and that was widely criticized under the bush administration. but unbeknownst to most, it's basically been adopted by the obama administration and the trump administration. it wasn't in the context of the iraq war, but it's exactly the same legal doctrine of very tenuous anticipatory self-defense. it's indeed been adopted by many american allies. so if just look at those laws over the last 15 years, you would say there's not much constraint going on. if you look at laws that govern the conduct of war, that you do see a lot more constraint. the use in bellow rules, we could argue how much of a bite of proportionality rules have, but they are taken extremely seriously inside the pentagon. and they often result in things that commanders want to do not happening. and we've got lots of examples that things weren't even asked because they realized they couldn't even pass the legal muster. lots of other constraints constrain agencies like the central intelligence agency. one of the things that's hard to appreciate is how highly legalized not just how th

korea didn't explode its first bomb until two thousand and six so you know it was well into the bush administration when that happened it's interesting the the two dueling narratives seemed to be more because out with them in ninety four it held until george bush basically said axis of evil and blew the whole thing up you know it's kind of shorthand but. and you know kind of like it's all the republicans fault than the other narrative is bill clinton worked out a deal they totally gamed him for six or seven or eight or ten years and they were actually secretly building new nukes in the background and we never should have trusted them and clinton was naive and you know we need to know him now or whatever i mean he had these seem to be that the republican and democratic narrative is there. is there a little bit of truth to each want to are is either one just completely false one of the other all there's a little bit of truth each one but the thing is you know late ninety's late ninety's i mean this agreement ninety four agreement was signed in october ninety four november ninety four the republicans

the reason they like to negotiate, we always give them free stuff. we've seen that in three administrations. while they pretend to negotiate they continue to build. connell: democrats and republicans. certainly the bush administration and the obama administration. here we are, whoever you want to blame for that, the question is, you take this tact of negotiating, what is the better way? i don't know. >> it is a crazy thing a lot comes back to party politics. we're happy to sit at table and get nothing out of it because north korea knows we'll pretty much don't do anything. secretary mattis at dod, the pentagon, he said we'll wipe you off the face of the earth. that is pretty much what it means. president trump same way. with politics coming in, party politics this, is trump's fault and his finger on button and he is is sabre-rattling. one of the options if they manuever their weapons into place to launch, we might preemptively hit them? nobody hosts it comes to a war with north korea. i certain hope that is not what it is. they're talking about hitting guam of our territories, if you're born in guam you're a u.s. citizen. if they hit them with missiles, they will fly them over japan. one of the thing

i was speaking to someone in the bush administration -- they were talking about the importance of cooperation between the federal, state, and local levels. they feel that broke down during katrina. the relevant authorities in this case would be hoping they can make those efforts mash in a more effective faction. -- in a more effective fashion. how does the impact and recovery of tropical storm harvey affect things in washington went lawmakers are returning? guest: there is one obvious way it affects them, and that is how one gets legislatively through the aftermath of harvey. this could have some political elite -- politically advantageous of fax. that is some suggestion aid for texas and louisiana could be wrapped in a package to maintain something for the government and to raise the debt ceiling. those issues have been politically vexing in recent years. wrap they is if you aftermath of harvey and with the rest of those, it becomes more difficult to oppose politically. harvey's today puts impact at $160 billion. guest: the exact estimates are still being worked out. republicans had a phone

during the bush administration, it did not become institutionalized, we devised the program assessment rating tool. a simple set of 25 questions that ask of each program, is its purpose here, well designed to achieve its objective, does it have short and long-term outcome oriented goals, aggressive improvement targets, well-managed and ultimately is the program achieving its results? we established this tool because we wanted some basis with which to allocate funding and insisted through this tool that agencies and programs begin a process of subjecting programs to these evaluations, the beginning of what we call the evidence agenda that ultimately led to the commission on evidence-based policymaking that i am involved with today. i have to admit we didn't make a lot of progress integrating this data into the budget decision-making process. policymaker's don't have a huge appetite for listening to evidence when figuring out how to make funding decisions. a lot of those funding decisions are highly political so there is room for improvement as a matter of understatement in making more a

