. >> across the world soviet missiles are aimed at the united states. whatever the president does, he risks nuclear war. >> khrushchev calls west berlin a cancerous sore. >> lines are now drawn. >> 25 russian ships en route to cuba on what may be a collision course. >> no way of knowing whether western civilization will live or die. >> i think unless something is done, humanity will destroy itself. ♪ >>> early on in the '60s, you have this backdrop of tension. you have capitalism versus communism and it was palpable fear. in the united states and in the soviet union that the two sides were going to get into a nuclear war. >> the temper of the world is crisis. architect of the crisis, nikita khrushchev. >> as they headed the soviet union khrushchev was very ideological. he believed that the future belonged to communism. he said, america needs to be contained and the only way to do it is to create crises all around the american empire. >> khrushchev came to the u.n. in 1960 and he said we are grinding out missiles like sausages. we'll bury you. americans t

he had with him the name of a relative in the united states. that's it. and he was told as soon as he got across the border, look for somebody in a uniform. don't show any resistance. and present yourself, which he did. and now he sits in a facility in texas. this is a horrible humanitarian situation. the numbers that are involved here -- i just want to give for the record the numbers that have been reported here. they're worth noting. some people may think we're talking about hundreds of children. this year -- this year alone -- as of june 15th, unaccompanied children apprehended by the border patrol from honduras, 15,000. guatemala, 12,000. el salvador, 11,000. mexico, 12,000. almost 80% of these kids come from three countries, honduras, el salvador and guatemala. why are they coming here? they're coming here for a number of reasons. number one, there is this network, criminal network that gets money to transport childr children. and they promise to the families, we'll get them to the border. god only knows what's going to happen to those kids on their w

this is when the iraqis need the united states. we got a fascinating window into some of the past negotiations when he said the iraqi government was resistant to accept u.s. offers of any kind of help military training and thip things like that. when they have now face this d crisis, they actively seek american help. so the president is saying we now have leverage, so we'll ask you to make some of the political deals and political compromises that you have not been willing to make. unless you you make those, don't expect major american assistance. it feels as though he is putting the pressure on maliki and staying pretty cool in the face of this very turbulent situation. >> and achristiane amanpour, he expressed concern that these terrorists, he call it is the isil, islamic state in iraq and lavant, others call it the isis. it's the same thing. different names called by different people. but he clearly is concerned also about a potential sunni terrorist attack on shiite shrines which could further explode the situation. >> well, tha

can help the united states beat back isis and al qaeda in the region professor landis i would have to discuss that iranian angle a little bit later but before we go there there was the media's framing of the events in iraq it is very predictable they're sort of putting all the blame on the government he felt to build a functioning democracy here alyan they did the sunni's and i think we can admit that some of that criticism is valid but the question is could it be different person have done a better job is it fair to put all of the blame on al maliki and instead of looking somewhere else let's put it this way well a lot of this is domestic politics president obama is down the polls there are elections coming up midterm elections coming up and the republicans are very eager to hurt obama's reputation and to to ding the entire democratic party by saying that america has failed and american leadership has failed by allowing maliki to become more sectarian and to create this situation in which isis has found fertile ground in iraq but isn't it true that both are above and publicans and th

that is one thing hawks and doves in the united states agree on. is really military option is not a bad one. the u.s. military option is much better simply because the united states has the ability to destroy iran's nuclear facility, even if the soviet come. this would set iran and nuclear program back, it hard to estimate how much time, most estimates range from three to seven years but this is a worst case estimate, these are estimates assuming iran decides to rebuild and doesn't to counter any significant obstacles but if you start to assume politics and geopolitics happen, that time line becomes much longer. one of the things i talk about in the book is the countries that historically had their nuclear facilities attacked, not to germany during world war ii, iran had its nuclear facilities attacks during the iran/iraq war, the israelis had a strike of their own and the united states and the coalition followed up with strikes of their own. syria in 2007 had its nuclear reactor attacked from israel. one thing i point out is in all those cases the

