tv Democracy Now PBS March 10, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
03/10/16 03/10/16 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> i will not deport children. i would not deport children. i do not want to deport family members, either. no, i will not deport children from the united states of america. amy: hillary clinton and bernie sanders debate in miami, days ahead of the key winner take all primary. in a debate hosted by univision, the discussed immigration, u.s. foreign-policy latin america, and more. we will speak to his story never titled colonel andrew bacevich on how donald trump is remaking america in the questions missing from the debates. we will also host a debate on
who is the best candidate to challenge trump in a general election. >> i am very pleased and i think in the last national poll i saw we were running 18 points ahead of donald trump. >> if i'm fortunate enough to be the democratic nominee, there will be a lot of time to talk about him. i was the first one to call him out. i called him out when he was calling mexicans rapists, when he was engaging in rhetoric that i found deeply offensive. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. in the 2016 race for the white house, former secretary of state hillary clinton and vermont senator bernie sanders squared off in a debate at miami-dade college in florida wednesday night sponsored by the spanish-language network univision. the two candidates clashed on issues including immigration,
, latin america and health care. , the debate comes one day after sanders' surprise victory in the michigan primary. we'll have more on the debate after headlines. meanwhile, on the republican side, the four remaining presidential candidates are slated to square off for a debate at the university of miami tonight. this comes as frontrunner donald trump is saying if he wins florida and ohio primaries next week, it is over. meanwhile on cnn trump responded , to anderson cooper's question of whether he believed "islam is at war with the west." >> i think islam hates us. there is something there that there's a tremendous hatred there, tremendous hatred. we have to get to the bottom of it. amy: in washington, d.c., more than 100 people descending on the democratic national committee headquarters wednesday to protest dnc chair and florida congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz's support for a new bill that would gut proposed regulations for payday lenders. the consumer financial protection bureau is slated to introduce new rules to rein in the notoriously unregulated world of payday lending.
but schultz and other lawmakers are instead sponsoring legislation that would weaken the rules and delay their implementation for more than two years. wednesday, a protester spoke out about the predatory nature of the industry. >> i made my payments and they offered me to read borrow, and that semi into a cycle of debt. and that was a trap a cousin had to go from one loan place to another to pay off the original loan. and for two to three years, i was trapped in the cycle, which is designed purposefully by the payday lending companies to keep people coming in for payments. defaults ofoff 50% people. they want you to not be able to pay. amy: the pentagon says it launched two airstrikes last week targeting isil's chemical weapons capabilities, after a captured isil chemical weapons specialist reportedly gave the u.s. information about the program. the iraqi specialist was reportedly captured by u.s. special operation forces in northern iraq three weeks ago.
unnamed u.s. military officials say that the specialist worked for saddam hussein now-dissolved military industrialization authority, before joining isil. u.s. officials say he also provided information about how isil has used mustard gas during attacks. unnamed officials say u.s. special operations forces and somali troops carried out a raid at an al-shabaab training camp in somalia, killing 19 militants. this comes only days u.s. days -- this comes only days after u.s. airstrikes in somalia killed more than 150 people it identified as militants at an al-shabaab training camp, marking one of the deadliest u.s. attacks to date in the so-called war on terror. the u.s. head of volkswagen has resigned amid the ongoing fallout from the auto giant's emissions cheating scandal. michael horn had served as the u.s. chief executive since 2014. this comes about six months after the global head of volkswagen, martin winterkorn, also resigned. the justice department has sued german automaker volkswagen after accusing it of installing
devices in its vehicles to skirt u.s. emissions regulations. u.s. regulators say volkswagen vehicles were emitting up to 40 times more pollution than u.s. standards allow. in news from europe, macedonia has announced it is closing its border with greece, only one day after slovenia announced it was also closing its borders to refugees fleeing violence in the middle east and north africa. croatia and serbia have said they, too, will block refugees from entering their countries. the series of border crackdowns effectively seals off the balkan route refugees have been using to reach northern european countries, such as germany. german chancellor angela merkel has condemned the border crackdowns. venezuela says it is recalling its top diplomat to the united states following the white house's decision to extended an executive order imposing sanctions on top venezuelan officials. the executive order also declares venezuela a national security threat.
