Aired 3 d ago 0:17
First Light | KOMO
Komo, Maxine And Robbery discussed on First Light
From the news
Aired 6 d ago 1:02
Midday Brief for Tuesday, January 15th
Uh-huh. I'm Jay are Waylon in the newsroom at the Wall Street Journal in New York, a federal judge on Tuesdays shot in a Trump administration plan to ask about citizenship on the two thousand twenty census. The decision follows a series of lawsuits filed by cities states and advocacy groups in the plaintiffs had argued adding the question ignore the census bureau's own research and would lead to a significant undercount. The Trump administration said it had acted lawfully and it need citizenship data to enforce the Voting Rights Act net. Flicks has raised the prices of all of its subscription plans. The most popular plan will increase from eleven dollars to thirteen dollars per month. While it's premium plan rises to sixteen dollars per month net flicks. His base plan will increase to nine dollars per month and Broadway legend, Carol Channing has died at the age of ninety seven Channing was most famous for her role as Dolly Levi, which she played for about five thousand performances in. Hello. Dolly for more on these and other stories of the day, go to W. Jay dot com or the WSJ app.
WSJ Minute Briefing
Aired 2 months ago 9:50
The Entrepreneurs - Eureka 124: Birchall & Taylor
You're listening to Eureka on monocle twenty four brought to you by the team behind the tra- preneurs, Charles burchell and Brad Taylor met while learning the craft of fine watchmaking as small Swiss city, both being from Toronto in a class of only four students they quickly bonded while learning how to design in create high quality watches in a place steeped in the history of the industry after a few years each further honing their craft for other companies Charles Brad are back in Toronto and launched their own brand virtual Taylor. They've taken up residents in an old factory in the Queen west area where they opened their workshop for anyone curious to learn about their designs and the precision of watchmaking. Here's the story of purchase and Taylor. I from Charles. Growing up. I was always a hardware store. My neighbor Nabis to make things every weekend box cars that sort of thing. And I fell out of that for a little while I was in university sort of uninspired by what I was doing and out of a whim. I had watch making a hobby for awhile. And I was taking things apart not knowing how to put it back together. But I decided to take a leap faith and drop out and apply to the small watchmaking school, Switzerland. And I went there for two week bench test, and in the end they wanted to have thrilled and sort of never looked back. So when I got under watchmaking has about sixteen seventeen I've always taken everything apart in my life. My parents who give me to a helicopter when I was eight and I take it apart within ten minutes. I've always been very mechanically inclined for me watch making a really amazing mix of art engineering and using your hands to create. So it just it's been a perfect fit for me. I've been living breathing since I was quite young town. We study was this mall town, call it's on the French border, and you sort of imagine this was watching runs like a spine along the French border. And town we were in basically had a population about eleven thousand which Switzerland's considered city for some reason, but they had about twenty to watch brands Soviet sort of immersed in the in the culture in the industry, and we sort of never had a break from the watch the workshop all hours studying because it's really takes nothing but repetition to learn the craft or trade and afterward. We went home and we pass by T soap attack and check it. Drove on our way home. Our school had only four students in our class. And I remember meeting him on the first day, we have mutual friends here Toronto's big city, but it's so small. Aspect, and we knew some of the same people, and we actually lived together and went to school there. So we spend probably on average every day on sixteen hours together, and we had a managed to coach either yet. So. Good work together. And you get a lot of really well. Started working for an independent servicing company in Toronto here, and we did servicing for on behalf of the brand. So if it doesn't make sense for brand to do have their own service center and it plays. There's not that much of a demand. They'll have an authorized service center. So I did offer service for protect you blow and countless other brands. So I got a lot of really good experience working with all kinds of really high and watches and more entry level watchers that, you know, have a lot of different constructions much different. Every watch just like a car needs to be taken apart and cleaned inspected, and that can be between one hundred fifty to three hundred and the most intense cases up to four hundred five hundred parts just in this tiny little watch. They need to be inspected to make sure they operate properly, and there aren't any issues and real than adjusted, so it's really valuable to have that insight, especially