no complaints here, right? you give your all and ask very little in return, only that we back you up so our troops can do their job. that's why my husband and his administration have worked to do right by our armed forces and their families. ..

increase dawa major increases in funding for the veterans' health care including women veterans, plus the largest increase in fee fi a budget in more than 30 years and that is something i am especially proud of that we just talked about at the table. the president worked with the congress to extend the family and medical leave act who are medical families and caregivers of wounded warrior is because just like other americans our military spouses need to care for their loved ones without

fear of losing their jobs. this commitment to our forces and their families continues today. and i'm happy to announce the president's 2011 budget that he will introduce next week will further increase funding for military family support programs by more than 3% to a record $8.8 billion. and this increase is going to include funds for counseling and support for spouses and families, including the guard and reserve families to the tune of $1.9 billion. it includes 1.3 billion reduced shortages in military child care and to keep our military child care among the best this country has to offer. that's something i got to see because we can't forget military kids also served in their own special way. we can't forget these kids. they are just like any other child in this country except for the fact that their lives are

turned upside down every time there mom or dad has to go halfway across the country risking their lives so that all our children can enjoy the freedoms of democracy it was incredibly hard for these kids as a result the often experience more anxiety they can have a harder time focusing in school, they can have a higher risk of depression so we can never forget just how much these war affect our military kids. and we all have an obligation to ensure that these kids have the support they need at home and at school. so i am proud to announce this year's budget will include more money for youth programs for military kids and then at the direction of secretary gates the budget will also include funds to improve and build new schools from georgia to germany and this is all part of a major effort --

[applause] this is part of a major effort over the next five years to renovate or replace more than half of our schools which will benefit tens of dozens of children from military families. in response to one of the top concerns expressed by military spouses this year's budget will also include $84 million for spousal career development including tuition assistance and federal internship programs. [applause] and i want to thank all of the coast guard spouses who spoke to me about housing challenges. yes. [laughter] as a result the president's budget will include $14 million of new funding for quality coast guard housing and i know that's a big one. [applause]

these are all major investments and they are the result of military families speaking up and being heard and they are part of a larger ongoing commitment to care for our troops and their families even after the fighting ends. but in addition to good government and funding supporting our troops and their families requires active citizens. that's why i've made it a priority to keep asking all americans to join the cause of supporting our military families. and that is why last veterans day jill and i helped launch missions serve, and national network that brings civilian and military service groups together to help support our troops and families. but this network also encourages communities to tap that incredible spirit of service of our military families as well as the talents of our veterans.

we are asking americans to engage and support military families anyway they can from business owners helping veterans and military spouses find a job or develop skills to professionals in areas such as mental health and law offering services pro bono to ordinary folks out there doing simple things like driving a car pool or offering to babysit for making a home cooked meal for military family in their own community. our men and women in uniform and their families sacrificed every single one of costs so every single one of us can do something in return. even if it's something as simple as saying thank you. last spring i had the opportunity to thank one of those military families during a visit to the white house. staff sergeant robert was deployed to baghdad with the

82nd airborne division out of fort bragg when a massive explosion destroyed his humvee and he was the sole survivor and suffered terrible burns over more than one-third of his body. welcome back at fort bragg his wife, connie, have to leave their three kids with family and she made the trip to a hospital in texas to care for her husband. so day after day and month after month connie stayed by his bedside and she fed him and tended to his wounds, helped him through dozens of painful surgery's, and that is one story, part of the story because back at home their oldest daughter, brittany, helped to hold the family together and overnight she went from being a 15 year old teenager to imam to become a mother for her younger brother and sister. she had to get her driver's license early so she could run errands and do the shopping. she made the meals.

she did the laundry. she help with homework. yes, a 15 year old. and i might, her younger siblings would call in to break me's bid and seek the security they would get from their mother. so when operation home front named brittany their military child of the year the president and i were honored to welcome the whole family to the white house. the father who had endured such horrible injuries, the wife who never left his bedside and bring me, the daughter who grew up faster than she ever planned. when a reporter asked brick me how a teenager could take on so much responsibility she did what he will do. she didn't speak of herself, but she spoke of her younger brother and sister and she said simply needed me. and my priorities changed. my family came first. so, you see, that is the strength and spirit and courage

our military families display every single day. you put your own priorities aside and to take care of one another and to take care of this nation. so as first lady i cannot thank you all enough for the sacrifice and i promise you that i will use every ounce of my energy and being to make sure that america always takes care of you. thank you. thank you so much for having me here and have some wine. [applause] >> i'm claudia and i any coastie

wife. i'm here to thank michelle obama for everything she's done it for coming to the luncheon and having food with us and sharing her support for all military families. and we want to give her a token of our appreciation, that is military chocolate's with each of the flight service emblems included. >> we have to hide this from my staff. [applause] i think i speak for everyone here we are truly awe if you. thank you so much. you are just beautiful. [applause] ♪

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] amol conversations [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

gave a failing grade in bioterrorism. the commission presented its findings at this event from the national press club in washington. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning. first we will ask you to turn of sophos or at least put them on beep. i am the director of the commission on the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. our chairman, senator bob gramm and vice chairman senator jim

talent will first provide an overview of the report card dewaal half. we will then have some brief remarks from carey who is representing the results of 9/11 and will have to lead back for another hearing of on the hill. and the will of time for q&a after that, so mr. chairman, the floor is yours. >> thank you for a much, mr. kroll larson and for the great leadership that you've provided over this past year. we have started the day with breakfast with families of 9/11. in many ways they are responsible not only for our commission but for the 9/11 commission. it was their emphasis of the importance of understanding what happened in order to prepare america to avoid a repetition that led to the creation of the 9/11 commission. one of the findings of the 9/11

commission was the ultimate threat to the united states was when the worst weapons fell into the hands of the worst people. that led congress to create our commission to evaluate what is our level of preparation to avoid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly into the hands of terrorists. so it was appropriate that we started the day by giving back to the beginnings of this effort with families 9/11. our report on today comes eight years after 9/11. it comes one year after the publication of the report which was entitled world at risk, purposefully titled to indicate this is not one nation's problem, this is a global problem because it is the earth which is at risk, and one month

after the failed attempt at an aviation bombing on christmas day there is some good news. the good news is particularly in the area of nuclear terrorism that the trend lines here seem to be running in the right direction. president obama has taken major steps to revitalize the non-proliferation regime and to encourage needed international cooperation. he's committed significant time and energy and resources against iran, north korea and in the pakistan situation although progress there remains loose. but our fundamental threat assessment of 14 months ago stands to today. one is it is more likely than not under the current circumstances and without decisive and urgent commitment that there will be a weapon of mass destruction used by a

terrorist organization some place on earth between now and if the end of 2013. what that says is the accused more than 20% of the time available to us to better prepare to prevent or respond to that attack and with mixed results in terms of how well we have used those 14 months. we found second it is more likely the form of attack will be a biological rather than nuclear attack. there is an article in today's "washington post" which discusses a report issued by one of america's eminent intelligence officers, mr. larson who was with the cia and headed the unit at the department of energy and is now at the kennedy school making

exactly the point that our greatest threat today is a biological weapon in the hands of a terrorist. we also found in december 2008 that in spite of all the things we were doing because our adversaries were moving at a faster pace than we were that we were losing ground. i'm afraid that we would restate that same finding today that we have lost ground and the last 14 months because our adversaries commitment to acquiring a weapon of mass destruction, the ability to do so, and the organizational changes which have made our adversary particularly al qaeda a more nimble and effective opponent have grown. in our report card, we gave

three a grades. we gave an a to the administration's review of domestic programs to secure a dangerous pathogens. we gave an a to the interagency by yo forensic strategy which is a strategy designed to allow us if we are attacked to know from whom that attack was launched. and the administration received an "a" for finalizing the reorganization of the national security council, which brought together to disparate groups into a single and we think more effective entity. the was worth three "a's." i'm going to focus on her feet "f" we gave. the first was on the area of bioterrorism preparation. our basic finding is that while

with nuclear prevention by lockdown is a reasonable strategy. we know it with intolerance is how many nuclear weapons there are in the world. we know where they are and now the challenge is to assure ourselves the are being well secured. with a biological, none of those things apply. biological weapons in many cases are the product of nature, anthrax is the result of the de cable lines. many of those that durham ann curry it has become increasingly [inaudible] -- deals with the biological sciences to with the negative these pathogens. we believe the strategy that has the greatest potential is a strategy of the ability to respond. to reduce the impact of such an

attack, and even as a deterrence to the attack. in terms of the deterrence, our adversaries are only going to have a limited number of biological weapons. al qaeda will no doubt look to where it can accomplish its objectives. chaos, mass panic, high level of death and will use those weapons against those targets it considers to be the least well prepared. so one of the ways you can most effectively detour and attacked is to be high on that list of capacity to respond. also if you are attacked if you are well prepared to have the ability to reduce the number of debt. there may be thousands killed but there will not be tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed if you have made the investment in the appropriate

response. b.c. response is being analogous to a chain with about a half-dozen links beginning with surveillance, knowing that you actually are under attack. diagnosis, what is the nature of the attack, communication, letting the first responders no the nature of the attack, having in place the therapeutics required to respond to the attack. triage the people who have been affected so that you are providing appropriate medical services based on the condition of the individuals, and at the end of the process particularly with anthrax a cleanup. we know how long and how expensive the cleanup of a few buildings in this city turned out to be in late 2001. we are talking about a whole city that would have to be cleaned up after a potential

anthrax attack. we believe we are inadequately prepared in every one of these links and the time is increasingly short to with a major national effort, and i use the word national to indicate at the federal, state, local and citizen level to strengthen our capacity and respond to a biological attack. these are not something costs if we are fortunate enough to avoid a biological attack because the same capabilities here are what we would need in an attack by nature itself. we learned some important worth to legal lessons during h1n1 one of which was we are not prepared to develop vaccines in the quantity and in the timeframe necessary to respond to an attack by nature. we hit six months to get ready for h1n1 and zero time to get ready for a terrorist attack.

