opposed to the united states in its view of the world and the belief in how you should go around you know promoting democracy and in the meantime ceding cares and bloodshed dies russia flooding there putin need to be neutralized and if so how well i'm a true the word neutralized is correct i think mr putin views himself in history somewhere along the lines of piotr very leaky peter the great because the rino they leak catherine the great and now it's going to be blood the image of a leaky because he's the man who regained crimea and possibly part of ukraine for russia but what different. does it make how he views himself i mean he always said that he's trying to protect russia's interests and those great leaders that you just mentioned they were protecting russia's interests what's wrong with standing out for a country that's right and as i said he's very much in the pattern of peter the great and catherine the great in an effort to add land whether it's buffer for protection or buffer to move forward in an effort to enhance russia's strength that the lemma is when you add russia's s

opposed to the united states in its view of the world and the belief in how you should go around you know promoting democracy and in the meantime ceding cares and bloodshed dies russia a flooding there putin need to be neutralized and if so how well i'm not sure the word neutralized is correct i think mr putin views himself in history somewhere along the lines of piotr very leaky please peter the great because at the reno they leak catherine the great and now it's going to be blood the image of a leaky because he's the man who regained crimea and possibly part of ukraine for russia but what different. doesn't mean how he views himself i mean he always sad that he's trying to protect russia's interests and those great leaders that he just mentioned they were protecting russia's interests what's wrong with standing out for a country that's right and as i said he's very much in the pattern of peter the great and catherine the great in an effort to add land whether it's buffer for protection or buffer to move forward in an effort to enhance russia's strength that the lemma is when you ad

states do you think those threats of both russia and china being exaggerated in the united states do those countries really pose such a significant threat to the united states because as far as i understand neither of the ones there was the global dominance they just want to be treated as equal partners viz a viz the european union or the united states i think in some circles you find those threats to be exaggerated polling data suggests that the the strongest sense of threat is among members of the the staff of the u.s. congress and then the second strongest set of threat comes from the members of the u.s. congress and they are way ahead of the american people in their sense of threat but i think that this is this is not going to get easier as we go toward our election cycle for the presidential elections and congressional elections in two thousand and fourteen and sixteen politicians are going to want to move to the right that is to say move more against china and russia to show they're tougher and more of standing up for american national security with hillary clinton leading in t

states so i'm not sure what the bike is broken any law goes in montana and united states government does not have the option of dictating law to sovereign countries but it's been doing it for a long long time it did it to switch them. in and now they're starting on the commerce fight in germany they're trying to same thing to it that they just did to the french by. i think that part of this is that washington uses. american clout over of the people by threatening them to be excluded from the american market. and all of to her those financial institutions in order to in. the financial interior lism all the american banks so when they beat up on barclays they beat up on the french by the beat up and injured by then goldman sachs j.p. morgan city bye bye from america they can start a movie an easier oh noes only territory of those black so i think that's also part of it in fact a true think should be the main. the main part of it but i don't think the world should accept the fact that the united states government jan and. decide. what countries there by these other sovereign countries

states. >> united states has committed no aggression against cuba. and no offensive has been launched from florida or from any other part of the united states. >> the american role is immediately exposed. no one believes that this isn't happening with some american help. >> the leader of the free world has been humiliated on its own doorstep. castro prevailed over kennedy at least for the moment and it will take a long time to destroy that image. >> it was a calamity. kennedy had been totally misinformed by american intelligence about the strength of the anti- communist movement and the fact is when these poor people arrived on the beaches in cuba, they were decimated. >> only landing themselves, stewart, how large were they actually? >> best indications, walter, there were about 300 men armed only with the weapons they could carry. unmistakably clear, walter, from all the evidence available that the cia planned this operation. it was the cia that established the revolutionary council by saying to the dissident factions, get together or else. >> toda

we were with the united states in kuwait. we were with united states together and afghanistan. we did not go to iraq. oft: there is this threat terrorism coming out of iraq that could impact many different countries. do you think it was right for the ministers and to go back in? guest: i'm not going to second-guess the administration. to all of these situations, there is no easy door to go through. we were working with united states and other allies on syria and we still have to get the accounting for the reduction of chemical weapons and we are putting in money to the humanitarian efforts including over $200 million into jordan for all the refugees that are there regrettably. i'm not going to second-guess the president on this and nor would canada. host: thank you very much for being part of "newsmakers." host: we are back with our reporters. what is going on between the canadian government and this white house over the keystone pipeline? >> this is a big point of tension between the two countries. the ambassador tried to separate the two and say we have a disagreement over th

