then parts of it would be outside of the soviet union. n't know exactly what happened in eastern europe. he didn't have an exact plan. from his experiment during the interwar period, he had all of the troubles from poland to the soviet soviet union. the same thing applies to all of the other places. he also didn't want minorities to leave them on the bottom lands, smaller minorities. that was certainly the case with the ukrainians that were shipped from ukraine before the yalta conference. so the first thinking is what to do with nationalities. divide them or keep them all in one place. and another thing was that there was a personal matter. stalin -- his career as a military commander during the revolution and civil war was crushed because of belief. he sent -- he divided the troops. he sent part of the troops to the relief. others went to warsaw. what happened was the miracle of warsaw on that tour in the eyes of the rest and of course a ma josh disaster in the eyes of stalin. he never forget that lesson. i claim that in the book had als

so, i believe that he never intended for the soviet union to dissolve. e believed that perhaps if the stlung shrunk the soviet empire and reined it in and you basically told the governments of eastern europes that the soviet union would no longer come to their defense if they faced some internal threat, that, that would be sort of manageable way in which you could sustain the socialist experiment. you could mend it, not end it. but i think he also did firmly believe and he recognized early on that the soviet union needed to become integrated with the rest of the world and that as long as you had this hostility between the soviets and the west, between washington and moscow, that was impossible. i think he believed would only be achieved if he could reach some kind of agreement with reagan and i think he recognized that reagan was someone who he could do business with. yes? >> what mr. putin doing during time. >> the question was about what was putin doing. i talk a little bit about that in the book. putin was, as a kgb agent was based in dresden, in east

the key was that the soviet union didn't intervene to stop what was happening. and that was much more touch and go i think then we now imagine. at the time, i think there were soviet officials, who thought about maybe trying to stop what was going on. i interviewed, while living in berlin, the east german leader after on a career at the time the wall came down. the wall came down as a result of a bunch of screwups by the east germans. they had an official who did not know what he was saying, make an early announcement about the change in chuck-- travel regulation sam before they knew what they were saying, people misinterpreted it as taking effect immediately and started screaming across the wall and the east germans were faced with the question of whether to use force, whether to shoot in order to stop this. and, by his account, the next, as people start streaming across the walls, the next morning the soviet ambassador in east berlin the mancy bright an explanation quickly to gorbachev. why are you doing this? then the soviet ambassador calls back a couple hour

i remember three issue. -- china, the middle east, and the soviet union. he would have professors, and and he would meet in informal matters at kennebunkport or camp david to have these faculty people discuss their expertise. he had a tendency to touch base with government officials throughout the bureaucracy. he did not realize solely on the briefing papers or the advice or that scowcroft brother individuals would give him. he had many areas of information he was able to pick from. this gave him a broad knowledge of foreign affairs. he was very prudent, as i'm sure you've heard that word before. he had a systematic approach, which at the time lead to some criticism. when we came into office, he instituted a 90-day review of u.s. foreign policy from a to z. there have been a friendly takeover from the reagan administration. he wanted to get a fresh look. this review when gone. we got a lot of criticism from the press as to why the president had no new initiatives. february, march, nothing happened. the only thing he would say is, we are reviewing it and we

they did believe the soviet union and reagan really believed this from the get-go, that the soviet economy was weak and that it was crumbling under pressure. their ability to actually, you know, carry out that strategy, i think, was, is not entirely clear and it is not clear that ultimately anything that the united states could have done, we already had sanctions imposed on em. there was, there were efforts made i think on the margins probably did make a difference, or at least continued to soak up more of russia's spending but, i don't think that there's anything, any sing thing we could have done that on its own could have bankrupted the soviets. but certainly the pressure that the administration was putting on the soviets in afghanistan made a difference. you know, i think there's some evidence that by urging the opec countries to boost production and lower the price of oil, that really damaged the yet economy. but, as i said, i think economic explanations and the idea that economic collapse is what the brought the soviet union down is not entirely satisfying. many countries can survive