so we get our efforts and "f" and i hope i will be a stinging indictment and message to our national leaders. we also gave an "f" to the congress. the 9/11 commission has now for six years been urging congressional reform so that they could do a better job of all surprising, appropriating some allocating resources and overseeing with the executive agencies are doing. we do not believe that conagra's is totally organized in a manner to do that in fact it's organized in a manner that will almost inevitably result dysfunctional behavior as it relates to this activity. and if the third "f" goes to a critical error and that is human-resources. across the national security institutions, intelligence, the

military, our scientific laboratories we are seeing massive retirements of baby boomers who spent their lives understanding the nature of the challenges preparing us to respond. we have not developed a system that will bring in to those services people who are prepared, trained to expeditiously move into positions of responsibility. the former head of the cia and the national security agency said once they have hired a bright young bachelors degree graduate into one of the intelligence agencies it takes five years before they can be effective in the regions of the world where we most need assistance because of the difficulty of mastering the language is that are necessary to be an effective intelligence officer.

we think that is another area which there has been woefully little action to the great disadvantage of the united states. we believe in the year ahead of these three "f" grades are all susceptible to a considerable improvement after is a new level of awareness of their importance and a commitment at both the administration and the congressional branches of government to do so. finally, a word on citizens and community preparedness. i spent several weeks this summer in england talking to a number of their national security officials and a recurring theme was that there had never been in the history of the united kingdom a terrorist attack that was disrupted without significant citizen involvement in that effect

disruption. we need to elevate our citizens in a variety of areas to be allowed to play a similar central role in our protection. we intend for that to be a major area of activity of an organization that i will discuss later in this conference. i would like next to introduce my good friend and i think an example of that democrats and republicans can work well together if they will put aside partisanship and focus on what is in the public interest jim and i have had an outstanding relationship and i appreciate his professionalism and his friendship. >> thank you. he's done a great job leading this commission through some difficult times with initial report and then in this report card i always tell people

senator gramm and i have an advantage that doesn't always exist and capitol hill. he's an all my on the university of florida and so was my wife and once a gator always a gator is we have a connection there. just a couple of comments. we know the story in "the washington post" that was written on page two today is very timely and it emphasizes what everybody in the intelligence community knows which is that the terrorists are actively trying to get weapons of mass destruction. it makes perfect sense in terms of their theory of this conflict against loss. they are trying to hit as hard as they can with the strongest asymmetrical weapons they can get and we found in our report the attack would more likely be a body a weapon because that is easier to weapon is and stockpile and a couple of weeks after we issued the report in the late fall of 08 then director of national intelligence agree with it publicly and every respect.

so, we know they are trying to do this and we know that it was preferred. now the good news is this is something that we can deal with on our own. one of the difficulties with these issues is they require a lot of international cooperation and they take a long time. we can prepare for a bayh attack on our own as a nation and we know what we need to public health exercises even as big as this one is something we know how to do and get anybody who studies this will tell you that we are basically nowhere on biopreparation and we are not where we need to be in any of these links and so the question is why. and we've studied this we think it is a couple of things. one is to contrast this and nuclear we have known that nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction for a long time the nuclear age began with a nuclear explosion and there is a number of people in government,

out of government who have made a career out of studying how to deal with this, there's organizations that vote on this and have been 50 or 60 years when you get a new administration and congress there are people who hit the ground running because there's a national institution comment on the other side that doesn't exist on the biocide. even in the life science comes to having to raise awareness the biological pathogens can be used as a weapon of mass destruction and then this is unfortunate theory of the government where the decision making and the sick is branch and the legislative branch is the most fragmented. there isn't a sense of accountability. there are over two dozen people in the executive branch. presidential nominated senate confirmed who have responsibility for parts of the biopreparation job. none of them do it full time. the national security council there is no senior level political appointee who has experienced primarily in the bioarea. that is a step back from the west administration but we say

in the report the last two administrations, clinton and bush the same way they hit the ground fast on the nuclear and had to learn on bio. by the end of the woodring a lot better and now unfortunately we are seeing the same thing with this administration and i said almost a year ago you need to put somebody in charge of this and catalyze the process we need a senior level political attention to this because it isn't going to happen on its own for the reasons i've indicated. the other problem is about preparation is not as obvious the federal responsibility, it is also state and local and so you have that additional fragmentation that has to be overcome so it can be needs to be but right now we are not there and an element of thing, government 101 some things are not being done. we are not on the programs that have been set up to stockpile the countermeasures. they are funded by 10% what we need to and they try to rate to from a different program. all again because of these issues we've discussed.

there is a bill we recommended congress pass legislation to reform and unified regulation of laboratories that handle select agents. one committee and one house of congress took this up and ran with it, senator lieberman and senator collins. it house doesn't even have the companion bill and we can go on and on about the issues in this area that is the reason for the great and we are hopeful people will respond and are rather confident you will see a surge in activity but if we don't change this basic approach if we don't change the way the decisions are made in the government i'm concerned we will see a surge of activity in response to this and then slicing off again over time. >> thank you. carie lemack founded the families of september 11th -- her mother was murdered on american airlines. since been working alongside the other 9/11 families she has in sure what happened to her mother

and nearly 5,000 others will never happen again. she recently co-founded an internationalrganization of terrorist kunkel global survivors' network to help victims of terror speak out against terrorism. carie. you can sit by senter gramm. >> good morning. my name is carie lemack, and i just want to offer my thanks and gratitude to these fine public servants have gone far beyond where the need to go with this commission, beyond its congressional mandate and to continue to focus on these important issues. i want to offer my thanks to you and your staff for doing this and then hopefully continuing to go and i brought a picture of my mom. this is judy to get a couple of weeks before she was told on september 11th.

she was with family in canada when this was taken and she was just about to celebrate her 51st birthday. she would have been 51 and october of 2001. and i understand you are seeing why are we talking about 9/11? i think it is because luckily, thankfully there are not other victims today to speak here today. we are grateful for that especially with what happened a month and a day ago. but the fact we don't of their victims year doesn't mean we shouldn't be listening to the victims would say which is this needs to be a top priority. my nephew called, my mom's first grandson she never got to meet was born two days before the intelligence reform act was passed or signed into law since he is now five and he asks what happened to grant more and we have to explain to him why he never got to meet his grandmother and try to explain to him what is still going on and what i'm doing talking about these very strange things like what is a wmd. of course comes full circle because he had to get his h1n1

vaccine this fall. so on behalf of my first nephew and niece and my second nephew and my mom and my family, i want to do everything i can and all of the 9/11 families want to do all we can to honor our loved ones which means making sure it doesn't happen again and sat with the threat is still there. we know that bin laden has received to kill 4 million americans. we know that he has claimed to be looking for a nuclear bomb. he had a tape recently released that says he's still out there and the threat is incredibly real. and when we look at this report card and i very glad to see that there are always there and we are glad to see the progress. but suddenly there are three "fs" and tease and seize and it's been too long and we need to improve those grades. i'm particularly concerned wise to the fact that congress has not overhauled its own oversight and we still have dozens of agencies trying to manage the

homeland security and intelligence process and it is on manageable. so we are looking for which a working with senators gramm and their staff to make sure as a nation we are focused on what our threats are and we emphasize where the priorities need to be. thank you for being here and for this informative report, and hopefully we will improve those grades. thank you. [applause] >> carie is headed to the hill for a hearing now on homeland security. >> the commitment of carie and her other friends and colleagues in this effort has been phenomenal as witnessed by the fact that today they are joining congressman hamilton and governor kaine as to make the presentation for a senate committee on precisely this issue and need for congress to reorganize itself in order to be

more effective in providing its essentials oversight of our national security activities. are there any questions or comments? >> may i ask first of all that your questions be in the form of a question and not a lecture or political statement? we ask you stand and be recognized and sarah will bring a lighter one. give your name and organization. first question. >> from usa today. i'm wondering if i could -- 52 questions st lummis if you could talk about why you think there has not yet been an attack, bioattack, and number to call if you could talk about how you know what the threat is. i remember the commission had tremendous access to intelligence of the white don't think they got everything they wanted and i'm wondering if you could sort of describe what access you all had to read

>> on the second question i chaired the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11 and i would say that our commission has had the same level of access to intelligence that the congressional committee had, and i believe it would be comparable to that which the commission members, one of our nine members was congressman tim roemer now the united states ambassador to india and tim commented favorably as to the access and i think one of the things that gave more confidence in what we were about to recommend was its consistency with with the intelligence community assessment just a few days after we issue our report on that threat level that there would be a weapon of mass destruction or more likely than not by the end

of 2013. but the van haditha director of national intelligence may exactly the same threat assessment in the article in today's paper quoting mr. larson also confirms the assessment that we have made so i feel quite confident. >> the chairman -- bald might want to specify why he thinks there hasn't been an attack and people have different theories about this. the store today mentioned what ralph larson was saying that they were planning and in the attacks in afghanistan to the way some of the safe havens and they're seems to be an agreement that depriving them of savings to plan this important element to this. i think if you think about this in terms of how these things actually work on the ground there were tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dedicated people not just an hour different but other

governments and then just interested people. who are working to prevent this, and i think even when there are problems with systems there is a lot of good people working around those problems. so we saw again a problem with the intel system that there's an awful lot of good people in the intelligence community's here and in other countries who are working around those and so we to stop a lot of attacks. our concern is that this is like russian roulette, eventually the ball is in the chamber and it's so logical the question why we think yes we have a lot of direct intel that says we are trying to get this but it is so logical and consistent with their strategic view they are trying to strike affordable lengths using the most powerful weapons they can get and that is so much for weapons and that the intel is very logical. i would be very surprised to find out they are not trying to get this and then also remember where you can control trying to

do for an attack from a nation from the threat of retaliation they have no national base. statistical determined methods don't work with them. >> i think another factor is the basic philosophy of al qaeda which is that each attack against u.s. interests should be larger than the preceding the tax. there is evidence that an 2003 al qaeda was planning a chemical attack against subways and new york city and that that attack was stopped at the highest levels in al qaeda when they reached the conclusion that they were unsure of their ability to kill more than 3,000 people and they did not want to launch an attack less than that of 9/11. one of the disturbing things about the reorganization of al qaeda which i've described as being living from general motors to mcdonald's in terms of a

series of local entities that are affiliated with big al qaeda but increasingly are having a wide range population and i will use this recent example in the christmas of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. the apparently on their own initiative with some support by big al qaeda had planned this attack and they were prepared to do an attack would be well below 9/11, so we are now faced with an even more dangerous situation which big al qaeda is still trying to get the mass casualty attack which some of its units may be prepared to initiate a smaller attacks. >> the loss of 300 lives would be terrible tragedy and it is that smaller scale attack we may be no more susceptible to.

