Search Episodes (The troop questions)

Brazil: Troops deployed as police strike sparks crimewave

Added 02/07/12
0 Views

Brazil: Troops deployed as police strike sparks crimewave

Added 02/07/12
0 Views

12 Tibetans Killed, Chinese Regime Blocks Journalists

Added 02/02/12
0 Views

No Jail Time for Marine, Iraqis Stunned

Added 01/25/12
0 Views

No Jail Time for Marine, Iraqis Stunned

Added 01/25/12
0 Views

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

Added 01/15/12
0 Views

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:06 01/15/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Poor Rick Perry. Back when he still had a chance, he couldn't string two coherent sentences together. And now that he's probably at the end of the line, he finally learns to play the game: Namely, to lie, exaggerate and deny with the best of them. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks for joining us this morning. PERRY: Good morning, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm doing well. Thank you. Less than a week to go in South Carolina, you're still lagging far behind. To borrow a metaphor from your home state, has South Carolina become your Alamo? PERRY: I don't think so. But we get out every day and go take our message of job creation, and, you know, we're the most consistent fiscal conservative and social conservative in the race, and that's our message, both on the airwaves and out on the campaign trail. The retail politics in South Carolina has been awesome. STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, Governor, that big group of social conservatives meeting in Texas yesterday, decided you're not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. They want Rick Santorum to have that mantle. You didn't even make the final ballot. PERRY: Well, that's what they said about Ronald Reagan as well, that, you know, he was unelectable, he was not the one that they wanted to pick. But South Carolina citizens said, you know what, he is. So we'll wait and see Saturday what the people of South Carolina say. STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your message this final week? PERRY: Well, it's all about jobs and getting this country back working again. I'm -- 11 years of executive governing experience that have created a million jobs in my home state , the 13th largest economy in the world. I keep the taxes low, the regulatory climate fair and predictable, a legal system that doesn't allow for oversuing. And in a state that's got quite a military history and a lot of veterans here, I think they're looking for a president who not only has worn the uniform of the country, but also has been the commander in chief of 20,000-plus National Guard troops that have been deployed multiple times. They know my commitment to the men and women of the military, and we'll stand with them and support them over the course of the years. As we already know, Texas has a "weak governor," one whose powers and responsibilities are few. We see how well that same "executive governing experience" prepared George W. Bush to be president. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor, as you know, you have taken some heat this week from many Republicans for your attacks on Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist during his time at Bain Capital. Want to read some of them here. Sean Hannity said, "it almost sounds like Occupy Wall Street." Rudy Giuliani, "it's ignorant and dumb." Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, "it really gives the Democrats a lot of fodder." Any regrets for using that phrase? PERRY: I think the issue -- it's not a new phrase. It was used by Stewart Stephens (ph), who was one of Mitt Romney's consultants, against Meg Whitman. I think the issue for everyone is, look, this is something that we knew wasn't going to come up. And it's better to be talking about it here in January in South Carolina than it is in September and October with a nominee. So if it's a fatal flaw, then we need to talk about it now. The issue has been about who's best prepared and who has the background of creating jobs, and that's what those comments were always about, was that, who is the job creator that's on that stage, and I will submit to you that my job creation record is incomparable when it comes to the other candidates on that stage. Oh yeah, there's the little fact that most of the jobs created in Texas were federal jobs. > STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't buy Mitt Romney's argument that at Bain he created more than 100,000 jobs? PERRY: I think, you know, the issue is, what is the total -- it's just like Sarah Palin, when Sarah asked that question, she said, you know, that's really what this issue is all about, not whether or not did the Bain Capital is a job creator or not, but did they really create that many jobs? So, yes, I think the question is out there, and it's a good conversation to have. We're going to get tested by Obama and his group. So, you better have all of these answers done early. No surprises in September and October. STEPHANOPOULOS: But I think what a lot of Republicans are worried about, is they're going to hear that phrase "vulture capitalism" coming out of your mouth, from President Obama and the Democrats in the fall? PERRY: Well, the issue is about job creation. And as I said, I think if this is a fatal flaw, it needs to be talked about now, rather than in September. So, you know, we're talking about it, and the people of South Carolina will decide whether or not that's a problem or not. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Governor Perry, what is your plan going forward? If you don't come in first or a close second in South Carolina, is that it for your campaign? PERRY: Well, we'll make that decision on Saturday. Our intention is to win South Carolina and go forward from there. But to try to plan out your campaign months in advance, I think is a little bit of a stretch. STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks very much for your time this morning. PERRY: So long, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Take care.

