interest or in latin america in the same period john's right that in the arab world the united states faced spaces mixed interests on the other hand he didn't mention libya where the united states joined a military intervention that did help lead to what's probably pro-democratic change for the arab world does present a mixed picture but i think it's actually compared to how the united states has approached democratic change in most of the regions in the last twenty years ok tom if i could stay to stay with you do you think that the nato intervention in libya was in the name in the purpose for democracy or just geo political interest the u.n. resolution yes the u.n. resolution was about humanitarian intervention and france and britain in the united states ended up taking further in and carrying out an intervention that helped lead to regime change i don't think it was due to sort of deep sinister economic interests i think the united states france and britain actually had the best interests of the b. ins actually in their minds and helped contribute to an outcome which will probably b

military base the united states went along and accepted that and in the middle east now you see the united states learning to adjust to a different kind of government in egypt and actually making i think it's a serious effort to get along with the muslim brotherhood led government in the hopes that you know the united states in a different egypt can get along i agree that the intervention in iraq was misguided and that the united states as charles said greatly overestimated its ability to bring about a political transformation of iraq but that was a military intervention carried out for other reasons which was then justified and tried to turn into a political reconstruction mission ok charles what do you think about that because again there's a lot of hypocrisy here and people on the ground see it ok the americans will support this democratic movement but not that one i mean how do you explain it to them i think you just straight like we're doing on this show and except the idea that there are moments when the united states can lean forward and push democracy there are other moments when t

states and in fact the predictions by twenty thirty five the united states will be almost free will be free of gulf oil persian gulf oil so we're moving in a very different direction in our relationship with the middle east than china is but china has been very successful and maintaining those relationships that go way back some of the earliest states that recognize china in the forty's and fifty's were the arab states many of them socialist leaning baths on r.t. but also china is very troubled by its relationships in south asia particularly other problems between pakistan and india so it's a very difficult transition for this news lately leadership they have these domestic challenges but they have to keep fueling that economy and they have and they need fuel and they can't keep relying on coal because what it's doing to their own environment as well as as well as their own sort of need to shift third station vellum it jonathan you want to jump in there. yes absolutely and what i think when you discuss with diplomats and officials in beijing they are

we think people in the united states have not studied their history. the national report card, most americans think the united states is sufficient -- is deficient in math and science. high school seniors are weakest in u.s. history, and the public in general knows very little u.s. history. tavis: what makes you think we are ready for that conversation now. >> the united states is in a transitional time. we cannot dictate all over the world. we are just in the process of losing two major wars. it is a terrible war. if the united states gets involved in another war, we should have our heads examined, so people are starting to rethink this idea of the united states being super power. it is not working. we cannot afford it anymore. he says we are not going to cut any of our defense spending. part of it is a necessity. >> you made a point that we do not know anything about our history. you said two things. number one, it depends who is history we talk about. there is a phrase, you call it history. we call it his story. so much of what i take from reading th

states to come. the british were about ready to give up but the united states said no. flash forward 1973 and the united states no longer has access. so they take the initial step toward military commitments by beginning to protect the navy much further in the indian notion and began to look at the island base called the garcia and began to explore improvements to allow it to project without depending upon and with the host nation support. also the u.s. reluctantly took the same british commitments came later with the fall of the shot and the iranian revolution and the west had to rely on saudi arabia in the aftermath of british withdraw because of america's involvement of vietnam. with the primary killer now gone united states had to figure out a way to project military powers they would no longer shepard after interest in the region. with the carter restoration the annunciation of the carter doctrine in this "state of the union" speech carter said in the attack on western interest in the persian gulf represents the attack and u.s. vital interest and they will be prepar

that is the real strength of the united states of america. as we transition into this new era, we will have to look at important priorities that will take on a greater urgency, particularly as we looked at the second term of this administration and look at what are the challenges we are going to be confronting. this is not like the past where we come out of the war and the rest might have diminished -- threats might have diminished. then everyone winds of cutting the defense budget. this is a period where even as we come out of the 10 years of war, we are confronting major issues, major threats in the world. on terrorism. we are still at war in afghanistan and as we try to draw down in that war. we are in the process of trying to implement the department's defense strategy at the same time we are trying to meet fiscal responsibilities. we are in a period where the budget situation in this country, a huge deficit we are facing, the debt confronting this country are limited resources and will continue to limit the resources. i did not believe we

