PBS NewsHour full episode Sept. 15, 2017

HARI SREENIVASAN: Good evening. I'm Hari Sreenivasan. Judy Woodruff is on assignment.
On tonight's "PBS NewsHour":
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Former U.S. Secretary of State: I really wasn't ready or equipped
to run for president against a reality TV candidate.
HARI SREENIVASAN: One on one with Hillary Clinton. From North Korea to racism, the former
presidential candidate tells Judy Woodruff what she thinks are the greatest threats to
the nation.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: In many ways, the Trump presidency poses a clear and present
danger to our country and to the world.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Also ahead this Friday: the voices of the Vietnam War. In the second
part of our look at Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's new documentary, how telling the whole story
takes all perspectives.
KEN BURNS, Documentary Filmmaker: We Americans always assume we're at the center of the story
of Vietnam, that the Vietnam War is about Americans.
LYNN NOVICK, Documentary Filmmaker: Right.
HARI SREENIVASAN: And it's Friday. Mark Shields and David Brooks are here to talk Hillary
Clinton's election tell-all and President Trump's deal with the Democrats.
All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
HARI SREENIVASAN: British police launched a major manhunt after a homemade bomb exploded
on a subway train in Southwest London. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility,
and the British government raised the threat level to critical, meaning another attack
could be imminent.
Paraic O'Brien of Independent Television News has our report.
PARAIC O'BRIEN: This is the remains of a device detonated on a packed tube train at 8:20 this
morning. The fifth terrorist attack in the U.K. this year targeted the morning commute,
the school run.
Twenty-nine people were treated in hospital. There were no serious injuries. Two teachers
one stop from work were near the device as it went off at the back of the train, and
described a fireball coming at the down the carriage.
WOMAN: I saw the fire rush towards my side. But, yes, I literally -- I heard a lady screaming.
WOMAN: I was falling over people myself, and I was just saying to myself, keep up, right?
Because either you can be crumpled to death, or if you have got a madman behind you, because
I still didn't know what was going on.
PARAIC O'BRIEN: People described to us a flash of fire suddenly running up the walls of the
carriage, burning those nearby. Then, the panic.
LUKE WALMSLEY, Witness: That moment when people are running towards me and pushing you out
the way, and you're unsure of what's happening, you're then -- you don't know whether to fight
or run. And it was at that, sort of, 10 seconds of sheer panic, and the whole train went through
it and it was like a tidal wave.
MAN: But now what's happening is, I think people are getting crushed on the stairwell.
PARAIC O'BRIEN: After the initial surge of people, this was the scene on the crowded
platform, people trying to make sense of what had happened.
Still partly on fire when these pictures were taken, wires are clearly visible sticking
out from a would-be bomb. It's still not known exactly why it failed to fully detonate.
It's been reported that some sort of timer device may have been attached to the IED.
The official police statement today didn't speak to this point, but emphasized that the
search is on for a perpetrator.
HARI SREENIVASAN: President Trump reacted to the attack with a tweet that suggested
police could have done more to prevent it.
British Prime Minister Theresa May responded by saying -- quote -- "I never think it's
helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation."
Later, the two spoke by phone. The White House said the president's criticism may have come
up in the conversation.
Mr. Trump voiced confidence today that U.S. options for dealing with North Korea are -- quote
-- "both effective and overwhelming." He spoke after the North Koreans launched another ballistic
missile over Northern Japan.
At the White House, the president's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, called for
rigorous enforcement of sanctions to cripple the north's economy.
H.R. MCMASTER, U.S. National Security Adviser: What's different about this approach is, is
that we're out of time. We have been kicking the can down the road. And we're out of road.
And so for those who have said and been commenting about the lack of a military option, there
is a military option. Now, it's not what we would prefer to do.
So, what we have to do is call on all nations, call on everyone to do everything we can to
address this global problem, short of war.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The North's latest missile flight covered 2,300 miles. That would be
far enough to reach the U.S. territory of Guam. This afternoon, the U.N. Security Council
condemned the launch.
A judge in Saint Louis has acquitted a white former police officer, Jason Stockley, in
a fatal shooting. He was charged in the killing of a black man, Anthony Lamar Smith, after
a high-speed chase in 2011. After today's verdict, hundreds of protesters marched, most
of them peacefully. A small group confronted police, and got pepper-sprayed.
More glimmers of progress today in the recovery from Hurricane Irma. Utilities in Florida
say they have restored power to more than 80 percent of the homes and businesses that
lost it. Even so, nearly 3.5 million people are still in the dark.
Meanwhile, local officials report more than 100 sewage overflows caused by the storm.
A single spill near Miami spewed about six million gallons of wastewater.
Chronic hunger around the world is rising again, after a decade of decline. The United
Nations reports 815 million people went hungry last year, up 38 million from the previous
year. Sixty percent were in war zones. The U.N. also cited floods and drought as causes.
NASA's Cassini spacecraft bade a fiery farewell today, burning up in Saturn's atmosphere.
Flight controllers destroyed the vehicle to prevent it from crashing into one of two months
that may harbor life. NASA animation showed Cassini's final plunge. It had nearly exhausted
its fuel after recording more than 450,000 images and a huge trove of data.
