.. trying to keep their secrets, whether by trying to fool electronic technical collection or trying to keep us from

recruiting spies in them we need more of both and its -- and that's -- and really we should be pushing on all fronts to understand what's going on in those places. on busbee 20 in the areas of action i was talking about when we get into a country and doing something whether military force or with civil forces, you really need a lot of the technical intelligence because it has to be very precise and up to date and cross correlated and that seems to put more emphasis on intelligence and geospatial intelligence. you do want -- you do want people talking to you in those areas that seems to provide more background when it comes to an actual operation you really need something that can help you put a crosshairs on a target. so it seems to be a balance.

i don't really know just where the balance of to come out. i think we ought to continue to push -- to push the human intelligence, technical intelligence by and large is more expensive, so we have to make choices based on the budget for that and i think there's a lot of judgment involved in that and fortunately i've had a lot of good experienced people helping me to make those calls. >> [inaudible] >> i recently had a conversation with a senior intelligence defense officer and said today most of the analytic expertise for the intelligence industry reside in the industry that supports this community which has clearances, goes through the

same setting process and is held to the same level of standard as government employees is able to keep focused on the long term and that which challenges while government employees are answering questions and tailoring intelligence to policymakers. i don't know if this is true but i think we would be interested in hearing from you what your perspective is on the balance between government staff and the industry and how we can best support this community. >> five i have heard that characterization and a am trying to look to see if we have gotten the balance out of whack. it is absolutely true that there are more -- there are more policy makers, commanders tall levels, who asked for an awful lot of intelligence support and

analysts are tasked often to do them. on the other hand, i think it is a positive development to have intelligence analysts close to policy makers so they know -- they know what the requirements are. there's no use doing an eloquent piece of analysis on something that is not going to -- the united states is not going to take action on, so i know that a great deal of analysts time is being spent near-term questions. that is not all bad. the question though preserving the corev expertise on areas you only developed by working on for years is also -- is also important. the sort of difference between analytical skills and expertise.

i think it is true the intelligence community realize a great deal for its expertise on going outside the intelligence community think tanks, academia, and yes -- yes, contractors. i am not sure that is all bad as long as we keep contact -- to contact with the world, keep current says current and we can bring them in. a typical example our national intelligence estimates, the premier intelligence community judgments on major and important topics for virtually all of those we sent them to a group of sight readers after the government does its work and these are eckert experts in the field who do spend their whole life worrying about just that one country or that one group and then we take that on board

and included in the group. i think it is true we probably don't have too many analysts who have quit that level of expertise on the subject but if we can get to it and maybe that is not -- maybe that is not so bad. when i -- during the time i spent outside of government i got to know more of these outside experts, and by and large from outside their experience with intelligence community was one of mutual respect. it wasn't that they had all the expertise and work just rookies writing papers. they were in the intelligence community, serious analysts. they could call on a wide group of outsiders, so i think that's probably okay. it might be nice if we had more of those in the government and we could maintain whose job it was too low pour, long term trend without having to provide

current intelligence, but i think given the demands we have and legitimate demands we have to go to the outsiders. i think almost all of the outside experts we call on our happy to help and willing to contribute their expertise. they tell us where we are wrong and reinforce where we are right so i think it is a pretty healthy relationship, and it's worth taking a look at but isn't one of my top concerns right now. >> one more. >> stay right there. >> [inaudible] -- matter of national security, in particular our debtors, china. >> i'm sorry, at what point does

-- >> does it become national security. you made reference the treasury's when-issued and intelligence community is another. at what point does the amount, the interaction with our debtors sort of get to your point of concern? >> it seems the united states and china if that is what you are talking about are in sort of a mutually dependent area and it's hard to tell where the leverage is in that relationship. it is certainly not strongly on the chinese side or on the american side. and in fact, i think it is in a way is probably causing them, us

and the chinese ways of cooperating rather than using financial jujitsu against each other. if certainly that is the pattern that i seem to see in our relations with china. i was at the shangri-la of dialogue and had a long conversation with the chinese counterpart and most of that conversation was about mutual concern, not about checking the size of each other's biceps and then try to figure out who would win if we got in an arm wrestling contest. so i think in that particular -- in that particular case it's leading to sort of concentration on things we can do to get there. it's not to say the smart economists and government leaders on both sides are not trying to figure out how they can become less dependent and

minimize some of those risks. it just seems the way it is playing out right now is it is forcing us to look at other things. let me then finish up by saying it has been a fast for months on the job as dni and a discreet see friends who can understand just how fast that time goes and i think that we are -- i think we are moving along well, those of you that left the community can be proud where it is and you probably know we are voted one of the top places to work in the federal government recently and as i mentioned i think that is a great accomplishment given the character and the newness of the work force. there's the young people that joined after 1911 for the right reasons and are in there because they want to be, and i think that working in the national security area and intelligence

