and that's thomas friedman's column.e writes about president obama being excoriated for saying we don't have a strategy yet. and some people mike roger, ask told fox news sunday that this don't do stupid stuff policy isn't working. and thomas friedman said that sound odd to my ear. like we should just bomb somebody, even if it is stupid. if obama did that, what would he be ignoring? >> yeah, well, you know, that no real good option now for the obama administration, because if you do now get involved militarily in syria, you're essentially becoming assad's air force. you're helping assad confront isis. really in syria right now, it's just assad against isis. the rebels don't really exist in the same way they existed several years ago, don 10. no good options now in syria, unfortunately. >> when we come right back, it's not just young men being recruited. you may be shocked at just how young the youngest recruits are. that story is next. >> we're going the talk to our panel more about how to break it. so factors like diet

bush rhetoric, this was thomas friedman's point. no words to describe the vialness of the beheadings of two journalists by isis, but i have no doubt they are to get us to overreact, ala 9/11 and rush without a strategy. >> i have to take issue. i can the history books have said president bush was urged to act quickly after 9/11, and he was criticized for acting slowly with his work cabinet. we didn't go into afghanistanel until mid november, two months after 9/11. and -- bush -- it's hard to remember now -- was criticized for taking a long time, well-documented in several history books, including baker's, which is a very excellent, nonpartisan account of the engagement of afghanistan. >> to his point, when you read deeper in the piece, we essentially helped in the big picture, iran. >> look, what we need to look for, we need to look out for our own strategic interests and the security of the -- american security. and in isis the size of indiana the most well-financed terrorist organization thriving without boundaries and without us

in an interview he gave to -- i believe it was thomas friedman at "the new york times," just barely amonth ago, he stated that the notion of arming syrian rebels has, and the next few sentences are all in a quote, has, quote, always been a fantasy. this idea that we could provide some light arms or even sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by russia, backed by iran, a harden-battled hezbollah. that was never in the cards, close quote. now, the president, hardly a month later, is seeking authorization to do basically th that, so, mr. secretary, what has changed and why does the president who apparently didn't think that would work and described that as some sort of fantasy, what has changed to make him think it will work now? >> well, first, thank you, senator. at the risk of interpreting what the president meant when he said that, i recognize that is always risky, as i said. let me address your q

according to the huffington post, the group includes david brooks and thomas friedman, george packer, and jeffrey goldberg. we will have more on the administration's expanded war on isil after headlines. in syria, dozens have reportedly been killed in government airstrikes. the attack reportedly killed at least 42 people, including seven children. a group of veterans from an elite israeli intelligence units have announced their refusal to spy on palestinians in the occupied territories. in a letter made public last week, 43 current and former members of the unit 8200 say israel has made no distinction between palestinians who are and are not involved in violence and uses intelligence for political persecution and harms innocent people. spokembers of the unit about their objections on israeli television. have come to an understanding that the right action over there is not self-defense. the right title would be to control the palestinian population. israel is obliged to protect itself with all resources available but when comes to what's happening in the territories, this is no longer

in an interview he gave to -- i believe it was thomas friedman at "the new york times," just barely amonth ago, he stated that the notion of arming syrian rebels has, and the next few sentences are all in a quote, has, quote, always been a fantasy. this idea that we could provide some light arms or even sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by russia, backed by iran, a harden-battled hezbollah. that was never in the cards, close quote. now, the president, hardly a month later, is seeking authorization to do basically th that, so, mr. secretary, what has changed and why does the president who apparently didn't think that would work and described that as some sort of fantasy, what has changed to make him think it will work now? >> well, first, thank you, senator. at the risk of interpreting what the president meant when he said that, i recognize that is always risky, as i said. let me address your q

the question is being raised by thomas friedman and quotes george friedman in asking this. is a problem for the united states, turkey, iran, saudi arabia have far more at stake in this than the united states so long as they think the united states will control this situation, it's perfectly rational for them to back off or even hinder the americans. after getting the approval, president obama pralsised the ve that americans do not give into fear. our next guest is among several of the key democrats in the house of representatives who voted against the president's proposal. joining us is jerry nadler. have you lost confidence in the president? >> oh, no. >> you voted against what he asked you to vote for. >> i disagreed on two basic grounds. number one, i think that we don't know who we are arming over there and we don't -- >> moderate syrian rebels. >> moderate syrian rebels. someone on tv said that's the muslim brotherhood. we have no guarantee they won't turn those arms against us. that's the other problem. >> he wants to arm those moderate syrian rebels. >> well, if you

he was doing an interview with thomas friedman with the "new york times" to push back on the interview former secretary of state hillary clinton had done. she had taken shots at both things. number one, what we were talking about with josh earnest about the idea the president said don't do stupid stuff. that's his principle. hillary clinton said in that interview that's not a guiding principle for foreign policy. they patched things up at martha's vineyard. the second thing she said in that article was look she was pushing to arm the syrian rebels much sooner. so the president in his interview was pushing back saying that's a fantasy, you couldn't have done it because you couldn't have vetted them. he had a point which is that the vetting system nobody knows whether these syrian rebels are really the moderate forces, will these arms wind up in the hands of terrorists. but he's now saying i need them so we can trust them. but it's unclear whether we can vet them now or not or whether the arms will still wind up in the hands of terrorists. we're in the same spot. >> i asumt they're still