from the united states' defense spending. and since the fall of the soviet union we don't really have a threat to the united states so why are we spending the money in europe? secondly, since the advent of fracking, the united states is no longer subject to the same threat of cutoff of energy from the sources of supply in europe. especially oil. we really don't need eastern hemisphere oil anymore so does that give us far less of an interest in sort of the stability of the middle east? so really why are we getting involved in what's essentially a european problem? the ukraine is a european problem, not an american problem. why are the europeans spending little and then blaming the united states for not showing up and carrying their cloak for them. i don't know whether they're asking that in washington or on the left coast, but certainly they're asked here in the flyover zone. >> good question. >> martin klingst. >> i do agree that europe has not spent enough on their defense budget. it's less than two percent. it's between 1.4

opposed to the united states in its view of the world and the belief in how you should go around you know promoting democracy and in the meantime ceding cares and bloodshed dies russia a flogging of putin need to be neutralized and if so how well i'm a true the word neutralized is correct i think mr putin views himself in history somewhere along the lines of piotr very leaky pleat peter the great because the arena of elite catherine the great and now it's going to be blood the image of a leaky because he's the man who regained crimea and possibly part of ukraine for russia but what different. does it make how he views himself i mean he always sad that he's trying to protect russia's interests and those great leaders that you just mentioned they were protecting russia's interests what's wrong with standing out for a country that's right and as i said he's very much in the pattern of peter the great and catherine the great in an effort to add land whether it's buffer for protection or buffer to move forward in an effort to enhance russia's strength that the lemma is when you add russia

special prosecutor, on behalf of the united states, moved for a subpoena duces tecum. and, it is the subpoena here in question. the district court ordered the subpoena to issue returnable on may 2 and the subpoena, of course, called for the production of tape recordings in advance of september 9, 1972 which is a trial date. and, this was done to allow time

the world follows the united states. for better or for worse but i think for here hopefully it's for better because the united states is a leader in this area. we've taken a lot of steps both legally and on the enforcement side that the rest of the world thinks we follow in which hopefully -- >> rose: what are those steps.ñthing we've done is realy focused on enforcement, really no other country does wildlife enforcement like the united states does wildlife enforcement. our laws are really at the forefront, i think they can be strengthened in some ways but for example the united states is really at the forefront and is very ground breaking and the rest of the world very much wants to follow it or at least people who are focused on these sort of things. >> rose: what is ttreaty. >> i think patrick is probably deeper into that than i am -- >> convention of international trade and international species, it is the global international treaty of trade between nations on species, plants, animals and marine life and so forth.

and the united states has multiple means to influence events short of war. nazi germany's concentration camps and world war ii taught us that we should never again be strategically unprepared, militarily weak, or morally detached. the refrain "never again" was born out of reaction to hitler's concentration camps and nazi's brutal subjugation of foreign people through on merciless war. war.merciless it stated the importance on the suffering and repression of others. it warned of complacency for those that thought what was happening there was not our problem. it implied that had not so many individuals and nations looked the other way, or let their literal and figurative defenses down, hitler's plan for world domination would not have come so close to fruition. after adolph hitler and the axis powers put the world through living hell, everyone knew there were lessons to be learned much the to the war wrought by nazi germany and the empire of japan was an apocalypse. 60 million casualties, the holocaust, mass executions of civilians, death marches, routine tort

it's in the interest of not only iran but the united states -- >> how does iran and the united states come together to defeat isis. >> we need to agree on principles. principles. we need to respect the choices of the iraqi people. we need to use whatever influence we have in iraq as well as afghanistan in order to convince various forces inside the country that the best way to move forward to inconclusivity is working together. that is the call we made to every portion of society. we are in contact with various people inside iraq. we have been in contact before this horrific incident of the attack by isis and we continue to call on all forces in iraq to work together to form an inconclusive government. that represents and respects the wishes of the iraqi people. now, whoever the iraqi parliament can come up with as speaker of the parliament and as the prime minister, iran will respect as a neighboring country with influence. our advice to them is not to pick this man over this over this man of the our advice is to pick a government that can represent the entire iraq and bring peace an

