united states. at the conferences, the united states was there. the united states was often involved. think if they had been more formally involved, it would have made the league stronger and served to educate american public opinion. it by the 1930's, the united states was in the league, i wonder if you would have had the same isolationist sentiment. there was a lot of sentiment in europe for peace. a huge piece ballot in britain in the 1930's were happy adult population -- half of the adult population voted in favor of peace. that does not necessarily translate into being isolationist. the united states welded it into isolationism in a way that did not happen in europe, that you can want peace but still recognize you have to be engaged in the world. i don't know. it is very difficult. i think historians are now arguing that even in the 1930's, the united states was not as isolationist as we might think. there was a lot of talk, but the united states is still involved, particularly on its own doorstep. the good neighbor policy is a 1930's policy. united states was still very concerned

the united states is more and more involved economically. american opinion is debating what the united states should be doing. wilson runs in 1916 on the platform of keeping the united states out of the war. we will be too proud to fight, he said. he kept us out of the war, was what the democrats said when wilson won. this was the platform he ran on. there's a real parallel here with franklin delano or roosevelt in 1940, are doing he's the one who would keep united states out of the war. in the end, what brought the united states in was this gradual shift in public opinion. it was what the germans did. the germans behaved in a way that i can only describe as folly, extremely shortsighted. the german supreme command by 1917 was in command of the german state. it had set up something close to a german dictatorship. it had been repressing to renew unrestricted summary and warfare. it stopped in 1915 after an american ship had been sunk. there is huge protest in the u.s. and the german government had recognized that unrestricted submarine warfare with submarines could fire on any shipping

regards to what a great job we are doing and producing more oil in the united states, and we are producing more oil in the united states. let's take note of that. but the truth is, we are 5 million barrels a day short. so this pipeline will be moving may be 800,000 barrels of oil from canada to the united -- from canada through the united states and it is going to a tax-free export zone. so we know what is going to happen. why is that important? it is important because the export young men and women in uniform every single day over to the middle east to protect the ships with oil coming into the united states that we import from kuwait, from saudi arabia from the other countries around the world. so why would be -- why would we be exporting oil out of the united states while we are exporting men and women from out of america to protect oil coming back in from countries in the middle east? that makes no sense. that is what this pipeline is all about. it is about getting some benefits for the united states climate change, big loser. dirtiest oil in the world. the canadian -- they are actually paying the tax in the

states at the united nations may say these resolutions could go forward. other than bad publicity how does that hurt, there are people in the united states, certainly in israel and other countries that don't pay much attention to the united nations. >> there is some element of truth to that but publicity certainly is important. the reputation that israel has in the world is important. it cannot become a pariah nation which its enemies see that's what united states can block at the united nations passing resolution that unilaterally pass resolutions to refer to international criminal court or all sorts of things could be done. >> isn't israel already a pariah state? half of the resolutions in the united nations seem to conindex israel according to some reports. it's not like the relationship is getting any better with the rest of the world right? >> well, there's no question that other states in the united states don't recognize israel's right to exist. actually the reality is that states like saudi arabia and egypt are much more simpatico with israel than they are with the united states. but the real battle is for opinion in europe and outside the middle eas

>> it is a bleak moment not only for ukraine but indeed for europe and also for the united states. the united states [ inaudible ] preworld war europe and now this country, also the united states is about to lose almost all of the gains it has and russia is going to reverse what it has lost, the soviet empire, in cold war. this is incredibly dramatic and tragic situation which has been getting lots of attention but not quite enough of a reaction. i think that's the lack of reaction or adequate reaction that is basically causing all this tragedy. >> you and i have talked and i have listened to your theories on soft power smart power, over the course of years. i do not understand at this point why there has been an inability on the part of the ukrainian government to engage germany france the united states the united kingdom and to bring forward a commitment to defend the country against clear outright aggression. >> well, because there has been lots of officials in the west saying well, we are living in 21st century, cold war is over tanks will never roll into europe. here we are in 2015 and r

