>> house intelligence committee ranking member pete hoekstra spoke recently about cybersecurity efforts in light of the wikileaks release of state department documents. his comments came as part of a daylong conference on iran's nuclear program. it was hosted by the foundation for the defense of democracy in washington. >> supports the kind of research and intellectual thinking that the foundation for the defense of democracy does. you know, i was recently in a congressional district in, actually, michele bachmann's congressional district, and they went through, and she raised $14 million for a congressional race. think about this. like, whoa. and this is from a guy who spent $45,000 in his first race in 1992 and beat the chairman of the national republican campaign committee, and that's now moved up to $14 million. but, you know, their campaign

manager gave an overview as to where and what issues were most important in that campaign, and michelle's congressional district. jobs, economy, taxes, jobs, economy, taxes, jobs, jobs, jobs, and finally when you get down to the bottom here it's national security. and i don't think any mention of iran or anything like that. and so you kind of say to michelle, michelle, why would you have me here? it's clear people in your congressional district care nothing about national security, and it's kind of where we are as a nation. the only time we appear to care about it is when something happens. i tell my friends in elevators, you know, if you see me on fox, cnn, abc, turn the tv off because only bad things have happened. [laughter] if good things are happening, there's no interest, and that's where we are. but when you get an organization like this that focuses on the issue and focuses on the threats that one of these days may

materialize and only because of the work of organizations like this do we have the possibility to get out in front of these types of issues and actually have a serious discussion and a serious dialogue about the policies and the strategies that we need to put in place. and nowhere is that more important than, from my perspective, as what we are doing in the intelligence world and some of the issues that we are talking about today. and i've been asked to just give a very quick and a brief overview of where we are from an intelligence standpoint. you know, it's interesting. intelligence should be the tip of the spear was there's plenty of threats out there; north korea, iran, radical jihaddism, we're now seeing cyber and these types of things. and we have an administration that where have they put the intelligence community, and when you're a grassroots intelligence professional somewhere in the world, what are you seeing coming out? i came out of the business world, you know? is the leadership in the

executive branch, are they telling the people in the intelligence community we value your work, we need your work to keep america safe, and we're going to support you and give you the resources and the tools that you need to be successful. and the answer is clearly, no. how can you say that? we've got an attorney general and a president that have said even though the bush administration has gone through it a couple of times, the justice department has gone through it a couple of times we think it's a, we think it's important to go through it a third or a fourth time to determine whether you as an intelligence professional should be tried for activities that the president and congress asked you to do. this is all about the enhanced interrogation techniques.

and remember, this has now been hanging out there not for three months, not for six months, not for a year, it's been out there for 18 -- or it's been out there for almost two years now that professionals within the intelligence community are being investigated and potentially prosecuted for the activities that the political leaders of this country asked them to do. and which they have been cleared a number of times and saying you've done the lawful things. you're an intelligence professional, you're out there, and you see this cloud hanging over you personally -- and i've met with some of the folks, you know, that were part of these programs -- they're worried. and more importantly, their colleagues are worried because they're thinking, wow, if this president or political leaders ask us to do things, what is our protection in the future? will we find ourselves in the same position? that's the executive branch. and then you go over to the

legislative branch, and you still have nancy pelosi out there who has said and has never retracted the statement and says the cia lies, they lie all the time. and so this is the position that we find ourselves in. and this is the position that the community finds itself in. we will not have an intelligence community that is strong until we have a leadership in both the executive and the legislative branch that supports the intelligence community and at the same time that doesn't mean we let them do whatever they want. we have to hold them accountable, and we have to hold them accountable for excellence. that's the second step that we have to drive for. it's clear that, you know, it's very interesting that would anybody define what has happened with the wikileaks over the last couple of, actually, over the last couple of years which is when we first started

identifying that we had problems in keeping classified information secure. would anybody define that as excellence? it's kind of like, no. we lost, what, 500,000 documents, who knows how many gigabytes of information, and we lost it not because of a great penetration by a highly-sophisticated enemy who was able to get through all of our safeguards and all of our protections and be able to get access to this information. we lost this information because we didn't recognize the new realities of cyberspace. we had a state department that was more than willing to -- and the concept of information sharing take huge amounts of data and hand it over to a defense department that was more than willing to put it on its internet site. and no one ever really asked the question, what's in this

database and who are we giving it to and will it help keep america safe and secure? we failed to do the fundamentals in this. when you're talking about iran, you know, many of us go back, and we remember the nie that came out in 2007. does anybody really believe that this was mark of excellence by the intelligence community? and the answer is, absolutely not. this was, this was a report that from my perspective was driven by political considerations, it was driven by people who wereó// nervous about having been wrong/ on iraq and not willing to take a really objective view as to what was going on with iran and publish this political -- or started developing it, moving this political document through the administration. and the administration, again

because of political concerns, was afraid to confront the intelligence community and say, when you're looking at this kind of data in this kind of information, how do you come to these types of conclusions? and what we have now seen, you know, three years later and we're waiting for a new nie to come out is that this nie that came out in 2007 was just about totally wrong. i mean, you know, and i know if you read the fine print what it says, but the perception that the intelligence community and the administration gave when this document came out was what? iran has suspended it nuclear program. and people within the intelligence community will say, well, if you go and read the fine print on page 29, it says, well, really, you know, we didn't say they gave up their nuclear program. they only suspended parts of it.

it's kind of like, no, the perception that you gave to the american public when you made this document public was that they had given up their, they had given up and suspended their nuclear program. the third thing that we need to work on in building a strong intelligence community after we hold them accountable for excellence is that we need to make sure that we have an independent framework for the intelligence community. and what do i mean by that? too often now the intelligence community rather than recognizing that it's an independent force out there that doesn't, that may influence public policy, it shouldn't be there to support public policy. it should be brutally honest about it assessments. and i think the intelligence be community right now finds itself in a very difficult spot. why? it's being asked to provide assessments on climate change.

that is not a natural place for the intelligence community to go and conduct its business. but it, you know, there's the government, this administration has an agenda on climate change, so we've now tasked and you'll say, you know, we're going to use satellites and these types of things to, you know, do climate change. and i kind of come back and say where exactly are we going to employ intelligence professionals to steal information so that we get a better understanding of what's going on in climate change? now, how does this relate to iran? it relates to iran because i think i believe we have a policy that's not very effective when we're looking at iran. but at the same time are there people in the community who believe that they've got to do and develop intelligence that supports a policy out there that really doesn't have any, that

isn't, that doesn't reflect the reality out there. we have a policy out there that says by the power of my personality as president of the united states, i single-handedly can change the behavior of iran. and that by going out and reaching out to iran in a way that president bush didn't, the iranians will negotiate with us. and they will become, you know, better partners on the world stage. and i think most people in the intelligence community who have been looking at iran for years would say, no. it wasn't that they didn't like president bush and that they may now like president obama and that's going to change their behavior, they are a rogue state that is focused on its national interests, and they believe that it's in their best national interests to become a nuclear power and to have nuclear

weapons capabilities. and so we need an independent analysis coming out of the intelligence community that if what they see is a country that is focused on their national interests and not influenced by what or how the united states acts towards them and that if we reach out, you know, reach out, that they will respond. we need an intelligence community that is not trying to develop intelligence that supports the current policy but just says this is the way it is, this is a country that is focused on developing nuclear weapons because it is what they believe is in their national best interests, and that is the direction that we need to be moving in this. for an -- we need to be moving on a path that's developed strong support for an intelligence community, we need to demand excellence and hold them accountable for their performance, and we need them to be an independent voice to an

administration and to a congress about what they really do see going on in the areas that we have tasked them to do. and then we will be able to shape public policy in a much more effective way than what we have been over the last number of years. look forward to your questions and comments and the discussion as we move forward. [applause] >> congressman hoekstra, thanks so much for that. i want to launch in this into a discussion, so i'm going to ask a couple of questions to start off with. but, again, as before let me know if you have questions that you want to ask. let me start with rodney joffe, if i may. rodney, my sort of thesis would be and feel free to tell me that i'm wrong is that the cyber battlefield, cyberspace is not the battlefield of the future, it's the battlefield of the present.

and two examples of that are wikileaks which, as the congressman said, was something those who protect america's secrets should have been well prepared to respond to, first to protect the secrets, then to do something else, something about it. after july, for example, after the first wikileaks document dump something could have happened suspiciously to julian assange's servers, and a lot of material might have disappeared. ask can that didn't seem to happen. and the pentagon is not saying that they couldn't do that, but it's not clear that they, also, could. and, of course, the work and the damage it seems to have done to the nuclear facilities in iran tells us a great deal. maybe just give us a sort of toward the horizon of the cyber battlefield and whether there is a cyber arms race taking place as well right now. and by the way, one other thing. there were a lot of questions here that congressman hoekstra probably knows answers to and

can't give us. and i'm not going to press him so he can say over and over again, oh, i can't talk about that. but anytime you want to as the press, i know you'll do so, and we'll let you. rodney, thank you. >> so interesting question. the battlefield has better -- [inaudible] fifteen years ago someone like me would not be involved in any kind of discussion about global terrorism. but in the last ten years things have changed quite dramatically, and one of the problems is that as we get older, there's an inversion of age and knowledge where traditionally, you know, the older you are, the more knowledge you have. what we're finding now is -- [laughter] that's not the case. in fact, the people we're having to deal with are, you know, in their teens and perhaps their early 20s. not get taken seriously by national governments. but that's changing. so the battlefield has been there for about 10 or 12 years,

it started out purely as a matter of -- [inaudible] with the young kids and defacements in the late '90s, and it's migrated to the point now where we're actually seeing this year two totally different developments. you've, first of all, seen the issue of community activism that doesn't require very much organization, that doesn't require very much knowledge and is able to do enormous damage. the effect not from wikileaks directly, but the attacks against the organizations that have, are felt to have been supporting the damage to wikileaks has been quite tremendous over the last two or three days. you've seen the credit card companies, the e-commerce companies, and the funny thing is that we have, i think, yesterday evening we saw around 10,500 individuals part of this

attack against traditional economy. of them you probably would find that 99% of them actually don't know how to run computer programs other than being able to click on a button. there was a, there's a little cookbook that's available. three or four clicks, you actually download what's actually a piece of malicious software onto your computer, and you're now part of the global attack. it's not done in any coordinated way, and yet it does enormous damage. so if a group of rag tag, unsophisticated people around the world, generally young, are capable of causing this kind of damage, what is a nation-state able to do? it's, it's quite frightening. we talked to, you know, for many years about the fact there were no kinetic events. something that's now known publicly if you remember is about three years ago we had project aurora with idaho national labs and d.o.e. that

was able to destroy a power generator in about 60 seconds based on a piece of malicious software that attacked across what was theoretically a protected piece of infrastructure. what we have seen theoretically in iran in the last few months is the identical mechanism that was tested and shown publicly three years ago with the generator which is varying the speed or the phases on the electrical device and causing it to self-destruct where you had pieces of metal flying, you had a 75-ton generator that destroyed itself just from software. so when you start to look at what's going on now with, you know, with iran, with the sec ri refuges -- centrifuges and the power station, not unrepublican. and it's here today, it's not coming in the future. it's here today, and it's been here for a while.

