he since has been pursued by both the bush and obama administrations in a six-year leak investigation into his book, "state of war: the secret history of the cia and the bush administration." risen now faces years in prison if he refuses to testify at the trial of a former cia officer accused of giving him classified information. in june, the supreme court turned down risen's appeal of a court ruling forcing him to testify in the criminal trial of ex-cia analyst jeffrey sterling, who prosecutors believe gave him information on the agency's role in disrupting iran's nuclear program. in "state of war," risen showed that instead of hampering iran's efforts, the cia effectively gave iran a blueprint for designing a bomb. james risen has vowed to go to jail rather than testify in sterling's trial, which is set to begin in january. industry broadcast sunday, general michael hayden, who led the cia until 2009, and before that, led the nsa, told lesley stahl on "60 minutes" he does not think risen should be forced to divulge his source. >> i'm conflicted. i know the damage that is done. i do.

administration. it expired. the first one expired in 2009. so it was after the bush administration left and then it was renewed by the obama administration and a whole series of subpoenas. yeah. in my affidavit, one of my affidavits in the case, i think i filed several of them actually -- i talk about the harassment that i got during the bush administration. so that's on -- it's public in the court documents where i describe the -- all of the efforts both public and some private efforts by the administration to, in my view, to harass me and to try to, you know, try and have a chilling effect on reporting that i was doing. it was -- if you remember what -- if you were around in 2005 or 2006, there was a lot in the press about that. so, it was a fairly concerted effort against both me and eric lishbla, my colleague at "the new york times." so, yeah, it got pretty intense. thanks. >> hello. i'm wondering how hopeful are you that this collective effort will make a dent? i remember that you said that this is just the beginning and what would follow? and a sideline questio

they said there were chemical weapons there and the bush administration covered up the fact that thereere chemical weapons there because they were the wrong kind of chemical weapons. but the bush administration was desperate to find chemical weapons. so the thought that somehow there would be conspiracy, cover up and gag order, i just don't get it. >> it's really i think fascinating that the coverup was indeed for national security judgments that the bush administration did not exploit that situation. >> if the bush administration had realized chemical weapons there, they would have trumpeted that and said, see, we were right. that didn't happen. frankly, i'm much more concerned with what we are doing with your forces now, sending them to africa into ebola territory. >> without proper training. >> without proper training, hazmat suits. they're fighters. they are not construction workers that we have sent them into. >> not we. >> not we. the united states and the nation. >> k.t. mcfarland, thanks so much. >> we wanted to take quick moment to offer the pentagon a few alternatives to the

covered up with after they were chemical weapons there and the bush administration was desperate to find chemical weapons and so i just don't get it. lou: it's really fascinating that they did not exploit that situation. >> of the bush administration had relied chemical weapons there, they would've trumpeted that instead see, we were right, it didn't happen. but frankly i'm more concerned that what we are doing with our forces now sending them in to africa and into ebola territory and i don't think that they know what they are doing. without proper training without hazmat suits,. lou: thank you so much. kt k.t. mcfarland. we want to take a quick moment here to offer the pentagon a few alternatives to the oddly named operation inherent result or it's a we are offering these up. how about operation abstract specificity? or a operation incoherent response? we also found operation horizons and a foregone conclusion and given the presidents general reflexes to foreign policy challenges. and protesters still protesting since the demonstrations started two weeks ago. pepper spray used by po

it was after the bush administration left and then it was renewed by the obama administration and a whole series of subpoenas. i talk about the harassment i got during the bush administration. so that's on -- it's in public in the court documents where i described the -- all of the efforts, both public and some private efforts by the administration to in my view to harass me and to try to, you know, try and have a chilling effect on reporting that i was doing. it was -- if you remember -- if you were around in 2005 or 2006, it was a lot in the press about that. it was a fairly concerted effort against me and my colleague at the "new york times." yeah, it got pretty intense. so, thanks. >> hello, i wonder how hopeful are you that this collective effort will make a dent? i remember you said this is just the begin ining what would foll? and a sideline question, is this an opportunity to push back with the federal law? >> and i'll address the first, part of that as 2008 obama delegate to the democratic national convention. given hope a bad name in the last few years. your question about how h