united states criticized israel. in 1972 prime minister cher own launched defensive shield. the united states demanded that usa would withdraw its troops, but sharon continued until the operation was completed. there is a reason why i mention all these. i mention them to make a point. despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between america and israel grew stronger and stronger decade after decade. [applause] and our friendship will weather the current disagreement as well to grow even stronger in the future. i'll tell you why because we share the same dreams, because we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us. [applause] values like liberty equality, justice, tolerance compassion. as our region descends into medieval barbarism israel is the one who up hold these values common to us and to you. [applause] as assad drops barrel bombs on its own people. israeli doctors treat its victims in our hospitals right across the fence in the golan heights. as people are behead and communitie

united states. media consumed globally is made in the united states. but what that particular but what that particular territory was making themselves. territory was making themselves. and it could very well be. and it could very well be. when you consider the amount of when you consider the amount of media made in the states that's consumed around the world it media made in the states that's consumed around the world it could very well be that their could very well be that their own media is impacted by the own media is impacted by the kinds of media that they see. kinds of media that they see. but there is less hyper but there is less hyper sexuality in many of the countries. sexuality in many of the countries. >> you did look at what type of >> you did look at what type of work, for example, women did. work, for example, women did. you seem very passionate about you seem very passionate about seeing women in roles where seeing women in roles where they're doing the science, the technology, the engineering and the math. they're doing the science, the

>> for the united states or for ointernational community? the unitedhas made it very clear he doesn't want to get sucked into the syrian civil war. he doesn't see good guys that could turn into winners. the moderate syrian militia only a few months ago owned 1 or 2% of syrian territory. the southern front that's a little bit more but to turn them into winners to destroy both nusra and i.s.i.s, as well as the assad regime would require an amazing amount of money and energy on the part of the united states. the u.s. is not going to engage that way on syria. could the international community rally and send in an occupying force disarm the over 1200 militias, it could will it? unlikely. so syria is being left alone to itself to fight this out and that means that it's locked into i think years of civil war. because all the various proxy -- all the various interested international powers are funding and arming their proxies enough so they will not lose. >> i know it's going to be a long road ahead. what does a postwar syria look like mr. landis? >> i don't t

united states given that it's got a direct military relationship with the yemeni authorities, to intervene now to get more involved? >> i don't think there's going to be pressure on the united states for that. again the united states is going to be careful about taking sides in a civil war. the hadi government is the government the united states, the united nations and most of the european countries recognize. it is the letting government there but i don't see it's taking sides in that. >> martin, thank you very much indeed. >> ouryou're welcome. >> between the rival parliaments in libya are on the ground whilts there's fighting in and around tripoli. hashem ahelbarra reports. >> as negotiations in the moroccan capital tries to stitch together a government on the offensive to recapture the capital tripoli. but one of its senior commanders was killed. the united nations envoy brokering the talks in rabat is concerned. >> we had a military operation against tripoli. precisely in a decisive moment in the talks our resolve is as strong as it was in the past. this is not only military activity undermining the situation in libya and provide undermining the unity. >> fighting in the capital. >> translator: the gnc

unit thank you. >> any public comment? okay. seeing none we'll take rebuttal from the appellant. >> i wanted to briefly address it united states unit is separate increase a kitchen and living room there's one bedroom to the right side when you walk in past the kitchen and living room when you walk into the living room if you go to our left a second bedroom and than a bathroom a self-con intend unit that has light and running water and heat eerie heard from the city plans that could have been lost we have no proof that was not part of the original building maybe the kitchen was remodeled to the 60s i don't know we heard the permit holder say go ahead bring - >> courtney brown so i just want to reiterate that is permit holder said that she if have plans from the architects regarding why this is an illegal unit not submitted we don't know who this person see and their career history also the permit holder said they never intended to advocate the tenants but they also said they're not trying to legalize this is a dwelling unit so they're not trying to legalize the dwelling unit then technically the tenants are evicted that's why this p