the u.s. and venezuela have not had ambassadorial relations for years. in more news from south america, brazilian prosecutors have indicted former president lula da silva as part of an investigation into corruption at the brazilian oil company petrobras. the growing allegations of a corruption scandal also threaten lula's successor, current president dilma rousseff, who is fighting off an impeachment attempt related to other charges. lula says the charges are politically motivated. in france, thousands of people took to the streets to protest the french government's proposed labor reforms, which would lengthen the french work week and make it easier for bosses to fire employees. despite heavy rain, students and unions flooded paris' streets wednesday. students also barricaded dozens of schools. the protest coincided with a rail strike, which shut down two-thirds of all trains. student juba zemoul spoke out.
>> already today, we want to make it clear to all students that we are against this law and show them why. we want especially to demonstrate, to show the government we are against it and that students, young people, we are all rallying against this law so it does not pass. amy: meanwhile in nigeria oil , workers staged a nationwide strike wednesday after the nigerian government announced plans to restructure the state oil company without having consulted the workers. nigeria is the largest oil producer in africa. the proposed restructuring calls for dividing the nigerian national petroleum corporation into multiple parts. workers say they fear the plan could lead to mass layoffs. and the "wall street journal" has exposed that nearly half of the $110 billion wall street paid in settlements in recent years has been pocketed by the federal government and not been paid out to homeowners. in recent years, the united states' largest banks, including bank of america, wells fargo, jp morgan chase and citigroup, have
paid billions of dollars to settle charges of financial crimes in the mortgage crisis leading up to the 2008 housing crisis. record fines extracted by saying the money would help homeowners struggling with their mortgages. yet "the wall street journal" investigation shows while about $45 billion did go to homeowner relief, even more of the settlement money, about $50 billion in total, has been simply pocketed by the federal government, with almost no disclosure of how the money is being spent. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. nermeen: welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. with less than a week before the voters head to the polls in florida come illinois, missouri, and north carolina, hillary clinton and bernie sanders sparred last night in a debate in miami hosted by univision.
large portions of the debate focused on immigration. facing questioning by moderator jorge ramos, both candidates promised not to deport children or noncriminal undocumented immigrants. klux yes or no? you promise tonight you won't deport children. >> i will not deport children. i would not deport children. i do not want to deport family members, either. as i said, i want to prioritize who would be deported -- common criminals, people planning terrorist attacks, anyone who threatens us. be specific.o you're telling us tonight that if you become president, you won't deport children who are are ready here? >> i will not. >> and you'll not deport immigrants i do not have a criminal record. >> that is what i'm telling you. >> we promise us tonight you will not deport children? >> i happen to agree with president obama on many, many
issues. i think he is in a great job as president of the united dates. he is wrong on this issue of deportation. i disagree with him on that. to answer your question, no, i will not deport children from the united states of america. >> can you promise not to deport immigrants who do not have a record? amy: hillary clinton criticized bernie sanders for voting against a 2007 immigration reform bill. >> i think our best chance was in 2007 when ted kennedy led the charge on conference of immigration reform that republican support, a president willing to sign it. i voted for that bill step senator sanders voted against it. in 2007,tor sanders, you voted against immigration reform. you now say it was because the bill has a guest worker provision which seems some of slavery, but back in this is what you said to cnn. let's listen. >> increasing and of wages are
going down, i don't know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than american workers and drive wages down and they are right now. >> senator, were you concerned with working conditions for guest workers or really because you think immigrants drive down wages and take jobs from americans? >> you have guest worker programs that have been described by the southern poverty law center who studies these issues, as guest worker programs again to slavery, or people came in, they were cheated, they were abused, they were humiliated and if they stood up for their rights, that would be thrown out of the country. of course that type of effort leads to a race to the bottom for all of our people. >> i think it is very hard to make the case that ted kennedy, , laurent is a,e
united farm workers, leaders of the latino community what have supported a bill that actually promoted modern slavery. that was one of the many excuses used not to vote for the 2007 bill. nermeen: while hillary clinton and bernie sanders took jabs that donald trump, clinton was questioned about her voting record to expand security along the mexican border. >> but the question is, what is the difference between the law you voted for and donald trump's law? >> first of all, as i understand him, he is talking about a very tall wall. tall wall.utiful the most beautiful tall wall, better than the great wall of china that would run the entire wall -- border, that he would somehow magically get the mexican government to pay for
and you know, it is just fantasy. in fact, if he cared to know anything about what members of congress like the senator and i have done, where it was necessary, we did support some fencing. where it was necessary, we did add border patrol agents. we have done what by any fair estimate would have to conclude is a good job, "securing the border." so let's get about the business of comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] >> the secretary and i mostly i think agree on this issue. look, in this country, immigration reform is a very hot debate. it has divided the country. but i would hope very much, that as we have that debate, we do not, as donald trump and others have done, resort to racism and xenophobia and bigotry.
