the nature of administration the united states the iranians agreed to talks with the united states in iraq again the united states simply increased sanctions against the country and now as soon as president rouhani comes to power the united states implements even further sanctions are on the eve of his inauguration which is extraordinary it shows that the united states simply does not have goodwill how is the iranian government. going to convince it be convinced that the united states can sit down and talk with the united states when the united states behaves in such an irrational and hostile way and on the other hand the united states at this stage has isolated itself. are improving relations thanks to obama with the. washington's with the chinese with the indians with brics countries and other non-western countries and even in europe we see countries buried dissatisfied with american behavior for example in the case of. both both in britain for example parliament rejected war which i think came as a surprise to all of us who you know with the former prime minister in england support

ridley's then joined forces with the united states and nato. and sold to topple the regime and much the same is going on in syria where again the united states of saudi arabia got into bed with the muslim brotherhood there a few years before the uprising still plays ok jason it looks like intentional instability for the entire region it doesn't work out very well for american or western interests does it. thank you peter i just might add my breath is taken away a little bit by george's last comment so let me just provide an alternative explanation for what's been happening across the region for the last couple of years. rather than it being instigated by israel the united states and saudi arabia i believe what's been happening across the arab world since the very beginnings of a revolution in tunisia two and a half almost three years ago is something very different it's i believe it's homegrown i believe it's a desire on the part of people who have long been oppressed by dictatorships. trying to find a. way to claim we are again saying let's be

of the united states they felt they were viewing the united states the role of reagan but they were not they were viewing the united states of franklin delano roosevelt it's the america today that is the america of ronald reagan and other words this policies are now really being felt i find that many american and western economists in general so indoctrinated their sort of embrace. capitalist system so just as blindly as they used to decry the communist system but when we look at the successful models both among developed and developing countries usually except for models represent some mixture of capitalism with. very generous those of socialist parlous is no where would be one example china is a very different example but they are also mixing the two doesn't mean that pure capitalism doesn't exist on may be simply not realistic in the same way that pure communism wasn't really but i think you're getting at a very important point i mean there is no such thing as just capitalism there are many varieties of capitalism and so the variety that we have now i guess is the most pure form that

the iranians agreed to talks with the united states in iraq again the united states simply increased sanctions against the country and now as soon as president rouhani comes to power the united states implements even further sanctions are on the eve of his inauguration which is extraordinary it shows that the united states simply does not have goodwill how is the iranian government. going to convince it be convinced that the united states can sit down and talk with the united states when the united states behaves in such an irrational and hostile way and on the other hand the united states at this stage has isolated itself. are improving relations thanks to obama with the. russians with the chinese with the indians with brics countries and other non-western countries and even in europe we see countries buried dissatisfied with american behavior for example in the case of. both both in britain for example parliament rejected war which i think came as a surprise to all of us who you know with the former prime minister in england supporting the war and being an american political and it

i mean a lot of straits the united states sells a lot of arms in the middle east let's not forget about that also yes ok all right yes it does united states the united states does so does russia so do other states as well but instability is not in the interest of the united states instability is very definitely not in the interest of israel a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have made war on it half a dozen times in the last sixty five years so no it's ridiculous to say that this is somehow serving the interests of the united states or the interest of israel stability as internet is is in the interests of both of these countries as in the interests of the west in general it's frankly in the interest of russia as it is countering other regional threats the threat of terrorism and very definitely the threat of a of iran getting nuclear weapons capability ok george. well i find this extraordinary the say that if america wanted stability there was always a very simple way to go about stability there would have been to avoid getting involved in libya for all get off his reg

i mean a lot of straits the united states sells a lot of arms in the middle east let's not forget about that also yes ok all right yes it does united states the united states does so does russia so do other states as well but instability is not in the interest of the united states instability is very definitely not in the interest of israel a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have made war on it half a dozen times in the last sixty five years so no it's ridiculous to say that this is somehow serving the interests of the united states or the interest of israel stability as internet is is in the interests of both of these countries as in the interests of the west in general it's frankly in the interest of russia as it is countering other regional threats the threat of terrorism and very definitely the threat of a of iran getting nuclear weapons capability ok george. well i find this extraordinary the say that if america wanted stability there was always a very simple way to go about stability there would have been to avoid getting involved in libya for all get off his reg