the united nations imposing a framework of what a two state solution would look like what does that do the relationship between united states and sniz >> we hope that won't happen we know the united states stood for decades against these anti-israel resolutions. >> you do believe an imposed framework of a two state resolution is an anti-israel resolution. >> we're against imposing any resolution through the united nations because the policy of the united states has been for a very long time that you need a negotiated settlement to this conflict. only way to reach peace is if we have the parties at the negotiating table. a united nations resolution will do the exact opposite. it will hard palestinian position and prevent us not only from having peace today could prevent peace for decades to come because no palestinian leader will move from those positions that are put forward at the united nations. here's the problem. a major problem. what the palestinians want is they want a state that they don't want to give israel peace in return. israel is in favor of a palestinian state. that would end the conflict with israel. we're not in favor of a palestinian state. we'll don't wage war a

united states. at the conferences, the united states was there. the united states was often involved. i think if they had been more formally involved, it would have made the league stronger and served to educate american public opinion. it by the 1930's, the united states was in the league, i wonder if you would have had the same isolationist sentiment. there was a lot of sentiment in europe for peace. there was a huge peace ballot in britain in the 1930's were happy adult population -- half of the adult population voted in favor of peace. that does not necessarily translate into being isolationist. the united states welded it into isolationism in a way that did not happen in europe, that you can want peace but still recognize you have to be engaged in the world. i don't know. it is very difficult. i think historians are now arguing that even in the 1930's, the united states was not as isolationist as we might think. there was a lot of talk, but the united states is still involved, particularly on its own doorstep. the good neighbor policy is a 1930's policy. the united states was stil

and for our form of government in the united states the united states government does not own industries. now, some of the industries that are represented within the aec from other countries are at least partially or wholly opened by the state. there's state interest in having those countries in there to be able to develop things within the arctic. we took a different approach. first of all, because of our culture. our government does not own industries. secondly if we start getting too close with industry you start running into federal advisory committee rules that have to be complied with. so our choice whether you like it or don't like it, our choice early on was to turn this over to the chamber of commerce in alaska and the chamber overcomer selected three alaskan companies to be our representatives to the aec and the aec has. just had its first meeting. so i think there are going to be some disputes on how the aec should be used. there will be questions about how we employ it. questions about how much influence it should have on arctic council activities. >> guest: should if have di

united states. before he left he visited the western wall in jeff ruse lem netanyahu said although he respects president obama he strong low opposes the agreement the united states is working on with iran. saying it could endanger our very existence. later called his journey a faithful even historic mission. joining us for some analysis on prime minister netanyahu's speech to congress jeffrey goldberg of "the atlantic" take us out of this political back and forth and talk about the stakes of the u.s. relationship with israel. >> the stakes are the u.s. relationship with israel and even greater stakes are what is going to happen with iran nuclear deal. that is historic feature here. in the way perverse genius of netanyahu he's made this week very much about the partisanship of this speech. his own election and everything else. maybe this is what is going to happen wednesday after the netanyahu speech going to realize this is about a very dangerous moment for president obama. he is moving toward an historic adversary, he's about to make a deal that lot of people including people who support the idea of a deal, think might be weak. so we're heading into an incredibly tense period not only between israel and united states but united states and all of its arab allies who are also nervous job you write that netanyahu is hurting his own cause what do you mean? >> i mean that this is a fairly naked play for votes at home. he's going to re-election on the march 17th. could very easily have come on march 18th or 19th just lobby congress against iran deal that won't be done by that point. he he has done something even more dangerous than messing around with the political system, threat in this case to turn israel in to a partisan issue in the united states. the united states is israel's second line of defense. first is its own army. second line of defense is bipartisan support in congress and american people. if he turns israel in to a wedge issue, one that separates democrats from republicans on middle east issues, that is very dangerous in the long term for israel. >> dickerson: explain what you mean, president obama is harmed on wednesday. why is he -- >> after we put all the controversy of the spee