MIKE WATKINS, Director, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: The discoveries that Cassini has
made over the past 13 years in orbit have rewritten the textbooks of Saturn, have discovered
worlds that could be habitable, and have guaranteed that we will return to that ringed world.
So, the fantastic discoveries that continue to be made with the last set of ring-crossing
orbits, and in the grand finale of Cassini haven't really even been studied yet.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Cassini was launched in 1997. It's the only spacecraft ever to orbit
Saturn.
A federal judge in Chicago today blocked the Justice Department from withholding grants
for cities that harbor undocumented immigrants. The temporary injunction applies nationwide
to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents.
Chicago is one of at least seven cities and counties that have balked at enforcing tougher
immigration rules.
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 64 points to close at 22268.
The Nasdaq rose 19 points, and the S&P 500 added four, hitting 2500 for the first time.
And something new at the White House today, an 11-year-old boy mowing the lawn. Frank
Giaccio of Falls Church, Virginia, got the gig after offering his services to President
Trump. This morning, he cut the Rose Garden grass, and he kept his focus even when the
president walked alongside him. Mr. Trump called him the future of the country. The
boy said he usually charges $8 a lawn, but he did the White House job for free.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": Judy Woodruff's interview with Hillary Clinton about her new
book and the Trump presidency; Mark Shields and David Brooks' take on the week's news;
preserving voices from Vietnam, the newest Ken Burns documentary, "The Vietnam War";
and much more.
Hillary Clinton, she is one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in modern American
history.
This week, she is back in the spotlight promoting a new book.
She opens up tonight to Judy Woodruff, revealing where she gives President Trump credit, but
also her fears that he is dangerous for the world.
Judy sat down with the former presidential candidate, secretary of state and first lady
at the CORE: club in New York City, and began by asking about the premise of the book: What
happened in the 2016 election?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Former U.S. Secretary of State: I really wasn't ready or equipped
to run for president against a reality TV candidate.
I take running for president and being president really seriously. It's a -- maybe the toughest
job in the world, right? And I knew that there was unfinished business from the successful
two terms of President Obama, whom I had served, but that we needed to go further on the economy,
on health care, and so much else.
I really prepared, and I prepared what I wanted to say, how I would defend what I wanted to
do.
It turned out that was very hard to communicate. It was a time when an empty podium got more
broadcast minutes than all of the policies that I was putting forth.
And now that there's been a lot of analysis coming from all sorts of independent observers,
I think it was clear that the kind of campaign I was running, and the seriousness with which
I looked at the agenda I wanted to represent and then execute, was just out of sync with
the anger that a lot of the electorate felt, or the disappointment that another part of
the electorate felt, so that my brand of leadership, which is very focused on bringing people together,
solving problems -- it's what I have always tried to do -- just had a hard time being
as powerfully compelling in that campaign as I think it has been in previous years for
other candidates.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You single out James Comey, the former FBI director.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes, I do.
JUDY WOODRUFF: My question, though, is, he was in the role he was in because the then-Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had pulled back and essentially turned over the leading role in
overseeing the FBI -- or the investigation into your e-mails because of that meeting
on the airport tarmac with your husband, former President Bill Clinton.
So, my question is, to what extent did Loretta Lynch and President Clinton make a costly
mistake?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Judy, I just don't buy that.
I honestly reject that premise, partly because there's a chain of command in the Justice
Department. There's a deputy attorney general. We all now know who it was, Sally Yates, a
woman of experience and integrity.
We knew at the time, after it was reported that, you know, both my husband and Loretta
Lynch said they didn't say a word about this. The optics were not good. I admit that.
But in this chain of command, if the attorney general is recused, you know, the deputy attorney
general. And what we know happened is that the investigation was getting nowhere. There
was nothing to find. And he was in a position of having to accept the evidence that there
was no case.
I think what he did, against the advice of people around him in the FBI and the Justice
Department, was in large measure due to political pressures that he was under from people that
he had worked with before in the FBI and outside the FBI.
And so, when you're a prosecutor or you're an FBI director, if there's no case, there's
no case. And, instead, he had a press conference and really, you know, went after, not just
me, the entire State Department.
OK, that was over on July 5. Right. That -- you know, that, I thought, was a breach of professional
ethics and responsibility and a rejection of the protocols within the Justice Department.
It was over. And we were doing fine going forward.
What really was costly, and what I believe was the proximate cause of my defeat, was
his October 28 letter, which has never been adequately explained or defended, had nothing
to do with what happened, you know, months before.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But my point is, he wouldn't have been in that position had Loretta Lynch
not pulled back after that meeting with President Clinton.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I just don't -- Judy, I don't believe that.
I mean, he was in a position that was subordinate to the chain of command in the Justice Department.
So, Loretta Lynch recuses. It's like when Sessions recused. The deputy attorney general
steps forward and starts, you know, running the investigation.
There was -- there were plenty of people who were in the chain of command who were telling
him, I'm told, you know, OK, nothing there, end it. And that's not -- that's not what
he did.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You also write about the role of gender, the fact that women are treated
differently in politics, held to a higher standard.
