. >> the violence must stop, the killing must stop and the people of libya must be protected and have the opportunity to express themselves freely. gwen: will can do you havey he -- will qaddafi lose his grip? are we on the brink of all-out war? while on the other side of the world, japan copes with a disaster of biblical proportions. after the quake. after the flood. now nuclear fallout. >> there's no water in the spent fuel pool and we believe

libya did and look what happened there. robert: and the democrats were prettylarmed. senate minorities leader chuck humer urged them to hold an intervention for the president. he wrote "youow cannot a the president's ill-advised andun rranted excellent to stand." speaker pelosi responded this way. >> the president just doesn't seem to have the attention span or the desire to hear what the intelligence community has been telling him. robert: bob was talking about how north korea sees i own deterrent with its own nuclear wsenal butt about the rest of the world talking about the u.s.'s role in it? >> for itance in moscow, you hear vladimir putin basically idplaying to prt trump's own dust distrust of hisncies. this is bit on the fact of two years or more oa sophistication between president trump and these organizations, which started business -- his presidency by telling him it was not valid. that's the way they see it. he didn't trust the ones who came from them now, the obama appoint eyes and doesn't trust the ones now, even though they were appointed by him. his view

was not in the oval office oowhere to be seen and it is, i'm told, precisely because he spoke of the libya model, which almost derailed this whole thing. so did mike pence and he was not in the room. pompeo has street yesterd with the president because he was the cis briefer befor h became the secretary of state. is e is a hard liner but he also very invested in this and i think he's correctly taken stock of the president's interests in legacy. he's going to do somethang no other president has been able to do and if they can verify it and if he now has a lowered expectation that it's going to take a whe. st not going to be one summit or three. he might stay longer in singapore. he might be able to do something that barack obama never acleaved oreallyttempted. that george w. bush fried ask failedan athat bill clinton, most importantly tried to achieve but didn't. robert: a what are the signals, know, that kim kim is send something he's sending his top guy to talk to the president. what has he donean to sho kind of commitment to these talks? shawna h sending top guy is one way. the fact it s

when it comes to some of the other countries on that list, sudan, libya, others, it's not as troublesome. the refugee ban -- even our european partners have had a long time. that's a different duration. that's a four-month hold versus the three month on the seven countries. that not just from a humanitarian point of view is on that list. we really don't know what went into crafting this other than the folks with their fingerprints on it. susan: and pete, the president also learned this week that there are limits on executive power. this is being challenged in the courts. the immigration ban is being immediately challenged in the courts. what's the latest there? pete: there are at least 10 lawsuits now. there will be more next week. every civil rights lawyer in america is currently at the word processor trying to figure out a better way to attack this today a judge in boston said i'm not going to butt on a temporary restraining order but other judges said this is killing our economy, very bad for our states. ask the judge to put a hold on the executive ordinationwide and the judge said ye

than halfn, more worried about her dealings with iraq, libya, and use of a private email server when secretary of state. in other words, voters are about his behavior now and her behavior then, just as the two opponents would have it. think about that, jennifer? jennifer: i know trump is working on his temperament. he's been glued to the teleprompter since mid august it thisly went off of week. gwen: much to the disappointment of his crowd. jennifer: so he's been working on saying things in a more refined way. at his rally in toledo and there was a baby screaming and everyone in the audience could hear it and he didn't even flinch. you remember back in early there in virginia when was a crying baby and it irritated him and he went off. thought he was joking. jennifer: you could see the irritation. this time he didn't flinch. talking about trade and kept plowing through it. i talked to his aides about that that's a really good example of how he is so now.more disciplined in mid august he was told by his advisers, listen, the g.o.p. is you loose.t they're not going to risk losing the u

and it seemed like republicans strategy.d a they wanted to paint her as owning that libya policy, in responding quick fromh to the warning ambassador stevens at the time. but they seemed to -- they kept down these rabbit holes, getting stuck on these very gotcha moments. why do you think that trey gowdy and the committee republican ended up in that unfortunate -- unfortunate for them, looking like they were partisan attack? >> obviously the setup to this hearing wasn't very helpful topf have kevin mccarthy come out a few weeks before this hearing and say this was or -- suggested to undermine her poll numbers. but i agree with you. it did seem like they were 11-hourin this endurance test, to provoke some kind of an outburst from her. it to the left democrats. that's one of the other rules. she left it to the democrats to that political fight. >> it seemed inevitable that there would be a food fight, shouting match between the two sides. that did erupt. i think it was over the question blumenthal's testimony should be released. but that was sort of unsurprising to me. at did pretty muc

he has been critical of secretary clinton on the libya decision. that seemed to be the point he wanted to make about the middle east. the interesting -- and i was actually disappointed that the debate carry on this. he was the one guy against the iran deal and he said this, maybe this is contributing to what is going on in syria. and i wanted to hear everybody else in the iran deal. gwen: since we are talking about foreign policy, let's talk about what happened this week. talk about what you might do as president and then what happens when you are actually president. president obama campaigned on a pledge to end wars in iraq and afghanistan. when troops left, things collapsed. he conceded he can't do that in afghanistan and the next president will inherit that war. president obama: this modest and meaningful extension of our presence, while sticking to our current narrow missions can make a real difference. right thing to do. gwen: one thing to make a promise, another thing to keep a promise. alexis: it is not unexpected in terms of keeping the tro

