he has a new book, "freefall," that describes the

what they have done in iraq and the american administration has supported saddam hussein against us foryears. in the course of an unmanly war, they supported him and later, on the pretext of countering the occupied iraq, they destroyed saddam hussein, they destroyed the political party and they have recently used the political tactic and put the iraqi government and nation under pressure to return the baathisits to power. why you want to impose your wishes on the nation's. why do you wish to impose your vision on iraq? due to the blessings of god, you will not succeed. in palestine, they have tipped the hands of the criminals i and us open. -- the criminal zionists open. they want to put into practice their witness and that they should know the zionist regime has come to its end and it is shortening its life span. there is the --Ñi regime is cloe to its annihilation. it is bringing closer the time of its destruction and annihilation. see what they are doing in afghanistan and pakistan. they are killing hundreds of people on a daily basis. they established firms on dirt the disguise of s

an appeals panel reinstated a ban on hundreds of candidates who were suspected of ties to the saddam hussein regime. president obama may help choose the site for the trial of khalid sheik muhammad, the man accused of planning the 9/11 attacks. "the washington post" reported today the president has intervened in the selection process. it cited unnamed administration officials. white house spokesman robert gibbs played down the report, and he said mr. obama has not given up on the original choice, new york city. >> he's the commander in chief, obviously he said that he had not ruled it out; that we would take into account the security and logistical concerns that had been brought forth by new york city. and those will be, as he said, taken into account before a final decision is made. >> sreenivasan: state and local officials in new york have urged the trial be held elsewhere. and attorney general eric holder said it could still be moved out of the federal courts entirely and back to a military commission. wall street had a rough day. stocks fell on new concerns that bank lending curbs in chin

what the bush administration did in overthrowing saddam hussein was to take preemptive, military action against the threat to international peace and security. i could give you the long version of why i think we had international legal authority to do that. i can give you the short version -- we were entitled to defend ourselves. yesterday, a commission appointed by the government of the netherlands issued a 551- page report that said the war against saddam hussein was illegitimate because there was no foundation in international law. all i can say is, if that is the answer they were asking the wrong question. this is another point i think it is critical and understanding -- in understanding the obama administration. john kerry said they had to pass the global test of legitimacy, meaning approval by the u.n. security council. if that is what we have to go through, we will be incredibly constrained, to say the least. that is the way the obama administration's approach is the issues. we can already see that playing out, not just in terrorism, but in proliferation of weapons of mass destru

caller: getting rid of saddam hussein has helped the peace and stability of the area.everal very vital mistakes have been made by the administration. i am a republican, but when they established with iran initially to make it easier for the united states, that led to huge other problems. the war between the shiites in the sumy's, as well as the kurds in the north, all of these problems have created a huge division. talking on those television channels, there is no hope at all of a rebirth. without the help of the countries surrounding iraq, not talking about iran, as they played a very negative role so far, but the other countries, their health is so much needed for the success and rebirth of a rock. -- of iraq. the united states must show more of the policies when it comes to the relationship with israel, helping israel by convincing as real that the mission in the middle east must be a peaceful one, as israel is a superpower. america must pursue a more objective policy in terms of peace, helping itself by pursuing the legitimate and international laws. host: where ar

and your president bush took out saddam hussein in the middle east and was able to do it with very little federal deposit insurance because he thought that something would happen. and i think history should see that. look what happened when we did do that. it when president clinton did away with glass stiegel, making it possible. host: and, thank you for your thoughts. guest: it is tough to be president of the united states. i think the expectations are so hard. i looked at president obama giving a speech the other day. he visibly has aged over the past year. all presidents aged very quickly, no matter how hard or difficult they think their job is going to be. it is harder. by the time they leave and once they retire, about a decade later our country tends to do an upward revisionism. we have done it with richard nixon in some ways. we have that with gerald ford and jimmy carter and george bush 41. people like to pummel the president, but in the end, people realized what a tough job was and they did their best to keep our country together. very few presidents do not get an upward bounce l