>> i am with cns news to read the christmas day attacked was the spoke about political correctness that perhaps were not being strong enough on identifying the people who will do these attacks whether it be biological or otherwise. can you say how congress can address that when we are trying to have a strategy to fight the people who would do harm to us? >> i don't think it was a political correctness issue. one of the many disturbing things about the christmas attack is how much we knew about the attack before. we had the author of the perpetrator come into a u.s. embassy and described the radicalization of his son to read we knew that the sun had gone to yemen through other

aspects of our intelligence. people were becoming increasingly aware of his strength as al qaeda on the arabian peninsula with its base in san. if we couldn't catch this one is an ominous example of what are we going to do when we don't have as much information as we had. i think going back to that feared "f" but we haven't done an adequate job of free equipping our intelligence agency with the human-resources the would be the most likely to identify this. the consular service which was a major area of failure in 9/11 almost every one of the hijackers had gotten a visa to enter the united states through the a u.s. embassy or consulate.

this man had gotten a visa through the u.s. embassy in london, and apparently all the information that we gained about him never got into a system that identified she shouldn't be allowed to fly into the united states. so i don't think this was political correctness this was competence issue that we faced on christmas day. >> if i can address there is an underlying point to the question that's very important to talk about. everybody, you talk to people in government and of course they all agree this is a terrible danger and needs to be a priority in dealing with but i think our leaders need to stop and think what it means to say something is a priority. it means you are willing to sacrifice other things for it. now there are some cases where some of the issues you're talking about require people to get philosophical loggerhead but in many cases that isn't just a question of sacrifice and

flexible these jurisdiction of your committee. i was a committee chairman, ball was a committee chairman, you don't like to give of committee jurisdiction. we have to do things we don't like to defend against this. there is a whole lot of examples of that in the government hhs and dhs are arguing over who ought to regulate the labs. well okay, get over it to get the same thing with particularly relatively modest amount of funding is a whole lot of things we could be doing if we just follow through the idea that this is a priority and i think what held throughout the government if everybody understood this is a priority. that means we are willing to sacrifice things ideally we would not want to sacrifice in order to accomplish this. we have to have that mentality in order to deal with this. >> michael of arms control association. a couple of questions. first may potential biological

weapons attack and the second is on what scale are we talking about? obviously there is different levels of weaponization and effectiveness. what is the most likely scale that we would be looking at? >> colonel larson, could you discuss the eight principal pathogens that have been identified by the department of homeland security? >> i'm not going to list them all but the ec once so to save the ones that have been around 50 years of the patients with an iced like anthrax the costly, those kind of thing so the concern. but to a certain extent when we mentioned those that's like preparing for world war ii. because of the bio technical revolution we are looking at right now, there are designer pathogens we are worried about and pathogens that could be resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. it may not be there today. that is a debate some people think they will be in the near future so there is a wide range of them and the department of

defense or the department of homeland security is identified a short list we need to be well prepared for and we are not at this time which is one of the reasons for the "f." but agents have been around a long time. i think if you talk to a group of people who study this a lot, the one we are most worried about in the future are the designer once we have no vaccines camano therapeutics or detection capabilities for. >> [inaudible] >> weaponization as i asked the question about in the 1960's that took superpower technology to do that. the soviet union did, the united states got out of the office of business in 1969 by presidential order. that used to keep us safe from bioterrorism in the 60's and 70's and early 80's. unfortunately the technical revolution that so much better life today in many aspects also provides that. the pathogens you would need to make a biological weapon you can get from nature. virtually everyone except the

1918 influenza and smallpox. all the other ones you can get. ted turner lost 176 buffalo in the summer of 2008 on his ranch because the cows had eaten in the long pasture. it was endemic in the united states, you can harvest this from nature. the equipment needed to weapon is the day the capacitance you can buy on the internet for probably less than what he would spend on a good used car. that's what made the difference. we know the motivation is there but technology makes it available for terrorists. >> the chairman mentioned there is a bottleneck with the nuclear site which gives an advance. they have to get enough nuclear terror and then make it into a bomb which is within their capability that is harder than what an icing. now the flip side of this you can prepare for a while attack deacons -- bioattack. there's no way to prepare for an attack to minimize the damage that isn't a weapon of mass destruction so there's certain advantages and disadvantages dealing with bio, but our

concern is the government is not yet -- it isn't regularized understanding of the bio issue as with nuclear. .. a new administration with new

people view this issue to accomplish that you do deny them of the weapon raised nuclear weapons. we continue to get that very high priority and we hope that over the next period of time that we will see that all recognize. but we felt the appropriate for this first year was an incomplete. >> yes? next question. >> margin not a shot, i have two questions for the gentlemen. first is the report card released today and second with a set of forms control proliferation think tank your d.c. released a five page report essentially a response to the report card out today because of the bio terrorist has been greatly exaggerated that the bio terrorist needs to be addressing a wider public health context prazosin or if you see the report do not respond to to that. >> i have not seen that report.

i'm interested in reviewing it. i would say that i think it is very much a minority view if your representation are correct. after this report card, this report card is signed by senator talent and myself after extensive consultation with the other members of the commission. one of the reasons why it is our report card and not the commission is the commission itself has changed. two of the nine members of the commission, including ambassador roemer are no longer active participants in the commission. and during the second year, senator talent and i have been primarily responsible for monitoring the developments and therefore karma it was our conclusion that we should not ask those were the most involved to necessarily subscribe to this

conclusion, that we would do it on her own, although i can represent with you today that we've had extensive consultation and it's my belief that this would be the recommendation of of the commission. >> there's no disagreement among commissioners about the lack of preparedness in the bio area, none. i mean, they're some people who just, you know, they sign on to do the additional report and the concept of a report card is people a disagreement about whether they should even be doing that, but they'll agree with where we are at with bio preparation and that we are not very far. the threat is not exaggerated haired and what if i understood second point you make, in dealing with it is largely come if not exclusively, a public health problem. it's preparing for it. that's what we've been seeing. but in the bio area of preparing for response is a method of prevention. but the threat is not exaggerated. and anybody looks at the intel

or thinks about how the terrorists are operating, got to be very concerned that this is a top priority and it's well within their capabilities to do. as a life scientist, you have accreted the capability to do that. >> next question. yes, sir? >> peter national defense foundation. i was in trade, senator talent and senator graham by a professional release of information about the terrorist was not passed on. the question that comes to mind was why not? when the father comes in and says, my son has potentially dangerous, why wasn't this passed on to the preparation service that they could find out whether they could come into the country and stop them? >> well, the fact is that it wasn't appropriately passed on

and that's made available to those who had the capacity to respond, such as the officials at the amsterdam or port to keep this individual off the plane. as to why that occurred, i think that is something that we will be learning more about as the various efforts at the president has initiated come to conclusion and there are more detailed, public reports as to why the dots were not moved to the right people. >> the system is not set up as well as it should be to encourage sharing where the sharing is appropriate which is most of the time. now, if people at different opinions about how much better we are then not systematically we were five years ago before the passage of the act. i think we've made progress, but it's not what it needs to be. and so, when your people on the ground who are not entrepreneurial enough, it's a combination of things. you will work in organizations.

they're probably organizational growth that she thinks i've like activity that would be good, but you also figured out ways around them probably. it would be better to change the rules to make it easy or for people to make the profession more effect is. but where people work around it, the rules are not a big problem. but where they don't, they are. and so i think it's a combination of both good and bob is right, this awaits a further investigation of exactly what happened. >> next question? if there are no more questions, senator graham. >> i have a concluding announcement. this is almost the end of the second year of this commission's life, the first year was devoted to preparing the report, world at risk. the second year has been devoted to attempting to get our recommendations implemented.

this commission expires on the 20th of february. i'm announcing now that while our official status is soon to end, that senator talent, kernel larsen and i will work for a nonprofit entity which we are establishing, which we entitled the bipartisan weapon of mass destruction and terrorism research center. we are optimistic that we will receive significant support to launch this effort and are encouraged by the offers of continued engagement and assistance by people like the families of 9/11 and others who have been so engaged in this and the pass. so we are not going away. we are going to continue to give a focus to action on our recommendations.

we are going to be working specifically in the area of greater citizen involvement in a year from now we invite you back to the second report card of how well we are doing in securing america against a threat of the worst weapons in the hands of the worst people. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes. [applause] [inaudible conversations] and the

>> it can turn this weekend on c-span 2 booktv.

>> hillary clinton today marked the one-year anniversary as secretary of state by holding this town hall meeting with state department employees. in the hour-long event, she ducks but criticism of relief efs in haiti and corruption in nigeria. >> good morning, everyone. it has been one year since we welcome the secretary of state to the state department, and one year since she held her very, very first townhall meeting with us. and it has certainly been an eventful year. what i like to do is said like for all of you to please rise for a moment for a moment of silence for the thousands of haitians who are lost and also for victoria delong, a cultural affairs officer at the department of state who died in haiti as well as a wife and two children of andrew wyllie, an

officer in the prm who was assigned in haiti as well. thank you very much. i know the secretary of state will address many of their issues, but i'd like to thank all of you who so generously committed your funds coming to her personal funds to the haitian relief efforts and also i'd like to note that we are also engaging in a separate and parallel effort to collect funds for what we called the foreign service national relief fund. we have a large number of foreign service national employees in haiti, many of whom was suffered deviously as have their counterparts and any information is on the website and there is every other day a table outside the cafeteria, and i encourage you to be generous.

with that, if they believe they said a year ago, when i was asked to introduce the secretary of state for the first time, this is one of the easiest assignments of my life. madam secretary. [applause] >> well, good morning and i ago pat's comments about the relief needs in haiti and i think all of you from throughout the department, our colleagues from tid who have been working literally around the clock since january 12th. the needs are overwhelming. we are trying to meet the humanitarian needs in this. , while at the same time working with the haitian government, the u.n. and other countries and

organizations to plan for the longer-term. when i spoke to family members who have lost loved ones, victoria delong, and then i spoke with andrew wyllie. they both thanked me as secretary for the outpouring of support that they had received from colleagues. in victoria's case from people was served with her and knew her, who had reached out to the family, who had really demonstrated the closeness of community that exists among us. and for andrew wyllie, who inconceivably, unimaginably lost his wife on her birthday and his seven en masse and 5-year-old

children. he mentioned specifically the names of those who had been working with him and he is very difficult days to recover the bodies of his wife and children. and again, the sense that it was not even just a community but a large and extended family came through in everything he said to me. that certainly is the way i feel after a year here, working with men of you, but of course, many, many more with whom i do not work on a daily or weekly basis, but whom i know are toiling in office is and missions and projects across the world. on behalf of our country, our values, our interests, our security, to build that better future that we think every

person deserves and to create the opportunity for every child to live up to his or her god-given potential. we've had a very act dead and challenging year that has tested many of us and forced some very difficult decisions upon the president and his team. but every step of the way i feel very confident that as i go into any setting, i have all of you as part of the preparation and the backup and that gives me, you know, the reassurance that we are prepared for whatever comes next. with respect to haiti, the challenges that we confront are really going to give us both the

opportunity and the necessity of demonstrating what we mean by diplomacy and development working together. one without the other is truly inadequate. and my goal has been, among others, to elevate the role of diplomacy and development and here we are with this terrible calamity that is for us to do just that. one example, our aid workers under the newly sworn in dr. raj shah, who i don't even know how you say, had hit the ground running, but he did. and of course our team here at state, we are scrambling as quick as we could to do everything we needed in these past two weeks.