states so i'm not sure what the bike is broken any law goes in montana and united states government does not have the option of dictating law to sovereign countries but it's been doing it for a long long time it did it to switzerland. and now they're starting on the commerce fight in germany they're trying to same thing to it that they just didn't trench by . i think that part of this is that washington uses. american clout over of the people want threatening them to be excluded from the american market. and all of to her those financial institutions in order to in. the financial interest them all the american banks so when they beat up on barclays they beat up on the french they beat up on the german by day and goldman sachs j.p. morgan city by and by america they can start a movie any easier oh noes own the territory of those black so i think that's also part of it in fact a true picture should be the main. the main part of it but i don't think the world should accept the fact that the united states government jan and. decide. what countries and their bikes these other sovereign c

states, and not just towards the united states. remember, this is a regime that has called for limiting israel from the map. my father reminds me, when somebody talks about eliminating 6 million jews, we do not have an excuse having gone to the history of what happened in the of ignoring940's that individual. and somebody says along the lines of what was put into "mein a race about eliminating of people, or in this context, eliminating israel, and in his mind israel is the little satan, we are the big satan. he has been very vocal about his animus toward other religions, and especially towards a society that believes in freedom of religion like our own. and so in this context, it is wise to be able to guarantee the security of the west in these negotiations with iran. >> [indiscernible] revelationss on the of spying in germany -- are you worried about the [indiscernible] the u.s. posture is hurting relations with the country? i would like your thoughts -- >> i met yesterday with a delegation from germany on this and as you can see,

they need businesses in the united states to stay united. remember one other thing about the relationship. someber that we have had challenges with angela merkel, the chancellor of germany, in the last couple of days, the questions about spiting, the ejection of a u.s. intelligence officer -- >> the cia station chief in berlin. exactly, and this conversation about sanctions had to go through angela merkel. there was a conversation between the president and the chancellor of germany. imagine that conversation, trying to collaborate over russia and ukraine. >> is this a summer photo op for the president? what exactly does the united states have at stake in ukraine? >> i would not call this a photo op. this is another headache for this president. this is a president dealing with issues on the border. he is dealing with a whole host of other domestic issues right now. still some questions about the u.s. economy. this is not something that this president sought out, a confrontation with russia. isthe same time, he following through with the sanct

to the united states? si? he says he's going to the united states. anyone else? united states? okay. the bus is leaving. if they are going to the united states, they may not always want to tell us. close the door. hasta luego. but the door is reopened. more people journeying north. all right, so we spent some time in one of those clinics. we ran in to a man who was trying to get to the united states but was hit by a car. severely broken foot, big cast, sitting in the wheelchair. he said once the cast comes off he'll continue his journey to the united states. then we saw this, we saw a woman who was trying to get to the united states who was 8 1/2 months pregnant, she went into labor. she ended up in the clinic we saw her 6 day old baby sitting next to her and once the baby is old enough, she plans to continue to try to get to the united states. miguel? >> amazing, amazing stuff. clearly it's not just the u.s. experiencing this concern at the border but it's mexico and guatemala and many, many countries seeing an influx of refugees. you say they wouldn't say where they are going

he also served in the united states navy. he served in the virginia house of delegates from roanoke from 1962 to 1971. and served as the minority leader from 1966 to 1971. he was a friend of everyone who knew him and someone who i had great respect. he will be badly missed. his wife june passed on just a month ago. it is a great loss for the roanoke community and for our country. and i thank the committee for allowing me to remember him for a few moments here. the gentleman from michigan served in the house of representatives and on this committee with congressman butler. i would love to recognize him for a few words. >> i thank you very much. so did zoe lofgren serve with him. i remember him very well. there are very few conservatives that i remember, going back that far, as clearly as i remember him because he was an impressive member of the congress. we exchanged views on a almost regular basis, but our friendship was never impaired by the different perspectives that we had on how government should run. so i join you, mr.

but if the united states and iran remain enemies, the obvious alternative for the united states would be to accept the inevitability of an expanded dominated state that will replace much of the current political geography of the region, to work with saudi arabia, to tame extremist tend sis within such a state and to yoke it to balance iran. any and all of these approaches would demand a level of diplomatic sophistication, imagination and skill that the united states has not displayed in recent years. the more likely outcome of our current blend of baffled hesitancy, diplomatic innocent -- tude and militarism is ineptitude and militarism. a political exflotion egypt, if disintegration of iraq, jordan, lebanon and syria along with palestine and the diversion of a considerable part of the resource s of these countries to terrorism in the region and against american homeland. we can and should do better than this. [applause] >> i would like to thank speakers and ask if there are any questions? i would like to start with a couple of questions. remarkably in the stack of thereons i've been