when your own work, Charles. And I come from different backgrounds than helps a lot. So when it comes to servicing. I have a really good idea of how this should be handled the appropriate way if someone around the world has. Wash service. They don't have to send it all the way back to get. Which fortunately a lot of brands where Switzerland. I was on a different sort of into the industry working for a small independent brand called art W Smith headed by watchmaker, Roger Smith who was the apprentice of a pretty peripherique watchmaker in the UK. So that's on the man. So I lived in the went right from small towns to the of man for a couple of years, and I learned a lot. It was indispensable. It's a it's a position where he gets really work with your hands these watches costs an average price of around two hundred and fifty thousand so yeah, it took about a year a year to produce two to three watches, and I learned I learned a lot of what you learn in education, which is more handwork more working with machines to produce parts. So I like to think that I had a great education and working at an independent, and I could bring some of that knowledge to our our as well, I left the island man in summer of two thousand sixteen I was sort of applying for different positions. I wanted to be back home in Toronto. And I went back to continue my degree for a little bit while I made applications efforts to get back into watchmaking. Basically, I got touched we'll bride now, we're always in touch, but we sort of had little project going on after Brad was done work. And I was done school. Think about making our own watch together come up with brainstorm to sort of like it was a fantasy in a way back then and then slowly it's sort of take shape and took the plunge. The thing was isn't the it wasn't the easiest thing to bring watchmaking to Toronto. But it's where we're FRANZ where we're really proud to be from here only wanted to do it here. We wouldn't dream of doing it in Switzerland. And we found that it's really struck a chord with people having something made here a watch made here that you wouldn't get the same emotive feeling if it was produced in in Switzerland. So we found it struck a chord with with ex-pats in a way people living all over the world who are from Canada, very proud to be from Canada. And once something on their risks that reflects in a way home. If you've been to Switzerland rented space in our book shop stayed in the town where we watch making we met and we sought out to work with the best suppliers in the industry, basically the difficulties were relatively small fries. And then St. of course, so it took some convincing to to get them to work with us as their minimum. Order quantities are quite large for us. But we were able to pull it off. We're happy to work with the best. And we're in the position that we took around nine months to design the first prototype. What we really thought would be deal as things arrived from our partners. Maybe the hands are little bit. You know in person, they love a bit bulled, and you have to adjust things and get more Tuli made. I think finally took her own here to make like a we considered the reference and we've been taking preorder just how we got the whole thing rolling. So we would do our best network and get ourselves in front of people that might be able to afford our watch that could. Believe in us, basically and would say, yeah. Yeah. I like what I was gonna pay per. I don't take the chance I'll preorder watch. So we've been really lucky to have a lot of support our watches what we believe is a classical trust watch, the ideal classical dress watch thirty eight millimeter case Hanford grandfather in dial. Which means the dials are hen fired nothing individually by artisan and classical hand, polished micro movement with the seat through case back, and we think that's what reflects our ideals as watchmakers, and what we love and watches, and it may not be for everyone. It's very minimalist design. But I think it's going to catch the quite a few people. I think we have a pretty good idea of where we wanna go as a company we never want to become a mass production thing, I think the most appealing part about what we're doing is the small quantity that were limited to. It's a quality. If we never want to. Exchange quality for production. I sense. So if we hire a few watchmakers and making a hundred pieces here that would be I imagine sealing for for how much you want to produce and moving forward are sort of ambition is watch makers, I and essentially that's Swope all Biard in this in this business is we want to bring more to Toronto wanna bring you want to produce more of the watch over time. And knowing us, we'll do it before it makes the best business sense. Because that's what drives us. Thank you very much, Charles burchell. And Brad Taylor for sharing the story of burchell and Taylor. Thank you as well to will kitchens in our Toronto bureau for conducting this interview the show was edited by Kieran, Matthew Banerjee, I'm Daniel beach. Thank you very much for listening and good bye.
