and others to dampen expectations and try to keep many of the more fervent members from going off whatever reservations they can create and that is of course we virtually all have said this is not about us, it had nothing to do with us, it was all about the rejection of the president's policies. they do not want to create any expectation that there is a mandate for an agenda ahead because the expectation will almost inevitably be negative but it also suggests some of the difficulty ahead which is not just going to be focused on when the party put against another at

the polar opposite of the spectrum. it is going to be an intense internal struggle within both political parties. for barack obama, one of the great problems is going to be discontent and his liberal base to. another interesting statement on the election came from the defeated russ feingold in wisconsin who as he spoke to this crowd said it's on to 2012. now that could mean many things, but one of them is a potential challenge to barack obama for the renomination and of course we know presidents who do not succeed winning a second term usually face that kind of a challenge from their own party base. but we also know that as efforts are made to find areas of common ground looking ahead of that in some of those to trade for

example where we could easily imagine barack obama who has indicated support for the preacher agreements with columbia and south korea. getting them through this congress but he would get them through with more republican votes than democratic votes in both labor, which has seen its great hope for the last two years talk about unfulfilled expectations for the labor reform act will not be happy campers if obama immediately turns to ally with republicans and a small number of democrats for trade agreements, and that will be true as well if we look at some fiscal package that might include changes in social security to read and of course within republican ranks, we are going to see some very substantial tug-of-war between the pragmatists whose goal is to

win the elections before anything else and i want to other comments on the last couple of days. one was mitch mcconnell rather an artful statement at the top political goal from his party was to make barack obama a one-term president which probably should have been preceded by of course we want to make good public policy for the country but regardless it is a reflection of the reality. we want to win the elections. the other is jim demint who has been offered mitch mcconnell a kind of neighborhood, a bit like having to freddy krueger on your block now will find many freddie krueger families moving into the street. but in his word of advice to the incoming class said something i've never heard a member cd4,

which is you will get on the committees but never mind those because they will just want to make the policy and called you into going along with whatever they agree to. forget about that you want to go on the floor and a block of this and throw your grenade basically on the floor. you're going to see a lot of that and a lot of those tensions and to emerge as you get people coming in who believe that even if this were not about them it was a massive repudiation of the agenda that we've seen for the last two years that they have every reason to move to take a meat ax to that agenda. clich. one other cautionary note as we look at the polls and sees the substantial increase in the number of people whose of identify as conservatives and there is no question this is a backlash against government, there was a fascinating question asked in a cnn poll that i saw yesterday where people were

asked what do you want to be the top priority for congress when it comes back? and leading the pack by a large margin was a new stimulus package. now you can square that circle anyway you like. the way i square it is americans are not ideological they are pragmatic. they want what works. when the government doesn't work throughout the bums who want a bigger government. when the private sector isn't working let government stepped in to help us help. and right now they want to get the economy moving and they will be happy to take a government package that works if it can work. and whether that will come across with a lot of people coming in or expectations out in the public that this will now mean not just a change in policy that an economy moving again will be interesting to read a few other comments, we are looking towards nasty and brutish politics and policy making ahead. but some of the key questions

will emerge before this new 112 congress convenes on january 3rd with all of its new members. we will have a lame-duck session and it is going to be particularly interesting to see whether crack addict republicans with a democratic congress are able to move some of the sticky issues off the table for now in a lame-duck that will be much more difficult to resolve early in a new congress that they do not want to see hitting the ground with bickering and stumbling. top of the list of course is the tax cuts, which expire at the end of the year and whether they can reach an agreement, a compromise would basically just pump for a year either put it all off or make some of the tax cuts permanent and of the others last for a year is a critical question. if they cannot reach an agreement then we will see all

taxes that had been cut go up on january 1 and that includes an estate tax moving to a draconian level of a million-dollar individual exemption and a 55% rate, and that will i think not be viewed very favorably by voters and there is no assurance of course that is as they come in january 3rd date and can reach a deal. in fact it might go on for months. second is the budget itself. we haven't had a single appropriations bill for the fiscal year that began october 1st in the act into law. we have a short-term continuing resolution in place. can we get that moving along or will we have potentially a shut down and the government at a very early stage next year? what about the start treaty which has all kinds of implications beyond the treaty itself including how much russia will cooperate with sanctions with iran which becomes a much tougher issue in which to get 67

votes when members shift from 59 democrats to 53 or perhaps fewer and then keep in mind we have something else on the agenda in the weeks ahead and that is the ethics trials in the house of representatives. for maxine waters and charlie rangel. the house ethics committee actually was one of the few places showing close a bipartisan cooperation in the last congress, not necessarily always for the better. part of it was the bipartisan agreement to see no evil and hear no evil. but it also broke down under the sheet of the election pressures in the final weeks. there was no chance to rid the trial of the two leading credit to the election in part because many members of the ethics committee themselves were in a tough reelection battle. but the republicans on the committee all to the broad side shot at the democrats and joe,

the democrat who worked for a hard with zoey lofgren now has a fairly substantial gulf created between the two. in the partisan bickering will update reach an overall agreement, and with that agreement it could potentially also create more trouble for barack obama with his own left, by many that this was an unwarranted focus on african-american members where others had done similar things and so on. now, where can we see agreement. we could see it as triet, difficult as that is. there is a potential for a free will of the elementary and secondary education act with a revised no child left behind that not only would have the support of arne duncan and john boehner but substantial number of members on both sides of the all. we can imagine as you heard

before from many of energy, not focusing on limits like cap-and-trade, but expanding alternative energy sources including nuclear and others. one of the most interesting areas for the potential cooperation is infrastructure. we know that very substantial share of the business community which poured a lot of money into electing republicans to congress wants a major infrastructure package. my guess is the vast majority of the republican freshmen coming in which you that as business as usual big government spending money again and we should see interesting tension developed their. we are going to see a larger set of clashes i think because even if we get agreement of some of these areas which are significantly but marginal we are going to go from econ chris that past a lot of sweeping legislation to one that will

pass very little and much of the action moves to the executive branch and we are going to see a substantial tug-of-war between the branches. not only in the form of subpoena requests and demands to testify but also the real challenges to the exertion of executive power. i will predict confidently "the wall street journal" editorial pages going to suddenly discover that there is an article 1 in the constitution which is somehow placed in the attic over the last couple of years and many of these battles will turn to the courts and we are going to focus very heavily on the courts at adjudicating them. but we are also likely to see shutdowns more than one of the government as we go along despite the cautionary note of the republican leaders who remember what happened in 1995 and 1996 and look to it happening earlier this time, not just potentially over the continuing resolutions, but the

debt limit being reached probably and march, april or may. it is hard for me to imagine both from either party going to increase the debt limit and hard to imagine it being done with one party alone out there on a limit given the larger public move, and that may lead to something very difficult. now i want to end on an upbeat note which is i can imagine an optimistic scenario. i can actually imagine a larger agreement on budgeting and economic stimulus that would include an infrastructure package and media the form of an infrastructure bank with public-private partnerships combined with tax cuts that would include possibly painful tax holiday and some of the other breaks for businesses there would be accepted as the stimulus and that might get some bipartisan support along with

possibly the price of some sleeping tax reform a little bit further down the road. we know dave camp, the incoming chairman of the house ways and means committee and kent conrad, the democrat who chaired the budget committee is actually engaged in some conversation over the tax reform and just as we had in a very unusual situation favorably major policy made in the second turn of the two term presidents, 1986 with ronald reagan working with dan rostenkowski and gephardt and bill bradley was the exception to that with sleeping tax reform. a kind of tax reform that either would broaden the base and lower the rates or that might move to a very different form of taxation away from payroll and income taxes to either a consumption tax or something else could be on the cards. now, that's not out of the question. but the prospects remain quite slim and the prospects of a

nasty and brutish couple of years are much greater. >> thank you very much, norm. i sure all of you have questions but i would like to ask norma one question and then turned to the audience. on the letter did a speech a couple of weeks ago he taught at reorganizing the house and a couple of weeks and i wonder what your reaction is for someone who watched the house for a long time. >> was a very good and impressive speech. it wasn't the kind of speech you might expect in the weeks leading up to an election that bashed nancy pelosi and the democrats. it was one that said we didn't run things well when we were in charge. they haven't run things well and i am determined to make it better to open it up to have many more amendments on the floor to have sunshine in the spotlight insisting that it wouldn't bring up any bill that didn't have 72 hours advance notice no matter how difficult it would be. but he also noted he wasn't at all sure his colleagues were going to be amenable to many of

those things. he's also looking at some significant committee reform which is now long overdue and i think it is not just a tactical maneuver but utterly sincere. but it's also important to note when he got to the q&a one of the first questions was about the health care issue and he pledged to bring to the floor something that would repeal the $550 billion medicare cuts that are part of the health package. it's moving into someone dangerous territory because if you're going to get some kind of a broad agreement on the fiscal disaster ahead for basically taking medicare off the table and it's also saying i am a fiscal conservative we will protect every dollar of medicare spending in to the perpetuity. that isn't a good way to start a discussion about fiscal responsibility. -- before. we will now turn to questions. there is a hand over here.

if you can wait for the microphone and please identify yourself. >> i think that maybe henry given his remarks can answer this. but suppose the economy turned out the way obama and biden sought that it might? let's suppose it 7% unemployment, let's suppose there had been a net gain of 2 million jobs. i know that is an implausible scenario but that is what they put forward. suppose that happened little of the shifts in the public mood and opinion and the white working-class moving the other way would that have happened? is this the election really about the state of the economy and all of the factors he's been talking about with respect to public opinion and public mood at the phenomena of which are a result of our current state of the economy and the implication

would be they would go away and two years if the economy does recover. >> i'm not sure it would have been a 64 seat gain but i do think it would be a substantial seat gain because we've had before examples where a large centralization implementation of the socialist federal power in cases of the growing economy whether it is a rapidly growing like in the mid-60s or recovering quite rapidly in the early 90's and the white working-class reacted in exactly the same way even though those results were not being implemented in the background of a dramatic recession. i am sure the economy had something to do with it but there's something much more in eight that's going on. >> john? >> i am a little different on henry one is the natural tendency of the midterm election to go against the president in power, the modest component.

i think the economy was the biggest component. the other component is the ideological and the worries about debt deficit, larger government, the obama administration moving too far, too fast, but even some of those concerns might have been listened with a better economy. the numbers are better when you have a better economy, the deficits of your smaller, so i think what has been a move in the republican direction, not a tiny move, but i think the economy was the larger part of this, and norma's point that from now until two more years is a long point from 1982 to 1984 was a long time and the conditions can change. they might not. if they don't change, barack obama is in very big trouble but the change for the better, he is in a lot better position. >> michael? >> i guess i would say the big government component is the larger component. public opinion was turning against obamacare by august,

