in the war of 1812.you get officers in the front line writing letters about how terrible their troops are and they are not prepared and they are sick and they get published in the newspapers and people talk about stuff. they can't stop themselves from talking. so we live in a society now where we've been conditioned for the last three generations to try to keep secrets militarily and our government has become better and better at trying to so it can be hard for us to understand why people are just blabbing away about everything. and we can get this notion that black people and white people live in separate worlds. at that time they didn't. and you'll get these virginians who will frankly say, we have an internal enemy, and they are waiting on our tables, they are working in the fields next to us, and they are hanging on everything we say, and anything we say is being reported to the enemy. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. thank you for the questions. yes, ralph? >> why didn't the british -- [ i

war broke out in 1803.ssues many and various but waging war against greatest warrior in american history for a decade. they had managed motte to lose partly was they lived on an island. they had optimism the war of 1812 would end well. lat major victory, battle of trafalgar, since then hung around the mountains knows french and hoping the rest would realize being ruled by france was a bad idea. some europeans had seen this but not all of them. they were not especially worried by american declaration of war. the united states was quite a small country, had relatively limited resources and no great reputation for having a large and powerful army or large navy either. what the british were worried about was additional strain on already seriously overstretched resources. i show you this to remind people that the louisiana purchase was transformational for the united states it turns a country which looks to the atlantic to one that looks to the rest of the contine continent. not just west but north and south as

war is not. that's a lesson the british had learned many years before. >> go to the mic please for questions. >> yes. have you seen what you would call the public -- >> mic. sorry. >> have you seen in the public record office any orders to coburn and ross to burn the public buildings in washington and the implication being retaliation, question mark? >> yes. thanks very much. this is one of the great questions about what happens in washington. were coburn and ross operating under specific orders to do something as specific as burning the white house? certainly there was a sense that after the occupation of what is now toronto and the destruction of the public buildings there and in other parts on the niagara front where there had been some cross border destruction of public and private buildings of both sides, that the public buildings of the state that started the war were fair game. nobody in europe would have thought this was in any way surprising. the whole organization was organized by georg

because the german war lie brave was destroyed in the last war.reatly damaged. this is practically the only complete story of what has happened in the last 50 years. >> how did the idea of a library start? >> i was crossing the north sea on a usual journey to bet jump in connection with relief and i had a book with me to read of written by andrew d. white. he was the great historian of the french revolution. >> yes. >> and he complained in that book that he had not been able to present the life of the people in general of france because of the disappearance of franklin terry newspaper, literature, bulletins, thousands of things that displayed the life of the people. >> i concluded that i was in the unique position to collect that material. so i established collection agencies in all of the countries at war in europe. i was going behind the lines, once a month on a circuit around in connection with my particular job. and so we started the collection of that type of literature and i was literally moved into more important documentation. well then th

in world war ii -- in world war i, they do it as well, but world war ii is more organized, we bring a lot of german p.o.w.s to america and hold them in different camps across the nation, and we educate them about american democracy and history. and so there must be a reason we do that. we're trying to create allies, perhaps, for the post-war world. is this political indoctrination? is it brain washing? it's brain washing. yes, it's brain washing? are you sure? well, it depends on who you are, right? if you're german, you might think so. also, maybe it depends on the techniques you use, and how harsh you are. it does seem similar. >> there are parallels there. they don't -- they don't treat them bad. >> again, i'm going to tell you, this is one of the worst articles i have ever read -- i haven't said that, have i. it was one of the worst i have read. i was so outraged that i knew i had to assign it to you because that's the kind of teacher i am. we'll explain why. yes? >> the techniques played a big role in whether it's brain washing or not. it can educate them on your lifestyle, you'r

those are the wars that we shouldn't have gone to war.they could be equally worried about what we call the type two errors of omission when we should have gone to war and we didn't and what i worry about is world war ii was a good example where we did delay going into the war that was just and that we should have gone into earlier the framers didn't want to have a paralyzed government either and i worry that creating a system like the kind that bruce is in favor and i might add is not on the congress and presidents have followed that the constitution into practice that this would lead to a kind of paralysis of the ability to defend ourselves. and the last thing that i would point out and bruce made reference to all the framers of creed about this and i don't think that is true either. so, and i would take a look at the constitutional text and i have a free copy someone just gave me. article one section ten says no state shall without the consent of congress engage in the war. unless actually invaded or in such eminent danger as will not a