and come up with a position for the united states. and one thing i have learned in the course of my time in the government is that process, thorough, fair, transparent process is absolutely critical to resolving those kinds of conflicts and coming up with the best judgment about what the position of the united states is. i learned this lesson the hard way, and i learned it in the first job i had that justice kagan described when i was in the deputy attorney general's office. i arrived about six days, i think, after president obama was inaugurated which was five days too late to avoid the hot potato which had been passed from one to another of the people that got there before me. and the hot potato was to figure out what the administration ought to do about the use of the state secrets bring in litigation. -- privilege in litigation. there had been some criticism of alleged abuses of it, and the president and the attorney general wanted a new policy, and i got charged with figuring out what that new policy ought to be. and fresh off my

national authority over the property of the united states. just as we could imagine that the president would be compelled to use troops to retake fort benning. lincoln also knew that if the united states did not put down the confederate independence movement, and the country was torn asunder, the enemies of democracy around the world would reclaim that republics cannot work and that government of the people, by the people, for the people would perish from the earth. united states had passed a first test in self-government during the election of 1800 when thomas jefferson defeated john adams. both sides abided by the results. for the first time, power was successfully and peacefully transferred from one party to another. constitutional government and the rule of law have prevailed. the outcome was different in 1860. having won every election prior to that point, proslavery southerners saw their candidate defeated by lincoln. rather than submit to the first president openly committed to the eventual extinction of slavery, slaveholders in the dee

take what they can from the rations from the iranians from the syrians use their intelligence unit is that manpower and rely on their military and then sort of push isis back into syria back into perhaps even the iran you know essentially kill all those birds with one stone well you're absolutely right you bring up a very very difficult problem and i think i think that washington is toying with the idea of some kind of repost with iran on the question of iraq and syria because iran today is the most stable country in the region it's we with iraq and syria falling apart with saudi arabia in the midst of a question of who's going to become king next the iran is a source of stability in the region and it's why it's got a strong military it's what it dislikes isis and al qaida so. of course it's very there are many dangers in teaming up with iran for the united states if america looks like it's siding with the shiites and with iran to kill sunnis and to damage their interests this will alienate the gulf our our longtime allies it'll alienate the saudi arabians already some qatar cutty's h

that's not something that the united states can do for them. that's not something, by the way, that the united states armed forces can do for them. we can provide them the space. we can provide them the tools. but ultimately, they're going to have to make those decisions. in the meantime, my job is to make sure that american personnel there are safe, that we are consulting with the iraqi security forces, that we're getting a better assessment of what's on the ground and that we're recognizing the dangers of isil over the long-term and developing the kinds of= comprehensive counterterrorism strategy we're going to need to deal with this issue. and that's going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that isil is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly or our allies and partners, but it also is going to require some long-term strategies, as well. because part of what we've seen with respect to isil is a broader trend that i talked about at west point, a -- rather than a&trz single network, a discreet network of terrorists. this fl

this crisis is not exclusive to the united states. much of the western hemisphere is reeling with this crisis. according to the united nations, these children are streaming into mexico, panama, nicaragua and belize as well as canada and the united states. from our perspective, we seem to be barraged on a daily basis by troubling images of vulnerable children, many still clutching their dolls and teddy bears, crossing the border into the united states and being immediately apprehended by border patrol officers. this fiscal year alone, the border patrol officers have apprehended and detained over 50,000 unaccompanied children at the southwestern border. the number of kids arriving at our border without their parents seems to grow by the day. the influx of these kids has certainly strained border patrol resources. but the men and women of the border patrol have risen to the challenge. in 2008, then president george bush signed a william we believe force trafficking victims authorization act. t( law recognizes that special kay is demanded

previously, she was the united states ambassador to the united nations. she has received criticism for perceived entrenchment and foreign policy. >> ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all of its danger and uncertainty. we have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency. but american leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be, a place for the aspirations of individual human beings really matters. where hopes and not just fears govern. where the truths written into the founding documents can steer the currents of justice. >> welcome. >> it is great to be back. >> the president making a series of speeches. is he defining obama doctrine? >> for good reason, one is wary of the term "doctrine." i think what he is saying is really crystallizing what has animated his foreign policy from the outset. the united states is the most powerful and important country in the world. we have been for a long time and will be for a long time. in recent years, our power has increased when you consider our