. >> thomas friedman made that point in the "new york times" this week about how isis wants the u.s.t. that's exactly what any extremist group wants. >> that's what they want. and that is why i fear that the more we feed the panic, the more those who beat the drums of war, the fear mongering that they are hurting, damaging the security of this country and the resilience of this nation to confront effectively with tough questioning with smart solutions to these problems. >> look, we all -- >> on the other hand, is it worse to overhype a threat than it is to underplay? is it -- what's worse, do you think? undercover something or overplay it? >> you know, i don't know, that's a false choice. what's bad, wrong for journalists to do at this early in the stage to conclude anything. to be able to say we need to go to war now is irresponsible. to say we can't go to war now is irresponsible. the fact is, one thing katrina's right about, we haven't asked all the questions yet. so, yes, media is sensationalized right now. media tends to hype any shiny object that comes along right now, but that

he told thomas friedman of "the new york times" that it was a fantasy for hillary clinton andand others to say you could arm them. now he needs those rebels to be the ground forces if he's going to unleash u.s. air strikes in syria. and obviously there's another flip-flop that in the "meet the press" interview, the president said he's not one for political theater. tomorrow night going in prime time that's the ultimate political theater. >> we'll welcome him on the kelly files and see what he has to say. raising the stakes for tomorrow night's speech the that new poll. just 43% of americans now rate president obama as a strong leader. the lowest since he entered the white house. another question shows that 52% say they now see him as a, quote, failed president compared with 42 who see any kind of success. our senior political analyst, the numbers show that he's failed as president, they do not believe he's a strong leader. there's another piece of the poll that show that just 38% believe he's uniting the country, in the wake of what ed henry reported i ask you whether tomorrow night's a

the clerk: department of state, thomas friedman of new york to be representative of the united states on the executive board of the world health organization. the presiding officer: hearing no additional debate, the question on the nomination of lippert. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question is now on the scheinman nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question now occurs on the o'malley nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes have t the nomination is approved. the question now occurs on the sherwood-randall nomination. all knows in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is approved. the question now occurs on the crocker nomination. all knows in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes have it. the nominee snags approved. the question now occurs on the holleyman nomination, all those

senator dianne feinstein saying too cautious and i want to read you a different perspective of thomas friedmanm the new york times and he wrote about destroying the mortal enemy post-9/11 and two violent beheadings of two american journalists by isis but i have no doubt that they're trying to get us to overreact and a la 9/11 and rush off again without a strategy. isis is awful, but it is not a threat to the homeland. as far as a strategy we heard from secretary hagel, too, it is to destroy, to dismantle, but what do you make of friedman's point saying let's not rush in like the u.s. did years ago. >> no, it's a good point, that their is why i'm puzzled. there's two side of the coin to the story and tom points out the other one and tom is someone who is strongly in favor of the iraq war and he says he was wrong about that. >> he did point that out. right. >> and he's right upon. the bush administration deceived the public, cooked the books and we fought a lot of war. a lot of people died, a lot of men and women died and we spent a lot of money that in hindsight, we should not have. now this mi

in an interview he gave to -- i believe it was thomas friedman at "the new york times," just barely ath ago, he stated that the notion of arming syrian rebels has, and the next few sentences are all in a quote, has, quote, always been a fantasy. this idea that we could provide some light arms or even sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by russia, backed by iran, a harden-battled hezbollah. that was never in the cards, close quote. now, the president, hardly a month later, is seeking authorization to do basically th that, so, mr. secretary, what has changed and why does the president who apparently didn't think that would work and described that as some sort of fantasy, what has changed to make him think it will work now? >> well, first, thank you, senator. at the risk of interpreting what the president meant when he said that, i recognize that is always risky, as i said. let me address your ques

thomas friedman said it well in the "new york times," and i quote, isis loses if our moderate arab muslim partners can unite and make this a civil war within islam. a civil war in which america is the air force for the sunnis and shiites through decency versus those of barbarism. it is about them and who they want to be. it as i see is it an important aspect of u.s. assistance under this amendment in the training of syrian rebels is that it will be an occasion for nations with the sunni majority to join in a battle against the fanatical sunni isis. hopefully this can lead to expanded involvement of other nations in this battle. iraq's me time, it as see a majority with our active encouragement finally provides full rights and participation for its sunni and kurdish minorities. so amidst all the difficulties and the challenges and they are serious and many, this amendment can hopefully serve as a steppingstone, as a steppingstone to a broad based effective coalition against the spread of isis. our country can provide air support, can provide intelligence, and other logistics. but in the en

here's thomas friedman "new york times" who has it easier, reagan or obama.ral critical areas reagan had a much easier world than obama. the defining feature of the cold war is it was a war between two different systems of order. obama's order is different. it's defied by regions of order and regions of disorder where there's no one to answer the phone and the main competition is not between two organized superpowers but between a superpowered and many superpowered ann egry men. >> i made this argument. sounds great but every president from truman through bush 41 had to worry about a mistake that would end mankind. talk to dr. brzezinski who told us a remarkable story how he got a call in the mid. night the missiles were fired from is soviet union and figured out what he was going to tell the president and recommend we fire back. i mean, it wasn't any easier -- it's not the good old days of nuclear annihilation. >> there were defined enemies in history for many, many years and combatants wore uniforms. and we had nuclear weapons to worry about. today for the