charlie: representing the bush administration. >> representing the bush administration. and today, he is trying to do that all over again. charlie: he is not part of the government. >> there are quite a few of them. charlie: it was great division about the nuclear deal. >> i understand. sanctions did not bring iran to the negotiating table. the united states decided the zero enrichment option which it throughued from 2003 2013 was not going to get it anything. what did sanctions produce? a lot of economic hardship for iran, i grant you that. but was that the objective of the sanctions? or was the objective of the sanctions to change iran's policy? on centrifuges. because everybody knew. 2007, you had a national intelligence estimate state that iran is no longer, from their neverctive, no longer pursued nuclear weapons. during the bush administration, niere obama, in i.e. -- established iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. charlie: everybody in the obama administration thought you were pursuing nuclear weapons. >> they were wrong. charlie: john kerry thought that.

i've also been to warm in the bush administration. it is not far from gone. now, i believe it in my heart that the north korean leadership will do it. >> what about the next step? to hit a landmass 25 miles from u.s. territories one thing, to send an icbm to new york city is quite another. >> i just think they want to hit somewhere on the u.s. oil and that is the first step. and they will hit another area. i believe the president is on the right track. >> you served under president bush, remind some of us of the bush doctrine, the idea of unilateral united states action. some might say that why would we weigh? we have a date, we have a location, and we have the knowledge of the action they're going to take. it's not like they're hiding this from us. what about the first strike on part of the u.s.? >> we must be proactive instead of reactive. during the bush administration we were very reactive. we are waiting to get hit. we're still waiting to get hit. even with this administration, gutter back, i think these concerns are kids, your kids, the lives of american

taxpayers and the hard working small businesses that we represent. >> you know, alfredo during the bush administration major portions when you had congress under the control of the then obviously right now you have both chambers of congress under republican control. what's the main hurdle t looks like the president want a 15 percent corporate cut and the senate want a 20 percent. how do you reconcile things here. >> i think the idea we should shoot for the best lowest rate possible is really the way to go. that should be the driving factor here whether it's 15, whether it's 18, 20. lower than we are today is what we must do from a corporate standpoint we know that we have one of the world's highest corporate tax rates but on a small business perspective, small business owners, this is an amazing fact i have to say there are about 29 million small business owners in this country. they employ about 56 million people, that's hard working american taxpayers that they employ. that's 85 million people overall that are dependent on the success of small business and we're just not doing enough for them. we ta

return towards pakistan that is something which we didn't hear whether it be with the obama administration or with the bush administration you know there were threats by trump maybe in direct threats i would call them to go to to cut off financial to pakistan so there was an escort returned towards that country there was also will call on india which is pakistan's archrival to step up its role as well that in afghanistan after all this speech was termed as a south asia speech not just an of the only speech so when it comes to pakistan and in the yes there were some slight differences in that particular approach and that could lead to you know increasingly tense ties i think between accompanist ration and pakistan at the. time what pakistan is already saying that you know we might prefer the alliance with china as opposed to the alliance or a close relationship with the us and there's been three presidents already of their have tried to bring the war to an end why do you think they've not succeeded in is there really any way out now for the us from afghanistan. well. you know there are different reasons i t

attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, rod rosenstein who i served with in the bush administration, he needs to step in and pul the reins back on bob mueller if he starts to go outside of the bounds of his delegation of authority. >> john flannery's bow tie is moving east to west in a negative fashion. you disagree? >> i love matt but i disagree. >> he never agrees with me. >> what is your take, john? >> my take is the fact he would rewrite his son's note at that age is consciousness of guilt. so it is a piece of evidence that shows he wants to conceal the whole thing. as for the money, the money is part of the quid pro quo. the interesrelationship of the people and the money, and the fact that he is looking at things when he was, quote, a civilian before he was president which opens up the possibility of prosecuting by indictment as one of the opinions supported when ken starr was an independent counsel. i think there are a lot of things -- >> chris, if you were the judge and this was a trial, i would immediately object to assuming facts not in evidence to what john is saying. >>