Monocle 24: The Entrepreneurs
Aired 4 months ago 37:03
Pres. Bush's Fmr. National Security Advisor on Rebuilding US-Russia Ties
This is the intelligence matters podcast with former acting director of the CIA Mike Morell. What we have to do is revise and adapt and then revitalize the international system to reflect the changes that have happened at the geopolitical GIO economic level. And we have to make the case for continued American engagement on the global scene. What should our strategic approach to Russia? The relationship with Russia, probably as bad as anytime since the Cold War and maybe even worse in some respects, we've gotta try to rebuild that relationship, and I think we won't know and won't be able to start that process until three things happen. The election, the Muller investigation, and in some sense resolution of Ukraine, it's going to be very difficult to get the relationship back on track. Steve Hadley served as national security advisor to President, George W Bush in his second term and his deputy national security adviser in his first term. Steve also served as a system secretary of defense for international security policy for George H W Bush and on the national Security Council staff of president. Ford, Steve is currently a principal at the strategic consulting firm rice Hadley gates, and he is chairman of the board of directors of the US institute of peace and vice chair of the board at the Atlantic Council. I recently had a chance to sit down with Steve to discuss the entire range of national security issues facing our nation. I, Michael Morell in this is intelligence matters Steve. Thank you for joining us today. It is great to have you on the show. I consider you. One of the most thoughtful national security experts inside or outside of government will welcome. You're very kind great to be here before we jump into the national security threats and challenges facing. The country. I'd love to ask you to non specific questions. The first is on the role of intelligence in policy-making. I think you remember that when you were the deputy national security adviser, and I was the daily intelligence briefer for President Bush that you and I shared a car on the way to Camp David one Saturday morning, and we had when I thought was a remarkable conversation about intelligence and good intelligence and not so good intelligence and how to make it more useful for president. And I think you know that I believe that that conversation had a real impact on what the CIA was able to provide to President Bush subsequently to President Obama. So I'd love to get you talking a little bit about during your eight years in the White House, how you saw intelligence and how you think about it and it's important, etcetera, etcetera. One of the things that I think if you read intelligence products, I think the intelligence community prides itself on giving you a judgment. It is the opinion of the intelligence community XYZ and that of course is very useful. But my experience was that presidents really look beyond those judgments. They're gonna make their own judgments and what they really want to know is what do you know? How do you know it? How credible is it and what don't you know. What are you doing about what you don't know what you doing, what you don't know. And one of the things that we talked about was a device that I think the intelligence community should do more of which is if you have a tough problem, sort of sit down and define all the things you would like to know in order to give a really good judgment and Cessna to the president of the United States and then fill in what are the things you know and what do you things you don't know, and how do you wait all of those and literally give that to the policymaker. So the policymaker can make an assessment of how much weight to put on the judgment. The other thing that I think is important and what I saw was a very good interaction between the policy maker and the intelligence analysts and President Bush would. Pepper the intelligence analyst with question. He would always say was, look, I'm not pressing you to change your opinions or change your judgments. I wanna know what you know how you know it and how strong are your views because that tells me something about how much weight to put on what I'm hearing from you. And I think that kind of positive interaction between policy makers and intelligence officials is essential. It gives the policymaker and understanding where the intelligence analyst is coming from, but it gives the intelligence analyst, an understanding of what is in the mind of the policymaker and how do they think about the problem. And I think that can be very that kind of dynamic inner change can be crucial to both doing good intelligence and good intelligence support to the policymaker I wanna say if I can two things to to close off the discussions, first of all. The intelligence community. I've now been reading intelligence dealing with intelligence community for, you know, more decades and I want to admit and I want to just pay tribute to how much more professional and effective and useful. The intelligence community is now than it was twenty thirty years ago. It is more focused on serving the policymaker it is much more prompt a real time. It is focused on giving the policymaker the best the intelligence community has to offer when the policy community needs it. And through the experience, we've had things like the WMD and rock the talk about another things. The community has really had the capacity to look critically at how it does its work and improve its methodologies. Okay. So let's focus in on national security threats and challenges facing the country and let me Steve start with erosion. The so called Liberal International. In order, and I know you've thought a lot about this and written about it. I mean, as a couple of questions, one is, can you define what that means for listeners and why? It's so important? And can you talk about the degree to which it is being undermined and why? So the international order would I like to call the international system is what really began after World War Two. And it began as a set of alliance relationships. NATO alliance lines between the United States in Japan, for example, South Korea, a set of alliance relations that was to bring stability and to ensure we did not return to global conflict. In addition, there were a series of institutions