there's a sense that there's consumption in the united states. that is fueling some of the criminal violence that has gotten out of control in mexico. immigration, of course, is a crucial issue which is very important for mexico, for the united states it's not seen as a foreign policy issue. it's seen as a domestic issue. for mexico it's extremely important, the relationship. to the extent there could be any progress on immigration reform in the united states, that would be very much welcome in mexico. >> suarez: as you note, security and drugs are both related and separate at the same time. but just when american voters in a couple of states have decriminalized the use of marijuana we're getting a new mexican president who had signaled during the campaign that he wanted to depart from his predecessor's policy on the war on drugs. as he said how he'll do that? >> he hasn't really spelled it out. we'll learn more once he's inaugurated on saturday and when he begins to pick his cabinet. but we do know that he's going to focus on reducing violence an

we don't state a reference point for the past assessment. and the unitedtates is still the most influential country in the world in their assessment but it's -- the gap between u.s. influence and chinese influence in particular is rapidly narrowing and many americans think that the gap will basically close 10 years from now, extrapolating from what they know at the present. however, when we ask americans whether they think the united states is a unique nation and the greatest country in the world, a very strong majority says absolutely yes. so there is a very strong sense of specialness that americans have. and this is again, across generational and partisan lines. there really -- it seems like a cognitive dissonance here but we just think americans are being quite situational about their assessment. it's not a discouragement about the character of their nation, it's an assessment in their minds, maybe partially informed, but thoughtfully arrived at that the united states has got to trim its sales in certain respects. americans are also comfortable at the

the detention of united states citizens or lawful resident aliens of the united states or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the united states." now, that was just sort of to say, leave things as they are right now. it preserved the current state of the law, continuing to leave it to the courts to resolve who is right about whether or not the aoumf authorizes the military detention of united states citizens who are apprehended domestically. i believe strongly that the time has come now to end this legal ambiguity and to state clearly once and for all that the aumf or other authorities do not authorize such a definite detention of americans apprehended in the united states. this is without charge or without trial for year after year after year. to accomplish this, we are offering an amendment which affirms the continuing application of the principles behind the nondetention act of 1971. it amends that act to provide clearly in a clear statement that no military authorization allows indefinite detention of united states citizens or green card holders who are apprehended inside

is that because the united states wanted to have policemen? ps. the israelis feel constrained , it's for the united states itself. it is in a strategic start with good israelis are doing to help the united states to dominate the region. this is the crux of the problem. the united states has stopped for years to try to dominate the region. i have nothing against hegemony or dominance. i'm all for my children having a great economy, having college paid for that keyword. the problem we found in the middle east, liquid found in asia as it does not work. it doesn't work, our pursuit of this dominant hurts us as we futilely try to pull it off. so yes, israel is pushing for this, but they push on an open door. it was an israeli initiated war, but the united states was behind it. could israel have pulled off in lebanon if iran had breakout capability? probably, but they would think twice and that is the crux of the problem. [applause] >> well, let's go back to diplomacy. here's a question for ken and it is exactly what is the deal on our deal. is enrichmen

blowback first time around what about this time what we already have in libya the very people that the united states the united kingdom assisted into power in libya if indeed they are stable. i want the very people who among the american ambassador in benghazi will you know it's a blow by didn't take long george bush had the excuse that he was an imbecile. or professorial president obama does not excuse the early signs in the first few days of his second term have been very very negative he has continued to fire these drones he joined them coming that's true mr president you can't see that i'm going to want to know that being because your wife's lying down beside your date without a head or without her limbs because you're lying in front of your eyes. this is a bomb on the one as you can find. c.n.n. to show the most some sorts of cerebro month takes. you know moments of power like culpepper pulling the population. americans watch in horror as the loons boy behind them shouting. on the bus the cold. unknown so many war with an even bigger middle east asia has already begun america's crippling sancti

