back to iraq? >> narrator: there was a meeting with his friend nouri al-maliki. together, they signed an agreement that would keep american troops in iraq through at least 2011. >> the policy was that we want to build a long-term partnership with iraq, and that in the realm of security, some level of security presence was envisaged. >> what he's done is sort of set the pace of the war for his successor. his successor will come in and have this agreement already signed with the iraqis, dictating how the next three years will go. and bush has basically guaranteed that his successor will keep troops there, at least on some level, well into the next term. >> narrator: but then, as bush celebrated the agreement... (angry shouting) >> narrator: the shoes had come from an iraqi reporter angry about the deaths of at least 100,000 iraqi civilians in the years since bush's decision to invade. >> president bush is left sort of humiliated, i think, in front of the world. >> maliki is stricken. i mean, you can

the disaster in iraq. had the u.s. kept in this strikeforce, which would've been cia, paramilitary, special operations forces, it would have exacerbated the problem. the problem is not whether the u.s. would've been there to stabilize iraq. the issue is how much worse we are going to make iraq with these policies. it is almost impossible to imagine that this could've been handled in a worse way. having more troops there, all of these guys when they write their memoirs, have is brilliant vision looking backwards, that they were the ones that do, they would've done this differently. the u.s., since 9/11 -- and you could argue that this has been policy for many decades -- has been its own worst enemy in one sense. we created the very threat we claim to be fighting. on the other hand, if you look at who benefits of this war, beyond entities like isis, because they do benefit from this. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula becomes stronger in the sense that they have a greater propaganda movement they can roll out

our war in iraq. if we see things we don't like, we'll do calls from the vice president, just like we do with 150 other countries that have similar situations." >> the obama administration certainly did tell prime minister maliki and other iraqis that they wanted to see them play by the democratic rules, that they thought it was a mistake for them to go after their political rivals in this fashion. but they did it in private. they didn't do it in public. and they certainly never imposed any kind of a cost. >> you gotta continue to put pressure on them to do the right thing. i think everybody just kept their fingers crossed that ultimately, maliki would somehow step down or be replaced and that iraq would be in a better place. >> no, i don't think that's accurate. we were engaged with all of iraq's communities, we were engaged with prime minister maliki, and we were seeking to manage this and press iraqi leaders to move in a more inclusive direction. but by definition, our leverage, in order to affect

there will be no ground troops in iraq. this is my decision, and this is the decision of the iraqi government. >> the iraqi prime minister's remarks reflect president obama's view that the effort against isil will ebb and flow. >> our strikes continue alongside our partners. it remains a difficult mission, as i've indicated from the start. this is not something that's going to be solved overnight. we're confident that we'll be able to make progress in partnership with the iraqi government. because ultimately, it's going to be important for them to be able to, with our help, secure their own country. >> it has been a month since president obama pledged to degrade and destroy the islamic state. is the coalition winning? if not, why not? >> the islamic state, iraq and syria this time on the program, since the president announced a new alliance with fanfare, the army has escalated. but at the same time, is ill is getting pounded in kobane. joining us for that conversation, james jeffrey, a former u.s. ambassador for iraq, curre

it isn't against iraq or the continuing threat posed by iraq. iraq, the shiite-led government of iraq, is actually part of our coalition of the willing here. so this argument i think is too cute by half. and what's more on july 25th, two weeks before the president started bombing isis targets in iraq, president obama's national security advisor told speaker boehner -- unnamed senior administration official arguing that, quote, the 2002 iraq aumf would serve as an alternative statutory authority basis on which the president may rely for military action in iraq. even so, our position on the 2002 aumf hasn't changed and we'd like to see it repealed. got that straight. on to rationa+ on to rationale three. isis certainly wasn't around to plan or aid the 9/11 attacks and it's difficult to see how they are quote, unquote harboring an organization that excommunicated them. are they supposed to be a so-called associated force of a group that refuses to associate with them own is the administration's legal theory that the torch has been passed to a new g

