toward the soviets -- not eisenhower, at the very least not eisenhower. he is not exactly sure. you can look online and watch eisenhower interviewed about this. there was an old series done by abc television in the 1960's called the eagle and the bear where eisenhower is talking about, some people thought that castro might be the new liberator of cuba, especially after the years of batista, right? they were optimistic. castro spoke to the national press club in washington, april 17, 1959. his cia director, allen dulles, was not exactly sure how to respond to this either. eisenhower, eisenhower was bothered by the fact that he had read about how castro and che in particular dealt with opponents. and you guys are reading this in your articles on che guevara, very brutal. and this bothered him. eisenhower, eisenhower was not any intense firebreathing anti-communist. he did not like mccarthy. he did not like joe mccarthy. i think was james burnham of the national review who said, made a kind of a snide comment when people on the far right in the united states

>> eisenhower. dr. kengor: eisenhower. eisenhower, dwight eisenhower. who was his vice president? richard nixon. richard nixon was vice president. so he is in the united states, and eisenhower, eisenhower was not totally sure exactly what to think about castro at that point. so this idea that eisenhower, in particular, right, or the administration at that time was pushing castro toward the soviets -- not eisenhower, at the very least not eisenhower. he is not exactly sure. you can look online and watch eisenhower interviewed about this. there was an old series done by abc television in the 1960's called the eagle and the bear where eisenhower is talking about, some people thought that castro might be the new liberator of cuba, especially after the years of batista, right? they were optimistic. castro spoke to the national press club in washington, april 17, 1959. his cia director, allen dulles, was not exactly sure how to respond to this either. eisenhower, eisenhower was bothered by the fact that he had read about how castro and che in particular dealt with opponents. and you guy

not eisenhower, at the very least not eisenhower. he is not sure. you can look online and watch eisenhower interviewed about this. there was an old series called the eagle and the bear where eisenhower is talking about, some people thought castro might be the new liberator of cuba, especially after the years of batista, right? they were optimistic. castro spoke to the national press club in washington, d.c., april 17, 1959. his cia director, allen dulles was not exactly sure how to respond to this either. eisenhower was bothered by the fact that he had read about how castro and che in particular dealt with opponents. and you are reading this in your articles on che guevara, very brutal. and this bothered him. eisenhower was not any intense firebreathing anti-communist. he did not like mccarthy. he did not like to mccarthy. i think was james burnham of the national review he said, made a snide comment when people on the far right in the united states were saying, oh eisenhower's procommunist. i think was burnham who said eisenhower is not a communist

and in 1957 when it granted eisenhower -- the so-called eisenhower doctrine for the middle east. ever since the onset of the cold war congress has been very loath to question presidential decisions on foreign affairs. congress gets very involved in matters like that or taxation or infrastructure. when it comes to foreign policy they are willing to allow the president to chart his own course. a previousned in lecture, harry truman never got a declaration of war to fight in korea. he was required to but he did not get it. technically that was not a war, it was a u.n. police action. asked4 eisenhower congress to have the authority to launch an airstrike. congress lednce, by minority leader lyndon johnson turned eisenhower down. korea.too soon after in 1955 when the islands were being bombarded by the communist for theeisenhower asked foremost resolution. this resolution granted eisenhower the power to take whatever military action he felt was necessary to protect the nationalist chinese. widewas granted by a margin. evidencehen there was of a communist insurrection of lebanon eisenh

that happened when dwight eisenhower was president. and vietnam was not his more in the sense he really didn't want to fight it. there is a slew of biographers that have made clear the last thing johnson wanted was to be a war president. he had a domestic agenda, the great society. he was by far the most liberal president we have ever had, if we define it in the manner it has come to be defined in the last 100 years. he believed in the capacity of the federal government to affect positive change in domestic arena. you understand nothing if you don't get that. he experienced grinding poverty growing up in texas. and he had seen the capability of the federal government to alleviate the suffering of millions of americans. this was his passion and what he hoped would be his legacy, reform in domestic politics. he felt totally ill-equipped in the field of foreign affairs, unlike his predecessors john f. kennedy and dwight eisenhower and richard nixon, all of them thought they excelled at foreign policy and found domestic affairs a chore and

