russia is not the united states and is never going to resemble the united states for geographic and other reasons. the russian empire in the soviet union were not accidental. they balanced regions with a mutual dependence. the vision of the liberals in russia and in the united states was that falling the soviet union was reorienting themselves towards europe and the united states. they failed to understand that these countries could not compete in any reasonable timeframe in europe. the more dependent they were on europe, the weaker they became, and also forgot that russia is a geopolitical entity. it experienced some terrible wars in its history, and it's extremely cautious about the expansion of things like nato. they regard nato as a military alliance, and we regard it as a club of nice people. it's a mismatch of what it is, and as the united states moved into the baltics and the revolution of ukraine took off and the united states became influ enissue in asia. if containment won after world war ii, pudin from the kgb saw a second engagement. they stopped trying to do what stalin did t

united states. i love the united states, the roosevelts and in the deal. when i have criticized the united states it's because the united states has not lived up to roosevelt. it has not lived up to its great tradition. that's been my criticism. the sense of disappointments and what the united states should be and was not. but now with obama i think it's good for the united states. i think it's recovered the great tradition that roosevelt and clinton and truman as some of the great presidents had. >> rose: so you're optimistic for america's future snowed >> very much. very much. it's very difficult for president obama to make the american public at large understand that the united states is no longer the sole power. you had two confrontations with the soviet union, the soviet union disappeared then you had unilateral power and now you have a country that is a great country, a powerful country but the competition comes from china india, brazil. they were considered third-world countries. >> i think you're wrong on that. i think that the united states and the

only when europe aggregates its power, its will, its muscle, will the united states have the partner that it needs. >> if the united states wants germany to send troops someplace, afghanistan, iraq, anywhere else, if the united states wants, uh, stimulus contributions, if the united states wants debt reduction, if the united states wants any of those other aspects, can it get any of those answers from brussels? >> not now, no. >> you can't get any of those answers from brussels, that's my point. you have to go to berlin on some issues, all the ones you mentioned, in fact, to get anything done. you go to brussels on some other issues like trade policy, but even on trade policy, if you look at the last couple rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, the uruguay round, the tokyo round before, these, you know, years, they take years to get done. in the end, the deal was germany and the united states getting agreement among all the other e.u. countries to make the final deal. it was german, germany that made the influence, tipped the balance, to get the deal done, because it's a free trading nation, like the united st

the brick countries have to go altogether by 75%, so all for equal to the united states. >> host: is the united states still going to be spending 50% of the world's military spending? >> guest: sure. i think so. but cures the point. the united states will go through extreme troubles and instability. it will be constantly at the verge of collapse and like britain in rome and if you look at the roman speeches just before the entire bursts of you see predictions of catastrophe that happened. >> host: okay. so ten years from now we will come back and have this conversation and see how it worked out. >> guest: it will be different in what is in conversation. >> host: george, thank you. it's been a great conversation. >> guest: i enjoyed it. >>> that was "after words," booktv's signature program which authors of the weirdest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with the material. "after words" ears every weekend on book tv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" on line. g

. >> a classic case of europe and the united states. the united states and the rest of the world against asia and china. unofficially the rate has held steady, but at some point. can't we make some more cooperative arrangement where the adjustment takes place boldly? it is a nice question, very difficult to do in practice. there is going to be an attempt, i think a year or to finally form an international monetary system. nobody has used that phrase for a couple of decades. i think that phrase is going to come back in the next six months the g20 will say something about its. the commission and the committee will look at it. there will be an effort to deal with the problem. >> there is talk, at least the president of the world bank has talked. i have always believed that the reason we don't have a gold standard is not because we don't know about it, but because we do. that is that doesn't give us unemployment outcomes that countries want most of all. i don't think that as a starter. what would i do? i would say that there is a problem of trying to

