in, but they never come out. you know that. i m one of the roaches. tonight, it s also an epic battle between jeb bush and donald trump. things got a little heated here, let s watch. donald, you know, is great at the one-liners. but he s a chaos candidate. and he d be a chaos president. jeb doesn t really believe i m unhinged, he said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. it s been a total disaster. nobody cares. donald, you re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency, that s not going to happen. and i do have the strength. i thought it was very unfair that virtually the entire early portion of the debate was trump this, trump that, in order to get ratings. mr. trump, it s not cnn, i was on cnn last night excuse me, i think it s very unprofessional. it was me, i watched you last night for 60 minutes, it s not
waiting for it, we got it. look, judgment and restraint are important hallmarks in a commander and chief. and through the entire history of the cold war, american foreign policy was built in a communication network with the soviets to avoid misunderstandings, to avoid accidents, to avoid something that could presip date the launching of nuclear missiles. and when you talk about shooting down a russian plane, tough talk in a debate, it s not serious talk. that was a mistake by chris christie who otherwise had a good debate. unthinkable for an american presidential candidate to bluster about shooting down the aircraft of a nuclear power like russia. and one of the things that we should learn from the barack obama presidency, is you don t draw redlines that you re not prepared to enforce. meaningless threats are just that, meaningless. and that was a meaningless threat. it s not reality-based. and this debate we saw tonight,
generation who lived through world war ii, these were presidents who argued for restraint in the practice of american foreign policy generally we didn t want to have a direct conversation. we wanted to limit nuclear weapons. we wanted to be very circumspect about the eyes of force. we go back to the powell doctrine. we have a strategy about how we send the american army to war. we have the support of the population. we have a clear plan for victory. we use overwhelming force. we have an exit strategy. what all of this debate is about tonight is time and time again, whether it s hillary clinton and president obama in libya or iraq, we topple these regimes with no idea, no plan for what comes next. and ted cruz is on the right side of this debate, in terms of public opinion. what ted, chris, what ted cruz is trying to do and robert eluded to it, is that on the one hand he s say nothing, we don t
mike, there was a right to right fight. we have a lot of clips to show, but one of the clips was when somebody said, we ll have a no-fly zone, christie, then wolf blitzer, the moderator said what do you do if there s a russian plane in syria, shoot it down. reagan had plenty of opportunities to do that kind of thing. we re not going to go to world war iii. hell of a debate. i thought it was a powerful exchange with rand paul clarifying, so if you want to go to world war iii, then this is your candidate, pointed at chris christie. he tried to make it clear that this is a very important line of demarcation within the gop. right. whether you re talking about the hawkish approach or you re talking about something that does go back to reagan in a 1950s cold war mentality which is an on the ground assessment of your opponent before you act. like we didn t go into china in 1954
temporary ban on muslims coming into this country? your party likes that idea. i don t think they ve yet heard everything he has to say or considered the implications. that s why i brought it up again. he said, i just to want close that internet thing. but to do that, you d realize that it would contravene the first amendment, no more speech on the internet. and i think that people have to realize that his propositions are even more outlandish than you can imagine. literally like the old testament. you believe that take them literally what he says? or they like his say i m going to do something about immigration. i say i ll build a wall, but i ll get serious about enforcing the law. people aren t really listening, but as the election gets closer come on, i get his point, but he s not going to go that far. perhaps, but i think that s a big part of debate now, his opponents, myself, what he s talking about is outlandish, getting rid of the first amendment of the constitutio