which were established so called Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank to help develop and help countries rebuild after war. The inter. National Monetary Fund, for example, to help regulate economic relations and to ensure that there is was not a return to economic collapse, the United Nations, which became a form for trying to resolve issues and avoid conflict. That's really where we started out. It was a system really of which the United States was along with its friends and allies was the moving party and it heavily reflected our views about freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law, market economics. And over time it began to be overlaid with a series of other arrangements of all sorts. Sometimes treaty sometimes agreements, sometime simply practical arrangements. The began to deal with a whole series of issues, whether they were environmental, whether they were about proliferation, whether they were about terrorism. A whole series of relationships and practices that not only began to knit together governments, but began to actually be constructed by subnational states and provinces, and even a set of arrangements that began to involve the private sector various conventions about in the areas of environment or health or the like. And so it's become as kind of a network or a dense web of rules and practices and relationships that orders how we do business at the government Len increasingly in the private of, again, United States and his friends now is the movers of that system, the maintainers and defenders of that system. And it worked very well for us. And and I think at the macro level, it provided the world an unprecedented period of stability and. Prosperity for seventy years. We did not return to a hot World War and in that period of time societies and countries have been rebuilt and hundreds of millions of people have come out of poverty. But two things happened in this period of time won the world changed. And there were developments that the geopolitical and GIO economic level that began to call into question that framework. The emergence of China, the emergence of India, the rise of of the rest. If you will, the developing world that became increasingly actually part of the success of what was going hard of the success. And in some sense, the international system was slow to adapt to the success of its own efforts in bringing up the rest of the world politically and economically. So that's the first thing that happened. The second thing has happened is that the prosperity and peace that at the macro level. Was produced by the international system was not universal. And at the micro level it left many people behind and many times the international system is viewed as having facilitated globalization, and as we know globalization had winners and it had some losers, some people who became victimized by globalization rather than empowered and enriched by globalisation. And it resulted, I think, over time and we saw it really beginning to emerge in two thousand ten in the United States. We certainly seen it in Europe of a group of people who felt that they were victimized by globalization, threatened by immigration abandoned by their politicians and betrayed by the elites so-called who actually were the beneficiaries and the supporters of that international order. And we were slow to read. Recognize that. And the election of President Trump is really when the that group emerged in a way on the international scene in a way that could not be denied and could not be ignored. Physically were here, don't forget about us don't end. Some people have said that the twenty th sixteen election is really the. Have you heard us yet election? And that's what happened in the United States. It happened in Europe in terms of the Brexit vote by which the kingdom narrowly voted to leave the European Union and the rise of rightist parties in Europe, questioning the European Union questioning actually the political arrangements in their own countries. So the first 'cause that you talked about right? Just the way way the world has evolved, which suggests that we can never go back to the original order, right? It suggests that even the best case outcome for us would be different than it was. In the nineteen fifties, nineteen sixties nineteen seventies. The second would suggest boy, there are some things that we have to fix, right. So how do you think about what the international system? Two point? Oh, would look like in a perfect world and what do we have to do to get there? And if we don't, what do we end up with. The first level what we have to do is revise and adapt and then revitalize the international system to reflect the changes that have happened at the geopolitical GIO economic level. That is something that I think you don't do buy some, you know, huge negotiation. I think it's something that you do by taking individual institutions. I think all these institutions, the World Bank, the IMF all the rest need to do a self examination, ask themselves. The question are we still relevant? Have we adapted to reflect the new situation? So we have to adapt and an update if you will existing institutions, we have to give these new emerging countries, a seat at the table and an influence proportional to their weight so that they see their future within a revised and adapted international system rather. Than going off and trying to develop an alternative. That's what we need to do at the geopolitical level and the United States needs to to lead that effort. Domestically, the United States will not be able to play that role. If it does not fix its problems at home, those two things are linked in a very significant way view. They are linked. We have got to address the grievances of those people who feel left behind and victimized by that international system and globalization. We sort of took the international system that we invented and supported for granted and didn't really explain it to the American people. It's not a communication problem. It's a substantive problem. We've gotta fix an address those grievances that people had, and then we have to engage with them and basically make the case that a revised and adapted international system is good for America both internationally, and he. Here at home, and we have to make the case for continued American engagement on the global scene in the face of many people who say, look, we've been leading