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

Added 01/15/12
0 Views

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:06 01/15/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Poor Rick Perry. Back when he still had a chance, he couldn't string two coherent sentences together. And now that he's probably at the end of the line, he finally learns to play the game: Namely, to lie, exaggerate and deny with the best of them. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks for joining us this morning. PERRY: Good morning, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm doing well. Thank you. Less than a week to go in South Carolina, you're still lagging far behind. To borrow a metaphor from your home state, has South Carolina become your Alamo? PERRY: I don't think so. But we get out every day and go take our message of job creation, and, you know, we're the most consistent fiscal conservative and social conservative in the race, and that's our message, both on the airwaves and out on the campaign trail. The retail politics in South Carolina has been awesome. STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, Governor, that big group of social conservatives meeting in Texas yesterday, decided you're not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. They want Rick Santorum to have that mantle. You didn't even make the final ballot. PERRY: Well, that's what they said about Ronald Reagan as well, that, you know, he was unelectable, he was not the one that they wanted to pick. But South Carolina citizens said, you know what, he is. So we'll wait and see Saturday what the people of South Carolina say. STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your message this final week? PERRY: Well, it's all about jobs and getting this country back working again. I'm -- 11 years of executive governing experience that have created a million jobs in my home state , the 13th largest economy in the world. I keep the taxes low, the regulatory climate fair and predictable, a legal system that doesn't allow for oversuing. And in a state that's got quite a military history and a lot of veterans here, I think they're looking for a president who not only has worn the uniform of the country, but also has been the commander in chief of 20,000-plus National Guard troops that have been deployed multiple times. They know my commitment to the men and women of the military, and we'll stand with them and support them over the course of the years. As we already know, Texas has a "weak governor," one whose powers and responsibilities are few. We see how well that same "executive governing experience" prepared George W. Bush to be president. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor, as you know, you have taken some heat this week from many Republicans for your attacks on Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist during his time at Bain Capital. Want to read some of them here. Sean Hannity said, "it almost sounds like Occupy Wall Street." Rudy Giuliani, "it's ignorant and dumb." Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, "it really gives the Democrats a lot of fodder." Any regrets for using that phrase? PERRY: I think the issue -- it's not a new phrase. It was used by Stewart Stephens (ph), who was one of Mitt Romney's consultants, against Meg Whitman. I think the issue for everyone is, look, this is something that we knew wasn't going to come up. And it's better to be talking about it here in January in South Carolina than it is in September and October with a nominee. So if it's a fatal flaw, then we need to talk about it now. The issue has been about who's best prepared and who has the background of creating jobs, and that's what those comments were always about, was that, who is the job creator that's on that stage, and I will submit to you that my job creation record is incomparable when it comes to the other candidates on that stage. Oh yeah, there's the little fact that most of the jobs created in Texas were federal jobs. > STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't buy Mitt Romney's argument that at Bain he created more than 100,000 jobs? PERRY: I think, you know, the issue is, what is the total -- it's just like Sarah Palin, when Sarah asked that question, she said, you know, that's really what this issue is all about, not whether or not did the Bain Capital is a job creator or not, but did they really create that many jobs? So, yes, I think the question is out there, and it's a good conversation to have. We're going to get tested by Obama and his group. So, you better have all of these answers done early. No surprises in September and October. STEPHANOPOULOS: But I think what a lot of Republicans are worried about, is they're going to hear that phrase "vulture capitalism" coming out of your mouth, from President Obama and the Democrats in the fall? PERRY: Well, the issue is about job creation. And as I said, I think if this is a fatal flaw, it needs to be talked about now, rather than in September. So, you know, we're talking about it, and the people of South Carolina will decide whether or not that's a problem or not. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Governor Perry, what is your plan going forward? If you don't come in first or a close second in South Carolina, is that it for your campaign? PERRY: Well, we'll make that decision on Saturday. Our intention is to win South Carolina and go forward from there. But to try to plan out your campaign months in advance, I think is a little bit of a stretch. STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks very much for your time this morning. PERRY: So long, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Take care.