when truman left, eisenhower came in. hoover stayed through eisenhower's terms. through the developing cold war through the 1950's. he stayed on through john f. kennedy. he stayed on for lyndon presidency. he stayed on through richard nixon's presidency and finally may in the position in 1972. throughout this time, as you can this world of in bipartisan establishment politics, eight presents, two attorneys general, republicans and democrats. he was never elected to this position, but was reappointed repeatedly and over the course the fbiareer, he don't from being a rather small and .nsignificant bureaucracy the investigative wing of the justice department into a really substantial part of the national security state, an institution created within his own image. imagination, i think how he did that tends to emphasize a lot of these deep state terms. i think most prominently, that hoover controlled so much power and lasted for such a long time by ruling through fear, through intimidation, by creating a pure rock a sea of secrecy and that really began manipulating p

king george vi puts eisenhower at ease. they sit down, and the ease. -- and the king's first question is, general eisenhower, how are you getting on with general montgomery? >> [laughter] dr. craddick-adams: and there was that sort of pause as he searches for a diplomatic answer. of course being the politician in uniform that he really is, he comes up with the interesting observation. he's as well, your majesty, -- he says, well, your majesty i am , perfectly well, but i am rather worried that he is after my job. and quick as a flash his majesty , said, you relieve me greatly, general eisenhower. i always thought he was after mine. >> [laughter] dr. craddick-adams: so that is sort of setting the scene. i have no idea how the alliance managed to steer themselves through some of these crises. 36,525 days in the 20th century, we are all here because i think we believe that june 6, 1944 was one of the most important if not the most important day of that century. well, the figures you all know and you have all studied, but it is

king george vi puts eisenhower at ease. for king's first question is, how are you getting on with general montgomery? there was a pause as he searches for a diplomatic answer. being the politician he is, he comes up with the interesting observation. he says, i am perfectly well, but i am rather worried that he is after my job. his majesty said, you relieve me greatly, general eisenhower. i always thought he was after mine. [laughter] that is sortadams: of setting the scene. i have no idea how the alliance .anaged here because i think we all believe june 6, 1944 was one of the most, if not the most important day of that century. and youres you all know have all studied, but it is worth just interrogating them for a moment. nevermind the fact that around about 156,000 soldiers have been landed by air or by sea by the end of the day. i put up the percentages because that reflects it as a coalition effort. we often forget the canadians are present. there are sailors of various nationalities manning those 939 number justawesome

eisenhower to the troops, a photo in your book, of him speaking with the 101st airborne paratroopers looking very confident but you write that he was quite concerned afterwards and actually you said afterwards that he broke into tears after he left this. >> yes. he set his driver she was very attractive indeed. he got into the jeep with her after he made farewell to the airborne and she said that he had tears in his eyes. he said to her it is very hard to look a young american in the eyes and you know you're sending him to his death. >> i love him. there is a front he shows, the charm. when you look at the original film, the blue eyes, the smile. not a moment of fear or hesitation he shows to these young americans. he is a great leader but he wasn't confident at all. he signed so many orders, that he had to use a lead pencil. he had a constant ringing in his rate ear and smoked a lot of cigarettes a day. but he didn't show it to his senior generals or men who were about to fight and die for him. a class act. the guy that could hide that tension and emotion and show confidence because