communities in particular is becoming something that's a noble and these lawyers and we are all proud of. so we are happy that its being fault of in that light. and there are a few of us with gray hair and a lot of young ones who've come in and we can put it together a way the country can be proud of and we will do important work for the country. i would like to see the intelligence community and those that work and it have the same support by the country that is enjoyed by the armed forces and others who serve their country or firefighters or policemen, and i think they should be. they can't always tell -- they can't always tell their story that it's a proud story, dedicated people and the american people can be awfully proud of. and those of you who have association with the community i think can appreciate that and the party play in supporting us

is extremely important and i think that you can think of yourselves as part of this team doing the right thing for america and that we all ought to be proud of and can share. thank you very much and it is a pleasure to be with you. [applause] >> thank you for coming and i look forward to seeing you on the 30th of june for the baker award where senator warren will be the awardee. thank you and have a good evening. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] how is c-span funded? private donations. the tax payers. i don't really know. from public television

donations. i don't know where the money comes from. federally. contributions from donors. >> how is c-span's fonted? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. now the daughter of former vice president dick cheney, lynne cheney hosted by the clare boothe luce policy institute in washington. this is just over 30 minutes. >> each year at the seminar we present the conservative leadership award to one woman who's shown exceptional leadership and commitment to promoting conservative values. we are honored this year to present the award to elizabeth cheney, who goes by liz. liz cheney is the left's worst nightmare. smart, articulate and a conservative woman and she is one of the few leaders in this

country who is not afraid to stand up to the obama administration on critical issues like our national security. mrs. cheney is an attorney and specialist in u.s. middle east policy and recently served as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for them at least affairs. in this capacity she was the second ranking state department official responsible for u.s. policy in the middle east. she practiced law and the international of international product finance and served on assignment with international finance corporation where she provided legal led vice on investments in the middle east and central asia. from 1989 to 1993 mrs. cheney served at the department of state the agency for international development. during the 2000 and 24 campaigns she managed vice presidential debate preparation and served as national sarah get for the bush-cheney campaign. she's currently collaborating

with her father, vice president cheney on his memoirs covering 40 years of his career in washington. she earned her degree from university of chicago and bachelor's degree from colorado college. like our organizations namesake, clare boothe luce, liz cheney is a very accomplished woman, expert in the area of foreign affairs and middle eastern affairs but she has one other important role on her resonate. she is also a wife and the mother of five children one of whom is with us today. liz cheney has the qualities that make great conservative women leaders love of country commitment to family and brave defenders of conservative principles. and you know, buy standing still firmly, liz, you inspire all conservatives to be courageous and feisty and not to back off when we know we are right but it might be easier to back down. many liberals do all they can to silence women like liz jeannie

but at the clare boothe luce policy institute we are eager to on our leaders like liz cheney and so we want to recognize her today. she is a leader like clare boothe luce preus beautiful persuasive and principled. for standing up and defending all that makes our nation unique and special week like to get you the special award the clare boothe luce policy institute's 2009 leadership award with grateful thanks. [applause] >> while, thank you very much, michele and it is an honor for me to be here and to see so many young people in the audience. i did bring my daughter,

elizabeth, with me. we believe in the cheney family cannot start politics or fly-fishing too early and i am proud to say elizabeth accomplished both pursuits and is also here today because she got to leave school early so we should make note of that but it's special for me to be honored by the clare boothe luce policy institute and i have many years followed the work the institute does and i think there's nothing more important any group can do and mentor young people particularly focusing on young women. as meshaal mentioned i've worked the past many years issues relating to the middle east and had a chance to spend time with young women in the middle east and i am always coming away so inspired by their dedication and commitment to change their society, to change the future and bring their nation into the 21st century and i think that you all in the room today have the same potential to be the leaders of the future so i can't

tell what an honor it is to be here with you. i think it's become fashionable in some quarters to sort of talk about the demise of conservatism , and i think if you ask some folks they would say the movement is near death but one of the things i want to do today with all of you is telling you nothing could be further from the truth. that as young conservative leaders who are living in a moment of tremendous import for the movement and also for the nation and you will have the opportunity over the coming years to make a difference and i know you will grab that opportunity. in the first few months now of president obama presidency we have learned much. i think many of us hope as he was elected and sworn in that he would be a moderate, but we've learned the past several months he will not governor from the center. we've also learned as we have seen on his last two trips he

isn't a strong defender of american exceptional as some and believes there's a moral equivalence in areas of foreign policy including between the united states for example and iran. he wants to expand federal government so that it permeates every nook and cranny of our daily lives and he's going to raise our taxes. he thinks bureaucrats ought to choose our doctors and prescribed medical care and i believe the american people will quickly grow weary of a set of policies that are to paraphrase president obama, quote, so contrary to american ideals. i believe we as conservatives have an obligation to make sure the administration is held accountable when it takes us down a dangerous path and i want to talking moment this afternoon about two areas in particular where we've seen troubling developments and those are in the areas of foreign policy and national security. in his first days in office as you all i am sure followed in