united states. could ted cruz be the first hispanic president of the united states? he united nations is saying violence between -- is escalating rapidly. dozens of people were killed when suicide bombers targeted a mosque. saudi arabia says it will intervene if no peaceful solution is found. they accuse iran of meddling in yemen. reporter: dangerously close to the edge of civil war. militias square off against loyalist troops. the foreign minister has called on gulf arab states to intervene. a call that saudi arabia has responded to with a pledge of support. >> if the sovereignty of yemen is threatened, then we will call for the application of charter 51 of the un security council. reporter: the charter allows intervention for peacekeeping purposes. the fighter's control the airport and are pushing to seize even more territory across yemen . it is a strategic entry point to the south of the country and there are reports that the rebels are close to the port city. the situation that has prompted concern in the international community. >> there are extremists on many s

so we're heading into an incredibly tense period not only between israel and united states but unitedll of its arab allies who are also nervous job you write that netanyahu is hurting his own cause what do you mean? >> i mean that this is a fairly naked play for votes at home. he's going to re-election on the march 17th. could very easily have come on march 18th or 19th just lobby congress against iran deal that won't be done by that point. he he has done something even more dangerous than messing around with the political system, threat in this case to turn israel in to a partisan issue in the united states. the united states is israel's second line of defense. first is its own army. second line of defense is bipartisan support in congress and american people. if he turns israel in to a wedge issue, one that separates democrats from republicans on middle east issues, that is very dangerous in the long term for israel. >> dickerson: explain what you mean, president obama is harmed on wednesday. why is he -- >> after we put all the controversy of the speech aside we're going to have to

growing of cotton but if you look at the trade of the united states to the 1860s the majority of exports from the united states was caught in. united states mattered to the global economy. that is how the united states came to play an important role. this was literally entirely on the backs. >> i had the pleasure of reading the book. i don't want to give too much away in my questions and i have lots of them and i have tremendous respect and admiration for the work but one of the central issues you are trying to deal with. it is a great divergence. you preview the argument and introduced a little bit in the talk but there are certain kinds of state, that europeans had and other political structures did not have in other regions of the global. it made me wonder a little bit. i you playing fair that kind of other political formations are incapable of the same violence european states are capable or perpetuate to create cotton capitalism but also because you have so much emphasis on the active and violent state in creating this world i am left wondering what you think about liberalism? does it matter at all? is it an ideological cover

israel has denied reports that it bite on talks between iran and the united states. the unitedtates will keep its true blood levels in afghanistan study through the end of the year. instead of drawing down the numbers as originally planned. president obama announced the change at the white house during a press conference with the visiting afghan president. he is on a whirlwind tour of the american capital. a shotgun he is here to make the case to president obama that whatever afghanistan -- the afghani president is here to make the case to president obama that whatever afghanistan is doing, he wants possibility in the u.s. timetable for drawing down troops. today, president obama gave this response. president obama: i've decided we will maintain our pastor of 9800 troops through the end of this year. laura: the u.s. has nearly 10,000 forces in afghanistan down from 100,000 troops. afghanistan's present -- president welcomed the delayed drawdown. >> the possibility that is provided will be used to accelerate reforms to ensure that national security forces are much better equippe

united states. the allies have borrowed $9 billion from the united states to pay for the war. that was one of the reasons they were so firm on getting reparations, because the british lent to the french. they both lent to the russians -- the russians not paying anything. the british and french had huge war debts they were paying off to united states. that gave added impetus to extract reparations from germany. he said why don't we just cancel the whole lot? britain and france can agree not to get reparations from germany. it probably would have been better, but politically impossible. host: inside the united states? professor macmillan: in the second world war, they did provide a lot of the financing for the allied war effort without expecting to be repaid. host: that is a good experience of learning from the past. i tend to agree with you that wilson was an artful compromiser during the paris deliberations. everybody compromised quite a bit. the notions we often have of wilson, the rigid idealist comes from when he returned home and refuses to compromise with his adversaries.