the world for too long. It's cost us too much money too much treasure too many lives. We haven't been good that good at it. It's time for us to come home folks at home and let some when else carry the load. It's an understandable response. I think in the end of the day, it will make America less safe and less prosperous. Because the truth is there is no country in a position to lead the international effort that I'm talking about other than the United States. Europe is too focused on its internal problems. And quite frankly, nobody really trust the Chinese and the Russians to take that view. So the the Chinese are absolutely key player here, particularly with regard. To the first piece in how the system is evolved and how we need to give the emerging powers China being the most important, right? A bigger, say in the world, what should our strategy be vis-a-vis China for them to play that role in a responsible way and not an irresponsible way of which plenty of what they do today fits into that category. So one, we have to give them a seat at the table and we have to let them be able to offer new institutions or adapted institutions and a brace them as part of the international system. So as you know, the Chinese some years ago came up with a proposal for an Asia infrastructure, investment Bank, the United States posed. It said it was just a tool for Chinese Gemini and it was going to be not transparent and it was not going to meet professional standards and was not really going to benefit the recipients. In fact, the IB as it's now called. Is a very professional organization. It has many countries who are members. It has a very professionalized staff. We should be willing to welcome those institutions at the same time. None of our none of our allies joined us not -sition. And the other hand, we do have to insist on some standards and it's not enough just for the United States to do it. It is something that we all of our our friends and allies need to approach together in some sense if we are all embracing China and telling China the same thing in terms of how it needs to integrate into the international system, it's going to constrain their ability to move and it's gotta be about transparency. It's got to be about professional standards. It's gotta be about playing by the rules. It's gotta be about making sure that their activities, for example, on the one belt one road, which is a huge investment infrastructure investment program that China is is pursuing with some sixty. Nine countries actually is going to benefit those countries that are recipients and be supportive when it does and be making the point and resisting when it. It doesn't. So it seems to me Steve that that we've gotten this. Just backwards your point about opposing the the infrastructure Bank in East Asia is a good example of not supporting them when they're actually playing by the rules. And then in my view, not pushing back hard enough on their militarization of the contested islands in the South China, Sea, being example of not putting pressure on them when they're not doing the right thing. So are you at the end of the day hopeful here that we're gonna get this right with Beijing, or are you a little worried about it? I'm a little worried about it. I think you know, there's a view in Washington now that China has a grand strategy of re of dominating its region and Oldham replacing the United States at the top of the global food chain. I don't know whether that's true or not. Nobody does really and nobody knows how successful China will be even if it has that is objective. So my sense is that in a situation of uncertainty like that, what you need to do. Do is try to engage China in a way that maximize the chances that it will work within a revised and revitalize international system that serves Chinese interest, but continues to serve Americans interest as well. But at the same time be positioning ourselves. So if China, if that effort fails, we are able to defend the American people at our prosperity and economic interests, even much more conflictual and competitive world. I, I don't know how whether it will work. I think the thing that's different than at the end of World War Two or at the end of the Cold War was that people at in those two periods nominally would say that they supported human rights rule of law, democracy and free markets. That's not what you hear out of China today. That's not what you hear out of Russia today. They say not only do they have a different political system. Which is state oriented, but they now, for example, the Chinese say they have a different economic system that that socialism with Chinese characteristics is not a market economy and never will be. So one of the tricks in this is how do we have an international system that serves our interest and serves the interest of the global community the way for seventy years the prior international system did how do we do that in a way that includes China, but also doesn't portray our principles that in the end of the day, the kind of world that is most congenial for our interests and ensures most ensures the peace security and prosperity of the world is one that is based on rule of law, human rights, democracy, and free markets. And I think that is going to be the trick and what we may end up is on various issues. Areas getting as much agreement as we can internationally, including with the Chinese, but retaining our ability as a subset of the international community to work with right thinking, friends, allies to make the case and stand up for those principles of democracy. Human rights, rule of law and free market economy Russia. Their approach is different, right? China's approaches to gain strength Russia's approaches to undermine us and that order that that international system you talked about, which should our strategic approach to Russia be Russia's very tough. The relationship with Russia probably is as bad as anytime since the Cold War and maybe even worse in some respects at the end of the Cold War of nineteen eighty nine nineteen ninety. When Soviet Union broke apart, gay Russia gave up communism and began to move in the direction of a market Konomi. And more freedom for its people. We were all very hopeful that Russia would actually find its place in the international system. It is increasingly seem to be trending that way for short period of time it did. And then somewhere in the middle of the first