You quote your friend Sheryl Sandberg talking about how women, the more successful they
are, the less they are liked.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: People all the time say, oh, if you only knew Hillary Clinton
the way I know Hillary Clinton.
Well, it's really hard to get to know me, or any candidate. And I would be asked questions
like, well, why are you really running for president?
I didn't hear Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders asked that question, as though there
was something hidden or -- or so unusual about a woman stepping forward and saying, you know,
I think I could be a good president, I hope you will support me.
So, I do believe, and in this chapter called "On Being a Woman in Politics," that we have
to come to grips with the endemic sexism and misogyny. Of course, it's not just in politics.
It's in business. We have seen a lot of that coming out of Silicon Valley, and it's in
the media, it's in culture. We know that.
But, in politics in particular, where now some of my former colleagues and friends in
the Senate are being attacked, and they're being attacked in very sexist ways, you know,
Elizabeth Warren told to, you know, sit down and basically shut up, don't persist, Kamala
Harris being attacked.
Kirsten Gillibrand talks about being manhandled by fellow members of Congress in the gym.
You know, I want to blow this up, so that people have to confront it. And then maybe
whoever comes next won't have to face it as much.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Trump campaign.
You think Trump operatives cooperated, colluded with the Russians in order to prevent you
from winning this election. You're a good lawyer. Do you think that meeting in New York
last year between a Russian lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner was illegal, that
laws were broken by that meeting?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: We -- I don't know enough about whether that's the case.
I mean, this investigation that's going on is necessary and incredibly important, because
what happened, certainly so far, proves there was communication between the Trump campaign
and Russian representatives that they have gone to great lengths to try to hide and not
disclose.
There were meetings like the one you're talking about. There were others as well. There were,
now we know, Russian paid ads that played into the Trump campaign. We now know that
some of the placement of ads and the weaponization of information by the Russians was very skillfully
injected into our campaign, which suggests that they were getting advice from someone
and somewhere.
We know that the WikiLeaks drop within one hour of the "Hollywood Access" tape on October
7 was meant to do exactly what it did, divert from Trump's admission on tape that he was
a -- a sexual assaulter.
So, you can add all of this up, and you can just say it's all coincidence, but were campaign
finance laws broken? Were foreign agency laws broken? Were financial dealings irregular
or illegal? We don't yet know, but I have a lot of confidence in the work that is going
on in the Senate to delve into these issues.
And I have a lot of confidence in, you know, Robert Mueller and his investigation to tell
us whether there's something there or not.
But my point is bigger than that. Let's put what happened to one side. If I had been elected
president, and the intelligence community came to me and said, well, you won, but Putin
was trying to defeat you, even though I won, I would still say, we have got to get to the
bottom of this.
Right now, we don't have any leadership from this White House to try to understand what
our principal foreign adversary was doing to interfere with our elections, to, in effect,
destabilize our democracy. So, I think this is -- this should be of interest to any American.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You are very tough in the book, and now, on President Trump.
After the birther issue he raised over President Obama, his campaign rhetoric, and now, as
president, his comments on Charlottesville -- and he repeated some of those yesterday
-- do you believe the president is racist?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Here's what I believe.
I believe that he has given a lot of encouragement and rhetorical support to the Ku Klux Klan.
He accepted the support of David Duke. I believe that he has not condemned the neo-Nazis and
the self-proclaimed white supremacists in Charlottesville and other settings.
I believe that the Congress had to, on a bipartisan basis, pass a resolution asking that white
supremacy be condemned by this president, which he then signed. And we will wait and
see what he does.
So, I can't tell you what's in his heart, Judy. I don't know. It could be total rank,
cynical opportunism. He's got a hard-core base that believes these things, and he's
going to keep feeding it.
He took advantage of some of the conspiracy theories that these people propagate, like
birtherism. So, I can't tell you what's in his heart. I know that he was sued for racial
discrimination in his business.
So I think that what's important is that, as a leader, he speak up on behalf of the
rights of all Americans and the respect we should show for the diversity of our country,
which I think is one of our great strengths.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Having said all that, if he is able, as president, to oversee the passage
of legislation to protect the dreamers, these young people who came to this country as children,
undocumented, but they came here young, if he's able, if President Trump is able to get
that done, something we're seeing movement on in the last few days, he will deserve credit
for that, won't he?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, after so many presidents tried to do it.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes, he will deserve credit.
I will be among those giving him credit for it, because memorializing that protection
for these 800,000, you know, striving young people in legislation would be a legitimate
accomplishment. And that would only come about because of bipartisan support, that he would
then be able to sign such a bill.
JUDY WOODRUFF: There have been deals -- I mean, speaking of the dreamers, there have
been deals cut in the last -- what appear to be deals in the last few days between Democratic
leaders in Congress and the president, not just on the dreamers, on the debt, on funding
for the hurricane-ravaged areas.
Why shouldn't Democrats cooperate with this president, if it's going to lead to the kind
of legislation that Democrats believe in?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I think that we are seeing, from the two Democratic leaders,
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, very skillful negotiations that are leading to positive
outcomes, that are going to help people, that are part of the broader Democratic agenda.