administration. it expired. the first one expired in 2009. so it was after the bush administration left and then it was renewed by the obama administration and a whole series of subpoenas. yeah. in my affidavit, one of my affidavits in the case, i think i filed several of them actually, i talk about the harassment that i got during the bush administration. so that's on -- it's public in the court documents where i describe the -- all of the efforts, both public and some private efforts by the administration to, in my view, to harass me and to try to, you know, try and have a chilling effect on reporting that i was doing. it was -- if you remember what -- if you were around in 2005 or 2006, there was a lot in the press about that. so, it was a fairly concerted effort against both me and eric lichtblau, my colleague at "the new york times." so, yeah, it got pretty intense. thanks. >> hello. i'm wondering how hopeful are you that this collective effort will make a dent? i remember that you said that this is just the beginning and what would follow? and a sideline questi

so, in the first couple of years, the first three years of the bush administration, removals were basically flat, and the ratio between border removals and interior removals was unchanged. so there was a status quo, no dramatic changes to the enforcement system early in the bush administration. and then what we see beginning in 2006, is a steep increase between 2006 and 2009, in the total number of removals, and what happens then is that with the failure of the comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the senate in 2006, the bush administration initiated a real enforcement surge and what you can see is that was driven overwhelmingly by increased interior enforcement. work site raids and other operations, fugitive operations teams. this shows up in the data here as increased interior enforcement. those numbers flattened out during the first years of the obama administration. the total number of removals was flat, and that there's no real change in the ratio of border to interior enforcement, and then most recently, since 2011, we have seen removals started to increase again and that i

administration. it expired. the first one expired in 2009. so it was after the bush administration left and then it was renewed by the obama administration and a whole series of subpoenas. yeah. in my affidavit, one of my affidavits in the case, i think i filed several of them actually -- i talk about the harassment that i got during the bush administration. so that's on -- it's public in the court documents where i describe the -- all of the efforts both public and some private efforts by the administration to, in my view, to harass me and to try to, you know, try and have a chilling effect on reporting that i was doing. it was -- if you remember what -- if you were around in 2005 or 2006, there was a lot in the press about that. so, it was a fairly concerted effort against both me and eric lishbla, my colleague at "the new york times." so, yeah, it got pretty intense. thanks. >> hello. i'm wondering how hopeful are you that this collective effort will make a dent? i remember that you said that this is just the beginning and what would follow? and a sideline questio

>> i think the bush administration at the time wanted greater power. it was a matter of increasing executive power in the wake of 9/11 and using 9/11 as kind of justification to develop a whole new counterterrorism infrastructure within the u.s. government. >> now i know you thought that things would get better under powm because he had promised -- president obama because he had promised more transparency. >> i think the facts speak for themselves. you look at how many prosecutions of whistle blowers and how many attacks and targeting of journalists that have been done by the obama administration, it's more than the previous pt presidents in history combined. it set a precedent, the u.s. used to be a model of press freedom. and now we've got al jazeera journalists imprisoned in egypt. that leads these dictators around the world saying, if the americans do it why can't i. >> you still face subpoena to reveal one of your sources in an ongoing case so you technically face the threat of having to go to jail, despite the fact that attorney general acre hold

why doesn't the obama administration and the bush administration before, why don't they get the warrantscause they're easy to get from the fisa court. are they not? >> what happened was the bush administration went around that court because they argued they wanted to listen in on so many people, so fast, that they needed to use new technology to do it in a way that the courts, the secret fisa court, couldn't keep up with. that was their argument. but since then there's been new laws after our stories came out that allowed basically legislation that allowed them to basically do what they were already doing. now the obama administration has expanded it exponentially with all the social media, facebook and twitter. they have grabbed all of that and so now the nsa has much more digital information. >> do they have to pass a new law to keep up with this? >> yes. >> now the technology is outrunning the law. >> right, right. >> okay. now, all of this is centered around one thing and correct me if i'm wrong. i haven't read your new book. i just got it. >> okay. >> centered around both administra

a war of ideas, as we talked about when i was nin the bush administration. at's a been pretty much abandoned. prime minister cameron talked about it saying it was the most important part of our battle. and i think that a commitment of the war of ideas is enormously important. right now in the world there is a big vacuum that extremists radical violent islam is filling, and we have our own ideology. in fact most of the world has this ideology, about freedom, tolerance, justice, peace. and we need to be standing up for it and being very, very firm about it. and i really don't see that happening. so we need to join this ideological war just as we did with the battle with communism. just as we did with the battle with naziism. there is a connection among boston and ft. hood and what we're seeing now with isis. and it is a warped ideology. but it is one that is quite attractive to a lot of people. and we need to push forcefully back against it. >> during your time at the bush years you were tasked with combatting al qaeda's presence online. how is fighting al qaed