powers by that i mean the united states and russia. are in favor of that certainly we know the united states and russia are not in favor of that i think that the saudis are somewhat less clear cut in their view on this obviously and the problem is clearly on the part of the major factors in this situation. the major outside powers they do not want that to happen and i think that is why there is a degree of agreement here between the united states and russia that this whatever happens must be short of assisting the jihad as in gaining a foothold or expanding their foothold and being able to be the primary arbiter of power in syria i agree with you because that's when russia's major issue during all this when he for you know a cynic would say and i look at the a ray of forces the united states supporting military intervention and it's all about iran it's not about syria it's not about the syrian people it's not about democracy it's just a great way to get to iran and and this is you have to destroy syria to do it and this is you can make

going back to woodrow wilson woodrow wilson commented he says now the world will understand that the united states is the savior of the world that attitude madeline albright more recently united states if we have to use force it's because we are america where the indispensable nation we stand taller and see farther than other countries hillary clinton the same thing obama this notion of where the indispensable nation what makes us the indispensable nation but we are the most powerful nation on basis the most powerful nation we have the atomic bombs we had a monopoly on atomic bombs what right do we have to worry about talk about other countries using weapons of mass destruction we began the process of the most serious iteration with the attack on hiroshima and nagasaki and have we apologize for that have we criticize that question that right now in outside of washington d.c. in the air and space museum next we're displaying the enola gay the plane that dropped atomic bombs on hiroshima to start the modern era of weapons of mass destruction and the head of the air and space museum said we're going

war on syria from the united states. it was discussed overwhelmingly in the halls that the reason that side but would have these chemical weapons was a deterrent to israel's over two hundred atomic weapons and these weapons are pointed at syria and it's. if he does have and apparently does have these chemical weapons it's because israel is such a dominant power in the middle east without stating the fact that they do have nuclear weapons you go on any of these talk shows and no one will ask the direct question what about israel's nuclear power and it's only right that iran should have nuclear power so it can sell its oil overseas iran does not process refine oil if they were if they were able to sell their oil and use nuclear power for their energy consumption at home this would make iran a very powerful very wealthy nation and it was last thing and angela's ok and then dependent right you said i'm from los angeles and los angeles is what they call it toronto is and a lot of san julian those who are. run descent persians

this time it will be different this time will it be any different between the two countries the united states and the islamic republic of iran well we certainly hope so we've seen that the united states has had sanctions on iran since one nine hundred seventy five they've been. boosting the rhetoric it's time for the president to meet i'm appalled at the language of will they meet in the halls and will they be able to shake hands we saw that the president of iran put out a. asking for the united states to come to a meeting to to talk as sovereign nations and to come to an agreement as barack obama in two thousand and eight in his election bid promised he would do and that's what the majority of the american people want they want the two presidents to come together have a have a conversation that leads to an end to these horrible sanctions that are killing or only the people of iran and not the governments involved geneve can it be different this time around and if it can be different this time around why well there are a lot of reasons that it's different this time and first of all we have wh

because the united states of america is stronger when the congress of the united states representing the people and the president of the united states are acting together. and the president wants that strength represented in this initiative. >> you're making the case, mr. secretary, which i understand, as you made it on friday. i think i'm still trying to understand the abrupt shift. i know that you and others on the national security team, based on my own reporting, were opposed to the president seeking congressional authority, thinking he didn't need it. the reaction from the syrian state media is that this is the beginning, they say, of an historic american retreat. do you feel undermined? do you think the united states has undermined its leverage in the world, its credibility, having ramped up the specter of military action as being imminent and then saying, well, no, we're going to go to congress first? >> david, i completely disagree with the fundamental premise that you set out. no, i did not oppose going, nor did anybody else that i know of originally. the issue originally was