i mean this talk about colorado is talking about washington i mean the perception outside of the united states is that the united states is legalizing it at home but continuing the war on drugs in mexico so how do you square the circle. well i mean you know colorado and washington had votes but frankly federal law is still supreme in what federal laws and this is what president obama has said numerous times is that marijuana still illegal so i think the message to the world is that just because two states decided to legalize marijuana that this is really going to be caught up in the courts for a while and this is really the beginning of the conversation and not be and you know unfortunately voters were sold a false choice between prohibition on one side and super inforced and criminalization and legalization on the other side and the reality is that the this is actually a false choice this is not between legalization or prohibition you can actually have a kind of policy that it's much more nuanced than that ok peter in washington what do you think about what the people in colorado and washingt

tuesday of the united states tell us? >> we like to pride ourselves as the world's leading democracy. that is a joke. people around the world know that it is a joke. the united states constitution used to be the model that every aspiring country used to use. and nobody uses it as a model for new constitutions in other parts of the world. the citizens united case has done more to turn this country into a plutocracy as opposed to a democracy. the fact that people can buy elections and politics, money getting people elected just makes a cruel joke, a cynical joke out of our democracy. that is another reason why it is essential that we have a much more progress of supreme court. tavis: when you know you will have to tell some hard truths to the american public, i am curious whether -- is there any one thing that stands out in your mind where you came across and said that this will be hard to sell to the american people? they will not buy this. they will not believe this. >> you have to start somewhere. i am sure that martin lu

i've seen the president of the united states -- i think the president of the united states should be iscussing what the american people, the great danger of our time. the debt. the president will go out to the press and use the buzzwords that says he has a balanced plan or responsible path to deficit reduction, but where are the spending reductions? what is the plan? it seems to me that the plan is to talk in general, to meet in secret day after day, week after week. the deadlines are getting closer. the fiscal cliff is getting closer. then on the threat of panic, force through some deal to maintain the status quo for taxes, more spending, more debt. it would be presented to the senate in a way that if it's not adopted immediately, the country will be in great fiscal danger. this process. -- this process needs to be taken out of the shadows. we need public debate, and people would know the facts that are now being hidden from us and hidden from members of congress. we don't know what's going on. the latest article in "politico" today said the deal -- the so-called deal has been negoti

that putin has been so demonized in the united states. so little regarded in the united states that people think putin would be a good partner for obama but i think putin is ready for a fall relationship if the united states will make some concessions to russia's national interest. you. just said about about publicans. being a different party and about about the democrats that that might be better but we all forget that they're out of the parties third parties in the american political process and it's a funny thing there are to see how the company was was the actually the only company in the air in the united states who actually highlighted the charity the policy the programs the debates of those bodies the examiner magazine wrote i quote it's the equivalent of a sad joke that americans must rely on russia today in order to watch their presidential debates and quote do you think the mainstream american media really ignored that third party thing on the on purpose someone. well first of all some of the magazines or newspapers in america ha

and yet the united states said, no. well, flash forward to 1973 and the united states no longer has access to those bases that had previously been offered. so the united states takes an initial step toward military commitments or military involvement in the gulf in '73, but needed to protect its navy much further into the indian ocean and up toward the gulf than it ever had, and it began to look at an island base in the indian ocean called diego garcia, and began to explore improvements to that base that would allow it to project force to the region without having to depend upon the host nation support. the second step that the united states reluctantly took towards assuming some of those same british commitments, came later on in the decade with the fall of the shah, and the iranian revolution in 1978 and '79. the u.s. had to rely on saudi arabia and iran in the aftermath of british withdrawal because of america's involvement in vietnam, and with the primary pillar, iran, one of the two twin pillars now gone, the united

that has to do with the demand for drugs in the united states. the supply of guns from the united states. but there are also other things that are completely, let's say are homework to do. we really needed to do something that is very important and it's important for mexico and i think it has been important for every country at some point in its history which is to guarantee that we have proper institutions that are accountable, transparent and democratic. institutions that are in charge of the rule of law. so there are some impediments that have something to do with the international and regional perspective. there are impediments about what we need to do in mexico. i think if one with characterize the years of the calderon administration the last six years, we have done our homework. in terms of transforming rule of law institutions. and there's still a path to go ahead. >> rose: are there things you could have done that you didn't do because of access to resources or anything like that? >> well, when one puts what's happened in mexico in perspe