president was reversed by the eisenhower administration. so much of history stemmed from those few weeks in tehran. let me talk a little bit about what i mean. as i said earlier, that coup could have been considered a success from the american perspective for the whole next 25 years. that was the period when the shah was in power and served as faithful ally of the united states. but let's look at it from the perspective of today. the shah's repressive regime shut off all political alternatives for anybody who was against the dictatorship. the only place that had a principled opposition and that was rooted in the iranian masses was the fundamentalist branch of islam. fundamentalism began do attract many people who were disillusioned with the impossibility of change. the shah's repressive regime led to the explosion of the late 1970's that we call the islamic revolution. that revolution brought to power a group of fanatically anti-american clericses who proceeded to launch a campaign of terror against american and other western targets. that

i don't know if when he did it he had in mind getting eisenhower to run. but even then, the modern primary, the names were on the ballot, but that didn't mean anything because the delegates' names were on the ballot, and those were often separate. host: confusing. guest: confusing as hell. initially, truman said, i am not going to run in the primaries. what the hell are the primaries about? but it made a difference. host: in 1952, candidates were on the ballot for the first time. you started to tell the story about the gop side with eisenhower, who was serving as nato chief in europe. talk to me about the relevance of that on the democratic side with president truman and the republican side. guest: like a good interviewer, you ask a question and i ignore it and tell you a different answer. host: [laughter] ok. guest: i don't want to forget that trivia that few people know is eisenhower came to new hampshire before the presidential primary in 1948, at the invitation of the partner of the paper. he spoke at the union leader speaking series. he was in uniform

i don't know if when he did it he had in mind getting eisenhower to run. but even then, the modern primary, the names were on the ballot, but that didn't mean anything because the delegates' names were on the ballot, and those were often separate. host: confusing. guest: confusing as hell. i am not, truman said, going to run in the primaries. what the hell are the primaries about? but it made a difference. host: in 1952, candidates were on the ballot for the first time. you started to tell the story about the gop side with eisenhower, who was serving as nato chief in europe. talk to me about the relevance of that on the democratic side with president truman and the republican side. guest: like a good interviewer, you ask a question and i ignore it and tell you a different answer. host: [laughter] ok. guest: i don't want to forget that trivia that few people know is eisenhower came to new hampshire before the presidential primary in 1948, at the invitation of the partner of the paper. leadere at the union speaking series. he was in uniform. he spoke in fron

i don't know if when he did it he had in mind getting eisenhower to run. but even then, the modern primary, the names were on the ballot, but that didn't mean anything because the delegates' names were on the ballot, and those were often separate. from the presidential. host: confusing. guest: confusing as hell. initially, truman said, i am not going to run in the primaries. what the hell are the primaries about? but it made a difference. host: so in 1952, candidates were on the ballot for the first time. you started to tell the story about the gop side with eisenhower, who was serving as nato chief in europe. talk to me about the relevance of that on the democratic side with president truman and the republican side. guest: like a good interviewer, you ask a question and i ignore it and tell you a different answer. [laughter] host: it's ok. guest: i don't want to forget that trivia that few people know is eisenhower came to new hampshire before the presidential primary in 1948, at the invitation of william loeb's partner of the paper. he spoke at the union

eisenhower, pete, eisenhower had 25 people on his national security council. don't tell me the world was less complicated under eisenhower. this is great news, but o'brien needs to slash and burn many many more people out of the nsc. pete: what was the reason for the consolidation of so much power at the national security council? was this because the obama white house wants to overturn the way pentagon did business or other people -- why did that happen? why is it cutting it so important? >> well, look, why it happened, the majority of these detailees because they come from other agencies were the state department. the state department wanted to control foreign policy instead of actually the white house and the president being the strategic, you know, avenue for how we proceed in foreign affairs. they wanted to replicate all of government inside the eeob, the eisenhower executive office building which is exactly the opposite of what's supposed to happen. the executive branch is supposed to decide and then the department execute. when we came in, we said we do