decade of the twenty first century, it began to move in the other direction increasingly, authoritarian, increasingly, trying to impose its will on its neighbors and the relationships that at all levels of government between Russia and the United States that we build up in the wake of the in the Cold War have been largely stopped. There is very little interaction between the United States and Russia on any level other than at the presidential level, and in terms of forces de conflicting and operations in Syria. That's a dangerous situation and President Putin has really become almost spoiler. On every international shoe, defining his interest as being adverse to that of the United States. What to do. We've got to try to rebuild that relationship. We've had for forty fifty years of formula for dealing with competitive or even adversarial powers, and it is too. Cooperate constructively areas where we have common interests and can agree stand up for principles and areas where we disagree and try to manage those disagreements so that we don't fall into confrontational conflict. That's been the framework we've had with Russia. I would say we are out of that framework right now, and the question is, can we get Russia back into that framework? And I think we won't know and won't really be able to start that process until three things happen. One we get through our election in November, and it is clear that the Russians have not tried to manipulate that election in twenty eighteen the way they did in twenty sixteen Secondly, that the issue of Russian intervention, our election, two thousand sixteen gets through the Muller investigation, and the results of his investigation are known and that whole issue gets through our political process can close the door and then fine. Really, I think we need to begin to make progress on one issue in particular, in that Ukraine, which is the reason for the sanctions on Russia that has so exceleron the deterioration in relationship. And that means finding way where Russia will allow Ukraine to research sovereignty over the done bus region in eastern Ukraine that the Russians and their their surrogates really occupied and agree that will continue to fight over Crimea, which Russia has annexed in which the United States cannot and should not acknowledge. I think until those three things happen, it's going to be very difficult to get the relationship back track. But when that moment comes to try, there are some things where we can cooperate with Russia on counter-terrorism on arms control, nuclear arms control do things like extending the new start treaty which established limits on the offensive nuclear weapon. On both sides. There are a number of areas where it is in our interest, very much to cooperate area of non-proliferation as well. But I think we won't get that cooperation started until these things. I've talked about the election, the Muller investigation, and in some sense resolution of Ukraine become realities. What about Iran. Iran is a tough issue in, and I think that what the administration is trying to do is to use the return of sanctions and pressure on around to get around to return to some form of arrangement, which not only improve some of the problems that President Trump and a lot of Republicans had with Iran nuclear agreement which deals with Iran's disruptive behavior in the region in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere, and also deals with Iran's support for terrorism. The Obama administration came up with a nuclear agreement. This agreement that President Trump has withdrawn from. Did you support that agreement or we opposed to, I was silent on that agreement. I thought it was. It was an agreement when our. Our our government negotiate something. It is. It has a presumption that we ought to stand behind it, but I felt that it had two principal problems one as you know, a lot of the limitations were time-bound and we're not indefinite, and therefore you could not ensure that they those limits would be present in perpetuity to prevent Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And Secondly, there were some questions about some of the inspection provisions and a little uncertainty about what the exact status of the Iranian efforts to date had been. For those reasons. I did not support the agreement. I think the issue when President Trump pulled out of it was one of whether American interests were advanced by staying in the agreement or getting out of it. I think that President Trump decided that he could advance American interest by getting out of that agreement, reestablishing sanctions and trying to get the international community to follow our lead in order. To get the Iranians to understand that they needed to come back to the international community cure some of the problems with the nuclear agreement, but also address its behavior in the region and his support for tear which really were not addressed at the time of the nuclear agreement. I think the Trump administration's right about that, and we all have an interest in trying to hope that they can succeed. The trick is going to be how many other countries come along with us on the sanctions. It is has been very interesting to see how the European countries who've made who were part of that process with us the EU and Germany and France, and the UK. Are all trying to preserve the nuclear agreement with Iran and have said that they will protect their companies from American sanctions. In fact, it's difficult for them to do and what's been fascinating as the number of European company. Some of the biggest European companies all said that look, if it's a choice between dealing with the United States or dealing with Iran, we're going to deal with the United States and have been pulling out of their activities that are on that is useful to the administration because it puts concrete pressure on the Rainiers in a way that hopefully will cause them to reconsider and try to address the concerns have been raised by the Trump administration on North Korea. You know, it's very interesting example of how President Trump has reset the table. A lot of people were very critical of some bellicose rhetoric threatening rhetoric, rhetoric used with North Korea. Some people said the risk of war was going up. I thought ill advisedly. I thought that was not the case. And now it seems pretty clear that Trump's rhetoric both got the attention of Kim Jong