to compete with high wage countries such as the united states. the chinese government to its credit recognizes this pitfall and i think recognizes that in order to cope with it, in order to escape the middle income trap it needs a new economic strategy that will require the kinds of political changes that i discuss in the book, whether they can make those changes we don't know. >> thank you professor mandelbaum. i really enjoyed your presentation but i was struck by your lack of commentary in your presentation on institutions because it seems to me there are two institutions that underpinned the first wave of globalization. the first of course are the bretton woods group the imf and the world tank and the second is what is now a really a series of agreements on free trade primarily among the west that allowed this prosperity to be expanded, first and foremost in western democracies. can we actually regenerate and improve these institutions in ways that they can benefit us going forward or is really the wto kind of the pinnacle of a global trade or

you've got mexico, the united states and costa rica and what they're achieving. jeffrey webb, he has been very proud of what the teams in the region are achieving here. >> one more and then i'm going to sneak one in. what are the chances that the united states will actually perform really well even win this match against portugal, and i guess the player that many consider best in the world ronaldo? i know they're--the u.s. squad is playing without its striker josie alta door. >> that's the thing with this group. >> they are there for the taking by the united states. the united states beat portugal in 2002. this time with the confidence, they have every chance of doing it. it's an intriguing group. you would think that germany is the stronger team, but with ronaldo struggling. >> come on, this is--for me this is it the best player in the world is messi. you got like argentina's chances coming through against iran, come on. >> yes, for many years i've liked argentina's chances of winning this tournament. the other team, the host brazil. it is their soil. they are go

we do have the ability to express as clearly as we can the united feeling of the people of the united states about what is happening in china and we hope and we pray as we said to the chinese ambassador that our can have anconveyed impact on what happens in that country. lot of question about should we do this or that in terms of sanctions. momentaryl have disagreement about the right things to do. but we today and every day from here on out want it known that there is absolute unity in this country of feeling about what is happening in china and what we hope will happen in days ahead. people to stop give people due process and give people clemency and get their country back to the situation where democracy can rain. we had a very wonderful cooperation with the ranking member, the ranking republican member of the foreign affairs committee putting together this resolution and i am very happy he is here today and i welcome his statement. >> briefly, i would like to say that i think this was the work of the majority leader and working with the minority, a bipartisan approach. the message

attack against the current order in the middle east and so i think it is in everybody's interests united states russia and many other countries to calm the situation down and for now i think it's going to be difficult if difficult to disagree with you on that you mentioned tens of thousands of americans serving in iraq and i just want to mention that four in the half thousand americans lost their lives there but the question is what for i mean president obama takes credit for winding down these two very unpopular wars one in afghanistan and one in iraq but i wonder if the same very rapid advance of isis is said jasper the base self-congratulatory rhetoric on the part of the white house was a bit premature well i think it's very clear that president obama has wanted to extract the united states from these wars and he has done so over the course of his administration he did however try to see that there would be a residual u.s. force in iraq that was not finally accepted by iraqi politicians there are those who say this is maliki who opposed that and perhaps maliki did oppose it but everyo

force american residual force in iraq but despite the absence of american troops on the ground the united states still invested billions of dollars to train and equip the iraqi army already to have them essentially abandoned that post that weaponry. rather than fight insurgents in mosul and i wonder if that's not the most worrying development of all because we've known about the growth of isis for quite some time but now we suddenly realize that there is absolutely no force on the ground to counter them well first of all i would agree that the investment in the iraqi army is certainly hasn't been hasn't been shown to be a good investment but i would not assume that the rapid advance of isis means that it would continue i'm not so as much concerned as some people are that somehow isis could take over baghdad to be the real issue is that we are heading in current circumstances we're heading to a partition of iraq an iraq that becomes partly these kurdish area partly a shia area especially in the southeast and partly a kind of newly created sunni stand but a sunni stand if you will under ver