the united states has recognized this. the united states has looked for ways to enhance its cooperation with finland in areas of innovation. point of fact, the united states embassy in helsinki in february of last year inaugurated its own innovation center as a part of the embassy complex in the presence of the president and members of his cabinet. the purpose of the innovation center being to function as a focal point and as a forum for interchange between the united states and finland in precisely this area. another way in which i think these shared exchanges can be enhanced is through the international visitor leadership program of which finland has been a very active participant. in fact the president himself is an alumnus of an international visitor leadership program visit to the united states as are several of the members of his cabinet. and many of these exchanges have focused on the area of education whereas you say finland and the united states each will greatly benefit from a continuation of these exchanges to f

but if the united states and iran remain enemies, the obvious alternative for the united states would be to accept the inevitability of an expanded dominated state that will replace much of the current political geography of the region, to work with saudi arabia, to tame extremist tend sis within such a state and to yoke it to balance iran. any and all of these approaches would demand a level of diplomatic sophistication, imagination and skill that the united states has not displayed in recent years. the more likely outcome of our current blend of baffled hesitancy, diplomatic innocent -- tude and militarism is ineptitude and militarism. a political exflotion egypt, if disintegration of iraq, jordan, lebanon and syria along with palestine and the diversion of a considerable part of the resource s of these countries to terrorism in the region and against american homeland. we can and should do better than this. [applause] >> i would like to thank speakers and ask if there are any questions? i would like to start with a couple of questions. remarkably in the stack of thereons i've been

here in the united states senate. and what have we done? what have we done? the parliamentary situation is that there will be no amendments that will be allowed to be debated or voted on, no matter what. the senator from maryland said, well, we don't legislate, we appropriate. we have some amendments on money that would either reduce or increase the amount of funding. are we going to be able to have at that amendment voted on? hell no! we're not going to be able to have a single thing voted on, and everybody wants to get out of town, so sometime tonight or maybe tomorrow we're going to close up shop and we're going to go home. and the humanitarian crisis goes on -- it goes on. what about these children? are they going to be enticed by coyotes from their families to give a year's salary to transport them from one of these countries to the united states of america? are an untold number of young women going to be raped along the way? are there going to be kids that fall off these trains? is that what's going to happen? w

., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 221, the nays are 199. he amendment is adopted. the unfin -- the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of

the united states feels it can use force in response. now, i incite pearl harbor as an example. you might think pearl harbor was a clear case of the japanese attacking the united states, but our 911 truther describes this as one of the false flag operations that i site as if the united states attacked pearl harbor on its own in order to start world war ii. i don't think so. and similarly, i site a number of other examples where the united states only uses military force if it's been attacked first. and i said that i suspect that that may also be true in any con residents tation with iran, that om of the iranians were silly enough to follow through on their threats to attack u.s. air craft carriers when they go into the gulf and the like action then under those circumstances, the united states might be prepared to use force but that unless iran attacks the united states, it's going to be hard for a president to explain why we use force. host: host: what's your name? >> badzad. host: host: go ahead. >> caller: my question is. this. i am fr

israel's ambassador to the united states is out front. new details into the investigation of malaysia flight 17. new evidence presented of a russian troop buildup along the border. what is putin doing? >>> and 290 killed when the u.s. navy shot down a commercial airliner in 1988. the u.s. government refused to apologize. our report. that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve.. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if frustration and paperwork decrease... the gap begins to close. so let's simplify things. let's close the gap between people and care. for over 19 million people. [ mom ] with life insurance, we're not just insuring our lives... we're helping protect his. [ female announcer ] everyone has a moment when tomorrow becomes real. transamerica. transform tomorrow. transamerica. start with the best writing experience.? make it incredibly thin. add an adjustable kickstand, a keyboard, a usb port, and the freedom of touch. and, of course, make it run microsoft office, with the power and speed to do real work. introducing

currency status going forward will impact the united states well we don't know. all right you know for five hundred years the western world has been on what i call the central banking warfare model and that means the central banks print money and and the military make sure everybody takes it uses it may keep their will clearly going essentially in the worst case in force and that's why when the system starts to break down what do we see we see war and so it's been a very successful model for the g. seven it's been a way of getting essentially natural resources and labor cheap and obviously you know the g seven chose to implement the w t o n are in the process of rebalancing the global economy so we're moving away from that slowly it's a it's a been a gradual and a menage change should secure again and again as you can tell it's very messy i think where the leadership wants to go is to have a digital currency you know i don't think they really care whether you call it dollar or want them as long as it's digital and i think the you know the migration of the currenc