and as is often the case, some of the international press, misconstrued what was a civilian and military response, both of them necessary in order to be able to deliver aid to the haitians who desperately needed it. we were able, working through public diplomacy and public affairs, and with the assistance of p. and all of the regional bureaus to begin to push back. , you know, i have absolutely no argument with anyone blotchy a legitimate criticism against our country. i think we can learn from that. and we are foolish if we keep our head in the sand and pretend that we can't. on the other hand, i deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond

to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake. so while we're asking for is that people view is fairly. and we sent cables to all posts. we asked our entire teams to be prepared, to respond to any misleading media report. and we set up for who we are and what we represent. and we saw the change. you know, we're not going to leave unanswered charges against united states of america. and the kind of work that we do every single day. that has to be going forward what becomes the norm, not the exception. we have a story to tell. we have an important message to deliver and we need every single person to be part of that. so going forward, we are going

to look in a very clear eyed way how well we do well, what we can improve on, but to make sure that the extraordinary story that the united states has to tell is presented forcefully and effectively in every corner of the world. before i take your questions, i want to review ways few important areas of progress since i first met with you a year ago over in the c. street for your. you know, we begin with the idea of smart power and the goal of elevating diplomacy and development and making them equal partners with defense. i'm pleased at how far we've come in doing that. our budgets demonstrate both the commitment of the administration and the congress to this vision. we strengthened relationships with historic allies.

we've reached out to emerging powers. we pursued constructive dialogue, even with longtime adversaries. we broadened our definition of diplomacy to extend beyond government to government engagement and to include ngos, the or in media and nations across the world here at as we work together to bring governments the private sector and civil society together and crosscutting partnerships, we've seen some exciting examples. and one is the use of technology on behalf of diplomacy and development, a subject i discussed last week in a speech at the museum. a civilian experts and state in u.s.a. v. are supporting the afghan and iraqi people as they build democratic institutions, functioning economies, combat a violent extremism and strengthen civil society. and we are working to promote

the fact that, democratic, transparent governance in both these nations. we're also redoubling our efforts to deal with the long-term issues like poverty and hunger, climate change, nonproliferation and others. and the department has played a central role in advancing president obama's vision of a world someday without nuclear weapons. we put forward a new development agenda the 21st century. we are pursuing a policy based on partnership, not patronage. that means working directly with developing countries to help them identify their own obstacles to growth, crafting solutions to overcome those obstacles and implementing programs that could be held accountable for results. in close partnership with usaid, were supporting investments to make agriculture more project is. we're helping farmers produce

more in a sustainable way that, in turn, promotes economic growth here at increasing the impact of that approach in many countries around the world. now there's much else that we have been doing and we are doing, but we recognize we have a lot of challenges still on the horizon. so what was good enough in 2009 will be adequate in 2010. that's why i'm pleased that we launched the sub one last year to align our priorities and policies and to make sure we work with with the tools and resources to do the jobs we've been asked to do. over 400 state and usaid personnel busbar have participated in qddr working groups and many more have contributed online or in response to working group questionnaires. with the appointment of our new and usaid administrator, the qddr is entering into its last phase of operation.

going forward, jack lew vulture the effort, raj shah will cochair, anne-marie slaughter will serve as executive director, and karen hanrahan will continue bolus chief operating officer. now, i cannot promise you that next year or i guess this year will be easy. but i can promise you that you will be working on important matters that really do affect the future of our country in the world. now wherever i go, i see results. i see life saved, conflicts averted, partnership strengths and in the united states acting as a force for progress. i'm very proud to be a member of the steam and it is a tremendous privilege to work with you on behalf of the american people. so i am looking forward to an exciting year ahead and i am very confident that we will continue to make progress

together. right now i'm looking forward to your questions, so i'll hand things back over to pat to help underwrite this discussion, but can you not call for everything you've done and everything you will do. not that >> we have two microphones set up, one on each side of there any question. this has never been a shy group. [inaudible] on behalf of afsa and the foreign service i would like to thank you for your service and environment of open communication with management and recognizing the value of the human resources at the state department. with your permission, i actually have two questions i would like to ask. the extension of comparability

paid to the foreign service overseas is eliminating a major and equity in foreign service compensation and has significant positive effects on morale. can you just briefly describes the timeline for initiating the second and third phases of this process and ensuring that this compensation continuous in perpetuity? >> let me take that one first because -- >> sure, absolutely. >> it ended on perpetuity, which you know -- [laughter] we are very pleased that we were able to obtain congressional support and funding for comparability pay. at this point, i don't want to make any predictions. we are going to work, very, very hard to implement phase two and phase three, but i think you know that we are facing very tough budgetary times.

it's anticipated that tomorrow the president will announce in the state of the union a request for a three-year freeze on domestic spending. that's far, he's exempted foreign aid, but not state operations. so we really have to work hard to make the case. you made is distinctly unwell, this was an injustice. it was a comparative disadvantage for people serving in overseas posts. so i think we have a strong argument and equity on our side, but i can't stand here today and guarantee to you what's going to happen in this budget process. so we're going to fight as hard as we can. we've been extremely successful in the last year and we're just going to redouble our efforts and try to maintain that equitable posture going forward in perpetuity.

>> thank you. a [laughter] thank you. my second question is that employment opportunities for eligible family members overseas are an important factor in recruitment or retention, and post-morale. 75% of eligible family members have college degrees of whom 50% have advanced degrees. can you comment on the prospects for increasing eligible family member employment overseas and also address the possibility of increasing opportunities for employment through the use of teleworking. >> well, on the last one, teleworking we are constantly exploring what more can be done. we think it has a lot of advantages, you know, one that we have been promoting as more conference is by tommy gounod, teleconference svts and the like. it saves money and wear and tear and it can often lead to the same or better outcome than you

would get if people had to travel distances. on the teleworking fat, similarly we're going to explore all kinds of options. i mean, it gives us a chance to do that. with respect to family members, again this is an area that we are constantly reevaluating. we know that when we send someone to serve in a post-overseas, the family serves, whether the family at companies the officer or stays behind. we know that there is a family that is involved in, you know, most cases. it really depends on a case-by-case analysis in a post-by post situational analysis. some posts it's a lot easier in some way have reciprocal agreements with the host countries. others we don't. so we are working on this because we know it's an impediment for a lot of families. but i can't give you more than the commitment we've made to work through this and the fact

that we are trying to push as hard as we can do, you know, provide opportunities for those who accompany the person who is assigned. >> thank you. >> good morning, my name is jennifer king. i just wanted to ask what your stance is on preselection during the hiring process. >> do i have a stance on preselection? i'm opposed. i'm sorry. i don't understand that. i don't know. that's when things that i get into a lot of the details. i don't know that. but i let the undersecretary responded. to want to say a word? [laughter] >> we have a hiring system at the state department that we have jobs that become vacant in the state department and the civil service are posted on our website. applicants apply and it is a

band practice on the part of myself on the part of director general powell and linda taglialatela and the other in a chart. if you have any reason to believe that there's preselection going on that inhibits a fair competition for joss, please be in touch with the director general or deputy assistant secretary taglialatela. we would definitely want to look into that. >> okay, thank you. >> i couldn't have said it better myself the fact that an secretary, with questions coming from the internet. >> my first question comes from stefan marquette, and are still in afghanistan pretty says the department in afghanistan are often overlooked in our personal act of training equipment and logistical resources that our defense and other foreign affairs agencies family have an abundance. do you anticipate the department will be afforded these human and capital resources in a timely

manner and adequate levels to complete our mission in areas like iraq and afghanistan let alone worldwide. smack well, first of all, i'm well aware that in many posts, particularly very difficult ones in conflict situations, we often don't have everything that we need for those serving in the state department and usaid and we are working very hard the equipment and respond to the specific needs. and also, on the building fronts, you know, if users in afghanistan he knows that we've been scrambling to build enough facilities for people every year since 2002. so we're doing as well as we can. again, we often asked for a lot more than the congress gives us because we know what they need to do we go to fill those deeds.

but it is, you know, not possible to embarrass to the defense department. they have more than a ten to one advantage on this in terms of budgets. that it is fair to say that we have pushed very hard to increase our resources versus facilities and equipment. and if there are specific needs that really go to the heart of whether you can perform their mission, we want to know about that. you know, we know that there is overcrowding and housing in baghdad and kabul and other places. there may not be anything we can do about that in the short run. but if there are, you know, other types of equipment or needs that are not being met, let us know about that. >> thank you. >> thank you come out of secretary, larry sperling from the oes.