they won't call a war a war.ow he won't call it a war because he wants to give cover by the way to congressional democrats who want to be both for the war and against it. so that's why i think he's sort of tap dancing around the terminology with regard to war. >> brian, i know you've been very anxious to jump in this. >> i don't know where to begin. i have like ten things. >> start at the very beginning. good place to start. >> first of all start with obama's definition of victory, degrade and destroy isis. very clear said that wednesday night. this whole conversation about whether this war is a war, bottom line, it's iraq's war. we are coming in with air power to support. by the way, they do have a new government. >> question, is it iraq's war? or is isis at war with us? >> isis is at war with iraq and syria right now. >> oh, focus. >> this is my point. >> is isis at war? when they behead americans, say they're going to see us in new york and raise the islamic flag in our white house, are they at war with us? >>

so when you have undeclared war, you don't have prisoners of war because you don't have war.on't have pows. pows are protected by the geneva convention of the 1929, i think, that said if you have a pow and is he incapacitated or whatever, can you exchange him for another pow. we have done it since time and memorial. that's why we have some civilized rules these taliban taliban covered by that. >> this is the war of the 21st century. these irregular gangs. declaration of war. isis. i want the united states to be at war with isis. i want to destroy isis. i want to reign hell and death from above on to isis. i want us to declare war and if one of our prisoners is taken and we have prisoners to exchange, then i'm all for that, too. >> the question before we go, president obama called isisjv before he saw the light. joe biden said we are going to drive them back to the gates of hell, isis. i'm trying to figure out how many jv members have we driven back to the gates of hell? >> i don't know. all i know is isis declared war on the united states. isis cut the heads off two of our jo

said this book "the presidents' war" six american presidents and the civil war that divided them" for me as a history lover and junkie for what i was before it became an author this is a story that has never been told. we have a right -- a record number of living presidents for the of civil war all live to witness america's national tragedy to oppose and advise president abraham lincoln. but the story began with a conversation with a friend of mine mentioning something about martin van buren. you don't normally associate with the civil war with mid-19th century and he said he was still alive. i knew instantly i had the idea for my next book. so to tell the story we had to figure out where to start. ; dan on a dinner given early from president jackson so the idea was to plug president andrew jackson that they could veto or refuse to be bound by solid which case tax placed of goods into the country for manufacturing them eliminated competition but it was a burden that was the exporting economy to rely on the terrace of free trade to be successful. so south carolina was threatening to nu

war ii but we won the cold war.given human history the sad fact is in retrospect we should not have done this or that to make the mistakes but retrying to do right the cold war with us suppose it democracy that they cannot stick to it like dictatorships have even though we had ragtimes in the '70s especially after vietnam but we won the cold war ronald reagan had the vision to see we don't have to have a stalemate but we could have a victory and we got that. [applause] >> if you have a distinction between reagan's foreign policy or johnson or george w. bush? >> in terms of foreign policy reagan was seen as strong put in missiles in germany that did not prevent the soviets from intimidating western europe been sent troops to grenada the first time a communist regime was actually overthrown. even though a small operation and sent a signal to the world the wes was becoming a major player again. the by the time the first iraq war k along it was completely transformed and in terms of lyndon johnson and vietnam the books

germany declared war on us. korea was a war of choice. vietnam was a war of choice. yeah, a battlefield of choice. one is to leave the imprgs with history and with, our allies and friends around the world that he is not a, not doing cowboy diploma. this isn't some body who hasn't been thoughtful about what we are doing now in sear yeah. he tried every other option and everything else failed. and that he is now after reading the intelligence thinks this is the threat of our time. hence he is, he is going in. you could call it limited war. call it engagement. call it war, war. it doesn't matter. we are in now. and he has built a co-lgs of al arab countries to back us. seeing in the next few days. britain getting more engaged. turkey getting more engaged. the question is can the president build this new kind of co-legislation with middle eastern countries at our side. he has done this without the u.n. so far. without nato. it's been very unusual. >> stick around. please. up next. president obama has ordered air strikes in seven different countries as we just heard dougl