what i do about slavery, i do to save the united states. by the third year of the war, lincoln and the majority of the people in the united states had come to the conclusion that restoring the union was not enough. they would never be a permanent united states so long as slavery was allowed to exist. as horace greeley observed, slavery is the cause of treason and everywhere sustains it. slavery had to be destroyed and the nation was to be eunited. otherwise, slavery would continue to threaten the long-term stability and security of the united states. if the united states and not eliminated what had caused the war it would only be a matter of time it would have to send troops to suppress another rebellion. by ensuring lincoln's reelection and the united states' victory in the war, the fall of atlanta sounded the death knell of slavery and rescue democracy from the threat of secession. each time we recite the pledge of allegiance we reaffirm the civil war established united states as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. o

what i do about slavery, i do to save the united states. by the third year of the war, lincoln and the majority of the people in the united states had come to the conclusion that restoring the union was not enough. they would never be a permanent united states so long as slavery was allowed to exist. as horace greeley observed, slavery is the cause of treason and everywhere sustains it. slavery had to be destroyed and the nation was to be reunited. otherwise, slavery would continue to threaten the long-term stability and security of the united states. if the united states and not eliminated what had caused the war it would only be a matter of time it would have to send troops to suppress another rebellion. by ensuring lincoln's reelection and the united states' victory in the war, the fall of atlanta sounded the death knell of slavery and rescue democracy from the threat of secession. each time we recite the pledge of allegiance we reaffirm the civil war established united states as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

except to attend the united nations. you do have the major population centers of the old world, the two biggest countries, china and india, in terms of population, in the largest country, in terms of geography, russia, alienated from the united states. and it's very difficult to see american hegemony surviving that. finally two other factors, inadequate resources, including to projections of the results of the budget guest they're was recently agreed upon in congress, u.s. defense spend willing go down to more than slightly more than 2% of gdp in the 2020s, which is probably adequate for most of our actual defense needs, but i would suggest it's woefully inadequate if you wish to be the eurasian hegemon if perpetuity. you would need to spend more money. finally, public support, the public rebelled against the costs of the wars, that was the main reasons for the return of the democrats to power in congress in 2008. barack obama became the democratic nominee largely because unlike hillary clinton, he had opposed the iraq wa

that that it's a very intriguing mix all the reasons why the united states has behaved the way it has in ukraine partly it is about strategic influence partly it is about business partly it is about. provocation there are all different degree difference. this of ministration in washington has been doing some very strange things always also most. and i'm going to guess. and attempt to be a bomber administration to reassert its. having really been trumped by russia over syria we're going to get to that in our second part of the show well first we're going to take a short break when we're back we're going to continue talking to john pilger a veteran journalist and author we'll talk more about the impact and the extent of american global ambitions to stay with us. divisions within ukraine are becoming greater with each passing day the western backed regime shows no interest in compromise or negotiations at the same time civilians in the east continue to die is going for broke. some people say that when it happens in time not a very nice one the curtain goes down. point and i could no long

is backing up with economic loans and so is the united states both financially. and militarily and. advising the ukraine certainly the us has a big role and i think the united states looks on this as a. ukraine as a real prize. and i know a friendly government in ukraine to the united states of course is better than a government that's friendly to russia and i think you know the e.u. has behaved. really started this crisis by saying it's all or nothing for ukraine and i think you know ukraine really has to nestle between the two blocks and it also has to have autonomy in the east simply because of the political situation there whether we'll get to that point i don't know but certainly there is a tug of war there to try to. ukraine from the russian influence you know markets it's very interesting i've been said something that i think is absolutely right is that you know the european union is uncompromising this government in kiev is uncompromising no negotiations in this is this is insanity here and this is what's causing all of these deaths you know pushing all mention decentralizati

how does that speech look like from outside of the united states? >> i think there will be disappointment and disagreement. let me say what i think the disagreement is going to be about. i think the selective use of force will be very useful, and as john said it's nothing new. but the media based on the white house leaks had set up an expectation that there would be a rebought here. we really didn't see a rebought here. the president says very uniformly that the united states must, all this lead in the world. because if it didn't, no one else would. i think a lot of people diswe with that. the chinese, the indians, the south africans would disagree with that. they would like to see the united states--nobody objects that the u.s. lead. but they cannot lead. people would object to that. it requires forces. we've seen in many cases where the u.s. could not lead. so i think of people that u.s. will lead in some areas, and let others lead in other areas. including like india and china. we didn't say that. to say that if we don't lead nobody else will, i t

