that's part of how walter russell meade describes it in his article.ould be more attention paid in the media but then there's so many trouble spots in the world right now, maybe there's not enough room on the front page. >> maybe but not hillary clinton rumored to be president in 2016 has been doing a book tour for a few months where the title of the book is "hard choices." they made a hard choice in libya and alan and i agree, not a very good choice. every stop she made on her book tour, you would think a reporter would be askinger -- not just benghazi but what about the overall strategy of removing muammar qaddafi? and then having no plan afterwards? that's what so aching after this thing. we thought it was clear as soon as we killed muammar qaddafi, wipe away our hands and walk away. doesn't appear to be a good choice. >> you're talking about the hillary clinton potential presidency, potential until nation or run for the presidency, what is a republican alternative in terms of how we deal with the foreign crisis, their answer is more mill -- militar

i wonder if you could give us your views following up on what you said to the thesis that walter russell meade has put out in a couple of provocative pieces of conceiving of the international system right now as the united states and the west against china, russia, iran, north korea. sort of looking to them as an alliance with the kind of unified vision of revisionist. >> i think they are in effect an alliance. and there have been elements of that that have been present for a while, iran and north korea cooperating in the development of missiles and nuclear weapons. russia and china cooperating to china's benefit in trade and technology and energy and so on. so, yes, i think there's a loose alignment of states see it as being in their interest to check and stymy and oppose american power, first of all, and also, which take their bearing to some degree by the u.s. and western reactions to their behavior. so i think some of the problems we're having, for example, now in dealing with china in east asia and russia and eastern europe have to do with the fact that the leaders of those regimes don't

i wonder if you could give us your views following up on what you said to the thesis that walter russell meade has put out in a couple of provocative pieces of conceiving of the international system right now as the united states and the west against china, russia, iran, north korea. sort of looking to them as an alliance with the kind of unified vision of revisionist. >> i think they are in effect an alliance. and there have been elements of that that have been present for a while, iran and north korea cooperating in the development of missiles and nuclear weapons. russia and china cooperating to china's benefit in trade and technology and energy and so on. so, yes, i think there's a loose alignment of states see it as being in their interest to check and stymy and oppose american power, first of all, and also, which take their bearing to some degree by the u.s. and western reactions to their behavior. so i think some of the problems we're having, for example, now in dealing with china in east asia and russia and eastern europe have to do with the fact that the leaders of those regimes don't