the dollar was once said to be high because of the soviet union. i heard this at the aspen institute. i did not believe that. >> if there are five people that you know and they will write yield an iou and you decide which to take, you will say who has the best job prospects? whose character can i count on? who will pay me back? >> who has an open system? >> who has a functioning legal system? >> you look at countries the same way. we keep our promises almost all of the time. that is why people trust the dollar. i think we underestimate -- one way our markets work is they are massive. our treasury market -- we have close to $8 trillion outstanding. if you are a country that needs to put your money somewhere, you say that is a $7 trillion. >> out of that there is $1 trillion that is with the chinese. they would do something bad to date soup if they -- do something bad to the soup. >> [unintelligible] >> they eat from the san bowl -- the same bowl. powhata >> looked at our banking system, it is great. the chinese are feeling like they made a brilliant

too many weapons of that era remain even though the soviet union no longer exists and even though weng from an era of mutually assured destruction to an era of mutually assured stability. our primary focus today is no longer deterrence of large-scale nuclear conflict between two superpowers, but preventing the use of even a single nuclear weapon. that is why i am working to implement the president's agenda. as the president said, we might not achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons in his lifetime, but it may take patience and persistence. but the journey is perhaps more important than the destination. as i said in paris earlier this month, we do not view nuclear disarmament as the holy grail. instead, it is the concrete steps we take to enhance our national security on the road to zero that will reduce risks and increase national stability. let me describe several of those steps. we are at the end game. we see the finish line of negotiating a start follow on treated. our intent is to include an agreement that will help preserve stability and predictability at lower nucle

people don't know any more that six or eight weeks after president reagan came out and called the soviet union the evil empire he stuffed that phrase back into his pocket because he found out in his negotiations with the soviets come it was getting in the way. he could not call them again. it is not eight phrase he repeated it in public. others did but he did not. it is a problem for me. i cannot talk to the soviet leader's. the negotiations are bogged down so we will take that back. years later he finally said to gorbachev no. you're not really an evil empire but six weeks later it was out of his vocabulary. you only find out things like that if you're in the roots of the document and that is what we tried to do. >> if any of us were doing the project for the new american century in the 1990's we would have known exactly what they had thought or what they wanted to do. they took a vantage of the impeachment and pushed on that iraqi liberation act and also pushing their freedom fighters though the stage was set to if they took the presidency, there was no doubt they were going to iraq. they ke

>> knott to the soviet union, but in 1960, he makes his first official tour. been playing in europe in 1932 and 33 -- 1932 and 1933. he was seen as an unofficial ambassador. this producer gave him the wonderful title. he performed regularly in europe. he was beloved there. he became a quasi official american massacre of there. >> what was his way of treating the black-white issue in europe? >> he did not talk about it much. he always had an integrated band and said what he wanted to say about it. he did not bring politics or race relations into this setting. he says that his contribution was to go before mixed audiences with a mixed band and played music that he loved. this was obviously an artistic genius, a man worthy of what he got. >> who started calling him pops? çóñr>> like many people that she hands with thousands of people every week, he had trouble remembering people's names. he distorted calling everybody he met pops. çóthey started calling him pops. its stock, not just because of his own hat, but because it had metaphoric value. when i was searching

success of the berlin airlift is viewed as the first cold war victory for america against the soviet union. as the editors of publishers weekly said in the review of daring young men, quote, reeves gives a mesmerizing portrait of america at its best when challenged by russia's tierney. utilizing previously unpublished documents and numerous interviews reeves provides a voice for the extraordinary service men who accomplish extraordinary things. it was that same spirit which brought the constitution center to life and our exhibit the story of we the people that demonstrates how ordinary americans have helped protect an extraordinary document. this desire evident through the nation's history to improve upon the present and make things right exists inside a borders as well as outside as the recent earthquake in haiti should remind us all. richard reeves is the senior lecturer at the annenberg school for communication at the university of southern california. he served as the chief correspondent on the pbs series front line and made six television films garnering numerous awards including the

>> have on the fall of the soviet union?he reagan doctrine. >> if you look at the fall of the soviet union i think you will find is we have already insisted up here a complex pattern where as not just one factor but certainly if you put together the policies of the reagan administration, he put together the economic troubles of the soviet economy, and then i think one has to add the powerful witness of pope john paul ii. you simply cannot leave that out in so many of the analyses of the fall of the soviet union, that the role of john paul ii. and the fact that when he made his first pilgrimage to his homeland after being ascending to the papacy in 1978 the first pilgrimmage was 1979 again spontaneous. millions of people turned out, the millions, peaceful gatherings of these enormous crowds, and the regime at that point realized it had lost control. because once people are brave enough and hopeful enough, to take certain risks, then these authoritarian apparatuses are in real trouble. let me very briefly because i want to get