the notion that conflict began with the united states, i think, is plainly false. ultimately, it is the people of iraq who will decide the future of iraq. >> he is a man known for his mediation skills. george mitchell helped broker peace in northern ireland. he also tried his hand in the middle east, serving as u.s. chief envoy to the israeli and palestinians under president barack obama. >> for both sides, the disadvantages of not getting an agreement are much greater than the difficulties that will come with getting an disagreement. >> he spent 15 years in the senate, first representing maine and as majority leader. but he says money and rigid ideology have changed the political landscape. >> it is dysfunctional. i hope very much that the american people will demand clearly and loudly change and we will have the necessary change. >> the man who has played mistaken roles talks as well about one of the people who most affected his life. >> i am certain that but for her, i would have led a very different and probably much less meaningful life. >> i caught up with the

global entry is for entry into the united states. you can always come home through one of the programs. but for entry into another country, you still need that government's approval through their process to enter that. so the programs are licmpk linked, but there's just an extra step. here's a place where you can say why don't you accept this card as an expedited entry card. >> we've discussed it more from the admissibility end of who they can let into their country and who makes that determination. much like it is for our state. >> what's the cost for the application for nexus? >> nexus is 5 $50 for five years, global entry is a hundred dollars for five years. >> and these are all people who reside in the united states. it would seem to me that we'd be doing them a favor if we could convince the canadians. and your application process, you wouldn't have to go through it a second time. and maybe you do that. do you do that -- if somebody with a global entry card says we're going to go to canada, do you say it's another $50 to get a ne

a lot of this is fueled by our drug use in the united states. sume more illegal drugs than anywhere on earth. 80% of the cocaine from latin america is being funneled through honduras. you have the cartels and the gangs vying for those routes. that is fueling a lot of this violence in honduras. >> and a comment of some republicans, for example, the hill saying some republicans allege lacks enforcement of immigration laws by the obama administration is wanted more more illegal immigrants to send their children and that the deferred action for childhood , is up foraca renewal, prompting republicans to link it to the surge of child migrants -- i think it was senator rubio in florida saying the rumor is out that only children will be able to stay. so they're trying to get their children here, sonia? >> it is certainly true the smugglers will use anything to pump up their business. they are certainly telling thele, once you get into united states, you're home free. they're lying to people. that may be helping to generate business for them. senator rubi

i think asylum in the united states for her u.s. citizen husband, her u.s. citizen children and her would be an appropriate thing. and then the danger they feel they face by someone who's willing to profess another faith would be -- would be gone. i can't imagine why the sudanese government would not want to let her leave the country. and i'd just like to encourage them today to do that. cbs news reported that the niss, they described as a shadowy, feared institution, said on its facebook page that ibrahim and her family had been attempting to travel to the united states with documents from the embassy of south sudan. if sudan wasn't confusing enough for the rest of the world, that country, because of its many problems, split between the north and the south after years of civil war in 2011. and miss ibrahim had a u.s. visa, apparently documents, reportedly at least by this news report, possibly from south sudan. but those documents should have been enough to let her leave and should not have been considered another criminal offense. these authorities have tol

they're reuniting with family in the united states. they're fleeing economic uncertainty and failed governments, both locally and nationally. >> so the conditions that you're talking about, the crime, the uncertain conditions, the poor conditions economically, what has changed dramatically? because would you admit that the numbers have increased dramatically? >> no doubt about that. >> is there a corresponding increase dramatically in poorness of conditions in these countries south of the border to correlate? >> i just don't know. i think it's been a while that those conditions have existed. >> yeah, it's been a while, right? my concern is there's some narrative here that seems to be perpetrated among the american citizens that somehow things have exponentially decreased south of the border and that's counterpart to this exodus south of the border into the united states. that's what's causing it. i'm not sure it's true. you don't know at this time of any metric that would support that. >> not metrics. >> so do you think there's any diff