we were with the united states in kuwait. we were with united states together and afghanistan. we did not go to iraq. host: there is this threat of terrorism coming out of iraq that could impact many different countries. do you think it was right for the ministers and to go back in? guest: i'm not going to second-guess the administration. when it comes to all of these situations, there is no easy door to go through. we were working with united states and other allies on syria and we still have to get the accounting for the reduction of chemical weapons and we are putting in money to the humanitarian efforts including over $200 million into jordan for all the refugees that are there regrettably. i'm not going to second-guess the president on this and nor would canada. host: thank you very much for being part of "newsmakers." host: we are back with our reporters. what is going on between the canadian government and this white house over the keystone pipeline? >> this is a big point of tension between the two countries. the ambassador tried to separate the two and say we have a di

in fact, for iran, keeping the united states out of iraq, keeping the united states from any kind of re-engagement militarily in iraq, will be an interest which trumps their orerest in the feeding isis stabilizing iraq, and we will find ourselves more at odds with the revolutionary gods in -- guards in iraq. i think we should try to prevent that by sending messages through the channels that we have two iran about what our intentions are and what we are trying to do and what consequences iran should expect it a find themselves running afoul of that. i do not the that requires tactical battlefield cooperation or that sort of thing, in part, because iran operates fundamentally differently than the united states does. i do not think there would be any sort of natural overlap. >> thank you very much. ambassador hof, give us your latest insights on how syria plays into this and the broader thoughts on the entire situation. >> thanks. perhaps it would be useful if i give sort of an overview of the prospect of some kind of practical cooperation between the united states and the assad regime

states wanted it to the united states has stumbled and bumbled its way since february twenty first through this entire episode and now they're trying to make up for it. to very interesting theory trying to make up for it because the myth of russian expansionism the myth of a russian aggression it's all a myth but it you'll never find out in western media ever. we are dealing here with a very good effect of mechanism of projection used by the white house and by the media because we know we have reached a point now where so-called nato expansion. is becoming more and more like nato aggression or aggressive expansion to the gates of moscow itself and the below which eric mentioned indeed that's a serious stuff russian aggression prevention act is basically legislating a state of war with russia and now the tragedy with that makes seventeen is trying to sell this very idea as you global product to all nations around the world and especially to the europeans so it's a very serious effect right when the tragedy happened that kiev regime for several things for direct presence of nato troops in uk

states has to say. >> well, one has to understand that during the cold war the united states really led the western alliance. the european has the same degree of caution that they show now, but it was the president of the united states who frequently had to push them to take tougher actions against the soviet union, against the eastern block and provide this coordination, sometimes the financing, and clearly the leadership. that i think is still a role that the president can play. i think this president wants to do it more with allies, you about they have to recognize historically the context has often been that the united states has to lead, which is not really a central unified actor. >> there have been criticisms about sanctions and whether they have gone far enough, and congress has called on the white house to push harder. what is the role of congress in the mix peer? that really can be--that's restricted to his role as commander in chief. his ability to really get on the bully pulpit, and to be the world leader. but congress has not been very helpful in allowing the president

almost 30 million visas to legally work in the united states or permanently reside in the united states. during this time the number of americans with jobs, americans with jobs declined on net, on net fewer u.s.-born workers have jobs in 2014 than in 2000. amazing. there are fewer people working today, even though the population has increased, than in 2000. the president's plan to work permits for illegal immigrants is, in addition then, to the already huge flow of low-wage labor into the united states. and we have a problem, colleagues, with americans needing jobs. we don't have too few workers. we have too few jobs. and i would contend that that's pretty clear because wages are down. if we had a shortage of workers, wages would be up. when you have a surplus of labor and surplus of workers, wages decline. according to the "wall street journal" in 2007, family income of four would amount to about 55,000 dollars income on average. it's now dropped to $50,000. that's a huge diminishment of the wealth of americans. isn't it time we did something for american workers? who do we represent?