fear, and, he said i personally was very surprised, as we were to find out he never visited the soviet union, how could he get our texture and the texture and also right? and having had the experience? and remember, 1984 is about circulation of the medieval book with in the inner party. and it is -- >> but that is a great question, how did he know, he lived almost his entire life in england and traveled a bit through europe at the end of world war ii and had his years in burma but he was parochial and confined to the island yet he wrote in his essay on arthur kessler, british writers of his generation failed to understand totalitarianism because they had not lived it the way kessler and solanay and other continental writers had, and sort of criticizing this -- what he called the parlor bolsheviks for not feeling what it is to live under that kind of regime, and orwell felt it, but he had the same -- other than his years in burma and suffering and hard times in the 1930s, he had the same education and lived in the same england they did yet he felt it and it is a mystery how he could have know

>> the fall of the soviet union? >> the fall of the soviet union, yes. >> the reagan doctrine.l, if you look at the fall of the soviet union i think you will find, as we have already insisted up here, a complex pattern. it is not just one factor, but certainly we put together the policies of the reagan administration, you put together the economic troubles of the soviet economy, and then i think one has to add the powerful witness of pope john paul ii. you simply cannot leave that out. so many of the analyses of the fall of the soviet union omit the role of john paul ii. and the fact that when he made his first pilgrimage to his homeland after being, ascending to the papacy in 1978, first pilgramage to his homeland. again, spontaneous. millions of people turned out. millions. peaceful gatherings of these enormous crowds. and the regime at that point realized it had lost control. once people are brave enough and hopeful enough to take certain risks then the authoritarian apparatuses are in real trouble. very briefly. we want to get all the questions and. i was in poland in 1983

then, with the collapse of the soviet union and 91, the overwhelming reality was extreme economic on their ability with the loss of soviet subsidies. extreme vulnerability and extreme security vulnerability with the loss of the soviet union and soviet bloc countries had the reaction to put it simply was naturally to enhance their own security by means of the kinds of steps that bruce is outlined. they >> the kindof steps that bruce has opined, very effectively to enhance the economic situation by means of proliferating. and to, but as we seek to counter the very real negative consequences from their proliferation in particular and also the very real potential threat that exists simply by virtue of their remaining economic military capability, if we are going to do that skillfully and effectively we have got to understand what is actually happening inside the country, among the elite. because if we are going to strike an effective part in with them we have to understand what is driving them. i think there is ample evidence today that the easy to have lost confidence in ideology. i woul

our powerful nuclear deterrence in those years was also a major factor in ending the soviet union and defeating communism without violence. fast forward to today. nuclear deterrence, our strongest foreign policy tool, is nowhere to be found. what happened? it was a combination of many things. we didn't identify the threats correctly. we didn't make the tough intellectual effort to totally recast our nuclear deterrent strategy. we didn't educate the american people about deterrence. we were reluctant to threaten adversaries. we didn't design, test and produce relevant new nuclear weapons and so forth. as a result, we've lost both of the will and the capability to deter our most threatening adversaries. it will take years to rebuild an effective nuclear deterrence strategy. and regrettably most of our leaders showed little interest in it. the third challenge is our deteriorated nuclear weapons capability and it's hard to know where to begin in describing our collapse. our nuclear weapons stockpile is seriously over aged and in questionable condition. it's also virtually irrelevant becau

versus the soviet union, and that was it. and it was something quite extraordinary that happened. cannot leave out the moral witness of people. they had it all wrong. the soviets supporters were absolutely stunned. >> there is credit to go around. john paul was very foreign, and a united front against the soviets, but also reagan said early on in his view of the cold war, they would lose and we would win. the denial of the assumption of having the ability, that was one of the great breakthroughs of reagan and thatcher and others. it was the mystique of the lesson -- the mystique of the left and communism was that history was on their side. reagan at home and abroad showed us that that was not case. history is up for grabs, as it were. >> next question here. >> should presidencedent be parf the conservative jurisprudence? >> given that the condition of natural law, a place has to be made for positive norm, you may see signs on the road saying 55 m.p.h., but behind that sign -- there's no difference between 45 or 55, but the positive law is under way by natural law. there is a princi