2009. we saw the protests in the recess and we also saw the first polling showing republicans ahead of the generic about what question, which party will the candidates favor for the house of representatives. i think that the expectations that the economy would recover more than it turned out to do and that when you started getting the economy showing weaker signs that show up in the statistics first for the second quarter of 2010, and then for the third quarter that, you know, that played some role. but i think that people were turning against obamacare when their expectations for the economy were high year and more positive than they turned out to be since the middle of this year. >> i just want to add one note. after the 2008 elections, right after, we were saying 2010 was

went to be a good republican year. the pendulum had swung widely twice in a row and we hadn't seen that. a gain of more than 20 seats in house come to the elections in a row since 1930, 32. it was only natural that it was going to swing back, and the question is whether it would swing back the way it with ronald reagan, with losing many of the seats that they picked up in those to elections in the house, perhaps holding their own in the senate, or whether it would be more like clinton, and it turned out to the clinton plus. but i'm not at all sure the attitude toward the health care bill would have been the same as people had been more optimistic about the course of the nation, which is driven more by the economy than anything else. >> penny eastman with one identity solutions. norm, i don't know if you know this. there are either three or four of the senate seats that could see to it prior to december --

>> right. skin cancer, prior to generate. >> degette seated immediately. >> i've colorado, west virginia and florida. >> is that right? >> florida is not -- and colorado was going to be the same but it's not. >> at least as of now. so you get one shift basically in the illinois. >> with roland burris. >> rowland, we hardly knew you. [laughter] >> and norm, what do you think -- >> it doesn't make much difference. it could make a significant difference if all of the seats switched to the republican side, then the numbers would have been 55-45, instead of what will now be 58-42. so you don't have enough on your own to overcome filibusters. frankly after an election of this sort it's not like you're going to discuss in that fashion anyhow. and they couldn't get those things through the house regardless. so it ends up not needing very

much except we see a few different fees is to give >> what are your predictions for the lame duck? to you think they will get anything done in the lame-duck? >> logic would suggest to you to the tax issue both for tactical reasons and for policy reasons. in a fragile economy, even for a few weeks to have taxes go up dramatically, and to have a significant number of people who are going to dalia in january and february, i don't know if you saw the rather extraordinary statement of the congressman from my why only last week saying that some of her constituents had said that they would pull their own blood before january, which is -- it will get your attention, let's put it that way. but logic in this case doesn't necessarily work given the larger political dynamic. now there are obvious compromise is that you could reach the

would kick the can down the road. i still think it is more likely than not that the debate. some of it let me say depends on rather the outside forces that were building in september and october to try to completely delegitimize a lame-duck session saying that these were people who were hijacking the policy process after the voters have spoken. if you get that kind of a drum beat, it becomes much tougher to cut a deal. only if that gets dampened down will we see it happen. >> john? >> i am looking for a lehman lame-duck session. the one exception norm mentioned earlier might be this doherty although we might not finish it up that is one area that some of the work that has been done might carry over even in the lame-duck or the next congress. the tax cuts in some ways to have to be responsible to deal with them before they expire, but the expired, those -- there will be some problems, whether how we print the tax tables, but

we can put the genie in the bottle again and that actually sort of retroactively put them back where they were, and i feel a temporary extension for a year or maybe two years putting it past the next election is probably the most likely outcome. right now the president seems to have moved a little bit say in temporary extensions for the higher your income and the permanent for the lower income tax cuts. my guess is the final resolution will be temporary for both, but it probably won't happen until the next congress to risk and i can't see around the corner. are there questions in the back? the please, wait for the mic. >> stomach i am john buckley with the american conservative magazine. what happened to the anti-war movement what was so big in the last election and totally disappeared? was obama considered to be

pre-empted by the washington establishment or -- no commentary was made at all about where it went. if it still exists. >> i think it still exists and it's mostly on the democratic side of the ogle. i recall looking at the exit poll questioned, and what do you think about the war in afghanistan. and my recollection i think is checking the numbers is that a majority of democratic voters are basically against the war, against the current policy in afghanistan and a majority of the republic, large majority of the republic is favoring it. so i can envision the possibility of the roll call where the coalition norm and mentioned on trade the obama at patrician plus republicans and some democrats could prevail. and i think also the suggestion that we could see -- could we have a challenge to barack obama in the democratic nominating process in 2012. i have always thought it is kind of a daunting thing for anybody

to contemplate taking on the first african-american president. and when you have a series of a democratic contests in which the average african-american percentage in a democratic primary is around 20 to 25% those are numbers that we tend to detour a clinton challenge which i consider unlikely. but we have had challenges from the anti-war movement and you have a couple people now that i think are conceivable challengers. you have governor howard dean who is treated shabbily by this administration after a pretty good record as the democratic national chairman, and you have the man who will soon be x senator russ feingold. >> those numbers are for the was the exit polls prove of the war in afghanistan, 54% disapproved, and in fact 61% majority of democrats disapproved and 73% majority of the republicans approved and that was the only foreign policy question and the poll. right here.

>> john wohlstetter, senior fellow discovery institute. karlyn, i saw an article claiming come from the exit poll data, 9% of the voters factored in the broken up airliner yemeni bomb plot and i wonder if you saw percentage on that and if you think it had any intent on the election? >> adel recall seeing that question, michael, do you recall? >> the question at the end where your vote influenced by the -- by what was the terrorist thing of the -- >> i didn't see that. i'm sorry. >> it's right at the and i think. by the yemeni package and this event. like 60% said they were. those were tended to be i believe more republican, voted for republican the and those who said they were not. i am not sure i take the responses to that question very

seriously. you know, you could ask people or they affected by the weather? monday and tuesday i -- you know, i wouldn't go -- i wouldn't indulgence much interpretations on the basis of that question. >> 84 worker at aei. two questions. michael, you mentioned that there were 13 states where the republican power structures might be important in redistricting and i understand seven seats are going to be shifted in the house and the next election from the essentially space states to the republican states. i wonder if you could put a quantify some kind of a number where it might work, and norm, you're talking about the kruger family moving in and we have seen examples of the ball and throwing on the floor, center bombing did things. are there any other incoming senators who you would consider in the kruger family that you want to warn us about?

>> as i recall, my estimate is depending on whether it be new york lose is two seats or one or florida gains two seats or one of the current projections there is slightly different projections that basically the obama 08 states will lose either six or seven house seats, and mccain states will gain or lose a net six or seven. interestingly, texas is projected to gain four seats. texas has been the economic leader of the united states in this decade. california is projected to gain cero seats. there will be the first time since a was admitted to the union and 1850 that it hasn't gained seats of the census and that shows the economic doldrums california is in despite the immigration and hasn't had its population increase any faster than the national average so

those are the projections. there are elections, those of us who can remember ten years ago, in which the six votes can make a difference. is whether or not 2012 will be one of those, we don't know. >> here is a little factoid that may describe the shift that we have seen in our politics. we have a new father-son team in congress, rand and ron paul, replacing the last father-son team, ted and patrick kennedy. [laughter] that may reflect the shift in our politics. this case the younger one is in the senate which is interesting, too. but if you put rand paul together if you have a couple of people who might decide that jim demint is their role model. i am more skeptical about marco rubio who's been the speaker of the house floor and who i suspect is considerably more

pragmatic. it's important to mention one other important dynamic that may affect policymaking in the senate, especially in the next two years. there are ten republicans in the class of 2012, and they include people like orrin hatch and scott brown and olympia snowe and about corker. they all watched fer closely what happened to bob bennet, what happened to lisa murkowski and most of them don't have right in provisions. what happened to bob inglis, and they're going to be very cognizant of the fact that if this turns out to be a couple of years where they cooperate, that may spell trouble for them. orrin hatch already has a very likely challenger, jason chaffetz, house member from his right. and i see you're going to see in orrin hatch was not going to talk about all that he accomplished with ted kennedy, and it's basically going to be

the old fritz hollings and nobody going to get to my right this time around, and i think we are going to see that electromagnetic pulling some of them away from cooperation which makes it more difficult to figure out how you can make policy. >> to a question in the back and then if there is one over here, right over here we go to both questions and have the panel answer. james, if you could -- clark. >> court judge, white house riders' group. henry olsen mentioned provincial conservatism. there is going to be a big push to retial obamacare, and my question is would you recommend that and what form would you recommend it taking? second question would be this is a divided government now much like the u.k. and other countries. do you ascribe any importance to that? >> let's take this question here and then we can have anyone on the panel answer. >> yes. frank fletcher. other in the housing markets

there's not deflationary but inflation. the trade deficit, the public deficit influence that. the decision as to other countries continue to treat the dollar as a reserve currency all would be factors in a potential hyperinflation which would never experience. however, the most critical factor in my view would be the behavior of the federal reserve and the promiscuous printing of money. is there an awareness of this among republicans and how do you read in the behavior of the federal reserve? >> with respect to clark's question, i think that it is demanding the vote to repeal obamacare, so i think both leaders said they are going to do that. this is one case where you've got half the public that's behind you. i think that's not something that on its face is going to cause problems in the short term but more important and

interesting question is can they do look a pragmatic conservative plan to deal with health care. republicans have in the congress tried to shy away from that, and the result was the health care reform that was passed. a serious conservatism cannot avoid that question anymore and that is going to be the litmus test as whether or not we see -- whether or not we are going to have a pragmatic conservatism that tries to to get into of this. you're second question was? >> [inaudible] >> i think the -- no, i do inscribe -- i think there's a lot of things going around world wide. michael homeland wrote a very interesting column in salon.com that's the abandonment of the -- the decline among the parties world wide as a result of the working class, the former base deserting demand in european countries it takes different forms and here but you can see that in virtually every developed country.

you see the rises in virtually every country. is a sentiment on what we would call the progress of left. again, another country is primarily on the rise of the green party. here it is the rise of the factions within the democratic party but that's the same thing. the same phenomena working out in different ways, and at the same time i think what we are seeing worldwide is the demand for the reform but not repeal of the welfare state. people who are recognizing that we can't continue to promise things we don't produce, but at the same time there isn't a strong constituency even in this country the most conservative developed world for the return to the new deal system of political economy and divided government is a way of reflecting the that. >> we wanted to give back at the federal reserve question. i should tell you i saw a poll that says more americans fought the federal reserve was a fine kentucky bourbon and that was the monetary.