the war of 1812, the mexican war, spanish-american war and two world wars. there were multiple declarations in the world wars. so only five wars. and we haven't had a declaration of war, a formal declaration of war since 1942. we just don't do it that way nowadays. congress authorizes the president to take action, and then he does, if and when he thinks it's necessary. anyway, the vote on the declaration of war in june of 1812 was 79-49 in the house of representatives. and 19-13 in the senate. now, there was actually a closer vote in the senate on the declaration of war against spain, i think it was 45-35. you look at both houses. this is the closest vote on any declaration of war. all the others, except for the spanish-american war, were overwhelming, if not unanimous. so this represents an exception here. now, typically the declaration of war, the vote on the declaration of war is portrayed as a sectional voeth. vote. because so many northern members of congress voted against it, and so many southerners and westerners voted for it. but that really masked t

of war by other means. if you think about the objectives of the war the length of the war, are determined by politics. it's a political question can the minister should have enough votes in congress to appropriate money for the war war so pearce to drop the word will work hard to elect opponents to lincoln including george mcclellan his opponent in 1864. tyler on the other hand as lincoln is struggling to compromise even offers to give fort sumter back to south carolina in order to give virginia to stay in the union and get the secession could mention to go home. tyler of course would have none of this. tyler brings all his wit to bear in getting them to leave the union so both of them proved to be really problematic for lincoln. one of the inside the tent and one outside the tent. other questions? yeah. >> hi. you mentioned history and politics seem to repeat itself and the antics that preceded lincoln's term. it seems like there's a lot of similar activity going on nowadays especially how it relates to th

the war of 1812 in a war of 1898.wars of congress were warlike and the president was not and to say we have to design this entire system to because they were worried about the executive alone being to warlike and interested in military ventures and the congress being pacifist is i think mistaken. second i think there's always going to make mistakes in government decisions and there will always be the stakes in wars. i think what bruce is focusing on an harvey's question raises this he is only talking about one kind of error what social scientists those of you are heard -- who are not interested in social scientist can leave the social sciences will cause there is where you go to war by mistake. iraq or vietnam and i would disagree with bruce that he thinks afghanistan gets into this category as well. if i could take a quote about the soldier dying in afghanistan. those are wars where we should have gone to war. the framers could be equally worried about what we called type two errors, errors of omission times we shoul

most wars are a lot closer to 9 war of 1812 than they are to world war ii.there was significant opposition to the american revolution, the mexican war, the war in vietnam, and just about every other war we have fought since vietnam. there was some opposition to the spanish-american war to world war i, and to the korean war. it looks to me like the exception in the history isn't the war of 182 or the war in vietnam. the exception is world war ii. my take is that this is simply the price we pay for democracy, that if we're going to go to war, we should expect opposition, and if that war drags out, that opposition will only increase. that, my friends, is the price we pay to being a democratic republic. okay. thank you. i think we have q&a now. now, this is my opportunity to learn from you. i always like the q&a part of any presentation, because you guys get to tell me where i got it wrong, and i can learn from you. yes, sir? >> the fall offal federalist party is the only other example of the demise of the american is the when is at the eve of the civil war. one

of world war ii. the manufacturing capability was one of the north's strengths in the civil war. the south on the other hand did not have the industrial might that the north had. as we talked earlier, the new england and the connecticut river valley was the home of dozens of gun manufacturers. the springfield, so many were needed by the union army that 33 different manufacturers were turning out the identical rifle for purchase by the union army. the confederates were left up to their own. they had a few places, harpers ferry, virginia, when they actually had possession of it. richmond had a factory along the james river. there were a few down in north carolina, georgia, and texas. they could hardly supply the needs of the confederacy. they got most of the guns either capture during battle from the yankees or imported from overseas. the finest infantry rifle in the world in 1861 was from britain. the confederates bought a quarter of a million of them. they were the most favored long arm of the civil w

how even though it looks like a war and sounds like a war, it's not a war. let's play that sound bite. >> we're engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation. and it's going to go on for some period of time. if somebody wants to think about it as being at war with isil, they can do so but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts. >> so there's that and then you also have the sound from the pentagon today. listen to this. >> what i said is this is not the iraq war of 2002. but make no mistake, we know we are at war with isil in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al qaeda and its affiliates. >> so i guess what are we to think? do you think that this is a deliberate turn around or another case of mixed messages in these different briefings? >> i think at first the -- one reason why they didn't want to call it a war is because of that panic people at home. the president has been anti-war ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan. and so the administration has wanted to really

in the war of 1812. we have heard some things about dolly madison's role in the war of 1812. now,