people decided to give barack obama one more term to try to work on the economic problems facing the united statespersonally, i believe that we have to be much more aggressive than the president has been, offering affirmative and solid programs of growth in the united states. frankly, i do not know if the president wants to be able to do that or not, but everyone wants to reach out to him and make him a success. >> when you say more aggressive, it would appear that the electorate wants him to continue the party line, even though they clearly recognize the economic challenges faced by the nation. >> we clearly are offering the opportunity, as he said, moving in the right direction. whereas mitt romney's the choice -- approach was that we do not have time, we need to move aggressively now. that is our democracy. we hope for the president's success. our commitment is to the people of the united states. >> but you would have preferred mitt romney to be in the white house for the next four years. what about his campaign? what about propelling him into that position? did he not reach out to the latino v

boston built the first modern sewer system in the united states. ours was completed between 1877 and 1884. with this wonderful new sewer system, we were taking our filth and moving it out to the ocean. of course, all of this was untreated. in the 1960s, we were still pumping all of our sewage out to moon island, untreated. we would get swimmers here, never knowing, in the middle of summer, why you would have a cold. well, we were swimming in diluted sewage. melosi: the major way to deal with pollution, at least until early into the 20th century, was through the process of dilution. the assumption was that the capacity of rivers and streams, and even the seas, allowed for certain levels of pollution that eventually would purify themself. as we get later into the 20th century, it becomes clear that the volumes of waste made dilution unworkable as a single solution. and so treatment became the ways in which we deal with pollution. narrator: to protect public health, starting in the 1950s and '60s, there was a push to put in wastewater treatment plants

largest in the game's history a single winner would cash out 213 million before taxes. you can buy tickets in 42 states, including washington, d.c. and the united states virgin islands. a special edition of on the record starts now. >>> tonight, senators mccain and graham former u.n. ambassador bolton, pat buchanan, former state department official liz cheney and former secretary of state henry kissinger, they are all here. we are looking ahead to foreign policy in president obama's second term. this is a special edition of "on the record." >> four years later after the nobel peace prize where do we stand as a nation? in case you haven't her, bin laden is dead, that's good. that's not a foreign policy. there is no coherent foreign policy when we need one. >> we keep hoping something is going to change but it isn't. >> one of the ramifications of an obama presidency is defense is not going to grow. >> the coordinated preplanned and brazen taxes again the u.s. consulate in benghazi, september 11th, was an outrage. >> security was laxed. >> it appears to many persons ma this administration failed to adequately protect u.s. personnel. >> president

james madison made a public announcement of the first war ever to be declared in the history of the united states. he said quote, i extort all the good people of the united states as they love their country, as the feel wrong that they exert themselves. madisons call made clear that the expectations of showing love of country required giving support. at a moment of national crisis, patriotism was needed. he sought to justify the complex for the population at large and motivate the country to support the war. the stakes were high. because although a majority in congress had voted in favor of declaring war, not one single member of the federalist party had voted in support of the war. northeastern federalist took a very skeptical view of the war, far more so than the southern and western members of the democratic republican party that madison was leading. ostensibly a conflict with britain over national sovereignty the american war of 1812 very quickly became instead a test or a condition, test of the strength and meaning of american patriotism. now we often tend to forget about the war of 1812. it

the congress of the united states, even though sometimes i wish i could. e legislative branch has its own powers and prerogatives. and so they check my power and balance my power. i appoint some of our judges. but i cannot tell them how to rule, because every person in america, from a child living in poverty, to me, the president of the united states, is equal under the law. and a judge can make a determination as to whether or not i am upholding the law or breaking the law and i'm fully accountable to that law. and i describe our system in the united states because that's how you must reach for the future that you deserve, a future where a single prisoner of conscience is one too many. you need to reach for a future where no child is made to be a soldier, and no woman is exploited. and where the laws protect them, even if they're vulnerable and weak. a future where national security is strengthened by a military that serves under civilians. and a constitution that guarantees that only those who are elected by the people may govern. we use our assistance to