say is welcometo to the united states. it does seem to me that is the first thing that should he said. see that theildren leader of the party along with members of congress, that would you experience that the border is not typical of the people of the united states. your testimony has an compelling, but it has been shocking. call for an should investigation of what happened. people grieving children at the border. these are the first children we have an opportunity of hearing him. we have no testimony. did you speak english when you came to this country? how long have you been in this country? years. >> do you hear this virtually perfect english? i hope those who have not canorted immigration reform hear what this young immigrant has learned in that short time and will understand just how important it is to have young people like you in our country and how much you are bound to contribute to our country. district that the have to learn from central america -- children from central my district of columbia is one of them. ma

the united states and some of its -- >> is that fair to say that the united states is supporting isis? >> no, no, the united states is supporting those who are trying to dismantle syria, to destroy syria using these tactics. you cannot pick and choose. this is the reality -- >> isn't that what iran is doing? >> this is the reality of the situation in syria. we have called from the very beginning to respect the will of the syrian people, to allow the syrian people to determine their future, to allow the syrian people to use political processes in order to obtain the objective. >> but, minister, this is the force of assad's fist. it's not the will of the people, is it? >> no, it's not. the number of syrians who turned out to vote in lebanon were not worried about assad's fist. the problem is we're not supporting any individual or any specific group. what we are saying is why don't the united states abandon this idea of putting preconditions on the syrian people about who they should decide to govern them? let the syrian people, let a political process form, let the syrian people have th

states draws red lines and when the president of the united states will commit to military action. there were good -- very good reasons for the president to take the actions he did. and i think it's given him some advantages in terms of being seen as someone who can bring people together around the diplomatic table. at the same time, you know, so it's a little bit of both. i do think it's pivotal. i think it's going to continue to create problems with regards to the executive branch and congress with regards to the use of force. >> do you look short-term or long-term if you are in the oval office and juggling ukraine, and throw in places like iraq. >> the problem is in this day and age long-term is two or three weeks, if i were to tell i what the president's number one challenge is, it's getting the president and more importantly his staffer to start thinking about the long-term, to start looking six, 12, 24 months out and frankly five years out and say what type of world do we want and how do we get there. >> let's talk about the long-term when we come back after this short break,

the united states. states. >> she was happy for the money. let's be clear, that was how they were funding the fight. but what they wanted was the money but then stay out of our business, let us run our government. and the united states obviously wanted strings attached to that money. when things were going the right way, for example, the united states tried to send in ground troops a lot earlier but the brothers of said absently not. you know, these have to be advisors only. it wasn't until much later that the vietnam war escalate into what it became. >> there were several trenches attempts against the government began in 1960, i believe. -- coup attends. a couple of air men desperate she narrowly survived spent there was a direct hit on madame nhu's bedroom. some rogue south vietnamese air force pilot was tired of this sort of bossy lady, pushy lady. one of the vietnamese i talked to said she was, talked to big. she was too much. one of these south vietnamese air force pilots was upset about it and did

opposed to the united states in its view of the world and the belief in how you should go around you know promoting democracy and in the meantime seeding cares and bloodshed dies russia a flogging of putin need to be neutralized and if so how well i'm a true the word neutralized is correct i think mr putin views himself in history somewhere along the lines of piotr of a leaky police peter the great because it's a rino they lead catherine the great and now it's going to be blood the image of a leaky because he's the man who regained crimea and possibly part of ukraine for russia but what different. does it make how he views himself i mean he always said that he's trying to protect russia's interests and those great leaders that you just mentioned they were protecting russia's interests what's wrong with standing out for a country that's right and as i said he's very much in the pattern of peter the great and catherine the great in an effort to add land whether it's buffer for protection or buffer to move forward in an effort to enhance russia's strength that the lemma is when you add

was more important to the united states. president truman had intended to nominate white to be the first managing director in 1946. right before he did so, he received a long memorandum saying don't think about it. piv information and witnesses that will collaborate this mass a soviet spy. he did not trust hoover but he knew he had a big political problem on his hands. they said they decided that we want the world bank to "secure the confidence of the american investment community and it would be rude of us to take both institutions." both institutions mind you are in washington despite the fact that the british objected violently to this for year but they decided they wouldn't touch the i.m.f. because they did not want information about this scandal coming out. it sort of lives on to this day. at that point, i should stop and open up the floor for questions. [applause] yeah? >> counter factual history is always difficult but how difficult do you think it would have been if britain sent a free market economist. we also have