it came m second in the last year of the clinton administration, by the middle. bush administration we dropped to eight and it decloiped in president obama -- declined in president obama's two terms. a wide reaching of issues was causing concernsers saying the u.s. mooed away from -- moved away from a rule of law, and highly politicized and heavy policed state. economic freedom is tied to human wellbeing. coming up, crimes so revoting we can't describe them, committed by players on a big-time football team. how did school officials let this happen. >> i'm john siegenthaler in new york. after "consider this", fighting off ebola - the dallas nurse with the virus sent a message from her hospital bed. >> growing threat. i.s.i.l. closes in on baghdad. what the u.s. and allies plan to do about it. the minimum wage debate on the last frontier. the unique issues facing alaska's workers. america votes 2014 - coming up after "consider this". >>> disturbing charges against members of a new jersey high school football team that won three state championships in the last four years

it came m second in the last year of the clinton administration, by the middle. bush administration we dropped to eight and it decloiped in president obama -- declined in president obama's two terms. a wide reaching of issues was causing concernsers saying the u.s. mooed away from -- moved away from a rule of law, and highly politicized and heavy policed state. economic freedom is tied to human wellbeing. coming up, crimes so revoting we can't describe them, committed by players on a big-time ali v, the news has become this thing where you talk to experts about people, and al jazeera has really tried to talk to people, about their stories. we are not meant to be your first choice for entertainment. we are ment to be your first choice for the news. >>> disturbing charges against members of a new jersey high school football team that won three state championships in the last four years led to the rest of their season being cancelled. several members. s ajs yreville team has been arrested and charged with sexual assault after a hazing incident. joining us is dave ziren,

the problems started in the bush administration with the two unfunded wars. i think we can't simply blame it on the president and the current administration. they're still trying to pay off the two unfunded wars started by president bush. in terms of dealing with the debt, yes, it is something that we need to address. but by going back to washington and just voting no against everything, that's not going to help solve the problem. we need to come together and have a bipartisan solution in order to get the debt down. >> any ideas on the way to increase the money coming in to the federal government? >> certainly. i mean, it's very easy. we need to close the loopholes. we need to reform our current tax laws. close the loop holes that are benefiting the special interests. and we can make great strides in terms of reducing the debt. >> senator. >> thanks. did you hear that enthusiastic? oh, certaintly. that's what we get from democrats back there all the time. let me translate for that. tax increases. that's what they want. i promised you that i wouldn't do that. i

it came m second in the last year of the clinton administration, by the middle. bush administration we dropped to eight and it decloiped in president obama -- declined in president obama's two terms. a wide reaching of issues was causing concernsers saying the u.s. mooed away from -- moved away from a rule of law, and highly politicized and heavy policed state. economic freedom is tied to human wellbeing. coming up, crimes so revoting we can't describe them, committed by players on a big-time >> in jacmel on haiti's southern coast surfers aren't an unusual sight these days, but just a few months ago, some of these boys couldn't even swim. they're all part of "surf haiti", an ambitious project aimed at bringing tourists and their money to the beaches. joan mamique who runs the camp says surfing here is about more than just catching waves. samson jules, who was one of the first boys to learn to surf here, tells us the project has the potential to change the lives of his entire community. the passion from these young haitians is unmistakable and it's the chance to be par

the regulations proposed in 2005 during the bush administration amid fears of avian flu would have given federal government additional powers to detain sick airline passengers and those exposed to certain diseases. they also would have expanded requirements for airlines to report ill passengers to the cdc and mandated that airlines collect and maintain contact information for flyers in case they later needed to be traced as part of an investigation into an outbreak. ron, this never came up again. there was not another proposal. obviously people are are looking back now and saying, you know, should we have that in place. the aclu and the airline travelers association all pushed back against this. and it went away. >> well, we get back to the issue of trust again. do we trust a government that is already impinging on our freedom and civil liberties know when to quarantine and who not to quarantine. who to crack down on and who not to crack down on. do we trust our hospitals not to relieve somebody ebola already happened this week do. we trust one another? do we trust our neighbors when the