>> khanki [han-kee] refugee camp northern iraq. a family is burying a young woman they say was killed while escaping the group calling itself the islamic state. her father told us what happened. >> they are part of the yazidi religion, one of the groups targeted by the islamic state of iraq and the levant, also known as isil. no one knows exactly how many yazidis were killed because isil-held territory is off limits to journalists and human rights workers. but tens of thousands had to flee their homes after isil fighters captured their towns and villages in june. isil now controls as much as one-third of iraq's territory, including the second-largest city, mosul. though its power and influence expanded in syria, it's here where isil was born. during the nearly nine-year long u.s. occupation. fault lines travelled 600 miles across iraq to look at the consequences of the fight against isil -- and how u.s. allies are also helping to divide iraq more than ever. >> when isil advanced this summer, people across the country's northern pro

. >> khanki [han-kee] refugee camp northern iraq. a family is burying a young woman they say was killed while escaping the group calling itself the islamic state. her father told us what happened. >> they are part of the yazidi religion, one of the groups targeted by the islamic state of iraq and the levant, also known as isil. no one knows exactly how many yazidis were killed because isil-held territory is off limits to journalists and human rights workers. but tens of thousands had to flee their homes after isil fighters captured their towns and villages in june. isil now controls as much as one-third of iraq's territory, including the second-largest city, mosul. though its power and influence expanded in syria, it's here where isil was born. during the nearly nine-year long u.s. occupation. fault lines travelled 600 miles across iraq to look at the consequences of the fight against isil -- and how u.s. allies are also helping to divide iraq more than ever. >> when isil advanced this summer, people across the country's northern pro

. >> fighter jets are becoming islamic state in iraq and th bombing islamic state in iraq and the levant. bernard smith has more from the turkish-syrian border. >> reporter: airstrikes hit kobane on saturday afternoon and early in the morning as well. those in the afternoon came after a series of mortars in and around border areas in determined attempt to take control of the border passing three hitting the turkish side. we've been told that the airstrikes won't be enough to save the town. yes they've been able to gain territory, and they've been pushed back a little bit, but the kurds believe that the opening 30-35% of the south and the difficulty in rooting them out of there is that they're hiding in private homes. they have to go home to home to find them. without more of airstrikes helping the syrian kurds saying this is a very difficult for them to maintain, for them to win. >> the iraqi government has killed 94 isil gunmen in strikes. an isil commander was killed in anbar, and another leader was killed in slahuddin. en isil's expansion in syria and in iraq has been incredible, and

matthew hoh fought in iraq as a marine corps captain. he then joined the foreign service and became the widely praised senior american civilian in afghanistan's zabul province, that's a taliban stronghold. he resigned in protest when he came to believe the war was making things worse and american soldiers should not be dying in what was a long-running civil war. matthew hoh is now a senior fellow at the center for international policy in washington, dc. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> let me read you something one of your colleagues, ryan cooper, wrote this week in theweek.com. "who's ready to squander billions of dollars on yet another pointless, almost-certain-to-backfire war in iraq? the mainstream media for one," he says, "which for weeks has been shamelessly fearmongering the supposed threat by the islamic state of iraq and syria and many republicans, meanwhile, insist that isis represents an 'imminent threat' to the united states, which, strangely enough, is just how george w. bush justified his war of aggression against i

in iraq. a fairly extraordinary event in military history. lucky.s was he was fortunate that most of the american units he had to served inin iraq had iraq during the early years when we were not very good at counterinsurgency and were denying there was an insurgency in iraq. how toly did not know defeat the enemy we were facing. the invisible enemy. general betrays his predecessor said the counterinsurgency todemy on the ground in iraq train american units coming in -- the traceraq had a better it will with which to work. an army that understood -- the trays had a better -- bu petraeus had a better unit with which to work. host: pam is in louisville. caller: i would like to say the last few callers you have had, i agree. on, what you are saying. i just think the people need to be more concerned about isis than ebola. i want to commend you and i am going to get your book. thank you for those kind words. thank you for honoring the legacy of your father. of livingd memories next door to foreign

