it comes to that, that is perhaps the worst case scenario for the united states. the pentagon likes to have everything planned out in case any president of the united states calls for them. >> and the president said he wants to study this over the next in his words several days. but they may not have several days given the fluid situation unfolding right now. >> that's right. by all accounts, these fighters, these iey isis fighters are per incidence of miles aw dozens of miles away from the belt of cities and baghdad itself. so a key intelligence calculation, does isis want it go all the way to baghdad and start challenging the government there. does isis want to go and take the capital and with a kind of fighting, what kind of up rest would emerge. it could get extremely nasty.nr would emerge. it could get extremely nasty. >> barbara starr, thanks vef. we'll certainly stay on top of this story throughout the day. but we'll take a quick break about that that okay, movie night.everyone wins. how do i win? because we're streaming the movie that you love. well, how do

the clerk: nominations: department of state, stuart e. jones of virginia to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of iraq. robert stephen beecroft to be ambassador of the united states of america to be the arab republic of egypt. department of treasury. karen dynan of maryland to be an assistant secretary. department of interior, esther puakela kia'ana of hawaii to be assistant secretary. vincent g. logan of new york to be special trustee, office of special trustee for american indians. executive office of the president, jo emily handelsman of connecticut to be an associate director of the office of science and technology policy. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the jones nomination. without objection all time is yielded back. the question is on the jones nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

and yet the united states has done so little to really help the syrian opposition the united states spent only a little bit more than two billion dollars on this struggle so far and when we compare that to what united states spent in afghanistan or iraq at the height of the fight there fight that is a less than one week spending but professor land is the big death toll is significant despite the fact that the united states hasn't invested all that money in syria you know and still how few around the civil war has so many people being killed i wonder if it's not that actually an example of leading from behind intervening a country from the backs of your allies in the region where you're right you know that obama was very clear he said assad had to step aside he called the regime had to go and and he he has supported the rebel opposition as as well as the united states from the beginning of this organize the international community in a friends of syria getting the europeans on board trying to get the arab league to condemn syria trying to get turkey and saudi arabia to interven

. >> 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

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

how do you represent the united states of america when the united states is comprised of so many vastly different people in different communities? >> so i, the latter part of your question, i'm sorry, i didn't hear. >> the united states is comprised of so many vastly different communities, even the 7th circuit is comprised of so many vastly different communities. how do you discern what the position of the united states of america should be? >> well, it's a really hard thing and the way you try, you try your best to do it through the organs of representative government that we have and so in one way you will look to the statutes that congress has enacted as representing the will of the people and expressing what the interests of the people of the united states are. you look to policy judgments that agencies make. and then you know, you have to just apply your common sense. and, the other thing you have to do, i think, and the other thing that has come home to me, longer i've been in this job, recognize that you, that the appreciate the historical circumstances which you find yourself an

states, and restore 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 i

russia alerted its military forces and warned that the united states is playing with fire. ions security council, the united states, cuba and russia offered separate resolutions and traded bitter charges. >> do you, ambassador, deny to the ussr has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range missiles and sites in cuba? yes or no? don't wait for the translation. yes or no? >> i am not in an american court room, sir. therefore, i do not wish to answer a question that's put to me in the fashion in which prosecutor does. in your due course, you will have your reply. >> i'm prepared to wait until for my answer until hell freezes over, if that is your decision. >> each side didn't know what fs over, if that is your decision. >> each side didn't know what the other side was doing and there was a lot of room for miscalculation. >> we believe there are about 25 soviet ships moving toward cuba. if the vessel does not stop, refuses to heed the instructions, force will be applied to assure that it does stop. >> nikita khrushchev said soviet ships will never submit to the united