>> when people had free rein to organize the united states. in our interest to have aggressive and active posture there. there are economic moral reasons as well. >> right. >> we've got to get out of the notion that we are responsible for everything. >> this is "talk toays" when we come back, you will hear senator george mitchell talk about washington's dysfunction. >> people are not getting the care that they need >> a partisan standoff... >> i ride in opposition to obamacare >> millions un-insured... >> it hurts to see my family in this condition... >> our politics costing lives? >> there are people like me literally dying because because they don't have the cash >> fault lines. al jazeera america's hard hitting, >> they're blocking the door... >> groundbreaking, >> we have to get out of here... >> truth seeking, award winning, investigative documentary series the coverage gap only on al jazeera america >> hundreds of days in detention. >> al jazeera rejects all the charges and demands immediate release. >> thousands calling for their freedo

but can the united states do it in attack. the statistics say in terms of forming attacks that they are the second-worst in the tournament. but the way they have come through shows they have a real chance against belgium. the coach is a world cup winner, and you notice how difficult the united states team is to beat. and that is a key thing they will be relying on. in terms of trying to get the goals, maybe josie will be back possibly from the start. he has missed time due to a hamstring problem. but remember this is a team underrated, they are ranked 13th in the world. looking through the history books an incredible batch between the usa and bell gum. the only time the united states have beatel belgium was in the very first world cup in 1930. can they do it again? >> let's hope so! >>> up next, broken borders, broken dreams. we'll show you the risk that tens of thousands of immigrants are making to come to mark, and we'll look at the new plan to try to keep them from trying. and why are so many central americans convinced tha

the united states and israel. just the three parties, the united states commit g.i.'s to a place where they can do some good. >> we'll see if the president is listening and take a look at the bigger picture now. the united states is stepping up pressure on moscow releasing satellite images which it claims shows russian forces firing artillery shells over the border into eastern ukraine. madeleine albright is weighing in on the crisis and the ongoing turbulence in the middle east. when asked if the impress is accurate that the united states stepping back when it comes to conflicts abroad, she said no. here is her take. >> there's an awful lot of things going on that need understanding and explanations but to put it mildly, the world is a mess. the president has been pushing the europeans. europeans have to step up. i'm appalled, frankly, at the slowness of the europeans in understanding what is going on. >> now, andrea, this isn't obviously all barack obama's fault but do you think he plays a role here in terms of

>> when people had free rein to organize the united states. in our interest to have aggressive and active posture there. there are economic moral reasons as well. >> right. >> we've got to get out of the notion that we are responsible for everything. >> this is "talk toays" when we come back, you will hear senator george mitchell talk about washington's dysfunction. ♪ >>> you are watching "talk to al-jezeera america you." i am tony harassed. on this week's program, senator george mitchell. >> when did president obama ask you to go to the middle east and work on the israeli-palestinian 2009? >> about two weeks before he was inaugurated in? >> what did you think was possible? >> i don't accept that anything is impossible. you have to have a positive thing. you might as well not try. if you start a task saying i am going to fail, you are going to fail. you can't be deterred by past failures. the reality is, if you are interested in peace and you are asked to do it and from my view, as someone would has lived the american dream, if a president o

the united states in that context is the deepening relationship with india. and particularly trying to deepen our ties with india in terms of our strategic imperatives, both of us. it doesn't matter just to us or to india. it actually matters to the world, and that's why in my first months as secretary of state i went to india, and it's no coincidence that, you know, at the time in prime minister modi's first 100 days of his government, i'm now returning to delhi for two days of strategic dialogue and discussion, and it was no accident that in the intervening time we have had many discussions and meetings and the prime minister -- former prime minister singh came here to the white house during that period of time. then, of course, they had an election and as everybody knows for a certain number of months during a election, things tend to be put on hold. now is the time to renew that dialogue with a new government, with a new set of opportunities, new possibilitiepossibilities. this is a potentially transformative moment in our partnership with india. we're de

isil is the enemy of the iraqi people, our neighbors, the united states, and united states allies. and we must make a common effort to defeat them. this is a dangerous new development in the middle east that requires a new doctor to combat terrorism. on the military front, with its indiscriminate destructiveness, creating its own eventual defeat. experience. from however, until then, ethnic cleansing and systematic destruction of unique altars and heritage will suffer irreversibly. hasccupied muslim, isil destroyed shia mosques, sunni shrines, and more. just last week, they issued an ultimatum, ordering residents to convert to isil, deviant versions of islam. if they do not comply, the ultimatum that clears then they will literally face the sword. along with iraqi christian minorities, thousands of other minority communities have been forced to flee their homes, often leaving all their belongings behind. a recent report by human rights works said isil has systematically killed and shia andchristians, making them an example is crude -- crusaders and heretics. notwithstanding major s