it's naive for us to think, you know, it's the good forces only who make use of it. that's not the case. we're sort of guided by a different sort of moral compass, you know, outside perhaps some black helicopter organizations and so on. but the bad guys are going to use the same thing too. one of the questions i was asked beforehand was, you know, the question was asked did i think that iran and north korea were capable of actually using the same kind of technology against us. and the answer is, you bet. if they aren't doing it already, they learned a great lesson in the summer. they've learned how to do it. we now are seeing criminals in the underground teaching each other how to do this. and this is a thing that's going to really effect us going forward if it isn't already effecting us now. it's quite possible we currently have been compromised using this kind of mechanism. and they're designed not to be invisible. >> michael, my next question is to you. you've been at the, you've

worked at the pentagon, you've worked at the white house, you've worked in the state department. you have been a consumer of intelligence. you have also, i venture to say, some familiarity with clandestine operations. is it your sense that there are any clandestine operations taking place that would be useful and helpful to the green movement as we complain as we have at this conference that we're not overtly helping the freedom fighters, the dissidents in iran? do you have any reason to believe that on a clandestine basis we maybe providing some sort of aid? >> no. >> thank you very much, michael. [laughter] i will not force you to elaborate, but you may if you wish. >> no, i mean, no, i would love it since i think we should be helping the green movement and supporting the green movement, and if i can talk for just a couple of minutes about the things that baffle me about what is generally said about the green movement. some of it said here by some of my best friends.

some of the smart e people in town. -- smartest people in town. and one is the notion that the green movement's been broken, destroyed and is no longer a force in iran. just yesterday various important people in iran stopped and said, well, we failed. we failed to break it, and we failed to crush it because there it is, and we just saw it again two days ago on national student day all over the country. every major university campus students out challenging revolutionary guards and besieged and fighting in the streets and so forth. so that's number one. number two is the incredible shortage of people who, who don't call for support of the iranian people and of democratic revolution in iran at this time. it's something you hardly ever hear. we didn't hear it from gary seymour, we don't hear it from the secretary of state, we don't hear it from the president.

we don't hear it period, and we don't hear it from pundits, and we don't hear it from the writers and analysts and so forth. how can that be? i mean, there was so much enthusiasm for revolution, for democratic revolution once upon a time, and i think democratic revolution against tyranny got a bad name in the left, among the left when the soviet union fell. and can the soviet empire fell. and i remember saying to a friend after we had worked for many years trying to accomplish this and to destroy the evil empire, i said to him, well, great, we can have a party, we can celebrate. and i said, yeah, but remember, they will never forgive us because we have destroyed their dream. because the soviet union is gone, and whatever else happens in the future that's not coming back. not like that, not in that form, not with that strength. and i think that support for revolution -- and they couldn't

bear the thought that revolution had suddenly become something that had helped their political enemies because they had thought that revolution was their monopoly and only they could be called progressives or revolutionaries or things like that. and so what happened in the language, the most amazing thing happened which is that people who support democratic revolution are now called conservatives. [laughter] right? i mean, that's what that means, right? they couldn't let us democratic revolutionaries be called democratic revolutionaries, so they called us neoconservatives. okay, then i have a couple of thoughts about revolution itself because we've heard a lot of things said about revolution, a subject which remains fairly opaque. it's not easy to talk about it, but there is a big literature in social science about revolution, and one of the basic things that needs to be said about it is that revolutions are not acts of

despair. it is not a thing that a person does as a last desperate throw of the dice. they say, well, all is lost. i'm being crushed, i'm being destroyed. if i don't do something, then we're all going to die, or we're all going to be miserable. why not give revolution a try. that is not what it is about. revolution is an act of hope. revolutions are carried out by people who are optimistic. think about the last great period of revolutions, democratic revolutions in the world that we've just lived through. it was the last quarter of the 20th century. who would the great revolutionary -- who were the great revolutionary leaders? all optimists. the reagans, the thatchers, the hovels, the john paul iis. just look at them all over the

world. these are all people who spired their followers -- inspired their followers to act because they convinced them that great things could happen, wonderful things could happen. that's what revolution's all about so that when we think about how do you want to bring down the regime in iran, greater misery for the iranian people is not going to be as helpful as encouraging the iranian people, giving them reason to believe that they can win and that wonderful things await them. and one of the reasons why mousavi, so forth, are such effective leaders of this movement is because that is what they do. then finally, one last point. there's another reason why they are effective leaders, and that is they are the most lethal people imaginable to the khomeinis and ahmadinejads. you'll hear a lot about what lousy leaders they are. and yet the reason that they're

so threatening to the islamic republic is that these are the people who built that regime. they know where every bone is buried, they know who sits at the end of every corridor and every important building in tehran and elsewhere, and they are a mortal threat. and the regime knows it. and we all know it. and you don't need an intelligence service to know it. the intelligence services on iran have been, as far as i can tell, since the mid 1970s almost invariably wrong. almost all the forecasts they made were wrong, they didn't see the '79 revolution coming, they didn't see -- they predicted the results of the 2009 election wrong, they were amazed when they suddenly saw for the first time the green movement. they thought the green movement had been destroyed, now they've been amazed to see, no, actually it's really there in some form, etc. so you don't need an intelligence service.

all you have to do is consider the fact, the dramatic fact that mousavi and karoubi have not been touched. and that's because khomeini is afraid to go after them directly. if he weren't afraid, they wouldn't be alive today. the people he thinks he can kill or arrest and torture and so forth without the whole country blowing up in his face, he does that. but he's afraid of mousavi, and it's a fascinating business. and some day we will sit down and write the secret history of the green movement, and all i'll say about it is you will read all the time in the current literature that the green movement began in 2009. the green movement began, that we know of for sure and that we can document, in the mid 1980s. it was already there. and it has gone through various

evolutions to this thing that it has today, but i'm going to stop there. i'll have more to say. >> absolutely. tom, i want to come to you for a moment here, and i don't mean to, i don't mean to flatter you, but in a way i will. more than any journalist i know you deal with raw information, much of it open source but much of it neglected, it seems to me, by the media. and you analyze it incisively and connect the dots. i'm curious to know if you think that intelligence analysts are doing the same thing and doing it well or not and on what basis. and if dots are not being connected, what are the most important patterns you're seeing that they are not coming up with? >> well, the answer to the first question is, no. i think much of the intelligence analysis is not connect the dots. i think, you know, we're sitting here in 2010, and it's amazing, i just got done arguing in several articles that, n., the

iranian regime works with al-qaeda and its allies. and i can't understand why, for some reason this is still not accepted as even a possibility. and can you see that in terms of a lot of an cysts who say, well, you know, it's a shiite psychology and they have these deep differences and they can't cooperate. all i can say to that is if you look back now, what we know -- nobody would even deny this in afghanistan -- that one of the principle sponsors of the taliban in western afghanistan is, in fact, iran. the taliban and iran were on the verge of war in in the late 1990s. they hate each other more than you can imagine. you had iranian diplomats being slaughtered by the taliban, you had just an awful scene. and yet for some reason, you know, people think that these situations are stagnant and, therefore, since they were on the verge of conflict then, they

couldn't possibly cooperate now. back in 2007 i argued there's mounting evidence where iran is playing a game here where they're sponsoring terror in afghanistan. unfortunately, the same cannot be said about al-qaeda, and the same cannot be said about a ton of jihadist groups around iran. al-qaeda had multiple sponsors, so i'm not going to say they're a approximate key of iran or anything like that -- proxy of iran or anything like that. where i think there's a common interest here that's often overlooked is that the principle mechanism the iranian regime uses to sponsor these terrorist groups is the revolutionary guard corp., okay? ..