the news president obama announced he would close the detention facility at guantanamo bay where we are holding terrorists. he suggested a number of the terrorists be brought to the united states and his director of national the intelligence went so far as to say in number would have to be released in the united states and we would have to use taxpayer dollars to put together some some sort of welfare program, terrorist reentry program. then president obama released documents over the objection of his own cia director and former cia directors that detailed the specific techniques we use an average enhanced in turkish a program to get information from terrorists. next he suggested he is open to the prosecution of bush administration officials who were involved in the program. finally he refused to release any information about the attacks prevented or the lives that were saved because of the program. when his own director of national intelligence put

together a memo for internal distribution about the program, he praised it. he praised the effectiveness of the program and he praised the fact terrorist attacks had been prevented. president obama's white house attitude that in the memo before they released it to the public. today, many weeks later, the president still won't let you, the american people, see the documents that show how effective this program was. last week in this very building, the house intelligence committee took up this issue, and according to news reports, the hill newspaper was one example, following a detailed briefing on the enhanced interrogation program republican members said they were briefed the program worked and terrorist attacks were prevented because is that a vote wax democrats on the committee again moved to cover the information and prevent the american people from hearing the truth.

why don't they want us to know the truth? why won't they released the memo? i think it is because they know the american people believe enhanced interrogation is justified to save american lives and because of the american people get to see the evidence that this program did save lives and prevent attacks they will want to know how the president could have cavalierly released the details of the program publicly. they will ask how can he justify putting that information in the hands of terrorists? president obama says and he said in his speech at the national archives he didn't harm national security by releasing the information because he assured he would never use these techniques. really, never? he needs to be asked directly, mr. president, and a ticking time bombs and area with american lives at stake are you on a willing to subject a terrorist to tough treatment if it would get information that would prevent an attack on the

homeland? is it really your position, mr. president, you would sacrifice american lives rather than used illegal methods we know worked that can get information to save those lives? i think the american people deserve to know the answer to that question. instead the president has taken to a accusing us of abandoning of values or as he said in egypt last week the fear and anger caused by 1911, quote, lead us to act contrary to american ideals. the line that got him up walls in cairo but a trail in my opinion when he said it there and the trail when he says it here. it is a trail of the brave men and women who kept us safe since 9/11 policy. this has become open and his

months of administration. faced with a difficult issue rather than take a stand president obama attempted to set himself above the debate to see merit in both sides of the argument and act as a moderator or mediator to find common ground. so on the issue of iran for example the president apologized for america's role supporting eckert to over 50 years ago and said iran has also done bad things such as, quote, hostage taking and violence against troops equivalence between these actions. he described the horrors of the holocaust, the murder of 6 million jews and then said, quote, on the other hand it's undeniable the palestinians suffered in pursuit of homeland. while i understand there are two different narrative's involved in the peace process there is simply no justification for suggesting equivalence between genocide and dislocation. the president went on to say

america could never tolerate violence by extremists. but then he said, quote, he altered our principles in response to that violence suggested in essence our response was as great a problem for america as were the attacks. this isn't just a study and rhetoric. these are not just words. this is failure to understand the damage done to america when an american president repeats the fault of the critics. in a widely viewed interview last week and i recommend this if you haven't seen it, evan thomas, senior newsweek editor and renowned historian was talking about president obama's world role versus reagan and evan thomas said this, i am going to quote, reagan was all about america. and he talked about it. obama as we are above that now. we are not just provoke deal, we are not just chauvinistic or provincial. we stand for something.

i mean, in a way obama is standing above the country and above the world. he is sort of god. we will come back to the god part in a minute. i know it's stunning and difficult to set aside but let's look for a minute the rest of what evan thomas said. he said president obama standing above the country, the world, he's telling the stuff president reagan did to protect the country no matter where he went is according to evan thomas, provincial, perlo keel and chauvinistic. we are better and more sophisticated than that, he seems to think. if this was just "newsweek" making this point we could ignore it. but now listen to this line from president obama's speech last week. he said, quote, in the world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. in other words, if we want to succeed, we have to stop believing in acting as though

america is in fact the best nation on earth. compromise is the new currency including issues critical to our national interest. and president obama will stand above it all because he represents not just american interests but global interests. but here's the truth. effective diplomacy is not about triangulation. the president is not an international arbitrator. the purpose of diplomacy is not to be liked and purpose of foreign policy is not to get up walls and foreign capital. the purpose having a commander in chief and pursuing america's national security policy is to defend america's interest aggressively, effectively and unapologetically. if the american president doesn't do this, then who will? one man who did it do this as f-ing thomas pointed out was ronald reagan. and i want you to listen to this contrast because it's interesting. listen to the language.

in 198722 years ago this week president reagan went to berlin and challenged the adversary the soviet union to take a step that would demonstrate they were serious about peace. he challenged them to do more than just talk. he stood in front of the berlin wall that separated the free world from the communist bloc and president reagan said, quote, general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union and eastern europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this date. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. last week in france president obama took a different approach. he demanded nothing of our current adversary, iran. he challenged them to do nothing saying instead, quote, we are ready for direct negotiations with the iranians on the whole range of issues without preconditions in an atmosphere of mutual respect.