right now we are at about 3.8% of gdp and total federal spending is over time been approximately 20% of the gdp so we are saying the defense budget ought to be 20% of the total. a lot of percentages there and i apologize for taking that course. sometimes we say gosh we are spending so much more than any other nation in the world. why should we be spending more on the military? they spend far less than we do but actually as you go behind the numbers and you find they don't report all their military spending. and their cost for an sense of standing up an army where they have conscription, not a paid volunteer army, their costs are much lower so when you look on a more comparable basis, china is spending not 10% the level of the united states but something closer to have the level of the united states. if we were paying with the same cost cost if you will for a various resources. and russia likewise is spending

a good deal more than a report that's what that suggests is we really can't continue to pare down our military might, that we must keep intact if we are going to be confident that we and our friends and their interests are able to be protected around the world. >> host: you outline in the book and again the title of the book is "no apology" the case for american greatness, you outline in the book for competing powers, russia, china, iran and the terrorist jihadist. when it comes to russia, let's talk about it for a second. you say russia in fact is building on its energy economy, becoming richer and more powerful. china becoming more authoritarian state and then of course you have iran conquest and come potion you say. >> guest: i think following the collapse of the soviet union and the demise of its power

after the success of the cold war strategy that our nation pursued, we had a glorious period of time where we figured we want and they lost in the world was going to be safe. i remember i think it was charles krauthammer that said this was america's holiday from history. we wish history had stopped the way they have been in the past but the truth is that some of these powers have great ambitions in becoming world superpowers is not becoming the dominant player on the stage. you mentioned that first russia. we thought russia had boston we had one and we didn't need to worry about them but russia's energy resources are so extraordinarily rich that they are able to use that wealth to reestablish their military might they have more natural gas than anyone in the world. they tie us for coal reserves. they sold more energy last year than saudi arabia so they are using that extraordinary wealth and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to help rebuild the military that can be

competitive with their own. it is a long way from there today but that is what they are intending to do. >> host: i think you also write that they are supportive of iran because they would be even more control over the world's energy supply. >> guest: as russia looks at their strategy and their attempt to reassert themselves as the leading, or at lease one of the leading players on the world stage, they recognize energy is the key to their reassertion of that kind of status, and that means not only their own extraction, but pipelines going to europe and other places, if they can control all of the pipelines they will have more monopoly power. if they likewise have relations with iran and iran were to become a superpower of the middle east by its may have more influence over the energy in the middle east and and likewise venezuela and its efforts to get close to venezuela. again venezuela is an energy rich nation.

it contemplates the power associated with energy. china on the other hand is building their might in the old fashion way which is they have adopted in some respects for enterprise. not quite like ours with all the rules and guidelines and strictures of a fair and balanced free enterprise system but they have adopted for enterprise and they are winning in a lot of respects and the welfare creating has allowed them to ramp up their military in a way unseen since the german built up prior to the second world war. they built 30 submarines over the last 10 years. they have built the capacity to create their own fighter aircraft and they can go up against our f-16. they are going to be a serious contender militarily and of course the jihadist don't have any of those capacities. they don't have the wealth in the product of resources and the military might that they don't intend to go ahead to head with us and they intend in stead to terrorize us and cause the

destruction of our system by virtue of their more selective or guerrilla type approaches. >> host: well, when you stop now and think about the presence of china and russia, escalating forces, the terrorists come you say wait a second the united states must remember that its goal is not to be popular but to be strong, that that is the bottom line. yet you talk about an increased use of what you call soft power. soft power and specific in terms of selling america to poor countries, to areas where i think you described for examples the russians, the chinese interested in places like yemen, somalia where people are impoverished, young men looking for work, open to radical ideas, to becoming jihadist. so how does soft power figure into your calculation? >> guest: soft power is an

effective tool and enhancing american western values around the world. it is always good to have a strong fist if you will as teddy roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a big stick. that is all part of power that's soft power meaning the ability to influence the thinking of others and to encourage them to adopt the tuples that are peaceful and that promote human rights is also critical for our country and i think we vastly underused the resources we have. we are an extraordinarily wealthy nation. we trade with people around the world. they want access to our market. they want our technology, our health care technology, our education skills. all the things we can provide in such a way that nations would be more likely to work with us but i kept on hearing when i was in latin america about a miracle cure or the mere cooperation. i said, what is that? they said fidel castro. he provides cataract surgery for people throughout latin america.

