but to be incarcerated in the awful conditions in which the united nations equated to and wasfor 1000s not fair to me. light on someead of these cases. we need transparency. you referenced your mother and you dedicate this book to both of your parents. tell me about your mother and the influence that she had on you? in mysked my mother when ain life for music lot of my other friends, their parents were dissuading them. she said that she thought she had a good voice and wanted to be on stage. world war ii came along, she married my father. i was living her life, and i did not know it until all those years later. either 1970 or 1971, we were playing at carnegie hall. i am still talking to the audience. i start to tell them the story of why i am standing in front of them. i reach my hand into my pocket and i take out a tinge of my mother's ashes and i sprig of them on the stage at carnegie that sheing full well might have been singing on stage instead of me. tavis: what were your mother's ashes doing in your pocket on stage at carnegie hall? >> every great place that i think my mother wo

equation, which is very important. in the pacific, we've done it differently as a nation for the united states to what we have done in europe. >> it can work either way. it really is in the eyes of the beholder and what do allies really feel they need for us to be convinced that, we'll honor our commitments. >> i think this is a broader problem with nato again. that is we have gotten ourselves comfortable with the idea that allies can agree to a mission and assume that it doesn't mean that. so we agree, yeah, nato will take on this thing, but does it mean i'm going to commit military forces to carry this out? and libya's great example where germany pulls its forces away from the coast of libya the rest of us go to do something in libya. i think that's a dangerous direction for them to go. it puts up this problem. the reason i have the question from the guy from the regional defense system, if you didn't have any. >> one more question. >> thank you. i have one comment regarding the deterrent or preventive power of nato, and i think the last history of the nato environment clearly suggests that the lateral policy was one of t

equation which is very important. in the pacific we've done it differently as a nation for the united states to what we've done in europe. it can work either way. it really is in the eyes of h

equation which is very important. in the pacific we've done it differently as a nation for the united states to what we've done in europe. it can work either way. it really is in the eyes of the beholder and when our allies feel they need to be convinced that we, in fact, will honor our extended deterrence commitments. >> kurt? >> just a time comment, sorry to keep talking. i think this raises a broader political problem with nato again which is we have gotten ourselves comfortable with the idea that allies can agree to a mission and assume it doesn't mean that, so we agree that, yeah, nato will take on this thing, but does it mean that i'm beginning to commit military forces to carry this out? libya's a great example where germany pulls its forces away from the coast of libya when the rest of us go to do something in libya. i think that's a dangerous direction for nato to go in because i think it creates this assumption that it's someone else's problem, and in many cases it's the u.s.' problem, and i don't think nato works that way, so one of the reasons why i have a different reaction to the question from the guy from

equation which is very important. in the pacific we've done it differently as a nation for the united states to what we've done in europe. it can work either way. it really is in the eyes of the beholder and when our allies feel they need to be convinced that we, in fact, will honor our extended deterrence commitments. >> kurt? >> just a time comment, sorry to keep talking. i think this raises a broader political problem with nato again which is we have gotten ourselves comfortable with the idea that allies can agree to a mission and assume it doesn't mean that, so we agree that, yeah, nato will take on this thing, but does it mean that i'm beginning to commit military forces to carry this out? libya's a great example where germany pulls its forces away from the coast of libya when the rest of us go to do something in libya. i think that's a dangerous direction for nato to go in because i think it creates this assumption that it's someone else's problem, and in many cases it's the u.s.' problem, and i don't think nato works that way, so one of the reasons why i have a different reaction to the question from the guy from