and he said, i was very surprised to found out he never visited the soviet union. huh could he get the texture without having had this experience. it's about the circulation of an illegal book. so it's extraordinary. >> guest: that is a great question. how did orwell know? he lived almost his entire life in england? he traveled through europe and years in burp -- burma, he was confined to the island, but be he wrote in the essay on arthur koestler. he said they failed to understand totalitarianism because they hadn't lived it. he was criticizing what the called the bolsheviks for not feeling what it was like to live under that. orwell felt it. other than his years in burma and suffering and hard times in the 30s, he had the same education and lived in the same england they did, and yet he did feel it. that's a bit of a mystery how he could have known so it well. >> host: i think i have a possible solution, and a slight correction to you. in reverse order, then. or correction first. he did spend a lot of time in the far east admittedly as a colonial policeman, and t

then, with the collapse of the soviet union and 91, the overwhelming reality was extreme economic on their ability with the loss of soviet subsidies. extreme vulnerability and extreme security vulnerability with the loss of the soviet union and soviet bloc countries had the reaction to put it simply was naturally to enhance their own security by means of the kinds of steps that bruce is outlined. they are various very effectively to enhance their economic saturation by marines of proliferation. bruce outlined very effectively. but as we seek to counter the very real negative consequences from their proliferation in particular and also the very real potential threat that exists by potential of their remaining economic military capability. if we're going to do that skillfully and effectively we've got to understand what's actually happening inside the country among the elite because were going to strike an effective bargain with them we have to understand what their motivations are, what the driving is. there is ample evidence today that the elite has lost confidence in ideology i would

years ago this week, mark johnson scored two goals in the united states' shocking 4-3 win over the soviet union. perhaps you heard about that game. i sat down with johnson ahead of tonight's big match-up with canada. >> everybody's been looking forward to this game. united states, canada, clearly the two best teams in the world. how did you prevent yourself and your team from looking past sweden and everybody else in this tournament? >> it's one day at a time. it's an old cliche, but you really have to do it in the olympics because it's such a short term. any any given day, especially with the goaltenders, really a lot of teams can beat you. what's our next game, what do we have to to to win our next game and don't talk about anything past that. >> you have to like the way your team has played in this tournament, though. the combined score just blows your mind. giving up only two goals, i guess it is, over the tournament. you have to be beyond happy with your team right now. >> it's good. the one hard thing on the women's side is obviously we have the best american players. where are you going

was also a politicalens wh muscleand cajoled his fellow congressn into helng nate afghanrun the soviet union out their count. >> thedeth this tag group ribeen could actually ton the most foidable, fear military rmation in htory was md boggng. just start. and they won. >> charlay have the only believer in the unitestates tthe afgheople coultually exphe soviets. he hiswn persojihad. reporter: as wenow, ory would bring ists and turns infghanistan thman who shook e soviets with charlieiln's war nebacked . >>o it's jusarnd ace, i alwa said i was do, t a heavilmedove. charlie wilson diedt e e of 76 of heartailure. >>> and still ahead on "world news," wllelu what ppened todayn soany -called disoers in the u.s. what hpened and sex diti, binge eating, temperantrum >>> alsoameg video aries from the srm. even our snobound reporters geoutheir camera it can be toug ling with pd... but i notto l it slow mdo i dowto t pool foa sw... geout and nce... ev pla a little hide-n-se'm breathing better. wi spiriva. nounr: spiriva is t onlonceai inhaled maintenance eatment fobothormsf co whincles conic bronchitisnd

then, with the collapse of the soviet union and 91, the overwhelming reality was extreme economic on their ability with the loss of soviet subsidies. extreme vulnerability and extreme security vulnerability with the loss of the soviet union and soviet bloc countries had the reaction to put it simply was naturally to enhance their own security by means of the kinds of steps that bruce is outlined. they are various very effectively to enhance their economic saturation by marines of proliferation. bruce outlined very effectively. but as we seek to counter the very real negative consequences from their proliferation in particular and also the very real potential threat that exists by potential of their remaining economic military capability. if we're going to do that skillfully and effectively we've got to understand what's actually happening inside the country among the elite because were going to strike an effective bargain with them we have to understand what their motivations are, what the driving is. there is ample evidence today that the elite has lost confidence in ideology i would