in the case ofttip it would be the united states. whereas the third country is not obligated to open up its market, instead turkey has to engage this third country in an effort to negotiate its parallel treaty. i realize to some of you this might be a funny deal, but we can always go back into the details of it. this arrangement had been ok until a couple of years ago because most of the free trade agreements that turkey had signed, that the eu had signed, were ones with relatively smaller economies. as the eu began to engage bigger and bigger economies and as turkey began to have difficulties in persuading these countries to come to ranging fromable, algeria, mexico, south africa hasmore recently the eu started negotiations with india, japan and a number of other important countries, alarm bells began to ring in turkey with respect to this particular arrangement of the customs union. ttipdoes that mean if comes into effect in terms of u.s./turkish relations? --st of all turkish runs and first of all turkey runs in eight and a half bi

socialist parties here in the united states and the communist party of the united states were powerful. they had a lot of people, and they worked together with the c.i.o. and together, they went to the government at that time, and they said 2 things: "we represent the mass of working people, and we don't want to suffer the way we're suffering in this breakdown of capitalism. you gotta do something." and they addressed themselves to a kind of middle-of-the-road democratic politician who had just gotten elected president on a program of a balanced budget-- franklin roosevelt. and they said to him, "you've gotta do something for the people." and the socialists and communists said, "you gotta do something for the people," but they added a little barb, "because we think that there's a better system, an alternative system, to capitalism. and if you keep performing as badly as you're doing in the depths of the depression, we're gonna try to establish that alternative." and they pointed across the ocean to the soviet union, said, "see? like them." that scared folks. and mr. roosevelt was a goo

when i think that you are over reading a lot of this i think that there is a common tendency in the united states to believe in fact that president putin is intransigent on many questions including those which at least from the perspective of the united states should involve russia supporting things like human rights democracy the necessity to accommodate to change in the international community yet one sees as one has seen over the past two years in syria a certain rigidity now i can understand that president putin would be concerned by things like the color revolutions he said so in a very. a clear way of the arabs and very very is the same in countries sure i know and you know there was a famous british king in the early middle ages who wanted to hold back the waters of the sea practically by holding his hand up so one has to accommodate to realities here or at least what the perception of realities is which is very important rather than necessarily purely logical concerns mansion president putin and i think president putin more than any other leader often appeals to the sounds of reality and

the united states is chastised for meddling in the region, accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy. at the same time, the united states is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region's problems and to showing indifference towards suffering muslim populations. i realize some of this is inevitable, given america's role in the world. but these contradictory attitudes have a practical impact on the american people's support for our involvement in the region and allow leaders in the region, as well as the international community, sometimes some ways to avoid addressing difficult problems themselves. so let me take this opportunity to outline what has been u.s. policy towards the middle east and africa and what will be our policy during the remainder of my presidency. the united states of america is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. we will confront external aggression against our allies and partners as we did in the gulf war. we will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the worl

offered to pay if the united states if we went in and basically undertook regime change and that's what this is all about supply and it's the saudis and iran because of its influence and in the united states has to play the role of a mercenary brian because i read those before actually the mercenaries once again brian go ahead jump it when we were saying that where were the red and i saw your face up on the mike like. michael michael is right in one sense because the saudis are driving it the israelis of course want this to there is regional interest but the united states government doesn't have its policies its a great power it's the leading imperial power in the world in this region in particular it's not being dragged into something there was also the neo conservative wing of the foreign policy establishment it wasn't just bush and cheney and rumsfeld that also included john kerry it also includes hillary clinton they were demanding earlier that the obama administration escalate its intervention because the the agency of civil war which was the preferred option was not succeeding in

the united states bear the responsibility. we try to be a leader when it comes to civilized conduct. when it comes to the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons, the united states must take a strong position, and try to lead the world into a civilized path to avoid the use of these weapons in the future. the president is my friend. i was the first senator to endorse him for president. for 14 months, i was the only one. his time came in iowa. he became our nominee and president of the united states. i'm proud of him. i respect his values. i know him better than most any person in this town. this president doesn't come easily to war. he understands that there are moments when a leader, a commander in chief, to protect this country has to step up and lead. that is what he has done here. this last saturday, i was with many of his friends in illinois. they do not agree with the president at this moment, and his policy in syria. he understands that. but a true leader has to step up and do what he thinks is