. >> narrator: in washington, the bush administration brushed aside the bad news. >> i picked up a newspaper today, and i couldn't believe it. i read eight headlines that talked about "chaos!" "violence!" "unrest!" and it just was, "henny penny, the sky is falling." i've never seen anything like it! just unbelievable how people can take that away from what is happening in that country. >> narrator: two weeks later, president george w. bush landed on the deck of the uss abraham lincoto announce the war was over. >> my fellow americans, major combat operations in iraq have ended. in the battle of iraq, the united states and our allies have prevailed. because of you, the tyrant has fallen and iraq is free. (cheering) >> bush never said "mission accomplished," but that banner was hanging up right behind his head as he gave that speech. and it really was a premature victory speech that didn't recognize what was going on in iraq. >> narrator: the administration's strategy was to pull the troops out of iraq and hand over responsibility to an american civilian. in washington, vice president cheney's

even during the bush administration, the second bush administration, there's a dialogue around counterterrorismration. in,e president obama can we've seen continuing dialogue around the whole range of issues like counter narcotics, coast guard cooperation, oil spill mitigation, and so on. there's a long, long history of dialogue and a variety of successes on a number of issues. >> can i just add, this wonderful list of dialogue and covert overs, formal/informal he laid out was facilitated or the last 50 years by a who's who of really colorful intermediaries. the political issues around talking to cuba are so sensitive that presidents felt they had to meteors, manyel who are not tied to the u.s. government in any way to bring messages back and forth. in the kennedy era, he had a pioneering female journalist, first female respondent for abc news lisa howard setting up her central park apartment is command central communication central for phone calls and messages between cuba and the united states. >> she reported them? >> she did not report them. write for ah magazine in the 1960's about her con

he served as an expert during the bush administration. he is joining us from new york. he is a distinguished processor. thank you for being with u.s. >> good morning. happy to be with you. >> let me begin with the president's point and something we have seen from other individuals as well. some call it the media hype over ebola. do you want to address that issue? >> well, the communications around this issue are so important. if we look back historically at aids and saars and avian flu, we had the same type of response. they don't understand. they see one or two people that are iland they think it could happen to them. making sure we have very clear, health literate culturally competent messages that will inform but not inflame the public is very important. >> are the media responsible, or has there been irresponsibility in covering this story? >> i think in most cases, the media is trying to do the best thing. i had a conversation with a galloning of media last weggle we had this discussion offline. you know, they all agreed that, you know, there is competition. they wa

. >> right after 9/11, there were calls out from the government, from the administration. then the bushdministration, for workplaces to real&y be vigilant about who's doing what, particularly if there are any terrorist connections. bush had no problem using the word terrorist or words on terrorism. should the workplace be a place that does focus a little more on paying attention to these things? >> you don't want to be overly intrusive, david, but if a person is out there trying to convert people in the workplace, you might have a problem. you ought to look into it. the name should go on the radar. those are basic, commonsense things. you don't have to snoop. the guy is out there soliciting, as this guy was, when you look at his facebook page, you can see this guy has a problem. >> sabrina, i don't want to open up a whole can of worms here but this guy was stopped by doing more harm by an administrator who had a gun. the gun was responsible from stopping this guy from committing another beheading. he was already stabbing somebody else. what does that tell you about whether we should be

the obama administration reportedly is considering a move that would continue the bush-era policy ignoringthe united nations torture treaty overseas. in 2005, the bush administration disclosed it had secretly interpreted a u.n. ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as not applying to any cia or military prison outside of the united states. president obama, then a senator, opposed bush's policy and proposed legislation to undermine it. the u.s. now faces a hearing before the committee against torture at the u.n. next month. and according to the "new york times," "president obama's legal team is debating whether to back away from his earlier view," and "[reaffirm] the bush administration's position that the treaty imposes no legal obligation to bar cruelty outside u.s. borders." two united nations officials are in detroit for a fact-finding mission over the city shutting off of water to thousands of residents. the city began cutting off water taps to thousands of households earlier this year, prompting protests in an appeal to the u.n. for help. detroit activist said the visit by do