united states. does israel worry about the united states. naturally any country has to worry about itself, but when the bilateral nation - when does self-interest dictate a stoil, tone, honest agreement and compromise. "the wall street journal"'s report on israeli spying. got us wondering about that. we are joined by dan ar bell. we are joined by a former israeli diplomat. welcome back to the program. the israeli president asked binyamin netanyahu to form the next government and called the nates our biggest ally, saying keeping relations with the u.s. is a top job. is that part of every israeli's job description. >> absolutely. it's part of every israeli prime minister's job. the president put it on his lift due to tension. u.s.-israel relations has been an issue that every prime minister dedicated his tenure too. nurtured and promoted it. unfortunately, under the circumstances, the president found it necessary to remind the prime minister that that's a duty, to take care of business with the united states. before. >> yes, there have been. in

but they are more willing to do that with the united states leadership than without. if the unitedtates said we needia to step up to the line the saudi arabia want to do more, but want to make sure the united states is not leaving the region and not cutting and running like this president does. we didn't help taking the special operators, facilities and air fields and abandoning those physical facilities and withdrawing specialized personal. it will be hard to get them back in and our ability to keep yemen from becoming an isis and al-qaeda playground is diminished. god bless the saudi arabians and egyptians stepping up but it could be more effective with united states troops there. >> when i heard the special operators were getting out -- >> guest: they are gone. i met with one of their major players. they are gone, out and not happy about it. >> karl rove thank you. >>> a jetliner carrying 150 people deliberately thrown into a mountain side by a young copilot who locked the pilot out of the cockpit. how does this happen? and how much do your hard earned dollars go for defense spe

the supreme court case held that the child born in the united states of ianees immigrants from the united states. they could confer sit senship. that is not true of unauthorised children with a child. there are advantages of the role as it is understand. it's an easy role to administer. and facilitates facilitation by or into society and reduces the prospect of having an underclass which has been for a long period of time deprived of the rights for citizenship. is there a distinction to be made. someone that has a child in the united states, or gets a visa declares themselves versus someone who comes into the country across the sudden border and gives birth in a hospital in the south-west somewhere? >> there's a distinction about the 14th amendment and the context of the facilities. the operating word was discouraged. in the last immigration area this was a scixish. we have 40 million people, that abuse this privilege. obviously, if you have all numbers on this, it suggests that the numbers of foreigners that come here - it's a small number of people. it could remain steady. you could mak

argentina, australia, belgium, denmark, iran, israel, japan, mexico, the netherlands, the united kingdom, the united states, and also venezuela. the information could change as authorities begin to identify the remaining victims. >> an entire town in germany is struggling with the loss of sons and daughters, killed on their way home from a school trip.

i understand that if -- i mean, she certainly wouldn't be a fugitive in the united states. if the united own justice system, she is not a fugitive here but if she were to go to canada or mexico which i assume have extradition treaties with italy, i guess the italians could ask for those national governments to arrest her. if they go to the level of asking her to be extradited. >> you spent ten months in italy. you talked to lawyers in the cases and you communicated with the defendants and talked to family and friends and scoured police record. what was your takeaway from all of the information you gathered about amanda knox's involvement in this murder? >> as i wrote in my book, which is why i was there to ten months, and as i wrote in "the "newsweek"" article that is out this week, i believe injustice occurred this was a naive young woman in the country where the language was not her native language. the police were in a hurry to get this case solved. the prosecutor made a bad call early on. they had the person whose fingerprints and dna are in the murder room in their clutches two week