he goes into the soviet union in the late 1940s. he goes into china in the 1950s. he is one of the key black journalist who was in cuba during the cuban revolution. he's a friend and ally of mauka max. is a key domestic idea is something called freedom now party. and it is really going to be one of three black independent political parties in the 1960s. what is the freedom now party. the others the mississippi freedom democratic party led by the sharecropper from mississippi who was not allowed to be seated at the 1964 democratic national convention in atlantic city, new jersey. and the other is going to be the lowndes county freedom organization which is nicknamed the black panther party, which is in lowndes county, alabama. and that started with grass-roots locals and loud study with the help of sncc activist, especially stokely carmichael. what we think about bill worthy, he is interesting because he's a black our activist who's also a pacifist who actually went to jail in world war ii for refusing to fight in the war, but worthy want a foreign policy that is ba

the russian skater's bitter loss has sparked disappointment in the former soviet union with russia sitting in 8th place in the medal count. >> i think it's a shame that our team is performing that badly. it's quite unexpected. >> unexpected is canada's performance, too. after a multi-million dollar push to own the podium in its homeland games, it ranks 4th here, though with several gold medals. >> on the podium the canadians aren't subletting the podium. >> team usa is snatching up canada real estate. apolo onho competes tonight. he could win his 7th medal, he could be the most decorated olympian ever. >> lester holt covering it. >>> wi turn to troubling news about a widely used diabetes medicine. confidential fda studies are confidential no more recommend that the drug avandia be removed from the market because of a link to heart attacks and failure. nancy snyderman is here with us in vancouver. nancy, this controversy is not new. >> it's not new, and trouble has been bubbling around avandia for quite sometime today. the senate finance committee made news because it issued a letter critic

century in congress, best known for his role in helping secretly fund afghanistan resistance to the soviet unions. charlie wilson was 76 years old. >>> we'll take a break. when we come back, the news today that could put one american's olympic dream on ice. that could put one american's olympic dream on ice. that can build up e in arteries. it's called atherosclerosis--or athero. and high cholesterol is a major factor. but crestor can help slow the buildup of plaque in arteries. go to arterytour.com and take an interactive tour to learn how plaque builds up. and then ask your doctor if crestor is right for you. along with diet, crestor does more than lower bad cholesterol and raise good. crestor is proven to slow the buildup of plaque in arteries. crestor isn't for everyone, like people with liver disease, or women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. simple blood tests will check for liver problems. you should tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking or if you have muscle pain or weakness. that could be a sign of serious side effects. learn more about plaque buildup at

in fact, i think it's better off that there is no soviet union. it's not worse off that there is no yugoslavia. but the tragedy of the yugoslav situation is was not the breakup of the country, but the violence. and the violence was definitely preventable in the spring and early summer of 1991. the holding yugoslavia together was not a possibility. and we continued with this commitment to the unity of every state that exists, so that, for example, in iraq one of our major objectives as stated by the second president bush was the unity of iraq. and yet, there is a part of the country, kurdistan, in which every single person there, at least everyone that i have met, and this was also expressed in a referendum that was held at the time of the first iraqi elections, which -- i mean, every kurd i met favors independence. that includes those who hold prominent positions in the central government in baghdad. and in a referendum that the kurds held, this time of the january 30, 2005, elections, they voted -- 98% were for independence. it was obviously not

versus the soviet union, and that was it. and it was something quite extraordinary that happened. e. they had it all wrong. the soviets supporters were absolutely stunned. >> there is credit to go around. john paul was very foreign, and a united front against the soviets, but also reagan said early on in his view of the cold war, they would lose and we would win. the denial of the assumption of having the ability, that was one of the great breakthroughs of reagan and thatcher and others. it was the mystique of the lesson -- the mystique of the left and communism was that history was on their side. reagan at home and abroad showed us that that was not case. history is up for grabs, as it were. >> next question here. >> should presidencedent be parf the conservative jurisprudence? >> given that the condition of natural law, a place has to be made for positive norm, you may see signs on the road saying 55 m.p.h., but behind that sign -- there's no difference between 45 or 55, but the positive law is under way by natural law. there is a principle that tells us why we are being justifie

it was a great fear of the soviet union as essentially an evil empire intent on world destruction. some of the same thing, accusing republicans in the 1950's of being total isolationists and not caring what happened. fear is always part of national security politics, and often it does lead to bad policy making. host: i wanted to read a bit from the section on jfk and the cuban missile crisis. "from the start of his administration, republicans worked hard to undercut jfk's appeal on a national security. the john birch society, founded in 1958 by california-based businessman, included 100,000 members, mostly in the sun belt. anti communism was the glue that held the society together, though opposition to civil rights was important for southern members. conservative radio hosts railed against the administration's failures to stand up to the soviets. conservatives enjoy a vibrant period of book publishing with companies like regnery." some of that is ringing true today. guest: we forget in the 1950's that the conservative movement was emerging. republicans were making keep a central is