[laughter] >> starting off where henry was talking about, i think we are in a situation where, you know, pragmatism and prudence may council what would seem to be rather radical measures. one of looks at what the government in britain is doing now which is 25% budget cuts to the many departments and reduction of 490,000 public sector jobs. i think that california, illinois and new york are going to be faced with scenarios that may be the only provincial even though it doesn't sound very moderate and it's not something that a middle-of-the-road per cent would immediately think is the best thing to do, or certainly not a continuation of the status quo. as for the federal reserve the incoming republicans are aware of the concerns about hyperinflation most of them watch as i do cox news channel. if you have watched fox news

channel lately, you will notice there's a lot of ads for her gold. [laughter] it used to be dietetic and get your home refinanced. now it's cold, i've got to get -- i need to get a channel clicker that automatically pushes the mute button on the old commercials because i can repeat the text. and yes i think the kind of concerns that seem to be prompting interest in the market for gold are familiar to the incoming republican members of congress. >> we are supposed to finish about 1:30, so we will to give you more questions here and here. there are a couple on the back. we will take three questions and the panel will answer them starting here. and then to win the fact -- the two in the back. >> larry bruiser. you've spoken about the importance of the big government issue as ending the democrats' majority. i'm wondering how this same

issue poses to the republican majority. if you need look at the new republican majority -- if you look at the house republicans' pledge to america, they say the biggest goal is to reduce spending in the deficit. but if you look carefully at how they say they are going to do that, there is really not much specific they say the defense and entitlements are off the table. so my question is if the republicans don't achieve much in the way of actually reducing spending or the deficit, how big a risk would this be to the new majority? >> there are two questions back here and there. okay. >> my question is how do you think it influences the tea party candidate and the new congress especially in the house and what do you think about the candidates like michele bachman to run for the republican confluence, and may be is that a

trend in case she wants to be a voice of the constitution conservatives in the gop. >> let's take that question in the back, too. >> hi there, jennifer with the association of public and land grant universities. do you think that there is any chance that the republican house would consider investment in science and research differently than other funding? will investment funding be considered any different than other spending? >> let me take a crack at some of those. on and a little bit of a skeptic about a substantial cutback in funding and a general way. part of it is because every time you try and hang anybody except paul rollin and down on specifics, the dams completely away from it. i mean, they do a better job of moving out of the corner than

muhammad ali ever could have in his prime. and the focus here is on two things: earmarks, eliminate them all and boy, you probably saved the equivalent of three drops in the ocean when you look at spending; and a freeze on all discretionary domestic spending back to the 2008 levels, which if ever took hold, would last only until the next hurricane or oil spill or other disaster. and i see you're going to see a public backlash anyhow. the antipathy towards washington basically has a lot of people thinking that you could just cut out waste, fraud and abuse of these idiots in washington have done. none of us would ever noticing and deficits would melt away. when he get to specifics, it doesn't quite work that way. and if you start by saying you're going to be eliminate the cutbacks and the growth of medicare, it doesn't take you very far. so, you've got to be a case that did about that. but just in order, too, tea

party, and i think just even looking ahead as we speculate, we may be setting things up for what could make the most interesting republican presidential contest in our lifetimes in 2012. because i concede a number of people stepping forward, starting with sarah palin and others, who channel the anger that now has propelled many of those candidates into office, about democrats in washington, reflecting instead on the mealy mouthed, weeks find republican establishment figures who kept them from getting all of those goals they should have achieved and the public and given to them over the course of the next two years, which in the practical world largest not going to happen. and that might be enough unless

there is a radical change in the republican nominating process to propel somebody who doesn't have wide popular support, especially in the independent group ahead, and that struggle was going to be particularly interesting one, and you've got a lot of members of congress who have attained great fame and fortune. michele bachman among them, buy playing off some of those things, and that will be one of the most interesting things to watch. >> i agree with norm on that last point, but i would hold that a little bit more optimism for the moncoutie party conservatives simply because the way the primary system is structured. both new hampshire and michigan are early states. they both permit the democrats and republicans to vote. traditionally they have backed the left conservative candidate who consequently have given them momentum. and i would find it very odd that there would not be some

more moderate conservative who would to get feige of that the way that john mccain did in 2000 to build a national identity given the prominence of the tea party sort of rhetoric the media will be flaring up. the question of the big government problem i think that is the problem of the pragmatic conservatism that it needs to have an answer between cutting and maintaining that the criticism of the left is a few republican power in all they are going to do is dismantle the programs and criticism of the right is always elect conservatives and the end of doing the same old that the democrats do, and the challenge of conservatism is to come up with an answer that is true to conservative principles but recognizes the need to govern seriously and make this sort of trace that norm did and do it in a way that reinforces conservative principles of liberty opportunity and family.

>> michael? >> well, i think the -- on the tea party movement i think i'm balanced. this influx into politics of perhaps millions of people has been on the balanced. a degette dandridge for the republican party has had some offsetting liabilities, however. because when you get millions of people or hundreds of thousands entering into political activity, many of them will be good, solid citizens who will likely turn out to have some political acumen, and i site saturday lector johnson of wisconsin, who the mainstream media has not been interested in covering because he doesn't illustrate what they want to illustrate, is an example of that. but you also have a certain number of people who are or can be characterized as whackos and weirdos, and without applying the that label to them i think that the defeat sharron angle and kenneth balk in states where

the long problematic republicans to candidate would have prevailed in those highly visible senate races. well, christine o'donnell in delaware as well, losing by a wide margin, may put a little bit of a damper on the insistence you always must have the most radical candidate for the most far out policy solution because they illustrate you pay some price for that. you know, people -- many people in parties and primaries both democrats and republicans in making choices often have to balance between getting a candidate who represents their views most closely, and one who has a better chance of winning and different people make that balance differently as voters, but i think this might have those rather particularly sharron angle, who is a visible

figure nationally running against the senate majority leader may put a damper on that. on the fiscal issues and so forth, norm is right to point out that if you want to have -- if you want to solve these fiscal problems, you're talking about very major moves that paul ryan and some republicans who have endorsed him are contemplating in an intellectually serious way but in which most politicians instinctively want to avoid. i would just say that the offense might hurt less to having to face these and come up with things. what's happening in britain is i think relevant. candidate sweden went through this in the 90's. neither one of them we think of as a right-wing country. and negative that california, illinois and the new york state governments may present us with something like what new york city presented us with in 1975

from a very visible collapse of the public finance. >> there were other questions in the back and think, work right here. >> and there is one in the far corner we will also get that -- behind the tiller, sorry. >> [inaudible] tea party question. if jim demint is somewhat successful in bringing certain policies to the right, do you envision -- obviously it's hard to imagine the left sitting out the next two years -- de you envision a similar push from the left to bring in or go after democrats they envision as too moderate to bring over to the left as an answer to the tea party faction? >> john? >> i don't see that the congressional level -- to me, you look at the caucus now, lots of conservative democrats have lost, so the main targets are not there. i do think -- and i agree norm

said this -- of the presidential level -- or michael -- like barack obama has to worry about a challenge from the left, especially regarding the entire war movement. his decisions on afghanistan in 2011, they might work out. it might be if he's able to meet -- go to that place that he said he would begin reducing troops in 2011. please the left, things are going okay but might not work out. they might say look one of the reasons we like to in the first place is your anti-war. it is a dangerous spot for him. i think that is the place where you might see a challenge from the left, more likely from one of the figures like howard dean and russ feingold but i don't see a lot of congressional candidates challenged in this round. maybe down the road there is a club for growth on the left that springs up, but i think it's a couple elections away. >> it's also the case actually that the tea party could be a gift to obama in that sense, and the way that some of the

investigations against clinton actually rallied his base, which had some reason to be unhappy with him with what he did on crime and with what he did on welfare. it was the enemy of my enemy and if there is an overreaction here it might actually help obama who has problems over afghanistan, don't ask don't tell, same-sex marriage, potentially on trade and a whole host of other issues, not getting a single-payer or public option in the health care plan. >> we did see one such challenge in 2010, which was in arkansas, the unions primarily bankrolled lt. governor bill hall challenging senator blanche lincoln. he was almost successful in that primary and nearly won the runoff, and, you know, then blanche lincoln was defeated volume on indigenous margin. in the general election. i -- well, i think what the lesson i would draw is that no democrat was elected to the seat, certainly not one who

voted as lincoln did finally for the obamacare health care bill. but the left may draw the conclusions, and the union movement still has a lot of money with public employees unions pumping in. and being supplied by the tax payers with that money. so they have a desire that we may see other such challenges despite, you know, the apparent futility of the arkansas challenge. there's certainly primary electorate is sympathetic to a left challenge to a democrat than that in arkansas. >> question in the back. >> question from homeland security. what do you think the results of the election are going to do to homeland security policy in terms of budget and programs especially given the fact that the tea party had much as a homeland security platform and that the republicans want to reduce spending are traditionally very for homeland

security. >> pete king takes over the homeland security committee and is very tough and very strong and coming from new york, perhaps not surprisingly so. i think we are going to see an aggressive push among other things and i hope that this is the case to finally get reasonable congressional oversight of the department which congress has avoided. the basically fragmented jurisdiction soviet capital budget committee chairs happy. but i also think after the yemeni plot, after some of the other examples we are now seeing going after the cargo planes and a whole host of other places where we are getting probes going that the sentiment to provide additional funding to beef up security at the ports with shipments going by air and also getting to do something more about the chemical and nuclear and other plants that

are potentially volatile. we will probably get bipartisan support. it does get back to larry's question because it is part of a discretionary spending for the most part and you put a freeze and you're going to have to start to make some very tough decisions about how you act within that frees to read >> tea party members are trying to read what they believe a lot of areas we didn't talk a lot about in the campaign certainly foreign policy there is kind of a blank slate and a lot of the poll questions as well as the campaigns. i think there is a libertarian and stand the idea that a lot of these guys are across the old board libertarian who don't believe and involvement in the world or spending in the areas as long and the one area which i think is the most is on anti-terrorism policy. some of these campaigns actually that has, and they have expressed them to be relatively strong in that area. >> above like to put a plug for the continuity project norm and john have been working on for so long. they're coming off with a new

report on the continuity of the supreme court to read to you think will make any progress on that report with the new makeup of congress? >> i had a brief discussion with pete king last week and he said we really need to focus on this. but i think we have a problem, which is that the republican leadership, like its predecessors in the republican side and like the democrats come at the leadership level of just stone no interest in dealing with these problems and whether we will get a different reaction before we actually get terrorist attack that has everybody saying oh my god how could we let that slip away is another question. and we are losing a major champion in brian baird. >> a question in the back right here. yes. right in front of you. >> chris from the embassy. is the citizens united decision making a difference to the republicans this year and do you think the unions get money to the republican seats in the