. >> libya was another --. >> speaking of possible chaos what are the chances with both russian and american planes over syria that they will end up banging into each other and will have a super power conflict or proxy war? >> well, it is the effort by both countries to figure out how to not run into each other in the air. and so we started to hear talks between the two countries about that. the challenge becomes how much can you trust the russians to hold to their agreements and how frank of a conversation can you have? now, practically speaking, because the u.s. and the russians as of now are flying in two different spaces, the risk is less but certainly not eliminated. and so in the immediate, it doesn't seem to be a real risk. >> on the other hand we haven't done exactly a lot of military rehearsing and training with the russians have we? they are not a nato country. >> not recently. the biggest challenge i think for the russians is what happens if for example a car bomb goes off in front of the air field or one of those planes are shot down? how do they extract themselves from the situa

isis is now expanding in libya and elsewhere in africa. all of this presents a dilemma for the obama administration which insists the week was a tactical setback. >> we have seen a lot of success. but we've also seen significant periods of setback. that's part of what a military conflict is going to be won. gwen: the president's critics pounced. >> this takeover ramadi serves the latest example of a president whose policies are rudderless in the middle east even as that region is riled with grotesque violence. gwen: how tough a spot is this? yochi: the reality is that by any measure isis is spreading in iraq, syria libya. u.s. integenerals believes that there have been isis commanders physically sent from syria to libya to take command of an isis branch there. and the list goes on and on and on. the president if he were to admit any of that, the question uld be why aren't you doing more? why aren't you willing to go back there and they're continuing to expand? this week his answer was no i done think he's losing and he went through a long

they were searching by top aides and using anything with beng azzi in it -- benghazi in it or libya. >> to be complear -- clear, you're saying she searched for beng hawesy and saved those -- benghazi and saved those? right? >> r50eu79 >> this has really taken on legs though. why? is it specific to the clintons? does it have long-term impact? >> part of it is her family of course, so many scandals of the 1990's and 2000's. everyone's been wonder ha kind of presidential candidate will she be? she took eight days to respond to this at all and i think that created a problem and a vacuum. do voters care about this specifically? no, probably not. the people who n didn't like her scr a fresh reason not to, the people who like her will probably come to her defense. but it put a window into the idea that transparency does not necessarily apply to them and how she was reacting, as a lawyer up there, presents a problem the >> and i'm curious jeff. i thought so many questions weren't answered then and after by the state department about, you know, who reviewed this? who decided this? what key wo

hesitance to say this was a strike against libya. the u.s. saying we need a political solution to stabilize libya, not outside states intervening and the egyptians are saying we cannot just let it go. it's fascinating, the push-pull. on one hand we want a diplomatic solution and levers of democracy and at the same time, iraq and syria, using military means. gwen: is there a diplomatic solution for how the global community should be handling this? >> there's a political concept that the president articulated. he essentially said one of the key long-term solutions here is democracy, political freedom that when you have repression, radicalism festers. but -- and it's interesting because there's a school of thought that says actually what you need in the middle east is strong men and we may not like them but people are nostalgic for gaddafi and saddam. but the president really reinforced that message that that's not the answer because that can stabilize in the short term but in the long term creates more resentment and radicalism. gwen: thank you

people will come from tunisia libya and evennur europe and america. they have been known to go back and forth, take a rest and check on family members and return to causing and that is tension when some of the fighters who fought alongside to theirack lowcommunities, especially in libya andlaces like spouse isis ideology effortsat odds with the of a democratic government. rifts you talk about the in the coalition? problemsey, lot of between the u.s. organizing. is that hampering the effort to a coherent ground force? gwen: time for a brief answer. >> the u.s. likes to say no, turkey is committed. the shape of that role is not yet clear. you know, they do want turkey to take more of an active role. they are playing down the military aspect of it for now jo a lot. lot of strange bed fellows involved in this. thanks, everybody. you.e out of time for we plan to keep on talking online. join us on the "washington week" webcast extra stromeing live at 8:30 p.m. eastern and all week long. only other things we will dig rulings that. could determine who gets to