>> the real comment interests lie in who the enemy of the iranian people is, in who our enemy is. that's the iranian revolutionary guard corps. it's the same enemy. where you go inside iran today, you remember the green movement, you have to worry about the revolutionary guard. you have to worry about these same forces. and so i'm not going to argue that somehow sponsored democratic opposition or opposition leaders in iran is some panacea for support to pursue. i would highlight the fact is a common interest between the american people and iran. it's with the iranian people in

terms of who all prices of them and tries to quell their desires on the political stage. >> i'm going to ask one more question and then go to questions, so let me know, steve, you will have the first question. so prepare yourself. congressman hoekstra, you spoke about the 2007 national intelligence estimate and how misleading it was. my question for you if you can answer it is was it so misleading because those preparing it were mistaken, or was it so misleading because those preparing it were attempting to use usurp the policymaking power from the white house? >> i think i said in my comments. i think you're trying to use user policymaking from the white house. they're going to frame this in, i.e. come in such a way that the policy options by the bush administration going to be very, very limited and the disappointing thing is they were so wrong, that administration

should have stood up and said no, we are not going to accept this. they would've had various tools they couldn't use they could have employed to do that. is very interesting listening to tom, because i was part of the group that had intelligence reform because we did have, i think tremendous amount of dysfunctional behavior and those types of things within the community. but one of the things that has now come out of the dni, but i'm disappointed with, is groupthink. it is now taking 16 different agencies in trying to reach a consensus on something. when you reach a consensus with all these agencies would you end up is you end up with much. it doesn't touch anything and it's not very enlightening, not very thoughtful because you got all these, 30 or 40 people

sitting around a table, and before they move forward they all have to agree. so one of the things that we've been pushing for very, very aggressively come and i can't quite understand why this is not a bipartisan issue because it's all about public policy, it's good to red teaming. go out and even with in the intelligence community or a group of outside experts to do their own independent analysis so that we as policymakers can recognize that there are divergent opinions out there, and recognize the fact that so often intelligent people do get stuff wrong because this is very, very hard work. so there's a need for red teaming so that some of these other opinions can be brought forward, and, you know, i think the nie in 2007 was a great example. and thought that it was much but the overall statement was very, very clear and it was designed

to limit the policy options by the bush administration. once they came out and said the programs have been suspended, it's like everything that the bush administration, or any administration was thinking about limiting, those options were taken off the table. >> the reason i ask, it would seem to me that in response to that, insubordination is what you are really speaking up at the very least, there should've been some penalty for those involved. i kind of know the answer but i'm going to let you say. was anyone punished or were they rewarded for their insubordination? >> there's no accountability. many of the same people are working. many of them are now developing a new nie there's going to come out sometime. we've expected it for months but it's going to come out and it's going to be written in such a way that it will recognize that the 2007 in ie was wrong, but he will say that it was right.

so they would change or they will of all their inclusions that will because of all the things they have found out about 2007 and say, we were riding 2007 the we are now in 2010, some things have changed but in no way were we wrong. it will be the same people. the same thing happened with his wikileaks. i can't tell you how frustrating it is to go in there and see that cyber 101 was not apply to some of the most sensitive data that we have in our government. at the end of the day no one will be held accountable. the discussion going on is totally wrong. they are focused at exactly the wrong place. they're all talking at julian assange. they're talking about wikileaks. the question is why is the media not focusing on the key problem which is, how did america get into its position within nsa out there with thousands of employees, the department of defense, foreign policy, how do we get in a position that all this information, it appears was

downloaded by a private first class in baghdad? where is that discussion? >> and where is the bureaucracy come executive branch this is we really screwed up and we're going to hold some people accountable because we didn't do the basics when we merged the systems and put them together. >> let me go right over here. go ahead, steve stern. >> steve, can ask you to stand up for the cameras and everything else? i will ask people to stand up. >> good morning and thank you for this opportunity. this question relates to wikileaks, and as a normal mortal it's just much, too much to absorb. your experts and you focused on those things that related to iran. my question is, was there any information there that change the perception of the people who were in support of taking out iran, either to reinforce or to

make them feel less sure about doing it? and was there any information in these wikileaks that change the perception of those people who felt iran was not a problem, and who may have now felt it would be -- it would become a problem? >> anybody who wants to tackle that. anybody? go ahead, michael. >> well, steve, it's quaint to see there's still people who believe that information changes opinion. [laughter] >> not in this town. [laughter] >> naïve was correct. >> well, when a new nie comes out i think you will see an imaginative use of the word really. and sometimes repeatedly, really, really right. right? really right, really, really,

really right, and so on. no, i don't think so. i think to change opinion requires 10, 100, 1000 wikileaks. it has to happen over and over and over again. on the subject of iran, there's really no serious debate about the facts. is only debate about what to do. so i mean everybody knows what iran does, everybody knows it's an evil regime. everybody knows it rapes, tortures, kills its own people. everyone knows it has a nuclear program. everyone knows it has the biggest source of terror sponsor, all this. there's no challenge to the. the only debate is, need we bother to do anything about it. and on that, more information reinforcing what we already knew it isn't going to change anybody's mind. >> congressman? >> visited multiple times. the bottom line is people are going to be nervous about negotiating with us and being

truthful and forthright because it's kind of like america can't keep a secret. forward, so the policy as we do try to identify what we need to do against iran, and other reluctant and say that i talk to the u.s. i can expect that relatively soon everybody is going to know. think about this. when i was in yemen on january 1 of this year, yes, and i went and asked to get decreased by the ambassador, the folks in embassy come and they very kindly told me, congressman, we can't assure that information with you. [laughter] it had never happened to me in nine years on the committee. all right? you're the ranking republican, gang of four, gang of eight information, we get there. what do you mean? general petraeus met with the president of yemen the next day. on january 4, the ambassador

wrote a summary of that meeting and sent it back to state. you know, within a couple days it was available to 500,000 people, including private bradley manning. yesterday we stayed say we have -- we now have access to the cables. and the answers were still going to an interagency legal process to determine whether congress can have access to this because we have to protect our equities. it's kind of like you're spending more time protecting your equities than you are protecting the data. it's crazy. >> congressman mike coughlin? [inaudible] >> it is pretty dysfunctional right now. does the congress need to repeal the legislation they created the director of national intelligence? go back. >> well, that's a tough question.

i don't think it's realistic at this point that a reputed. unfortunately, what the legislation did was a great a super bureaucracy. a lot of promise have to do with bureaucratic mechanisms. you have an even larger bureaucracy now. i think congressman posted may the key point in terms of wikileaks or cyberwarfare, thinking back to the fact that the nsa, giant bureaucracy a other agencies in the u.s. government, you have taken no action really that we're aware of that first toshiba what wikileaks is doing to fight back. they get paid unions and billions of dollars a year. the white house press secretary robert gates came out and said when the latest we cannot come he said we are stronger than one guy with a website, a $35 website. he said apparently we're not stronger than one guy with a website. i mean, this is the third time to in the last couple months this guy has released hundreds of thousands of documents. there's been no response from this multibillion dollars

establishment of private conversation with friends who are aware of the problems with the intelligence community. i have dim hopes it will be reform. if anything it is worse. that's a long winded way of saying you can repeal, push the repeal of the dni and the super bureaucracy that was put in place, i don't think there's any realistic hope of that ever happening. >> i'm on the fence on this one. the dni was structured because when i look at it from a business standpoint, and others look at it, there was no strategic direction for intel community to say, hey, in the next five years we really need to get onto cyber because we are going to be involved in cyberwar suite better part putting some resources there. we need to bring human back, because satellites can only tell you so much. the dni was intended to set a strategic framework, and it hasn't been that. what it's become is it's become

this huge bureaucracy. and i now look at, we used biblical the cia and say we need is information and they would say great, you have any couple of days. and i was a we need information, basic right, you will get it in a week and a half. it's like what a minute, dni was supposed to streamline this. and they said, they have because, but before we send it to you we've got to run by the dni before we send it to you. [inaudible] >> and the private. so, yeah. >> go ahead. >> i have just one, he said another smart thing that goes hand-in-hand with this, before when he said that everything is now homogenized. and when there were disagreements within the intelligence and policy communities they have to be resolved before they go forward. i have to say, but, you can correct me if my memory fails again here, but the way i

remember, when reagan was president, and the secretary of state, secretary of defense as i recall did not always agree on every subject. [laughter] >> scholz and weinberger. and what reagan wanted from the nsc was to have those disagreements defined for him so that he could then decided. and the nsc job, your national security, but that's right, isn't it? as we look from two floors down to us, which was defined a disagreement. reagan wanted to hear the disagreement. my impression of at least this president and other recent presidents is that either they or the people around them don't want to give these disagreements. bush, w., famous, people don't think about in this way but he did one of these disagreements. and condi surely when she was

security adviser always told him whenever there was disagreements, she always had all right, find a middle path, find something that everyone can agree on. but that's wrong. it's wrong for our system of government. it's wrong for making policy. the president is supposed to make these decisions and get the intelligence thinks the president is supposed to yell at the intelligence community, whatever it's called, whatever the top guy is, dni, csi, whatever it is, the other thing is that when you homogenized this subject you can tell he was good. that's ultimately fatal. we have to be able to identify the good people. >> trying to come you want to respond to any of that? bud, national security adviser under president reagan. >> what the president wanted to know what truth is, what the best analysis is from the best analyst. and there wasn't always agreement.