doesn't that also apply to the united states though when you try to a procedure security interest in iraq or afghanistan or libya or syria don't you make those countries more insecure well remember in afghanistan take them one by one in afghanistan you had the taliep on giving. rest recuperation and play a planning base for the people in al qaeda who carried on nine eleven that had to be removed or else afghanistan would remain a major base for terrorist attacks on the us the problem was the us made a major mistake on this instead of a instead of finishing the job in afghanistan it turned its efforts to to iraq and that was a big mistake that may be fair enough but you know one of the mistakes of the soviet union was stretching its foreign policy too thin you know with focusing too much on spreading its values its ideology around the world the probably even have got in afghanistan and paying too little attention to the welfare of its own people isn't the united states running the risk of committing the same mistake now that's exactly what mr obama has been arguing let's come home let

currency status going forward will impact the united states. well we don't know. all right you know for five hundred years the western world has been on what i call the central banking warfare model and that means the central banks print money and and the military make sure everybody takes eases it may keep their will clearly going essentially in the worst case of force and that's why when the system starts to break down what do we see we see war and so it's been a very successful model for the g. seven it's been a way of getting essentially natural resources and labor cheap and obviously you know the g seven chose to implement the w t o enter in the process of rebalancing the global economy so we're moving away from that slowly it's a it's a been a gradual and a menage change it's going to here again again as you can tell it's very messy i think where the leadership wants to go is to have a digital currency you know i don't think they really care whether you call it dollar or want them as long as it's digital and i think the you know the migra

the united states has beat everybody in the last couple years. it's solidly beat the emerging markets but also solidly beat most of the international developed markets, as well, meaning their relative values improved and i would go and take advantage of that. you can't often find value with some issues, so the reason there is good value in europe is because they are not growing as fast. same thing with japan for example. but what that gives you is you can diversify away from the economic cycle and go to something that has a different place in the recovery than the united states. they are not worried about policy officials tightening in europe and japan like here. i also like canada and australia because i think if we have more inflation fears here in the united states, we will drive commodity prices higher and the commodity based resource markets might lead the world market for awhile, and then lastly, i would point out the emerging markets, tyler, as you said we're selling at 18 times and they are selling at 13.5 times and if they slow to six to

there are parts of the united states we have that. a perfect example. duncan hunter from san diego had a great op-ed piece that specifically said in his area of the country they put in a double fence and with it they have sensors and rapid teams they can deploy to anybody that breaks in. they had a decrease of 90% of illegal immigration at that point. interestingly, there are other places in the country the border is wide open and that's where they're going. we've got to secure the southern border. >> the congressman sounds a little disappointed in what the president's done so far. what could he say tonight that would make you a little bit more confident in his leadership ability? >> here's what i think the president should say tonight. we have laws on the books about how america treats refugees when they come to our borders. i think he should say i'm going to protect, i'm going to uphold those laws. i think he should wrap himself around those children say he's going to froekt those children. you know what? america's a lot more generous and a lot bigger

the united states got into a long, cold war with the soviet union so people would have been different if people would have listened to him. but that was the demise of his political career concerning the vice presidency of the united states. some of the things he was saying publicly got the attention of the progressive party and they came to him and asked him if they would be their presidential candidate for the 1948 election and he agreed to do that. being out of washington, d.c. he felt he was freer to say things that he felt were porntd toimportant to the country. he was not afraid to go into the south. in fact, he was the first presidential candidate to do this, to go into the south and oppose the jim crow laws. he talked about equal pay for equal work. he talked about it was right to have the lunch program in the schools. so he talked about things that were way ahead of the thinking of the majority of the people in the united states. he did not get many votes in the 1948 election. he lived out the last years of his life in the state of new york. he acquired lowing lou gehrig's dis

the united states is uniquely played a role in that. a million more afghans are alive today that would not be alive if it weren't of the efforts of the united states. how many afghan children are alive today that would not be alive. with regard to the issue of facilitation, the thing you don't have to say a u.s.people know what the is in aanyone who leadership position appreciates that. i wouldn't go overboard beating people on the head to say about the u.s. leverage. the question is will they be able to translate that? appreciated in influence and presentation. i think people in that region do of react well to a kind direct threat of the environment. recipe -- and i'm not saying that we are doing that. that we have a stake in their success. but we have done together, how and leverageome, works its own wonders. i don't think you need to be heavy-handed with regard to that leverage. -- at a few words? >> maturity of the political antem, the ability to offer emphatic yes. afghanistan is ready for that. i don't think it is appropriate, afg