the same thing is true for republican issues like foreign policy during the bush administration and that is individuals ride to run away from that and republicans tagged them with it. because the parties have such a strong brand, that is one democrat is much more similar than that was true 30-40 years ago. it has become difficult for politicians to separate themselves from the party. >> host: so if you are pro-choice republican or pro-life democrat what happens to you? >> guest: you are pretty unusual first of all. we could probably count on two hands the number of politicians in congress that could be described that way. one of the problems those politicians face is in their party's primaries. if you are seen as not being orthodox or as loyals would say unfaithful to the party groups' interest they will mount a party that makes it more difficult and there are institutions in place that keep the party politicians towing a logical line and more and more that is usual. >> host: subtitle. how issue ownership drives and distorts american politics. what is the distortion? >> guest: the distor

i think that was the interesting shift from the bush administration to the obama administration is thatow that the war on terror is kind of bipartisan there doesn't seem to be any major political push back except some libertarians on the right and some liberreals on th left. we now have a huge operation that is enriching lots of people. there's a lot of people invested in making sure we continue to have some kind of war. >> not only are we charging forward to continue, sort of war on heightened security, there seems to be no accountability. we talked $11.7 billion in missing $100 bills, it is something out of a chevy chase spy movie. the idea no one is hunting that money down. there's shady individuals who pretend to have knowledge of code breaking, we keep funding them. >> that's one of the problems with so much secrecy. this is the first war in history where it has been all classified, all secret. and what happens when you keep everything secret, it allows abuses to fester. and no one really is held accountable for anything. so these things continue over years and years and years. and

. >> reporter: of the 620 detapies released during the bush and obama administrations u.s. officials estimate 180 have returned to the fight. >> jennifer, thank you. >>> tonight president obama is playing campaigner in chief, as we said, in maine while friction within his staff becomes a hot front page topic. here's chief white house correspondent ed henry. >> reporter: as president obama tried to focus back on the campaign trail, he found himself dogged p eged by yet another na security crisis. this time a crisis within his own security team, simmering tensions between the president's top advisers spilled out into the open about infighting about national security adviser susan rice and chief of staff dennis mcdonough, while aides dumped on secretary of state john kerry for not being on the same page. "the new york times" reporting, quote, white house officials joked that he is the astronaut played by sandra bullock in the movie "gravity," somersaulting through space untethered from the white house. kerry dismissed it as gossip, though he was forced to push back on the impre

2011, even if the findings didn't come close to substantiating the exaggerated claims of the bush administration why the secrecy? >> so perplexing. this is a command failure starting at the highest levels. this is really something we should be asking former secretary of defense robert gates about whose tenure covers almost exactly this period, 2004 to 2011. it appears that officials were embarrassed by the discovery. that these were old shells, that they were often u.s -- there was u.s. equipment involved in the manufacturing of these shells. but it's really hard to explain. if they had just told the truth, if they had just been transparent about this, then maybe the troops would have been prepared for discovery of these shells which continued during all of this time and they would have gotten the treatment that they deserved. these claims that we take care of our troops first and foremost just isn't the case. >> couldn't they have argued though that it was proof that saddam's folks knew thousand ramp up production, that if their claims weren't true that at least saddam posed a serious threat? >

in 2005 to mike unremembered but i think the bush and administration push for panama. the colombian the free-trade deal that took three or four years to get done. president bush spent a lot of time on those. i do think we don't necessarily get credit, and die also think oftentimes the immigration debate is divisive, there are divisions in both parties, some parts of the labor unions have not been that enthusiastic about immigration, the first two years a president obama's term when he had democrats in the house and senate that did not pass comprehensive immigration reform at that time. so i think it sometimes, the republicans are easy to scapegoat. think it is a little more complicated on the one hand. in terms of the changing trajectory of the societies in latin america, the kinds of conversations are different. they want trade, but they want more sophisticated discussion about education and training, infrastructure, and they want as you were saying, there is an opportunity to prosper here where their growth as well. so we want to have that kind of a mutually interesti

i was toxic to others who wouldn't want to get drawn into this snare -- >> this was the bush administration. >> this was during the bush years. and i don't think it's probably loosened up a lot since, but it has -- when there are more legal risks for sources, there's not a clear dividing line between the sources and the journalism that comes from them. it becomes an issue for the reporters as well. we get people in trouble by interviewing them when we don't mean to. and -- >> when we don't need to? >> when we don't mean to. right. we get them in trouble. we put them at legal risk. we can't guarantee that we are not going to put them at legal ric risk. it is hard to tell the truth. holding them accountable is basically what we're trying to do. >> so is it tougher now. >> yeah. i think it is tougher now, for sure. >> bob deitz. >> inevitably in conferences like this there's a lot of talk about the risks that reporters undertake, editors undertake in reporting the news and, of course, the first amendment makes it clear that news is important to the american people. the trouble i have is that w