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

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

whether he was efficient or not he was handed the country in a very very poor state and the united states was a very very big player in this whole quagmire trying to dislodge the governments in both iraq and in syria i wonder what will it take for the united states to ever conceive that even for good reasons like democracy or freedom regime change is rarely a good idea i think rarely a good idea is probably a good way to put it by the way i would agree with a lot of your comments about maliki i think you've made them better than his government has made them in fact the criticism of maliki for not having enough sunni outreach that may be true but i think one can apportion some of the criticism on the sunni's who have made it very clear they're not interested in living under a shia prime minister that has a prime minister represent shia political power and so i think it's a very fundamental problem in iraq and so i think it's a problem much deeper than maliki's behavior and whether he is kept or not care. various promises so i think he has a problem and how he's handled himself but also a p

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.

one of them is the trade relationship between can china on the one hand and the united states and other advanced industrial economies on the other. and the second is the trade relationship between india on the one hand and the united states and the other advanced industrial economies on the other. let me say a word about each. china is regularly accused of unfair trade practices of various kinds. they include currency manipulation, the theft of intellectual property, unfair, unsatisfactory environmental policies. but the most explosive accusation labeled against china and trade with that country is that that trade contributes substantially to two unfortunate, ongoing economic trends in the united states and in other countries as well. one such trend is the stagnation of wages, the other is growing economic inequality. economic studies generally show that while china trade does contribute a bit to those trends, it is by far not the biggest contributor. the major contributor, economists generally find, is the advance of technology. but china gets the lion's share of the blame. and if unha

the united states no longer has manned space flight capability. we were hitching rides to the international space station on russian rockets. oh, and it gets better. the united states doesn't make many of rocket engines it needs for our own spy satellites, which is just as well, because the spy satellite the u.s. is temporarily using to communicate with the african forces is a chinese satellite. right? so on the one hand, we have the leaders of the foreign policy intelligence saying we must rule, we must stand up to russia and china. and at the same time, they is spent a generation dismantling the american military industrial complex. the united states does not build a single civilian ocean-going ship. thanks to president ronald reagan, from 1930s under franklin roosevelt all the way up to the reagan administration, the united states government had a simple policy. whatever subsidizes are offered to civilian shipmakers by other countries, the federal government will match. no questions asked. the reagan administration came in, we're stronger. numbe

see is the national security adviser to be president of the united states. 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 l

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

let us support the unit -- the president of the united states in addressing this major issue of foreign policy. >> the chair recognizes the senator from indiana. >> the images this weekend of china's chaotic suffering leaves many of us with the kind of helpless outrage. we are witnessing the work of, a desperate attempt by certain elements of failed aging leadership to retain power. the work of those whose only claim of power was by force and suppression of individual freedom. we have seen the avenue of eternal peace littered with the corpses of political protesters. we have watched students on barricades crushed under the tanks. we have saw soldiers fire on those who attempted to gather and treat the wounded. we learned that the bodies of some students were covered by troops with gasoline and then set a flame to destroy the evidence of this infamous oppression. now putsse red cross the estimates of dead in the thousands. victims of certain leaders who have sold their own people for the pins of momentary power. somehow given china's apparent moderation of the past three years, we convin

almost the the design of the the intelligence agencies in the united states the support for a lot of the radical groups came from the intelligence and and and if what was called the deep state in the united states whether or not the white house agreed with that i have no idea i mean that is one of the great contradictions in washington there's always a great deal of competition and there's a result the white house was made to look rather foolish over syria. it's take the law. the allegation that the assad regime have used chemical weapons well according to seymour hersh they didn't use chemical weapons and they don't a great deal of evidence to suggest they did use chemical weapons there is evidence to suggest that those whom the americans were supporting used chemical weapons so you know into this contradictory and confusing and rather tumultuous situation. the almost the black and white of u.s. foreign policy doesn't work doesn't work in their own terms since most are talking about syria the issue of syria has been completely eclipsed by ukraine lately no one since to mention it any