i want to applaud the efforts that you've launched with the qddr as a much-needed look at the directions were going. i wondered if you can share and indicts insights on the kinds of reform that might occur as a review and particularly whether putting development in diplomacy and equal footing means greater integration or greater independence of decision-making between state and aid and also to what extent we might see streamlining of the various decision-making processes for planning and budgeting. >> well, larry, those are all very important questions. i'm not going to preempt or preview the qddr. we will be having many meetings to explain what the proposed conclusions are and the policies that flow from them. but i think just your questions illustrate the need for this

process. i think you can do a lot by questioning assumptions and trying to understand, we're just doing the same thing we've always done because we're comfortable with it and we understand it. do we have evidence that would actually make us more efficient and more affect us. and every question you ask, goes to the heart of how we best perform our jobs and fulfill our missions. so, those are going to be addressed in the qddr and you'll have to stay tuned. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is brendan o'connor. i work in the opposite facility management in the overseas building operations bureau. i have a great deal of respect for how you're leading the state department, whether it's more recent stuff like to work in haiti or internet freedom, speaking out on behalf of that. and i appreciate the town hall. my question is on travel, which i think can feel like a very

small in comparison to a lot of the big things you have on your plate, but seems pretty integral to just the work of the state department. so, 17 travelers, travel processors, managers and i who also process travel finder name to to post to open up in a sounding board at the end of november. we formed the post collaboratively with action more authors than any other sounding board ideas, deliberately making our suggestion can start dead, but haven't had an official response yet. so he asked among other things for surveys, working groups, et cetera, to reevaluate the trouble system that seems to really infuriated and demoralized travels because of some inherent weaknesses and inefficiencies in the travel business processes. the suggestions also included recommendations for e2 and

carlson wagonlit. so my question on all this actually stems in part for something i thought we simply on a recent white house forum on modernizing government. one recommendation from the foreign was quote, to reengineer business processes you for deploying technology, federal managers should only begin technology projects if the underlying business processes have been evaluated and streamlined first. so with all that said, it makes innovative to the question, what you are fundamental business processes is not only for overall trouble system, but as i think it's kind of indicated appellate let into this, also for air years ago sounding board actually moving employees into potential employee ideas and potential action. if those processes can be thoroughly reviewed and a car to sounding board posts can get comprehensive answers online. >> well, thank you for that

continue mac for the thought that's gone into it. and we to take a sounding board very seriously. we take the song halls very seriously. some of you might remember my last town hall and i'm proud to announce the next week will be cutting the ribbon on the free showers. [applause] so it sometimes takes a while, but we take everything seriously and we work through to the best of our ability. i actually was briefed on your sounding board post, related to streamlining travel procedures and e2 software. and let me just tell you that i am aware that there is frustration with the implementation of a number is standardized and automated administrative tools including etravel. there've been changes in this

area. they are often difficult because as is explained to me, we have these global operating platforms and requirements that have to be met. so we're trying to figure out how to best serve our diplomatic community while keeping track of travel, being able to, you know, enter ig questions and congressional questions and the like. so i know that the management folks are really involved with carlson, which is the group that was chosen to basically run the travel operations here, she tried to make changes in their etravel software that will facilitate the kinds of unique travel requirements that we have. i mean, it's hard to compare us to many other government agencies. so we want to use the satisfaction surveys and user groups in input and pat kennedy

will follow-up with you to see what additional ideas need to be explored. [laughter] now, i am aware that a lot of glitches happen as you change systems, and, you know, the department has implemented they get, g-e-t, at those spirits and post that account for approximately 90% of the departments tdy travel and that's integrated with the financial system. all of usaid has been operating under the get program. so we need to be aware at any time you know, large problems. try to get on top of them as soon as we can. your point about the business process approach is a good one, and i should be constantly darned to see whether or not what we are getting meets our

requirements. it's just complicated. and so, i'm always interested in good ideas, you know, kind of coming up from the system, so we will certainly give back to on the specific that you and your colleagues posted. but we've paid attention. which is trying to follow through on them. [inaudible] >> yes? >> are next on import entry comes from selim ariturk, and economic officer in azerbaijan. he says that in secretary, it stuff or via and so heartened by the wonderful changes you've made since he took office. i can't tell you how much it means to me when i look at my h.r. records and finally see the word family member. more than any of the financial benefits, those two words say so much about the kind of atmosphere you have set. thank you so much for all you have done. many of us still face problems coming on to the u.s. with our partners and i'm wondering if

you could help us by talking to congress about the challenges we face. thank you for your consideration and thank you for all you done. >> and thanks to everyone who has supported and embraced this policy. i've met with people across the world just about every post i've visited which are lopped by now. and you know we will continue to follow up on issues that arise, but you know, we're very proud that the state department led the way on this. >> been in secretary, my name is walter bruce senate an honor and pleasure tv before you today. you and your husband is part of my family, has banned for many years. thank you, walter pierce metallic fur to this opportunity. i am also president of afge 1534. i have seven vice president has usaid and opic, overseas private investment contract. i like to compliment one of your

officers for doing something that i consider outstanding. her name is susan swart. i have all my decrees except a phd. i've experienced a lot of challenges around a lot of things over the years and never member in front of madeleine albright, i spoke to the issue of having minorities in the pipeline to be promoted to senior local officials. no one ever done anything about that until susan swart came aboard. she'll initiated action to preselected program they spoke about. susan made sure that anybody could to senior level has to go in front of a board, something that wasn't here before. also, she put together a dialog panel to discuss the issues and concerns of diversity, with the outstanding results that she published throughout this organization. and additionally, within a timeframe, under her watch, with acuity more minorities at the senior level position that has ever been done in the history of this organization cannot hurt no

need to know how proud i am of her. i have one other issue. i sent pat an e-mail in that notepad for a long time and i know he supports everything that we possibly do because this is all in one accord. i'm only concerned about what is the status of the ombudsman program. that's a cargo supposed to looking out for the civil service employees. there should be an infrastructure in place that looks out for the interest and advances of those that we consider to be civil servants. i just wanted a status. pop back so, madam secretary, i want to know and i'm sure pat is going to be able to tell me that's where we stand on it. that's all i have. >> thank you so much and thank you for your many serves the country first in the military and now here. we're going to have that ombudsman, aren't we, pat?

[laughter] >> by the secretary, the law requires that the ombudsman must be a member of the senior executive service. we have no other choice. it's written in the statute erred so we are in the process and all this turnover of recruiting someone because we have to identify and ses position and recruit someone and we are in this process and it is ongoing. >> and there's no preselection. [laughter] >> yes? >> go ahead, please. >> my name is dorothy burkette and i'm coming behind walter bruce in the sense that i am concerned that i have been here 11 years and i've never had a good supervisor. i've always had -- >> should we give equal time to your supervisor? [laughter]

>> i am concerned because they are not accountable to anyone. in fact, in the two bureaus i've worked in here, that particular supervisor has always supported by management all the way up to the assistant secretary. and whatever they do as one assistant secretary told me, we don't ever tell any supervisor what they can do in their office. and so that is a very poor environment to work in and i have experienced that. every office i've been in i've been discriminated against. in my present office, one low-lying supervisor came in, a young 30 something your world, with people in my age group, and with a hard hand and decided to tell all of the supervisory

people up to the assistant secretary that i was a terrible person. they accepted. i had no redress. none of my rights were acknowledged. i was never able to give -- i was never given a list of charges against me. and there is a memo in your office about this, but i'm sure it didn't get to you. so that's the reason why i'm saying something today. >> well -- >> we need, as the saying comes civil service employees we need to have civil service supervisors heard this was a foreign service person who knew nothing -- >> i'm sorry. i think that we have procedures inside a state department that you can follow and i would urge you to do so if you feel you've been unfairly treated or discriminated against. and i think that it would be appropriate for you to exhaust

your remedies -- >> which i have done. >> well, then there really is no -- we will certainly pay attention to ensuring that people get their grievances heard. but this is a mixed workplace and foreign service officers have a lot of responsibility. civil service officers also have a lot of responsibility and it's just not possible to say that you can only be supervised by one or the other. that just is not possible. >> i just want you to know the ominous organizations i've been too much for the office of civil rights, which awards and was known known as affirmative action. as you know now, they have to take a neutral approach. so even if what i've told, even if they see a problem, they can't speak to it. >> that's just not the case. i'm sorry, ma'am. >> but i think we've heard that you have some questions that you

feel strongly about and i'm sorry that that's been your experience, but i think there are a lot of people may office of civil rights and, you know, the management chain that can listen to the appeared that doesn't mean there is going to side with you. again, just because someone feels -- >> of course not. >> i've had more criticism in my life and probably whole countries have had. [applause] and it doesn't mean that i'm always right or i'm always wrong. but especially when we do have these systems for your grievances to be heard, i'd really urge you to do that and pursue those and do the best you can under the circumstances. >> so what can i do if the union didn't help me -- >> i think you need to ask yourself why nobody is agreeing with you. >> i'm not saying that's what the problem is. but thank you for listening.

>> thank you. >> our next overseas question comes from jenny baba said a community liaison officer in stockholm. she's asking what is being done about collaboration into an occasion overseas family members who don't have access to open not. >> pat? [laughter] we haven't had a lot of questions about foreign policy so that's why have him here. >> i'll have to take that question. opennet is our technical name for our internet system. i'm just very surprised frankly that in a country as technologically advanced as stockholm there is not an ability to get on the internet to reach these state department principal website from home, but i will speak to the family liaison office about the end i know at least the post i served out when people could not get on at home terminals were made

available in the family liaison officer at the embassy for family members to comment and use those nic leslie, that headed the family liaison shaking her head in the audience. yes? >> madam secretary, i am hillary aidun, an intern and asked. following the u.n. security council resolution or gender-based violence in recent events such as the post election violence in conakry which the department reacted very strong too. what can the department do in the future to respond to gender-based violence around the world. well, we are following up on the security council session and revolution and this is a very high priority for me not only personally but because i think it really speaks to our values and also to where you find that level of gender and actual paste violence, you will find other indica voters of the conflict

and behavior that is a member couple to our values. this is going to be a constant priority in the department and that usaid. we are looking for specific ways to address it when we deal with countries, whether it be jimmy or the democratic republic or congo or anywhere else. we are putting more resources into that arena. as you know, we have the first ever appointed ambassador for global women's affairs, ambassador melanne verveer. it is at the top of offer interactions. i raised it with my meetings with leaders. and it really comes down to attitudes. we are financing probe is to see whether they can work on trying to change attitudes about the

treatment of women and girls. and i was delighted to hear that ellen johnson-sirleaf said she will stand for reelection. she's been one of the champions on this issue and are political and governmental career. but it's a constant struggle. coming you know their are so many instruments as they go from a kind of cultural behavior that people just take for granted to the horrific abuses that we've seen. so again, i invite people for your ideas about how best to try to have the united states with the rest of the world addressing this. we've made some good partnerships with some of our fellow colleagues and countries, the dutch sponsored an event about this at the united nations general assembly, the first that we are whereas it were designed to keep raising awareness. this year gives us a chance

because it's the 15th anniversary of the u.n. women's conference in beijing so there will be a lot of activities around this. so we're just going to do everything we can think of. we do another's, if you've got ideas, either in general or specific to certain countries or areas, please let us know. >> thank you. >> hello my name is that the preeminent turn at the state department and i work at the ap wrote. i'm i'm also at ethnic kurd. and i heard that today your meeting with the kurdish president president masoud barzani and i was wondering what our state department has to gain from not only to speaking to him is specifically towards the elections that are coming up. i heard they were pushed back again. so what is our agenda? >> thank you. well, i will be meeting with president barzani. he met with residents obama and vice president eyton yesterday. really, we have three messages. one is to encourage the kurdish

