cheney. we went to recognize her today. she is a leader like clare boothe luce policy institute, beautiful, persuasive and principal. for standing up and defend what makes our nation special, we would like to give you this special award, a n e clare boothe luce policy institute 2009 leadership award. .. daughter, elizabeth, with me. we believe in the chaney family that you can never start either politics or fly fishing too early.

[laughter] >> and i'm proud to say elizabeth is accomplished at both pursuits and she's also here today because she got to leave school early. we should make note of that. but it really is very special for me to be honored by the clare boothe luce institute. i think there's nothing more important than to mentor young people and particularly focusing on young women. as michelle mentioned i've worked for the past many years on issues relating to the middle east and have had the chance to spend time with young women in the middle east and i always come away so inspired by their dedication by their desire to change the future and to bring their nations into the 21st century and i think you all today have the same potential to be the leaders of the future. so i can't tell you what an honor it is for me 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, you know, if you ask some folks they would even say the movement is near death. but one of the things i wanted to do today with all of you is tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. that you as young conservative leaders really are living at a moment of tremendous import for the movement and also for the nation. and that you'll have the opportunity over the coming years to make a real difference and i know that you will grab at that opportunity. in the first few months now of president obama's presidency, we have actually learned much. i think many of us hoped as he was elected and sworn in that he would be a moderate. but we have learned in the past several months that he, in fact, will not govern from the center. we've also learned as we've seen on his last two foreign trips he's not a strong defender of american exceptionalism. he leaves that there's a moral

equivalence in many areas of foreign policy including between the united states, for example, and iran. he wants to expand the federal government so that it permeates every nook and cranny of our daily lives. he's going to raise your taxes. he thinks bureaucrats ought to choose our doctors and prescribe our medical care. and i believe that 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 that we as conservatives have an obligation to make sure that the administration is held accountable when it takes us down a dangerous path. and i want to talk for just a moment this afternoon about two areas in particular where we've seen some troubling developments and those are in the areas of foreign policy and national security. in his first days in office as you all i'm sure followed on the news president obama announced that he would close the detention facility at guantanamo bay where we're holding hardened

terrorists. he suggested that a number of those terrorists would be brought to the united states and his director of national intelligence even went so far as to say that a number of them would have to be released in the united states and that we would have to use taxpayer dollars to put together some sort of a welfare program, a terrorist reentry, excuse me, program. then president obama released documents over the objection of his own cia director and four former cia directors that detailed the specific techniques that we used in our enhanced interrogation program to get information from terrorists. next, he suggested that he was open to the prosecution of bush administration officials who'd been involved in the program. finally, he refused to release any information about the attacks that were 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 that terrorist attacks had been prevented. but president obama's white house edited out that reference of the memo before they released it to the public. today, many weeks later, the president still won't let you, won't let 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 the reports, the hill newspaper was one example following a detailed briefing on the interrogation program were briefed that they worked -- is that a vote. they moved to cover up the information and prehaven't the american people from hearing the truth. why don't they want us to know the truth? why won't they release the memos? i think it's because they know the american people believe that

enhanced interrogation is justified to save american lives. and because if the american people to get to see the evidence that this program did save lives and prevent attacks they will want to know how the president so cavalierly released the program. how can he justify putting that information in the hands of terrorists. now, president obama says and he said in his speech at the national archives that he didn't harm national security by releasing this information. because he asserts he will never again use these techniques. really? never? he needs to be asked directly, mr. president, in a ticking time bomb scenario with american lives at stake, are you really unwilling 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, that you would sacrifice american lives rather than use legal methods that we

know work to get information that can save those lives. i think the american people deserve to know the answer to that question. instead, the president has taken to accusing us of abandoning our values. or as he said in egypt last week, the fear and the anger that was caused by 9/11, quote, led us to act contrary to american ideals. it's a line that got him applause in cairo but it was a betrayal in my opinion when he said it there and it's a betrayal when he says it here. it's a betrayal of the brave men and women who have kept us safe since 9/11. they deserve our gratitude and our thanks. they do not deserve to be libeled by the president on foreign sale. we saw the president on the one hand, and on the other hand approach to foreign policy. this approach has become somewhat familiar in the opening months of his administration. faced with a difficult issue rather than take a stand, president obama has attempted to