were fighting to influence these newly emerging african countries the soviet union has always pointed to the harsh treatment, the unfair treatment of african-americans in this country and they say you don't take them seriously because look what they do to their own people and that helped bring about the civil rights movement, the international pressure so at the same time the united states can capitalize on its image as an enlightened electorate capable of voting for a man who in no way resembles orn few ways resembles directly the previous 40 plus presidents and pointed that as an example of the united states as an exemplar of progress. i think we will be able to make that argument for a little while. i don't know how long it will last but i think the initial response has been encouraging. >> thank you. >> what you think of the bi-racial aspect of obama and the thing that adds to the school factor or not? do you think it added to the school factor during the campaign? >> the question is what do i think of the bi-racial factor in obama's rice cantu i think it contributed to his cool f

with the collapse of the soviet union in 1991, the overwhelming reality was extreme economic boehner lity with a loss -- vulnerability, with the loss of the soviet support. the reaction, to put it simply, was naturally to enhance their security by the kinds of steps that bruce has outlined. they wanted to enhance their economic situation by the means of proliferating. as we seek to counter the very real negative consequences from their proliferation and the very real potential threat that exists simply by virtue of their remaining economic -- military capability, if we're going to do that skillfully and effectively, we have to understand what is actually happening inside the country, among the elite. we're going to strike a bargain with them -- we need to understand the motivations to do so. there is ample evidence today that the elite have lost confidence in the ideologies, i would say, quite -- absolutely, that the ideology is dead and they are aware that their system is not working. they are very actively seeking to gain the skills, the contacts, and the resources needed to survive

soviet union invaded, they didn't have access to medical care.only helping people in remote places, but helping them help themselves, training them, and providing care through people in the community through training. >> larry: do you think you may be diverted away from haiti now? >> we won't be diverted. we have a very robust response in haiti, we have 70 people on the ground in haiti. we're treating 15,000 people a day. excuse me, 1500 people a day. and things are very bad and very intense, and the work really has just begun, because we will be the long term. however, we do have people on stand by that can also go to chile, because we have a whole network of specialists. >> helping chile will not hurt haiti? >> hopefully chile will be able in large part to care for themselves, because they have such a great capacity. however, if they need our help, we're going to be there for them. i do believe right now, everything is shocking the world, there's so much right now going on, and certainly it's probably overwhelming everybody. >> thank you very m

, soviet union could always point to the harsh treatment, the unfair treatment of african-americans inthis country and say, you don't really need to take the united states as easy as. comes of liberty because look what they do to their own people. and that helped bring about the civil rights movement, that international pressure. i think the same time the united states can cap was on this image as an enlightened electorate capable of voting for a man who in no way resembles, or into way resembles the 40 plus present. an example of the unite states as an exemplar of progress. i think we'll will will be held to make that argument for is a well. i don't know how long that will carry or how long that will last but the initial response has been encouraging. >> thank you. >> what do you think of the biracial aspect of obama? do you think that adds to his cool factor or not? do think it added to its cool factor during the campaign? >> the question was what do i think of the biracial factor? and obama's rise and do i think it contributed to his cool factor. i think that he is biracial identity

it boarded the old soviet union but it is still close to russia.nd iran possible missions is becoming very important. china isç buying a significant part of iran's oil and this is a relationship that turned around increasingly east would rather than look westward -- then westward. this is a country that has extraordinary influence in the shi'ite world. it is the largest shiite dominated country in the world and it has its tentacles in iraq where it still has troops. it has close the like -- alliances with groups like hezbollah in lebanon and hamas. çi]i]with many of the extremist groups. it is the top ofq the list of state department state sponsors of terrorism. so, between its vast oil and gas resources to its influence and a part of the world where the u.s. has the political and economic interest, iran will always poor into the denied the state to weather is in power in tehran. host: what do analysts such as yourself see in the green revolution? guest: green movement is in many ways the most vibrant civil disobedience campaigns any world -- an