Did You Kill Anyone? Reality in War Movies - SXSW 2011 Film

Added 11/17/11
0 Views

Did You Kill Anyone? Reality in War Movies - SXSW 2011 Film

Added 11/17/11
3 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Ira...

Added 11/06/11
5 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 23:45:47 11/06/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Watch and see how it's done on today's edition of This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour feeds Condoleezza Rice some softballs that reflect the wise foreign policy agenda of the Beltway bobbleheads, and Condi hits them out of the park by 1) damning Obama's centrist foreign policy decisions with faint praise and 2) pushing the latest neocon agenda of the reasonableness of going to war with Iran. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar: > AMANPOUR: A deadly morning in Baghdad today, as three bombs exploded in a sprawling market. The attack came as shoppers were preparing for the Muslim festival of Eid. And it comes just hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his security forces to prepare for stepped-up violence. The backdrop, of course, is the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year. It's a decision that now has some concerned that Al Qaida will re-establish a foothold in the country, all questions for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She has a new memoir, "No Higher Honor." And I spoke with her earlier. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you, Christiane. AMANPOUR: So you write in your book, obviously, a lot about the Bush administration, the Bush years. You also talk about when you first met the current president, Barack Obama, during a hearing, and you say his questions were sharp, not rude, he actually seemed interested in my answers. And you say you were really impressed. And lot of people questioned whether he had what it took to be commander-in-chief of the lone superpower. Did he prove them wrong? RICE: Obviously, I think Barack Obama has done a number of things right, particularly in the war on terror. And I think that President Obama has, indeed, carried the war on terror forward in a very effective way. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, then, about the most controversial of events of your tenure, and that was the Iraq war. For better or for worse, the United States is in it. President Obama has now decided to call an end and to bring all the troops out, portraying it actually as a triumph. Others are saying it was a defeat. Do you think it was right not to push and keep for -- I mean, at the very least, 10,000 U.S. troops to guarantee some kind of security, to train, and to be there for counterterrorism? RICE: Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran. AMANPOUR: Of course, the administration says it's because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to immunity. But the real issue is that this administration insisted on it ceding to State Department and Pentagon lawyers' demand that they get this immunity ratified by the Iraqi parliament. You did not do that. You got the agreement without forcing it through the parliament. Why did they have to do that? Was it a mistake for President Obama to do that? RICE: Well, Christiane, I'm really rather reluctant to criticize negotiations that I didn't participate in. But it would have clearly been better to have a residual force, from my point of view, and perhaps there was a way out of the immunity clause that wasn't taken. AMANPOUR: So is there a risk now of everything that America paid unraveling? RICE: Yes. What is at risk here is not just the sacrifice of the United States, which is considerable, but also a pillar of a new kind of democratic stability in the Middle East. AMANPOUR: And perhaps equally important, if not more, is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sources are telling