and then i went off to abilene, kansas, to write about eisenhower. and friends sent me books to review and kate stimpson, then editor of sign, sent me a really stupid book on eleanor roosevelt and marina hickok. it was the first book that used her papers, but the author was horrirified by the letters and wrote this book couldn't possibly mean what it seems to mean because eleanor was a saint and a mermaid. and i wrote a review of the book saying, you know, poche a freud, a cigar may not always be a cigar, but the nonortheast corner of your mouth upon my lips is always the northeheast corne. whereupon a lot of folks started to say, why don't you write about eleanor roosevelelt? and i would answswer, don't be ridiculous. i'm a military historian. i do i international relations and so on, or i even said hard history. and i was wrong. but i called up my p pal, joe lash. and joe had become a good friend because he blurbed my book on crystal eastman, which is going back into print.t. it was published by oxford. and joe said, this is a book that should stay

belong to the war crowd and then you go on to quote eisenhower i hate war is only a soldier who lived it can or one who is see the brutality and stupidity so as we try to deny foreign policy those of us that have a realistic view. >> talk to veterans you have veterans and soldiers we have two big bases in my state but the interesting thing is when you talk to them those that have served particularly in combat if we had a roundtable with five or six guys they are not knee-jerk most of them say we were okay after 9/11 but you told us to plant flag in nationbuilding that those soldiers will recoil they don't see themselves as policemen they don't want to building roads and really ultimately i make the analogy like welfare. to give them welfare they will never step up to become self-sufficient. we give them $50 billion per year they will never step up and defeat the taliban and not if we do it for them. but i think there is a chance. the military who is retired and can't speak out 60 percent say we should and the afghan war now 60 percent say the iraq war may not have been in our interest

eisenhower. the quality of the presentations and the questions were superb, cappped off by a fantastic lecture by will hitchcock on june 1944. i encourage you throughout today and tomorrow, s really you who make thisrow, conference happen and make it as exciting as it is. please keep the great questions coming. it will make every session just as good as they were yesterday. i would like to welcome c-span and our online livestream viewers and to give a shout out to the pritzker military museum and library, who are our kind sponsors for this event, as they have been for so long. yes, please. >> and if you get to chicago, go to the pritzker. they have fantastic programs. i have one change in the program to announce. lynne olson, who had been scheduled for the second session today, unfortunately had to cancel because of circumstances beyond her control. we will expand the other presentations on that panel. on to our first session discussing the italian campaign with the title breakout from the beach

eisenhower. the quality of the presentations ,nd the questions were superb caps off by a fantastic lecture 1944.l hitchcock on june i encourage you throughout today and tomorrow, it is really you who make this conference happen and make it as exciting as it is. please keep the great questions coming. it will make every session just as good as they were yesterday. i would like to welcome c-span and our online livestream viewers and to give a shout out to the pritzker military museum and library, who are our kind sponsors for this event, as they have been for so long. yes, please. [applause] ed: and if you get to chicago, go to the pritzker. fantastic programs. i have one change in the program to announce. lynne olson, who had been scheduled for the second session today, unfortunately had to cancel because of circumstances beyond her control. otherl expand the presentations on that panel. on to our first session discussing the italian campaign with the title breakout from the beach and the race to

and so the growth of the military industrial complex that dwight eisenhower warned us against has actually occurred and we are in that -- we are in that era now of that being the rule. the military budget grows year by year, the threats of military action are now taken on lighter and lighter circumstances. the threat now against iran and against venezuela, those are very significant things. our support for the saudis in yemen. these are the same saudis that cut up the journalist for "the washington times" in the saudi embassy in turkey and our president dismissed that as, well, that happens. that's a horrible thing that happens, but remember that the saudis buy so much of our military equipment. look at our -- look at the ethical and the -- and the moral position that that is taking. many of us grew up with religious traditions that that is completely abhorrent to and i think as a society we need to consider what we are doing. and we as citizens need to figure out some way to turn it around and get back to a truly civilized society. >> and, john tinker, your reference to jamal khashoggi op