it is not only in the united states. did not generate the same kind of rising -- >> one of the arguments made -- you finish. somehow change itself. what you have seen may change in its own evolution because of the rise of technology, providing a ay so that there will be lessening of income inequality. wille rise of technology lead to a lessening of income inequality, maybe, maybe not. >> how could it? >> lessening of inequality, well, there is a technology called change benefit to allow everyone to become more productive, even more so for the lowest groups. i think the opposite outcome is possible. in any case, we don't want to icity to the capr technology the decision. we want to forces and the common interest. if we want to make sure they always act in the common interest that every group benefits from growth and manner, in a balanced then we need an adequate democratic institution to make sure this happens. >> how many copies have sold so far? >> a little bit above 400,000 in the english language. and above 100,000 in

are separating to two camps and they're fighting bitterly about this some do not of course want the united states to begin cooperating with iran they are fearful that this will have a very bad effect on israel and saudi arabia others believe that counterterrorism is of the utmost importance and that iran can help the united states beat back isis and al qaeda in the region. professor landis i would have to discuss that iranian angle a little bit later but before we go there there were certain medias framing of the events in iraq it is very predictable they're sort of putting all the blame on. government he felt to build the functioning democracy here alley and they did the sunni's and i think we can admit that some of that criticism is valid but the question is could it be different person have done a better job is it fair to put all of the blame on al maliki and instead of looking somewhere else let's put it this way well a lot of this is domestic politics president obama is down the polls there are elections coming up midterm elections coming up and the republicans are very eager to hurt

al qaeda is determine to attack the united states. we constantly face new plots looking to murder america like the may 12th plot to put an ied on a u.s. bound aircraft. this plot luckily didn't materialize but we will not always be that lucky. we know al qaeda in the arabian peninsula represent one of the biggest threat to the homeland. they are continually plotting against our interest and seeking new recruits. especially among the own citi n citizens and former detainees. explosive experts continue to roam free posing a threat to the safety and security of u.s. citizens. the proposed closure of guantanamo bay presents significant risks of the united states and yemen efforts to counter aqap inside yemen. a portion of the detainees remaining are yemen citizens. transferring them to a country plagued by prison breaks, assassination and open warfare at this point could prove catastrophic. they would join other gitmo detainees and worsen the security situation. the most example of a failed and dangerous policy on the part of the administr

we are the united states and they are china. what i want to do is to continue to urge freedom, democracy, respect, nonviolence. and, with great admiration in my heart for the student. i do not think we waited long. >> the chinese government waited a long time, more than we expected. what do you think -- >> i am glad you read that point. we were and have been continuing to urge restraint. they did show restraint when he was here. this is very chinese the way he expressed it. the army loves the chinese people. they showed restraint for a long time and i cannot begin to fathom exactly what led to the order to use force because even as recently as a couple of days ago there was evidence that the military were under orders not to use force. i think we have to wait until that unfolds. >> give us your best assessment of the political situation there. which leaders are up, which are down. >> it is too obscure to say. i would remind you of the history. in the cultural revolution days, the right hand was put out. in 1976, he was put out ag

the united states in many ways was really the first up state. africa, the south founding fathers of apartheid did not intend [indiscernible] >> all of that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. sunni militants in iraq have reportedly executed up to 190 captives in the northern city of tikrit. the massacre took place earlier this month according to human rights watch. the news comes as iraq he prime minister maliki faces increasing pressure to resign for failing to unite the country or beat back ends by the islamic state of iraq and syria, or isis. another round of 50 u.s. special operations troops have arrived in iraq to act as military visors on the crisis. president obama has asked congress for $500 million to train and arm syrian rebels. if approved, it would mark the most erect military role in the conflict to date following more covert forms of support for the rebels. the request comes amidst growing concern about the influence of isis militants in both iraq and syria. obama

the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergency act, 50 u.s.c. 116-22-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and trands mitts to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the emergency declared in executive order 136-17 of june 25, 2012, with respect to the disposition of russia's highly enriched uranium is to continue beyond june 25, 2014. the risk of nuclear to the volume ue of fissile material continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 136-17 with respect to the disposition of russia