in the early 1990's, optimistic western analysts predicted that with the soviet union gone, we wouldnter a generally harmonious era. history had already ended. because history had ended, because we had reached the end point in the eve illusion of human societies, we engage the chinese with trade and with generous foreign policies. we gave china a seat at the top table because we believed that by ending it a leading role in world affairs, that the chinese would become responsible. as we know, the chinese, in fact, did not. our remedy for the failure of engaging in the past has been to promote more engagement in the future. as we continued unsuccessful policies, we created perverse incentives. the chinese engaged an unfriendly behavior so we reward them. they continued irresponsible conduct, we reward them some corporate in these circumstances, why would they ever change? are generous but misguided policies could cause problems. beijing knowing it has gotten away with bad conduct in the past, will naturally think it can do so in the future. prior administrations, beginning with those h

and before 1967, the left everywhere in the world, including, the governments like the soviet union,he czech government were pro-israel for one reason or another. and as i pointed out, it all changed -- or began to change in 1967 conceivably something will happen that could -- could provoke another change. i wouldn't bet the ranch on it. but it's not out of the question. but in the meantime, i would recommend -- i mean, i spent a lot of time in this book trying to explain in historical terms how jews have wound up in the position they have. and i begin way back, at least in the mid-19th century. i trace a progression here from a commitment to marxism in its pure form in the early days to total democracy, democratic socialism as it got watered down as marxism got watered down in this country particularly to the labor movement. and finally with the progressive discrediting of socialism as a socioeconomic system, it morphed into liberalism and from liberalism there's nowhere to go but it's like -- that's it. that's the last stop on the road. the real question is whether most jews will c

everyone is defending the right of the soviet union to do this to get it reminds me kind of the worstort of identity politics when it invaded the writers organizations in this country in the 80's and 90's, suddenly the last thing anyone wants to speak up for this free expression. i think a good example which is very near to your heart is when solomon rushdie came under the fault will from the high iranian government and there was hardly any writer able to say this is an absolute atrocity executed. >> host: this kind to me. there were a lot of people who did very well. remember convening a very good meeting f. -- >> guest: if you were among the very first but back to orwell, that sas and continues to imagine what if milton were to come back today and attend this meeting. he would be astonished and no one at the meeting in 1945 for 46 was able to defend the free expression with the unqualified force of milton 300 years earlier secure absolutely right that period was a kind of touchstone for him in the struggle -- >> host: so the title for your other -- thus "all art is propaganda" i hav

society, these are the folks that said that president eisenhower was a conscious agent of the soviet unionwas president of the united states. they also said putting flouride in drinking water was a secret plot. and i got a chance to speak with the john birch society president at cpac. the john birch society caught our exchange on tape. >> i'm remembering the show you this. >> it turns out those guys don't drink the water any way. i asked. for the record, we actually called the d.c. hotel that is hosting the cpac event this year and we asked them about the fluoride in the water and the hotel confirmed for us that they don't do anything to filter out the communist flouride they put in the water, but said they soften the water in-house. so, there's the next communist plot. water softening. think about it. ♪ so sensory, ♪ so satisfying, ♪ the discovery never seems to stop. ♪ ♪ it's the magic friskies makes happen. ♪ ♪ every day. ♪ in so many ways. ♪ friskies. feed the senses. ♪ hi, may i help you? yes, i hear progressive has lots of discounts on car insurance. can i get in on that? are you a s

just want to point out that he said he knew the day would come when ronald reagan declared the soviet union the evil empire, and freedom did come to him and more. the same support can come for those to demonstrate a on this important day. >> one reason the american people are angry about washington is their perceptive we cannot agree, but today's announcement stands in stark contrast. we have the independence working together, some of the most conservative members and some of the most liberal members, who have chosen to co-sponsor this legislation. it is a timely announcement. that only is this the 31st anniversary of the united nations, but people are being beaten in the streets as we speak, and their president announced they have perhaps taken major steps. it is in the national security interest of the united states to foster the government so the nation can join the united nations as responsible, rather than a menace that is what today's's announcement is all about. our country is at its best one we align ourselves with freedom. if you're a journalist in iran, you risk being tortured. if