we took on saddam hussein, we defeated him. he rooted out baathists throughout the country. it is simply extraordinary for americans to try to understand that some iraqis think we somehow support baathism. but when you look at this pattern in the 1960s, you can see how this distant and cracked mirror can somehow affect people's view of the current situation, so we need to be respectful of the history and respectful of people's emotions. i think when the initial lists of excluded candidates was read in the council of representatives -- and this was a process that i must be very clear with you that we did not feel passed any measure of transparency, a process of naming people essentially denying them their rights to participate in the election without, in our view, any kind of due process -- we had a lot of concerns about this. but i think it is very, people need to understand that when this initial list of candidates was read in the council of representatives, it received standing and sustained applause from all the members there. baathism is a vibrant, important subject ther

we took on saddam hussein, we defeated him. he rooted out baathists throughout the country.t is simply extraordinary for americans to try to understand that some iraqis think we somehow support baathism. but when you look at this pattern in the 1960s, you can see how this distant and cracked mirror can somehow affect people's view of the current situation, so we need to be respectful of the history and respectful of people's emotions. i think when the initial lists of excluded candidates was read in the council of representatives -- and this was a process that i must be very clear with you that we did not feel passed any measure of transparency, a process of naming people essentially denying them their rights to participate in the election without, in our view, any kind of due process -- we had a lot of concerns about this. but i think it is very, people need to understand that when this initial list of candidates was read in the council of representatives, it received standing and sustained applause from all the members there. baathism is a vibrant, important subject there.

we took on saddam hussein, we defeated him. he rooted out baathists throughout the country.t is simply extraordinary for americans to try to understand that some iraqis think we somehow support baathism. but when you look at this pattern in the 1960s, you can see how this distant and cracked mirror can somehow affect people's view of the current situation, so we need to be respectful of the history and respectful of people's emotions. i think when the initial lists of excluded candidates was read in the council of representatives -- and this was a process that i must be very clear with you that we did not feel passed any measure of transparency, a process of naming people essentially denying them their rights to participate in the election without, in our view, any kind of due process -- we had a lot of concerns about this. but i think it is very, people need to understand that when this initial list of candidates was read in the council of representatives, it received standing and sustained applause from all the members there. baathism is a vibrant, important subject there.

he came to the view that on balance, the breach by saddam hussein of resolution 1441 was sufficient, provided it was a breach of the obligations. smack he asked you to say was sufficient, but that's at the end of the game. can i just go to the point where he's given you his form of ice on the seventh of march, but that didn't give the yes or no clear answer that the chief of the defense staff and others wanted. that didn't come until the 13th of march, when he had a period of further reflection. and what discussions did you or others under your instruction, if any, have with lord goldsmith between the seventh of march when you receive his formal advise, and the 13th of march when he decided that his position had evolved further? >> i can't recall any specific discussions that i had. or others would've had before the 13th of march. but essentially what happened was this. he gave legal advice. he gave an opinion saying, look, there is this argument against it, there's this argument for a. i think a reasonable case can be made. we had to have a definitive decision. and that decision is

what the bush administration did in overthrowing saddam hussein was to take preemptive, military action long version of why i think we had international legal authority to do that. i can give you the short version -- we were entitled to defend ourselves. yesterday, a commission appointed by the government of the netherlands issued a 551- page report that said the war against saddam hussein was illegitimate because there was no foundation in international law. all i can say is, if that is the answer they were asking the wrong question. this is another point i think it is critical and understanding -- in understanding the obama administration. john kerry said they had to pass the global test of legitimacy, meaning approval by the u.n. security council. if that is what we have to go through, we will be incredibly constrained, to say the least. that is the way the obama administration's approach is the issues. we can already see that playing out, not just in terrorism, but in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we have seen, ever since the inauguration, the administration jason i

ration did in overthrowing saddam hussein was to take preemptive, military action against the threat to international peace and security. i could give you the long version of why i think we had international legal authority to do that. i can give you the short version -- we were entitled to defend ourselves. yesterday, a commission appointed by the government of the netherlands issued a 551- page report that said the war against saddam hussein was illegitimate because there was no foundation in international law. all i can say is, if that is the answer they were asking the wrong question. this is another point i think it is critical and understanding -- in understanding the obama administration. john kerry said they had to pass the global test of legitimacy, meaning approval by the u.n. security council. if that is what we have to go through, we will be incredibly constrained, to say the least. that is the way the obama administration's approach is the issues. we can already see that playing out, not just in terrorism, but in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we have seen

the gentleman said that during the '80s the federal reserve lent money to saddam hussein and during watergatehey did this and i assume you agree that we look into what happened under those presidencies. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i'm not going to take all of my time because i know we have the interest of other committee members, but i'm particularly interested in some of the communications we've had recently on the commercial real estate problem.