via surgeons to travel throughout america and bring sight to people. i thought, he does that for a tiny fraction of the investment we make in latin america and he is appreciated and known because he is ranted it so effectively. we are grated some branding. americans can sell coca-cola and pepsi all over the world for half a day's wage for a can of coke. yet we are not selling democracy as well as we could. we are not selling our values and the things america has done to help the world. so rather than come if you will, apologizing for who we are and what we have accomplished i think we should be drawing on the very best of our skills from the private sector to make sure that we communicate who we are in exercise the soft power influence we could be exercising to draw more people to the kinds of values that will enhance their lives and promote the stability and peace on the planet. >> host: in the book though, when it comes to writing about something like laval worming what you said is wait a second

look at developing countries and specifically look at china. china you say cannot be trusted to put in place any regulations or limits on the emission of greenhouse gases because they have such a strong belief in of course economic growth. that is what they are all about so you say forces would be in some sense futile on the international stage to unilaterally say we are going to put in place limits on cap-and-trade standards if we are going to compete with the chinese. what does that say to the world about our commitment to limiting global warming? >> guest: well, they don't call it america warming. they call it global with warming and if one's primary concern is global warming then you have to look at what the omissions are going to become a global basis and make sure actions that are taken don't just put america and american workers at a disadvantage but instead make an adjustment in changes for the entire planet. that is why the president's cap-and-trade plan, which would only end up affecting americans and american employers, would

end up with lets say the largest emitters, the largest users of energy would say why build a new factory in america? is a matter fact why keep the factory in america going when i'm going to have to pay far more expensive prices for energy in this country. why not build it in nations like rizzo, indonesia, china and india that don't have cap-and-trade costs and will be more effective than more cost-effective. >> host: what about american leadership for america acting as a role model? >> guest: is the role model causes the largest emitters in the world, which are china and other developing nations, to simply smile and say boy they made our life easier, america's cutting as they are growing their emissions like crazy. we really haven't helped the world and that is not the leadership the world needs. we can pursue a course which in my view has perhaps even more compelling reason to pursue it and that is to pursue a course of energy independence.

and it would allow us to become energy is independent has an a byproduct reduction of greenhouse gases. to become energy independent we need to use a lot more natural gas. that is a far less co2 emitting energy source than coal or oil. to become energy independent we need more nuclear power plans. likewise, that is a nun emitter of co2 so we have ways of making america a far more, taking up from a leader role in america without the same time putting ourselves at the competitive disadvantage with nations that are competing for the very jobs that are workers want. >> host: getting back to this idea of soft power. in the book when you are talking about muslims, you make the case that the ideology is really an evil one on many levels, that the whole notion of moderate muslims doesn't form with what you read in the koran.

that you see in their instructions for people to dominate the world, to capture and take over, to simply go out and proselytize but in fact to go out and conquer and you say people don't recognize this as part of what muslims teach. >> guest: well, i wouldn't apply that it's risible to muslims as a group. i think the nation-- excuse me the religion of islam is by the great majority of muslims a religion, which does not seek to dominate their neighbor or to conquer their neighbors or to carry out jihad against america or the west but there is a strain of islam which is referred to by various names but i use the term radical violent jihadism, which traces its roots to a number of intellectuals callers who believe that the role of the koran as they read it is a very aggressive militaristic and conquering approach which the great

majority of muslims in my view, do not accept that the narrow group is of course led via names like osama bin laden and they seek to draw support from muslim youth and other muslims. most people reject that. you look at a place like afghanistan. my guess is the great majority of people there would be delighted if they never saw al qaeda or for that matter the taliban again. but nonetheless, that theology does exist and it is a theology which looks at us as somehow being very evil. it is a theology that says everything that is american is wrong and is a threat to them. they see for instance democracy itself is blasphemy. their view is the law, shirai i should come from god and the idea that individuals will create their own blog for the democratic process is in their view a form of less than me.

so almost everything we do from their perspective is contrary to their view of how god wants things to be and as a result they take a very violent means to try and overthrow the modern movement within the muslim world i think our way forward in the muslim world is to support moderate voices among muslims and to support moderate governments, and to help them in rejecting this violent extreme ideology. >> host: why don't you think those governments are doing it? >> guest: many are and some-- the philippine government for for instance was dealing with an al qaeda like movement, was finding it very difficult. there were several thousand members. there was a group that was terrorizing the people of the philippines, and our military was invited to work in partnership with the philippine military, training exercises,

carrying out out if you will humanitarian efforts among the people in the communities where the islands where abu sayyaf was most active and with this kind of soft power application by our military and special forces and intelligence forces. we were able to turn the tide against abu sayyaf and their numbers were reported in the hundreds. >> host: by the way in the book you give a toast to special forces and think we need to do more with special forces with a smaller footprint in terms of going in and taking actions but let's look not so much of the buildings but a place like saudi arabia. why do you think the saudi arabians intolerant of this kind of radical, violent thing? >> guest: i don't know that the monarchy in saudi arabia is enthusiastic about the violence because they think they realize that by having funded over the years wahhabist some, which preaches this extreme form of