That's what should be happening in Washington, and it's certainly what I would have done
had I been president. I would have worked with Republicans if they'd been willing to
work with me, and I would look for ways to make that possible.
But that doesn't mean it wipes out a lot of the other behavior and rhetoric that we hear
coming from the president, which we hope will, you know, not continue at the pace it has
over the first nine months of his presidency.
But I think, to get protection for dreamers, to save the full faith and credit of the United
States by raising the debt limit, all of that is in the interest of America, and it shouldn't
be a partisan issue. And I hope that there'll be more of that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You mentioned the Democratic leaders.
Your former New York colleague, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has said he
gets Trump. He said they get along. He said, we can get deals done, he can successfully
work with him.
You agree?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I think he's showing that he can.
And I have had many conversations with Chuck since the election, and have, you know, certainly
seen him firsthand as a very experienced legislator and someone who, consistent with his principles
and values, will see whether there's a way to make progress.
You know, compromise can't be a dirty word in American politics. There's plenty to argue
about. This administration is still talking about ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthiest
of the wealthy. That should be resisted with every fiber of our being.
But where there might be areas to try to cooperate to get positive results, you know, I think
that both Chuck and Nancy have a lot of proven skills in, you know, finding where those are
and then trying to, you know, get them passed.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you quickly to put your foreign policy hat on.
(LAUGHTER)
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What's your assessment of the Trump national security team?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I don't know what the team is. You fundamentally don't have
a team. I think that's one of its biggest deficits.
You have a secretary of state who's largely invisible, except for his obsession with cutting
the budget of the State Department. You have a...
JUDY WOODRUFF: Has he reached out to you?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: No.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Tillerson?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I don't know -- I don't know who he's reached out to. He certainly
hasn't reached out to me.
You have Secretary Mattis, who often acts like both secretary of defense and secretary
of state, because there's a big void to kill there.
You have a White House that has been, you know, in disarray over national security from
the very first day.
And so many of the people in our government with great expertise -- let's take North Korea,
which is a very serious threat right now. There were, and maybe still are, a number
of people in the State Department who speak the language, understand the history, have
studied Kim Jong-un, are ready to be part of a diplomatic offensive. They're not being
called upon.
So, I think that you have got a president who makes diplomatic pronouncements on Twitter,
who gives aid and comfort to people like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, because often
what he says is not about them and the threat they pose, so much as going after our friends
and allies, as, you know, President Trump just did going after South Korea.
That makes no sense at all. And he's being played by these dictators in a way that undercuts
our credibility and the capacity to come up with a diplomatic solution in that region
and other places.
So, I'm deeply concerned. And I think, in many ways, the Trump presidency poses a clear
and present danger to our country and to the world.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, on North Korea, how dangerous a moment is this? I mean, they flew another
missile yesterday, or last night, over Japan. Do you sense that we could be close to some
sort of military action?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, he -- Kim Jong-un is certainly being more and more provocative.
And taunting Japan, as he is doing with these missiles, raises really serious questions
for the Japanese government.
So, here's what I believe. I believe we should have a full-court press diplomatic effort.
If Trump doesn't want to listen to the experts inside his own government, then go to people
outside in think tanks and academia who know about this very complicated region, and particularly
North Korea.
Make it clear that we will do everything in our power to protect our allies, South Korea
and Japan, including installing even more missile defense.
Now, the Chinese don't like that, but then the Chinese better be more on board with us
in trying to rein in Kim Jong-un. And the Japanese are not for long going to leave their
defense against this aggressor in North Korea to us, when they can't really rely on Trump's
understanding of our promises.
That means Japan may well consider rearming even more. That will make the Koreans and
the Chinese upset.
So, we have a lot of cards to play in getting people to work together, as well as protecting
our allies. And, at the end of the day, there is a military threat that has to be posed,
and it should be very clear: If Kim Jong-un attacks our allies or any part of America,
including Guam, we will retaliate with devastating force.
We don't want to do that. We're not interested in that kind of confrontation. But I don't
at least see in any public way an effort by this administration to do what I would be
doing right now, and that is, China, South Korea, Japan, get them all on the same page
and go after what would be ways into influencing Kim Jong-un.
Most cards are held by China, but some threats can very well be made by, not just us, but
South Korea and Japan as well.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it frustrating for you not to be able to be in there working on this?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, it is frustrating. And it's not just because I'm not there.
I don't see enough people who have experience and understanding, their being part of the
decision -making. I just -- I haven't seen it.
And, you know, you don't have to agree with how I see the world, but you need people who
can bring substance to the table. And I don't think there's enough of that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, you have been saying that you don't plan to run for office again,
but you will be very active in public life.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I'm excited about this next chapter in my life. I think there's
a lot to be done.
And, in the book, I try to sound some alarms, because what happened to me is not sui generis,
like, OK, it happened to her, we can move on.
Voter suppression will make it more and more difficult. You have a White House commission
that was set up under the guise of fraud, which hardly exists anywhere in America, to
suppress even more voters. You have got the Russia unanswered questions. You have got
sexism and misogyny.
And I think the press has to do some soul-searching.
How can it -- in a democracy -- and, you know, that's really one of the real shining contributions
of your program, Judy.