northwest? >> i don't think citizens united made a big difference. i think the money would have flowed into the republican campaign's. people would have found a way to do it to avoid the republican national committee has some of these organizations did. they would have found another way. and i think that when we set for the campaign contributions we will find that case street, the lobbying community could supposedly read the polls and starting certainly in the third quarter of this year perhaps in the second quarter tilting their -- having contributed heavily next out in many cases to democrats started discovering the virtues of the republican candidates which had been hitherto hidden from them, and that tended to equalize to some considerable extent the money gap that we were finding. and the other lesson i would say is that some of these races show

us that money is not hugely decisive. when you've got a situation where people are not really riled up about major issues, then you run a series of tv ads and you can win a campaign where the other come against a candidate who can't afford to put his picture on tv or something. this year you had a lot of situations of people winning the primaries, and i think it will turn out general elections with no money. the tennessee for democratic incumbent lincoln davis i'm sure was adequately financed, and the republican candidate at some point i believe i stand ready to be corrected on this but i remember reading he had virtually no money at all true she won 57-39 or by a proportion like that. >> i think it made a very substantial difference, and i

will explain why but let me say it wasn't just citizens united. it was the realization on the part of lots of outside activists that the irs was doing nothing to actually enforce the law beyond its regulations involving 501c4 and c6 that he could do pretty much anything you wanted out there and not have to disclose donors and there was the federal election commission's you didn't have to worry about any violation of the law. and it will be interesting to see if that continues to read but here's the difference basically detonate. first of all it needed for the state legislative level. one of the reasons you see this large shift in seats is there was more money going into the state legislative races and we have ever seen before on a lot of the outside money. and that makes a difference. and if you travel around country, you're actually seeing substantial numbers of tv ads run by al-sayyid groups and state legislative candidates. i have never seen that before. at the same time, one of the

reasons you see a lot of limits in the congressional swing, even in the years when you get away in the past has been this enormous and balance between the funding and the recognition for the incumbents and challengers in so many cases it's not a matter of whether candidate is inadequate resources, they all do what you what challengers with nothing and nobody else filling in. now, when you get a large number of targets, usually with the parties and others have to do is make choices. it's like having a huge whack the nikki and a handful of mallets you can use to read this time you have funding going to permit challengers or to attack incumbents, most to protect incumbents that have never been there before, and a much wider range, and i wouldn't surprise me to find that ten, 15, even 20 of these house seats might have come out differently because nobody would have been out there

spotlighting the incumbent and slamming them at a time that encouraged a different reaction if it weren't for the very substantial increase in funding. not so much overall as where it ended up getting targeted. >> before i.t. could i think is the last question over here i would like to thank all of you for coming to the election watch sessions we hope will be back in 2012 in january to start this all again. i also to thank my colleagues for a separate presentation over the course of the year and now the final question in this corner. >> barbara wittman. the tea party race on the senate side are pretty high profile, pretty well identified and it's easy [inaudible] i just wonder how much any of you speak to identifiable tea party candidates on the house side and what the ratio was of how many of them prevailed. as the equality party -- there's not one organized the party or tea party groups and you've got

one tea party movement that is manipulated by russo who is a local consultant to scott and on the gravy train with many things. so that t. party back is difficult and who is the tea party candidate, how do you define it? i think norm pointed out quite correctly to say that marco rubio, you know, is a political neophyte, this is a guy that got himself elected speaker of the floor of the house of representatives. simply to misdescribe reality this is an experienced elected official who showed considerable political acumen prior to becoming a candidate for the u.s. senate. so i think political scientists who are trying to characterize and distinguish between tea party and mullen tea party candidates are going to be hard to find a quantifiable basis for

deciding who a tea party candidate is. it's more like i know one when i see one. .. i would've said well, it was almost universally possible -- posited that christine o'donnell was the case that stood alone as

one who must defeat for republicans. two seats in colorado and nevada does give some pause to that. and there are some cases in house races. but i do think you find lake lyell labrador come to people run away that cito never won a seat with someone like him and ends up winning. so i think there is talent and quite delivered number of people that helped in the house representatives. and generally positive, and little is positive without going into this. >> thank you all for coming. and we'll stay up around for a few minutes if you have questions. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> changes need to occur in congress and it's only going to occur if the people of our country really begin to get involved in the political system and begin to run for congress and come over here and to make the changes that are necessary.

>> topics that today's defense department briefing included the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, military operations in afghanistan in the past 35 fighter program. spokesman geoff morrell also announced secretary gates travel travel in the one-year commemoration of the 14 shooting. this is 45 minutes. >> hey, guys. good afternoon. it's been a while. let me go over a few items and we'll get right to your questions. first of all, our thoughts and prayers are with the fort hood community as they prepare to mark the one-year anniversary of the tragic shooting that killed 13 and wounded 32. tamara secretary mchugh and general casey will travel to chile to participate in a ceremony remembering those lost in honoring the soldiers and civilians who helped tend to the wounded. you may recall the 1908 and the

467 medical detachment from the process of deploying to iraq and afghanistan respectively to me and others came under attack at home. i'm happy to report those units have recently returned home from successful tours overseas. meanwhile the prosecution of the accused shooter is moving into pretrial hearings. the entire fort hood family has shown truly exemplary strength and resilience that they were to recover and we'll continue to support them in every way that we can. not to secretary gates' upcoming travel schedule. we turn i.t. department melbourne where he will join secretary clinton for the 25th annual australian united states ministerial constitution as we refer to it ausmin. this is the fourth international trip together and they will be joined this time by chairman mullen. you may recall that this meeting was originally scheduled for last january, but was postponed due to catastrophic earthquake

in haiti and the need for both secretaries to remain in washington to help manage the u.s. assistant effort. i should note that tv is currently bracing for another natural disaster, tropical storm tomas and we are in position to respond quickly. several days ago subcontracted the uss iwo jima testing for a td carried a crew of 1600 military and civilian, medical, engineering, logistical and other support personnel to help where needed. back to ausmin, this is going to reflect on the safety of the u.s. australian environs. if i'm between two democracies of shared old cultural interests and values heard while also considering the path forward together, in particular the discussions will address a joint effort in afghanistan for australia is the largest non-nato troop consider over 1500 troops serving largely in

an uruzgan nrc's outcome of those to confront humanitarian developable and also to provide assistance to partners ranging from disaster relief to maritime security. finally the vital role in military partnership continues to play in asia's overall security environment. from melbourne, the secretary travels on to malaysia. next tuesday, they'll meet with prime minister najib as was defense minister zahid who actually visited the pentagon earlier this year. well discuss their strengthening bilateral matter he ties over the past six years without an increasing number of joint exercises in malaysia and importing for jupiter to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions globally. as well as a discussion on security issues in the region in other areas for potential cooperation. this visit as you know follows closely on secretary clinton who is an transfix this week and yet

another signal of our deepening relationship with malaysia. one final item. secretary gates join secretary clinton president obama urging the senate to approve the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty before the adjournment of the current congress. he and other -- he and many other former defense secretary for national security officials from both parties have frequently voiced their strong belief that this treaty is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal, our knowledge of russian nuclear capabilities and u.s. national security overall. with that, out of the way, let's get to questions. >> well, following what you just said about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, is that the secretary's calculation, then, that the treaty is more likely to be able to be passed if it done in the lame duck? what chances do you give it with a change of political calculus if it holds over into the new

congress? and separately, book related to the republican gains, what do you think will become of the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? is there any chance that it will be passed in the lame duck, and what happens if it doesn't? >> let me start with the first if i make, and then you may have to remind me of the second. but on the first, this is -- i don't believe that either the president or his secretaries are advancing this during the lame duck session because of some political calculates that it may stand a better chance of passage during that time. i think were advancing and at this time in pushing for ratification because we need those and we need it sooner than later. it's -- why wait until next year, next spring perhaps for something that has -- we've been

almost a year now without the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and its verification provisions? so we think this is what's necessary. it was necessary weeks if not to go. so we hope the congress -- the senate will address this as quickly as possible when they reconvene after the recess for the elections. there's no sense in putting off what we need now toward the next congress. but i don't believe are urging of this -- of the action to be taken is because we think that its fares any better chance and this congress and the next congress. were advancing this now because we think it is the right thing to do and what is needed by our country at this time. [inaudible] >> -- and "don't ask, don't tell" on the same calculation? >> again come what congress decides to do legislatively with regards to "don't ask, don't tell" or any other issue for

that matter is largely their business. they take up things in the order that they see fit. obviously you saw the president yesterday addressed "don't ask, don't tell" in his postelection press conference. you also saw today during this cabinet meeting, and specifically outline his desire for new start to be dealt with. so i don't know what the congress will do with regards to that. all i can tell you is that we're in the process of doing as they think you all know, the secretary's report is due on his desk by december the first. the working group as i understand it is very much on track to meet that deadline. so i think in 26 days time, the secretary will have the work product that he thinks is so necessary for us to be able to fully understand the full implications of a repeal of of "don't ask, don't tell" and what

additional measures we need to take in preparation for that eventuality. you know from his discussion of this dating back to last february that he believes it's better to be smart and and this report is very important to ask him to do in this so our focus right now is getting this report finished, giving it to the secretary, having him review it, carefully considering it -- consider it and then take measures from there. >> can i follow-up on that? >> sure. >> so right now this department is urging congressional action on the third treaty, but not congressional action on "don't ask, don't tell." that's kind of what it boils down to, right? >> no, we are clearly urging congressional action on starter. i think he saw the president start to thomas to tell as an issue as a priority for him yesterday. we have been very, very clear on this. i can, julian, dating to last

february when the president and chairman first urge support for their position on this, which is therefore repeal but they want a study to take place in advance to educate us about this change. we have not yet completed the study although we are very close. let's let that finish. that's what the secretary could it and consider it a noble go from there. >> the stipulation could change for the second not the lame duck session, censured the december session. because at that point the review will be done, so depending on the outcome of the review, the department might have more to say to congress. >> i'm not prepared at this time, julian, to tell you what action we plan to take upon receipt of the report. all i can tell you right now is to report -- the working group is coming to a conclusion that this report.

they expect to make the december 1st deadline, which was a very ambitious plans that the president -- secretary put in place last february for consideration of the full ramifications of repeal across every aspect of how we do business in this department. some of the secretary gets sick, i'm sure it will be a priority item for him to review and consider and then provide leadership for this department on how to move out based upon what the report tells us. but i don't have any news beyond that for you today. anything else on this? yeah, go ahead. >> is secretary gates leading to urge the senate passed the defense of the reason this year, or they not going to engage -- >> well, clearly we would like the defense appropriations bill and the defense authorization bill should be passed as soon as possible. we're operating on a continuing resolution that will i think expire early next month. we, of course, always prefer, roxana, for -- you know, to have

these things done in regular order, for us to a patent appropriations bill, and authorization bill, by this point. for now operating on an extended cr, but that has a life to it and would much prefer to get an appropriations bill, and authorization bill passed, rather than to have to extend this er again and potentially have to do with appropriations and authorization come next year with the new congress. so yes, there are many things we would like to congress to be dealing with. but you know, clearly funniness departments, authorizing this department activities are our priorities as well. >> -- the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" because it's in the senate bill -- >> listen, i don't know how they're going to consider these bills. we don't opine on such things. we clearly want their appropriations. they clearly want our authorizations. how they construct those i'm not going to tell them how to do

their business. >> yes, david. >> just equate one other stories in each used a dancer at the top of your head. how many servicemembers been separated from service since the change in the procedures for implementing "don't ask, don't tell" were announced? >> the most recent change which is elevating this to ultimate approval by the service secretaries in court nation with the general counsel and the undersecretary for personnel and readiness, not to my knowledge. >> you don't know for sure? is there anyway to check on that issue? >> sure, i think it's -- i think it's highly unlikely. i think that's something that probably would've come across my desk at some point. okay? yeah. >> geoff, how concerned is the secretary that the july 2011 for troops to begin withdrawing from afghanistan is pushing president karzai into the arms of iran?