, with whom you are at war or they at least are at war with us.ve missed the boat on this one. >> i guess what's so -- so the president wants us to partner up with the rebels, train them, advise them, and also with the iraqi military, but he is also asking money from congress, and everyone is so, like, everyone is full of fear right now. so of course congress is going to authorize this, but they're going to authorize a plan that may not essentially be the right plan to deal with the crisis. >> well, he has set the objective, which is, to quote, disrupt, destroy. >> everybody's on board with that one. >> that's a great goal. wonderful, he stated it. but he doesn't have the means to do that. for example the air power alone won't do it. if we're going to send the free syrian army, since we wouldn't help before when they needed it, they now have to fight two-front war, against assad and against isil. >> the thing is, he's not, he's asking for monday even from congress and congress is going to give him money to fight it from there. >> well, but somebod

a war. and, look, i think the fascinating thing here is that they seem to think that if you don't send ground troops that that means it's not a war. they're making a distinction with the bush administration we're not sending grounds troops spoo iraq so that makes it less of a war. 13 years ago today al qaeda attacked us with planes. was that not on act of war? war isn't defined by whether you have ground forces or not. our air force and navy pilots are combat forces that are bombing a foreign country. it's an act of war. if you can't even say what you're doing, how are you going to prosecute it in a way that's going to win? we need resolve. we need to send a message of resolve to the enemy. and we need to carry out this war and defeat the enemy. >> raises a good point, pete, because congress hasn't officially declared war since june of 1942. but tell that to guys like you who actually risked your lives on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan and these guys who are going to have to do this

they did not win the war, but they did not lose the war, either. the british cannot and should not claim that because the americans did not achieve their stated war aims that the british or the canadians simply won the war. in the summer of 1814, the british negotiated fairly large claims that they might bounce against the united states. we've heard talk about altering the boundaries of the united states to make sure great britain has control of the great lakes, things like that. what we make about all this is in 1840, the british armies failed to deliver the goods f whatever the goals might have been. when the terms of the treaty came out, it was the british who felt they had lost something and the americans had failed, they had won something. the british was somewhat embarrassed for not being able to dispose of such insignificant military power of the united states than they seemed to have done. this is why many historians have decided the war of 1812 was merely a draw. i don't find that term entirely satisfactory. a draw to me implies that two f

he pushed back, said this is not a war. he has not used the terminology war. and yet there seem to be this debate about semantics between the pentagon, josh earnest. why are you calling a war on isis and why has the president been hesitant to call it a war. >> you asked if he was preparing the country for war. he was preparing for this against isil. that's what we are doing. there was no debate between the white house and pentagon. you heard kerry, the pentagon and josh on friday under score that inasmuch as we have been at war with al qaeda, we are at war are isis. >> the democrats in general, you don't like to refer to these -- to this attack on al qaeda as a war. you didn't like the phrase war on terror. is that what this is about? >> well, no, chuck. you're confusing our position with a againization. this effort against isil we will undertake with a broad coalition. it's not like the war in iraq. but rather this is something that is targeted and it's a war we have to win. >> we have polling that we're just releasing this more than. 62% of the country suppo

but a war of choice, a war of necessity. how do you argue this isn't a war of necessity? how could we let them go behead our people? >> that's the point, you can't argue -- >> isn't that a case for people following him into war because he had to? >> he had no choice. he was thrust into this fight. and now the question, i appreciate where the governor's coming from, but, yeah, arabs dropping bombs is not the same as boots on the ground. will arab boots be on the ground? you're talking about, you have our defense department telling us it's going to take a year to train 5,000 syrian fighters to deal with the fight in syria. well, do we have that long? what happens in the interim? so there are a whole lot of pieces that need to get filled in. i applaud the president's determination to move in agenda forward and bring together the appropriate coalition. but i still have a problem with the idea that you're absolutely taking americans boots off the table and that's something we need to know, honestly, will there at some point be required? and the president has refused to answer