the process that we incurred was there was a disagreement between dia and cia, then you would footnote, yes, you would say here's what dci things come here's what the director of defense intelligence thinks. and you could chew on that, argued about it, but it would be a full presentation of sound analysis from sound people who disagree. but it helped. >> let's go to david as long as he is right next to you there. >> i would like to address this to rodney, because he sort of scared the heck out of me. [laughter] >> not that i haven't been scared for the last day and a half. if we are capable of doing or whoever did they come it seems to me that have the ability to do it on a global platform and perhaps create a black swan

event that could take down our economy. i would like you to comment on that. >> i will comment more generally because i don't really want to scared anymore people. [laughter] >> but one of the things people haven't realized is that the internet, which was never designed for what we use it for today, has given enormous power to individuals who before would have been irrelevant. if you think about it, computers have been replaced by would have simple processes that connect to each other and if you're enough of them you have a supercomputer. about three or four years ago the fastest processor in the world was about 1000 computers, and universities have these clusters. today, with a credit card company credit limit of about $1000, you can actually build a

temporary period, a cluster of up to 40,000 computers by getting into one of the top computer copies like amazon and so on. it's available to you anywhere in the world. it's almost impossible to keep track of what's been done in that particular case. so there's the ability for single person to get access to more computing power than was available to the u.s. government 15 years ago. so the ability for individuals. the second thing is you don't have to have great knowledge because the tools allow these things do happen. so one of the things that we worry about more than the traditional world where it's important for events terrorist organizations for the internet to continue to work, they need to do their recruiting, they needed to do their propaganda. what you worry about is the group of five or 10 people, or

three people, that get up one morning, have nothing to do, and decided to cause damage without understanding the effect. because we have things connected to the internet that should never have been connected. one of the issues with, i'm not going to talk about wikileaks, database, everything is connected. you may think it's not that we have evidence now that a nuclear facility was actually connected to the public internet. no one drove into the facility plug-in. it was done from somewhere else in the world. that's true of everything. the recent reason wikileaks happen is because it is connected and it should be. it's impossible to put those genius back in about. so a single person with a wrong attitude, or brass with no attitude at all with nothing to do has ability to cause a catastrophic failure. >> i'm going to go back over there. and i just want to make one

comment before you do, to put us on the table, incentives when part of further this year mike mcconnell he was the director the national security agency under president clinton said endorsing that, report that the threat of cyber attacks on rivals nuclear weapons in terms of seriousness. i think what he meant by that is the possibility of knock out the entire electrical grid and throwing the country into darkness for months. that's not just, that's all sorts of things. or disrupting financial and banking systems so much that wealth disappears like that and we don't know how to get it back. and we know that others will want to comment on that, that china and russia and iran are all working on these offensive capabilities. and in some cases, doing so in collaboration with cybercriminals of tremendous >> i have a question about,

educate, the green movement, impede on presentations, and so on? >> gadget. -- gotcha. does and they want to respond to that? somewhat different views of cyber warfare. >> i mean, from time to time the government, state department, et cetera, typically gets a pang of conscience and tried to do something nice for the greens. it's not always successful

recently. they adopted and licensed and approved software that was supposed to help iranians be the internet's sensory that the regime has put on them. and that was called haystack. unfortunately, haystack turned out to be a trap for users so that people have actually adopted it and used it were instantly identified by the regime. so, you know, that was not a great success. >> this is for the congressman. i think you hit the nail o on te head with your groupthink point. when i was a brief at the state department, is the principal in the realm had a seat in his and all the deputies would grab the cia read some report. not the raw intel. they would go for the red cell reports. they were very interested in the creative thinking aspects. it was a very popular product. but the attitude was, it's okay for them, you know, it's okay

for this red cell to be thinking on the edge but not for the individual analyst. i met with my counterparts at the agency, there may have been a people in the real but it was like just one. these are political and military analysts. so i think the question is, how do you incentivize individual analyst to think creatively? because if they are or not incentivize the, otherwise they risk their access. if they are creating into thinking they risk their access to meetings, and their acceptance by their peers. but that's a challenge. how do we incentivize these people to think on the edge? [applause] >> i think you've got two things if, to take a look at. can you change the culture of the agency. you know, putting your leadership and those types of things. i think we have tried that. one of the things that i have found here and watch bureaucracies work, you put in a change agent and all the

antibodies start coming after it and they killed and they spit it out. it's like, this ain't going to work. this is what i much more in favor of doing, i think it's doable, is make them compete with smart people on the outside. say we're going to ask the intel community to do an analysis of iran, and different studies or whatever on iran. capabilities and those types of things. and then we're going to go to a group of smart people on the outside and ask them to do the same thing. may be due to groups on the outside. given all the same intelligence, all the same access. and all of a sudden the groupthink inside is going to be like, our piece of work, rather than being accepted and going to the president, this is our piece of work, or stuff that will be compared to people outside. that may be the fastest way to change the culture inside. i think changing it from within will be almost impossible.

>> i just want to add one quick note to that which is if you think about information today, so much of the information, that's available is open source stuff. think about how much money in the worldwide media spins to get information. there's a reason to think that necessarily on any given issue the guys on inside with her classified security clearances necessary have better information than you on the outside reading and consuming media. there's always this bias i know in our intel analysts. it's not classified it is not seen as equally valuable, or equally insightful. that's just nonsense. a lot of times the better information is on the outside. >> you get so much information, you get clutter. sometimes having less information actually enables you to make better insights. >> peter? >> i'm sorry, did you want to say something?

>> the point he made no is probably the most important point of all. there is so much data. think about some 250,000 pages on wikileaks. that's a staggering amount of data. it's a drop in the ocean. the biggest problem we have in the intelligence community and doing analysis is data reduction. so maybe one of the best things, if everything was opened, it would mean that easy to know what was wrote and what wasn't, what mattered. [laughter] >> wikileaks would have had more potential would've had more impact if they had only had 1000 documents, and they knew the context, background and implications of those documents than they are having with 250,000. they might've had more of an impact if they only had 500 documents. >> peter? >> i would like to ask michael this question, any comment on welfare in the early part of the reagan administration, al haig went to testify for his confirmation hearings and he was

asked about the terrorism. and he said we have to go to the source. he said the source is so union. this town went bananas. mr. casey asked the cia, does the soviet union support terrorism? the after that came back was no. kasey kahne said could you give me data to justify this? the agency sent back to a stack of cost and editorials where the soviets denied any connection to terrorism. kacey didn't of course put a red team together. now, the person to generate al hayes, during his confirmation hearing in february of 1981 was claire sterling and her book on terrorism, which is all from open sources. secretary gates publish a book in the mid 1990s that went through this story and said, reagan and casey actually underestimated the extent to which the soviet union was the father and mother of all terrorism. i think there's enormous lessons better for our current issues

with respect to read. i want to thank you, congressman, for your extra ordinary service as ranking member. [applause] >> definitely want to comment on that? >> amen. for sure, we underestimate, i'm sure we underestimate all the evil things that iranian, that iran, iranian regime is up to come and the world right now. i mean, the quiet since, the fact that people don't stand up and say but they are killing our people every day, iranians are killing americans, american soldiers, marines come and so on every single day. and nobody seems to care about that. that's not the issue. the only issue is that this. but they don't need nukes to kill us. they been happily killing us for 30 years without nukes. so what's, you know.

>> the bush administration to respond and talk about the fact that iranians were killing americans in iraq that if you acknowledge it and say it's important then you have to respond in a robust fashion, and they didn't want to do that. >> a follow-up to that, and since we are two prominent members of congress here, at least, the last time a took a look at the constitution this day, we have identified as michael points out -- >> just a couple minutes left in this program. we will leave it at this point and go live to the national press club here in washington. house majority leader -- leader steny hoyer turkey is expected to discuss tax cuts legislation and a number of other issues that are pending before the lame-duck session of congress. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> just take time for a couple

of people here to make their way up to the front. susan church, there's always room in front, y'all. [laughter] >> good morning, everyone. thank you for coming to the national press club on this busy december day. my name is alan bjerga. i'm a reporter with bloomberg news and issues president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, for more information about the press club, please visit www.press.org if you're interested in learning more about or contribute to our professional development programs from our nonprofit training for journalists or please visit www.press.org/library. thank you so much to the journalist who are here today, as well as c-span for its coverage of this event. it is a pleasure to welcome to the national press club today as one of our final speakers in 2010, one of our first speakers in 2010, house majority leader,

for now, steny hoyer. [laughter] >> congressman hoyer manages the house floor and schedules the bills that will receive consideration. that helps house democrats to come their legislative agenda and deliver the democratic message. for the upcoming congress, congressman or it was elected house majority whip which is also the democrats number two position and/or new minority status. is considered the liberal wing of his party ,-comcome a position which could be entitled to democrats as they try to achieve consensus in the upcoming a republican majority house and a more republican senate. this morning congressman porter who is currently in his 15th term in the house serving maryland fifth district will be looking ahead to the 2011 congressional agenda with the democratic minority. how they will work with republicans and how it all likelihood they will work with them, should the situation arise. after the majority leader's remarks, we will take you in a.

we do ask that you wait for the microphone before taking the question. and that you organize and identify both your questions and identify yourself and your organization. so with that we turn it over to the current house majority leader, congressman steny hoyer. >> thank you very much, alan. [applause] >> you know, i am pleased to be speaking this month and be introduced as the majority leader, but alan sort of made, the current majority leader. but i'm very pleased to be here at the national press club once again. allen, i want to thank you for your introduction to our to thank my good friend for suggesting that i come again here, and thank you for all the work that you do. the house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states. so says the constitution. at a time when some americans

were pushing for our leaders to be selected for live, our founders made a revolutionary choice. they created a government that was found every two years, to listen to the people's verdict. we ought to listen to the people all the time, the verdict, that much less listen every two years. that accountability has been a great source of our strength. it's also been a source of our greatest test as a people. no form of government is more demanding than ours. that's what benjamin franklin called our government a republic, if you can keep it. behaviors that keep every public eye the sacrifice, self-discipline, and self-restraint. they are the virtues that neighbors need into a community, and communities into a nation, they are the virtues the partisan warfare and call us to look further into the future than just the next two years.

so our form of government demands leaders who are fearful of losing the next election, and, therefore, the will of the people, but are not consumed or immobilized by fear. our politics may run on two year cycles, but our problems do not. we won't get to full employment in two years. we will get out of debt in two years. we won't get our middle class out of this historic old of inequality and lost opportunity in two years. but in two years there will always be other elections. they are always easier ways to win than taking on a long-term structural problems that defy quick answers. it's easier to borrow, and if someone else with the bill. is issued to rail against spending without cutting anything of substance. it's easier to stir up cultural

wars and cultural resentment. all of those tactics have proved successful, but they are also poisonous to our future. what a republic needs is leaders who are willing to look further, even if it costs them. in 1993, congressman marjorie margolis voted for the clinton budget, and it cost her her seat in congress. but that budget helped create 22 points 7 million new jobs, and the biggest surplus in our history. history proved marjorie margolis correct. but it cost her her seat. i believe the issue will say the same of someone at my colleagues in the 111th congress who make political sacrifices to do what they believed was right. our form of government also demands sacrifice from its citizens.