factions inside of iraq. and u.s. support to try and rescue certain minorities in particular throughout the country. and these gentlemen to my left can explain this a lot better than i can. that combined with an overall political strategy in that you want to try to get -- they're aiming to get a more inclusive iraqi government that's more permissible and that can entice some of the tribes and others particularly from the sunni population which makes up the basis of isis, back into the iraqi government so that it functions again. and in this particular case, in the case of iraq -- i'm not surprised that the administration is starting there. the u.s. has a lot of experience there. and while there have been a lot of problems over the last two years the iraqi system at least you have the hope of some change. it might not be real change. it might not be change as fast as we would like. but yet the hope of some change. prime ministers there can comb and go. their parties might not come and go but certain figures ca

kirkmany was made in iraq. so these leaders of the iraqi presence in iraq, these are iraqi productions, home grown iraqi militant leaders and their revenues need not come from the golf. i am sure it benefits them but it was a multi-year period in iraq when we were fighting there, a great many outside at revenues came from being able to siphon off of the northern oil sector to the tune of millions a week to extort northern iraqi businesses and to tax the local population and now the they will those territories out right there able to draw a great deal of resources and sustain themselves from that. is the gulf many went to zero overnight they would still be able to fund their militant operations inside iraq based on local revenue streams and being able to exploit local political agreements. >> i had a quick question, you mentioned the option of the negotiation process, the agreement on disagreement thing. how long both sides can keep doing this process? that would be a parliamentary election in 2015 and as a resu

meanwhile in iraq, the ongoing u.s. airstrikes have reportedly killed up to 22 civilians and an bar province. according to iraqi media, and attack earlier this week it a market in an apartment building in the town of hit. four to them were reportedly among the dead with dozens of people wounded. the pentagon has dismissed the claims of civilian casualties as falls. we will have more on iraq and syria after the headlines. a u.s. drone strike in pakistan has reportedly killed at least four people. the victims were described as suspected militants in north waziristan. at least 25 people have died this week in a series of u.s. strikes in tribal areas along pakistan's border with afghanistan. at least 40 people have been killed in a suicide bombing in yemen's capital. a separate attack on an eastern army base killed 13 soldiers. the bombings come as the him and government faces continued al qaeda attacks as well as a political standoff with rebels. tens of thousands of people have rallied across exit code over the disappeara

on the wider war we have to worry about iraq. isil is still in iraq. there is fierce fighting in anbar and other provinces. will the army fight hard? we hope so. there are good signs. but that's not a done deal. and separately is if we get them out of iraq, then what do you do about syria. two big different questions. >> similarities between iraq and syria as we have talked today, as to what countries may or may not be giving and this u.s. effort to cut financial support for isil. the one key thing about syria and iraq is that they're leadership have a couples. they're government have a couples. >> i think that's such an important point that people really miss. this is the military thing. we'll solve it with troops or bombs, or it's this sort of thing. we'll solve it with the ideology. lots of this is about governance. if the governance cannot deliver to its people over the government, then you're creating spaces where it can grow. >> you heard my conversation with david cohen. you know david. you and him have talked about his efforts in iran. look, we

panetta writes iraq's stability was not only in iraq's interest but all see in ours. i privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training for iraq's military. what panetta is arguing is at the very end in late 2011, defense that year when push came to shove american leadership did not step up. why not? >> first let me say that secretary panetta is somebody who has such an incredible record of public service and he's respected in the government and across both parties. but iraq is a sovereign country. iraq had to make decision and the iraqi leadership that they wanted to have a troop presence there. there were political challenges but they clearly did not. second when didn't have the trap protections we needed. bill: you are saying panetta is wrong? >> i don't think we need to get into an argument about that. those are the events that led us into being unable to have a troop presence there regardless, it wouldn't have changed the circumstance we are in today. bill: that's what leadership is about. that goes back to his point that leadersh