>> i don't get the sense that we believe the president karzai is being pushed into the arms of iran. >> is a study to received bags of cash from iran. >> yacht. i mean, it's the most press reports. as i've told some your colleagues, they don't surprise me. i think i ran for a long time -- we've discussed it from this podium vis-à-vis iraq and afghanistan, has been playing, you know, both sides of the fence. on the one hand, trying to curry favor as these payments would indicate with the afghan government. while on the other hand, supporting antigovernment forces, training, equipping, funding, directing them and their operations in afghanistan. not nearly to the degree that we saw in iraq, but troublesome nonetheless. so the fact that iran may be attempting to do this i don't

think it's particularly surprising. but that said, listen, we're chilling with a sovereign country here in afghanistan, who lives in a very, very difficult neighborhood. it has long historic, cultural trade, ethnic ties to iran, particularly in rc west, and they have to have a positive working relationship with her to ultimately be stability throughout that region. so the fact that iran or afghanistan wishes to have a better working relationship, i don't know that we see is particularly problematic provided iran with to play a constructive role in bringing peace and stability to afghanistan in the region. if their desires are not ours in that respect, then that is troublesome. but they have to be -- they live

in this neighborhood. they have to have relations with their neighbors. we hope those relations are constructive ones. but you know, cannot protect relations with us and also presumably with his neighbors as well. without it's undermining necessarily our efforts in afghanistan. >> are hearing increasing complaints from president karzai office about the july 2011 deadline? >> no, not at all. i think they understand that the deadline -- you call it a deadline -- what this date is all about. they understand that there is a twofold purpose here. one was come as you know from the strategy was to show a real sense of commitment to the effort in afghanistan by inserting another 30,000 u.s. forces and another 10,000 coalition forces. on the other hand, there was also an effort that should make clear to the afghans were not

going to be a will to forever, so they need to step up to the plate and assume more responsibility, particularly on the security side. i think that messages come through loud and clear. he said mr. maverick development in the afghan national security forces over the past year. they've grown by 100,000. our operation is not kandahar and operation hamkari, you now have 60% of our forces down there are asking forces. compare that to our operations in marja earlier this year where i think the ratio was five u.s. troops to everyone afghan. so their capabilities, their effectiveness, their size have improved dramatically over the past year and it's really becoming a difference maker on the ground. it's one of the reasons that general petraeus credits our success in kandahar and its

environment sent hamkari began in earnest in late august, early september when the full search wars was in place. >> can i follow-up to jim's question? i mean, with the new congress coming into office in january, many of whom have been very vocally opposed to this july 2011 date, if they are able to exert pressure push the idea, with the pentagon be open for receptive to a loosening of that date? >> first of all, this is a presidential policy, so fundamentally that the question to put the president in the white house. but i think there is this misperception as to what july 2011 is and what it isn't. this is not a date by which we all of a sudden decide on this e.u. fellows,, we're out of here and our forces leave the country. this is the date by which condition based, we make

determinations about where we can begin to thin out forces and where we can begin to transition increasing security responsibility to the afghans. as general petraeus and others have described it many times lately, this is not about us withdrawing from any particular region. this is about as standing out, given the ascii of increasing responsibility for the security situation there and taking the dividend from thinning out and sending some of the tone for the president's directive. will also reinvest others elsewhere in the country where they are also still needed. so i don't understand why people are confused about what this is and what it isn't. this is not by any means as departing afghanistan come next july. >> the nato commander in rc south recently just told us from afghanistan that they're not going to have been a key of how much progress has been made as

june, you know, that things are very seasonally based. you can't judge an area in november, you know, i'm -- you have to judge it in june the harvest. so i'm just wondering, if i'm the most important volatile areas of the country are not going to have a good read on until june. but the decision has to be made days later. >> chris, guess what i would say to that is was just -- i think it's pretty obvious that the areas of afghanistan from which you are most likely to be able to thin out forces are probably not kandahar and helmand. i mean, i would remind you that 60% of all the violence in afghanistan is centered in helmand, kandahar and kunar provinces. so three of 34 provinces that account for 60% of the violence. so 10% of all the provinces is where the taliban has focused

their efforts. i would remind you, kunar is really a distant third because there's really only one district and kunar is troublesome. so kandahar and helmand are the most problematic of the provinces that were dealing with. i think those are the ones in all likelihood what you see the least amount of spending. i don't know that it's a fact yet because these determinations have been made. public in a month in advance it makes sense that the security situation there is most tenuous at this point and that you would likely be looking for a thinning out in other parts of the country that are more secure at this point, probably more areas in the north, more areas in the west perhaps a necessary in the south. although, listen, july is a long way out we are by no means going to sit on our hands this winter. i don't know what has historically been a downtime for them, at time for them to retreat and try to reinvigorate, rearm themselves.

we are not in any way going to take the foot of the title this winter, but we're going to take the fighting continue operations all winter long. we'll see what the enemy does during this period of time. but there is a lot of fighting not to be done before these kinds of determinations are made next spring. so that can mimic some account could still change considerably before these decisions have to be rendered. >> thank you. security in afghanistan is concerned, i'm sort secretary gates must've already a vice president of -- >> let me -- let me, getting back to your point, chris. one point you should keep in mind that i think there is -- and i see this in some of the stories that get written from downrange, where he see this as a bit of schizophrenia sometimes in the coverage in the same areas can be covered. differently by different reporters. i think you've seen some people clearly note the tactical,

operational progress is being made by our troops in kandahar, in particular, and helmand as well. but there are other stories that sort of say well, governance is still lagging. people don't feel secure enough to take the job opportunities that are being presented to them. so the civilian side of this is still not what it should be. what i would say to that of a couple things. first of all, there's historically always been a lag retrained sort of our security progress in our government's progress. i mean, by some accounts there can be six-month lag to train those things. but i think it only is logical and stands to reason that you need to establish a certain security climate before you can have, you know, the government's capabilities that we would all like the afghans to have at this point. are we really began, as i mentioned earlier, operation hamkari in kandahar and in

surrounding areas in september. so although we've been -- we've noted the extraordinary progress over the last couple months, i don't think anybody has the expectation that we would be seeing, you know, a dramatic change in the government situation down there in that span of time. although, i think you can go to any objective observer can see that you know, governor wesa and some people below him are performing admirably under different situations they are. sorry. >> thank you, geoff. what i was saying as of the security situation in afghanistan is concerned in india's role in afghanistan and now president is going to india tomorrow. and i'm sure the secretary must have consulted her advice to them u.s.-india military to military relations and also india's role in afghanistan will be discussing during the --

during his meeting with the prime minister of india. i question is what do you think that india's role will now be since we have a new congress and other president will be discussing these issues in india? >> with them, i think it's the best people to talk to about the president's trip to india in the subject is and what we hope to come out would be the white house. i think it's inappropriate for me to wade into that right now. i'm on the record in terms of india's role in afghanistan. i don't have anything you are different to add to it. i wonder for each the white house. justin. >> now, i'm saying -- could it produce a role supervised by a president obama and the assessment of indian officials? >> i think the secretary's advice to the president is between the secretary and president, but thanks for the try. >> and the estate media is reporting the president's going

to bring enormous amount of security within this weekend to include 34 warships that would be moved to the move by area. whether or not these reports are to come with a string is stirred up interest. i was on ap for comment on specifically the 34 warships portion of that. >> yeah, there's been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip for the last few days. as in other reports as an astronomical figures in terms of what it cost to take these trips. i don't know the cause. we don't speak to the cost. we obviously have some support role for presidential travel. we don't speak to them in detail for security reasons. but i will take the liberty this time of dismissing that it's absolutely absurd this notion somehow we were to .10% of the navy, some 34 ships and aircraft carrier. that shows comical. nothing nothing close to that is being done.

but the notion that the president would pour require security as he travels to india and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone. you know, this is a country that sadly withstood a devastating terrorist attack a couple years ago. so it is -- it stands to reason that we would want to take her cautions for presidential travel. but that is really an issue she should post directly address again to my friends at the white house. the financier questions? >> it does. unless any special security requests come this time around with the strip here we'd be interested to know? >> well, we would not speak to you by special security requests. we would speak to budge any security requests. all will say of the department plays a role in the sport of presidential mission but we don't care, for security reasons, to disguise that. i did back down to absurd notion

that there's 34 ships are within 10% of the navy. that is certainly not the case. al pessin. i just got handed a note, back to your question. there've been no discharges under the new policy at the secretary institute about a week ago. yeah. >> up from the geoff, what sorts of concern are there from secretary or other officials of new challenges for new changes to defense policies by the new congress, particularly the war in afghanistan, but also the planned iraq withdrawal, the possibility of military action against iran and whatever other issues have been discussed. >> well i mean, i've gotten very questions, willfully hasten the secretary's departure?

with the election make his job more challenging? to the first question, no. his calculated from one to finally leave this job is based upon personal considerations and not politics. and his notion of when he would like to leave was formulated long before these political winds begin to blow. with regards to the second question about, you know, how does the election outcome change at all or make our lives more challenging and dealing with the congress. i dismiss that one as well. there is thankfully a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation on national security issues. we expect that to remain the same under this new congress as it was during the last congress. so i just don't buy into that.