and the war of 1812. first andrew lambert on the naval aspects the war.nion. dolly madison and the creation r of the american nation. madis that's followed by allen taylor talking about his book, the low civil war of 1812. c later, remarks by john stagg, editor of the james madison pera papers at the university of virginity. coming up, day one of an symposium on the british burning the washington and the war of 1812. hosted by the white house historical association.u.s. the u.s. capital historical society. next, andrew lambert, author of challenge, britain against in te america in the naval war of 181" 1812. this is 45 minutes. is >>> my name is stuart mcloren. i'm the president of the white house historical association where we are privileged to convene today for this significant event.fica we're honorednt to have with us today, two members of the board of directors of the white house historical association, the honorable ann stock and mr. night kimplinger and mr. willia almon whose the curator of the t white house. this kmcommemorates one of herio ameri

to nuclear war. that's not going to be on the table. we still have to keep our powder dry, we still have to deter, stay ahead in the arms race, but we're going to engage day o'day on these communist-inspired ip insurgencies. so he wanted to create a force that specialized in this, that had language training, foreign area development, and he did. special forces. .. when we first created them we had a problem. they couldn't get promoted here because these were artillery officers, aviators and others that chose this as a second course and were finding themselves not competitive for promotion. many of us were regional commanders, we really took on the services to say these are extremely valuable people. they have to have a promotion track. that has change. now they're becoming successful in the own right and able to rush through the ranks. you are right on what you say, do we build into our system this week. we have civil affairs, psychological operations, special forces, special operation forces. all th

in the war of 1812? well, i suppose we should say off the bat, the most serious casualty is the loss of life. how many americans were killed in the war of 1812. this is rather difficult to calculate. nobody kent precise if i can yours on this sort of thing. they suffered -- they died as a direct result of combat in the war. i did some calculations. and i found that, in fact, about 10% more of the army died of disease, sickness and other causes that are not directly related to the battle. they were simply a product of the very unhealthy nature of military camps. the ability of commanders to dissolve sanitation and these sort of things. they could go through and take a very and substantially more on the american side died as a result of disease, sickness, than they ever do in the british troops. there is collateral damage, of course, that occur when militia die as a result of british raids and this sort of thing that we're talking about. i would estimate to say perhaps 16,000 americans died one way or anot

so how can we say that war hawks forced madison into a war he did not want? quite simply, we cannot say that and should not say that. it's one of these myths that's very hard to kill off, but it's simply not true. the role of the war hawks, in fact, was very different. they were not the macons of american policy towards great britain. maybe its spokesmen worked its way through committees and votes in the house of representatives as congress prepared for war in the 36 months after november 1811, but the prong mover of american policy here is not congress. it is president madison himself. and shake policy throughout the war of 1812. how well did this work for him as commander in chief? the answer is a rather mixed one. in most cases, the policies the odd m administration passed the house of representatives, not the senate. the reason is the not is not controlled by a majority of republican votes. now, rather the senate administration supports in the senate could often be out maneuvered of federalists and republicans who didn't like james madison very much. the

the war. he will dutifully fall the president's wishes, he will qualify as best as he can. clearly the message took hold at 1967. when a nationwide offensive wreaks havoc across south in early february of 1968, they are failed expectations across the board. those failed expectations swiftly lead it to the conviction that wes moreland's has that wes moreland somehow presided over a flawed strategy. not only had the president to,ded that he was going not going to run for reelection but more importantly there was a problem with public support. walter cronkite would most famously go on television and question the war effort and johnson would say if i have lost walter cronkite i have lost middle america and thus lost the war. expectations -- as the war proceeded and ended, will turn on wes moreland himself. they will focus on a trip -- they will say his focus on attrition blinded him. here's the phrase we hear over and over again, if only. if only he had developed and implemented a better strategy