back in the eisenhower years, the maximum marginal tax rate was 91%. now i'm not sure what it is. it's around maybe 20% or 30%. somebody else can tell me. but to equate money with speech is a very strange thing. if money were speech, i'd be able to go down to the store and talk my way into whatever i wanted. and money is not speech. and when you equate money and speech, you're basically handing your democracy over to the people with the money. whether that's corrected at the supreme court or whether it's corrected through legislation, i hope it is corrected. it's going to be hard to correct because that same money, people talk about buying congress. well, it's not totally like that. but it is -- it is significantly like that. money does rule a lot of congress people. their opinions follow the money. and so if you're going to have a democracy, you really have to have one person, one vote, not one dollar, one vote. i think it's a central issue. and i think we need elect a congress that will overturn it if the supreme court itself won't overturn it. >> in our final half minute, let m

milton eisenhower, penn state university president at the time and brother of president dwight d. eisenhower, dubbed the pennsylvania farm show always the greatest show on earth during his 1955 visit. thanks to the sustained dedication by pennsylvania farmers and farm families, tens of thousands of volunteers and generations of agribusiness owners, the pennsylvania farm show continues to be the greatest show on earth. today the show has grown to approximately 6,000 animals, 12,000 exhibits, and 600,000 visitors throughout the week. each year i host a congressional listening session at the farm show to hear directly from farmers, industry experts, and agriculture advocates about their priorities, as well as their concerns. i want to say thank you to representative john joyce, fred keller, and dan meuser, as well as senator bob casey and p.a. agriculture secretary russell reading for joining me for the 2020 congressional listening session at the farm show. even after more than a decade of serving on the house agriculture committee, there is no experience that replaces the value of m

my fellow kansan, general dwight eisenhower, who was at the time the supreme commander of allied forces in europe, understood this responsibility. mr. marshall: upon receiving news of the concentration camps, he quickly visited for himself, stating, and i quote ike here, the things i saw beg description. while i was touring the camp, i encountered three men who had been inmates and had made their escape. i interviewed them through an interrupter -- interpreter. the visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. in one room, where they were piled up 20 or 30 naked men, killed by starvation, general george patton would not even enter. he said he would get sick if he did so. i made the visit deliberately in order to be in position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever. if ever in the future there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda. and i end ike's quote there. after his visit, general eisenhower ordered the concentration camps to be visited by thousands of soldier

all the way through eisenhower and kennedy into the 1960s, we were involved more and more. it was not until 1964 when there was an incident that enabled -- might have been attack on an american ship or maybe not. congress authorized military involvement at that basis. in 1968, congress repealed the resolution. the whole notion that we could be involved in the vietnam war and other wars since then without congress authorizing it and how they cast aside the constitutional responsibility. what i am asking, this must have been part of your protest, not to just protest for the sake of wearing an armband. was that a consideration, how congress was not authorizing this military involvement when that is the primary responsibility for congress? can i get your thoughts? i would like to hear. >> thank you. >> that is a very important point to make. a very important question. at the time, we were opposed to the war because of the suffering, the death and destruction. also, for the help. we wore armbands hoping that what robert kennedy had proposed would be taken seriously and lead to a

we created radar in world war ii, the manhattan project, eisenhow eisenhower did the interstate highway project. what kennedy did right is pick technology as the golden number. it becomes the new frontier, and we went to the moon, and the only problem with it was we funded it a lot of nasa budget by the space race. we're going to beat the soviets. well, we beat them in '69, and some of the tv ratings started dropping off, and we had an apollo 13, a near disaster and president nixon canceled the last few apollo missions. by 1975 with gerald ford as president, we did a joint docking with the soviets in space, and so it was kind of the end of the space race, and we never caught the fervor again to be number one, and without the competition of the soviet union, maybe now china will be the new spur, you know, but without that competition, you wouldn't have gotten the $25 billion it costs to go to the moon. that's 185 billion in today's terms. >> can you still make the case that we would profit from getting back in the business? there's more science in the phone in my hand than was on board a