In a democracy, if people don't have accurate information, how can they be active citizens?
How can they be part of the debate? And if you are facing powerful forces on the right
and in this administration who want to create an alternative reality that feeds into their
objectives for our country, you more than ever need the press to cut through that, and
to be as accurate as possible.
And so I think all of us have some work to do, because, look, we love this country. I,
for one, am deeply grateful for the opportunities that I have been given. I think we all have
a role to play in making sure it's there for my grandchildren in a way that is just as
vigorous, contentious, argumentative, but reality-based, evidence-based, reason-based,
which was at the core of who we have been as a democracy for 240 years.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Hillary Clinton.
The book is "What Happened."
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: "What Happened."
(LAUGHTER)
JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you very much.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Thanks, Judy. Good to talk to you.
HARI SREENIVASAN: You will want to tune in Monday for part two of Judy's interview, where
Secretary Clinton cites well-executed voter suppression of African-American voters as
a reason she lost Wisconsin.
And now it's time now for the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist
Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
First off, your reactions to the interview so far?
MARK SHIELDS: What I find interesting is, I don't pay any attention to books from politicians.
And the only time I listen to any politician waxing semi-candid is when they are either
over 70 or given up all hopes of the White House.
And I think Mrs. Clinton is not 70, or close to it, I guess, but she's obviously given
up all hopes to the White House. And, in that sense, there's a lot more candor, than I think
I have certainly seen in past books, an admission that every candidate is ultimately responsible
for his or her campaign, victory or defeat.
And every campaign is inevitably a mirror reflection of the candidate. And she does
accept responsibility, but she doesn't do it exclusively. She wants to share it with
some in the press, with other forces in our society.
DAVID BROOKS: Well, as for the book, it's tough to be reflective and a good storyteller
and be in the public sphere.
You're so active that you don't have time for reflection. And I read the book. And I
thought it was interesting, by political standards, way more interesting. I think she's right,
as she said in the interview, that it was just not her year. She's not going to the
anger, outsider politician. I think she's pushed up too much emphasis
on Comey and all that other stuff and the Russians in blaming this. But she has cusps
of thoughts throughout the book.
For example, at one point, she says she really loves the parable of the prodigal son. And
she says, I'm so much like the older brother, who is the rule follower. And, of course,
then you think, well, Bill Clinton is the ultimate younger brother, the prodigal son.
And she's on the cusp of a really interesting insight about her relationship with him.
But she can't -- she never, never takes the next step. And I think that's just because
active people -- I remember I once interviewed Margaret Thatcher, and she was the same way
-- so much active, not a writer, not reflective, not getting the analysis you actually want.
But that's just a product of being in the public sphere. I think the book with is far
more interesting than most political books of that sort.
MARK SHIELDS: Obama wrote a very book, but he wasn't a presidential candidate at the
time.
HARI SREENIVASAN: There's a section in there about foreign policy where she kind of slips
back into secretary of state mode.
Almost you could see she's excited to weigh in on this. And she also takes Secretary Tillerson
to task. Well, he has never called me. I don't necessarily know what their foreign policy
is.
MARK SHIELDS: No. That was. It was really a memorable passage in her interview with
Judy.
What's interesting is, Donald Trump -- Rex Tillerson, of course, serves at the pleasure
or displeasure of Donald Trump. And Donald Trump, unlike anybody else in American history
after winning the presidency, made no attempt to reach out.
In fact, he's continued to berate her and beat her up at his rallies and continued to
have rallies and run against her. So, it's almost made her toxic to his administration.
But I'm surprised that Tillerson, once he got the job, didn't call her and have a sit-down.
And I think -- I just think it's part of it.
But, if you think about it, Donald Trump, once he won, never reached across. He never
met with Jimmy Carter. He never talked to George H.W. Bush.
There was not a -- so, I guess Tillerson doesn't surprise me. But there's no question she's
totally disappointed and disenchanted with his stewardship at State, and very frank about
the National Security Council, and the disarray, the Michael Flynn period, and that McMaster
has spent the last seven months trying to get rid of the people that Flynn brought in,
and he's had to wait for General Kelly to get there to complete the...
HARI SREENIVASAN: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, she's an institutionalist.
When she was in the Senate, she respected the rules and the standards of the Senate.
When she was secretary of state, she was very much of the building and of the body and going
around the world interviewing people.
And I generally like institutionalists. I think organizations are really what change
history, rarely a random person. But let's face it. This election was about anti-institutionalism.
It was about, we don't like the way those things are working in Washington. Let's burn
the place town. And so it's not surprising the Trump administration is bad at institutions,
and they're hollowing out all our institutions. They were sort of hired to do that.
I happen to think that was a mistake, a bad way to run government, but that sort is what
they were hired to do.
HARI SREENIVASAN: There's also a section on race where she weighed in on the divisiveness
that she says Trump exacerbates.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
I -- there's a mixture here. Trump clearly plays identity politics, and white identity
politics. And race has been a strong factor in this election. There's no question about
that.
I think it's always necessary to be careful and not say Trump won because of race. I think
a lot of the people who voted for Trump voted for him on a million different reasons, a
lot of them quite legitimate reasons. And so I think she sometimes, in this interview
with Judy, gets a little close to saying, he's the KKK candidate.