well, for the war years.eyond saying, of course, that we were disappointed, the war was not gk of the as he put what does, that he enkourpted during the war. i want to say something about tho those. . >> now, at this point i nowhere does mady sop take the blame that anything went wrong. in rethet retrospect, he was no about the war. he said, why did we have to go to war? well, it was the british. the british were not needed for war. in response to the child that the job was add. well, that was congress yes, sir '. and the time i wanted them, i think we would see a very different picture. on that is. of the it's a very difficult and pob enterprise of the what echt to share with you on the leader hetd. >> if, when two american faermz will. madison summed up this following way. and i quote, the difficulties by the plour of the we want all to be passed and reach the distant theater and he was home amidst all his sources for defense, closed quote. madison also listed two other factors that he considered to be para

around the war. >> are we at war or are we not at war? and dandana, i'm going to go tou on this. a couple of weeks ago, he said that the administration was being deliberately confusing and sending out mixed messages on the threat of isis and whether or not we're at war and whether or not they are a threat to us here at home. you think there's a deliberate effort to confuse? so they can say well, we said it here, but we didn't say it here? >> i guess if it were the white house, i would try not to make it look so deliberate. i would zoo this tonight at the white house. i would say forget your friday night plans. everybody in my office at 6:00 and we're going to have the same language. but that language has to come from the top. so the global war on terror, that language, it was strong, it was definitive and it was very clear. okay, we know what we're doing, we are at war, a global war on terror, this is a long war, we're not just going to do pin prick strikes against isil. it is clear to me that the speech that the president gave on wednesd

the war of 1812, the mexican war, spanish-american war, two world wars. but this were multiple declarations in the world wars. so only five wars. we haven't had a formal declaration of war since 1942. we just don't do it that way nowadays. rather, congress authorizes the president to take action and then he does, if and when he thinks it's necessary. anyway, the vote on the declaration of war in june of 1812 was 79-49 in the house of representatives, and 19-13 in the senate. now, there was actually a closer vote in the senate on the declaration of war against spain, i think 45-35. but you look at both houses. this is the closest vote on any declaration of war. all the others, except for the spanish-american war, were overwhelming if not unanimous. so this represents an exception here. now typically, the declaration of war, the vote on the declaration of war is portrayed as a sectional vote. because so many northern members of congress voted against and it so many southerners and westerners voted for it. but that really masks what i think is the true natur

the war kept growing, too.n neither the administration nor congress applied fiscal restraints, the fed decided to go it alone again. they used an open-market operation. in january 1966, they sold government bonds to tighten up the nation's money supply. interest rates rose dramatically. soon, any business sensitive to interest rates was caught in a credit crunch. the housing industry was hardest hit. the full effect of the fed's solitary action took hold in early 1967. inflation dropped, but at a terrible cost-- a zero growth rate for the gross national product. to economists, this was an impressive lesson. the fed was very effective in 1966. the discount rate increase and the reduction in the rate of creation of bank reserves drove up market interest rates, reduced investment in residential construction by several billion dollars. that served to offset, from a broad economic point of view, the increase in vietnam expenditures. i later, years later, asked president johnson what he really thought of that episode

most wars are a lot closer to 9 war of 1812 than they are to world war ii.there was significant opposition to the american revolution, the mexican war, the war in vietnam, and just about every other war we have fought since vietnam. there was some opposition to the spanish-american war to world war i, and to the korean war. it looks to me like the exception in the history isn't the war of 182 or the war in vietnam. the exception is world war ii. my take is that this is simply the price we pay for democracy, that if we're going to go to war, we should expect opposition, and if that war drags out, that opposition will only increase. that, my friends, is the price we pay to being a democratic republic. okay. thank you. i think we have q&a now. now, this is my opportunity to learn from you. i always like the q&a part of any presentation, because you guys get to tell me where i got it wrong, and i can learn from you. yes, sir? >> the fall offal federalist party is the only other example of the demise of the american is the when is at the eve of the civil war. one

war for most of 1813 and 1814. the problem was armstrong wanted to be president in 1814. the problem was they never lost an opportunity to undercut each other. this was sort of a pattern of misconduct, this behavior, if you like, that culminated when the british attacked washington. on that occasion, some of you will note that armstrong declined to participate in the arrangement of him for the capital while monroe has been accused of medaling with the organization of the troops at the battle of blatansburg that probably facilitated the british advance on washington. and i feel most americans feel madison should have stopped this. but madison did not firearmstrong or monroe. and he seemed to be too willing to tolerate colleagues who were clearly self serving. the question is why? he was not confrontational in style. he liked to avoid pleasantness, if he possibly could. but the real problem was madison had most difficulty getting anyone to serve in the cabinet at all. he was just trying to get somebody. he had far mo