topics range about recent books to president eisenhower to j edgar hoover's tenure at the fbi. this is part of the society for >> goodns

world war ii ends and generals marshal and eisenhower found that women service was so valuable to the nation's defense that they sort of partnered with congresswoman edith north rogers from massachusetts, and congresswoman margaret chay smith from maine and putting forward legislation that gave women a permanent place in the military so we didn't have to start all over again with what uniforms, where are these people going to serve, but we would have a core of qualified women, and that was called the women's armed services integration act which was passed in 1948. women could only be 2% of the force. they could not achieve a grade higher than lieutenant colonel or commander in the navy. you can see women just wanted to serve. also some critical points in the legislation is women wouldn't serve on combat ships, on combat aircraft, and there are other pieces in the legislation that dealt with pregnancy, marriage, benefits, all kinds of things that prohibited women service to an extent. but nevertheless, it was a foot in the door for us to serve on a permanent basis. so in 1967, that pro

belongs to the war crowd and go on to quote eisenhower saying i hate war. as only a soldier who lived it can come only as one who has seen its brutality, futility and stupidity. as we try to guide foreign-policy away from forever wars what advice to give those of us who try to have a realistically a foreign-policy rather than a neocon view? >> talk to the veterans a lot of veterans and soldiers in your district, two basis in my state. when you talk to them the most thoughtful people are the people who have served particularly in combat. if we had a roundtable, 5 or 6 guys or women involved in combat they are not knee-jerk. the afghan war should go on and on. most of them were like we were okay after 9/11 to get the enemy but when you told us to plant a flag and become policemen and build roads and nationbuilding just mention the word nationbuilding and most soldiers will recoil and they don't see themselves as policemen. they don't want to be over there policing the streets and building roads and doing all this stuff and ultimately it is a little bit, i mak

i agree with general eisenhower's comments at the time. educate people on the atrocities commit sod they don't happen again. that's why i'm proud to have co-sponsored the never again education act. the bill authorizes federal funds to be used to teach about the holocaust. ensuring that citizens know the uncensored truth of history will help punctuate the message that anti-semitism is important and will not be tolerated. thank you to my colleague, representative carolyn maloney of new york, who took the lead on initiating this bill. finally, to the families of the victims so tragically lost, they will never be forgotten. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize nasa day in my home tate of -- my home state of arkansas which was recently proclaimed by gove

according to morgenthau, eisenhower had no interest in reviving the german economy, and believed the germans should be left toasty in their own juices. --enhower -- to do in thei juices.in their own whatever eisenhower's true release at this time, it was during this meeting that morgenthau said he began to think about turning a arecked germany into a pastoral paradise, claiming that as a former himself, he closely new that the people living on the land were tranquil in nature. spentsly, he had never time reading the history of the postindustrial era. before leaving europe morgenthau called a meeting of the u.s. personnel in britain involved in for visiting policy for a postwar germany and anas they would start planning from scratch. he was only interested in plans that turned germany into a small nation of -- a nation of small farms. dexter white emphasized -- at this moment in time, our destination is to reduce germany to a fifth rate power. as soon as he returned to the united states, morgenthau once to see the secretary of state only to discover the state had no role in postwar pl

eisenhower was concerned. quoting -- "europeans has been taught that we are a race of materialists whose only diversions are golf, baseball, football, and horse racing. cultural diplomacy became one perceptions. such orchestral tours became part of u.s. diplomacy. there were a number of tours i discussed in the book. the first orchestra to go to the soviet union was the boston in 1966.-- symphony today i'm going to focus on the new york philharmonic trip in 1959. it was sponsored by the u.s. government and the orchestra went across europe, but they wound up in the soviet union. the conductor was leonard bernstein. for leonard bernstein, art and politics were intertwined. he wasn't sure the classical music could strengthen the bonds among people across the world. he was convinced that a superb orchestra could have a salutary impact on those made insecure by the east-west competition. bernstein was a musical parversalist are exelon's -- excellence. u.s. officials felt differently. they advocated a form of musica