this would produce widespread hatred, particularly for the united states, because the united states would be seen as the deciding partner in such an undertaking with the joint israel or subsequent israel or by the united states alone. united states would be drawn into a protracted conflict in the region. first of all, and perhaps the reigning people as well. the iranians, by and large, the united states must not be hostile. the conflict in which the united states was acting [inaudible] long-acting hatred for the united states. it involves some 85 million people. there would be regional disruption, the conflict would probably be spreading to syria, creating one large issue. withdrawing from the western part of afghanistan. it would be disruptive of the security of oil flowing through the strait of hormuz. and there is a further uncertainty involved in that kind of an operation common namely how successful would be, in fact. and estimates regarding israel's potential to be decisively effective and estimates depend on the scale of the american attack. even a relatively modest attack by the u

or would you help the people of the united states? hen we say -- when we say to be wiped, we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world, for war seeking to be wiped off and eradicated. the killing of women and children to be eradicated. and we proposed a way, we proposed a path. the path is to recognize the right of the palestinians to self-governance. allow the people of palestine to make decisions regarding their own future. imagine one day in palestine there is no longer occupation. occupation no longer exists in palestine. what else would there remain? >> do you believe in a two-state solution? >> translator: about the decision of the people of palestine i cannot express an opinion. that is their prerogative. but the people of palestine must be allowed by everyone and helped by everyone to allow them, to give them the right to choose for themselves, to choose their own future. >> if they agreed -- mr. president, if the palestinians agreed to a deal with the israelis which recognized a two-state solution, would you then reco

what can the united states do in terms of this? that is not their first inclination. >> it is suggested the united states should not really do much, because the women in the united states that are pro gender equality do not appreciate what it looks like to be gender equal -- do not appreciate when people start telling them what it looks like to be gender equal. >> the story recently in tahrir square, where there are vigilante groups taking their own action to protect women from harassment, does this have to come from within? >> indonesia, for example, just to give you an example of what happened -- in tunisia, just to give you an example of what happened there, when you look at a loss that they passed for the election, the election laws -- when you look at bill laws -- at the laws that they pass for the election, the election laws, you have more women -- that they passed for the election, the election laws, you have more women. they have a larger representation. they are still debating the constitution. we will see how that works ou

i want to start out with the united states. for people in the room understand the president as well as us and golsby. people ask what is going to come of this fiscal cliff. i'd like to look through the fiscal cliff asking you to describe to us how do you see the budget negotiations playing out over the next six months? >> well, feels to me like they almost had a deal last year. the principle bottleneck last year was not that the president was unwilling to offer cuts. it was that there was a group of republicans in the house who wouldn't go for the revenue, and i think that's still the bottleneck now. you probably saw the article this morning from hubbard, what boehner said, and i take from this collection some optimism in 20 # 13 the way it might play out is whether we go over or don't go over the fiscal cliff, you know, there's a lot to happen in the next three months, that we get to some space where if they did a trillion dollars of cuts and reforms to entitlements, a frl on discretionary, a trillion in new revenue, a trillion

they could not be moved to a supermax prison in the united states. i don't think that's the right thing to do, to tie any hands. no one in all these years has escaped from a supermax prison in the united states of america. additionally, i believe this amendment could bring on a veto by the president who in his statement of policy has indicated his concern. additionally, i believe that guantanamo has been a blight in the image of our country across this world. there have been detainees who have been at guantanamo who have been convicted in civilian courts and are trying to wiegers, for example. there is no place for them, no place to move them. therefore, you would not be able to put them in a facility here in the united states. you have people, the blind sheikh who was incarcerated in a federal prison here. khalid sheikh mohammed's nephew ramsi yousef the shoe bomber. you have nali bu who had a plot to bomb new york subways in a federal prison here. and i have a list of terrorists and plots, 95 of them arrested here who will go to federal prisons. let

they come to the united states. here is not a high-volume going to china. >> they come to north america. >> yes. stand corrected. the point is they're not going to -- let's take the china model. i think that is an important distinguishing factor and i think we need to keep that in mind. >> ok. >> i guess i need to ask senator mccain for permission to repeat from memory what he said in munich. he made an important point. maybe the arab spring will come to china. question. i think we should be quite self confident, not overconfident, but i think we have a sustainable model, and i am not sure that china has at this point a truly sustainable model. my worry from european point of view is different. i worry that as we look at these global challenges that paula mentioned, from terrorism to piracy to proliferation, etc., our ability to create and maintain a functioning system of global governance appears to have declined. our ability to have a working system of global governance -- when i look at what is going on with syria