this whole international structure was created by the united states. e first time we tried to create it was at the end of world war 1. in 1917 when the united states joined the britain and france to defend against germany and hungary, and turkey, the united states was the balancing we tipped the balance in the war against germany, & president woodrow wilson went to europe, almost 100 years ago, with the idea this there would be no more wars. we would establish collective security, a league of nations which could react, should any nation choose to be an aggressor, they would be condemned and resisted by every other nation. >> well the world has certainly changed. >> you know what happened with the league of nations, president wilson came back and he was ill, and congress voted not to join it. so we had to recreate it at the end of world war ii, because we had the war that we thought we never have, again, with germany. >> so jump us ahead to now. >> so now, this structure, is our creation. america's creation, the united nations, the world bank, the intern

after all the security council of the united nations is not going odo that because russia and china will not grant the united states the right to do that. therefore, the united states is going in without united nations backing. >> thank you very much, professor galvan thank you very much for joining us this morning. >>> former egyptian president mohammed morsi will stand trial. morsi is accused of inciting violence, are 14 other members of the muslim brotherhood are to be tried beside him. morsi has been kept out of the public eye since being pushed out by the military on july 3rd. >>> firefighters are fighting the fire outside of yosemite and say they are making progress. a fleet of aircraft is dropping water and retardant chemicals to stop the fire from spreading. so far it's burned out of 350 square miles in the two weeks it's been burning. are. >>> we are looking at some dessert rating conditions on the tropical northeast. let me show you a map right now and show you what we can expect to see over the next couple of hours. notice all the rain coming over the great lakes building in over parts of new england as

you, the united states congress, agreed to the chemical weapons convention. you, the united states congress, passed the syria accountability act which says, syria's chemical weapons are, quote, threatening the security of the middle east and the national security interests of the united states. you, the congress, have spoken out about grave consequences if assad, in particular, used chemical weapons. so i say to you, senator corker, that is one of the reasons why syria is important. and as we debate and the world watches, as you decide and the world wonders, not whether assad's regime executed the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. that fact beyond question. the world wonders, whether the united states of america will consent, through silence, to standing aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since the first global commitment against chemical weapons, only two tyrants dared to cross the world's brightest line. now bashar al-assad has become the third. and i think all of you know tha

to the international community, we are saying once again, the united dates will be the world's policeman -- united states will be the world's policeman. you break a law and united states will step in. we are on shaky international leaky foundations for this strike, and we need to know whether we exhausted all diplomatic and economic sanction options to affect syria house behavior. we need to increase our attention on the source of assad 's ability to continue to ruthlessly kill his own people. that is support from nations including russia and china. they are cynically trying to hold the moral high ground. assad would not be able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. finally, i see this potential bombing campaign as a potential next step towards full-fledged war. we have been here before. began as an international effort to kick saddam hussein out of kuwait, and then years of a no-fly zone and airstrikes to prevent saddam from threat

the president believes the united states of america for a decision like this is stronger when you have the time to have support of the united states congress and the support of the american people through them. i think america is stronger here. that's the president's belief. i think people should celebrate that the president isn't moving unilaterally. he's honoring requests he heard from people in congress to consult and be engaged with them. i think realizing that the assad regime is already on the defensive. they are being significantly impacted by the potential of the strikes. we do not lose anything. we gain. what we gain is the legitimacy of the full-throated response of the congress of the united states and the president acting together after our democratic processes work properly. >> mr. secretary, this isn't "csi." this isn't a civics lesson. people's lives are at stake, as i don't have to tell you, on the ground in syria. on friday in your remarks you h this matters beyond the borders of syria. take a look. >> it is about whether iran which itself has been a victim of chemical