also during the end of the bush administration there was a bipartisan effort, when senator kerry was still chairman of the senate foreign relations committee said, why is it we are spending all this money incentivizing pakistan's military? what is the face of american diplomacy in pakistan is the pentagon and the cia rather than the state department? billionided to give $7 to the civilians in pakistan to try to change that. the result was far greater in pakistannism because the military started not wanting to lose their share of the money and basically said this money is an insult of pakistani sovereignty because all the auditing that is required, for it to secret plan to christianize pakistan. host: we have shelley from louisiana. a republican. caller: good morning. he madeave to say reference to it. it is likely are trying to buy friends. as long as we keep giving and giving to countries, they are going to be smart enough to determine how they keep adding to their funds and getting money from america. we are in such a financial aisis that it could become point in time that we cannot

but joe arpaio has been controversial for decades, not just under the obama administration, under the bushon as well, and maybe even before that. >> caller: i do. >> so why is it a political, from the obama administration, why wouldn't it be a political from the bush administration? >> caller: it could be the bush administration had a higher standard of integrity and was less political in the justice department. but i saw this, from the sight -- seat in the judiciary committee. i watched as the democrats on the judiciary committee fed those kind of questions and laid the ground work for this. i've seen political persecutions before. i saw it happen to a number of people who were former bush officials that were brought before the judiciary committee for their political persecution and their political prosecution, to use that word figuratively. so i've seen the pattern. i saw it happen with joe arpaio, and now i sigh tee the conclusi it, i'm glad it's over and i hope this country can heal up and get rid of the divisions between us. >> riptiepresentative steve kin iowa, thank you. >>> coming

but, instead to carry a lot of favor with the bush administration and with powerful republican leadersad kept inventing issues that native american tribes need to get lobbying on it provide campaign-finance support for. so essentially he's ripping off his own clients to better build up and carry influence on capitol hill. it's that same extreme example of what i'm talking about of lobbyists behaving unethically because of the pressures on him to do so. so, this is the basis of the argument i make. that lobbyist are under of writing pressures to not properly represent the positions that there employers ideally want. but, if lobbying is only protected by the first amendment under the petitioning clause then lobbying can only be considered legal and therefore ethical when the lobbyist is lobbying for exactly what his or her employer's want. the whole basis of the argument in the ethical lobbyist is that there's the pressures of pulling lobbyist away from what they ethically ought to be doing and therefore if we ought to have proper reform of the lobbying system in washington, d.c. that we

but instead to curry favor withh the bush administration and with powerful republican leaders on capitolally kept inventing issues that native american tribes needed to be lobbying on an right campaigns support for. so he was ripping off his ownwn clients to better build up and carry influence on capitol hill. that's an extreme example of what i'm talking about. lobbyist behaving unethically because of the pressures on himf to do so. so this is the basis of the argument i make in the ethical lobbyist. they're under friday pressures cannot properly represent the positions or defend the positions that their employers ideally want. but, if lobbying is only protected by the first amendment under the petitioning clause, the mopping can only be considered legal and therefore isctly when the lobbyist loving for exactly what his or her employers want. the whole basis of the argument in the ecological lobbyist is that the pressures are pulling lobbyists away from what they ought to be doing. therefore, for going to haveave proper reform of the lobbying system in washington, d.c. then we need to s