not just in times of austerity, it at all times. it demands citizens who see through politicians promising everything at once. it demands citizens who understand that the contrived drama of the news cycle is trivial next to the slower, more profound cycles that shape our future. the cycles of educating each new generation of children who have innovative technologies that inspire new innovations in turn, or struggling to bring our nation's folks into balance. we look at last months elections we see a great deal of anger, and i fear. much of it warranted. that anger can be valuable as it pushes us to confront america's deep challenges. but not if it pushes us into two more years of zero-sum warfare in washington. that anger must be tempered, and i believe that it can be. america is not convinced that

either party has all the answers. and on november 2, i believe that the voters called us to find common ground on real solutions. rather than simplistic soundbites. of real problems, problems like unemployment, economic growth, and deficit and debt reduction. we need to seek common ground. november 2 certainly was that victory for the democrats. republican senator mark review of florida was also right when he said, and i quote, we make a great mistake, we believe tonight these results are some out and embrace of the republican party. they were results from every public that wanted us to share responsibility, to find common ground, and our common problems. to put together a domestic agenda that thinks in terms of decades, not election cycles, or news cycles. i believe that the agenda must be founded on job creation, the

strength of our economy, and our middle class, and real fiscal responsibility. when it comes to jobs i think there's a recognition on both sides that manufacturing must be a part of the return to long-term strength. both parties understand that manufacturing is one of the most important sources of well-paying middle-class jobs. both parties understand that manufacturing has taken a severe head over the last three decades, which saw the number of american manufacturing jobs cut nearly in half. and both parties recognize that reversing that trend is a critical part of being the kind of nation we want to be. a nation of innovators, and producers. and nation that competes in wins in the global market, and keeps the link so much of what makes the world run.

and happily, the world wants. those goals are behind, as you've heard me say in the past, to make it in america agenda. they plan to rebuild america's manufacturing strength. ability make it in america agenda has been initiated by democrats, it is an agenda that appeals to the broad spectrum of americans who see themselves as principled privates, looking for policies that work for themselves, their families, and their country. in the 111th congress republicans and democrats were able to line up behind helping america and investors get their products, inventors get their product to market faster. making it cheaper for american manufacturers to obtain images they need to produce goods, helping veterans find jobs in the growing clean energy sector, and more. labor unions and business alike joined to support our manufacturing agenda because

they shared an understanding that it's not enough for america to innovate new technologies. we have to bring them to scale here in america. that is, it's no longer enough to simply invent and innovate and develop here, and then watch our ideas roll off the assembly lines in other countries. that pattern has cost jobs and brought down our communities all across america. innovation us eventually falls manufacturingof has that effect on a range of products that would be vital to the 21st century to come. everything from computer chips to photovoltaic cells, the computer optics, and we have both observed one of the founders of intel, continue to manufacture overseas, soon to inventors and innovators will

follow and go overseas. both parties have an interest in changing that dynamic. so i'm hopeful that we can make progress in the manufacturing bills in the next congress. bills to strengthen java and partnerships between workers and businesses and educators. bills to help match job training programs for the jobs that manufactures most need filled. bills to support american exports, for our workers and companies. and hold china and others accountable for the unfair subsidy it gives its own companies through manipulation. the creation of an environment with which manufacturing job growth is both desirable and profitable should be a joint responsibility. job creation will still be the measure of success in the next congress. we also need a congress that is committed to invest in economic fundamentals and growing our middle class.

from that perspective, i think the outcome of the tax negotiations would president obama and republicans is next. on the one hand, i think that extending unemployment insurance, cutting payroll taxes, and keeping taxes low incomes under $250,000 our proven steps to grow the economy families in need and create jobs. but i simply do not believe that the deep debt that comes from republicans over income and estate tax cuts it's worth the minimal impacts on job creation. those cuts harm our long-term prosperity. with little short-term gain in return. they are found on the fiscal, billions include for the best off among us will have a significant positive effect on job growth. that's why this deal, is giving democrats some pars. having said that i believe that actions are necessary and compromise is inevitable.

in the next congress we have to move beyond emergency measures, the recovery act, in my view, help stop. but now it's time to invest in fundamentals of long-term self-sustaining growth, growth that is not founded on debt your i think the investment manager put it well when he wrote, and i quote, in the real world both depends on real factors. the quality and quantity of education, work ethic, population profile, the quality and quantity of existing plant and equipment, business organizations, the quality of public leadership, and the quality, not quantity of existing regulations and the degree of enforcement. the intelligence of our investment in real lasting growth will determine whether we meet our goal of emerging from a recession as a stronger country.

there's another reason why emergency measures aren't enough. the state of our middle class. even if our unemployment rate were instantaneously sent back to the 2007 levels, we would still be a country with a declining middle class. and with levels of inequality we haven't seen in nearly a century. that is an issue about which all of us should be concerned. the middle class is struggling long before the crash it. since 1980, the average income of the bottom 90% of americans has not budged. over the same period, the wealthiest, 1% has come to control nearly a quarter of all income. and now our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle are going to ask for a high estate tax exemption which will be

benefit for just 39,000 of americans wealthiest families. our challenge then is to foster smart vote that lift the middle class. and whether we will reach that goal depends on whether we have the discipline to make come and sustained, a long-term commitment to making things in america. make it in america, and promoting science and education. if we do have that discipline, we can find common ground on investing in outstanding education, and basic research. that's the time that companies have a little economic incentive to perform on their own, but can turn even a relatively small public commitment into enormous difference. and as we remind ourselves, anytime we use the internet, the computer mouse or gps, all of which was substantially enhanced

by government investment in basic research. this commitment should not be a partisan one. even though the investment of the american compete act enforcement failed to win republican support in this congress, i am still hopeful that the partisan equation can change now that republicans share responsibility for our growth. that's especially likely when republican business allies remind them of the dismal economic outlook for a country whose investment in research and development is a fraction of the economy continues on a four decade course of decline. a country that is already falling behind japan, that an application and it's on pace to be overtaken by china as well. and a country whose k-12 math achievement continues to rank toward the bottom of the developed world, when he fifth out of 34 countries measured on a recent international

assessment. that is simply unacceptable. it should be an especially loud wakeup call to see students in chinese school settings significant outpace american students on that same assessme assessment, scoring 20% higher in math, and 15% higher in science. so i'm hopeful in the 112th congress we'll see a stronger commitment to basic research and to math and science education. i also believe we can find common ground on education reform that builds on the successful race to the top program, to bring more accountability and data driven results to our classrooms. while at the same time provide the necessary support schools and teachers educating are most at risk populations. this kind of commitment to research and education is the foundation of a stronger, more

competitive middle class. it also is the foundation of real economic growth, and have a new jobs we need. in fact according to a study from third way, if our economy grows by 2% instead of 3% for a year over the next decade, that difference will translate to in unemployment rate seven percentage points higher. simply 1% difference in the growth of our domestic product. another area for common ground on growth follows from france's point about the quality, not quantity of existing regulations. congress needs to take a serious look at our international competitors regulatory policies, and to ask how they contribute to job creation. i mean, we need to look at the quality of our own regulations, to what extent are the regulations have protecting the status quo, and to what extent are they hindering innovation?

arthur places we can make it easier to start to do this, easier to grow by simplifying and streamlining regulations we have. all of us have heard the cries for help from those who want to add to our countries free enterprise, but feel frustrated by the governments of hurdles to confront. and democrats must stand ready to work with republicans, and today, with us, and research, education, reform, and regulatioregulations. there are of course some corporate which we should not and will not compromise. expecting in ensuring that the health of our people and our environment is safeguarded. and protected. our consumers from unfair practices that put them unknowingly at great economic risk. the rules reenacted for wall street were necessary to curb the irresponsible and unchecked actions that lead to financial

crisis. these rules will protect jobs and save us from another devastating crash, and they move our economy away from damaging cycles of bubble and burst, a pattern of more steady growth. for the same reason we will protect americans control over don't health care but it puts our company on a more equal footing against international competitors to benefit from lower health care costs. it frees potential enterprise to start business on their own without worrying about losing health care. and it brings more fairness to the lives of middle-class families who, for years, have paid more and more for less and less security coverage. coverage that has often failed to be there when they needed it most. in both cases democrats have worked to create rules for fair play that protect and promote economic growth.

if democrats want to be the party of the middle-class security, we must also be the party of growth. we have built a remarkable network of programs to make americans lies more prosperous, more dignified, and yes, more security. from social security to health care reform. but if we want to keep that network in place, especially as our country ages, we can't neglect or devalue the importance of small and economic growth which helped those progress stay viable. long with opportunities we must also recognize obligations. and limits. if we are to protect america's opportunities over the long haul and maintain and america's place in the world, we must find common ground to restore america's fiscal sense. the threat of fiscal turmoil in this country, not abstract.

and it would be felt in the life of every american, unsustainable debt of eventually means skyrocketing interest rates and a tanking economy. that makes it harder to get a college education, to start a business, to buy a house, indeed, to start a future. no other issue calls on leaders who understand the importance of hard choices and hard truths. no other issue call so strongly for citizens who knows what it takes to keep our republic. the so why sacrifice today to help our children prosper tomorrow. i'm heartened that the presence bipartisan fiscal commission put forward a provocative, challenging plan on debt, a plan that needs to be at the center of our national conversation. the commission plan, along with plans released by the bipartisan

policy center, representative schakowsky and the center for american progress, as well as come is a compelling summons to a realistic embrace of fiscal responsibility. reality tells us that we must address both the trending and revenue. not i believe into our economy is back to health, but certainly very, very soon. we are going to have to reform entitlements to keep it solvent for future generations. that could mean some combination of raising the in retirement age who can't work as long to do physically demanding jobs and raising the social security income tax, making social security more progressive, sticking to cost control revisions we pass in the health care bill. medicare and medicaid, we've taken some actions, still require substantial attention. we must continually review discretionary spending, including the largest area of discretionary spending, defense.