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

house of representatives, members of the united states senate, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, and the vice president of the united states. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. >> mr. vice president, members of congress, ambassadors, members of the diplomatic corps, ladies and gentlemen, welcome this morning, and welcome to the united states capitol. since the days of the american revolution, every congress has had one humbling privilege. that of awarding a gold medal for extraordinary contributions. the highest honor that we can bestow. the first recipient in 1776 was george washington. the father of our country. today under his gaze, we will present the gold medal to another founding father, the 9th president of the state of israel, shimon peres. mr. president, welcome. [ applause ] like general washington, shimon peres has served his life serving his country, even before there was a country to serve. he is the great brougprototype israeli statesman. a record 48 y

corps of engineers propose clean water act jurisdictional rules seeks to redefine waters of the united states which would effectively eliminate the clean water act provision. congress specifically did it to guarantee limits to federal authority. bodies of water currently deemed waters of the united states are subject to multiple regulatory requirements under the clean water act including permitting and reporting, enforcement and mitigation. despite opposition in congress, the e.p.a. and corps relentlessly pursued an expansion of the definition of waters of the united states. additionally, the e.p.a. is pressing forward despite two recent supreme court cases that expressly rejected the agency's broadest definition of bodies of water and made it clear not all bodies of water are subject to definition under the act. few regulatory agencies will be able to escape the reach. this proposed new definition could apply to countless numbers of small wetlands and creeks that are typically regulated at the state level. more specifically, the proposed rule extends the reach of federal regulatory authority

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

come to the united states under the age of 16 and continuously resided in the united states for five years. what child can imagine that they would fit under daca? it is clearly an issue of devastating human smuggling and human trafficking, something my colleague, my chairwoman mrs. miller, myself have looked at and included this language even in our authorization bills some few weeks ago. so i ask these questions as long as we can keep the facts. it is not an issue of the wilbur force bill. it is a question of detention facilities, as well the need for diplomatic interaction as we've done with the crisis and the leaders of guatemala, el salvador and honduras. they are in crisis. they are violent. i ask you about creating more processing centers, and as well, the senate passed about a 2 billion out of their labor hhs, is this what you need, about $2 billion to $3 billion to make sure we can respond to this? i also ask if someone would address the question, and i thank the border patrol for the work they've done, the suggestions that there have been some form of abuse. i think we shoul

could the united states and iran soon join together to help defend the iraqi state? we will go to iraq for the latest. then a humanitarian crisis on the u.s.-mexico border. so far this year, 47,000 unaccompanied children have been detained after crossing into the united states. some are now being held in warehouses come a sleeping in plastic containers. >> whenever i made it to the rio grande, i jumped and swam across because i wanted to be with my mom. i was not thinking about breaking the law. i was thinking about escaping an abusive and alcoholic father. to make it to the united states, not for a better life, but just to be with my mother. looks we will speak with jose luis zelaya, as a 13-year-old, he left honduras alone in search of his mother. and pulitzer prize-winning journalist sonia nazario, author of, "enrique's journey: the story of a boy's dangerous odyssey to reunite with his mother." all of that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. iraq's crisis is deepening as islamist militants have s

and recovering him and returning them to the united states. -- returning him to the united states. the fact of the matter is, as i've noted before, if you look through our history, there are ample precedents of this kind to this decision, because as chairman dempsey said, we don't leave our men and women behind. we don't qualify the decision about leaving them behind or not leaving them behind based on who is holding them. >> how does the president view to gete, or his leverage journalists asan distinct as an option to him as ? >>sed to freeing military i think that is a good question. it is absolutely the case that this it ministration, unlike previous administrations, in order toessively recover americans being held against their will in other circumstances. and that includes americans being held in iran, cuba, or elsewhere. i think it is important to note that as we find relief in sergeant bergdahl's recovery, our thoughts and prayers are with other americans whose release we continue to pursue, and with their friends and family. when it comes to a member of the military who is

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

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

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 strategies that 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 with respect to isil is a broader trend that i talked about at west point -- rather than a single network, a discreet network of terrorists, this fluid