I think that's overly simplistic. Is there a white identity stream running through his
thought which is deeply disturbing? Well, after Charlottesville, we saw that to be the
case.
But I don't think you want to play this election as, well, white racism won this election.
I don't think that's fair.
MARK SHIELDS: I disagree, to this extent.
I thought she put it -- she couched it. She said, he gives rhetorical encouragement to
white supremacists.
And I don't think anybody can argue with that. And his revised position number nine on Charlottesville,
that there's bad dues on both sides, he just -- his -- didn't know who David Duke was.
There's no question that he is -- the great original sin of America, which has been so
prominent in American politics and so central to our presidential experience of the past
60 years, that Donald Trump is an outlier, and remains an outlier.
He doesn't see the duty or the responsibility of a president to bring together the country
racially. And I think she's legitimate with that. And certainly his language has been
loose.
HARI SREENIVASAN: There's a pivot we will make in the conversation where she actually
gives credit to Donald Trump on sort of the DACA conversation, the immigration conversation
that is now happening with Democrats.
For what to be the second time in a month now, Trump has sided with Democrats, much
to the chagrin of Republicans.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
So, all my life, I have been waiting for a president who would go with the Democrats
when the merits of the argument are on their side, and go with the Republicans when the
merits are on their side, and now finally it turns out to be Donald Trump who is doing
this.
(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: So, oh, well.
I guess I think two things. I think that, one, this particular deal, if it is a deal,
is a good deal. And I think most of the country -- only 12 percent of the country thinks the
DACA people should be sent out of the country. It's a pretty popular position to want to
some way codify their position in this country.
And the wall is a stupid idea. I don't think Donald Trump actually believes that we should
build a wall with Mexico. And so, if that is the deal, that's a good deal on the merits.
Can Donald Trump continue to be a bipartisan president? Well, I wish we had a skilled political
operator who could do that. I don't think Donald Trump is that skilled political operator.
It takes great skill to go with one party and then go with another. And I fear what
he's going to end up doing is isolating himself, the distrust with both parties, isolating
himself from his administration, which is pretty down-the-line conservative, and discrediting
bipartisanship along the way.
So, if we are going to have an independent president, which is something I think we need,
I wish it was somebody a little more politically skilled.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Does the president deserve credit, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS: Yes, he does deserve credit.
Talk about motives, but if, in fact, 700,000 Americans can come out from the shadows, and
not be at the whim or the cruel caprice of a brutal employer who wants to expose them,
or some personal enemy, or some sheriff who is looking for headlines, yes, I mean, that
is good.
That is good for America. I agree with David, the numbers. Americans are overwhelmingly
in favor. You're talking about misanthropes in the single percentage numbers of people
who really want to punish and send back kids who were brought here at the age of 3 and
have grown up and are working here.
But I think what I find most fascinating, to me, is, is the Cleveland Indians have been
on a 22-game winning streak, and Donald Trump has been on an uninterrupted losing streak
since January.
And when you're in a losing streak, you change the lineup, you change the batting order.
He changed teams. He just said, no, no, this Republican team isn't working. I'm going to
work with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
It will last about the extent of -- most of his relationships have a very short shelf
life, and political relationships anyway.
And I think -- but, yes, if this does achieve that -- we're a long way from getting there.
And the Republican leadership and the Republican membership in the House, in the Senate have
their feelings hurt, have more than that. They have had their prestige undermined, their
power sabotaged by the president doing this.
DAVID BROOKS: Trump is going to go so far left, he's going to be filling in for Mark
on his weeks off. We're going to go all the way up the other side.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The seat is open here any time he wants.
(LAUGHTER)
HARI SREENIVASAN: But speaking of -- continuing with that sort of sports analogy, but what
does this do to his die-hard fans, the ones that show up in the middle of winter?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
I think the evidence so far is that it doesn't really hurt him. There are some of the die-hard
fans, like Ann Coulter, who are upset. And there are a lot of people who are burning
their MAGA hats, the make America great again hats, because they're upset.
But if you look at the Sean Hannitys and those people, and a lot of the people who are calling
into the Rush Limbaugh show, they want to drain the swamp. And they don't like Mitch
McConnell very much.
And if he goes against Mitch McConnell and he changes things up in Washington, so far,
the evidence is, they are willing to stick with Trump and not really walk away from him.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Mark.
MARK SHIELDS: Yes.
No, I mean, among the Republican voters who supported him in the primaries in 2016, three
out of five of them thought that immigration has been -- has weakened the country.
But among Republicans at large, those who didn't support him, three out of five believe
that immigration has strengthened the country. And, overwhelmingly, that is the case.
And I do think that he probably -- he has great political insights. And he said, when
I stood at Fifth Avenue and shot somebody at high noon, people wouldn't leave me.
And he does. He has a very loyal constituency. And I don't think it hinges on this issue
by any means.
He's going to have to come away with something. And what could kill this in the House is the
Republicans in the House have never passed immigration reform at any time, because they
could not get a majority of the majority.