she chose to publish it to mark the 100th anniversary of the start of the war to end all wars . >> i could not believe it, really, what they went through. what they suffered, really, in discomfort, even if not in danger. it was no way for any human to live. there was mud, water, rats. >> brooks experienced the terrible war of attrition in the trenches, largely held by the british. he wrote it all down in unsentimental, unsparing detail as a record for future generations. brooks was made a signal or because he had a bike. he used it to bring messages and orders to the front. he was one of over 6 million to serve in the war. he was glad to enlist. >> the people did not have a clue what it was like. they were full of patriotism and thought they were doing a good thing and did not realize what they were getting into. i think it is important to have a record of it. >> personal memories need official remembrance. to mark the 100 anniversary of the outbreak of the war, the british government gave the imperial war museum a 50 million euro makeover. for young and old, one of the highlights of

world war ii. now we are here talking about world war i. one of the differences is that there is no living constituency. the last american veteran of world war i passed away three years ago at the age of 110. so there is not the representation of veterans in congress. there is not the representation of veterans on the boards of our major corporations and foundations. so it is a different challenge for us, but one we we can meet. i got involved in this effort semi-is ago when i decided to advocate for restoration of the d.c. war memorial in the law -- in the mullahs had fallen into disrepair. that effort led me to talk about rededicating that memorial as a national and local world war i memorial on the mall. the question will come up why pershing park, why don't you want to be on the mall? that is an excellent question. the commission thinks that working from a blank slate, we would be on the mall. the congress enacted a commemorative works ask him years ago to establish the location of memorials in

using the weapons of war, using the personnel of war, what about this makes this not war? if it's more than 60 days that the war act in which congress needs to be engaged. that's an issue i think we'll have some debate on. but the military operations that the president is talking about, we believe 24r's surgical air strikes and not a pattern that would be a prolonged engagement. if it's a prolonged engagement, then i think the terminology would trirg the war powers act. >> thank you. the question, no one in washington is asking, what if for once, what if for once we just did nothing. that's coming up. and later, the report that the nfl did indeed have the video of ray rice and what he did inside that elevator with his fiance, and they had that video months ago. contradiction completely of what the nfl commissioner has said. s philosophy is, reynolds? no. not exactly. to attain success, one must project success. that's why we use fedex one rate. right. their flat rate shipping. exactly. it makes us look top-notch but we know it's affordable. [ garage door opening ] [ sighs

this is war time rhetoric from the white house because it is a war. we've sent soldiers into combat zones to help arm and train syrian fighters, american fighter jets are leading a massive air campaign as we speak along with five other arab nations. we're dropping bombs on the enemy in two countries. iraq and in syria. so where's the u.s. congress? did they vote to approve the use of military force? after signing off on a measure to train, congress left town until after the november election. harry reid and mitch mcconnell are rarely on the same page but they don't show any inkling to could that back and vote and the white house seem happy to have them gone. isn't this why we have a congress? to take hard votes on whether or not to authorize a war? the british parliament is set to be recalled to vote. president obama led the security council. will president obama call congress back? this is also rhetoric on my part because obviously they're not coming back paul, since you're new here, let's talk it over. harry reid has gotten in trouble for fighting.