so eisenhower did have to commit it. susan: during those first two presidents involved in policy, our commitment was in the form of military advisors. who were they advising? david: they were advising the south vietnamese army. after the division of vietnam from north and south and the south seemed to be allied with the democratic values and the job was to advise out the series unanimous army and what strategy would help to contain the advancement of the north vietnamese and the north korean, vietnam-cong all under the direction of ho chi minh. that was the goal. susan: the number of advisors grew from 900 to 16,000? >> yes. susan what was the policy to : drove that big exchanges? -- big expansion? >> i think for kennedy this was reluctant acquiescence in vietnam. kennedy did not take an active policy of bringing troops to vietnam or trying to escalate the war there but rather to contain it as well. but they had to send more american troops to advise larger number of vietnamese soldiers in order contain a successful miss

nobody can tell me eisenhower was less complicated under ronald reagan it was only 75 what they had done was replicate a government and made what should have been strategic a tactical function and they missed the ideology whit which engineering students don't become suicide bombers on 9/11 because they are uneducated i went to the head of al qaeda the obama administration said islam is irrelevant and if you want to understand where we are going read the president speech to the muslim allies and his incrediblele speech in warsaw where he talks about the enemy being evil to be disenfranchised it is an evil ideologyid just as fascism was an ideological threat and the soviet union was an ideological threat jihad is him isn't about poor people but those who subscribe to that g heidi ideology and the only way to live is under a global caliphat caliphate. >>host: what do you listen about what happened to general qassem soleimani there is a prediction this could lead to war. >> its stunning over the last 72 hours #world war iii was training on social media. what world do these people liveve in q

that's one of the reasons eisenhower and did the korean war when he did. mark clark was in command and he had a plan for 800,000 troops and the eighth army to invade manchurian. 57% of the american population when eisenhower became present didn't think the korean war was worth the effort. so ivan did our cut the best deal he couldn't get out. we also have to understand the limitations of american public support. we have been admiring ignoring those four years. there is no support for war on the korean peninsula anymore than -- just as there is no support for a war with iran in this country. so let's sober up and understand our own limitations, and start listening to the people that live there, specifically president moon. >> my worry though is that you have a lot of what we might call value fanatics in the united states, who just can't tolerate the idea that illiberal regimes -- that we could kind of essentially sanction them -- not sanction like in the negative sense but give support to them merely by allowing them and recognizing their list existence. an

imagine eisenhower or churchill choosing which commander to kill? that is not the job of the president. when we arrived in the white house we inherited 420 obama holdovers in the national security council. do you know how many work in the national security council under eisenhower? 25. nobody can tell me eisenhower's globe was less complicated than our globe today. under ronald reagan it was only 75 individuals. they replicated -- they made what should have been strategic a tactical function and most important of all they missed the ideology. which saudi engineering student, don't become suicide bombers on 9/11 because they are poor or uneducated, these are people with maas. the head of al qaeda is an m.d.. the obama administration said i ideology is relevant, islam is irrelevant, this administration sees it differently and if you want to understand where we are going, read the president's be from riyadh to our muslim allies, read his incredible speech in warsaw where he talks about irony being evil, not -- it is an evil ideology just as fascism was

i work -- our work today is a continuation of what general eisenhower wanted. today we continue the legacy to ensure this will never happen again that we do this partially through education. we never forget so that never again will be the reality. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. ms. stefanik: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. norcross: i yield one minute to the speaker of the house from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this important bipartisan legislation to the floor. i thank congresswoman maloney for her relentless advocacy in this regard. thank you, madam chair. i rise to join my colleagues on this international holocaust remembrance day in support of the never again education act. strong, bipartisan legislation to ensure that never again are simply not words but a solemn, sacred pledge to be fulfilled with action. i salute ca

