tv Studio 1.0 Bloomberg March 27, 2016 11:30am-12:01pm EDT
mark: he would say on israel, his aipac speech may have repositioned him on neutrality. but on nato. ted cruz: he said many times that he would be neutral between israel and palestinians. the fact he read a speech someone wrote for him off by teleprompter that pretended to stand with israel is completely inconsistent with where he has been, and it reflects -- anyone who cannot distance between israel, between the idf forces that protect innocent civilians, and islamic terrorists that seek to murder us, that raises real questions about their fitness and judgment to be commander in chief. we need a president who is -- you understands the nature of radical islam and is prepared to do whatever is necessary to defeat them. and i will point out that donald's lack of knowledge and lack of understanding of radical islamic terrorism is every bit as evident with regard to iran, where he says he will keep in
place this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal and just renegotiate it. anyone who thinks -- this is not a real estate deal. the ayatollah khomeini is not selling beachfront property. the ayatollah has pledged death to america and means it. you want to understand one of the simplest differences between donald trump and me, day one as president, i will rip to shreds this iranian nuclear deal. because the biggest national security threat facing america is the threat of a nuclear iran. donald does not understand that. and both donald trump and hillary clinton would keep this deal in place, because neither one acknowledges or understands just how dangerous the ayatollah is. mark: let's go back to nato. let's say i am saying, we spend a lot of money on nato, they don't seem to be fighting isis. where is the threat from russia today that nato is preventing? what is the role of nato right
now? beyond the symbolism of standing with europe? what is the actual mission? ted cruz: nato has been the most effective military alliance of modern times. nato effectively stood up to the soviet union in the cold war. the idea that russia does not pose a threat -- russia is invading its neighbors. russia has invaded ukraine, russia is threatening the baltics. russia is threatening much of europe, and nato is a strategic alliance. and nato should be a vehicle for going after isis. if we had american leadership --and nato does not work without american leadership. if we had american leadership, nato could play a critical role in utterly destroying isis. now, donald's approach is to withdraw and hide and somehow he thinks the bad guys will leave us alone. president obama tried that. that is called leading from behind. it does not work. we need a president and commander in chief who will utterly and completely destroy isis. that is what i will do as
president. mark: last question, this proposal you floated of increased police surveillance of muslim neighborhoods in the united states. can you name a neighborhood where you think that would be proper, and what would you say to a young child and see police in the neighborhood and wonder why they're -- a young muslim child, wondering why they are getting increasing security? ted cruz: let's place this in context. yesterday in brussels, we saw a horrific terror attack. our prayers are with those who were murdered and injured. yesterday was a reminder that this was not an isolated attack. this was not a lone wolf. this is part of a global jihad being waged by radical islamic terrorism, being waged by isis. president obama and hillary clinton and the modern democratic party are in a state of denial. they are so captive in political correctness, they will not say the words "radical islamist," they will not act sensibly to defeat it. and every time we see a terror attack, paris or san bernardino, president obama goes on national television and lectures the
american people on islamophobia. enough is enough. we need a commander in chief who recognizes his number one responsibility is to keep america safe. that is what i will do. now when it comes to stopping radical islamic terrorism, you have to identify the problem, then use every law enforcement tool, every national security tool available to defeat it. we are in new york right now. new york had in place a very effective program to work cooperatively with the muslim community to monitor and prevent radicalization and to prevent islamic terror attacks from occurring before they happened. now, unfortunately, mayor de blasio came into office, every bit as captive to political correctness as is president obama or hillary clinton. and they disbanded the program. that does not make any sense at all. the police are here to protect us. i categorically reject the view