ground troops return to iraq? good morning to you. caller: good morning. just have a comment right away on the one comment that that guy made about c-span. c-span is one of the best things i've ever seen on tv. i'm 49 years old, ok? so never mind about him. as you know, isis has been trying to come to this country and promote terrorism right here in the united states, so it is our business. i must agree with one person who said that if we don't do something, then nobody else is going to do it. so yes, something needs to be done. i do believe we need to put some forces back on the ground over there. like the one caller said, we already put a lot of our stuff over there, and the other people are using it. so yes, we do need to put some, but it needs to go back to congress and everything like that. we need to do better home work and get people back over there, because even training them, training the troops and stuff, and clearly they're not using it the way it should be used, and just like when we were dropping eigh

even including al qaeda in iraq. certainly including groups like azhar al islam. one of the clearest manifestations of that was that al qaeda and iraq members and larger al qaeda members so al qaeda members based in pakistan were able to cross iran to go back and forth between iraq and pakistan to exchange messages and so on between zawahiri and the leaders of al qaeda in iraq which is the role that for example rock mom had for quite some time until they became the ill-fated number three in al qaeda, the guy who was killed. he was the head of the al qaeda support network inside of iran that was sending fighters and money and so on into iraq mainly through iraqi kurdistan so there is a precedent for the iranians reaching out to groups that they would not appear they would have an interest in promoting in order to unleash them against a common enemy. i can only speculate that they did that in syria in order to unleash the more unsavory islamist radical elements against what in d.c. we term the moderate syrian oppositio

before the iraq war there was sectarianism in iraq. there was a brutal regime. under saddam hussein that committed genocide against the kurds, and practiced sectarian discrimination against the shiites. and to be fair, has also eliminated any alternative sunni leadership to saddam. so under saddam while the violence was under the table, was under the rack, and "the new york times" of the world would not be able to report on it in detail, but that violence was underneath was happening. and this has lead to broken iraqi society, polarized iraqi society. when saddam was overthrown, all of these forces came to play. and i have to say, over the last ten years and certainly on the eve of the war when we had high expectations of what will happen in iraq, somewhere along the lines we did not achieve what we hoped for. and the political conflict-- con done done condition strukt that we put in place could not deed deal. >> rose: i'm thinking specifying the political leader of isis was with zarqawi in iraq. >> of course. >> one way of looking at this thing, and the analogy

we want a democratic iraq. if iraq succeeds and baghdad is stable and democratic, i think the kurds would want to stay within iraq. >> if it is democratic and what? >> federal. a federal iraq which allows the kurds self-government as we have now. the way that is going these days, is really a challenge. in my view, it is in our interest to help baghdad solve its problems, and for us to be part of a democratic and iraq is a viable option. if iraq were to become dictatorial, we will be cursed. >> when will that moment of truth,? >> at the moment, everybody is busy fighting isis. that is a big challenge we all confront. the new prime minister has a difficult challenge ahead of him. in my view, we have to support him and make this government work to deal with the security situation, but deal also with huge economic problems that he has inherited, also compounded by the oil crisis. interest, in the interest of the shia, sunnis and kurds. baghdad. be decided in if we manage and prevail, i think there is a chance to ov