defense spending is now higher than in any year since world war ii, and it has exploded by more than two-thirds since 2001, without even counting the money spent in iraq and afghanistan. secretary gates has said the pentagon, and i quote, a filter of endless money is now a grave threat to our military strength and national security. no discretionary expenditure shall go untested or need an effective is in a future congress. finally, we are going to have to raise rates, which can be accomplished as suggested by both president obama's commission and the tax reform commission under president bush, by simplifying the tax code and reducing both rates and tax preferences. a simplified tax code can say families and businesses precious time, unleash economic growth, remain progressive, and help

reduce the deficit. presidenresident obama's indicas giving tax reform serious consideration. i would urge him to do so, and to move in this congress on that issue. he has my support, and i hope that's an area in which we can make bipartisan progress in this congress. in the realm of fiscal discipline more than any other, our economic future rests on our ability to find common ground. we have done so in the past year we need to do so in the future. if we continue to see the future in two-year increments, however, each party can continue to demagogue these hard choices until the crisis, and that crisis would make even more painful choices unavoidable. challenges are daunting, but i have spoken to many americans, not a single american that i

talked to who believes they are beyond our ability to solve, if we have the will and courage to do so. we have the toughness and the ability to overcome four wars, we still have those qualities in america. what i hear more and more, however, is that doubt that our politics are equal to our generals. is i doubt that we still know how to practice specific virtues, the self-discipline that got us through revolution, civil wars and depressions. and in the face of almost 10% unemployment, staggering debt, and a historically struggling middle class, we the next two years, if we spend the next two years and squabble, in positioning, and in trivialities, we will have proved the doubters correct at a

terrible cost to our children, and to our country. when ben franklin reflected on high difficulty of keeping a republic, he was indulging in blind pessimism. he was challenging us is in heritage. i still believe, and i think americans believe, that america as a people equal to the burden of self-governance in their hard times. i believe that government was founded on exceptional, discover was founded on exceptional principals. i also know that our exceptionalism is not a birthright, not an entitlement. it has to be fought for and won and held in every generation. and that fight is going to define the years ahead. not a fight between nations, or between parties, but a fight to live up to the grave responsibility placed on every one of us by our precious form of government.

a free people, a democracy. no matter who wins the next election, or the one after, that is a fight we must win, or lose, as one. thank you very much. [applause] >> and thank you very much for your time. will not enter the question and answer portion. once again, if you could identify yourselves after year are called upon in which the microphone to arrive. ..

>> it doesn't contribute a dime to the deficit even on paper, so it isn't anything the deficit commission can take advantage of other than taking money from it. how did social security become the symbol of safing the deficit and be doing something instead of the real costs of iraq, afghanistan, tax breaks for the rich, and will democrats and the congress as a whole resist the

sound bite to save the budget by cutting social security? >> well, thank you. first of all, let me say that social security ought not to be looked at as a way to reduce the deficit. and your point is well taken. however, at the same time we need to make sure that social security's not only solvent through 2037, but solvent for futuregen races -- future generations and, therefore, we must address its solvency within its own construct, and i think that's what many have said. there are many ways to do that. frankly, social security is much easier to deal with than is medicare and medicaid which, as i pointed out to you, is a very much greater challenge in terms of cost. now, you mention as well the expenditures that we have made without paying for them. we've fought two wores, and -- wars, and they've incurred about

a trillion dollars, none of which has been paid for. it's all been borrowed money. when i said the civic virtues of self-discipline, we need to make sure that we pay for what we buy. and, therefore, we included in our budget a statutory paygo. i think that was a return to what we did in the '90s and disciplined ourselves in terms of expenditures. i think we need to continue to do that. what i have said and many of you have heard me say in the short term in an economic downturn you cannot do that because what you need to do is to give stimulus to the economy, and you can't depress it at the same time. and, therefore, you need to incur debt at times of economic stress. however, we incurred great deficits at the time of economic well being, and that has been the problem that we confront

today. but your point that social security is, clearly, something that democrats are going to make sure is in place, is solvent, is there for future generations, will not be privatized and will be as generations have had it to rely on in their retirement. oh, you go. >> morning, congressman. james reid, reporter at the campus be radio for george washington university. my question is in regards to the new freshman class in congress. the media pass portrayed a large -- has portrayed a large portion of them as being members of the tea party. you mentioned in your speech you hope to work with them across the aisle to get things done. my question is how would you

plan to extend the democratic way, well, the way of making laws and the democratic process? how do you extend that to the tea party, and in which ways would you do that? >> well, of course, you can't simplify any of the parties because there are a lot of discussions within, and the tea party is not a party in the sense that we know that almost every -- all of them were elected as republicans. so that what we need to do as republicans and democrats is come together and understand that these are, as i said, pragmatic, difficult problems that confront us. not ideological problems, they're practical problems. and we -- that's been done before. ronald reagan sat down with tip o'neill and addressed social security and made it solvent to that that bob leonard talked about. ronald reagan and his people came together with dan rostenkowski in 1986 and passed

a tax program which did what i said we need to do, lower rates and bring, reduce preferences. i think we can do that. i think we can do that because the demands to do so are compelling and immediate. and i'm hopeful that members of both parties will come together and do that. i certainly intend to work with mr. boehner and mr. cantor and mr. mccartney, all of whom i've talked to about this effort. now, i don't know most of the new members who have come on the republican side, i know all the democrats, all being nine. a lamentable fact but true, but there are many more republicans. but let me say this, you know, i've been in politics for a long time. in 1964 long before your, maybe before your parents were born, maybe not quite -- [laughter] in 1964 it was reported that the

republican party was on life support and may not survive. lyndon johnson had a huge victory. in 1968, of course, the republicans won the presidency. in 1972 the democrats were assessed as being almost gone. we won one state and the district of columbia, maybe two states and the district of columbia. two years later the president who won that 1972 election resigned. in one of the biggest political crisises that's confronted our country. and in 1976 we won the presidency. four years later you know it went to ronald reagan, and it goes back and forth. in 1994, of course, republicans won a big victory in the house. in '06, 12 years later, we won a

large victory and be enlarged it a year later. what is my point? my point is that both partys ought to get the message that, look, if you're not doing the right thing, we're going to change horses. i think the american people want us both to work together to solve problems that they know are real problems, not ideological left and right problems, but problems that they see in the terms of their jobs, in the debt that confronts their country. i think they were the two major issues in this election. we need to address both. >> yes. >> carl, i mean, tom? >> tom with reuters. mr. hoyer, what changes do you plan to make in the tax bill before bringing it to the floor, and do you expect, ultimately, that bill will be passed and ultimately sent to the president? >> the answer to the second question is, yes. the answer to the first question

is we want to see what the senate passes first. they're going to pass something, they're going to bring it up on the floor tonight, as you know and, perhaps, pass a bill -- not perhaps, i think they'll pass a bill sometime thereafter either late tuesday or wednesday. we will address that bill, as you know, as i said in my speech and you've heard me say before, tom, i have real concerns that the suggested tax cap on the upper income returning to 2000 levels only where the economy during those levels did very, very well, but as a result of the republican tax program as you know they sunsetted their tax cuts, and they would be reinstated in january. i think that reinstating those for the middle income people would have an adverse effect on the economy and ought not to be done. i don't think it would have an adverse effect on the upper income, nor do i think that the

change in the estate tax that has been recommended, the so-called lincoln-kyl compromise, will add $700 billion -- well, actually more than that when you consider both. the cost of that will be justified by any increase in the economic stimulus. there's much consternation in the house about the estate tax. i expect there to be some consideration of that. as you know, last december a year ago we passed a $3.5 million, 45% rate which has sat in the senate for 12 months. i think that's unfortunate it's sat there because my republican friends raised, correctly, the issue of certainty. whether it's an estate tax, bids taxes or personal taxes -- business taxes or personal taxes. serbty is a stabilizing -- certainty is a stabilizing,

productive facet of our tax system. we will see what the house will do on that. it will go to the rules committee, the ways and means committee will have some input in that, the rules committee, when the senate bill comes to the house, and we will see what action -- >> [inaudible] he doesn't expect -- >> wait for the microphone, please. >> oh, i'm sorry. mr. axlerod said yesterday he doesn't expect any significant changes, that the house i will make any significant changes. >> well, i guess the issue there is what is significant. we passed a 3.5 million estate tax for -- 3.5 million individual, 7 million for couple, the proposal is 35% rate. there certainly, to me, seems to be some room for a change which may or may not be perceived by some as significant. so i don't want to bait the question, but it seems to me that the statement begs the

question. >> hi, congressman hoyer, i'm mark with investment news, and i had a follow-up question about the estate tax. you said in your speech and in q&a here you expect the tax cut bill to be, to be approved and sent to the president. are the house democrats willing to stop it, to go all the way to the wall over the estate tax issue? >> what i have said repeatedly and what the president has said and what bill clinton, president clinton said is i think the president believes and i believe that increasing the tax load on working americans at this point in time on january 1st would not be helpful to continuing to grow the economy. as a result, we don't want to see that happen. in order not to see that happen,

you need to get a bill through congress and signed by the president. we're working on that. the legislative process is a process of give and take, and i think that's going to occur. >> i just want to be clear on what you're saying. >> identify yourself. >> i'm sorry, i'm jill jackson with cbs news. want to be clear you're saying you will bring whatever the senate passes to the house floor, but that you will expect some sort of a state tax amendment? is it going to be an amendment, and do you expect that to happen this week? my other question is, is this about letting your members vote for something -- vote against the estate tax provision as worked out against the president and senate republicans, or is this about actually wanting to change it and send it back to the senate where they would have to take it up again? >> i think some of us would like to change us. a number of us believe there is a compromise available, but

we'll have to see where the votes lie. as you know, the -- when and if senate sends us a bill which i expect to be, hopefully, earlier this week than later this week, i think it will be referred to the rules committee, the ways and means committee, and others will have an opportunity to suggest amendments to the senate bill, and then the rules committee may well report out on that bill with amendments. if they do so, we'll have votes on those amendments. i say if. that has not, that process has not happened yet, as you know. you had another question i want to, i think we will pass a bill. i think that was part of your question. i think we'll pass a bill. as opposed to simply not passing anything. >> thank you. chad pilgrim with fox. i guess when you say compromise