of democrats that police are the bad guys. and people are fed up with this notion. every time there is an incident, barack obama, or hillary clinton, or bill de blasio side with the criminals, with the looters or thugs rather than the brave men and women in blue. i am proud to stand with the police. i will tell you, there was a moment, not long ago, when the nypd stood up and turned their backs on bill de blasio, that spoke not just for new york but the whole country. when we have police in a community to protect that community and keep it safe, and we need to stop pretending radical islamic terrorism does not exist and keep working to keep the country safe. mark: senator, thank you. congratulations on utah and good luck with wisconsin. ted cruz: thank you. utah was fantastic, and i'm looking forward to wisconsin. mark: coming up, an act of terror and leadership. the political implications of
♪ mark: here now to talk about the implications of today's terror attacks in brussels is ambassador ryan crocker, previously served as the u.s. ambassador to many countries -- iraq, pakistan, kuwait, and lebanon. he is currently the dean of the george bush school of government at texas a&m university. he joins us now from college station. what could europe do now as the whole or individual countries to deal with situations like this that it did not do in the wake of the paris attack? amb. crocker: there are two fundamental issues out there. one of them is simply the quality and coordination of european intelligence and security services. they are, by and large, certainly in belgium, far behind where we were on 9/11, and we
have traveled lightyears in both our capabilities and our coordination since then. the europeans have got to improve both the quality and the coordination of their intelligence and security services. islamic state is finding the gaps, they are finding the weak spots. and we see the results. the second thing that is such a major difference between the u.s. and europe is that we integrate people in this country. we do not have a molenbeek anywhere in the united states. that's essentially an arab and muslim ghetto. our openness, the way successive waves of immigrants are brought into american society and truly find their place here sets us apart from belgium, from france, even from britain. so, as we respond to what
has just happened, tragically, in brussels, the worst thing we could do would be to give away our greatest strengths, and that is our open society that makes everyone in america feel part of this great country. john: ambassador crocker, i believe you just said that in terms of dealing with domestic terror, that the european union is further behind, behind where the united states was on 9/11. there have been a lot of things, including 9/11, that have happened in the world that i would have thought alerted people to the notion that they needed to get more with the program on this. what accounts for that? what accounts for europe's laxity in this area? amb. crocker: i think it may be that, with the exception, say, of the train bombings in spain, the europeans have not had anything on the scale of a 9/11. and i do not want to generalize here. some european countries do
remarkably well on intelligence and security. i would cite sweden as an example. but it may be that they just felt this was something that could only happen over here and not over there. we are, frankly, kind of complacent. after what we have seen now, paris in november and now this, it is way past time for the europeans to shake themselves awake. and i hope that we are making a major effort to engage them now that we have had this new tragedy. that we are going to be stepping forward to be proactive and offering to the europeans some of the things we have learned in the 15 years since 9/11. mark: what are the metrics you used, mr. ambassador ,to say whether that is happening. whether the united states is
trying to step up to help europe with this problem? amb. crocker: i think it will be clear, by announcements both from washington and european capitals. i'm quite sure we have had this on offer before. the urgency has never been greater. so i hope that we will, again, not wait for an invitation but offering to share with our european allies. again, we are part of a nato alliance. nato was not constructed to deal with terror, but it is a security alliance. this clearly falls within its mandate. john: ambassador crocker, you talked about integration versus segregation basically in terms of some of the communities, of how different the united states is in terms of how it has dealt with its muslim population and how it is dealt with in europe. but today, senator cruz's suggested we start police patrols in muslim communities in
the united states. do you think that is a useful or constructive suggestion? amb. crocker: i absolutely do not. this is precisely what islamic state would like us to do. to present an image of a country that is suspicious of people simply because they are muslims or because they are arabs. that plays right into their hand and allows them to hold out to arab and muslim populations the line that the united states is fundamentally anti-arab and anti-islamic. obviously, we need to be doing everything we can to ensure our security, but we don't need to be taking steps that will harm our security. and this kind of -- look, i understand the fears. that is why terrorists practice terror, so they can frighten people into doing things that are ultimately counterproductive for their own society.