leadership to work towards a peaceful resolution. some of the disputed boundaries, particularly around kirk cook to support the elections and the election of a legitimate government that can be put into place as soon as possible. the kurds will have a major role in determining who will end up in those positions. and to reassure president president barzani and other leaders that the united states, you know, is very supportive of kurdish aspirations in the security of the kurdish people. but we do expect that the kurdish leadership well, you know, take an important role in trying to stabilize iraq him and trying to work with the sunni and shia leadership for the betterment of the entire country. so working out the oil revenue loss for example is something

that is very important to all iraqis. and it will benefit all iraqis that they can be finalized. so there will be a message of both reassurance and requests about what we would like to see the kurdish leadership do going forward. >> wonderful. thank you. >> thank you. >> madam secretary, my name is a jean pierre-louis. >> picked that up, sir. >> my name is jean pierre-louis and i am a haitian-american in a foreign service officer. i'd like to thank you and ambassador shah and also president clinton for all the work you've done in haiti since the earthquake. i have lost some family members there. and soon after the earthquake, i went to my boss, ambassador john

herbs and asked for permission to go to haiti if i may. he said that i may go ahead. just to be sure i checked with him again. and he said absolutely, go ahead. i volunteered. i remember of the standby member of the civilian response corps. i took my shots, four shots on a monday, martin luther king birthday. i started my anti-malaria medications and today i'm supposed to start my second dose. but i'm not in haiti and i don't know that i'm close to going cd. there are other options. i can take a leave of absence and go on my personal capacity. but my wife has told me she'd rather that i not do that because our children need milk.

[laughter] and i guess i'm asking, i know that we have done very good work in haiti and i'm appreciative of that. but i believe that i have skills that are relevant. i speak haitian creole, 54 plus and state department rankings and i'm prepared to go. >> good. well, we need you. and if you'll come and give us all your details, because we need you in a number of capacities. you know, our embassy in port-au-prince is overwhelmed. the need is so great. in some of you may know that the embassy, because of the way it was built, and it certainly withstood the earthquake. it became a gathering place for americans, haitian-american,

people who were seeking help, seeking medical care, seeking a visa. with surgeries being performed in the conference room. i mean, this was a truly heroic effort. and we're going to start rotating some of the people out because frankly they've been under intense pressure, literally not sleeping for two weeks. we have a task force that we are working with, as you know. so if you will talk to pat after we break, we would get you to haiti. [applause] >> thank you. and i'm sorry for following up, but i also like to make a more general point about perhaps a few nice way for volunteers to speak up in times of disaster, people who believe they have relevant skills. >> thank you and thank you also

for being a standby member of the civilian response corps. i see john herbs to sitting down here. this is a very important program. >> our next question comes from andy miller of consular affairs. he says will be too busy to watch but please give a shout out your embassy in haiti and all the tdy further gorelick while helping the earthquake. the evacuation thousands of american citizens on military fight the dhs plans at hhs resettlement assistance is wonderful u.s. government cooperation in and told me the story of this disaster. smack well, i really issue. that's because it was a very difficult organizational challenge because we had to bring, as you say, from the field dhs and hhs to work closely with consular affairs. i think we have evacuated more than 11,000 at this point, more than 11,000 americans.

and we are dealing with a lot of very complicated issues of people who are citizens with children who aren't or vice versa. we have a lot of very difficult problems that the law doesn't give us a lot of leeway on, but our integrated teams are working hard to get answers for people. ..

human-rights concerns against security concerns, concerns about afghanistan and the other crises in the world, and yet i'm very concerned about human rights. i'm delighted we have this bureau. it's an important bureau but i sometimes worry given the pressure of everything else, despite our secretaries principal pragmatism there are times i am afraid the pragmatism sometimes outweighs the principal, and i think that perception, despite your effective georgetown speech and speech at cairo, i think that

perception sometimes gets to people on the ground in particular that pragmatism sometimes outweighs the principal, here to ask you and encourage you to keep the principle, to promote that as much as we possibly can understanding the pragmatic has to happen but i very much worried the loss of human rights and central asia in particular is a place setting this is me to become a pressing and i've talked to people who work ngos ever since concerns about afghanistan can overwhelm everything else. these are countries people are being abused and affordable ways and every part of their life so i encourage you and everyone to keep that principal in there and advocate as strongly as you can see people don't get rewarded for sometimes what was called just bad behavior to put it mildly. thank you. >> we certainly will. i welcome you to the state

department. we are delighted to have these programs that bring people like yourself here. it is a balancing act, and we start out and try to end up as a supportive and actually committed to the human-rights of every individual because that's one of our core principles, but it is also the case that as you have found these sometimes difficult decisions are affected by many other aspects of the foreign policy committed to protecting american lives from terrorism, and so how do we be effective doing that if you had told me 20 years ago that it would be taking issues off and subjected themselves to body scans i would not have believed use a there's a constant balance that has to go on all the time and in a lot of the country's

not just in the region but elsewhere, getting their cooperation while moving them toward moreocracy, more openness, more recognition and protection of human rights is a constant effort on our part. so things for which you're doing to help.

jack strauss served as the foreign affairs secretary under british prime minister tony blair from 2001 to 2006. last thursday she testified before the british iraq war committee. if negative member committee examining british involvement in the war and the circumstances which led to the 2003 invasion. in his testimony he told the panel he favored a diplomatic solution but supported the war based on intelligence he received. this is three hours. >> good afternoon everyone and

welcome. the objectives of this session to take evidence from the honorable jack straw, you were foreign secretary from and 2001 to mid 2006. this is in order to understand his role in the formulation of government policy on iraq his leadership of the four men 12 common wealth in the period running the start of the operation in 2,003 and in the post conflict period. this is the first time we should be taking evidence from mr. straw but we will have a further opportunity to hear from him. toward the end of this phase of the hearings. he has given the inquiry and extensive written memorandum of evidence for which we are grateful and which is now up on the website. now this session will focus on events up to this summer to fill some four. remaining matters and issues surrounding a lot of ice will be covered at a later session in a couple of weeks' time.

with that, to regular statements. we recognize all witnesses are giving evidence based in part on their recollection of defense and we are of course cross checking what we hear against the paper record and by her mind every witness it will be asked to sign the transcript of evidence to the effect the evidence given as truthful and fair and accurate. and with that i will ask for a round of questions. sprick good afternoon. thank you for your helpful memorandum. i think this means we are not going to have to go into all of these things that we've already discussed quite thoroughly in a lot of detail. i wonder if we shouldn't just ask the questions by members and let you reply to them. but what i would like to cover first is the other evolution of the strategy and iraq, the way the policy developed in 2002, the question of regime change

and then negotiations in 2002 with the american administration including about the middle east peace process and i think after me my colleagues will want to go into more detail into questions of the presentation of policy in 2002 and the run-up to the conflict and so on so this is just to sort of set the scene. if i start in the way the strategy calls, in 2001 and up to the middle of 2002, the government's official policy at that time at least up to the adoption of security council resolution 1409, the review resolution on the 14th of may, 2002 was to sustain and strengthen the containment of iraq but we were having problems with containment which you have referred to in the memorandum and we've discussed with earlier

witnesses and then there have also been 9/11 which atiyeh described in a memorandum as others have done as having had a huge shock affect on the international plan to but particularly obviously on the united states. and after 9/11 washington's approach to iraq changed. and this you argued in the spring or in march of 2002 objectively the threat from iraq haven't worsened as a result of 11 of september but what had however changed was the tolerance of the international community and especially that of the united states. before i go into my first question, summary of the situation thus far.

can i ask what extent in this period before and after 9/11, before we and the british government were set on a new strategy to what extent was there a debate about the strategic options over iraq, the relevant cabinet committee which was gop didn't meet in this period were you putting a range of different options before the prime minister? >> thank you. my idea with the period before 9/11 and after if i may, before 9/11, we were essentially trying to contain interesting policy which was containment. i came in as the foreign secretary in june of 2001 and i

was briefed on the problems we were facing with the existing sanctions. i saw papers my predecessor robin cook submitted to the prime minister about the future policy that we were seeking which he had talked to colin powell and the u.k. government was talking to the u.k. government about and does it work i took those over and there was then negotiations which got going in late june of 2001 to try to get the so-called smartest actions and we tried very hard to get to this draft resolution through mr. jeremy greene stock in his evidence is given a great deal of detail about that, but it simply wasn't possible to get agreement.

i think that the iraqis were kind of comfortable, the iraqi regime, not the iraqi people but they were in a strange way comfortable with the situation and i often thought about the facility and use of sanctions that can work and they can have paradoxical effects that can lead to corruption. they can lead to the strengthening of authoritarian regime and so on so there is a sort of weird identity between those who thought we needed to do something about iraq. those were in the middle, those who were making money out of the sanctions and the iraqi regime. >> but at this point i had worked? >> up to a point, but from the time in late 1998, when the inspectors left because the inspectors said they couldn't carry of the task there was

increasing anxiety about what the iraqi regime was doing without inspectors being there and alongside that there was the anxiety about the enforcement of the no-fly zones and there were arguments with the french. around them there were concerns in the minister defends the safety of our pilots because the iraqi missile paper was getting more accurate. succumb in a sense if you ask me where we in the summer of 2001 in a kind of staunch it can best be described as it was all very difficult and no one really knew. i think we knew what we wanted to do but it was not clear how we were going to get any kind of

agreement because i see this strange situation where so many different interests have the same vested interest in the status quo and that led to the security council and elsewhere. >> although we eventually did get agreement as i mentioned in may 2002 so we managed to drive through to agreement on smarter sanctions. >> yes, we did get agreement in may of 2002 and if i may provide just then after deacons of the second question about what happened post 9/11? i mean you've acknowledged the sort of tourism, but 9/11 did change everything and it changed everything here, but i think people in europe still don't quite comprehend the degree to which 9/11 completely changed

the american sense of safety and this was after helping her pearl harbor but there hadn't been that loss of life on the american mainland since the civil war. i may be wrong but i think that is accurate. they had no bombing in the second war apart from pearl harbor which was dramatic but some thousands of miles away from the mainland. and they had gotten this very strong sense of exceptional listen that there were exceptional in so many ways including their own safety. that was shattered on the 11th of september, and of course it led to great soul-searching and examination were the policies had gone wrong and what that led to was clear agreement in the united states but consensus across the world that a policy