united states and israel face. israel believes we have no greater friend than the united states and we believe the united states has no greater friend and allie in the united states and around the world in the state of israel. we look forward to moving forward together as we move forward. >> i understand your position as an ambassador, you don't want to get into any conflict. the big story in the united states today was the idea that the united states would use the united nations and go against israeli policy. this has to do with the prime minister's words, which i think have been taken out of context. the prime minister has stated that he thinks that anyone who will establish a palestinian state today he is talking about the conditions on the ground today. people interpreted that as him being against a two-state solution. is that interpretation correct or incorrect? >> no it's wrong. the prime minister gave speech six years ago. he laid out his vision for peace. he says he wants to see it. in 2009, he wants to see a demineralized palestinian state that recognizes the jewish state of israel. in this interview, a st

does the united states still have this close exclusive relationship with the united kingdom as it has had in the past? does the united states still consider it sells a european power? is it so engaged as a was in the transatlantic relationship, or hasn't decided that we will -- or has it decided that we will look at our relationship in asia? mr. fox: i we thought the concept of the pivot was bizarre. clearly, the united states does have to focus on pacific affairs. it does not have the luxury of choosing which way to look. global security, for the reasons we are discussing, because of our interdependence is not something you can decide which geographic area you will not worry about and which area you will disregard. it's not like that. as events in ukraine are showing. the u.s. is still the global superpower, economically and militarily, with that comes responsibility. we need the u.s. to be in the game. i wonder what signal mr. putin got that america would not be as focused on its trans atlantic area, but it was going to focus on the pacific. i wonder what signal he took from that and if that has actually been adven

another rule, don't invite a foreign leader into the well of the united states house of representatives to criticize the president of the united states at a time that very same president of the united states is conducting very sensitive negotiations with a foreign country, but as we saw with prime minister netanyahu's visit, that rule, broken. >>> and this past week, this letter to the leaders of the islamic republic of iran, you don't see that, signed by 47 republican senators there. they said directly to a foreign nation essentially saying, hey, if you want to cut a deal with president obama, but we, the united states senate, won't abide by it. we will ignore it. it was authored at first by a freshman, tom cotton, just in the united states senate. among the 100 united states senators, he's in the bottom 10. the old rules, you checked in with your chairman, that would be bob corker or you check in with majority leader, mitch mcconnell. tom cotton didn't do that. it reminds me if you've covered this town for a long time you tend to process stories by the rules. but is the new rules especially with the republicans. besaw it in

ashraf ghani has been very careful to thank the united states, the people of the united states, even g so far as to thank the taxpayers of the united states over the course of his three visits here. noting the number of american dead. that number 2,215, the trillions of dollars spent there. it's also an opportunity for the united states -- this speech for the united states congress to hear directly from the individual who wants money from this congress. we have seen a proposal from the secretary of defense and the administration during this visit to fully fund afghan troops. that comes with a steep price tag, estimated to be about $4 billion a year. there's also an $800 million aid package on the table. all of that is going to have to go through congress. there are many members of congress who disagree vehemently with the president's withdrawal plan. think that u.s. troops should stay in the country much longer. they view the 2017 drop dead date as an arbitrary one whether the afghan forces are ready to standing up for their own defense or not. we do anticipate that congress will be r

united. that the united states is united behind the strategy. it would send a clear message to isil and people contemplating joining isil. the united states is determined and united to destroy that organization. reporter: we have heard from senator clinton on her e-mails. can you update us on whether she has given an explanation to the president? sec. earnest: i am not aware of any conversations between president obama and secretary clinton in the last several weeks. reporter: is the president or white house concerned secretary clinton deleted tens of thousands of e-mails? sec. earnest: it is my understanding that she was describing personal e-mails that she went through her personal e-mail system to ensure that all of the personal e-mails related to her official role as secretary of state were properly transferred to the custody of the state department so they could be maintained and archived and used in response to legitimate request from the public and congress. the state department has taken steps to use that material to respond to congressio