but if you think back to the livey operation that -- libya operation. that did not begin with the goal of toppling toppling ghadafi. it was similar to the situation the president described last night. we think of benghazi now asa none must with the compound. the reason the president authorized intervention was to save innocents from the slaughter and that is why we were doing it. and then when happened? it evolved. we had a stake in the game. it turned into a long-running air campaign. there was a little bit of mission creep. it is not an air campaign now but we have a recent precedent for a humanitarian intervention turn nothing a longer running air campaign. can that achieve its goals? a cliche you hear a lot. you need a political solution in iraq. the warring parties have to make some sort of compromise. gwen: isn't what happened in libya and what is happening in iraq the same reason that barack obama stayed out of syria? >> yes. and the challenge with a limited air campaign or whenever you want to call it if the message to isis which is emboldened a

libya an interest? at what point does it become an immediate concern for the united states? we talk about ukraine but frankly it's a bigger concern for europe than the united states. iraq, at what point does that become a threat to the u.s. national security? if these countries aren't posing an immediate threat? gwen: except that you just cannot look away especially as the leader of the free world. >> we're at that stage where you cannot -- cannot look away. and we're nals a period when the american public is still allergic to direct intervention. in all of this list of conflicts you talked about has anyone raised in a serious way military intervention? the united states isn't even sending weaponry to the government of ukraine at this point. wen: talking about nonlethal aid. >> so a that point it's an old and sort of grim principle in diplomacy which is called ripeness that sometimes these things, the two sides in a con flict, gaza as an example has to exhaust each other and get to the point where neither side still thinks it has no ground to gain and i'm afraid we're in tha

we snatched another militant in libya some months ago and actually had a raid in the works to grab him at the same time and the first snatch was -- went public on twitter, which alerted him -- which caused us to call off the raid, number one, and which alerted him in general that there was higher danger. by the way, you mentioned that we're interrogating him prior to his miranda rights. for viewers who might not be clear, this is a new practice where, to kind of split the baby, so to speak. a team comes in and will interrogate a terror suspect before they've been read their rights to get essentially actionable intelligence. do you know about any plots in the works? anything we need to act on immediately? they do stretch the definition of imminence a little bit. but then a fresh team comes in, reads him his rights and starts to question him and that's what you can introduce him into court. so the initial interrogation is for intelligence purposes, not for legal purposes, maybe a happy compromise. >> do they rough him up during that first round? >> there's no roughing up now. the preside

intelligence agency's saying we expect more in libya.attacks conditions warrant safe haven in libya. these are detailed reports that they weren't specific saying it's going to happen on september 11, but they thoseerious reports and are the warnings that the state heed.ment did not gwen: let's take this back a minute. this is not first such report not the first investigation, probably won't be the last but we keep getting mixed signals on what the cause of this was and this report doesn't really clear that up. >> no. it doesn't. although, you know, this was a bipartisan report which means you had -- what does that mean? >> held out the promise. key points in two which democrats and republicans actually were able to find agreement. was al qaedahere involvement in the sense of toividuals who had ties al qaeda affiliates were definitely involved and the other one which is also did agree thatey there was no order from the white house or anywhere else to nond down, there was opportunity for the military to come in and rescue. and those, of course, were controversial points in the initial

libya surprised everybody, saying ok, we renounce all this and everything is fine and we're a member of the world community again. is that the ultimate pie in the sky goal? >> i think the ultimate goal is to get them to give up their chemical weapons. that is what we want. anyone who signed on to the chemical weapons convention has never used their chemical weapons again, although i do think they found that qaddafi had a little secret stash of chemical weapons some place. and frankly it's quite easy, i believe, to rezute -- reconstitute your weapons. it's not like building a nuclear bottom i find that so eastern couraging though. he is not going to launch any chemical attacks while the u.n. and others are trying to get him to put all -- >> that's the other argument. the white house and administration are making the argument that a long, protracted, annoying, difficult negotiation is actually good because during that at least there is a deterrent effect. >> at the same time, that guarantees that assad stays in power and -- >> delay is its own thing. assad is an interesting character i

. >> they will if that is the sole mission, but in libya before ben zpwazz -- benghazi and all that that was considered a success not simply because they protected the people of benghazi but because in the end, the government failed and dempsey had to say i can't tell you if it's going to make a difference on the ground. gwen: we have a big speech tuesday night. the president is going to make his case again, hopefully for a larger all of a sudden. what does he have to do? how much are people hanging on his powers of persuasion tuesday night? >> very much. lawmakers of both parties. they want to see him give a speech, stick his neck out there and try to make his is -- his case to the american people and the next morning they'll wait to see what kind of reception they get from the con switch owens si. it is that iraq -- con tip kenzie. they want to hear what does it mean for the rest of the region and why would i -- it affect someone in illinois or the dakotas. >> of all of the two sideline efforts that are going to make an effort, don't underestimate the value of the members coming back a