so what can the united states do? m a journalist, not a think there are different schools of thought. the iraq he government -- the iraqi government, those close to prime minister maliki, they want airstrikes. they would want more intense intelligence support from the united states. i was talking with a former u.s. commander yesterday who was saying the intelligence that we are providing now is minimal. it is probably -- he was going to give me numbers, but i would say there has been an additional 100 to 150 people rotting in recent months to provide intelligence support. if you don't have people on the ground, you can develop the sources for targeting. >> i was just want to say, the is connected is incredible as the fighters captured tikrit a push toward baghdad on wednesday. the senate foreign relations committee, i don't know if you watched yesterday, met to question president obama's nominee for the next ambassador and reported, not a single senator asked him directly about the apparent loss of control by the iraqi

an expansion in natural gas production in the united states. and as you know, natural gas burns twice as cleanly as, for example, coal, and other fossil fuels. >> do you think it will cost jobs in the coal industry echo >> it is worth noting, and i don't have anybody from the national journal here, but i will quote the national journal who said, "mining jobs in appalachia fared far worse under the clinton, bush and reagan administrations than they have under obama." we have taken steps to approach our energy security -- energy and security needs. that includes increase production across the board. it includes aggressively investing in noble energy. it includes taking advantage of our natural gas deposits in a way that enhances u.s. national security and energy independence . and we will continue that approach. alln, i would point you to of the history in this country of actions taken by administrations of both parties to improve the quality of our air and the quality of our water. every time such actions have been taken, industry has said that d

the same framework that lies behind the united nations. there's so many problems that the world faces that seem to require a global response. shouldn't we be talking in terms of an internationalism that emphasizes globalism versus this prevential discussion. >> to have that kind of initiative that you're talking about requires, in some way -- and here i'll agree with bill, it requires a shift in identity. it requires that people think of themselves not as citizens of the united states or a global citizen or recognizing -- you would need shifts in public opinion that would require people to think of this as a situation where, in fact, cooperation would be required but you aren't seeing that. if anything you're seeing the reverse. look at the european union for example. it's in some ways the most ambitious project that existed to try to remake, you know, national identities into something larger. you know, sort of european identity of the notion that there's not just greeks or italians or spaniards but this european identity. if you take a lo

>> when people had free rein to organize the united states. in our interest to have aggressive and active posture there. there are economic moral reasons as well. >> right. >> we've got to get out of the notion that we are responsible for everything. >> this is "talk toays" when we come back, you will hear senator george mitchell talk about washington's dysfunction. ♪ >>> you are watching "talk to al-jezeera america you." i am tony harassed. on this week's program, senator george mitchell. >> when did president obama ask you to go to the middle east and work on the israeli-palestinian processes? 2009? >> about two weeks before he was inaugurated in? >> what did you think was possible? >> i don't accept that anything is impossible. you have to have a positive thing. you might as well not try. if you start a task saying i am going to fail, you are going to fail. you can't be deterred by past failures. the reality is, if you are interested in peace and you are asked to do it and from my view, as someone would has lived the american dream, if a pre

the red line is employment by united states steel industry. this chart should be really as clear as day for anybody who is making a decision in congress and they have the ability to act. some members of congress are taking action. last month, 57 senators sent a letter to the united states department of commerce urging them to take action against cheap steel imports and the deadline is july 11th. that's right. that's the deadline. that's how much time between now and june 24th and july 11th that your government can actually do something to protect an entire industry and the american steel workers and all of these folk up in northern minnesota that have just known what they've known for decades. a few republicans did sign the letter. i'll show you their pictures a little later on. the majority were democrats and there were some democrats that did not sign on. we're making phone calls asking why. one big name missing was senator john mccain of arizona. now, this guy actually supports the repeal of steel tariffs, maybe he shifted but back in 2003 h

whether or not -- what does that mean to the people of the united states? ster, you'll be the first leader after the summit to engage with vladimir putin face to face. is there something of an olive branch in your hand? after all, he does denounce the electoral process which brought the president to power in the ukraine. is that what you will be exploring with him this evening and do you accept that germany may not come to your aid and stop jean claude from becoming commission president? will that potentially blow your entire strategy off course? you think you may be able to negotiate a brilliant reform, but your credibility be so damaged in britain that people will vote to leave the union. who are you most afraid of? angela merkel or teresa may? >> great question. >> let me take those. first of all, my meeting with vladimir putin is important to have this communication about some very important messages about what's happening now is not acceptable, about the changes that need to take place. i think as the president said there is an opportunity for diplomacy