united united states ande yeah right. i'm not even running for anything but you are going to be president of of the united states america. she is the one that really pushes him to become a republican because she is the verse republican in the family. >> guest: why didn't she joined the republican party ahead of your father? >> guest: why not really sure because she was so involved that they both got in, feet and i'll put the story we tell about the equal rights is so funny because maureen used to just drive him crazy. here in new york when they did the whole thing with my dad's announcement. we got off his midlife like. wheelan here and mike deaver and all these guys are coming out and maureen didn't like something, the way we retreated or whatever and said how are you doing marine? fine. is everything all right? i will let you know. will we see it tonight? yes. how will we know? i brought two pairs of shoes. one of my pairs of shoes makes me taller than your candidate and the other one makes me shorter. you will know if i have been treated right today. and we thought might god would pair of shoes is she going to be weari

united states you just turned a blind eye. i think that's absolutely correct i mean the bush administration talked the talk but it never really walked the walk i mean the united states supported mubarak the united states supported benelli in tunisia the united states in recent years supported in many ways moammar gadhafi and i think you know one of the problems now is that the governments the people who come to power as we've seen i mean in tunisia where the french ambassador just heckled out of. it was just heckled first for statements that he made because people remember who was on their side i mean one of the reasons actually that moammar gadhafi retains for instance the friendship of south africa is that he supported the south african freedom struggle where many people in the west did not and i think it's always better in the long run to be on the right side of history to be on the people side mark go ahead go ahead finish up go ahead just in terms of the war on terror i mean the way the war on terror was fought has actually you know created many more terrorists then than there were to begin with i mean throughout the middle east kuantan imo abu ghraib ar

united states will somehow naturally come out of this. and in my reading of the situation is that a lot of where the united states is today is actually through deliberate policy. and the sooner that policy makers take up the mantle of speaking to people honestly about the situation in the united states the sooner they will get out of it. tavis: there is a sense that we are going to turn this around, that patriotism, that nationalism that many of us engage in makes us believe that we are going to turn this around. is that arrogance, is that denial, what is that? all of the above? >> when i have gone across the united states in the last few weeks and spoken to audiences, nobody is particularly surprised if you say education standards are declining in the united states or infrastructure is going down or pensions are a big issue. i think the problem in -- arises when you start to ask about what actually is going to be done in policy making to reverse this decline. and that's where i see there is a split. people do know there is a big issue, loaming pensions and so on. as a practicality, i fear that the highly po litization in the united states,

only when europe aggregates its power, its will, its muscle, will the united states have the partner that it needs. >> if the united states wants germany to send troops someplace, afghanistan, iraq, anywhere else, if the united states wants, uh, stimulus contributions, if the united states wants debt reduction, if the united states wants any of those other aspects, can it get any of those answers from brussels? >> not now, no. >> you can't get any of those answers from brussels, that's my point. you have to go to berlin on some issues, all the ones you mentioned, in fact, to get anything done. you go to brussels on some other issues like trade policy, but even on trade policy, if you look at the last couple rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, the uruguay round, the tokyo round before, these, you know, years, they take years to get done. in the end, the deal was germany and the united states getting agreement among all the other e.u. countries to make the final deal. it was german, germany that made the influence, tipped the balance, to get the deal done, because it's a free trading nation, like the united st

significant point is that the balance of power in the region is shifting away from the united states and the unitedstates because it's bound its foreign policy to israel it's desperately trying to kape keep the status quo and it's easy to run as a major problem it sees that in the future will have more difficulty confronting iran because there will be new actors in the region which will be against american foreign policy and is trying desperately to overthrow the regime or i would call it this moment republic but it will fail david if i can ask you is one of the interesting things is and i to reflect upon with something professor marandi said is that you know even though if the united states you know one level says it wants to see democracy in i don't know you know after favoring dictators for so many dictators decades it's hard to believe that but in the case unlikely supporting the green movement i mean when the u.s. openly says it supports the green movement don't a lot of people in iran just go sour on it i mean that happens in. in a lot of places you know when an outsider says oh we like this

and of course from a business point of view egypt did much more business with europe the united states united states was providing strategic support not only egypt but the business the europeans go on holiday. and you know if there is an islamist government in egypt you can forget about going to the beach in europe is much more close to tunisia in egypt. so you're quite hawkish on iran miles you believe iran wants a bomb now i don't care if they want to bomb or not. first of all iran is not exactly a great center of technology i'm not worried because of the technology. they make wonderful donkey's samples but as for the rockets. and the nuclear program has been going on for a year after year after year and i think. the problem with iran is that the. it is the fact that the iranian regime is in a constant state of instability they're always in the instability and they resolve the problem. so they are every. criticizing. their praying every day. sending rockets to have. and. the rockets on the heads of my jewish relatives in that you know i don't like that they are funding thirty million dollar