>> the problem -- the problem in the middle east in both syria and egypt, and even this was true in libya, is that once the u.s. puts its fingerprints on something, no matter now little it does, it creates unintended consequences. it's not just the powell rule, colin powell's rule that if you break it you bought it and engage a little and you own the own thing, that's part tch but it can -- part of it but it can interrupt what's going on the ground. and a certain outcome, this is because the u.s. backed it. and then we're not only engaged, but our engagement has fired up all sorts of people who would have otherwise perhaps not have been so fired up. gwen: the argument, does it have to be about national security? the n.s.a. arguments, security versus privacy, does anybody feel the need to engage? >> i don't think necessarily. but the n.s.a. is a prime example of how the u.s. is viewed. abroad now. it wasn't all that long ago when we were talking about and writing stories about how the world is viewing this new administration as a bright light. we've seen how much people like us in some res

it was never part of the said no bootshey on the ground in libya but it couldn't sendey opravatives in libya so a trainingwill serve role and working with vetted groups, again, to try to change balance not only against the government but also change the rebellion.hin the they're concerned about the rise of islamist groups so they want to support, with the c.i.a. the lead, the groups that are considered more secular. first term there were deep divisions on the president's national security team over this issue that we now have some new people in new positions. of how ther sense obama team -- are they all unified on this at this point? there divisions? >> there are still pretty deep divisions and the white house is pretty much remained consistent. they're reluctant to do this. they're skeptical of the it and they're concerned about another -- getting deep into another war in the middle east. the state department has been the most hawkish. the're concerned about collapse of syria, they're concerned about what it could do throughout the middle east. are elements through the the state depar

were alive, for statee, with secretary of hillary clinton, in the debate in the situation room about libya and go into they won that debate and the president did go in. they have not won it so far, for example, in syria, and you heard the president in the susancement talk about rice as somebody who has a huge who arefor those suffering and a feeling that american power can be used to thatthem, but balancing with the recognition that the u.s. these days can't go everywhere. gwen: she won the pulitzer prize genocide.g about >> samantha power. gwen: i'm sorry, you were talking about rice. but there's a clear point of view here. there very much is. gwen: it is that point of view policy?ministration >> especially when you have a issident who has shown he very reluctant to intervene. if there was anything that really marked the first term of obama period, it was not only getting out of iraq and not surge intong the afghanistan maybe wasn't working and speeding the way out of that to the afghan good enough committee inside the white house but also his incredible reluctance over the past two years

who saw the attacks in libya coming? did the administration try to shift blame with laundered talking points? the president says it's all politics. >> the whole thing defies loig. and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out frankly has a lot to do with political motivations. if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again, i am happy to get their advice and information and counsel. gwen: hundreds of emails about the controversy were released this week. what did we learn from those, john? >> well, ok. where to begin? from john's point which is that the i.r.s. scandal has no connection to the white house. this is the controversy of the three we were talking about that sits right in the white house. there are also other groups involved. the main charge here, there are many. and several. charges here. but the main political charge is that once this terrible attack happened, and there were four deaths, the republican charge about the administration is that the

i received a call from the prime minister of libya. it was the saddest phone call i've ever had in my life. he told me that ambassador stevens had passed away. michele: emotional testimony about the attacks in libya that killed four americans. fact finding, finger pointing or both? >> the administration, however, has not been cooperative. >> what we've seen over the past two weeks is a full-scale media campaign of unfounded accusations to smear public officials. >> getting to the bottom of the benghazi attacks. >> we all know that the current path in syria is simply unsustainable. michele: shuttle diplomacy for the secretary of state on the continuing crisis in syria. and how israel has become a central figure. on capitol hill, the senate tackles immigration reform. >> there are many who will want to kill this bill. i would ask my colleagues, if you don't agree with everything, no one does, be constructive. we are open to changes. >> i just want to say this. the house is going to work its will on immigration reform. michele: hurnddlses

she was skeptical quietly about the intervention in libya and now opposes any intervention in syria. gwen: thank you all. we want to take note passing of two men. ed koch, the three-term mayor of new york who transformed the city and became a celebrity in his own right. and max campleman, a diplomat who negotiated cold war treaties -- treatries and during one stage act is as moderator for "washington week in review." we have to go for now but the conversation continues online on the "washington week" webcast extra. we'll be talking about the massachusetts senate race and other topics and on our home page peak into the "washington week" video vault to see what doyle said about the immigration story back in 2007. he looks the same. keep up with daily developments over the pbs news hour and we'll see you again next week on "washington week." good night. >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> we know why we're here. to connect your forces to what they need when they need it. >> to help troops see darningeful before it sees them. -- danger before it sees them. >>