♪ mark: in his very first new york times media column, today our friend, jim rutenberg, wrote this about the media's often complicated and obsessive coverage of the donald trump presidential campaign. thanks for being with us. jim: thanks so much. mark: how much of trump's great, voluminous coverage is his doing and how much is it the media acting on its own? jim: my favorite quote that actually my colleague got was, trump said to her late last week, "i do these tweets and they could be totally insignificant and they break right into the news." so it is not all his doing. it is symbiosis. mark: if trump continues to get
coverage like this, in its volume, and he is the nominee and hillary clinton is the, knee do you think that would be a , huge advantage for him in the , it in coverage as opposed to hillary clinton? , jim: a lot of people make the argument -- and i am sure we would all agree -- that not all of the coverage is positive. i don't know if you remember in 2004 when the war was being discussed a lot and reporters would say to the bush strategist, they are talking about the war, it is not going well. and they would say as long as we are talking about the war, we are winning. as long as we talk about trump, he is winning. al: jim, it's al hunt. first, great debut today. reading your column, you pointed out that fox, and chuck todd of nbc said no more of this special treatment where you get to phone in on sunday interviews. which is a much easier interview. and then i watched george stephanopoulos, who let him phone in, and he slam dunked. the abc moderator. if one does it, aren't the
others going to cave in? jim: i don't know. i am thinking may be george decides -- and they didn't want to talk about it -- maybe george decides those guys are not going to take him on the phone, i will. i will get a spike in the ratings. al: as you know, a phone interview for a subject is a lot easier than an in person interview. trump almost always does well. in those situations. jim: my impression is that he steamroll's the interviewer. that, you know, "but, but, mr. trump" -- they can't break in. my bigger problem with it is the sunday broadcast shows, the traditional public affairs shows were based on "here is the candidate" at the advent of television. we see them. it is not radio. so i do not know why they would want to abdicate that responsibility. and you know, something they built proudly over decades. mark: jim, obviously we have
seen in past presidential campaigns, some candidates get more and better coverage than others. that always happens. this seems on a scale unlike we have ever seen. jim: i have never seen anything like it. and i think about the the upshot that the "new york times" presented, a little report and graphic last week showing, putting -- i know you guys have about -- have talked about it and viewers have seen it -- but almost $2 billion in free media coverage for donald trump compared to his next closest competitor, hillary clinton, at about half of that. i think it is a disadvantage for mrs. clinton. bernie sanders was way lower. and ted cruz was way lower. mark: you know, you just started this column. there is going to be a temptation, i would say, for the foreseeable future, to keep writing about donald trump. jim: i know, i am trying to think about what to do about that as we speak. here i am, saying everyone is giving trump all of this coverage and here i am writing , about it. there is a hall of mirrors factor.
this is what i was trying to be careful with him today's column. he is a huge -- i will not use that word. he is a giant story. a giant story. so of course, we will have to mull over this and explore it for months to come, if not many years, if he wins the presidency. al: many years ago after joe mccarthy, there were postmortems that were devastating for the press. the way mccarthy was able to use the press. after this election, in a generic sense not "the new york times" specifically, are we going to look bad? jim: i mean, this period, i do not think anyone can say it has been good. i think so far, so bad. or mostly bad or very bad. here is what i wonder. right, you mentioned at the top of this that chuck todd said he is not going to take donald trump on the phone anymore. cnn said we will not be roped in to doing a donald trump qvc-style press conference. so maybe there is a kind of counter reaction.
maybe there will be a giant change. it has to happen soon. so, i am hoping there is a correction here for all of our sakes. it is better for donald trump to have a different sort of coverage, it is better for democracy to have a different kind of coverage. al: but the suits don't want to give up that revenue. jim: it's too hard. and the other thing in the column, as i have made the round to get back in touch with the media industries i covered many years ago, people are afraid. they need that revenue. they need those ratings. they need those clicks. it is kind of an up for grabs moment in the new digital age. donald trump is coming in at a perfect time to advantage himself. he gives everyone what they need, ratings and clicks. mark: jim rutenberg stepping into big shoes. off to a great start. thanks so much. johnmore of the "best of with all due respect" ahead. ♪
♪ emily: she is considered one of the most powerful woman in silicon valley. starting her career at motorola three decades ago. seeing the rise of the famous raise their cisco phone. she became cisco's -- she became first ceo. after seven years there, she is taking a job at the chinese electric car start up nextev, aiming to take on the auto industry, tesla, and