this country handles both its military and diplomatic strategy to account for the shift work of the administration of george w bush was the first such administration to deal with this paradigm shifts. the challenges were philosophical and compounded by this battle for audience mind chair at home. the tensions made the tough sell of the iraq policy even tougher. there was the philosophical war that we spent a great deal of time of the last number of years debating whether or not we should have gone into iraq, but the more relevant conversation for us and our country moving forward remains once you make the decision to the war what is the principal purpose or desired outcome and how do you get there you have several choices in the case of a rock. one, remove saddam hussein and leave, which i believe what you been a false choice. two, remove the leadership and grant some ex- patriot and post them with absolute authority trading one dictator for another. three, you attempt to secure the country and build institutions that could support not what some people have suggested some kind of american style democracy, but more

that occurred under the bush administration. s a big question about whether that creates jobs or not. a repatriationg piece, that is probably very likely. the bigger question is what do you do with the deductions and loopholes, especially on the individual side. there is little appetite for doing what the obama administration suggested, corporate only tax reform. they want to do it on the individual side and then get into the whole convocation of all the popular text inductions -- complication of all the popular tax the dungeons. -- complication of all the popular tax deductions. ofid: just had to members congress saying they want a relief plan to be top of the agenda when they get back to washington, d.c. i'm moving with trepidation to ask you about the politics. what does that mean for tax reform? you have 12 legislative days in the house before the funding has to be decided upon for the next fiscal year. how does that change the calculus for tax reform going forward? eric: as far as congress is concerned, a popular bill like r

during the bush administration, the focus on outcomes was not really institutionalized. we established to this tool because we wanted to have some basis with which to allocate funding. we insisted through this tool that agencies and programs begin a process of subjecting their programs to these evaluations. it was the beginning of what we .all now the evidence agenda i have to admit, we didn't make a lot of progress integrating this data into the budget decision-making process. policymakers do not have a huge appetite listening to evidence when it comes to funding decisions. are highlyse political. so there is room for improvement , as a matter of understatement. as far as reorganizations are concerned, among the government programs, these are the ones that share a similar mission come other common or conflicting measures of performance. deeprea we decided to do a dive in was an economic development. there are programs throughout the government that are intended to improve the economic condition of the poorest communities across government. we proposed taking all those p

during the kennedy vice president lyndon johnson was very active in its activities. it was also active in the administration of resident george h.w. bush, with vice president quayle running the operation. the space council has not been active since the end of the first bush administration, quarter of a century ago. reactivated the space council. it will be chaired by vice president pence. he is interested in being active in space policy. he has talked about having a first meeting of the national space council by the end of the summer. although he has not been more specific about when that might be. they have selected someone who will be the executive secretary, the person that runs the space council on a day-to-day basis. >> what about the actual administration of nasa? who is running it now, and has the administration given any hint about a new administrator? under actingnning administrator robert lightfoot, thee the beginning of trumpet administration. he is the acting number one at nasa, at the moment. a have not yet nominated an administrator or deputy administrator. the rumor mill suggests a nomination might be coming soon worried

the problem? >> i think they are trying to. i've been on both sides, people in the administration of talk to me, and i have been in the bush administrationere i had an obligation not to leak and not to release things. this release of the president phone records i think is getting universal condemnation because you can't have a president able to carry on a conversation if it is going to be leaked. >> sandra: do you have confidence they are going to get to the bottom of this? that someone will be held accountable? >> i think so. i don't think the wide audience gets it. again, you have a small audience that may get it and someone might share it with a friend or someone who then shares it with someone else. but i think this is one that they probably can find out. >> sandra: we are hearing a lot of anger. we had senator mike lee talking about this just yesterday saying justice needs to be brought on. watch. >> whoever leaked these needs to be found out and needs to be reprimanded, it needs to be fired, and that is why, in many cases, doing something like this could not only and should not only result in termination but also criminal prosecuti