islam, that maybe in some respects they put themselves in great danger. i think it was governor-- it wasn't sonny perdue but i had someone to mention to me an old church hill line which was, they are paying the cannibal to them last. this support of radical islam on the part of the saudi monarchy over the years may well have ended up in a significant threat to the monarchy itself. i think in the world of islam, there are so many obviously different strains, sunni and shia but national interest and so jihadism takes very different shapes in different places, but nonetheless, the strain present a threat to local governments, to local muslim governments, which these jihadist don't

believe are sufficiently fundamentalist and present a threat to the entire world. >> host: on this book to her that you are on, as i understand it you you are going to 19 or 20 states and the district of columbia and the states include new hampshire, obviously iowa, missouri so people are going to say it looks like you are on a campaign tour. the one line in the book that is so critical of president obama is, given all the foreign policies we have touched on, the this president seeks to present himself as somehow transcending of america and american values and american interests as opposed to being an advocate for american values and american interest. that would seem to be almost like a campaign slogan. you would have to reduce it in size, but the ideas that you believe we need an american president who stands for america and you do not see that in as president obama who seeks to

transcend, to be greater or larger than america. >> guest: anytime the president of the united united s travels the world and is critical of the united states, that it is going to lead to the kinds of stories that came out of the british press saying this president has been more critical of his home country on home soil than any american president in history and that creates a real impression that he somehow thinks he is above america and its history or there is something he needs to distance himself from. i think that is a mistake or coherent truman and dean acheson wallowing the second world war said america would adopt a new strategy and having tried isolationism and having been drawn into two world wars despite that they said america needs to be active in the world but we also need to promote our values, human rights, democracy, free trade, freedom and finally we need to be strong, standing with their allies in fighting foes where they might exist. those principles of foreign-policy i think the president has questioned in his first year and i think he would

be wise to return to them. when iranians take to the streets for incense and protest an election they think was unfair, i think our president should have spoken out clearly and sharply saying we support voices of freedom wherever they are. you can imagine ronald reagan would have had something to say and would bill clinton at least in my view. >> host: what you are saying here is this president in a way is failing to properly promote america to the world? >> guest: i think when you try and distance yourself from american history, when you suggest that somehow america needs to apologize to the world, that that elevates perhaps the individual who makes the apology and curries favor with those who are blaming america first crowd. but it does not stand as the kind of strong indication that america needs to recognize iran

during and right for us and write for others who are willing to obtain them. that is to me by the way that we force our will on other nations. but it does mean that we stand beside those in other nations who are seeking freedom. >> host: and when you hear the criticism came from the bush administration in terms of the failure to find weapons of mass distraction or cowboy diplomacy being too aggressive, too high-handed, come and get them, all that kind of thing, don't you think there are those who might be wary of an aggressive foreign-policy? >> guest: there is a middle posture, where one does not have to be seen as being timid in the defense of american values as they think this president is seen. or moving to access, and you don't want to speak loudly and carry a small stick. there is a posture of showing

american strength and commitment to american values and ideals, following through on commitments we make, standing with their friends and allies and i think president bush did so. time and again he made it clear we were going to stand with their allies and people who opposed us are going to receive the strong response of america. we were hit on 9/11. he took out the taliban in afghanistan. we believed we were receiving a threat from saddam hussein who by the way could have removed the thread instantly by saying, on end, all of my facilities are open. the international inspectors can look in the palaces. they can look in the military and go anywhere they would like to go. take a look here because we don't have-- want to have america come after us. he could have done that and it would not have suffered the fate it did had the been willing to open up his nation to that kind of inspection. but those things being said i respect president bush's

strength in defending this country and i think president obama's going to have to move in that course or he will be seen as a week resident on the international stage. >> host: we are going to take a break. mitt romney. his new book is called "no apology" the case for american greatness. >> i know what the challenges and we are in a unique addition to go to war. what we need is ears in washington to develop a roadmap so we can get it done. >> host: we are back with governor mitt romney.