me are likely to change their role, even before 2014, from a combat to a much lesser role, maybe advisory. Is that safe at this time? Is the Taliban anywhere near being defeated? RICE: Well, I'm not inside, but I don't see that the Taliban is anywhere near being defeated. And, in fact, if you're looking for some kind of political arrangement, then ultimately there will have to be a political arrangement in Afghanistan, that brings former warring elements in. But if you're looking for that arrangement, you should be in the strongest position, not the weakest. And I don't think that right now the Afghan government and the NATO mission is in a position to make that kind of political deal. So, yes, I think there's a considerable risk in speeding up a timetable for Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: In your book, you also write about Iran. The IAEA, the nuclear agency of the U.N., this week is about to reveal, apparently, more details showing, apparently, that Iran is trying to weaponize. Do you think the United States, the Obama administration, has to ratchet up the confrontation? You talked this week about confronting Iran. Does that involve military confrontation by the U.S.? RICE: Well, the United States should certainly make clear that the president of the United States will consider military action, if necessary, because you never want to take that card off the table. I think there are other ways to confront Iran. You can confront Iran through even tougher sanctions. And I also think, Christiane, this is one of the downsides of having our forces out of -- out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq. So, yes, I think it's time to confront the Iranian regime, because it's the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism. It's trying to get a nuclear weapon. It's repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table. John Amato: > I had to weigh in here quickly because Condi was so incompetent as President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Condi Rice is famous for saying this about the bogus claims the Bush administration made about those aluminum tubes that Saddam was supposedly trying to acquire so he could nuke the heck out of Cleveland. > > In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She absurdly had this to say also to the WaPo: > But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets. Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." Here's Condi on Meet The Press (05/20/06) changing the story that was originally given to America for attacking Iraq in the first place since the truth didn't work out too well: > RICE: I understand that Americans see on their screens violence. They continue to see Americans killed, and we mourn every death. These are very hard things to do. But I would ask that people remember why we are there. We are there because we are trying to--having overthrown a brutal dictator who was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we're trying to help the Iraqis create a stable foundation for democracy and a stable foundation for peace." I seem to recall a different rationale for why we're there: > "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [CNN, 9/8/2002] Bob Somerby aptly asked if Condi ever knew anything, anything at all : > "Does Condi Rice ever know anything back in 2004? According to the White House, she didn't know about objections to the uranium-from-Africa story because she hadn't read the whole National Intelligence Estimate! And in May 2002, she said she hadn't known that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles—even though intelligence agencies has issued such warnings for years. Now, she says she didn't know something else—she didn't know the state of aa critical, year-long discussion about those aluminum tubes. I didn't know, Rice told [Wolf] Blitzer. And she was singing a sweet old refrain.