united states and europe on the existing sanctions. what discussions have you had with the government the united states, about coordinating a potential expansion of sanctions? you say if things ramble on. >> we have had such discussions. if we decide to extend -- to expand the range of sanctions, we would be -- the eu would expect to agree broad shape of the package with the united states. there might still for various specific reasons be differences at the margin between the two packages, but we would expect them to be broadly aligned. we would certainly expect to act in tandem to make maximum impact. >> my final question, on the supply of equipment the prime minister has said that the uk is not at the stage of supplying lethal equipment to the ukraine but did not rule it out completely. at what point would the uk consider supplying lethal equipment to the ukrainian government, do you think? >> well, to answer your question precisely, i think we would consider it again but not necessarily do it if the circumstances on the ground materially changed, if we found the ukrainian army was crumbling crumbling, for example, or if we saw clear evidenc

united states and israel. let me today separate out a few different issues. politics policy and what the united states does each and everyday to combat anti-semitism around the world and to fight attacks against israel at the uniteduse ] we believe firmly that israel's security and the u.s.-israel partnership transcends politics and it always will. [ applause ] [ applause ] same bond that led president truman to make the united states the first country to recognize israel 11 minutes after it declared its existence in 1948. [ applause ] >> it is why we have stood by israel's side every minute since. our commitments to our partnership with israel are bedrock commitments, rooted in shared fundamental values cemented through decades of bipartisan reinforcement. this partnership should never be politicized and it cannot and will not be tarnished or broken. [ applause ] >> now, debating the most effective policy both within our respective democracies and among partners is more than useful. it is a necessary part of arriving at informed decisions. politicizing that process is not. the stakes are too high for that. [ applause ] >> on policy the negotiations that we and our partners have entered into with iran negotiation

both countries have strings of allies with the united states. the united states deals very regularly with both pakistan and india, world leaders travel back and forth between those countries. the short answer is the united states government feels like they have a handle on what is happening in both pakistan and india and they can reach out to those capitals if they need to. that is really not the case here with iran. host: we have time for water to more calls. mary is in south carolina. my for republicans. -- line for republicans. guest: i have been to your beautiful town. i hope you are well. caller: what i want to say is that if president obama bypasses congress and goes to the u.n. to get this deal signed -- which i think is a very bad deal -- i hope that congress will impeach him. then i hope that at the same time congress will vote and kick the u.n. out of this country. i don't know one darn thing that they are doing for us and our country. take the money that we pay these people every year -- what, one fourth of the money they have to spend? take tha

united states did. we were always -- we always wanted to have good relation with the united states. er thought in the other direction. it's a great power. nobody -- not a wise person think of having bad relation with united states. charlie: yeah, but can you have good relationship with a country that thinks you shouldn't be in power? president assad: no, that's not going to be part of the dialogue that i mentioned earlier. this is not their business. we have syrian citizens, who can decide this. no one else. whether they want to talk about it or not. this is not something we're going to discuss with anyone. charlie: mr. president, thank you. president assad: thank you. ♪ john: i'm john heilemann. mark: i'm mark halperin. "with all due respect" to hillary clinton, when you're choosing between baskets and containers, bill bradley will tell you always go with the baskets. john: right. ♪ mark: on the show tonight, the tablet, the barrel and the dollar bill. first, governor mike pence of indiana is struggling to make his religious freedom law not to look like an anti-gay law. he has gotte

united states. we want to welcome back our viewers in the united states and around the world. at a former member of the united states air force was stopped in turkey it's believed according to accusations, he was trying to join isis. our justice correspondent pamela brown is with us. also our national security analyst peter bergen is joining us on the phone. pamela first, you've gone through the actual document, the complaint. what do we know about what's going on? >> here's what we're learning. this u.s. air force veteran allegedly tried to fly through turkey and then travel into syria to link up with isis and fight violent jihad, according to this complaint. and the suspect's name is tairod nathan webster pugh from neptune, new jersey. and what officials are saying is that he lived overseas for a period of time. he lived in egypt and kuwait and was an aviation mechanic. he worked on airplane engines and he worked for several private companies in the u.s. and overseas as well. he allegedly in january traveled from egypt to turkey where authorities stopped him before he could g