>> well, iraq has been changing. iraq is disintegrating, whether we like it or not. a lot of observers think it is on its way to some type of division. iraq, as we knew it, as we know it, it has been disintegrating since 2003, even before the invasion and occupation in the system that the united states put in place perhaps accelerated all of these divisions and forces on the ground. but of course, you have a country in which there are major -- their major city is under the control of a terrorist organization. just recently, 1.5 million people who are displaced. we don't have any services. cities are falling as we speak. after all of these months of knowing the danger of isis, they are an hour away from the capital. i mean, no one knows what will happen to iraq exactly, but disintegration is more likely. once again, it is important to pose the question, what is this campaign supposed to produce? what kind of region is going to be in five or 10 years? obama and the others never tell us. what do they envision? endless wars in this region? this is going to help create mo

things changed after we did the surge in iraq. we were doing much better. and then the president's critics say we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because we pulled out the troops and there was no one there to protect the gains. >> but, megyn, are you arguing that 10,000 troops or 5,000 troops or 25,000 troops would have prevented, would have been able to fight back against isil when 150 or 175,000 couldn't have held back entirely al qaeda? >> it's not megyn kelly arguing it. it's leon panetta who is in a much better position to know. he talks about how i voiced to the president this country could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the united states if we withdrew all the forces. isn't that exactly what happened? >> that is not what happened. also, the growth of isil was not just in iraq, it was because of safe havens in syria where they were allowed to grow and prosper for the last couple of years. >> there are issues there too. about the president not enforcing the red line he set. but i'm focused on iraq because that's what

forces entered iraq. just three months later the democratic party was the nation's media in their pocket, turned savagely against bush. they called him a liar and a traitor and condemned the mission in iraq as quote nick illegal, immoral and unnecessary. that is al gore. these at tax went on for the next five years until a democrat entered the white house promising to throw in the towel and withdraw from the field of battle. what happened to change the democrats from supporting the war in iraq to its bitter enemies? no republican or conservative seems to remember it this, and and needed it cripples the effort to expose the dangerous policies the democrats have pursued. i will tell you. absolutely nothing took place in iraq or in america's conduct of the war to cause the democrats be trail. absolutely nothing. what happened to change the democrats from supporters of america's war against the terrorists is this editors of that war, in the spring of 2003 as american troops entered iraq a democratic president

in iraq, in addition to france -- rather strikes by france in iraq with the united states. since the beginning of august. but what we're seeing is a fairly wearing situation not here in the north but around baghdad, where it seems that isis is intensifying these hit-and-run tactics around baghdad. in addition to that, there's that case of that iraqi base to the northwest of baghdad which was overrun yesterday by isis. the soldiers got away, but they left their wednesday and ammunition behind for isis to take. john. >> ben wedeman on the ongoing battle in iraq and syria against isis. >>> iraqi officials meantime investigating an accidental air drop of supplies to isis terrorists. according to nbc news iraqi military pilots mistakenly gave food, water and ammunition to isis militants instead of their own soldiers. one iraqi official blamed lack of experience from air force pilots for that mistake. also, there maybe civilian casualties on u.s. air strikes on isis terrorists. white house officials have acknowledged that the much publicized policy that president obama announced

some of the oil has been sold to kurds in iraq and resold into turkey. it seems the syrian government has made an arrangement to purchase oil from isil. it is difficult to get resized estimates on the value of these transactions. we estimate that beginning in mid-june, isil has earned $1 million a day from these oil sales. there are good indications that efforts have begun to impair isil's ability to generate oil from energy smuggling. the supply network is threatened and depriving it of fuel to sell or to use itself. our partners in the region including turkey are committed to preventing isil-derived oil from crossing their borders. isil's ability to produce and smuggle oil had been significantly hampered. isil also kidnaps innocent civilians to profit from ransoms paid to obtain the release. isil did not pioneer kidnapping for ransom. it has been around for thousands of years. other organizations also rely on ransom payments as a key revenue source. kidnapping for ransom is one of the most significant threats today. these ransom payments are irregular,