>> responsibility, but not every great for moving saddam hussein, i think -- >> be quiet, please. >> i think he was a monster. i believe he threatens, not just the region but the world. and in the circumstances that we face them, but i think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to do with it to remove him from office. and i do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result. and i know sometimes, because this happens out in the region, sometimes people say to me, well, saddam was a break on iran. that's, let's be clear, there is another view of foreign policy in this instance. which is, if we had left saddam in place he would have controlled iran better. i really think it's time we learned as a matter of sensible foreign policy, that the way to do with one dictatorial threat is not to back another. that actually the best answer to what is happening in iran, is to allow the iraqi people, the freedom and democratic choice that we enjoy in countries like ours. >> thank you. this brings us i think to the end of today's hearings. is there any final comm

hence the undeniably racist double standard levy against saddam hussein with the and alienated wouldrmed forces, that we as a national community stand distinct up heart and the same for mall popular opinion and retain it proportionally higher level of opposition to this war and the horrendous invasion of decay. and a degeneration. i want to say something else. specific to you, mr. president. it is true you can humiliate and you can hound and u.k. and smashed and burned and terrify and smirk and boast and defame and demonize and business in the act you can force somebody force a people to surrender what happens to remain there bloody bolsa into your dry hands. but all of us who are weak weak, we watched you. and we learn from your hatred and we do not forget. and we are ready, mr. president. we are most of the people on this godforsaken planet. [applause] >> do it quick because people have been so patient and incredibly attentive just to let you know, what we have left because people don't have programs we will have music, one amazing fuld group and words from richard rubin steep from

and other intel p generals shops overstated the threat of saddam hussein in iraq.this agency got it right. although its primary customer is the state department this agency serves many other branches of government. the confirmation of phillip goldberg would provide essential leadership and so yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and for phillip goldberg to serve at the department of state to gather this intelligence to keep america safe, he ask consent that we move to his nomination, a nomination with no controversy, and the senator from alabama, senator shelby, objected. please, i ask my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle, come to the floor and explain to us what's wrong with phillip goldberg. what disqualifies him for this position in this administration? make your best case, if you have one, against him or any of these nominees and then out of a sense of fairness and at least a sense of giving this country and this president the people he needs on the team needs to keep us safe, let us come to a vote immediately on these four nominees. i d

it could be a hitlerite regime or the regime of saddam hussein, but if it were firmly in control of the territory, it counted in the positivist reckoning as the legitimate government. the alternative view insists that on primacy of certain moral tests casting up warnings before we would confer legitimacy on some exotic despotism. perfected an older vision of international law because it reflected an older understanding of the connection between morality and law. the modern project in law was reflected in justice holmes when he famously hoped that every word of moral significance could be banished mr. the law altogether and replaced with legal terms nicely purged of any moral shavings. that has not taken hold among ordinary people for the connection between that logic of morals and the logic of law is inescapable, it just can't be removed. when we move to the level of moral judgment, we move away radically to statements of personal tastes or private belief, we begin speaking about the things that are more generally or universeally right or wrong, just or unjust which is to say right or w

or the regime of saddam hussein.t if it was firmly in control of the territory and counted in the positive reckoning, as legitimate government. the alternative view drawing on the moral tradition insisted on privacy of moral tests, casting of warnings before we would confer legitimacy on some exotic desert just. that perspective reflected an older vision of international law. because it reflected an older understanding of the connection between morality and law. the modern project of law was reflected in justice holmes when he famously hoped that every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether. and replace with legal terms nicely purged of any moral shadings. that state of mind has taken hold among many lawyers and professors of law, not among ordinary people. but the connection between them, the logic of course, and the logic of law is inescapable. it just can't be removed. when we moved to the level of moral judgment, we move away radically from statements of merely personal taste or priv

laden's original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by saddam hussein for those who believe that we somehow cause these things we would have to pull out of the entire world and even then if you look at the plot against the cartoonists in denmark we have to start to sense your work television, since your our books and newspapers. we will never be able to appease enough to satisfy the people who want to strike us. so, i have to say the experience we have seen in either having ourselves or allies strike against safe havens has been that has produced very positive results, and frankly again if i go back to even some of the ideologues who have now turned against al qaeda even though the original the support of the ideology, one of the things they cite as a cause for their turning against al qaeda has been a strong reaction that came to afghanistan and the fact that the community al qaeda is operating actually suffered and they launched an attack in against the u.s.. so i'm a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well. an