our core relationship fundamentally does not change. now, with different congressional committees under different leaders have different priorities and focus this? perhaps. but i think that we enjoy a strong working relationship. this department does, particularly secretary in particular with members on both sides of the aisle, with not just the chairman of these committees, but also the ranking members of these committees. so these changes -- we don't anticipate making much of it -- make it a very dramatic difference in how we do with the congress. i would also note as an historical reference to your recall secretary gates came into office on december 182,006. this was, you know, a month, six weeks after the last flipping of a congress in november 2006. so he dealt with the kind of change there were about to see in these committees when he

first took office nearly four years ago. so it's fundamentally not new to us. we don't expect it to be dramatically different. we still expect with strong working relationships across both sides of the aisle and we fully expect the strong bipartisan cooperation on national security issues that we have enjoyed over the years will continue under this new congress. calvin. >> i wanted to go back to the civilian mike at time of security in afghanistan. the secretary has said that's been a problem before any space for more development in diplomacy is the way to help alleviate the burden on the troops and get the troops home sooner. i'm wondering how much they'll worry as continuing in afghanistan -- >> i think were talking about two different things. and speaking more to ask in capacity, particularly the most difficult security climates.

and i think you're addressing the notion of civilians report from the usg. >> specifically to go that ask incapacity. the secretary gates plays with the balance or is there worry about the lag -- >> know, we've seen -- we've seen basically this eerie triply and civilian support to afghanistan. i think you know hub upwards of almost 1100 civilian personnel in afghanistan. and not just in kabul, although the preponderance still may be in kabul. by then -- deployed around the country as well, yeah, i think the preponderance is still in

kabul. the hundreds deployed around the country as well. so there's obviously a core group there is to support the central governments, building up its capacity, but also hundreds out in the field trying to work with provincial and district governments as well to try to enhance their capabilities. so i think he's very pleased by the support that our military is getting on the civilian side and the numbers clearly are out of whack if you look at them just on face value. you see a thousand versus almost 100,000. i think you talked to any one of our guys deployed in afghanistan and they will tell you that the civilians, particularly those in the field for multipliers that seems they have the effect that it's not just him. there is afghan civilians, others.

they have sort of one civilian by some estimates as the impact of sort of 10. so i think the numbers are heartening. the trendline are encouraging. is there so more work to be done, clearly so. thank you very much pleased with how they thought of this campaign has progressed. >> there've been reports earlier this week that the f-35, joint strike fighter is more cost schedules and delays that secretary gates was briefed on this week. can you confirm that and can you speak to this? >> what i would say, lewis, the department regrets that someone chose to provide unauthorized and incomplete information to the press on a jss program. admiral venlet who is the new

program manager has been doing a soup to nuts review of the jss program. it is the most thorough, the most extensive, the deepest dive yet we have time in the f-35 program. but that assessment is not yet complete. therefore what has been linked to the press is premature and i would suggest to you that in some respect it's inaccurate. so it's not appropriate at this juncture to publicly discuss something not complete and ultimately has not been decided on by the department's leadership. because once venlet's assessment has been complete, it will be provided to leadership. it will then shape and inform our programmatic options and remedies that are under consideration. and then, the secretary will make a decision about a path forward and will provide that

information to the congress and to you all at the appropriate time. but we're not there yet. >> what do you mean by the secretary will make a determination? >> well, it's important to step back and remember what had been. clearly this program has had its challenges over the years. i mean, we've been dealing with this for quite sometime now. and just when you think you have some appreciation for what the situation is, we have learned later that there are other complications. not all that is unexpected given this huge program and giving how sophisticated these aircraft are, but clearly we've been disappointed by some of these developments, by many of these developments. remember, back in february, secretary fundamentally restructure the program based upon this very stark assessment that the joint estimating team

provided him. so in addition to sort of restructuring the number of aircraft in the test phase and all these things are the also withheld, i think $600 million in payments to lockheed and he fired the program manager to put it bluntly. he was not satisfied with the performance out of the program office. he canned the program manager and inserted a more high-ranking, more experienced professional to run that operation. we now have the three-star in their advice admiral venlet. as i mentioned to you earlier, he is -- he is in the midst of this deep dive. but he's doing it -- it's not just dependent on him and a small cadre. he's got 120 people who are working this issue within and they are not taking anybody's word at face value.

they are demanding that there be evidence to back up what they are being told about the program so they are clearly in the process of doing that, finding some issues that it not been known to us before, but we're still not done. so it's premature i think for me to go much beyond that at this point. >> you mention the meetings next week. the f-35 was not strictly an american program, but as international programs at the u.s. coming to countries including australia. is there information about their step forward and do you expect to differ with the? >> i don't know that the f-35 is on the agenda -- i'll check for you. i mean, this is -- that maybe a little little bit to

programmatic for this ministerial commission. but clearly, not just australia, but the u.k., it italy, netherlands, turkey, denmark, norway, and not israel. while these countries are keen interested in this program. when i spoke at the appropriate time to share this information with congress and american people who obviously share with their partners as well this endeavor. i would note to you that there are -- there are economic pressures being felt on all these countries. and so some of them -- some of them are not in a position to even were we at a stage of the program or we could be delivering aircraft sooner than we apparently will be or had hoped to originally. that actually works perhaps to their advantage, given their economic situations. but overall, these are committed

partners to us who ultimately made these aircraft to have fifth-generation capability, to have the kind of air to ground, air to air capability is, you know, to have air superiority in the future. yeah, go ahead, larry. >> the defense attorney for major hasan at fort hood festive ceremonies like what happens tomorrow commemorating the anniversary of the massacre make it difficult for his client to get a fair trial and that environment. [inaudible] >> sure, is the suggestion that that community, which was so rocked by that shooting last year now upon us, not take time to remember the 13 people who were killed? it's entirely appropriate for

that base, the extended killing community and frankly the community as a whole to pause tomorrow and remember that tragedy. the accused killer in this case will still get a fair trial. he is dealing in a very sophisticated judicial system was very professional attorneys and judges. his ability to give a fair trial and our ability to mourn and remember and mark the year anniversary of this tragic shooting are not mutually exclusive. yeah, just in. >> what if anything do you know about the military sniper? who shut out five different relation buildings. it's all done with the same gun. we believe that the military issued gun? you have anything on his

identity? >> this is an fbi led investigation. obviously they are our investigative contributions be made to some services. fundamentally paeans led to the fbi. we're obviously concerned. this is clearly someone who has has -- has an issue to say the least but the military. and it clearly puts potential he our service members and the civilians who support them in harms way. so were watching closely. the secretary has been apprised that is warranted, but he also is full faith and confidence in the fbi and the other departmental investigative services to get to the bottom of this. >> what are the services doing to help -- >> those are investigative matters should be discussed publicly. whatever assistance required is being given by the navy and everybody else was now involved

in this. >> the fbi said last week in this press conference that might be a marine. do you hack of a plea? >> i would have no way of knowing. i would have no way of knowing. clearly this is somebody who has issues with the military. we are not at would have no way of knowing. >> if investigators may be no more than they're telling -- >> i have no idea. i'm not involved in the investigation. this is an fbi lead. they could probably be -- [inaudible] >> i'm not involved in the investigation. and it's just not appropriate for us. if there is something that we feel as that would help the investigation by sharing a publicly, i'm sure the investigative authorities will do so and do so in a timely fashion. so if they felt there was helpful, larry, and i didn't hear that information, it was

probably done in a calculated sense. i don't have anything new to offer in that respect, it for you to share nester game participation in investigation. yes to the back. >> 's could you comment on the study of the supplied to the military needs in the bill that passed the house before recess in the senate? >> we have the stuff and i'm happy to talk to you. i'm not familiar with the intricacies of it and either i or one of my colleagues is happy to walk you through it. >> do you have any time from the u.s. intelligence admitted to the exercise? >> well, we've had lots exercises. [inaudible] >> i don't either be canceled and exercise. we've been trying to work out the next appropriate date for us to jointly exercise in the

yellow sea with the uss george washington. we are working on that date, but rest assured, we will do so with that aircraft carrier in the yellow sea. so stay tuned as for win. we will be back there with those assets. but this notion of canceled i think is just hyperbolic. you've got a lot of moving parts here when it comes to a large joint exercise, particularly one with a aircraft carrier. it's difficult to get all those parts together and assembled in full agreement on when to proceed with this. but we will do so. we will be back in the yellow sea. we will be with the george washington and so stay tuned. >> one will be? >> it's still being determined. still being worked. we have it all nailed down and sure we will share it with you. all right, gordon i think is the last one.

>> president karzai seems to be concerned about the contractors in afghanistan. just wondering if you have some current sense to help alleviate those concerns and what his plan would be? >> i frankly no one is mostly what i've read on it. we clearly have been working. you know, general petraeus as well as embassy kabul, very closely with president karzai and his team on trying to fashion the most responsible way forward in this regard. president karzai has made it abundantly clear that he wants to do away with private security contractors as quickly as he can, but also as responsibly as he can. he has made exceptions for static detection of certain diplomatic facilities and that was encouraging and responsible. there've been concerns voiced to him about the impact of sort of

point about out on security contractors or on ngos by taking their contractors away precipitously and the impact that would have on development projects. and that word, you know, obviously our efforts in afghanistan are not just turn by security needs. they're also driven by governments and development. so we are working with the afghan people, trying to fashion a responsible way for this allows for adequate security to be provided to development projects around the country while we are still growing the ansi to the point they would ultimately be able to assume responsibility to protecting convoys in support of development projects, the actual project itself. but those things are still being worked with right now. we are encouraged by the fact that he has allowed for more time for consideration of this issue. okay, thank you all.

>> it's harmless that one is making a start out of brittany spears or cher.

but when one takes this argument to national security round, lives are at stake. americans after a while kidwai said the stars come on the wizards, between teams in the best and brightest might not eat what they're cracked up to be. but in that fateful amount of time, chaos and mayhem in contraband. >> saeb erakat as the palestinian authority's lead negotiator and the middle east peace talks with israel. and he represented the palestinians reach in the 1993 oslo accords. saeb erakat discusses at the woodrow wilson center in washington. is interviewed by the =tranfour miller. this is a year and a half.