there's a difference to what the united states release is very often. in afghanistan, the united states is asking pakistan to do things that creates instability, that will weaken pakistan, that potentially creates an independent regional power in india that the united states may not appreciate in the long run. and, of course, the invasion of iraq has destroyed the iran-iraq balance apparently what is the most immediate issue which is forgetting nuclear weapons, iran is the dominant conventional military force in the region if the united states isn't there. the united states has its policy to withdraw from iraq, potential for iran to attack is extremely high. that in turn changes the balance of power, or at least the political dynamic in the arabian peninsula. they are vitally important decisions to be made, so if the one hand the united states must rebalance its global policy to deal with issues like russia, to deal with china and so one. at the same time, the united states can't sit through withdrawal. it doesn't have the ability to simply exit and doesn't have an endgame in the

the almanac, 1792, before the united states had department of war, he wrote about united states encouraging the united states to create a department of peace and dr. benjamin rush who was a friend of his, also took this and wrote a bill that united states should have a department of peace and put it on the floor of washington in congress in 1793. >> wow. i don't think they listened to that. >> can you imagine? what happened was instead of the united states creating a department of peace they created a department of war. >> and defense. >> it never really evolved even today, he rewrote the law every 20 or 30 years, someone signed it and redo it and address it and bring it back to the floor. >> kokomon coming from ghana what is your perspective on black history? >> yes t way my people see all of this is for us to remember those who came before us. our ancestors. it is not just public figures, but our grandparents, great grandparents and so and so forth that because of them we are here today, that we are standing on their shoulders. for us to remember their values and because the love they hav

this comes from a united states military commander in the united states. i'll jump across the border and tell you why the stakes could not be higher. this is pakistan in 2005. 74,000 people were killed in this earthquake. 18,000 were kids going to school. most of the kids that died were younger and female because they didn't have desks so when the walls started shaking and the roof came down they perished. there was 9,000 schools destroyed or rendered unusable. 1/2 million kids displaced out of school. in earthquake, they call it the coy mot that means this apocalypse. at first there was a very heroic effort. infer natio international community helped. after katrina red cross got 2,000,000 for help and for this earthquake red cross received 6 million dollars. the united states sent in helicopters that conductd the greatest air lift in the history of mankind. moved about 20 thousand on thes in the mountains to keep 1/2 million people a hive during the wintertime. it was very heroic and people were grateful. aid has dropped 70 percent after a year in the wake

but part of it, also, is the historically anomalous position of the united states during this time because in a fundamental way the united states was the only victor of world war ii. the united states was the only country that came out with a stronger economy than it went in. america's principle industrial competitors were either gravely weakened like britain or absolutely demolished like germany and japan. and so it was easy for the united states to embrace free trade, yeah, level the playing field because we've already leveled the industrial capacity of all of our competitors. [laughter] and so for 20 years until the german and japanese economies in particular got back on their feet, free trade worked to america's benefit. and big companies like general motors could agree to big deals with the united autoworkers knowing that there was no competition. if you're buying a car in the united states in 1955, it was going to be a detroit-built car. and so there was this period, it was a golden age of the american political economy. and it was a time when somebody could graduate from high school in pittsburgh and go to work in

well i wouldn't say that at all i think that if the united states wanted to secure a better future for people in afghanistan and in the united states we wouldn't be loading the country up with weapons and we wouldn't be surging united states soldiers i think we'd instead be looking at some of the realities on both sides both among afghans and people in the united states in terms of what real security would be comprised of i mean here in the united states the enormous amounts of money we're spending it comes to three million a day or two billion per week. this amount of money is needed very badly here to deal with the very real terrors that we face and those are terrors that have to do with what we're doing to our own environment to the ecosystem to the depletion of fossil fuels working with and meanwhile in afghanistan eight hundred fifty children every single day it's a country where people don't have good security education security health security job security and yet money gets already into building our huge military bases and roadways to connect those bases and people in college just quickly ask you that the u.s. will b

in and of course from a business point of view egypt did much more business with europe the united states united states was providing strategic support money weapons. but the business is good europeans go on holiday. and you know if there is a government in egypt you can forget about going to the beach or something to say. thank you very much for this interview thank you. for sure is that so much. more. middle east is the era of dictators coming to. reach. the west.