So, they're going to have to come up with something that's tough, whether it's a wall
or it's bamboo shoots under the fingernails of people who come in illegally or something,
which may be a deal-killer for the Democrats.
So, that has been the case in the past. And I fear that we're a long way from this being
signed into law.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you both.
MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Let's turn our attention again to "The Vietnam War," Ken Burns and
Lynn Novick's latest landmark documentary.
The 18-hour film begins on Sunday night.
Judy Woodruff sat down with the co-directors to discuss how history shows the war was actually
a long time in the making.
KEN BURNS, Documentary Filmmaker: We have reconciled with Vietnam, but we haven't reconciled
with ourselves. The news flash is also, they haven't reconciled with themselves.
JUDY WOODRUFF: By talking firsthand to North Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, Vietcong
guerrillas and South Vietnamese civilians, soldiers, diplomats, the filmmakers hope to
fill out the picture of what was happening in Vietnam and the U.S.
I have been to Hanoi, so I have seen some of the remembrances of the war. But they don't
have anything like this.
KEN BURNS: It would stretch to the Capitol Building if they did this.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Burns-Novick team spent a decade talking to hundreds of veterans from
both sides of the bloody conflict, in which more than 3.5 million people may have died,
estimates are about 58,000 American military deaths and the rest, Vietnamese, Cambodians
and Laotians.
KEN BURNS: We Americans always assume we're at the center of this story of Vietnam, that
the Vietnam War is about Americans.
LYNN NOVICK, Documentary Filmmaker: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The first episode looks at how, after one long and brutal war with the
French, Vietnamese revolutionaries led by Ho Chi Minh ended nearly a century of French
colonial occupation.
With the Cold War intensifying, Vietnam is divided into two at Geneva. Communists in
the North aim to reunify the country, while America supports Ngo Dinh Diem's untested
regime in the South.
There is clearly an unknowable aspect to all this.
LYNN NOVICK: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Lynn, do you come away, do you think, understanding how the United
States got pulled into this, despite the French being kicked out, essentially, Dien Bien Phu?
Senator John F. Kennedy saying the Americans don't belong in a land war in Asia. Decisions
made by Eisenhower not to get involved. And yet the United States was pulled in.
LYNN NOVICK: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Did you understand why, at the end, do you think?
LYNN NOVICK: Well, it is sometimes stunning to think, with all those road maps and signposts
saying don't do it, we still did.
It seems clear that there's definitely a Cold War context that's very important, and certain
kind of received wisdom, conventional wisdom about that, and that we have to stop communism
and containment and that whole idea.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Even so, the film shows that, in May of 1964, President Johnson himself
expressed misgivings about why the U.S. was at war and Vietnam's value in a phone call
with national security adviser McGeorge Bundy.
LYNDON JOHNSON, President of the United States: I just laid awake last night thinking about
this thing. The more I think of it, I don't know what in the hell -- it looks like to
me we are getting into another Korea.
It just worries the hell out of me. I don't see what we can ever hope to get out of there
with, once we're committed. I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think
we can get out, and it's just the biggest damn mess.
MCGEORGE BUNDY, U.S. National Security Adviser: It is an awful mess.
LYNDON JOHNSON: And I just thought about ordering those kids in there. And what the hell am
I ordering them out there for? What in the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What is it worth
to this country?
MCGEORGE BUNDY: Yes. Yes.
LYNDON JOHNSON: Now, of course, if you start running into communists, they may just chase
you right in your own kitchen.
MCGEORGE BUNDY: Yes, that's the trouble. And that's what the rest of the -- that half of
the world is going to think if this thing comes apart on us.
LYNN NOVICK: Now, when we talk about when did the war start, this year, people are talking
about the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War. We're not really sure why. Fiftieth anniversary
of what?
The Vietnam War didn't start in 1967. That was a moment of great kinetic energy in the
war, but it started long before that. And you could argue that it really started in
1945.
KEN BURNS: Which we do in the film, when the OSS parachutes into Northern Vietnam to sort
of help this ragtag insurgency that they hope will help us against the Japanese.
LYNN NOVICK: Right.
KEN BURNS: And it happens to be led by a guy named Ho Chi Minh.
So, all of a sudden, all of the normal, stabilized sense of Ho Chi Minh as the leader and the
bad guy get challenged, and it's further challenged as you walk down just that path in Vietnam.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Ho Chi Minh, did you come away from this experience understanding better
who he was and what he represented?
I mean, it's striking. He was, what, quoting Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, at one point.
KEN BURNS: During his declaration of Vietnamese independence...
JUDY WOODRUFF: Independence.
KEN BURNS: ... quoting Thomas Jefferson. And there's an OSS officer standing next to them.
So, you begin to say, as Lynn is talking about, if you understand the overlay of the Cold
War and how we're going to not have World War III, no one wants World War III, so what
we're going to do is, we're going to pick our little battles, and fight it through places
like South Vietnam/North Vietnam struggle, that you can misread what a local leader is
all about.
NARRATOR: The war began to seem like an open pit, one North Vietnamese remembered. The
more young people were lost there, the more they sent.