the interview today. i view this as pure political theater. every administration rails against leaks. i was in the clinton administration, the bushistration. we coming plplained about leaks. we had a meeting trying to per said her publication not to publish something. >> let me cut in. he's saying there's triple the number of investigations. is that theater, true or a lie? >> i assume it's true but i believe it's theater. i believe it's way of mr. sessions saying to the president, i'm doing what you want. we're bulking up. >> is that appropriate if you think it's just theater designed to entertain or satisfy a boss or not based on the facts? >> i'm sure the d.o.j. is following the rules they have established. i'm suggesting i think this is much aado about a whole lot. >> i'm going rapid fire because i like getting the answers. not alarmed. are you? >> i am alarmed because i think even if this is theater that what the attorney general is saying and the threat to crack down puts a freeze on the discourse between journalists and their sources and is an attempt to criminalize journalism. it really does affect -- it silences sources w

and i could say when i was the chief ethics officer for the bush administration, if anyone in the bush family thought of opening a hotel near the white house where lobbyists would come in there, i would have walked right off the job. i would have told the president that that theo hotel is shut down or i'm walking out. it is unacceptable for a family to try to make money off the presidency. and that's what's going on here with that hotel and with the other trump properties where they doubled the mar-a-lago initiation dues, from $100,000 to $200,000. when he won the presidency. this is corruption. it is embarrassing for the republican party to see this going on because americans want small government. they want clean government. they want government that serves the american people, not the interests of the trumps and the kushners and people who want to use public office for private gain. >> matthew, speak of mixing family with business, laura trump, the wife of eric trump, now hosting a campaign style video of the president or videos of the president's facebook page. listen to this. >> l

action for allowing the israelis to take military action to define the new balance of power so the bush administration in strategy was to review negotiations pursue sanctions and issued threats of war. the iranians had zero enriched uranium by the time bush left office they had 8,000 centrifuges 120-0500 or more kilos enough for a nuclear weapon seven senator barack obama is reinstating diplomacy with the bush doctrine of not negotiating so that became the centerpiece of the platform and then discovered rather quickly how difficult diplomacy could be made because of problems of the iranian side. and a step with the very same instrument that president bush had sanctions than seven negative and pressure in cyberwarfare precisely because he tried diplomacy and he enjoyed international legitimacy that bush did not he succeeded where bush could not. even the urartian central bank. that causes access to the international financial crisis. they succeeded to convince europe to cop cut all your -- imports. headache congress passed sanctions riots broke out the gdp shrug 25% and looks like capitulation so how l

we didn't necessarily hear that very often from the obama administration or the bush administration beforel, we didn't hear the tough talk as much, but if you'll recall, you know, under the obama administration, there was a significant escalation of drone strikes against terror targets. >> but the aid continued, the billions of dollars. >> it's certainly been a carrot and stick approach to pakistan for many years, with strikes along the border, with aid coming to help them fortify themselves against these insurgencies so it's a difficult situation. what we need to see, wolf, is whether or not conditions on the ground actually change. will we take a different approach to pakistan or will we continue pace as we've been going for years. >> but the dilemma of that, the president used to feel, because i interviewed him on this many times when he was a candidate or a private citizen going back at least 15, 20 years, this war has been going on for 16 years, when the u.s. had 100,000 troops in afghanistan, couldn't get the job done, why should anyone believe 10,000 or 15,000 u.s. troops could get

in such a way exactly what the clinton administration had tried to stop, mainly, nuclear weapons capability north korea, emerge not in the clinton administration but in the bush administration. it emerged just as the north koreans said it would if we abandon the agreed framework. we abandon the framework. they develop nuclear weapons and eventually ballistic missiles. the bush administration discovered option one, containment, after the discovered option two, negotiations and old ended up with containment. it is not clear to me the next administration, the obama administration, really, really pursued negotiations. they may have. they argued they did. seems like an awful lot of strategic patience to me, but option to was there to some degree. we now are in a situation which it is very difficult to tell what we're doing at least for me as an observer, and i try to watch this particular subject pretty closely but it seems like we're involving containment option one. we are talking about the possibility of option two, negotiations, negotiations can mean almost anything. they can be very narrowly focused on a particular thing like, for example, now it might be bal