i would like to point out in the first poll conducted, dwight eisenhower, who is today considered great or near great was considered average or below average. inwhy do historians anonymous polls put james buchanan last? they have you received wisdom to do so. in the moment when you are writing down your answer, you have to grade beginning and an end, a narrative of greatness. it is easy to make buchanan the worst president, because he has been the worst president. at a recent conference at the organization of american historians, there was a panel dedicated to this question of the worst president, and buchanan, by most accounts, should not be ranked last. again, when we are talking about whose worst and throwing out names, it gets kind of sad. guest, a professor of history at eastern state university. friends.""bosom thank you for joining us on c-span3's american history tv. we appreciate it. guest: thanks. >> this is american history tv on c-span3, where each week and we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nation's past. history,"tures in grove city college professor paul kengor

no one can tell me eisenhower's globe was less complicated. and under ronald reagan was only 75 individuals. the made what should have been strategic, a tactical function. most important of all, they missed the ideology. engineering students don't become suicide bombers on 9/11 because they're poor or uneducated. these are people with mas. the head of i kinda - - al qaeda is a - -. this administration sees it very differently. if you want to understand where were going, read the president's speech from reality. read his incredible speech in wars --warsaw. it is an evil ideology just as fascism was an ideological threat. the soviet union was an ideological threat. >> when you look at the newspapers and hear the podcasts about what happened to general soleimani, there is a prediction that this could lead to world war iii. >> it's quite stunning how in the last 72 hours, world war iii, # world war iii was trending on social media. what world do these people live in? do they really - - once a but it comes up with a criticism of an action, the best

all the way through eisenhower and kennedy into the 1960's, we were involved more and more. it was not until 1964 when there was an incident that enabled it might have been attack on an american ship or maybe not. congress authorized military involvement at that basis. in 1968, congress repealed. the whole notion that we could be involved in the vietnam war and other wars since then was without congress authorizing it and how they cast aside the constitutional responsibility. what i am asking, this must have been part of your protest, not to just protest for the sake of wearing an armband. was that a consideration, how congress was not authorizing this military involvement when that is the primary responsibility for congress? can you give your thoughts? i would like to hear. >> thank you. >> that is a very important point to make. a very important question. at the time, we were opposed to the war because of the suffering, the death and destruction. also, for the hope. we wore armbands hoping that what robert kennedy had proposed would be taken seriously and lead to an ending

in this great series of battles, general eisenhower commented the president situation is to be regarded as one of opportunity for us and so it was. today, we remember the struggle, the bravery and the tenacity, the acts of heroism of those who fought in the battle of the bulge. those who survived and those who gave all their tomorrow is that we might have all of our today's. president truman rightly recognized our debt to the heroic men and women in the service our country can never be repaid. they have heard our and dying gratitude. our undying earned gratitude. america will never forget their sacrifices and so today we thank you especially to those who are part of this great series of the battle in world war ii and to the families. we remember those voices now silent and rest from their labor's and sacred fields of honor throughout this land on foreign soil. especially, we held sacred the memory of those who gave their lives in the struggle of peace symbolized by the 4048 gold stars on the freedom wall. they shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. they fought together

in that first poll, dwight eisenhower was near or below average. so, why do historians in an anonymous poll put james buchanan last? answer is -- it has become wisdom to do so. when you are writing down your answer, you have to sort of create a beginning and an end, a narrative of greatness. it is easy to make james buchanan the worst president because he was then the worst president. at the organization of american is storing there was a whole panel dedicated to the question of the worst president, and james buchanan should not be ranked last. but,a gain, when we are talking about who is worst and we are throwing that name, it gets kind of sad. a professor of history at eastern connecticut state university. friends."bossom thanks for joining us on c-span3's american history tv. we appreciate it. dr. balcerski: thanks, steve. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] caucuses justwa days away, we ta