that is why the united states refused to provide arms. they said, yes, they would give arms, but in reality, they have not given them because they do not know where the weapons will land. after the fall of the regime in syria. >> that is a writer from the huffington post. well, for decades, the united states has been an important financial backer of egypt. the u.s. sent billions of dollars in aid to ruler hosni mubarek and continues to support the country through the interim government headed by mohamed morsi. it looks like despite continued change in leadership and the instability in the country, the u.s. will honor its commitment to send 500 million more dollars in aid to egypt. $1.5 billion in aid, over one billion spent on military assistance. the rest is considered economic assistance, but because such a large amount is spent on the military, which acts the overthrow of morsi, american lawmakers have been concerned about the money. even the obama top security aides have recommended suspending the money. however, with the end of the fi

because unlike the united states syria is not threatening the united states it would be the victim and so the assumption of the attack by the obama administration is that syria is too weak or small or vulnerable to actually use its legal right to carry out an attack against u.s. targets and he's telling the american people they won't strike there won't be represented but in fact obama or hegel or john kerry or mccain they don't know what the rep recover sions are going to be this is dangerous games when you carry out another war of aggression with the latest most developed high tech weapons against a country that's at peace with the united states so they don't really know where it ends they know how to start a war they don't know as we learn from iraq how to end a war michael they know how to start it but they don't know how to end it but you know there. well that's true because i think and that's what we have here what what they're operating under as far as i can see is in force meant for once of the of the chemical weapons convention there is no there is a compliance provision of

so this case is going to build stronger and stronger, and the president believes that the united states of america, for a decision like this, is stronger when you have the time to be able to have the support of the united states congress and obviously the support of the american people through them. so, i think that america is stronger here. that's the president's belief. i think people should be celebrating that the president is in fact not moving unilaterally, he is honoring the request he heard from many people in congress to consult and to be engaged with them. and i think real -- realizing that the assad regime is on -- they are being significantly impacted by the potential of these strikes. we do not lose anything. we actually gain and what we gain is the legitimacy of the full-throated response of the congress of the united states, and the president acting together, after our democratic process has worked properly. >> mr. secretary, this isn't csi. this isn't a civics lesson. people's lives are at stake, on the ground in syria. in your remarks on friday you said that this matter,

number one, the president of the united states already committed us. t of the united states committed us when he drew the red line. so the idea that we should or we shouldn't strike, i think that ship sailed a long time ago if we want to keep the credibility of the united states. and again, you have to remember. this is extremely important to the syrian people but it also matters what iran thinks, what north korea thinks and our enemies and allies think alike. >> go ahead and respond to that, congressman. >> i think it is very important. everyone who has watched these videos understands this is a horrific use of chemical weapons and there has to be a price paid. we have to understand all of the evidence in the case, the strategic objectives, have we built an international coalition flp's been a lot of talk about this international norm, which clearly exists. but we need to build an international coalition. it ought not fall on the united states alone to enforce this. we're a country that faces tremendous challenges at home, record unemployment, a crumbl

to the united states for our strength, our courage, and our conviction to defeat the enemy, an enemy. perceived or real. that's no longer the case. i can tell you unequivocally that the united states now and the intelligence community around the world and the militaries around the world, and even in our own militaries here in the united states, which is a travesty, we are looked on as second-rate players with not very bright people trying to guide us through a very, very dangerous time in american history, and quite frankly in world history. >> but just trying to -- the benefit of the doubt. you can't blame the leadership. they feel that iraq -- we got rushed into it. you can say that everybody had the same information, no one doctored anything. but in retrospeck the search for weapons of mass destruction, even though we knew in the past saddam hussein used chemical weapons, that reading for getting involved in war was wrong. your saying the world doesn't understand our hesitancy. >> well, think that may be one thing, neil are but i also want to make absolutely certain that everyone

we have become the quarry of others facing the united states for our talent. right now the puerto ricans that could change this exea our ceos our managers are people who are giving all their efforts to the united states who are not here because of the current status quo because there are the economic openings to be able to contribute to our island. >> we'll get back to it, we have to take a quick break. but if puerto rico were to become the 51st state what would the u.s. flag look like? where would that extra star go? send us your thoughts and keep tweeting us, because you could see your avenu avatar on our wa. >> ♪ ♪ >> puerto rico! >> all right, welcome back. so what would the united states flag look like if puerto rico became the 51st state? we took a stab at it. here are some options, look at that it's a constellation, very aesthetically pretty. it's a star fish, awesome. pr, very subtle la toya. awesome. >> we do not want secession. >> the online community is buzzing, what are they saying? >> a lot of folks are looking at what's the perception of puerto ri