MAN (through translator): I witnessed Americans dying. They carried away the body, and they
wept. I witnessed such scenes, and thought Americans, like us Vietnamese, also have a
profound sense of humanity. They cared about each other.
JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the things you do so powerfully, which you're talking about here,
is bringing to an American audience the Vietnamese view of this, experience of this, the depth
to which Vietnam and the Vietnamese people suffered in this war.
You make them come alive, become human, the way I don't believe any other vehicle I can
think of has done.
LYNN NOVICK: We were able, with the really incredible talents of a Vietnamese producer,
to communicate to people that we wanted to know, which was the human story of the war,
not the big propaganda narrative and the sort of conventional wisdom, but just, what was
it really like for you and your family? What did you go through?
MAN (through translator): Even the Vietnamese veterans, we avoided talking about the war.
People sing about victory, about liberation. They're wrong. Who won and who lost is not
a question. In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction. Only those who
have never fought like to argue about who won and who lost.
JUDY WOODRUFF: In a big tent way, the film invites voices from every corner, and lets
viewers judge history, try to resolve some of the nation's unfinished business for themselves.
KEN BURNS: We made sure there was room for everybody in our film. If you still think
the -- we should be fighting the commies there still, there's the representation of that
in our film.
If you believe that it was wrong from the very beginning, there are people that will
represent that point of view. But, more importantly, all those shades of gray are able to coexist.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The documentary's 10 episodes will air over the next two weeks.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The premiere is this Sunday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 7:00 p.m. Central, on
your PBS station.
Karen Walrond is a former engineer, an attorney, photographer and writer.
Three weeks ago, Hurricane Harvey destroyed her home in Houston. She and her family are
now living with a friend, figuring out what to do next.
Tonight, Walrond shares her Humble Opinion on the best way to help storm victims, in
fact, anyone who is facing a crisis.
KAREN WALROND, Hurricane Harvey Survivor: At first, it wasn't that much, a couple of
inches or so. But, by the time it was over, we had almost three feet of water sitting
in our home.
My husband and I evacuated our daughter to the safety of a friend's house early on. That's
her in the pink raincoat. But when it became apparent that we couldn't save our home, we
realized that we needed to get back to our daughter fast.
Unfortunately, by that time, most streets had flooded, so that meant wading through
chest-deep water for about a mile. As we started on our way, a young woman approached us, and
told us to wait. There were three guys with a boat shuttling people to safety. So, we
waited.
And while we waited, we witnessed people who were using their gifts and their skills to
address specific needs, in service of others. That young girl? She lived in a second-story
apartment nearby, and after watching cars continuing to drive into the dangerous floodwaters,
she put on a raincoat, walked out into the storm, and for two days waved cars away from
the deep water.
The three young men who took us to our friend had taken their bass boat out of storage and
opened their own ferry service to help. And a restaurant owner who showed up to check
on his cafe, instead of returning to the security of his home, opened his restaurant to the
volunteers, giving them free coffee and water and a place to warm up.
Each of these people took a moment to consider what they had to offer, and then, without
hesitation, simply helped. But they helped with specificity.
It's human nature to ask, how can I help when someone is in a difficult situation. It's
admittedly something I have said countless times in the past. But the truth is that,
when people offered, I was in crisis, and couldn't even begin to think about what I
might need, far less consider what they might have to give.
More powerful have been the offers from people who have been specific, like the friend with
impeccable organizational skills who offered to be a single point of contact between us
and friends who wanted to donate clothing and tools to help deal with the damage to
our house, or chef friends who have offered us hot meals at the end of long days of mucking
out our house.
They have taught me that specific is more meaningful than general every time.
People face crises all the time. Heartbreak, grief and loss, these are facts of life. So,
I would challenge us all, when we're struck by the need to help a friend going through
a difficult time, that, instead of asking, how can I help, let's mine our own gifts,
talents and skills that we have been entrusted with, and instead declare: I can help you,
and here's how.
HARI SREENIVASAN: On the "NewsHour" online right now: If summer is the season for thrilling
beach reads, autumn offers the chance to delve deeply into some thought-provoking books on
politics, race and culture. We share 13 recommendations to put on your fall reading list.
That's on our Web site, PBS.org/"NewsHour."
Tune in later tonight for "Washington Week With Robert Costa."
And also tune in tomorrow for "PBS NewsHour Weekend."
And we will be back right here on Monday.
That's the "NewsHour" for tonight. I'm Hari Sreenivasan.
Have a great weekend. Thank you, and good night.
Shields and Brooks analyze Hillary Clinton's NewsHour interview News Wrap: Islamic State subway attack spurs London manhunt There's a better way to help than asking 'How can I help?' Dissecting the election, Hillary Clinton sees dangers for democracy PBS NewsHour full episode, September 14, 2017 Tucker Carlson Tonight 9/15/17 | Tucker Fox News September 15, 2017 Hillary Clinton wants to blow up the problem of sexism so that people have to confront it PBS NewsHour full episode Sept. 14, 2017 Fox & Friends First 9/15/17 | Fox News Today September 15, 2017 Parsons Green Explosion Tube Train Station at District Line London - Fulham 9/15/2017

PBS NewsHour full episode Sept. 15, 2017

Latest Posts