he was reported during the bush administration out of concerns of the politicizing voting rights. there is a concern that the truth finding mission has already been tarnished by the presence of people who have been such ideologues on the issue. host: vanita gupta talking with us. we have the leadership conference talk about election issues and aside from that, criminal justice reform. guest: it is kind of alarming just how out of line even with the republican party this even with the republican party this administration has been. particularly the attorney general, we are at a time where blue states and red states have been advancing reform across the country. we see an attorney general who is returning us back to policies that have long been discredited that created strain on communities of color and cost the government and enormous amount of money and were not effective. now we have an attorney general who is resisting reform. he did this as a senator. he is advancing policies that are taking us backwards. there is a concern about that. host: what policies? he had this to say abo

up on media bias but the political institutional and philosophical challenges that hamper the bush administration's ability to deliver a more balanced, more realistic view of what was really going on in iraq against the demands of business journalism and media bias. the lessons about fighting the media war are even more relevant today than they were back then. in our time of fake news, media worse, a president at war with the press and the press at war with the president, the indisputable truth is that the government still has to make policy. our communications change in our technology changes and the way that we talk to each other, the way that our influences try to influence the policy and that all changes but at the end of the day, the government still has to make that policy, educated and sustain it and that requires public support. the administration of george w. bush was the first to deal with this shift. the challenges were philosophical. and operational and compounded by this beneful audience at home. the tensions made the tough sell of the iraq policy even tucker. there was a philosophical

and by the way, we have had great experience in the bush administration. we put on a really good set of sanctions. after the agreed framework fell apart, which was a mistake on our part, we probably should have found a way to keep north korea in the framework. we used the sanctions. the last part was diplomacy. we put the pressure on and we're deterring you. here's why we're doing it. we don't want you to attack us west want you to freeze the program. and then finally, on the inducement side. that's where we can work china to say, hey, you want to do some economic reform internally? we'll help you if you do all these other things. >> we've seen parts of the american domestic political structure begin to discount the words of the president, even the pentagon more or less ignoring the tweets about transgender service members. do you think there is something similar internationally where world leaders have learned to discount what the president says? >> probably. i think instinctively we're all saying, what is this? he sounds like a north korean leader. i said

point, again, hindsight always 20/20, sometimes even better, looking back on not just the obama administration, but the bush administration, the clinton administration, first bush administration, what could we have done differently? >> well, this goes back more than 20 years to i believe it was 1994 when the clinton administration negotiated what is known as the agreed framework. something that essentially fell apart when the north koreans were caught cheating on it. look, we have always abided by the principle whether north korea or iran or any other potential nuclear adversary that it's trust but verify. and in these two cases, we usually put verify before the trust. because we knew these regimes would and could potentially be up to no good. but clearly in the case of north korea, we weren't able to dissuade them from moving forward with a nuclear program. and that is why especially in the second bush administration and certainly in the obama administration, there were a number of u.n. security council sanctions against thoek with the support of the permanent five members of the security council to put no

that was true under the obama administration, under the bush administration and clearly under the trumpinistration. and of course china has signed on along with russia to the latest sanctions imposed by the united nation. and so china has been also having a difficult time trying to corral and influence north korea. and i think that the latest moves by both north korea and the rhetoric by both sides has gotten the attention of china, and they clearly want to help out and try to de-escalate things. and they've made, actually, some suggestions. unfortunately, the united states has rejected some of those ideas on thousand to lower the temperature and try to solve this diplomatically. >> well, what were some of those suggestions and are they ones you would agree to? >> well, china has long called for the united states, north korea and all the other parties to sit down and talk about this. the united states, on the other hand, starting under the bush administration and through the obama administration said, no, we're not going to even sit down and talk with you unless you first completely dis