>> thank you for coming today's meeting with saeb erakat. i'm helah, the direct their of the release program at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. the center is the national armorial by president wilson to congress in 1968. it is a nonpartisan institution, engaged in the study of national onboard affairs. the wilson center establishes, maintains a neutral forum for a free, open and informed dialogue. the center commemorates the ideals and concerns of woodrow wilson by providing a link between the world of ideas and

the world of policy and prosper in research, study, discussion and collaboration among a full spectrum of individual concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs. today's meeting is basically a conversation between saeb erakat who is the chief palestinian negotiator and head of the negotiation affairs department and aaron david miller, public policy scholar at the woodrow wilson center. we have distributed the bios of our speakers and i'm sure you're all familiar with them. so no need for me to again introduce them. i just would like to remind you

to please close your cell phones. no text messaging, no twitter, please, because it interferes with the live webcast we have and it's very important for us not to have an interference with the live webcast because this meeting, like any other meeting we have, it's at the center on the live webcast is picked up around the world. so please be kind enough to close your cell phones for the duration of the meeting.i woul i would lidke not to give the floor to my colleague, aaronll david miller and he will start the conversation for 40 or 45 minutes and then will open the floor to your questions. but they also welcome mr. -- ambassador rashid eric at who ie

the first time at the center and we hope to see more of him. he's the appeal are representative to the united states. thank t you.uch. >> haleh, thank you very much. but i welcome all to the woodrow wilson center. it's an honor and privilege today for me in the center toho. host. in the interest of full disclosure, i should say that i've known saeb for more than 25 years.loserien id. consider him a close friend. our wives are friends. our daughters are friends. to 's been to mine. the world of what is still possible to my world is defined more in terms of what ishat

probable and why we still haver our disagreements, some of them may appear today. some of them may not. clos ie consider him a close friend. second, no one is in a better position, in my judgment, to offer you and c-span a comprehensive assessment in view of the palestinian issue and heospects for the negotiations. saeb has literally seen it all iom the early days and they seemed really early now, saeb, at madrid where you and i were. i'll never forget how upset the secretary of state baker was with fewerse graffiti on that d. from madrid to the washington talks, where saeb at night and ofe israelis associated against ecretackdrop of secret negotiations are going on at oslo, which we are aware, but not fully. to the oslo process in which

saeb became prominently and permanently involved to the heady run-up to the camp david summit july 2000. senat into the dissent frome camp dad over the course -- much of the course over the last decade into hopelessness, despair, violence and pretty grim prospects for an solution. saeb has been there through ita. all.d and it should be of no surprise to any of you that he remains a champion, and advocates of palestinian national interests.e that is first and foremost his role.role. i respect that. at the same time, saeb is, i know, also aware of the fact he is really postilion problem pits the forces of goodness on one hand against the forces of

darkness on the other.ex it's a complex conflict in whics both sides irresponsibility for the perpetuation from both sides bear responsibility for the solution. cannot solution must be based, not on an imbalance of power, but on the balance of interests. so the format today is very straightforward. i'm going to ask saeb 10 questions have been dreaming up since i left government in 2003. but essentially encompass three areas, palestinian internal politics, the negotiations themselves and perhaps most interesting now, saeb's expectations in view of the american role, specifically thee last 20 months of the obama administration.will g ..ons. these are to be questions.

no comment in their entirety and certainly not speeches. let me began. since clarity and honesty have been your trademarks, no one would be disappointed in your responses to these questions. henry kissinger once said that israel has no foreign policy. it just how does it -- it just has domestic politics. how does it shape the palestinian position and the

negotiations? >> sometimes -- we are just like any other side. in transitions, societies go through a period of transition. for us, we are in this transition. that would mean that my wagon will always be overloaded.

countries have factions. how do you balance? how do you balance the political geography? palestinians are scattered all over. in many cases, they have to abide by the rules of a given country they live on a. -- live in. you have an israeli occupation. when the israeli occupation came, -- that will tell you

something. that will tell you something about the nature of the negotiations. we are different. we are not your normal conflict. we have people 11 going to synagogues same -- we have people who are going to synagogue and saying the same thing every saturday. there are people who go to churches every sunday and believe they are hearing and seeing it for the same time. deal with that.

been a believe and a divine power -- they believe and a divine power. the palestinian politics -- it is to people going through labor pains, going through a transition period -- transition. they do not feel like they have finished their transition yet. we have many internal complexities. hamas is the palestinian

party. the defeated my party. in 18 days, they were the speaker, the parliament, in five weeks, there were the government. i had been elected from the constituency in 2006. my party cost me to deliver a speech in response to the in tradition -- introduction to the government for a vote of confidence. you are my prime minister. you are my wife's prime minister. they honor their commitment to the previous agreement. it is a political transition,

and faction split the role of the government. you are the government for the palestinians. you are everyone. those traditions that we have all for our people, you should honor. unfortunately, democracy in palestine has failed. we won the election and we must change the charter. since we won the election, it must be canceled. the internal dynamics are so difficult. not because we chose this path.

we make mistakes. people are watching us and they want to score points with us and the fall what we do. so far, we have 26 parties. i am happy -- we are on the right track. it is difficult, it is painful, and will take a lot of time. but this transition is a must for us. >> you provided a good transition to my next question. not to be unkind, but you could look at the palestinian national movement today as a kind of palestinian hump the dump d. you have to political entities, two sets of security services, two different sets of funding

streams, to different ideas about what constitutes the future is palestinian. how did those divisions shape, constrained, the negotiation and the implementation of a punitive agreement with the israelis? did ministration seems to be subscribing to what i would call the kevin costner school of diplomacy. the main character hears voices that say, build it and they will come. is the logic that they will reach an agreement and the agreement will be so compelling that the divisions will heal because they will have no choice

but to acquiesce? how do you manage? how did you manage? >> the difference between us and hamas is not an economic problem, a social problem. if they ran the country, they're good. was that the withdrawal because of negotiations?

to be fair, they never disputed the fact that the plo have the jurisdiction in negotiations with israel. it specified that the negotiations with israel, -- they passed for one thing. i do not think that the division today is because of negotiations. they were always there. they maintained an agreement with you.

in 2006, the one. -- they won. if i have an end game agreement with israel, who would prevail? if i do not have an endgame agreement, i will stop. >> this is a tough one. i think. change is hard. to expect a change in others it is understandable. particularly when you're the weakest party in the negotiation. if you had to identify one in

perfection, weakness, flock, in the palestinian strategy these many years, with respect to the israelis and the negotiating process, and there are many strengths, but no one is perfect. we know this. >> israel these are not perfect? shocking. >> what was the most significant shortcoming in the palestinian strategy? >> i have no army, no air force, no economy. if it is my word against an israeli, we cannot stand a chance.

when we entered these negotiations, many people were there, like jim bakker. he denied my existence as a palestinian. i am here. they insisted that we deny israel without defining the border. nations are no nations without borders. that is where the police give tickets. that is where you have language. american officials insisted that my ticket to negotiating -- at

without defining the border. that has been the loophole in the peace process. s spected israeli government' fought -- you have to lower these expectations. let's see what kind of arrangements -- it will not be a country likurs. i am going to have limitations the problem we face is not that

he wants -- look at what he says. settlements should not be -- what does this translate to me? he had already decided which part of my territory he will give back to israel. once he finishes this, he will say, come here, boy. this is what we have for you. they come with conditions. i am supposed to accept that. i will not negotiate jerusalem. you have to join the zionist movement.

that is what it boils down to. they recognize israel as a jewish state. after he puts all of this list of conditions, he tells me, come and negotiate. why? israel is still deciding where its border will be. the region is changing. iran, at ahmadinejad. the only way that this region -- >> we will get to mr. netanyahu in a minute. >> i will come to that later. >> i could identify a hundred mistakes that americans made

during the course of -- >> americans and israelis did not make mistakes. exclusively palestinians. >> i could identify thousands of mistakes that we made. everybody strategy involves changes. looking in the mirror, that is the place for that change, whether you are in israeli, palestinian, or american, has again. that is the real question. you may not want to answer it. but that is the real question that needs to be confronted. why did we do wrong? over the course of the last two decades. israel has to look and be a mirror to make an assessment of where their tactics and strategies ran off a highway. if they are prepared to do it, it is only logical to assume, even though you are the weakest part, your rights have been

taken away. you need to do it as well. let's move on. the peace process. a general question. how would you characterize the status of that process right now, november 4, 2010? what are the chances for resuming negotiations? resuming negotiations that actually could become serious and might be to an agreement. how would you characterize the current status? >> we have always been honest with each other. i did not waste a minute in my negotiations. i said earlier that we are different.

we are not iraq. we're not somalia. we are not better, we're different. what we fail to recognize when we signed the agreement is that the state of mind -- that is what life is all about. it is not a far distance. trying to that we're make? is it merely a to-state solution? do they trust us? did they recognize us? do we trust them? 17 years of negotiations.

only 18 months of negotiations. we did not waste a single amendment. this was a mandatory course for palestinians and israelis. today, in 1978, they wrote an article calling for dialogue, rather than violence. when i ran for election, i got 68% of the vote. a major change. 75% of palestinians do believe that the only solution is a two- state solution.

that does not mean that they are not angry at me. they know. >> the proverbial bottom line, where are we now? >> i am coming to it. [laughter] we are here. we finished the negotiations. i do not think that palestinian needs -- that palestine needs a negotiator anymore. it is time for a decision. it is time for an end game. we have turned every possible stone. we know what it takes. we know that -- were the swaps will take place. we know the solution to east jerusalem. and the capital of palestine. and what kind of body should

govern the divided city. we know the solution to the refugee problem. we know what kind of security we are going to have. the israelis must learn one thing. the concept of limitations in armaments. there is no such thing as limitations in people's dignity. when the israelis were like that -- realize that, we will have peace. >> ok. the road in the washington post recently that international law needs to be respected. -- you wrote in the washington post recently. if the israelis do not respect international law, what should the united states do about it? >> look, i will be fair.

i will be fair to president obama. and secretary clinton. these people have done a marvelous job. they have done everything in the book and they continued to do so. have no doubt, americans will not make decisions for us. americans may provide you with elements maximizing the benefits, the decisions are required for palestinians and israelis. you have a president and leadership in palestine that is willing to deliver.

do we have someone in israel who is willing to engage in decisions? that is the question. that is the question. if not this year, next year, 10 years time, it is a two-state solution. jews will not go back to christianity. close your eyes, walk me through the year 2015. -- 2050. you can do it. you have the choice. we are at a defining moment.

it is time for decisions and not negotiations. the americans know that. the israelis know that. and i think that mr. netanyahu has choices to make. >> that question is a good one. there are three possibilities with respect to the israeli prime minister. he is serious. he is not serious. or alternatively, there is a certain amount of conflict within itself about his own decision or commitment. >> there is a fourth option. you have a palestinian authority that was established in 1993. it has had a legal jurisdiction,

economic jurisdiction. then he came into office and everything was taken away. no jurisdiction whatsoever. he was the final authority. we have more options. he does the same. why can we maintain it? keeping security, building institutions. they are building institutions, education, whenever society needs.