[applause] suddenly one day or maybe a night, rounding up 11 million people and taking them outside of this country is a volcker, absurd idea that i would hope very few people in america support. any the candidate also discussed the puerto rican debt crisis. >> congress must give authority to puerto rico to restructure its debt, just like it has enabled states and cities to restructure their debt. and it is a grave injustice for the congress led by the republicans to be refusing to enact that opportunity within the bankruptcy law. and what we see in puerto rico
now is a lot of suffering. we see schools being closed. we see health care being denied. and we see 1000 puerto rican families a month moving to the united states, mostly to florida. puerto ricans are citizens of america. they deserve to be treated as citizens and to begin in the opportunity to get back on their feet economically. klux when you get to puerto rico, there's an issue we have not talked about. that little island is $73 billion in debt and the government now is paying interest rates of up to 11%. and many of the bonds that they are paying off were purchased bible to her capitalists for $.30 on the dollar. and what i have said in talking to the leaders of puerto rico, we have to bring people together and it is not the people of puerto rico or the children or the schools, and maybe some of these falter capitalists are
going to have to lose a little bit of money in this process. nermeen: during the debate, univision questioned bernie sanders about comments he made during the 1980's about cuba and nicaragua. >> in 1985, you praised the government and said that ortega was an impressive guy. this is what you said about fidel castro. in 1961,y recall back they invaded cuba. everybody was totally convinced that castro was the worst guy in the world. all of the cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against castro. >> in south florida, there are still open ones among some exiles regarding the socialist and communism. please explain what is the difference between the socialist you profess and the socialism in nicaragua, cuba -- >> let me answer that. what that was about was saying the united states was wrong to
try to invade cuba, that the united states was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the nicaraguan government, that the united states was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government -- democratically elected government of guatemala. throughout the history of our relationship with latin america, we have operated under the so-called monroe doctrine. and that said that the united states had the right to do anything that they wanted to do in latin america. so i actually went to nicaragua and i very shortly opposed the reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. and i strongly opposed earlier henry kissinger and the -- to overthrow the government of salvador allende in chile. i think the united states should
be working with governments around the world, not getting involved in regime changeand ale way, in latin america, brought forth a lot a very strong anti-american sentiments. >> i just want to add one thing to the question you were asking senator sanders. i think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. i just could not disagree more. if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that i ever want to see anywhere. ringo hillary clinton was also questioned about her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state.
>> who specifically gave you permission to operate your e-mail? was it president barack obama? would you drop out of the race if you get indicted. >> their a lot of questions in there and i will give the same answer i had been giving for many months. it wasn't the best choice. i made a mistake. it was not prohibited. it was not in any way disallowed . as i have said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing. many other people in the government. >> who gave you permission to operate, was it president obama? >> there was no presentation -- was no permission. i do not have ask anyone. >> if you get indicted, are you going to drop out? >> oh, for goodness -- i'm not even going to answer. amy: highlights for last night debate. it was the last of a credit debate before the voters go to .he polls
the republicans debate tonight at the university of miami. when we come back, we will be joined by military historian, retired colonel andrew basevich, asking why questions on foreign policy are not being asked of any of the candidates. and he says that donald trump is not only change in the republican party, but changing america forever. they with us schools stay with us. ♪ [music break]
amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. to talk more about the presidential race and a look at some of the questions not being raised at the debates, we're joined by andrew bacevich, a retired colonel and vietnam war veteran. his new book "america's war for , the greater middle east: a military history," will be published next month.