. >>> that brings us to thomas friedman.ings up this in ready, aim, fire, not ready, fire, aim. there are no words to describe the vileness of the video beheadings. i have no doubt they're get us to act ala 9/11 and rush off again without a strategy. isis is awful, but not a threat to america's homeland. i'm all in for destroying isis, i support using u.s. air fire and special forces to root it out, but only part of a coalition wherever bod which a stake in stability there and where sunni and shiites take the lead and demonstrate they hate more isis more than they hate each other. and sectarian passions and nothing good we do will last. >> tom just described the middle east. speaking of allies, we talked about it before here. the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy, but maybe -- >> threes something to be said about being cautious. >> no doubt about it. kim, obviously the united states rushed in. we have in the past. the question is now where you have the uae and egypt purportedly seeking out islamists in libya, whether we

there are three civil wars going on in the region and there is not -- thomas friedman's comment the otherestroy them." maybe a president, prior to our press conferences, we are not there yet. we don't have an answer and we will have an answer and i wasn't a guest as everybody else. >> i wasn't a guest either. when you say a line that fits into a preexisting belief about you, a preexisting narrative, frank, you've talked about it. so many other people have talked about it. i don't think maureen dowd has weighed in yet. oh, wait. yes she has, holy cow! but it is very frustrating to a lot of his supporters too. >> is there a difference between not having a strategy and saying outloud we don't have a strategy. i don't think many people expect there to be a perfect strategy right now. i'm not sure it makes sense to say that but we haven't talked about the comments he made the next day i found as striking, if not more so, when he was at the fund-raiser and he seemed to be minimizing isis and saying, well, social media amplifies this stuff and the world has always been messy. those things are tr

thomas friedman said it well in the "new york times," and i quote, isis loses if our moderate arab muslim partners can unite and make this a civil war within islam. a civil war in which america is the air force for the sunnis and shiites through decency versus those of barbarism. it is about them and who they want to be. it as i see is it an important aspect of u.s. assistance under this amendment in the training of syrian rebels is that it will be an occasion for nations with the sunni majority to join in a battle against the fanatical sunni isis. hopefully this can lead to expanded involvement of other nations in this battle. iraq's me time, it as see a majority with our active encouragement finally provides full rights and participation for its sunni and kurdish minorities. so amidst all the difficulties and the challenges and they are serious and many, this amendment can hopefully serve as a steppingstone, as a steppingstone to a broad based effective coalition against the spread of isis. our country can provide air support, can provide intelligence, and other logistics. but in the en

thomas jefferson, both in the very same year. who better to give the nobel prize to van this man right here -- to this man right here? milton friedman. it was a tremendous source of pride to him and that catapulted him to become a very famous person. certainly among economists. there is a book called "bluff your way in economics." it is sold in england. bluff your way through opera, bluff your way through cricket. they have one in economics, can you imagine? if you know the five most famous economists today, you can bluff your way through economics. you can pretend to be a phd economist because you know these five individuals of these famous economists. and they are -- adam smith, karl marx, john maynard keynes, number four is -- john kenneth galbraith. the 6'9" economists, you cannot miss him. and the fifth one is milton friedman. sorry, george stigler, you did not make the list. now you all can bluff your way in economics. you can walk out of this meeting, you do not even have to buy my book, and you can be a knowledgeable person in economics. isn't that great? in 1980, he did a pbs program that several million people -- some of y

thomas jefferson. both in the very same year celebrating it in the bicentennial and who better to give the nobel prize to than this man right here, milton friedman it was a trooms it w-- tremendous. it was a great sense of pride for him and it catapulted him to become a very famous person. and certainly among economists, i mean, there's this book called "bluff your way in economics." i should have brought a copy. it's sold in england. these little books, "bluff your way through opera." "bluff your way through cricket." "bluff your way through economics." can you imagine? and so if you know the five most famous economists today, you can bluff your way into economics. you can be in a social environment among economists and you can pretend to be a ph.d. economist because you know these five individuals of these famous economists. and they are, number one, adam smith, number two, karl marx, number three, john maynard keynes and number four is -- john kenneth galbraith, 6'9" economist. you can't miss him. and, of course, the fifth one is milton friedman. sorry, george stigler, you didn't make the list. so now you all can become -- you can bluff your