very active in the early parts in the bush administration. juan, is this the result -- is this north korea calling the world's bluff? and then i've got to ask you about the president's rhetorical response today. >> chuck, i think there are a couple of things at play. one, this is a regime trying to not only establish its power but demonstrate its power in pyongyang in trying to accelerate its missile and nuclear capabilities. and the news today obviously suggests that that pace is much faster than prior estimates have suggested. and so they have -- they have perhaps reached the point which they've been able to miniaturize a nuclear device to put it on a missile to hit the united states. if that's the case, they've surmounted one of the key technical hurdles that remains in their program. so that's one thing. certainly they have been conditioned to take the world to the point of brinksmanship. they know how to not only bluster and engage in bragging, but they know how to push the national community to the brink and the international community d

or the system that is put in the bush administration for national security personnel system. solid plan. i do not think the problem is the plans. with this is implemented, first with a president, which means you have to focus on making political appointees throughout the government, and a congress who will give you a little rome to -- room to operate for a well. this are the secrets of civil service reform in my opinion. a backgrounder that talks about condensation reforms, and has to do with the ability to hire and fire properly. in the so-called performance rating system we have, whereby allegedly employees are given raises based on their performance, that you have 99.6 percent of federal employees receiving their increase every year, so this is not truly a performance typists -- performance-based system. the thing you can do to give managers more ability to manage the workforce they need, on the front end, instead of having a one-year missionary per -- probationary period, you could change that to three years. and managers, they want to give an employee any less than a full

tom ridge from the bush administration. >> and a somewhat moderate republican in the house before he ration as homeland security adviser. i think this all points to how important tuesday and the rally in arizona is. trump has scheduled this. it has all the hallmarks of another in-your-face performance where he's at odds with both republican senators there, has all but endorsed the opponent of jeff flake. on top of that, he has teased that he may pardon former sheriff joe arpaio, an o hispanics and latinos. >> whether or not, with this, if he does all those things you're talking about, is there sort of a gop chorus of opposition in the way that tom ridge thinks there ought to be? >>> coming up, a topic change. why the president knew a tweet about confederate monuments was a safer bit. >>> this week it's robert e. lee. stonewall jackson. you have to ask yourself, is it george washington and then thomas jefferson? where does it stop? >> his argument that george washington owns slaves, too, and that makes him the same as robert e. lee. the country isn't removing washington statues, even t

the comparisons. president obama had 31 during his administration. president bushd 32 and president clinton had between 24 and 30 depending on the source. it's because of that this secret service is running out of money. then there's the case of mar la go. get this, the secret service already spent $60,000 on golf cart rentals. in fact the president while he's on the course. so what are they going to do now? the head of the agency is already lobbying the senate for more money at least for the next flee and half years during the -- three and a half years during the president's first term. evan koslof, wusa9. >>> according to "usa today," president trump has made seven trips to his mar a la go estate and five trips to bed minister golf club and traveled once to trump tower in new york about the secret service. it was formed on july 5th, 1865 as part of the department of treasury to stop counterfeit currency. two years later the agency broadens its responsibilities to include investigations into the ku klux klan and alcohol bootleggers. in 1870, the secret service mov

state department preventing that deal from taking shape and today -- >> rose: representing the bush administration. >> representing the bush administration and today he's trying to do that all over again. >> rose: he's not part of the government. >> i know. there are quite a few of them. >> rose: there's great division about the nuclear deal as you know. >> i understand. the sanctions did not bring iran to the negotiating table. the united states decided that it's zero enrichment options which it had pursued from 2003 to 2013 was not going to get it anything. what did sanctions produce. it produced a lot of economic hardship. i grant you that. but was that the objective of the sanctions or was it to change iran's policy. >> rose: what do you think? >> i think it was to change irn's policy. >> rose: on nuclear weapons. >> no. on centrifuges because everybody knew, 2007 you have a national intelligence estimate. nie, 2007 states that iran is no longer from their perspective no longer, i'm trying to be accurate but in 2001, this is during bush administration before obama, nie established that iran is