of simply tolerating, failing in a field states was unacceptable and there was a stark example on afghanistan where for a variety of reasons because the soviet union had been profoundly unsuccessful in afghanistan but to be blunt the west helped create the monster of taliban by funding the mujahideen in afghanistan against the soviets. everybody felt this is very difficult and provided they don't cause a threat to international peace and security. if they carry on being bloody to their own people. well, we will have to as it were hold our nose. that all changed, and so to pick up the answer to your question, yes, there is no richter scale

of risk except the perception of risk and the perception changed from the 11th of september because after all people had known before the 11th of september what they discovered on the 11th of september this astonishing risk from a failing state or failed state in afghanistan. the strategy toward afghanistan and other field states would have been different. could i just directly answer the other question which is about 1409. we did indeed finally get 1409 in may of 2000 to. but mr. jeremy greene stock himself points out in his memorandum and it was all evidence that was very limited in its scope it was about the good review list and left the other very big issues on the table including the wider issue of sanctions, the food program and the whole list of it, so it

was better to have saddam not that it was of limited application. >> if we take the situation there for as you've described after the greenstock to date colin 9/11 in the first three months of 2002. americans thinking seriously about taking military action against iraq. our official policy is still containment and we are still in a situation in which containment has risen some hussein's missile program. it has contain his threat and the apparatus of containment is there. there is an embargo on the military experts to iran, naval embargo. we have forces stationed in neighboring countries as a deterrent. we of the no-fly zone so it is a

multi headed policy but the americans moved away from it. from that stage what advice were you getting from your experts about the possible consequences of the new american approach? what were our ambassadors in the middle east telling you at this stage? >> i don't recall in the late part of 2001 and in the early part of 2002 getting much advice from investors about a change of policy with respect to the americans but the edify scheme through thick and fast a bit later but if i may say this as you are aware, the policy of the regime change in iraq was one that went back to 1998 in an act of congress signed by bill clinton said that was the

official policy and it is of great importance that that is recognized as it were that was a policy. what changed was not the policy but the decision or the beginnings of a decision post 9/11 they should do something about it. as i picked up from talking to the foreign ministers in the region there was anxiety about. i can check the record but for sure there was some anxiety about it and it wasn't with the idea of not being the next day when saddam hussein wasn't there. there was the concern about dislocation across the region by the process. there were very few leaders elsewhere in the middle east,

not a good word to say for saddam hussein of course he wasn't regarded as a good muslim, but they have all built up arrangements with iraqi regime, jordan and syria and turkey were conduits of smuggling the vested interest so it was complicated. >> if we come back precisely when you were getting particular kinds of advice but what was the generality that you were getting from your ambassadors around the middle east about the likely consequences if military action was taken to topple saddam hussein? >> welcome it varied is the answer, but there was a consistent theme in the advice which continued through to the early stages of 2003, which was

concerned that there would be real problems on the street in their own countries and the disruption this might cause to the status quo for governments in those countries few of whom had a popular mandate. as it happened looking at the consequences of the military action, none of that took place interestingly. the middle east as a whole was remarkably calm if you're asking me with the advice was the was the advice and in any event as i made clear in a memorandum we didn't share the policy of regime change as a purpose of our foreign policy with the united states. it wasn't our policy in 2002, it wasn't our policy in 2003 and there would have been no legal

basis for it ever to be our policy. >> you refer in your memorandum to the effect the syrians have on britain's relations with the united states but also had a huge effect on the standing in the middle east which lasted quite a long time and with any of the officials with a station in the region or in the foreign office worry that military action to topple saddam hussein could have a similar effect on our stand in the middle east and on the middle eastern stability to that of syria. >> i've never heard of but that we also as you know, yourself, the -- amongst the foreign office staff most of them have taken very serious history, very serious interest in political history and often are steeped in

the understanding of the region they are serving so there are plenty of discussions i took part in about a british foreign policy and the middle east since the war. the problem above all was we decided to go it alone with israel without involving the united states and that was absolutely catastrophic as we know. you can mark it kind of decline in britain's before the standing of the world from that catastrophic decision which since i'm sure we will go on talking about the cabinet government was kept from the cabinet altogether apart from a handful of people. so that -- i tried to sort of thing through why what was the mind-set of not just the minister is the kind of zeitgeist of around and i think that was part of that, and of course we were aware for sure

that if we got this wrong i think it was for that reason above all as the merits of the case the prime minister was so concerned to see that alongside any strategy we have on iraq there was progress made on resolving the conflict between israel and the palestinians. >> to come back to that but just on the expertise in the middle east, obviously when iraq got to the top of the agenda you must have been pummeling the middle eastern experts, york analysts and so on people that steeped in the region as you say in the assessment as to what the consequences would be in the region and also what might happen inside of iraq after action to topple saddam hussein? what sort of fed vice? were they worried about this? >> we were all worried if i may say so.

the president publicly and formally surfaced his concerns and axis of evil speech which was the 22nd chandler, 2001 and i happened to be in washington when he made that speech and i say not present. and i was concerned, too, about the way that we had to link these three very different problems together and i just say parenthetically that in my view that made the handling of iran much more difficult because we were at a point where we were seeking a rapprochement reached out after 9/11 and that undermined the reformists in the iranian government. this was the only agenda of course a lot of discussions formal and informal with

ambassadors about the situation. >> you have some contrary reviews. islamic and people have strong opinions if i may say so. you're absolutely right, and i have always worked on by a principal, i have got it absolutely essential people had a different point of view. they should feel completely free -- system and the failure to anticipate the situation that arose after saddam was toppled. is it fair to say that we did failed to anticipate? >> what we anticipated were different problems. we first of all thought that there would be quite a long

protracted military phase because there was this absolutely profound belief saddam still had chemical and biological weapons which he could deploy, that the saddam hussein regime had some kind of consent from the iraqis so we anticipated there would be quite a long military phase to the campaign and the losses might be significant. it was certainly the case that there was anxiety which i expressed to the prime minister from time to time about the situation would be and how easy or difficult it would be to manage the situation and i think the best way i can summarize this is in some of the papers that i have been reading to

refresh my memory, i was briefing that there would be a religious a short period where we would be welcome to and a relatively short period with koln. but the groups would then say thank you very much and may we politely show you the door? and i'm happy to talk about what happened in 2003. i actually think that a significant number of the problems that we faced at the end of as it turned out the short military phase could have been avoided by better planning and coordination of all in washington. we may want to come to that. >> we certainly want to come back to that. my colleagues do want to discuss that in some detail with you. so, if we get to the situation

as the prime minister was approaching his meeting at crawford with the president in april of 2002. at that stage, the cabinet office and the secretary produces an options paper. i think i'm right in saying it was the only cabinet office better looking at strategic options that were produced through this period and unless you can remember another. >> i can't remember another but i expect you have all the papers. >> it's the only one might seem so far. and that people looked at two alternatives toughening containment, maintaining containment which as it has said was part of the successful policy after that. or alternatively looking at regime change by the identified three possible routes. so that implies a certain level of debate that is going on and then the prime minister also specifically invited here and

the defense secretary to offer your views which you both did before crawford. can you tell to what extent at this stage there was a real debate about different strategic options because this is a critical time before we get set on a particular cause and what advice you were offering the press minister about his options. >> yes, there was a debate and should have been a debate and my mind that certainly wasn't made up at this time, let me be clear about this and this i was clear about whatever the policy of the united states which as it happens was for regime change as a purpose foreign policy, that was off the agenda so far as united kingdom was concerned.

i certainly had always had done in the abstract and in reality accepted you could have a diplomatic strategy for a different purpose which had to be backed by the threat with necessary to force but a foreign policy objective of regime change i regard it as improper and salt evidently on a lawful with lisa sigell lawfulness it had no chance of being a runner in the united kingdom and wouldn't have gotten my support and the case there for stood or fell on whether iraq posed a threat to international peace and stability by reasons of its weapons of mass destruction, not whether it had an extremely unpleasant authoritarian regime that was butchering its own people because in international law we i'm afraid that is not a

good ground for intervention by other states. >> said that was essentially the debate. so what your recommendation of the stage be we should easily aimed to contain and other than good on their regime change root? >> the route i recommend to the prime minister would seem to me to be practical route was not a root of regime change. the route that i recommended to the prime minister was the containment, of course i thought about this and that is what i was paid for and would have been an extreme dereliction of juicy if i hadn't thought about this and i don't use the word agonizing because if you take these jobs on you've got to make

decisions, but you have to think very hard about what you are doing and of course there was debate whether we would put up with containment. the problem with just putting up with contant notwithstanding 1409 was it wasn't going anywhere, and meanwhile the perception of the risks have completely changed. >> head of the risk changed? >> i actually don't know what the difference is between the perception of risk and risk because risk is something that is received. if i may give you this example. i've spent four years as the secretary and three as the assistant secretary. one thing you will hear me go on about is what a great job we've done on crime and how crime has

gone down and all of that is true. however that is completely useless for somebody who is an old lady living in a street where there's been a burglary and you cannot say to them now from your risk of being burgled is less than it was because she will say to you my sense of risk is based on my perception thank you very much and the house on the street has just been burba -- for gold. if the house on the street had blown up a number of people would have been killed her perception of this would change. so that is why as i say there's no richter scale of objective, you have to measure risk people's judgment so there was there. but alongside -- >> just on that point according to the sunday times the other day which purported to be publishing something and you wrote on the 25th of march in