the war was dope. the war was done. and we won. and a lot of people were very unhappy that we won including a lot of people in the congress who went out to every anti-vietnam demonstration and made speeches about how they were anti-vietnam. anyway, it took two and a quarter years, but this is what happened. watergate happened for sure. it happened that year. and -- it had already happened, but it hadn't become a scandal. it became a scandal a really during 1973 was the big year for watergate. they knew then, and i'm quoting them, i'm not quoting me, that they would be able to win each though they had already lost. what they did butted they tested a new -- they the u.s.ed a new president, president ford. i believe weak when it had to do something with guarding vietnam. they attacked one village in south vietnam, he didn't do anything. he didn't resupply them, he didn't do anything. another village, finally, they took a big province and they say when they were able to do that, they knew they had this thing won. they would attack saig

zia was determined during the war to take the war inside of kabul.the cia could not find a rocket propelled weapon that could fire into kabul from insurgent and drove territory. zia went to the chinese communist to be designed specifically a rocket propelled weapon that could be fired the 20 are so clogged that were needed. zbigniew zabriskie deserves credit for bringing the chinese into this effort although they might've come on their own anyway, but he saw the chinese as a critical player. one other thing. the chinese weapons were universally regarded by the afghans as the best quality weapons they got. the weapons that they got from egypt, they regarded as the worst quality weapons that they got. the chinese did it because by 1979, the china soviet split had gone so far that it wasn't, there was no chinese affinity anymore for the soviet union. they wanted to see russians get killed also. they may not have wanted to see communism come to an end, in which case the web unintended consequences for them, just like it had for us. your first question ab

war on isis. you know, millions of people have saved with progressive, so i get invited to quite a few family gatherings. heck, i saved judith here a fortune with discounts like safe driver, multi-car, paperless. you make a mighty fine missus, m'lady. i'm not saying mark's thrifty. let's just say, i saved him $519, and it certainly didn't go toward that ring. am i right? [ laughs ] [ dance music playing ] so visit progressive.com today. i call this one "the robox." >>> we're back with coverage of president obama's address to the nation tonight. our next guest is uniquely qualified to weigh in on the president's position, having been both a fighter and a diplomat in america's two major post september 11 theatres of war. the ultimate goal? but in particular with iraq, jumping back into this iraq civil war, by going after the islamic state, we are, in fact, entering into a sectarian conflict here. the islamic state is aligned with the student communities. the student communities are aligned with the

i said i would talk about the civil war scholarship. civil war scholarship. if we talk about the civil war scholarship in the era of the centennial, what do we find? we find this. scholarship in the 1960s was a very different place. when we talked in our classroom, we've been talking about the cause of the civil war and our battle has been sort of between the -- or at least the folks we talked about, we talked about whether or not it's about state's rights or slavery. i think we've come to see where the scholarship is today, nearly every scholar says that the civil war is at some level, and i stress the some level, caused by slavery. its expansion into the west, and the political reactions to that act. it is certainly not a war that is caused by desire to free the slaves. although once in a blue moon i'll still hear that in new england. but in the 1960s, it was very different, it was between scholars who argued over whether or not the civil war as clash of cultures between north and south, or was it bungling politicians. now, at the point that we're looking a

the child was used as a prop in a war. a war he neither caused or part of.'t get more evil than that, does it? yet in the midst of john and diane's grief they do something that i don't think i could. maybe you could but i don't think i could. they find it within themselves to rise above that evil to do something good for others. creating that james w. foley legacy foundation to protect and support journalists because the foleys don't want others to go through what they have and are going through. they sure set an example for all of us, don't they? i really don't know how they do it. maybe it's because their son was such a strong person himself. >> it's interesting how, you know, how his faith/q-4 was, you know, helped him a lot. >> you can't do this on true grit. >> you can't. you cannot do it on true grit. >> jim wasn't a holy kid, okay? jim was just a good kid. you know, he had a goodness about him that's what daniel said about jim. jim had pure goodness. he had a big laugh. he believed in people. and i think that's where he met god in a way in that goodne

but the world war ii generation fought and won that war, and not only saved this nation, but with ourllies, they literally saved the world. many of the friends on the board of directors have been involved in this memorial from the inception to the dedication , and they continue to work to support this wonderful memorial. we're privileged to work to ensure the legacy, the lessons learned from that war, and the unity of this nation which never has been greater and the sacrifice of all those who honored -- we honor today are never forgotten. to accomplish this mission, we work closely and proudly with the department of defense, with the milwaukee district of washington, and the national park service to share this sacred memorial with all of our world war ii veterans and their families. and all americans and from people all over the world. a special thanks to mr. robert vogle and that great national parks service team who in a very superb manner take care of this magnificent memorial. and is truly a sacred place to come to remember, to reflect, and to commemorate the defining moments of t