he is professor emeritus of international relations and history at boston university. also author of several other books including, "washington rules: america's path to permanent war." his son was killed in action in iraq in 2007. amy: andrew bacevich plus was recent article is headlined "the , six questions missing from the 2016 election debates." andrew bacevich welcome back to democracy now! so what is missing from these debates? >> from my point of view, the big thing that is missing is a theingness to take on board of u.s. or lack thereof military involvement in the islamic world. certainly, there is a tension in the campaign given -- attention in the campaign given to the campaign against isis, but let
us note even as the isis campaign unfolds, we're still involved in afghanistan. you noted in your news roundup, we have just had a major bombing incident in somalia followed by a special operations raid. last week in "the new york times," there was an article discussing the plans within the obama administration perhaps to launch a major air campaign in libya. it seems to me to be time for the american people or for those aspiring to be the next commander in chief to take stock of this military involvement in the region, which has been going on for decades now, and ask, how are we doing? are we winning? what are the prospects? and to pose those questions in a serious way i think would contribute to the conclusion that the militarization of u.s. policy in that part of the world has been utterly
counterproductive and is making things worse, not better. nermeen: andrew bacevich, a lot of people in the u.s. we disagree with the claim that isis is not the principal threat facing americans today. could you explain why you think that is not the case? >> i think isis poses annexes dental threat to the country -- existential threat to the country. it threatens the state structure that was created in the aftermath of world war i. therefore, from that point of view, the powers in the region, whether we're talking about iran, saudi arabia, turkey, iraq , and others, they have a profound interest in bringing about the destruction of isis. a by any realistic measure, isis poses only a modest threat to the united states of america. it does not have an air force. it does not have a navy. it consists of a relatively small number ofierce fighters, not particularly well armed, and
the notion that isis somehow threatens us i think is really absurd. nermeen: do you think there's any evidence to suggest that the next administration, whether republican or democrat, will be less interventionist in the muslim world? >> if we look at the remaining republican candidates, they are all clearly different flavors, but they are all militarists. i was a evaluate secretary clinton as an exceedingly hawkish democrat. her principal achievement, if you want to call it that as secretary of state, was in pushing the intervention in libya, which has produced catastrophic consequences. however, isers, largely -- it seems to me has not laid out his position. one might anticipate that given
his general left-leaning view of the world, that he might be somewhat less inclined to rely on u.s. military power might be more willing to consider alternatives to military power, but he has not yet, at least to my knowledge, really spelled out in detail where he stands on these matters. frankly, i wish he would. i think he needs to in order to the his candidacy beyond economic and social justice themes that have been the core of his campaign thus far. amy: last that at the debate, we just played the clip of bernie sanders saying overall when talking about latin america, everyone from nicaragua to chile and ouster of the leader allende , said he was opposed to u.s. interventions for regime change. and this was vermont senator bernie sanders at the democratic presidential debate in vermont
accusing former secretary of state hillary clinton of being "too much into that regime change." withfference of opinion secretary clinton, obviously. our differences are fairly deep on this issue. we disagreed on the war in iraq. we both listened to the information from bush and cheney. i voted against the war. but i think -- and i say this with due respect -- that i worry too much that secretary clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. yes, we could get rid of saddam hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. yes, we could get rid of gaddafi , a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for isis. yes, we do get rid of assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit isis.
so i think, yeah, regime change is easy. getting rid of dictators is easy. a before you do that, you think about what happens the day after. >> with all the respect, senator, you voted for regime change with respect to libya. you joined the senate in voting to get rid of gaddafi and you ask that there be a security council validation of that with a resolution. all of these are very difficult issues. i know that. i have been dealing with them for a long time. of course, we have to continue to do what is necessary when someone like gaddafi, a does it with american blood on his hands, is overturned, but i will tell you what would have happened, if we had not joined with our european partners and our arab partners to assist the people in libya, you would be looking at syria. now the libyans are turning their attention to try to dislodge isis from its foothold and begin to try to move together to have a unified nation.
amy: that was hillary clinton and bernie sanders at the debate in manchester, new hampshire, last year. andrew bacevich, respond. putting i think she is a fairly optimistic take on the prognosis in libya. and i think senator sanders' critique of her interventionism, her pension for interventionism, deserves a far more serious response than she offers. she tends to shrug off the iraq vote. libyands to shrug off the experience as, well, we did our best and so what. amy: isn't she just trying to get away from it because, i mean, you could say that that is one of the key reasons that president obama is president today?