UN North Korea that he need to pay attention. And there was a limit to the patience of the American president with the North Korea's nuclear weapon program and its ballistic missile program for developing the means. Deliver deliver those nuclear weapons to our neighbors. And even to the United States that there were limits to what he could do. And it also got China's attention that this issue needed to be resolved one way or another. And if it was not resolved peacefully, then president from might be willing to take military action. So it actually set up the situation where Kim Jong on offered to meet with the president and has said, he will denuclearize the peninsula. And then he offered to meet with the president. Everyone said the president should meet with him and the president and tell the the, it had been prepared by lower level fficials and the president decided he would go ahead and meet with Kim Jong UN. I think he was right to do it. We've had two efforts in the traditional way to resolve this issue with North Korea. It resulted in a in agreement to denuclearize the North Korea in nineteen ninety four under the Clinton administration, two thousand. Five hundred. The George W Bush administration. We couldn't keep North Korea in either one of them. I think this approach is probably a worthy of try because what Kim Jong UN really needs to do is to make a strategic decision that the past where he is prioritized military over civilian. Well-being has prioritizes nuclear program has really been isolated for the international community is dependent on China is not a good path for the future. That instead he should open himself to the world. He should prioritize economy. He should get improved diplomatic relations and economic assistance to give people a reasonable life. And the key to that poeple vision is giving up his nuclear program and his ICBM pro, which means as we go through this process of negotiating, we can't let the sanction starts slipping away, right? We can't let holes get into sanction. We can't. Let the sanctions keep get star slipping away. We have to keep China engage. But quite frankly, we need to keep President Trump and grades because if Kim Jong-Un is going to make that strategic decision and that strategic shift, it's gonna have to be President Trump who convinces him to do it. And that's what that video that was shown that was criticized by many. It basically was a five minute video, the demonstrative, as I understand, demonstrated those two alternatives and made the case that Kim Jong should take the second more hopeful course of action. It is President Trump's opportunity to try to convince Kim Jong UN president North Korea to make that decision. And are you hopeful on this? I am hopeful, but you know, having dealt with the North Koreans to be very hopeful is to is to go with hope over experience because our experience is not so good on this. Stephen, very generous with your time. Just ask one. More question, which is I am very fond of President Bush. As are you, how would you characterize his legacy and international affairs. Will the first thing I think you'd have to say is that he kept us safe from terrorist attack. As you remember after nine, eleven the intelligence community told the president that the attack on nine eleven would be the first of series of mass casualty attacks on the United States. And some of them would involve weapons of mass destruction and the very next month in October two thousand one envelopes. Full of anthrax powder showed up on Capitol Hill and actually killed a couple of security guards up there and nobody knew where they came from. So I think his his biggest success was to lead the country. Take the fight to the terrace abroad, harden America here at home and prevented those kinds of follow on terrorist attacks. He kept the country safe and that system he built to do that to peop- the pressure. On them overseas and to defend ourselves here at home still existed as very to this very day. Secondly, he said we needed to have there was going to be an ideological war on terror that we had to have an alternative to the vision of the terrace, which was to have very totalitarian or Thawra Teheran political systems that imposed on populations a very extreme view and version of sharia law. And he said, we need to counter that vision with a more hopeful vision of freedom and democracy where people are trusted and empowered to build their own futures, be able to provide for their families, their security, prosperity, and live in freedom. And he promoted that vision, and I think made a lot of progress, particularly in his first term. I think that will be an enduring part of his legacy and his confidence in the end of the day. Despite the current trend towards authoritarianism that we see in the world today in the end of the day, people want control of their own futures and control of their own lives. And I think we need to to maintain his confidence in our own principles in our own values, democracy, free markets, human rights rule of law, that in the end of the day, they will prevail. And Thirdly, he did a lot of things that were very positive that people almost are unaware of, you know, the HIV initiative in pep far initiative in Africa, which provided a formula for dealing with the HIV epidemic that save somewhere between eleven and fifteen million lives. The initiative he had on malaria on the elected tropical diseases, a new model for economic development, embodied in the millennium challenge account program, which partnered with local countries. And gave them incentives to provide better governance for their own people and provide transparent and writer economic prospects for the people. I think in the end of the day, when the history is written, when we get out of the, the politics of the moment, his legacy is gonna be a very strong on. Indeed, thank you very much for being with us delighted to be here. That was Steve Hadley. I, Michael Morell please join us next week for another episode of intelligence matters. This has been the intelligence matters podcast with former acting director of the CIA Mike Morell. The podcast is produced file via gases, Jamie Benson, and Claire Himes. If you haven't already subscribe rate in review forever, you download podcasts. You can follow the show on Twitter at Intel matters pod and follow Michael at Michael, Jay morelle intelligence banners, production of CBS News, Radio.