i remember a time when that was true of the united states and then the soviet union., you know, negotiations going then. what my question, i guess, is fairly simple. what could the u.s. and the now russian federation do, by any measure, the two nuclear super powers in the world, with 95% of these dangerous weapons, what can we do and what can they do to set an example with what's happening with start and what should happen beyond start with china and others and also we would like to separately ask dr. parsi and geneive abdo while we are waiting for the iranian regime, what can we do to help the iranian people? >> what should we do? i think one of the things we have to keep in mind is that the ke question of what is the we hav with iran, they are going to do what they do regardless of what the u.s. and russia does. it isn't just those two powers that are engaged. there have been times in the past when we have been barely on speaking terms and had to act through surrogates, the french and the british and the germans. these are democracies that areç prone, respond to the

in the early 1990's, optimistic western analysts predicted that with the soviet union gone, we would in the evolution of human societies, as he told us, we engage the chinese with trade and with generous foreign policies -- we engaged the chinese. we gave them a seat at the top table, because we believed they would become responsible. but as we know, the chinese, in fact, did not. our remedy for the failure of engagement in the past has been to promote more engagement in the future, and as we continued unsuccessful policies, which created reverse incentives. the chinese engaged in an unfriendly behavior, so we rewarded them. they continued on irresponsible conduct, and we offered more. why would they ever change? this could cause us problems. beijing, knowing it has gotten away with bad conduct in the past, will naturally think it can do so in the future. private administrations, beginning with those with george for what i think our indulgent and counterproductive strategies in regard to the chinese, but the obama team has taken a bad approach and driven it to its logical, i would ev

and that one of the things you see, for example, in the former soviet union and in other places, sortf less-developed economies, is a difficulty in making durable, enforceable commitments. you don't know whether you can trust people, and this limits the -- the number of commitments people are likely to make. so in order to have a good market economy, you need to be able to make deals with strangers. and what you find in places where people can't trust each other, because the legal system doesn't work, is that they will only make deals with family members or people that they've known for a long time, and that works to a point, but it doesn't work to give you w -- an extended order, a really advanced economy. c-span: by the way, who do you want to read this? >> guest: everybody. no. i -- i think people who have an interest in, as it says in the subtitle, creativity, enterprise and progress. if you have any sort of interest -- those words mean something important to you, you ought to take a look at it. and if you have an interest in the -- some of the peculiarities and changing shapes of

too many weapons of that era remain, even though the soviet union no longer exists. and even though we are moving from an era of mutually assured construction, an era of mutual stability. our primary focus today is no longer deterring a large-scale nuclear conflict between two superpowers, but preventing the use of even a single nuclear weapon. that's why i'm working to implement the president's agenda and strengthen our deterrent. as the president said, we might not achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons in his lifetime. it may take patience and persistence. but the journey is perhaps more important than the destination. as i said in paris earlier this month, we don't do nuclear disarmament as a holy grail. instead, it's the concrete steps that we take to enhance our national security on the road to zero that will reduce risks and increase international stability. let me describe several of those steps. we are at the end again. we see the finish line of negotiating a start follow on treaty. our intent is to include an agreement that will preserve stabil

everyone is defending the right of the soviet union. reminds me kind of the worst of identify politics when it invaded writers organizations in this country in the '80s and '90 thes. suddenly, the last thing anyone wants to stand up for is free example. it's when simon game under fire on the iranian government. there was hardly any writer that was able to say this is an estrousty. >> there were a lot of people that did well. >> that's true. i think you were among the first. back to orwell. that essay continues what if milton were to come back and attend the penn meeting. he'd be astonished. no one at the meeting was able to defend free expression with the unqualified force of milton, 00 years earlier. so i think you are right that people was kind of a touchstone for him in the struggle for -- >> to the other volume we say, we have a question to ask you. i know that he wrote in war time, orwell with writing is a propaganda. it's a attack on his conflict and passivism. where does it come from? >> he say says it in a couple of places -- >>

i was in the soviet union when it collapsed and we sent all chiss to give them economic privatization plans without understanding the unconscious lack of trust in russian society. so to me we've had a whole series of failures, policy failures which are derived from the fact that we have an inaccurate view of human nature. and this cognitive revolution is giving us a more accurate view of human nature that we are not only the rational incentive based, the linguistic logical parts of our mind, but we have other processs which are associational, which are emotional, and this is how we really navigate the world. so to me this is just exciting in its own way but also solves my problems. my problems of why we've had so many policy failures by giving us a more accurate view of human nature and how people are likely to respond to different situations. >> rose: it's stunning. and, you know, when i talk to all thes people and frequently say what's the one question you most want to answer, it's always about the unconscious. there is this ultimate fascination with, as you say, how much of what we