set himself above the debate. to see merit in both sides of the argument. and to act as a moderator and a mediator trying to find common ground. so on the issue of iran, for example, the president apologized for america's role in supporting a coup over 50 years ago. then he said iran has also done bad things such as, quote, hostage-taking and violence against u.s. troops, end quote. as though there were moral equivalence between these two sets of 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 that the palestinians have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. now, while i fully understand that there are two different narratives involved in the peace process, there's simply no justification for suggesting an equivalence between genocide and dislocation. the president went on to say that america could never tolerate violence by extremists. but then he said we had, quote, altered our principles in

response to that violence. suggesting, in essence, that our response was as grave a problem for america as were the attacks. this isn't just a study in rhetoric, this isn't just words. this is a failure to understand the damage that's done to america when an american president repeats the false charges of our critics. now, in a widely viewed video interview last week and i recommend this to you if you haven't seen it, evan thomas, senior "newsweek" editor and renowned historian was talking about president obama's world role versus president reagan's world role and evan thomas said this, i'm going to quote. reagan was all about america. and you talked about it. obama is, we are above that now. we are not just parochial. we are not just chauvinistic. obama is standing above the

country and above the world. he is sort of god. now, we'll come back to the god part in just a minute. i know it's stunning and it's difficult to set it aside, but let's look for just a minute at the rest of what evan thomas said. he said president obama is standing above our country, above the world. he's telling us that the stuff that president reagan did to defend the country, no matter where he went, is according to evan thomas, provincial, parochial and chauvinistic. we're better and more sophisticated than that, he seems to think. now, if this was just "newsweek" making this point, we could all ignore it. but now listen to this line from president obama's own speech last week. he said, quote, any 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 and acting as though america is, in fact, the best nation on earth. compromise is the new currency, including on issues that are 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 the purpose of foreign policy is not to get applause in foreign capitals. the purpose of having a commander in chief and of pursuing america's national security policy is to defend america's interests aagrees greatestly, effectively and unapologetically. if the american president doesn't do this then who will? one man who did do this as evan thomas pointed out was ronald reagan. and i want you to listen to this contrast because it's very interesting. listen to the language. in 1987, 22 years ago this week, president reagan went to berlin and challenged our adversary the

soviet union to take a step that would demonstrate that 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 gate. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. now, like 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 a whole range of issues without preconditions in an atmosphere of mutual respect. ronald reagan demonstrated the power of an american president standing firm for human freedom and liberty and against tyranny.

president obama is pleading with the tyrannical regime that sponsors terror and has killed americans to please talk to us. he's offering to convey a tremendous benefit to them in exchange for no cost to them. president reagan there was no moral equivalence between america and our adversary and he also knew that negotiating from a position of weakness could never secure america's national interest. after he left the middle east, president obama made an emotional and very important visit to the nazi death camp. the undeniable lesson of the horrors of any of those death camps is that evil must be recognized and confronted and defeated. that it cannot be compromised with. today, the gravest threat to the state of israel possibly a threat is a nuclear-armed iran yet president obama seems committed to do everything possible to compromise with the muleas who run iran today.

but we have to understand the reality here. iran will not be disarmed because we talked them out of their weapons or because we repeat the mistakes of the past apologizing for our support of a coup 50 years ago and failing them to hold them accountable for their ongoing support of terror. they won't be disarmed because we between we have mutual interests or because our president finds moral equivalence. iran will only be disarmed diplomatically if the policy fails. and today i fear few believe that to be the case. the challenges of iran and the middle east are just a few of the issues the president and the nation are going to face in the years to come. and it is important for us to acknowledge that when president obama makes good decisions he deserves our support. but when he gets it wrong, and when he attempts to rewrite history, then we have an obligation to stand up and say so. saying so -- and being heard may seem to pose a challenge given that "newsweek"'s view of the

divinity of the president is widespread in some corners of the media today. and as conservatives, you will be special targets for criticism. but i know that you're up to the challenge. and the good news is the mainstream media controls a smaller and smaller portion of the information our public consumes. so you have increasing opportunities to get out there and let your voice be heard in the public discourse. so let me leave you with this one admonition. to write, analyze, think, challenge, and speak. when you see something that bothers you or something that inspires you, post about it on a blog. submit an op-ed to your local paper, send an email to publications that you like and respect. there are terrific conservative magazines out there like the weekly standard and the national review and the american spectator and they are always looking for talented, smart, young contributors. there are thousands of terrific conservative websites and radio shows so you have many opportunities to fight for what you believe in and make yourself heard.