and the second point includes 93% of everyone removed by the bush administration. so the bush administration adhered to obama's enforcement priorities. so when you look at these data, it's a little bit surprising that the moral ton memos should have been a major source of c controver controversy, both historically and in the data, that they formalized existed, you know, going back to the i.n.s. era. having said that, a third observation about this slide is that we do see some of the trends that i talked about before also translate in to adherence to these priorities. so, although the pry -- morton memos didn't break radical new ground they did sort of redirect enforcement and what you saw is that during the bush administration's enforcement surge between 2006 and 2008, and we lack at this in more detail in the report, the share of nonpriority cases increased, and actually 2008 was the year that nonpriority cases peaked at 10% of all removals, and that trend reversed as soon as obama came into office and the nonpriorities fell to less than 1% in 2013. and you see tha

i think the bush administration push for panama. and the colombian free trade deals that took three or four years to get them done. president bush spent a lot of time on those. i do think we do not necessarily get credit. often times i think the immigration debate is very divisive, but i think there are divisions in both parties that take up the labor unions that have not been asked about immigration and i think about the first two years of president obama's charm and he had democrats in the house and senate and do not pass comprehensive immigration eform at the time. i think it is sometimes republicans are easy to scapegoat but i think it is more complicated on the one hand. in terms of the changing trajectory of the society in latin america, the kinds of conversations we are having our different things. they want more sophisticated discussions about education, training and infrastructure and there is an opportunity to prosper here. where they grew up as well. we want to have that kind of a mutually interesting dialogue or conversat

the iraq war had not gone well, and when no weapons of mass destruction were found, the bush administration'sbility suffered. that and the pressure of risen's book led the "times" to put the story back in play. and then came a climactic meeting in the oval office among president bush and general hayden, bill keller, and the publisher of the "times," arthur sulzberger, jr. >> keller: the president said, you know, "if there's another attack like 9/11, we're going to be called up before congress to explain how we let that happen. and you should be sitting alongside us." it was, in effect, you know, "you could have blood on your hands." >> stahl: he was saying, "if anything goes wrong, we're going to blame you." >> keller: right. >> stahl: and you walk out with that on your chest. >> keller: yeah. >> stahl: despite that, the "times" went to press, running the story on december 16, 2005, more than a year after risen had first offered it. and it was explosive, triggering congressional hearings and an f.b.i. investigation into who risen's sources were. the administration also reached out to leslie m

i think the bush administration pushed for panama. and the colombian free trade deals that took three or four years to get them done. president bush spent a lot of time on those. i do think we do not necessarily get credit. often times i think the immigration debate is very divisive, but i think there are divisions in both parties that take up the labor unions that have not been asked about immigration and i think about the first two years of president obama's charm and he had democrats in the house and senate and do not pass comprehensive immigration reform at the time. i think it is sometimes republicans are easy to scapegoat but i think it is more complicated on the one hand. in terms of the changing trajectory of the society in latin america, the kinds of conversations we are having our different things. they want trade, but they also want more sophisticated discussions about education, training and infrastructure and they want, as my friends here are saying, that there is an opportunity to prosper here. where they grew up as well.

that is the broader foreign policy thinking of the bush administration. so important, the president didn't give an interview today to talk about this per se, of course he knew he would be asked about it, i guess. the purpose of inviting them down there was to talk about the fourth annual 2015 warrior open that is a big golf tournament that supports iraqi and afghanistan war veterans. >> let me bring these guys in. we have a lot more sound to get to. thoughts on that first interview. >> to bob's point, we have placed troops in countries for decades after wars so it's something that we do to maintain the peace and sometimes it lasts a long time. that war had been won, but it wasn't obama's war to win, so it >0qm'rvxvi;wb@0y#h7?ag/.÷[hm[)t somebody had left the shower curtain behind, but that wasn't his shower curtain so he just got rid of it. that's what he did with the iraq war. >> let me get k.g. on this one. go ahead. >> i just take issue with taking that shot at president bush and trying to disparage him where he's been nothing but a gentleman and a clas