in and of course from a business point of view egypt did much more business with europe the united states united states was providing strategic support money weapons to egypt but the business is the europeans go on holiday over say and.

in and of course from a business point of view egypt did much more business with europe the united states united states was providing strategic support money weapons to egypt but the business is the fuel europeans go on holiday to show other say you know if there is a government in egypt you can forget about going to the beach and some say all right thank you very much for the thank you. press. and this is printed on the price of healthy eating. meat to test these types of allergenicity immune response lower nutrition for environmental contamination don't you feel like. some consider the experiment in human treatment . significant differences between the g.m. g.m. .

create new realities on the ground and there is indifference to what the united states releases very often. in afghanistan, the united states is asking pakistan to do things to create stability that we can pakistan that should create independent regional power in india that the united states may not appreciate. and of the course the invasion of iraq to destroy the power creating what is the most immediate issue which is for getting nuclear weapons iran is the dominant conventional military force in the region if the united states is there the united states has in its policy the withdraw from iraq, iran filling the vacuum is extremely high. that in turn to the qtr changes the balance of power or the political dynamic in the arabian peninsula. they are vitally important decisions to be made. on the one hand, the united states must rebalanced the global policy to deal with issues like russia, to deal with china and so on. at the same time the united states can simply withdraw. it doesn't have the ability to send the exit and it doesn't have an end game in any of these areas, so we have a very powerful nation, much less

will bear true faith and aline of scrimmagens >> to the constitution of the united states. >> to the constitution of the united states. >> and to the constitution of the state of california. >> to the constitution of the state of california. >> that i take this obligation freely -- >> without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion -- >> without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion -- >> and that i will well and faithfully -- >> and that i will well and faithfully -- >> discharge the duties upon which i'm about to enter. >> discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter -- >> and during such time -- >> and during such time -- >> as i hold the office of -- >> as i hold the office of -- >> mayor for the city and county of san francisco. >> mayor for the city and county of san francisco. [applause] >> thank you very much. board of supervisors for this fantastic opportunity. i also want to make sure i thank the mayors that i've worked for that are standing with me. mayor brown, wonderful years working with you. i learned a lot. and i want to really thank you for the tutelage you've given me, for

a civil war i would like for the first thing that come to our mind, why do we go to the united states? the united states is a champion of peace. the united states reports to conflict in extremely rare occasions. and charts to resolve disputes. i would like people who want democracy and freedom to say the united states has the best democratic electoral system on earth. it is not shaped by how well the candidate is or how much special interest money can be garnered in to a special campaign but open to anybody qualified to present their platform planks on an equal basis. i would like to say to the iranian states, the champion of environment. the forefront of the move to prevent global warming. for instance. unlike to see the united states be the most generous nation on earth. sharing our wealth and resources with other people who are in need. like norway or sweden or the netherlands. i am not criticizing my country which i love. still the greatest nation in the world. there are aspects of basic morality based on the principles of christianity and other religions as well, united states is not the lea

united states. even japan's foreign policy of the united states with stronger economically than any of those countries. but the united states will still americans, we're still thinking in terms of a 19th century mindset. where the united states was surrounded -- will come as a french diplomatic wants it, it is america's great good fortune to be surrounded on the north by canada, a relatively weak power. on the south by mexico, another week about. on the east by fish come on the west by fish. so america could emerge, americans could come to maturity relatively unconcerned with what was happening in the rest of the world. in contrast to come other countries that were trying to emerge about this time, italy. italy was unified in the 19th century. germany was unified in the 19th century and they had powerful enemies right next door. so america didn't get very ambitious foreign policy, didn't assert itself in terms of foreign policy until the first time during the first world war, but then the u.s. backed off after that. as of 1919 in 1920 when the senate voted twice on the treaty of versailles and rejecte