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Ira...

Added 11/06/11
3 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 23:45:47 11/06/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Watch and see how it's done on today's edition of This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour feeds Condoleezza Rice some softballs that reflect the wise foreign policy agenda of the Beltway bobbleheads, and Condi hits them out of the park by 1) damning Obama's centrist foreign policy decisions with faint praise and 2) pushing the latest neocon agenda of the reasonableness of going to war with Iran. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar: > AMANPOUR: A deadly morning in Baghdad today, as three bombs exploded in a sprawling market. The attack came as shoppers were preparing for the Muslim festival of Eid. And it comes just hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his security forces to prepare for stepped-up violence. The backdrop, of course, is the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year. It's a decision that now has some concerned that Al Qaida will re-establish a foothold in the country, all questions for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She has a new memoir, "No Higher Honor." And I spoke with her earlier. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you, Christiane. AMANPOUR: So you write in your book, obviously, a lot about the Bush administration, the Bush years. You also talk about when you first met the current president, Barack Obama, during a hearing, and you say his questions were sharp, not rude, he actually seemed interested in my answers. And you say you were really impressed. And lot of people questioned whether he had what it took to be commander-in-chief of the lone superpower. Did he prove them wrong? RICE: Obviously, I think Barack Obama has done a number of things right, particularly in the war on terror. And I think that President Obama has, indeed, carried the war on terror forward in a very effective way. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, then, about the most controversial of events of your tenure, and that was the Iraq war. For better or for worse, the United States is in it. President Obama has now decided to call an end and to bring all the troops out, portraying it actually as a triumph. Others are saying it was a defeat. Do you think it was right not to push and keep for -- I mean, at the very least, 10,000 U.S. troops to guarantee some kind of security, to train, and to be there for counterterrorism? RICE: Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran. AMANPOUR: Of course, the administration says it's because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to immunity. But the real issue is that this administration insisted on it ceding to State Department and Pentagon lawyers' demand that they get this immunity ratified by the Iraqi parliament. You did not do that. You got the agreement without forcing it through the parliament. Why did they have to do that? Was it a mistake for President Obama to do that? RICE: Well, Christiane, I'm really rather reluctant to criticize negotiations that I didn't participate in. But it would have clearly been better to have a residual force, from my point of view, and perhaps there was a way out of the immunity clause that wasn't taken. AMANPOUR: So is there a risk now of everything that America paid unraveling? RICE: Yes. What is at risk here is not just the sacrifice of the United States, which is considerable, but also a pillar of a new kind of democratic stability in the Middle East. AMANPOUR: And perhaps equally important, if not more, is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sources are telling me are likely to change their role, even before 2014, from a combat to a much lesser role, maybe advisory. Is that safe at this time? Is the Taliban anywhere near being defeated? RICE: Well, I'm not inside, but I don't see that the Taliban is anywhere near being defeated. And, in fact, if you're looking for some kind of political arrangement, then ultimately there will have to be a political arrangement in Afghanistan, that brings former warring elements in. But if you're looking for that arrangement, you should be in the strongest position, not the weakest. And I don't think that right now the Afghan government and the NATO mission is in a position to make that kind of political deal. So, yes, I think there's a considerable risk in speeding up a timetable for Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: In your book, you also write about Iran. The IAEA, the nuclear agency of the U.N., this week is about to reveal, apparently, more details showing, apparently, that Iran is trying to weaponize. Do you think the United States, the Obama administration, has to ratchet up the confrontation? You talked this week about confronting Iran. Does that involve military confrontation by the U.S.? RICE: Well, the United States should certainly make clear that the president of the United States will consider military action, if necessary, because you never want to take that card off the table. I think there are other ways to confront Iran. You can confront Iran through even tougher sanctions. And I also think, Christiane, this is one of the downsides of having our forces out of -- out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq. So, yes, I think it's time to confront the Iranian regime, because it's the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism. It's trying to get a nuclear weapon. It's repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table. John Amato: > I had to weigh in here quickly because Condi was so incompetent as President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Condi Rice is famous for saying this about the bogus claims the Bush administration made about those aluminum tubes that Saddam was supposedly trying to acquire so he could nuke the heck out of Cleveland. > > In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She absurdly had this to say also to the WaPo: > But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets. Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." Here's Condi on Meet The Press (05/20/06) changing the story that was originally given to America for attacking Iraq in the first place since the truth didn't work out too well: > RICE: I understand that Americans see on their screens violence. They continue to see Americans killed, and we mourn every death. These are very hard things to do. But I would ask that people remember why we are there. We are there because we are trying to--having overthrown a brutal dictator who was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we're trying to help the Iraqis create a stable foundation for democracy and a stable foundation for peace." I seem to recall a different rationale for why we're there: > "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [CNN, 9/8/2002] Bob Somerby aptly asked if Condi ever knew anything, anything at all : > "Does Condi Rice ever know anything back in 2004? According to the White House, she didn't know about objections to the uranium-from-Africa story because she hadn't read the whole National Intelligence Estimate! And in May 2002, she said she hadn't known that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles—even though intelligence agencies has issued such warnings for years. Now, she says she didn't know something else—she didn't know the state of aa critical, year-long discussion about those aluminum tubes. I didn't know, Rice told [Wolf] Blitzer. And she was singing a sweet old refrain.