he opposed the iraq war to voted for it, and now she is dealing samethe same things for -- thing with bernie sanders who continually races that key issue that she voted for the war in iraq? the point here is one that needs to look the on partisanship. that is to say, who gets the better in these debates? me real issue that seems to never gets fully addressed is this larger question of what the militarization of u.s. policy in particular in the islamic world of nowlded over a period several decades? the issue is not specifically what went right or wrong in iraq, right or wrong in libya. the issue really is, given the magnitude of the u.s. military involvement in the region, in one country after another, whether our purposes were supposedly to bring order,
spread democracy, pacify, advance human rights, the total sum of our activity has produced next to nothing that is positive. it has imposed great cost on ourselves and on many other nations and people. of it shows no evidence producing anything more positive tomorrow or the next year. so there is a need to take stock of u.s. military involvement in the region, to recognize its failure, and therefore, to consider alternatives. it is my personal judgment that there are alternatives to the militarization of u.s. policy, and quite frankly, i would like to hear senator sanders be the one to begin to articulate what those alternatives might be. nermeen: in your view, what are some of the alternatives to the militarized foreign policy, u.s. foreign-policy that we have seen so far? >> let me give you, very
briefly, a three-point strategy. first of all, point number one of this strategy is, self protection. earlier, we talked about whether or not isis poses a particular threat to the united states. the threat is minor. but we need to do a better job, certainly, we need to do a better job than we did on 9/11, as simply erecting barriers to keep the bad guys from getting at is. and that is primarily a function of domestic agencies -- fbi, the coast guard, the tsa, border agency. keep the bad guys out. point number two in the strategy , and this alludes to my previous point about it is the nation's the region who are really affected by isis, point number two is, it is a diplomatic task. get those nations to recognize that they have a common interest in dealing with isis. yes, they are divided among themselves on any variety of fronts -- religious, sectarian,
historical. but their common interest in dealing with isis's preeminent, and ought to provide the basis for collaboration against isis. point number three, again, the big issue it seems to me -- and i know president obama believes ofs -- is the difficulty some in the islamic world of finding a path that will reconcile belief, faith, with secular modernity. peaceful coexistence between the west and the islamic world will require that reconciliation between safe and modernity occurring. but it has to occur on terms of the people within the region. some point number three, really, is to encourage the reconciliation, to demonstrate through our own behavior the faith and modernity need not be at odds.
,nd to encourage exchanges cultural, educational, between ourselves and particular, young people in the islamic world. they will help demonstrate that we are not the enemy. that is a strategy that does not involve u.s. military power in any significant way. it is a strategy that would have to unfold over decades, but it is a preferable alternative to permanent war, and that is where we are now. amy: andrew bacevich, what is the media not asking? what is your critique of the media right now? >> i critique of the media is that they allow this preoccupation with what happened yesterday, the day before, to transcend or to remove any larger awareness of what the united states has attempted to do, has accomplished or not
accomplished, and at what cost over a period of decades. for all practical purposes, the 2003, 2011, has a ready been forgotten. not to mention the u.s. war in iraq with a 1990-1991, not to mention he was involvement in the iran-iraq war of 1880 to 1988. if one takes on board that entire experience, military, u.s. military experience in and ofund iraq over a period decades, it is hard for me to imagine that you can look at what is going on now and say, gosh, if we just a few isis, everything is going to be hunky-dory. the media is too focused on the immediate past and ignores the deeper past. amy: i want to go to your piece, "has trump already one?" playing twoart by
short clips. this is trump this week responding to anderson cooper on cnn's question of whether islam is at war with the west. >> i think islam hates us. there is something there that -- there is a tremendous hatred. we have to get to the bottom of it. amy: and now i want to turn to donald trump at the republican debate in greenville, south carolina, denouncing the iraq war, calling it a big fat mistake. >> obviously, the war in iraq is a big fat mistake, right? you can take it anyway you want. it took jeb bush -- if you remember the beginning of his announcement when he announced for president, it took them five days -- it was a mistake, it wasn't a mistake. it took them five days before his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said, it was a mistake. the war in iraq, we spent $2
trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. iran has taken over iraq, the second oral -- largest oil reserves. obviously, was a mistake. george bush made a mistake. that was a beauty. we should have never been in a wreck. we have destabilized the middle east. amy: there was donald trump taking on george bush -- jeb bush, george bush's brother. today jeb bush is meeting with john kasich, rubio, and ted cruz, but not trump, before the big debate tonight. but look at those two quotes, andrew bacevich. fitting in saying the muslims should be banned from the u.s., saying islam hates america, and then george bush lied about war lied us into the iraq war. >> the iraq war was a big fat mistake. trump in many respects is a blowhard, but from time to time he actually says something that is true. what is not true is his