because it has been reported(ujxd thatg the 1980's the fed facilitated 851 $5 billion loan to saddam husseinhe then bought weapons from our complex. a lot of cash was passed through. there was a provisional government act after 2003. that money was not appropriated by the congress. there has been reports that the cash used in the watergate scandal came to the federal reserve. when investigators try to find out, and they were stonewalled. we cannot get the information. you object toÑiñrñr the idea thi wouldçóñr say give us six monthd then we can find out what we are doing. what about giving you 10 years? would you agree that the american people deserve to know whether the fed has been involved with this and what kind shenanigans they are involved with in foreign countries? we are working to bailout greece for all we know. the american people deserve to know. if the fed was not involved with this, it would be to your advantage to say we do not do stuff like that. i could not open the books 10 years later to find the truth? >> the specific allegations are bizarre. i have no knowledge of anythin

saddam hussein said mother of all.e are working for you all morning long on "squawk box." >> but first -- a tech industry all-star, ready to take on cisco earnings and much more. power up your routers, double-check your ip networks. "squawk box" will be ride back. right now 1.2 million people are on sprint mobile broadband. 31 are streaming a sales conference from the road. 154 are tracking shipments on a train. 33 are iming on a ferry. and 1300 are secretly checking email on vacation. that's happening now. america's most dependable 3g network. bringing you the first and only wireless 4g network. right now get a free 3g/4g device for your laptop. sprint. the now network. deaf, hard-of-hearing and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com.  sir? finding everything okay? i work for a different insurance company. my auto policy's just getting a little too expensive. with progressive, you get the "name your price" option, so we build a policy to fit your budget. wow! the price gun. ♪ ah! wish we had this

laden's the original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by saddam hussein for those who believe we somehow caused these things, we would have to pull out of the entire world, and even then if you look at the plots against the cartoonists in denmark we have to start to sensor television, since our books, censored newspapers. we will never be able to appease enough to satisfy the people who want to strike. i have to say the experience we have seen in either having ourselves or our allies strike against safe havens has been that has produced very positive results and frankly again if i go back to even some of the ideologues who have now turned against al qaeda even though they supported the ideology, one of the things the site as a cause for their turning against al qaeda has been the strong reaction that came into afghanistan and the fact that the community in which al qaeda was operating actually suffered because al qaeda launched an attack against the u.s.. so i am a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well and you ca

now the iranians have not invaded for 200 years, they are most recently by saddam hussein, one of qçthe caller: i have two questions 'pr(jus.qo3ó i was ó73ççñrcurious fáçabo'k relationship with russia./t]ç it seems to me that russia is somewhat playing with fire, in many ways çççbacking okw guest: we in the outside world á regarding iran we çtend ñrto h ççin one basket.çfáçw3ç the revolutionary guards are ok actually very diverse.xdç and all young men have to do national çservice in iran.ç and many opt to qçdo çthe revolutionary guards because of the training programs and ça kind of credential that may get you access or entry into a university or better job. and also because they get çóoff at 2:30 in the afternoon t(and that offers the opportunity in this dire economy in iran to take on a second job.çç one interesting thing that the government çççfound in 1997 the first reformist president ç was çççelected, (that ç84 revolutionary guards voted for the reformist. we shouldn't assume that all rank and file of revolutionary guards are hard çliners that suppo

laden's original grievance is that we went to saudi arabia to help prevent an invasion in kuwait by saddam husseineven then, if you look at the plots against the cartoonists in denmark, we have to start to censor our books and our newspapers and television. we will never be able to appease enough to satisfy the people who want to strike us, so i have to say, the experience that we've seen in either having ourselves or our allies strike against safe havens has been that has produced very positive results, and frankly again, if i go back to even some of the idealogues who have now turned against al qaeda, even though they originally supported the ideology, one of the things that they cite as a cause for their turning against al qaeda, has been the strong reaction that came into afghanistan and the fact that the community in which al qaeda was operating actually suffered because al qaeda launched an attack against the u.s. so i'm a believer that soft power is important. i also believe that hard power is important as well, and you cannot expect to command the respect of the world if you are not prepar