2002 and use the word objectively that at that time the threat from iraq isn't worse and as a result the 11th of september. you then go on to say what changed as you already said was the international community. objectively the risk that change because contant kept saddam in his box. sprick that is a nice point and i would say by the way the sunday times has taken st of the website and was first i think published in september, 1974, the version i've got -- >> notte 1974 -- >> i'm sorry, 2004. [laughter] apologies. the version i've got here is we use american dates backwards. it seems to be the 18th of july,

to those of five. >> is that accurate? >> yes, it is. >> now, by the time you wrote that and by the time you say you gave the advice you gave the prime minister had in the number ten already pre-empted you? because from the time of to stuff the axis of the full speech through march hadn't number ten been having private exchanges with a white house including when david manning went to washington in the middle of march and christopher mayer told us he perceived changes, fractions to carry out with others with paul wolfowitz and the line we are taking according to christopher mayer and others of that time was they were indicating that if the americans were going for regime change but were prepared to build a

coalition they were indicating that the kingdom was prepared to be part of that. now conditions than state which i want to come on to in a minute, but if that message was already going to the white house before march was your advice being pre-empted? >> i wouldn't use the word pre-empted, there was a debate going on and my minute i guess reflected part of that. me also say it was in part a debate about how you handle the americans and what has to be said from this is the overall results or the work done by the prime minister by me and many others, jeremy greene stocks, christopher mayer and many others was that we had converged to achieve the policy objectives that we wanted which was the

commitment by the united states to go down the u.n. route for the purpose not of regime change but of dealing with the threat iraq placed international peace and security, so we have to handle our interlocutors in different ways. i thought that my job on this was as light on any other job in a cabinet was to say what i thought and not only to say what i thought, let to offer the primm and mr. es work through review of wi-fi. >> you said very strongly the foreign policy objective wasn't regime change it would have been improper, on a lawful and wasn't a course you could have amended. was that also the prime minister's view? >> none of us liked the saddam

hussein regime and if there could have been a way of ridding the world and the iraqi people of that regime that would have been great and i think jonathan powell was making that point when he gave evidence the other day and so i don't want anything i say to be misunderstood that somehow what was speaking up for the iraqi -- >> i don't think there is any danger of that. >> we could've gotten rid of the more help opposition groups to say goodbye to them if the sanctions could have achieved that. that would have been great. but that wasn't on the menu. but on -- the reason i've been precise is what was being talked about, discuss, considered was the question of military action by the united states with this state on the possibility of military action involving the

united kingdom and the primm investor was well aware as i was that as i say the reaction for regime change could not be an object of a british foreign policy. and is not going to be disguised as an object of foreign policy. >> he argued in a different sense for quite some time the chicago speech which has been already in our evidence and those consistent lines of argument which went through the speech he made at the college station in texas to stuff for the crawford meeting and his continued to this date. his interview, 13th of december with britain in which he was asked if you know and then weapons of mass destruction would you still have gone on and he said i would still have got it right to remove him meeting

to be coming saddam hussein. he then said i would have to use different arguments. we've heard from other witnesses how this scene of our demand on the regime change had been cemented if you like by the fact that it appeared to succeed in kosovo, ca kelly down and indeed with afghanistan at this stage. did he told a different view on the regime change to the one that you've expressed? >> the best way to find that out is to ask -- >> we obviously will but you were having a debate with him about it. >> we are two different people. >> but in one government. >> and we came -- >> i'm trying to figure out a government policy. >> there's no great surprise to no people at senior levels of government holds strong views and debate those and what i had

to offer the primm investor which i hope i fulfilled was my best judgment coupled with my loyalty because that is what i expected anybody else that i don't mind people to disagree, i do into rigid but i ask them to be loyal because otherwise you can't operate any kind of governmental system. can i make two points if i may. first of all but the chicago speech to chicago speech was important and what the prime minister was seeking to do in chicago in that speech was to alert the world to the fact that we had been too tolerant of situations which are posing a threat to international peace sensitivity through internal repression and humanitarian disaster and it is fair to say it took iraq and what amounted

to the catharsis and system that followed that that we had the high level working groups set up by kofi annan and that has led not to the change in the charter but it leads to a broad agreement about what is now called the responsibility to protect it in a wider sense of the responsibilities of the security council and 20 blair needs to be credited with getting that going. the second thing to has been a context will analysis of speech tony blair made at crawford that if you read the speech he talks about regime change in general and there's a couple of paragraphs later he goes on to talk about iraq and when he's talking about iraq is using language similar to that i do about the threat posed to the

world by iraq's weapons of mass destruction and jonathan powell i think offered some about the link and i will have the chance to ask mr. blair about that next friday. >> so there was a certain difference of view, i think i attempted this between you and the prime minister on the regime change which use a perfectly natural, but the same time you were loyal to his point of view. there were number of locations and the speech was one. there were more in 2003 where the pan mr. bracketed disarmament weapons of mass destruction of international terrorism in justifying the approach he was taken to iraq in 2003, february for the civil he said the stance of the world takes now against saddam is not

justifiable in its own right is a huge test of seriousness in dealing with a twin threat of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. now iraq had been hitherto have been classified as a country from which iran was getting international terrorism. were you concerned at the way the prime minister was as one witness put it completing these two issues? >> i would have been concerned if he had been planning which he wasn't and i've made that clear in the memorandum which is now being leaked. if there'd been any suggestion that iraqi sefton involved in 9/11 because there is no evidence whatsoever to that effect. i don't think it was unreasonable at all however to suggest that these were the to threats because the problem that

we saw was that of failing or rogue states and you could have a state like north korea which for its own reasons was questionably developing nuclear weapons capability, and the state could also have turned out to be a pro with reader opens technology and nuclear weapons but also much more portable and directly usable technology to other rogue states which could then be available to international terrorists and after all, one of the things we've got comprehended after 9/11 was the fact being next door to afghanistan and pakistan pakistan not only develops an

effective usable weapons infrastructure and also had with dennett terrorist operations sponsored by the states in pakistan -- >> maldon iraq. >> you were asking was it unfair for the prime minister to together threat from terrorism and threats from weapons of mass destruction. >> with regard to iraq? >> i thought you were talking more generally. as far as iraq was concerned, the threat from iraq as the 11th of september as the 20th of march, 2003, was a threat as we perceived it from its weapons of mass destruction. it is certainly been involved in sponsoring terrorism against israel. we knew that. very serious but it was confined to a middle east --

>> hezbollah and so on. so there wasn't really an argument that saddam was helping the sort of terrorism that was being directed against us, certainly not al qaeda. there wasn't a scenario in which he and iraq seemed to be a country in which terrorists which was the case as you say that with regard to iraq that scenario doesn't seem probable, does it? >> there wasn't any evidence that iraq had been involved in al qaeda for the start but there was evidence, however, that saddam was ready to sponsor terrorism when he thought was appropriate and i can't

speculate on what would have happened with the saddam regime had we just about continent to wither and die which was the alternative but saddam would have been -- >> was to continue and strengthen it which is what you were trying to do. >> but we can to the view it wasn't going to fly. >> you got resolution through the u.n. and had other contant in place other countries thought evidently the french flexible but this was a viable policy. sprigg the french agreed to pass. i cannot say they were practice enthusiastic and what 1409 dealt with was a good review list. it didn't have to do with its other crucial areas. if i may say so i think it is quite difficult to argue at 2002

halvey contant was working. in my view it wasn't and jeffrey was telling you what the problems of enforcing the no-fly zones and so forth. >> but it is the case our assessment was the best ag hadn't broken out in terms of developing his weapons of mass destruction. >> the only thing i was going to add to this was that of course during this period and especially from the expulsion removal of the weapons inspectors into 1998 we had this stream of intelligence about what saddam was doing and the intelligence did not say it's packed up. maybe it didn't say that at all. we had the baseline which i mentioned in my memorandum to you of the last reportage and

worry, 1999, 200 pages long saying this is what we've done and this is what remains. there was the sort of note knowns about what had happened to that and this stream of intelligence coming through saying this continues to be a problem after all if we hadn't had that we could have abandoned contant as well. i wonder if i may just make -- i know what the joyce lee served john one of the key things you are looking at is how we arrived at this and one of the lessons which is one other thing i want to add about intelligence i talked about in my memorandum and that is in a similar set of brackets to my observations. it is about the fall plans because these things sit in the psyche of the decision makers in this just the public. i was in the commons and of course the charge against lord

carrington was unfair that the charge was he and his colleagues in the foreign office had neglected to follow through intelligence not taken proper notice of it and so it was a sort of unspoken level but say alongside as it were a lesson that was step was to the americans there was also the lesson of the full plans which will take notice of intelligence. >> can i turn now to the prime minister's current respondents with president bush and beyond that date in to talk question of the negotiations which you are vitally involved in with the american administration throughout to the center. but to start from the correspondence with president bush which ensure you have seen a list for campbell refer to the other day. now, you saw the pri mr.'s

letters like understand to president bush. did you see them after they were written or did you see them in draft and do you think you saw them all? >> i saw some of them after they were written. i saw some of them in the draft of the early circumstances. essentially i think partly dependent on literally my physical proximity of a surprisingly i spent a lot of my time as foreign secretary on plans and abroad. i can't be certain about this, there was one occasion i was on their plan of the prime minister. we talked about a memorandum he was writing and went through the draft. when i was in london i was in the oversight of downing street

all the time said it depended on the question that i see all of them. i think so is the answer. it's for the artists to say whether i saw all of them because i don't know -- speed nicu presumably would have expected to see -- >> i certainly saw the key ones. i might just say this, i obviously we had very good files in my private office and all of that has been made available to you but i've also fault -- it was very important a should be but it should be made available to you and that is a complete set of papers received from number ten and i've also seen some of the kavanagh office files and come across a memorandum from the big minister. >> i guess we better let you --

[inaudible] [laughter] there's one little while the text is in on the public record of the delivered a bye david manning to president bush and i think late july to dozen to has been in public. do you recall that particular lesson? it was pretty important. >> i'm sorry, i've got a number of them in my head. >> in all of those letters generally where you internally comfortable with the way the prime minister was expressing himself to the president? >> well, if -- some of this will be easier -- sprick it would be much easier if we had them in front of us. >> that is up easily not a matter for me.

i have been however to place a high value on the confidentiality of relations from the state's, i just do. if i may say talking about david manning, david manning had a personal friend before he and i ended up working closely together. at a very close relationship with david manning and we used to talk all the time so what is the nomination i can't say whether there was a secret piece of paper that i never saw but i don't think i did as well as -- >> my question is the premise to -- >> being happy with it. manly what i have written a memorandum in the same way probably not. because i am a different person and what we are dealing with here was country and often thisn

explanation to ask him next week but he was very close to the democratic administration bill clinton and i went with him on his first government to government visit to washington which was in february 1998 which happened to be the week of the monaco lewinsky affair got a wide audience and he became -- he was very close and supportive of bill clinton. that led to considerable sort of suspicion by the new bush administration and whether the socialist tony blair and the rest of us were socialists come

better socialists' behind could be interested and he had to built a relationship. i had to do so with colin powell but it was a little bit easier. so, i don't mean to criticize tony blair for trying to work out where this was coming from and get along side him and what i do say, too is we need to judge the results of this kind of approach with his purpose and he went there as i was talking to colin powell in the summer as well to try to persuade, to vote on the u.n. route and that is what was agreed in the end. >> that is a very important point when you say hello argued the other day which was the prime minister was making his commitment to support his strong commitment to