characterization of islam. it is not simply that it is not true, it is utterly counterproductive. it cannot provide the basis for any sort of meaningful policy unless somehow or other a president trump would be interested in promoting some sort of armageddon-like conflict between the west and islam. one of my points with regard to trump is this -- there are those who can hear him -- compare him to fascist. i don't think he is a fascist because, however evil it may have been, fascism did imply some sort of a coherent ideology.al -- ideologically he shoots from the hip. he's beaten generality. yes remarkable aptitude, i
andk, for manipulating anderbating, anger alienation and a certain part of the immigrant population. he is not so much a fascist, i think as he is a representative of kind of a personality cult. and in a sense, that would make him that much more dangerous were he ever to become president. because we actually don't know what he stands for, therefore, what he would do if in the position of commander in chief. nermeen: your suggested that departing from u.s. foreign-policy orthodoxy often has fatal consequences. i want to ask about another point that trump has made, and this on russia. cnn'sinterview with anderson cooper in october, trump was asked about whistleblower edward snowden. trump denounced snowden and said he would get along very well
with russian president vladimir putin. traitor.k is a total if i was president, putin would give him over. i have dealt with russia. i think i would get along with them fine. nermeen: that was trump speaking to cnn's anderson cooper in october saying he, trump, would get along very well with putin. in december, he defended putin after the russian president called him up in court colorful, talented person." trump said "it is a great honor to be so nicely complimented." in a series of interviews, trump disputed reports of the kremlin's obama and the killing of journalists saying "our country does plenty of killing also." andrew bacevich of your response? >> well, i think it is frankly a bit silly to talk about the relationship with the leader of russia in terms of getting along interestedn is not
in "getting along with" the united states. putin is a thug. but in his own way, he is a relatively serious statesman playing a game that is defined by power and interest. i think in many respects, putin 's primary interest is trying to maintain his status within russia at a time when the clearlyeconomy is having a very difficult time. blustering, insisting upon the rest of the world giving respect to russia, the respect that it deserves, plays well, i think, with his domestic constituents and helps to ease his to mystic problems. at the notion that putin wants to get along well with us, i think is frankly absurd. not to be admitted
word knowledged were accepted is russia actually represents a very limited threat to the united states of america. there are those on the right and the unit is dates who somehow benk that putin's russia can related to sell and an effort -- related to stalin. shows muscle,n that ought to lead to a u.s. military response. i think that also would be a approach russia. amy: we don't hear much about nuclear weapons. why do you think this is a key question that is being missed for all of these candidates to have to address, professor? >> it beats me. astonished so little attention is being given to obama's a administration plans to modernize the u.s. nuclear arsenal with smaller nuclear
weapons, which some people it might sound reassuring, smaller means actually more usable and arguably more likely to be used. the modernization program missiles,ew ballistic a new manned bomber for the air force, new missile launching submarines. this is a program, publicly announced, but probably will trillion or more between now and it's projected completion roughly around 2045 in time for the 100th anniversary of hiroshima and nagasaki. neither party, certainly none of the candidates to my knowledge, questioned whether this is going to be money well spent, why we need an expanded arsenal, how this plays with regard to the professions by the, what, last
10 presidents, all of whom have indicated they would like to see nuclear weapons eliminated altogether. it is another blind spot, it seems to me, in our political discourse that is deafening. nermeen: another point you raise that is missing from the debates is the fact, as you say, u.s. forces are today active in 147 countries around the world. you ask why their troops in so many countries, saying this question really cannot be posed because to answer it, is to expose the real purpose of american globalism, which means, of course, that none of the candidates will touch it with a 10 foot hole. good you tell us what the answer to that question is? , while u.s. troops are stationed in 147 countries and what it says about the real purpose of american globalism? >> if we compared why they are b,country a versus country
the immediate rationale is going to differ. but when we consider that profile, the global profile that thejust referred to, and global profile which has expanded in recent years but certainly has been enormous since the beginning of the cold war, a military presence orders of magnitude greater than that of any other significant power on the face of the earth -- why are we doing that? because people in washington believe that military power, military presence, the projection of force, that these translate into influence the benefits the united states. they believe that influence then translates into security for the unit -- united states of america. many of them even believe that translates into enhancing the well-being of the rest of the world. and i think that is a notion
implicit in u.s. national security strategy, therefore, never examined, never questioned . and i think posing those questions -- it is past time because there's bloody of evidence that the u.s. military presence may in some places continue -- contribute to its otherity, but in places, it continues to instability. amy: last night's debate not mention, the u.s. had just bombed somalia, killed 150 people. we're told they believe their militants at a training camp. it looks like the pentagon first appeared to have initially trying to cover up the fact it was not just runs, but also manned attacks. this is a country, we are not officially at war with, and this week we first killed 150 people, the u.s. military, and now in the last hours, another 19. >> exactly.
