accurate. actually, it didn t. parts of it turned out to be accurate. ultimately there was no protest. and ultimately the narrative from the government is that it wasn t something that had been planned for a month. it was something that had been planned for a few days. so this certainly shows the type of confusion and the type of information that was flowing in. yeah i just don t see the nefarious aspect of this yet. again, you re seeing the sort of thing that comes out. the worst sources of intelligence, the better. you have the public sources of intelligence, you have people sending out letters, you go through all of this and somebody, somewhere, has to troll through them and decide this is what s actually happening. i think that focus group is fascinating. it seems to me there is something franklin roosevelt, probably the best president we ve ever had, was very secretive and manipulative and we still thought he was a good president. if hillary clinton is secretive, we know
say, this is what happened. but it s constantly evolving on things like this. and i think that s what you re seeing. the story changes sometimes, but it changes because more information comes out, different people are heard from. what do you think s the bottom of this story here so far, michael, as you reported? what s the oomph in this? well i mean it s not clear, i think one of the more remarkable things here is that at a very important time in her, in her time at the state department she was receiving this sort of live information from a longtime confidant who wasn t supposed to be working for her. and in this really high-profile incident she s being fed private intelligence cables by him. that s just different than i think, the way that most intelligence is supposed to move. it s supposed intelligence is vetted, there s a whole system that was created after 9/11 to make sure that principles get stuff that all different parts of the government have looked at. this was differen
promising something else. the american people fairly decisively, chose the guy who promised he would get the troops out and he got the troops out. isn t that keeping a campaign promise? isn t that what we always complain these guys never do? there s a certain value in sticking to your word. thank you, michael hanlan thank you, michael tomasky, this is something we ve been debating for years. coming up, do hillary clinton supporters really care about her e-mails and finances and what friends she keep? will any of this stuff keep her out of the white house? i doubt it. plus jeb bush was supposed to save the republican party from its far-right fringe. remember how he would he would lose the primary to win the general? why is he now out there denying what every scientist says about climate change? is this to keep the flat earth types happy? and who s going to get shut out when the republicans hold their first presidential debate. this is going to be fun. anyway, let s find out which
george w. bush. isis is the face of evil. what undermines the global effort is for the president of the united states to be an apology u.s. for radical islamic president. i believe this president has committed presidential malpractice in his foreign policy and i think that exhibit a is what he s done with the middle east. okay president obama responded to those critics in an interview with the atlantic. quote, i know that there are some in republican quarters who have suggested that i ve overlearned the mistake of iraq and that in fact just because the 2003 invasion did not go well doesn t argue that we shouldn t go back in on one of the central flaws i think of the decision back in 2003 was the sense that if we simply went in and deposed a dictator or simply went in and cleared out the bad guys, that somehow, peace and prosperity would automatically emerge. and that that lesson we should have learned a long time ago. i ll get back to you, michael, because that seems to be his
michael hanlan senior fellow at the brookings institute. is this a major setback in the fight against isis? you know, i think it is significant. i think people were hope inging a few months ago that by this point in the mid spring we would see the iraqi forces liberating mosul, which is the biggest city in the north and west the biggest city they took that isil took last year. but we re nowhere near that. there was a modest success and now this major setback in ramadi. i hope secretary kerry is right to say it may only last a few days or weeks, but i m not sure i m as confident as he is about the liberation. and if we have to depend on the shia militia to do it or the iraqi government that may be sewing seeds for further trouble. i see this as a fairly significant and bad development. beyond ramadi will other key