you should challenge your opponents with facts and evidence and truth and clarity and you'll find more often than not that you will prevail. you have an opportunity and an obligation to take a stand in the cause of our nation. at the end of the day, i am really optimistic about how these debates are going to be resolved. and about what the future holds for america and for conservatives. america is fundamentally a conservative nation. we know that our greatness has been founded on a strong national defense, limited government, low taxes, the genius and the ingenuity of the public sector. we know that government is more often the problem than the solution. we know that freedom isn't free. that america's armed forces are the best fighting force the world has ever known and finally, and most importantly, we believe strongly in american exceptionalism. we know that america is the best

nation on earth, the best that has ever existed. we believe in her goodness, her strength, her hope, and her example for all who seek freedom in every corner of the world. those are conservative values and those are american values. so thank you very much for the great honor to be here today and i'd be happy to take any questions people might have. [applause] >> and you guys have been sitting here for a long time so your dedication is impressive. >> hi. my name is jennifer i go to unc chapel hill. i was wondering -- you were talking about the middle east in considering where we are in afghanistan and iraq, and now pakistan, where we should prioritize ourselves in the israeli-palestine conflict? like what do you think? >> it's a very good question. you know, there's sort of been

an orthodoxy that many different people have tried to push, including some governments in the middle east. and that is this notion that we have to have peace between the israelis and the palestinians before we can pursue anything else. when i was working at the state department, i spent a lot of time working on democracy to bring market economics and empowerment of women in the middle east and very often governments would say to us, those are all really important things but we really can't do anything about it until we have peace between the israelis and the palestinians. the issue of peace is a critically important one but i think we have to understand how difficult it is now that hamas controls gaza. the palestinians' obligations in the roadmap were barely mentioned by the president in his cairo speech, you know, they have the obligation to dismantle terrorist organizations. and that is an obligation that,

you know, happens in the roadmap near the same place where the israelis are asked to stop settlement-building. but it says dismantle terrorist organizations. it doesn't just say improve security. so i think we need to work hard on this issue, but i think we need to be very clear about the fact that we aren't putting it above these other issues. and that, in fact, bringing peace between the israelis and the palestinians in my view will not resolve those -- all those other issues. we still have the issue of terrorists, radical islamic terrorists who don't believe in the things we believe in and who would like to destroy us and our way of life. and although they use that conflict as an excuse sometimes, it is not the fact that solving that conflict will bring an end to what i believe is a graver challenge and threat to the united states which is the threat of terrorism and the threat of a nuclear-armed iran. thanks.

>> ron meyer. a lot of people in the media have said that your father needs to be quiet on the issue of national security. >> they're wrong. [laughter] >> here, here, exactly. now, what i'm wondering what do you think about president bush's role in all of this. he obviously had firsthand information. he knew about what we were doing on national security and guantanamo and the techniques we were using. now shouldn't he as president of the united states be standing up and fighting for the values we believe in? >> you know, it's an interesting role that former presidents have. and i think you did hear president bush when he spoke last week, i believe, he gave a couple of speeches one in michigan and one in canada. and he did talk about how important and effective these programs were. and so i think it's a mistake to see he hasn't been out there defending them and i also think it's important to recognize that, you know, there really is a very small fraternity of former presidents. and i think that they owe obligations to each other that, you know, someone like my dad

who's not a part of that group doesn't -- doesn't have. so i understand completely president bush's decision to remain silent. i think it's just a different decision than the one that my dad has made. >> good afternoon. my name is morgan peck and i'm from the university of south dakota. i studied arabic this past year and i'm just wondering about the future of women diplomats in the middle east and sort of what challenges did you encounter in working with governments from those areas because of the situation of women in those countries? >> it's a very good question. and the answer is, i think, unexpected. i think that governments, particularly in some areas of the gulf where the women don't play the kind of role in every society that you might find in countries in north africa, they are very accustomed to american women diplomats and they're very

accustomed to american women policymakers and so in my experience, there was no difference in my ability to be effective with respect to the leadership of those countries, but i was able to be even more effective in my view because i could also get in to see the women. and whereas, you know, in a place like saudi arabia, for example, it would be very unusual -- and this is changing. the current king of saudi arabia has begun to put in place some very interesting new reforms. so we're seeing some important changes but it would be very unusual for a man who was an american diplomat who was posted at the embassy there to be able to spend time with saudi women. the women tend not to spend time with men they're not related to. so in many ways, the men -- the male diplomats would have access to less information. and, you know, i was able to do fascinating things. i attended one of the first-ever