we used to call it the war on terrorism. i'm not sure if that term is actually still in circulation, ,ut this enterprise, this war this series of campaigns continues to evolve, continues to expand the authority of the president to make war wherever he chooses to. it is now seemingly beyond any sort of question. the constitution, that regard, has simply been thrown out the window. and to circle back to the fact we are in a political season, virtually none of this is discussed. virtually none of this becomes the subject of the moderators at the debates. it is simply taken for granted that war has become a normal condition. amy: we have to leave it there.
i want to thank you, andrew bacevich, for joining us, retired colonel and vietnam war veteran. his recent piece for the nation "the six questions missing from "the six questions missing from the 2016 election debates." , his new book, "america's war for the greater middle east: a military history," will be published next month. he is professor emeritus of international relations and history at boston university. among his other books "washington rules: america's , path to permanent war." onn we come back, a debate who would beat donald trump. stay with us. ♪ [music break]
republican front runner donald trump in a general election. >> i believe our message of the need for people to stand up and tell corporate america and wall street that they cannot have it all is resonating across this country, and i think in the coming weeks and months, you're going to continue to do extremely well in a number of these primaries and convince super delegates that bernie sanders is the strongest candidate to beat donald trump. >> if i'm so fortunate enough to be the democratic nominee, there will be a lot of time to talk about him. i was the first one to call him out. i called him out when he was calling mexicans rapists, when he was engaging in rhetoric that i found deeply offensive. i said basta, and i am pleased that others -- [applause] joining inalso making clear that is -- his
rhetoric is demagoguery, his trafficking in prejudice and paranoia has no place in our political system. amy: the question of which democratic candidate is best suited to challenge donald trump is generating a lot of impassioned discussion and debate. who stands a better chance in the general election? we will spend the rest of the hour talking about this and in boston, we're joined by nathan robinson, a doctoral student in sociology & social policy at harvard university. he is an attorney as well as the editor-in-chief of current affairs, a new print magazine of political analysis. robinson's recent piece is called, "unless the democrats run sanders, a trump nomination means a trump presidency." and in ottawa, canada, we're joined by alan draper, professor of government at st. lawrence university. his recent article for market watch is "a vote for bernie , sanders is a vote for donald trump." professor draper, thank you for traveling for this
discussion. what you feel hillary clinton is the best candidate to beat trump? >> i think hillary has certain positives for her. number one, experience. number two, she, it seems to me, everything is on the table with her. we know so much about her. with regard to bernie, that film that was shown in the debate last night in terms of his apologies for castro and authoritarianism, do we know how many other films like that are out there? do we know what kind of petitions bernie has signed? that is all going to come out. so in terms of the unknowns that bernie sanders presents, i just think that hillary is a safer candidate at this point. secondly, it seems to me, this question of bernie versus sanders, who is a better candidate, is moot. people talk about bernie winning michigan, but he lost the delegate count that evening.