was inevitable, what i'm not getting and i think what jill was getting at is it sounds like a number of members in your caucus are going to have to take a hit here. do you think you say, well, we've got to see what the ways and means committee works out here? at the end of the day, though, it sounds like somebody's really taking a hit here, and it sounds like it's the liberal wing of your caucus. >> i don't think -- i think the country may take a hit. i think that's our concern. the country is in deep debt. the american public are very concerned about that. there is no simple way to get, to reduce that debt. it will take contributions from everybody, in my view. but certainly our caucus believes that the wealthiest in america need the help pay the bill. now, they are helping pay the bill, and they did that in the '90s when we had a surplus. we don't think that the proposal

dealing with upper income or the estate tax are useful in trying to get a handle on our debt. having said that, taken a hit. everybody in the legislative process takes a hit. krauthammer apparently believes the republicans took a hit. a pretty big hit according to charles krauthammer. you read his column, i'm sure. so the legislative process is usually a process where everybody says, jeez, i didn't get everything i wanted. you know, my experience in life i haven't gotten everything i wanted. that's life. that's the way we work with one another. sometimes, you know, when my wife was alive we'd sit down and say i want to go to this movie, and be i'd want to go to that movie. sometimes we went to her movie and sometimes we went to my movie. you know, that's the way life is. >> corey bowles, dow jones.

two further questions on taxes, sir. if, as expected, the senate returns a strong vote in the favor of the existing legislation, does that make it more difficult for house democrats to amend it? and secondly, will you and will the speaker bring the bill to the floor even if it's apparent there's not a majority of house democrats in this favor of it? >> well, i don't want to anticipate there's not going to be a majority of house democrats -- there may be a majority of house democrats that are not for the senate bill, but as it comes over. but they'll have an opportunity to get input, and we'll have to see what the rules committee reports out in considering the senate bill. both the speaker and i have indicated that we want to make sure that upper, that middle income taxes on working americans don't go up on january 1st. we don't think that is a positive effect on the economy. furthermore, i won't speak for

the speaker or, but i'll speak for myself in terms of i think the stimulative effect certainly in the short term of both the payroll tax reduction and unemployment insurance which every economist says is one of the biggest spurs to the economy that you can have are absolutely essential. unemployment insurance, as you've heard me say in the pen and be pad, i think is a moral imperative. we have millions, two million americans who have now lost their unemployment insurance through no fault of their own simply because there aren't jobs available. there's, there are five people looking for every job that's available in our country. they simply can't get jobs. we need to make sure that they can sustain themselves during the period of time where we try to bring back the economy so there are jobs available for those folks. so there's, there are a lot of things in this bill that we want to see passed. and we are, obviously, having an argument about some other

aspects of the bill. that should surprise no one who has grown up in any kind of a family. the only time you don't have a disagreement, and i find, very frankly, i have disagreements with myself a lot of times on the one hand, but on the other hand, you know? [laughter] i try to figure it out. and that's what we're doing. and we'll continue to do it. and i think we're going to have a vote on the senate bill. oh, and with possible changes. i wanted to make that clear so you didn't have me -- >> [inaudible] >> no, no, no. we may have it with amendments. we'll see what the process is. hasn't gone through the process. and furthermore, you understand, we haven't seen the senate bill yet. so it's hard to comment on exactly what we're going to do with it. >> jonathan nicholson with b and a. you mentioned the fiscal outlook including the idea of urging president obama to take up tax reform, seemingly, it sounded

like you said in the next congress. a, if you could expand on that. and, b, where does the optimism of dealing with these issues come from? one could argue you took the house in '06 because of social security reform and in '10 they took the house because of health care reform. if entitlement reform means losing, where is the appetite? >> jonathan, i don't know that i'm agreeing with your premise either on '06 or '08. i think what happened was in '06 the american public felt that the policies of the republican party and george bush were not working. and they wanted a change. and they voted for change. in 2008 they voted for change again. in 2010 i think what they voted for was out of a great angst that the economy had not

responded, that unemployment was at 9.6%, and they did not believe the policies that had been put forward were working. that also happened, as you recall, in 1994. and policies were from the american public's standpoint not working. in fact, of course, those policies, ultimately, led to the best economy along with the i.t. explosion. actually, the i.t. explosion facilitated, in my opinion, by the fiscal responsibility that was pursued in the economic policy we adopted in 1993. so i don't accept your premise as to why the election turned. i think it turned on the economy. now, as to your specific question i have for a long time believed that tax reform was essential. last time we reformed taxes in a significant way as simply rather than simply raising or cutting

rates was 1986. and we focused on trying to bring a handle on preferences and reduce rates. the commission has made some substantial proposals along that end. i don't want to, certainly, endorse all the proposals they made. but i do endorse very enthusiastically the, reducing of preferences so that people are making decisions based upon their business judgment, not on their tax lawyer's judgment. i think that's, would be very helpful to our economy. and i think it would spur economic growth to reduce rates. which reducing preferences will allow you to do. and i also think both are essential if we're going to balance the budget in the next generation. >> [inaudible] >> the timing i think i said this next congress, it seems to me the only time you can really

do that is when you can get bipartisan participation. and very difficult for one party or the other to take a stance that we're going to try to make the medicine go down easier. than it other side would. otherwise would. these are tough decisions to make subject easily to demagoguery and, therefore, you need bipartisan participation. when ronald reagan and tip o'neill agreed on social security reform and ronald reagan and dan rostenkowski agreed on tax reform, frankly, it was relatively easy. if you don't have bipartisan agreement so, therefore, i'm hopeful that both david kemp and sandy levin, the chairman and to be ranking member, can work on this effort. i hope that president obama and democrats and republicans in congress can work on this effort.

americans are expending an extraordinary amount of time and money on paying their taxes. and it is not conducive to growing our economy, and we need to change the system of extraordinary complexity. we've exploded even in the last decade the number of pages of regulation in the tax code which is not helpful. we need to simplify it, we need to bring down rates in my opinion, reduce preferences, and i'm hopeful that this will be a major effort of the administration in the coming congress. >> we have, we have time for about two more questions. your questions, i noticed, have been coming predominantly from the right. let's work on the center and the left here. it's right over here. [laughter] >> i want all of you over there to know that i do not necessarily consider you of the right. [laughter] >> anna palmer with roll call. i know part of this depends on

what the senate does, but timing. you said tuesday or wednesday you're looking at getting the bill back, amendments, are you thinking you're going to try to put something on the floor before the end of the week? >> in light of the fact that every member would hope to get home for christmas, including me although i'm relatively home, close by, the answer to the question is both reid and i in terms of scheduling and the speaker are hopeful that we can conclude our business by -- in the house -- on the 17th. and if we had to come back because the senate still had to do work, we might do that at some point in the time. but it's our hope that we get out on the 17th. as you know, the continuing resolution that is currently in force under which government's being funded expires on saturday the 18th. i am hopeful that not only will the tax bill be considered within that time frame, but we must also consider what i hope

to be from my perspective either a cr or an omnibus. i would prefer an omnibus which speaks more broadly to the funding priorities that the house and the senate have already worked on. >> final question. >> congressman, i'm chris string, i'm a freshman at george washington university. my question is the deficit commission did not get the required 14 votes for madam speaker to bring it to the house floor. however, it did get 13 -- 11 out of 18, and that's about 60%. that would have passed congress. but your colleague, madam speaker and the future speaker, john boehner, would consider bringing that to the house floor to get it voted on? >> well, let me back up. as you know, what the commitment of the majority leader this senate and the speak or of the

house was that if it got 14 out of 18 which was required under the president's executive order establishing the commission for recommendation to move forward, the commitment of the speaker was she and i made the same commitment because i schedule the bills was that if it got 14 out of 18 and if it passed the united states senate -- very important premise was that it would move through the senate first -- then the house would put it on the floor. that has not happened. now, more importantly, however, is i think the commission and i think the do min chi commission and others who have put forward plans have performed a useful, important function. and that is they have not only described the problem, the

proximity of the crisis and suggested solutions. i would certainly hope that all of these commissions, their work product, would be taken into consideration by our ways and means committee, appropriations committee, budget committee and by the congress and the house and the senate in moving forward to address what i believe to be, as you can hear from my speech, one of the most critical challenges confronting our country and particularly challenging for your, for your generation. we called the world war ii generation the greatest generation. if my generation leaves you and my children who are older than you, but my grandchildren one of whom is about your age in deep debt so that you in your time cannot respond either to national security crisis, health crisis, natural disaster crisis

and you have no resources to respond to those, you will not think our generation was very great at all. so that notwithstanding the fact that it did not get 14 out of 18, notwithstanding the fact as a result it will not move through the senate or the house as a package as was contemplated if it did get 14 votes, i am hopeful and will be pressing that the recommendations of all of those bodies will be taken into very careful consideration as we move forward doing what seems to be contradictory, but in the long term must both be done and that is growing our economy. if you do not grow our economy, we will not be able to bring the deficit down. but if we do not wring the deficit -- bring the deficit down over a longer term, then our economy will continue to struggle in the long term. thank you all very, very much. [applause] >> and thank you for being here today at the national press

club. the meeting's adjourned. [inaudible conversations] ..