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

it's not only in the united states. apparently, it did not generate the same kind of -- >> charlie: but one of the arguments -- >> yes. >> charlie: you finish. one of the arguments is what you have seen may change in its own evolution because of the rise of technology, may provide a way so that there will be a lessening of income inequality. >> the rise of technology will lead to a lessening of income inequality? >> charlie: yes. maybe, maybe not. you know, it depends. >> charlie: how could it lead to lessening of income inequality? >> lessening of income inequality? well, the technology benefits and allows everyone to be more productive and even more so for the lowest productivity groups, then you would have a lessening of inequality. i think positive outcome is possible. we want to put technological and marketing forces in common interests and to make sure they always act in a common interest and every group benefits from growth and globalization in a balanced manner, then, you know, we need an adequate democratic inst

clear through key concern of the united states government is the concern of the united states but i'm not willing to say we should just stand back and let this region consume itself. i do feel that because what we're talking about when we're talking about letting these young men fight it is out is massive instability, massive suffering, massive displacement and i am really not willing to support a policy that says let's just stand back and let it burn out. >> problem is nothing we can do will change it. >> yeah, you know, that's a point. i'm just not sure i completely agree. >> can i say that your theory of states as we know it are totally dissolving is a crock. i understand your argument with certain states to the middle east and africa but telling me that the irani state or israeli state or variety of other states are dissegoing away i don't buy. you're right they're not necessarily going to endure but i'm not sure i buy this argument that this is a more general problem. >> as i said t intensity of the problem, though it's probably everywhere, switzerland is a exception, japan, a ha

>> it is fair to say that the united states to provide a sanctuary for europeans. eed, i think part of the "genius" of the was project, if there was such a genius, was the fact that the founders in the united states basically called on a formal truce, formal cease-fire with regard to the religious warfare that have been happening for many years, that is to say protestant london versus affleck madrid and catholic france. what the settlers on the north american mainland did was call a formal truce with regard to religious conflict but then open a new front with regard to race, that is to say, europeans were sick -- versus non-europeans. the brought the base for seller project. that is to say they could drop those who were white red roots from the atlantic to the ural mountains and even the arab world if you look at ralph nader and marlo thomas who are considered to be "white." this expanded the population vote for the seller project. because many rights were then accorded to these newly minted whites, it obviously helped to ensure that many of them would be to hold an

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

the united states did not ratify the international criminal court. the bush administration withdrew the u.s. the united states did not ratify the law of the sea treaty. we're now in the somewhat orwellian position of denouncing china for not observing the norms in the south china sea of the law of the sea treaty which the american congress rejected. so, in a way backing away from the more extreme versions of what is being called the liberal world order is actually a return to america's practice. i would argue it's not a matter of liberal democracies versus authoritarian states. it is a largely a matter of large populous countries which of tend to be the great economic and military powers versus small countries. small countries, including the united states, in its very origins have a much deeper stake in a rule governed world order than large countries do. this is true even when it comes to globalization. i will end with a few remarks about trade. the fact the countries most dependent on the global economy are not the ones that prosper from it the most

cyber thieves to say this is going to affect the overall quality of the relationship between the united states and china. that this is going to be something that's going to be raised repeatedly and directly with the leadership of china by the highest levels in the united states. and it's going to affect the overall quality of the relationship. it can't have the circumstances. the conversation i think we have to have with the chinese directly, you can't have a circumstance where you have a $500 billion a year economic relationship between the united states and china and where you have this scale of outright theft. that die log needs to take place. there needs to be a cost associated with it. it needs to affect the overall quality of the relationship. and it needs to be kind of a very direct set of conversations about what is allowable, what's on and what's off in terms of cyber activities. so rejecting the equivalents argument is a very, very important -- >> what leverage do we have? >> we have a $500 billion relationship with the chinese, right? an economic relationship. and there are a lot of