political rallies -- it was all women in jeddah, saudi arabia in 2005 and we listened to women candidates giving speeches about why they should be elected to the governing body of the chamber of commerce in jeddah. but no man could have gone to see that and without seeing it, you're missing, you know, a big chunk of what happens in that part of the world. so i would say that being an american woman actually gives you a benefit. gives you a leg up in terms of being able to operate and fully understand some of the cultures where women have a different role. >> thank you. >> hi, thank you for being here today. i just have a question what do you think as conservatives we should be looking and focusing on for the 2010 and 2012 election? >> well, i think as bay buchanan said, you'll have a lot. i really do think that we've seen a situation where the kinds of changes this administration is trying to put in place are so

drastic that i think pretty quickly it will become evident that those fundamental values that define conservatism of, you know, government not being in control of every aspect of your life, of a strong national defense, of low taxes, of supporting the private sector as the engine of growth -- all of those issues, i think, will be challenged and are being challenged and so in my view, reminding people of what conservatives have stood for and what those values are that we believe have made not just conservatism an effective movement but has made america a great nation, i suspect that there will be a lot of independence and you're seeing this already in polls. i saw just within the last couple days a new pew poll if they were conservative or thirty and 30% said they were conservative and only 19% who said they were liberal. so people tend to identify themselves with those basic values that we believe in and i

suspect you'll have a lot of material, whether it's domestic economic issues or the healthcare battle that we're about to wage, whether it's national security where you'll be able to tell people, look, america shouldn't go down this dangerous path that is making us into something that we never intended to be but we ought to stay true to our values and, you know, in that way have the best chance of the success we've had in the past. >> thank you. >> hi. a lot of liberal critics criticize the handling of the occupation by your father and president bush. i was just wondering what your response is to them would be? >> it is a very complicated set of issues. i find that the people who criticize the occupation criticize a lot else as well. certainly, we made mistakes. there's just no question about that. but i think it's important to sort of set the scene of saying i believe it was the right thing to do to liberate iraq. i believe it was the right thing

to do to ensure that saddam hussein was out of power. i think that when we were in the months and years right after saddam hussein was deposed, you know, there are things we did that i probably would do differently now. i think that, you know, we had this sense that one could go into a nation like iraq and if you sort of either arrested or removed from office the top layer of leadership, that other iraqis would sort of rise up and take over and that it would be -- i don't think we expected the population to be so traumatized, but i think what we saw was that after decades of saddam's rule, nobody was willing to step up and take over. people waited for instruction for everything. and that -- that trauma was also exacerbated, i think, at the end of the first gulf war when we didn't support the shia when

they he rose up and when we allowed saddam hussein to continue to fly his helicopters and use those helicopters to put down the uprisings. i think there were a lot of people who were suspicious about whether america would be there for them, you know, if they did stand up. so it was by no means perfect but i think that we have done a huge service for humanity, a huge service for security, a huge service for the middle east, for the people of iraq, and i expect that, you know, as the years pass here, you'll see increasingly that iraq becomes an example of, you know, frankly the kind of democrat secure nation that president obama talked about wanting when he was in his speech in cairo this week. thanks. >> hello, i'm from yale university. you don't see any similarities between george w. bush and barack obama but something that

i see that is continuing is president obama's covert war in the eastern tribal areas of pakistan. and how that's affecting the war on terrorism right now because the front -- it really is moving from iraq to afghanistan but with -- i mean, with what the soviet union tried to do in the 1980s and really not being able to stop the mujahedeen and the supplies coming in from pakistan and alongside with unfriendly iran to the west with a porous border and them supplying the -- you know, the insurgents there too along with the drug problems within afghanistan. so what could president obama do besides continuing what president bush did. we can't allow afghanistan to fall again. >> yeah. no, i agree. i think you have to go back and look at the very significant differences between the way the soviets attempted to pacify, to

defeat the sovereign satisfying government and the way we tried to liberate the country both in terms of method of operation and also the difference in objective. based on what i read in the news which is my source is this it looks like president obama has understood the important efforts that were underway in the tribal areas and that, you know, despite some campaign rhetoric that criticized us for what we were doing but, in fact, in other instances president obama during the campaign talked about the importance of at times needing to make sure that -- i can't remember the words he used. i think he talked about cross-borders incursion in pakistan when necessary to defeat terrorism. so i think you're seeing some continuity there and i don't think you hear much about it because in some ways it's a little bit inconvenient for the current administration to admit that, in fact, t