the u.n. general assembly during the administration of george w. bush there were a significant number of carbon former military officers all in key positions in the white house they used to be a fear as eisenhower pointed out beware of too much military influence in the white house do we have too much now or are you happy about this i happy with the folks i understand that concern but i'm happy about the folks who are in these positions when you look at general mattis retired marine four star over at the pentagon. he's a combat veteran highly decorated but he was also a scholar up at the hoover institute at stanford he's a you know a monk warrior very very smart man understands how important civilian leadership in the military is you look at general kelly who's over at the chief of staff at the white house he served in a number of positions as a liaison with congress and understands politics very well and general mcmaster is the guy who wrote about vietnam and and president johnson rely overly relying on his military experts and getting us deeper into v

the chain where we saw in the leaks like this under the obama administration and we saw only one or two when they were related to the iraq war in the bush administration so clearly the press leaks only what they want to leak because i refuse to believe these are the only times that they've ever had some do gooder and them something that they think should be published so in the sense that the press is selective i think that they have risen to the level of you being able to demonstrate malice being that they are not others and if they can show malice they should be held responsible absolutely despite the reported risks to national security this leaking pipe of information continues to drip likely because trump's enemies are not only at the door of the white house they are right inside it too between staff stragglers from the obama era and professional shake ups within. own administration the one thing that is clear is the toxic environment of distrust is likely to cloud the halls of the west wing meaning the president will have a hard time doing his job effectively and the security of the nation remains in question and only plug in the da

today, he -- charlie: representing the bush administration. javan sharif: yes. d he is doing it all over again. he is one of the most -- charlie: there was great division about the nuclear deal. javan sharif: the sanctions didn't bring iran to the negotiating table. the united states decided that it's zero enrichment option, 2003 it had to assume from to 2013, was not going to get it anything. what did sanctions produce? a produced economic hardship. i grant you that. was that the objective of the --ctions, or do you object didn't do you want to change iran's policy? i think it was to change iran's policy. charlie: on nuclear weapons? javan sharif: on centrifuges. in 2007, you had a national that statee estimate iran is no longer, from their perspective, i am trying to be accurate in quoting, from our perspective, we never pursued nuclear weapons. during the bush administration, established, and ie iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. charlie: so the obama that youation thought were pursuing nuclear weapons? john kerry thought that. our negotiator thought

well for more on the trunk teams response i spoke a brief time ago with our political analyst ron christie who worked in the administration of george w. bush. from thanks very much for joining make up this is the administration's first real international crisis all day on the same page. i'm not quite certain. good evening to you jan i think it's very important that the president the vice president and the senior members of his cabinet. all speak from the same page here and the bush administration right after went to war in iraq and subsequently afghanistan. the president made very clear to his cabinet that we speak with one voice one voice only. and you've heard the secretary of state the secretary of defense saying two different things you've heard the president say something else and you've heard some of the senior staff say other things and so. i think this president needs to understand at a critical juncture where we find ourselves right now they need to be unified and they didn't you have a synchronous in this message of. this is what the united states position is and this is what we will and will not tolerate but we also heard from s

the bush white house. also the secretary of health under the bush administration. that is background. historian byntial trade. from university of texas. i have experience in texas. i written a number of books the presidency book about president and their relation culture. i wrote this book, "shall we president." i made donation to the victims. that's good idea i get sales.nal i will be happy to donate. the bushen't you in administration during katrina? guest: i was in the bush white house. it was a difficult time. got a sense things were not going well. very hard to fix. that's when tony mentioned about visit is symbolic. host: we're showing images of president bush looking out the of air force one over new orleans. guest: absolutely. moment it was one of the worst photo ops. helped cementally it. he flew over new orleans and the ground. i recognize also as we were talking earlier that if a a disasteroes to area that can tax local resources. you can have a situation where people who are first responders are instead dealing courts and set up motorcades for the presidency. be careful not