could take this on, since the different times we both new with favor the removal of had dam -- saddam hussein power. is it worth asking what orwell would have thought? >> just to finish the history you've started. if orwell would have lived, he would have a neocon. >> well, on that i feel i can pronounce. because orwell would have taken the american side in china. i think i could be certain that that's not so. because of his and the -- anti-imperialism. and one of the great essays that's printing which is about the time to e restore french in indo-china. >> for that reason he could have -- >> iraq is different. it's not a colonial war. >> you know, in a way it's very hard to say. and it's a little dangerous to claim. but we can speculate. because we have to. there's two different arguments to be made about that. you say totalitarianism is ache -- cliche. his face was on television all the time. you could no escape the eye of saddam's many secret police. >> iraqs use to say he thought they knew what they were dreaming. >> exactly. even after he was overthrown, they continued to suffer. >> we s

laden's original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by saddam husseinbelieve that we somehow cause@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ r the people want to strike us, so i have to say, the experience we say we have either having ourselves or allies strike in safe havens has been that has produced results. and if i go back to some of the ideologues who have turned against al qaeda, one of the things that is a cause for their turning against them has been a strong reaction that came into afghanistan and the fact the community in which al qaeda was operating actually suffered because al qaeda and watched an attack against the u.s.. i am a believer that soft power is important. so i'm a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well. and you cannot expect the commander with respect of the world if you are not prepared to defend yourself. against others to come looking for trouble. >> i know i compliment for being quiet but let me ask one question of the chair if i might. mr. secretary, when you were in office one of the big issues that came u

laden's original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by saddam husseinhings we would have to pull out of the entire world and even then if you look at the plot against the cartoonists in denmark we have to start to sense your work television, since your our books and newspapers. we will never be able to appease enough to satisfy the people who want to strike us. so, i have to say the experience we have seen in either having ourselves or allies strike against safe havens has been that has produced very positive results, and frankly again if i go back to even some of the ideologues who have now turned against al qaeda even though the original the support of the ideology, one of the things they cite as a cause for their turning against al qaeda has been a strong reaction that came to afghanistan and the fact that the community al qaeda is operating actually suffered and they launched an attack in against the u.s.. so i'm a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well. and you cannot expect the commander with respect of th

and your president bush took out saddam hussein in the middle east and was able to do it with very little protect banks with federal deposit insurance because he thought that something would happen. and i think history should see that. look what happened when we did do that. it when president clinton did away with glass stiegel, making it possible. host: and, thank you for your thoughts. guest: it is tough to be president of the united states. i think the expectations are so hard. i looked at president obama giving a speech the other day. he visibly has aged over the past year. all presidents aged very quickly, no matter how hard or difficult they think their job is going to be. it is harder. by the time they leave and once they retire, about a decade later our country tends to do an upward revisionism. we have done it with richard nixon in some ways. we have that with gerald ford and jimmy carter and george bush 41. people like to pummel the president, but in the end, people realized what a tough job was and they did their best to keep our country together. very few presidents do not get

most recently by saddam hussein. in what was the bloodiest modern middle east conflict. i was curious about iran's relationship with russia. it would seem that russia is playing with fire in many ways, backing the iranians and this could backfire on them in some ways. i was curious about your observations on that as well as iran's relationship with pakistan and i will throw in the third question. when we talk rubberize of the younger generation in iran, -- are the guards able to coopt the people to undercut the unrest that is going on in the country? guest: it is an interesting question about the revolutionary guard. we in the outside world because we are isolated from iran, i have been going there every year since 1973, we tend to have stereotypes. and for all kinds of people into the basket. the revolutionary guard is the verse. all young men have to do national service and many opt to do the revolutionary guard because they have better training programs and they can be a kind of credential that might get you access or entry into a university or better job. also becaus

hussein, syria was just amazing. the regime was smuggling weapons to iraq, divvying up saddam with money skimmed out of relief, serving a backer for funs as well as various al qaeda folks and providing services -- how about this one. it gets overlooked. as a broker for weapons deals with north korea and saddam. okay. course, the u.n. is much more than security council. there's a whole raft of agencies out there. it has become over the years a kind of neo colonial empire. when the u.s. goes to do business through this raft of agencies, which are, in fact, how we said in aid to places like north kor