amy: because he lost mississippi. >> yes. the window is closing very rapidly. so those are some of the things to consider. nermeen: nathan robinson, did you lay out the argument that you lay out in your he's, unless the democrats run sanders, a trump nomination means a trump presidency"? >> i respect absolutely the arguments for hillary clinton's electability. the thing that i think is important to consider and is not considered enough in the discussions is the fact that the republican nominee is donald trump. that changes everything. and the reason it changes everything is because of trump's unique campaigning style. trump traffics in the personal and the salacious. what that means, all of trump's strengths plate to all of hillary clinton's unique weaknesses. trump has already shown this.
if you see the way he talks about hillary clinton at his rallies versus the way he talks about bernie sanders, he goes after hillary clinton on iraq and libya, on the tpp, on nafta, on jobs. and so all of these things make trump a candidate that has a unique advantage over clinton that he does not have over sanders, because sanders speaks to the same kind of concerns that animate trump's base of support. amy: it is interesting whe ubert their how many billions he has, not releasing his tax returns and people are speculating -- >> very. amy: but the uber capitalist versus the democratic socialist, nathan robinson. >> the thing is, those two things seeming stark contrast at first, but i think what you see is taubman centers have different messages but targeting the same anxieties and the same audience.
whoever the democratic nominee is in the fall can be assured the democratic base will support them because trump has the support of the klan, called all mexicans rapists. the democratic base will be solid. what is going to be difficult in the general election is winning over the working class, so-called reagan democrats. those are people that trump has a message for. trump is a message for people who michigan lost their jobs, oklahoma.rrual those people come to his rallies. but those people also come to bernie sanders rallies and bernie sanders has a message that resonates in those communities in a way that hillary clinton simply doesn't not because of her record with wall street, because of her record with free trade and i think what you see is hillary clinton is not well positioned to capture the particular national mood at the moment, which is an antiestablishment
movement. if the democrats run an establishment candidate in an antiestablishment election cycle, they are going to lose. nermeen: professor alan draper, your response to what nathan robinson says? >> this notion that the 2016 election is unusual for being an antiestablishment election just is not true. first of all, most of this agitation is almost completely on the republican side. the primary turnout in republican primaries is very high. that is not the case in the democratic primaries, where in fact the turnout has been exceedingly low. amy: actually, it is higher than it was in the last -- in 2008. both for republicans and democrats, just hire for republicans. neither is very high, 17% for republican so far, and 11.7% or something for democrats -- higher. >> well, 2008.
that was an exceptional election come also. you had two -- amy: well, higher than 2012. 2000 and was much higher. >> with regard to how democrats really government is doing, again, most americans -- i think i saw in an article, something like 54% are not pleased with how the government is performing. it must've that is republicans, when you drill down into those numbers. in terms of the democratic base being upset with where the country is going, it just does not resonate as much and what we're seeing is an antiestablishment election, this is how the media always present most primary elections in order to build a horse race. you saw that in 2012 with the rise of herman cain, 2008 with regard to obama. it is always presented as an antiestablishment election, that the electorate is angry.
that seems to me so much more so on the republican side than it is on the democratic side. amy: nathan robinson, your response before we conclude? >> as you can see, the statistics he cited are wrong because everyone is upset. it doesn't matter if it is republicans because anyone -- everyone votes in the general election. what you need is in the general election, you have to build to those people. that is you need to appeal to an order to win. and those people bernie sanders can appeal to but very clinton, who professor draper calls the candidate of moral ambiguity, you cannot on a platform of moral ambiguity get people to turn out to the polls will stop if turnout is low, you need to inspire people. bernie sanders inspires people. hillary clinton hemorrhages support all the time. donald trump build support. bernie sanders build support. amy: we have to leave it there, nathan robinson and alan draper, thank you for joining us.
-on this episode of "eat! drink! italy!"... tony verdoni and i visit carmignano, the ancient home of one of italy's earliest superstars. then i make one of italy's fun dishes -- tortelloni. and tony and i return to tuscany to taste a 1931 carmignano. my name is vic rallo, and i eat and drink italy. follow me, and i'll prove it. -"eat! drink! italy!" is brought to you by... wine enthusiast magazine and catalog -- for wine storage, glassware, and accessories. the historic count basie theatre in red bank, new jersey. the atalanta corporation -- importing authentic italian products and more for over 50 years. coffee afficionado -- artisanal roasters of sustainably sourced coffee.