the clerk: to the congress of the united states. i am pleased to transmit to the congress consistent with sections 123 and 144b of the atomic energy act as amened the text of the agreement between the parties between the north atlantic treaty regarding important information including a technical annex and security annex hereinafter referred to as the atumal agreement a proposed agreement for u.s. restricted data and formerly restricted data within the context of the north atlantic treaty organization, nato, between the united states of america and the following ember of nato, the republic of croatia. in addition i'm pleased to transmit my written approval concerning the agreement with respect to the new party with a copy of the memorandum of the secretary of defense with respect to the agreement. the agreement entered into force on march 12, 1965, with respect to the united states and the other nato members at that time. the czech republic, the republic of hungary, the republic of hoe poeland, spain, the republic of bull gare ark the

the united states of america. y would non-indigenous respect the indigenous population of any place? that's not the policy of the nons in hawai'i. and hawai'i kingdom was exclusive of all nationalities, the united states made obscured the nationalities of hawai'i. talk about the natives and non-natives. >> i want to comment on one of the comments you just read. the thing that one of the u.s. policies was to divide us by this thing by blood quantum, and that created a situation where hawaiians are separated whether you're 50% blood quantum or less. that's one way to divide and conquer a people. that's one thing that the hawaiian people have in common with the indigenous people of the continent, it was deployed to divide the people into natives who can get land and natives who can't. it's always about controlling the land resources of the people. in hawai'i it's a very strategic place for the united states who views hawai'i, the u.s. government has always viewed hawai'i as a sacrifice zone and a place to build up the

i believe the president of the united states believes we can do that now. >> i don't believe that we ould have given up so easily on using the united nations. we have not taken russet to task. that is what we should be pointing out. i want to respectfully disagree with you and say also i very much appreciate your service. i know that you're trying very hard to find on the diplomatic side, a peaceful resolution. thank you for your courtesy. >> senator. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i heard from people across the state who all believe what is happening in syria is awful, despicable. they do have concerns about the administration and what the plan really is. they want to know what the core national security interests of the united states are that are at stake in syria, what is our ultimate goal of proposed strikes and what happens if he strikes are not effective? to that end, i would ask you what exactly it is that we are going to be voting on. senator durbin also asked about the narrowness or expense. would we be voting within the next 24 hours? >> the chair is working with a ra

the united states actually does matter. i don't agree with 100% of the things the previous speaker said and they will not agree 100% of the things that i have set but the great thing about america is that we have the first amendment that allows us to have a disagreement and an active discussion so our nation can move forward. we don't always move forward and sometimes we'll move back which as we discussed but each time we do that we find a way to move forward. this can happen in a country we are going to talk about now come to china because despite anything else they might be doing they are not allowing freedom of speech. so i have got to display on the side. who knows what 61398 is? you have probably seen the news story about the chinese government hacking american corporations, go write? anybody? 61398 is a signal corps unit in the people's liberation army in china. this is a division of the chinese military financed by the chinese government. a brilliant report was put out that showed basically 70% of this significant hac

not the united nations, not nato, not the arab league having actually asked the united states to do anythingno sign yet that arab regimes in the area will not just verbally support or say nice things, but actually participate in the action. >> what are the chances, you think, that this would pass both chambers of congress? >> i think it's still an open question. and i think that's one of the things that is yet to be determined. a lot of the members want more of a chance to think about the evidence. and frankly, so far we don't know if the vote matters. that is, the president has taken the position, the administration has taken the position that they have the right to do this anyway. >> do you at all fear a message it would send, i'm not talking about the president's credibility, but a message it would send if congress rejects any resolution? does that concern you? >> yes, it does. i think that's something you have to take into account. this is something -- look, this president made this commitment, and tossed it into the lap of congress. now, i'm glad he did. i was amongst those that urged h