he is back with a new book, "no apology" the case for american greatness. he described the book as a display of your positions on key issues. it is really an intellectual journey on your part. so many books that you have read, so many ideas but not a very personal book in some ways, so just for a second let's talk about the personal. one of the things that caught my eye in the book is that your dad was born in mexico. >> guest: his parents had escaped persecution of folks of their mormon faith and i guess it was his grandfather who moved to mexico and while they are, they were enjoying a comfortable life and then there was the revolution and disruption in mexico, so my dad was five or six years old. they packed up, got on a training came back to el paso and ultimately move to idaho. they were in california, idaho, salt lake. from then on his dad was not

terribly prosperous. his construction business, my dad worked as a laborer putting up last in plaster i think was the precursor of wallboard. dad never put enough money together and time together to complete college, but he went on to have a very successful career in the business world and ultimately in politics as well. >> host: he didn't run for president? how can someone in mexico were in for question? >> guest: they studied this at some length when he was running in 1968 in the constitution says if my memory holds, that a president must be a natural-born citizen. he was not naturalized by virtue of the fact that his parents were both u.s. citizens. he was a natural-born citizen and therefore could become a united states president in the same way let's say a service man or woman living abroad and they had a child abroad, that child would not be prevented from becoming a u.s. president simply

by being born on foreign soil because in this case that child would become a u.s. citizen by birth. >> host: he went on to not only be governor but also hud secretary for president nixon, and in the book you detailed how he was such a saving force in terms of american voters which plays a big role in your book. you were not too proud to have a gremlin in your driveway and you thought other people were driving big anti-cars. it made him rich and he was very successful. >> guest: he was very successful. when he came into american motors, the company selected him some years ago as the vice president of the chief executive officer was well-known and respected. his name was george mason. when american motors was formed with nash and hudson george mason shortly thereafter passed away in the board elected my father to become the new president of the company. the stock went down dramatically when that happens, and i think it dropped to about $5.50 a

share or go a couple of years later was trading at over $90 a share so i'm pretty proud of the job dad did. he was able to turn the country around, shore up its financial base, get the products of the people wanted and that allowed him to obviously save a lot of jobs, create a successful enterprise but i'm afraid the rambler that he championed is now gone. jeep is still around, but in hands that are new and different than when he was running the enterprise. >> host: one of the interesting things about this is right when you start the book you say when your dad ran for president he characterized his campaign in and humorous terms is being like a miniskirt, short and revealing. then you say your campaign in 08 were the presidency was a little longer but also revealing. what did you learn? >> guest: you learn a lot about just how challenging it is to be on a presidential campaign. there were mistakes made as well. i found, i think i was defined

in peoples minds to a great degree by the questions that were asked by others, the questions asked by the media for instance in debates. that is how most people see it. i think we have 13 or so presidential debates on the republican side so how i responded to those questions was how i was defined in people's minds. you like to define yourself by the the things you want to talk about and not just by what others ask you. that is part of the difficulty. one of the things about writing a book is you can layout, these are the things i believe the country needs to do so i can get beyond the questions and get into the real meat of the concerns that i have her co- >> host: in a sensor picks up on president obama wrote a book before he ran for president and jon mccain had a book. many presidential candidates now write books before they run for office. so what i'm thinking is, when you talk about your father's campaign, you talk about your own campaign, one issue on a personal basis would be your religious faith, your mormonism.

do you think that is the problem? he don't talk about this in the book although you are very open to you are a mormon. >> guest: this is a book about america and about my concerns about our economy, the foundation of our economic strength in my concern we are weakening that foundation and that we are imperiling our future. i don't get into a lot of political issues that i find of interest, social issues. i don't even get into homeland security in much depth because they don't relate to those economic foundations to the extent i felt was appropriate, but as to my views on my faith, yeah i am proud of my religion. i don't try to distance myself from it in any way, shape or form. i am sure for some people it is a problem because they don't know the state very well. for others, they just value the fact that i'm a person of religious belief but i think for the great majority of the american people, they don't care what religion someone belongs to

they are police dislike somebody based on their skills and their experience and their views on the most important issues that may exist. >> host: you don't think you might be being pollyannaish there? i know in the last campaign one of your components was mocking of mormonism and the devil with jesus's brother in that kind of thing in a certain percentage of americans in the polls, especially evangelicals seem to view mormonism as not a christian faith. >> guest: i think there will be some people for whom that is an issue. i'm not going to be able to do very much about that her co-that is just a reality of political life her co-there other people for whom it is an advantage and i take the bitter with the sweet her co-i am who i am and people can accepted or rejected. that is the way i felt as a land -- ran my last campaign and what i gave the speech i did related to religious diversity in america. that is after all in the nature

of the founding of this country, people who are seeking opportunity and also seeking religious freedom. we welcome and prize the religious freedom that exists and they would he a hollow concept we only allowed certain people to serve in public office or in other positions of responsibility based upon some religious test. i was particularly and specifically prohibited by the founders. i don't think that is an issue for the country. i hope it is not going to be for anybody who runs. whether or not i do, time will tell but that was not the heart of my campaign. i found other things to do wrong and i think senator mccain did an effective job in touching the american people as the primary process was proceeding. >> host: where do you stand on abortion? >> guest: i am pro-life her co- >> host: is a clear deep into the base of the party that you are strongly pro-life? >> guest: i