doha, coming up in the next 60 minutes, amnesty international accuses shia militias of war crimes in iraq. no let upin u.s.-lead air strikes on the town of kobani. but are they working? military chiefs meet in washington to decide what comes next. >>> strategic gain, houthi rebels seize a key sea port in yemen. >>> europe takes more precautions against ebola as a u.n. worker in germany dies from the disease. ♪ >>> we start this news hour with breaking news coming out of saudi arabia where a shooting has taken place. one american citizen in the capitol has been shot dead. another has been wounded. now their car was fired upon as they stopped at a gas station very close to the stadium east of riod. police say they have arrested a suspected gunmen. we'll bring you more on this story as it develops. >>> at least 24 people have died in a suicide back in iraq. the bomber rammed his car into a check point in the mainly shia neighborhood in bagdad. over 50 others were injured. this comes a day after similar attacks killed dozens of people in bagdad. meanwhile amnesty international is accusing t

but that, i think, is the best hope in iraq. syria's a different matter. >> do you think now -- we've been having this debate, but do you have a feeling on foreign policy, the best foreign policy to keep us safe? is it something more robust where america leads and more interventionalist? is it something -- do we need to let the more obama foreign policy of let's not be as interventionalist, keep more to ourselves, let's show the world that we don't want to interfere in their business everywhere it may be happening. does that need more time to play out? or do we have a pronouncement on whether that will keep us safe or will not? >> megyn, i think the world needs leadership in these kinds of situations. and if it's not the u.s., then where is that leadership coming from? and so the u.n. does a lot of wonderful things, but leadership in these kind of issues is not their strong suit. syria would be the first example that i think of. it's not going to be nato. nato has got a lot of internal issues. they have budget problems. and anyt

iraq had wmds the whole time! i feel a combination of two strong emotions -- oh, my god, shock and awe! (laughter) i finally understand what you were talking about! there's no telling what else bush was right about. i bet some of those weapons were "nucular"? (laughter) this vindication must really warm dick cheney's -- arc reactor? i don't know what he's got in there now. nothing but nothing is going to kill my buzz over these wmds not even the second line of every story about them. >> these were not the weapons we went to war over. >> they were not the ones to justify the invasion. they were from the old iran-iraq war. >> stephen: shake it like a polaroid picture. beyonce's, and lucy liu's, and baby doll's. get on the floor. you know what to do. i'm sorry. i didn't catch any of that. point is, iraq made these awful weapons, and america had a moral obligation to punish them and anyone who helped them. >> this has to be one of the bitterest ironies of the iraq war. these are weapons that iraq had manufactured with

kurds in iraq are fragmented. kurds in turkey are not fragmented, and kurds, the pyd, are the strongest groups. they've very close to the iraqi regional the presiden kurdistan region and iraq, they don't have that much base. but the kurds are fragmented. they don't get support from iraqi kurds, particular ly the got which is led b , and has very strong ties to turkey. and they don't get support from the west, obviously. not at least from the air. so the syrian kurds are caught between different recent players, and that makes their position very, very difficult. and just before coming to this program . >> again, we're dealing with turkey with many interests, many things it wants to achieve, but so far unable to pull any of them off. what do you see happening in the next year, two years? >> looking at the situation from one point of view. for three years it's been trying to portray washington and it's western allies against assad. they resisted. now washington and the other western capitols are interested in getting

to pull our troops out of iraq. if we had left 15,000 advisers in iraq in 2012, they would still be there today. the iraqi army would be much more capable. the kurds would be more capable. isis would not own any territory inside iraq openly. those forces would have served as a check on the worst sectarian influences of maliki, and a shia who allowed his prejudices and personal fears of a coup led him to fire the capable commanders of his own forces and replace them with his cronies, shia, who have proven to be cowards in the and fight against isis. in leaving a small force of american advisers in iraq in a peaceful iraq in 2012 would have preserved that peace and built a better peace in iraq. we would not have isis creating jihad u in territory that -- americans have bled for to keep out of the hands of islamists. host: jerry is down in tampa. caller: why is it that the kurdish women are willing to and fight isis but the iraqi men running away? that's embarrassing. guest: let me address the question -- a status of f