he believes -- he may believe that he can -- as much as he is weighing his options, we do not want to surprise him. the status quo will not be maintained. >> before we turn to the u.s. role, i have one history question for you. there is no rewind button, unfortunately. if you ask me what i would have changed in the last 20 years, to produce a different outcome, i would offer the following observation. it's like a change to things, -- if i could change to things, it would be that he was not assassinated, and that george h. w. bush would have defeated bill

clinton in november of 1992 and that jim baker would have continued as secretary of state. had those two things applied, it is my view that we would of had won agreement. my question to you is, today is the 15th anniversary of the assassination, had he lived -- >> i sat with him. to be fair, he was a gentlemen who was concerned with israeli security. he made me realize the difference between someone who is a tough negotiator and someone who does not negotiate. there is a big difference.

someone who looks at the 9:00 news that evening. i do not know. i cannot answer this question. >> the next questions all involve the americans. you watched the united states for 30 years -- if you had to identify a consequential strength and weakness in our approach to arab-israeli negotiations, what would those be? >> number one, in the beginning of the 21st century, your country's borders are no longer with canada and mexico. your borders today are with turkey, iran, china, pakistan, and jordan.

you have kids serving in iran and iraq and afghanistan. you need to get them home. when you talk about -- it is the most cardinal american national interest. they are being brought home in coffins and wheelchairs' every day. the function of the roles in the nation and have changed. that is the truth. americans must know that since he died, we had 799 movements.

we have a very good religion in islam. we're supposed to go to mosques to worship god, not to use god. the minute we go to moscow to use god, we become like -- to mosques to use, we became like the churches in medieval times. peace between palestinians and israelis. it is a two-state solution. democracy in the arab world. anyone said to says that arabs are not for democracy, they are a racist. since 1683, the relations have not been defined.

their work muslim soldiers in mid europe. ever since that time, you never forgets. the relationship is guided with suspicion, fear, and anyone -- it is time to think about defining these relations. at the end of the day, -- we have to identify the growth and maturity. i believe the u.s. has followed

that policy. they come to israel and they see what the prime minister of israel can do or cannot do. the never asked me, ok? i asked the american administration, with a bigger picture in the middle east, with what is going on in iraq, lebanon, somalia, yemen, it is not a good picture. all right? should the policy from what is possible to what is needed. >> our greatest strength is our proximity to the region? the urgency that that carries. our greatest weakness is our proximity to the israelis?

>> i am not saying that. people in palestine ask me about the impact of the republicans. president clinton was the most pro-israeli president. it was president bush who first realized the to-state solution. you define your interests. i was 12 years old when they came to my hometown, jericho. i'm 55 now. you might might doctors. -- you not my daughters. -- met my daughters.

i do not want my son to be a suicide bomber. i want the two-state solution. that is what is in it for me. is that too much to ask? i could care less if someone in the congress was for israel or palestine. somebody here needs a wake-up call. somebody needs to get out of the box. you cannot do anything inside the box. i am suffocating. i will not continue in this box. >> that brings me to my second to last question. what is it -- remember, we have a track record. of doing effective diplomacy. there was a time when america actually did effective

diplomacy. when our relationship with the israelis, however special it was, was not transported to one that was exclusive. what is it that you want? >> it is time for the end game. >> what does that mean? does that mean additional pressure on israel? what does that mean exactly? >> we have the choice of -- people here tell me that -- i have a ph.d. in negotiations. americans tell me, why are you surprised? it is over.

it is over. we know exactly what it takes. we know it. without a fair agreement, nothing gets done. you cannot defeat these forces without an endgame agreement. let me ask you a question. i am observer of the u.n.. if i were to take an application, i need a number to apply for membership. i make this application. >> we would be to adapt.

-- we would veto that. you can order them in any way you want. we have invested and believe in the pragmatic value of negotiation. good, bad, naive, simple, nonetheless, it is a fundamental american conception. people have problems, they said down, they reconcile their differences. that would be essentially a fundamental but trail of america's commitment to negotiations. we would say to you, and you know the talking points, you open the door through this

application process to a set of is really counterproposals and measures which would reflect their own interests in response to yours. i am glad that i do not have to do this anymore. finally, there is the reality, a willful american president -- nixon, carter, every time -- will fall president to are smart and capable will trump domestic political interests and lobbyists every time.

still, president function within the arena of domestic policies. this one now particularly. with all the headaches that he faces, a jobless recovery, problems of a reduction of the deficit, new congressional math, all kinds of other things. he will choose his fights very carefully. if you were to tell me that president obama, fight for me on an end game. a fight for me on jerusalem, on security, on refugees. that i will fight for. but i am not go into fight for a

comprehensive freedom zone. but i'm not going to defend your right to become a un member state. i am not going to fight for u.n. conflict resolution which embodies your desire for state. even though i share that aspiration. the art of this process may well lead to what it is you want, but do not pray for anything that you really do not want. . . all i said i associated my independence. i associated rightly so how this

region will go down or get up from this through peacemaking and for democracy. now, is that too much also or is that your letter for me? secondly, you cannot recognize me in the 67 lines because it '7 in your mother state so when ihn ask you what is cozumelclose though, was east timor facts ina half, -- that is fine. go to the security council, no, don't do that. that is good.

that is good, i told you i cannot survive with that. the american proposals will not be subject to international agreements. if -- when we speak about -- 1945, the u.n. was born. there was a mandate except for palestine.

why can't i go against the u.k. or against you? then, if i don't see the authority after 8 years. if i cannot define my borders. that is not mean anything. and i am afraid you are pushing me to the point where we will very polite to tell mr. netanyahu, your second plan is to resume your occupation and a sure your power as the occupying force. we will never be an agent of the israeli occupation.

if he thinks that he can maintain the source of the authority, we will not agree with this. israel has 3000 fighting planes, nuclear weapons. number one is my option, two states, 67, swaps, whatever. today in the west bank and it in my home town of jericho, 86 kilometers. that is the difference. if they think that they should call my home town and the hebrew name, talk to me about it.

in 2010, there are roads in the west bank that i cannot use as a palestinian. your colleagues here, our scholars. some times the color of your skin is used. occupation corrupts. the whole region now is going

down the drain. they cannot stop settlements, they don't want me to go to the security council, they don't want me to be recognized. they don't want a fair agreement. i am supposed to be in the box. i'm supposed to be a servant for this occupation. forget it. i did not miss an opportunity. >> i don't work for the administration and i have been gently critical of their

policies. i would not prejudge what is that day are or are not prepared to do. you had plenty of times -- time to go to the united nations should your predictions prove to be accurate. i would ask you my tent question in the interest of time. if we invite you back and lecturer at this time, will we be having the same conversation? in the interest of time, your responses were forthright and candid and i really appreciated it. let's go to the questions. can you please identify yourself?

>> we went to get their. when the blue plates could drive into the west in jerusalem. i don't think that sense netanyahu was elected by the extreme right wing, under the current circumstances, he will not be able to do a settlement freeze. as important as it is from the day after 67, settlements have been intentions about the land. every prepare this book tells the rest of the world that israel does not intend to give up the land.

as a country and an existential issue, none of its leaders have embraced the idea of giving up the land. you have an american president who has a lot of problems, staffing included. we will not go into that. maybe what you need to ask for this year that is in my mind absolutely doable considering what is already being kept in a safe is a mat. palestinians know where they will have their state. once there is a map that will be accepted by the entire world, then you can discuss how you can work out all of the other issues. >> during negotiations, they became very very serious in negotiations.

what about a map? >> that is what i'm saying, we need to agree on any map. mr. olmert says that he offered a great offer. i do not deny this. i asked the prime minister olmert, why did the short circuit.

this is what i had given to mr. olmert. this is the 1967 map with swaps of 1.9% of land. with formulas to deal with in jerusalem, security, water, refugees. mr. olmert shows to say that he does not recall being offered this. we came december 18th, 2008 to washington. we look at this map along with the mattress opposition. these people transferred and 11 page file.

-- we look at this map along with the opposition. i am asking netanyahu to stop settlements. he knows where the israeli borders are and we know with a palestinian borders are. there cannot be an agreement for me without jerusalem or without refugees. this is a package. they don't want to do this. they don't want to touch the issues. they don't want to stop settlements. they want to maintain the status quo. they want to keep this authority. this will not be maintained.

this will not be maintained. i know president abbas. he is the most decent and courageous person he could never encounter in your life. no palestinian can make such offers. netanyahu has made up his decision that they think that they can maintain the status quo. no, it will not be meant. >> it is great to see you. >> if i could bring the discussion back to the specifics of this round of negotiations. the palestinians have taken a lot of heat for wasting nine months of the first 10 months of the period of the moratorium. the respective of what you might think about whether the

moratorium is serious and what was actually offered. how old you defend against the charge that those nine months were wasted because the plo was not willing to come to the table and there's a corollary question, supposing we get a two-month extension of a moratorium, will the palestinians come back to the table? if you do come back to the table, what do you think you can do in two months that would be an accomplishment that would go beyond those two months? >> this chart shows the moratorium with our figures and

israeli figures. when they reached a moratorium of 10 months, this was meant to increase of almost 17%. they were constructing 3450 under the maritime -- moratorium. they have confessed they had made 100 violations in 12 months. we went through proximity talks. we offered our opposition. the israelis said, no. we cannot discuss anything without direct negotiations. we had that. now since september 26th, and

they introduced 312 housing units in east jerusalem. this is air up later. they want to get 6000 housing units which will give them a stand that he has until 2014. they might come to us and a few weeks say, i agree on the moratorium. i am losing my land to the settlement and i am losing my credibility. i cannot do anything about loosing my men. why should i lose my credibility?

in the person in the west bank and jerusalem -- fivefold any time. if he knew business, the prime minister of israel, if he is genuine, he cannot stop the settlements for three months or he can stop on the border and then he can build in this country or on the borders or whatever it is. the intention here is not that he will take the blame. like when he says, the jewish state. i did not know that was the position in 1993. i do not know why they asked me. the embassy says that this is

the biblical and historical whatever. and he is looking for things, i told you so, to be blamed. wait a minute, you need to convince the central council. herehe is creating -- on the ground. he will understand very san that maintaining the status quo will not be sustained, maintained, and is not an option and then he will have to take the israelis to plan the. occupation and power in accordance with the geneva convention. they have responsibilities as occupying powers. how would