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we have more live programming coming up for you here on c-span2. in about two hours we'll take

you to the american enterprise institute for a financial discussion on financial regulatory reform. you'll hear from a number of academic. again, that's at 12:30 c-span2 live. update, the house gaveled in earlier today. >> this sunday on c-span, in her first televised interview, elena kagan on the confirmation process, her relationship to the court, and her relationship to chief justice roberts. sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. on

c-span. just in time for the holiday season, the supreme court c-span's latest book, is being offered directly from our publisher to c-span viewers at a very special price, just $5 plus hipping and handling. that's 75% off of the price. this is the first to tell the story of the supreme court through the eye's of the justices themselves. ten current and retired justices, including justice roberts. this is rich with history and tradition with 16 pages of photographs, detailing the architecture and history of the court's landmark building. a handsome edition to a book shelf of any nonfiction reader. to order at the special price of $5, go to c-span.org/books and

click on the supreme court book. place your order by december 15th to receive your copy in time for holiday gift giving. the foundation for the defense of democracy has held a day-long conference friday on how the u.s. should respond to iran's program. former military and u.s. officials discuss whether a military strike by the u.s. against iran is a proper response. the conference was held at the ritz-carlton hotel here in washington. this is just over an hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right. everyone take your seats. and we'll get started here. we're not going to start too late. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much. i want to ask everybody -- i do

want to get started. we've been discussing now for more than 24 hours the iranian threat. it is i would argue and ores -- and others the principal threat of the ones we face today. we have talking about about policy options and range that we have. we have come to an interesting one, one is called the kinetic option. this is a distinguished and great panel. ken pollack, most of you know who everyone is. he's the middle east politics and military affairs expert. currently the director of saban center at the brookings institution. he served on the national security council, he's written several books and many, many articles on all sorts -- all ranges of matters on international relation relation.

reuel marc gerecht is a former analyst in the cia director of operations, he's an author of "know thy enemy" and others, "islamic paradise." that's forthcoming, i may say. [laughter] >> he's not close with iran. >> shiite clerks, the way in the middle east. major yaakov amidror, he served as the national defense college and command college. jeffrey goldberg is national

respondent for "the atlantic." he published the point of no return on the possibility of military strike on iran's nuclear sights. this was a cover story in the atlantic, it was researched. jeffrey did a great job appearing into the minds of the israeli leaders. what i'd like to start, jeffrey, is to ask you to retell your theme, your thesis from that piece, update us, and start with that as a sort of basis for our discussion. >> thanks. thank you. thank you, cliff. i'll be very brief on this. i was curious, i guess about -- well, i've been curious for a while. because we keep hearing that israel is six to nine months away from bombing iran. heard that for about a dozen years. i was curious where we were. i'm fascinated -- i guess the

point of departure is i'm fascinated by the prime minister and his understanding of jewish history and the role of an israeli prime minister after the holocaust. i'm particularly interested in this because i'm a huge reader of his father's work, particularly on the spanish inquisition. you could obviously see the influence of his father who has a very -- now generally accepted but used to be radical interpretation of the spanish inquisition. it was biological based anti-semitism as opposed to mere religion. the most important point that was transmitted to his son that was anti-semitic rhetoric turns into physical violence. i wanted to find out given the new government where we were. so i spent a month or so in israel just talking to people in and out of government and in out

and of the military, former generals, current generals. and i came to the conclusion. this is a conclusion that i came to, i guess, eight months ago because the writing process. you know, that there was a better than 50% chance that israel would -- if all things remained the same, israel would strike at iran's nuclear facilities by the middle of next year, middle of 2011. since then, and based on not my own assumptions but going back to the many of the same people that i've spoken to, i would now elongate that timeline a little bit. mainly because of the stuxnet virus and other how shall we call them? active programs to deny iran the knowledge of it's scientistst. [laughter] >> that was a lovely euphemism. that's some euphemism. [laughter] >> and it's varies by the

programs. the virus first and foremost. and also, i think, we'll get into this, i think there was a shift in the way the prime minister himself understands president obama. i think even in the -- when i started doing the reporting, there was confusion and anxiety on the part of the prime minister about president obama and his intentions. i think for many reasons we can go into, i think he's slightly more comfortable with what he could see as president obama's seriousness on the issue. he probably believes at this point to quote from ken pollack or to borrow from ken pollack that the obama program is actually working that the sanctions regime that obama has put in place, multilateral sanctions is working. ultimately, it won't work. i think that's where the israelis are right now. and if i were to give a prediction, i would say -- i would move that timeline not to

far into the future. end of 2011, all things being equal. these are kinetic in another way. we have to look at events and shape our analysis with the reality around us. >> by the way 11:45, another panel that we'll talk about stuxnet virus and software. it's working during the economy, but ultimately may not work. first general amidror, and just ask for your comments on jeffrey's thesis, on the thinking of the israeli leadership at this point, and not least, the feasibility of the use of military force to substantially delay if not destroy iran's nuclear ambitions under this regime. >> first, thank you very much

for having me here. all of those who make the efforts to having me here. and first, and i think the most important thing to understand, i'm really glad that you will begin with the historical frame that we are leaving that israel cannot be in a situation why which state would demand it's abolishment from earth would have nuclear capability. this is something that is the basis for all of the arguments pros and cons and what should be done. and i'm not going to speak about the friday afternoon attack of the israeli air force. i'm not going to make any announcement about dates and so on. [laughter] >> but it should be very clear that it is a combination of some elements. first, we are examining very -- in very details what are the

results of sanctions and the pressure that it put on the callers and decision makers. it's not exactly the same in iran. and from what we learn from the outside, and from the inside, we understand that there are results, more than many expected in the past. but all of these results didn't make any change in the plan itself. and it is very important to understand, because yesterday i heard very optimistic words from the americans who are responsible for implementing the sanctions. it is very important to continue and to put pressure on the iranians. at least up until now, it didn't make anyone into iran to think -- to give a second thought to the decision to go ahead with the plan to nuclear iran.

and it is very important to understand because we have to separate between the success of the sanctions in the economical side and the less success of the sanctions in the -- what is the targeted ground, the plan to make iran military ability on the nuclear side. so second, we are looking to the leaders on what's going on within the plan itself. and not question the fact that two very important scholars cannot help any more to improve their plan. is it something that we are examining and we look at the plan, and we will see where we are standing and war and if there is a line that will be crossed it will be too late. and if there are other possibilities to delay will be used by others and us. so on and so forth.

what is very important to understand, that we try to understand and learn from all of the information that we have. where are we standing relating to these nuclear efforts of the iranians? and no question that at the end of the day, the combination between both, how pressure from outside and what's going on within iran connecting to this plan will be part of the elements which are retaken into consideration by the decision -- by the decision maker. and the third one is the one which is very, you know, practical, technical, the ability, the intelligence, the how, what delay can be achieved? and in this sense, what delay can be achieved and so on and so forth, the combination of all of the three elements together based on the assumption that israel cannot agree to nuclear

iran will lead at the end to the decision. we prepare ourselves. i mean technically, israel will be ready if the decision will be taken to go ahead. so load the money, preparations, a lot of training and thoughts and many people sitting there doing the best to have the best plan. we will be ready when and if the decision will be taken. and if and when it will be taken is result of this combination of the three elements that i've just mentioned. i can tell you one thing for sure. and it is -- please off the record. [laughter] >> we're all friends here. [laughter] >> if iran will -- yes -- if the iranians abilities will be effective militarily, it will be

with american airplanes. the question is will it be an american pilot or israel one? [laughter] >> but don't make any mistakes, no one in israel is eager to go to this war. for us, it is a last resort. every one in israel, every one in israel will be more than happy to learn that iran is stopping it's nuclear plan without using military force. it's a last report because the war that will emerge from this attack will be a dirty one, a long one, and a one that no one want to be in. and this is two better turnouts for sure. i believe that attacking iran is very bad situation. but there is something worse that iran will have a nuclear capability. but we are not running to attack iran. we want to postpone it as much

as possible because we want to give the world, the americans, everyone who is ready to help to stop iran without using military forces. so it is not just an option. we prepare with this very thoroughly, and we hope that someone will find another solution. if you ask me, it's an extra for the system for what i did 25 years. what is my assessment? my assessment is it is almost impossible to stop iran without military force. but we should not run to use it before we be sure 100% and more that there is no other alternative. >> after jeffrey's cover story came out on "the atlantic" reuel wrote a cover story, i don't know if it was a response or

continuation of the discussion looking at how iran, both ordinary iranians and the regime would respond to military force. if you'd go over that and discuss that. also in particular, tackle the conventional wisdom which is that if the israelis or americans or anyone else in israeli force, everyone would rally around the flag and comment specifically and this would just fuse together all of the people who are now distanced with the regime. that's conventional wisdom that's not wise it is conventional. >> first thing i'd just like to say, it's a pleasure to be here with jeffrey. i think jeffrey is the only journalist who could possibly profile ahmadinejad, he certainly is the only journalist who could understand all of his jokes. [laughter] >> i would like to say ken and i, we have been debating iran since we have been in the third

grade. i suspect we'll be debating iran until we are 60. >> 60 is not so old. [laughter] >> or about then. sorry. on the new 40. on the issue of what might happen if the israeli or the americans, which i think is highly unlikely, were to actually attack iran's nuclear sites, i think there's often been a very easy exaggeration of the possible blowback. i'm skeptical that many of the worst-case scenarios are likely. i do think for the israelis, they obviously would be the target of the most severe reprisals in the sense that all of those missiles and other

weaponry that had been delivered to the hezbollah, i think the lebanese, hezbollah would let lose. if the hezbollah's entire existence it is all built around war with israel. and i think they would respond with everything that they had. and obviously, the israelis would have to endure that. hamas, i'm not so sure about. i'm not sure what hamas could do besided shoot more than the missiles, they are far less lethal than what hezbollah has. again, the -- i'm seriously doubtful that you are going to see much of a reaction throughout the rest of the middle east. if one goes back historically, people in the west have been fearing the reprisals of various western aggressive actions in the middle east since before world war i. the germans, if you recall,

worked very diligently to manufacture jihad against the british empire. it failed business business bus. i think whatever it is would peter out quite quickly. the primarily iranian response to an attack on their nuclear facilities, at least so far as the united states is concerned, could be terrorism. i think it's a foregone conclusion that the iranians would try to strike back using terrorism and we would have to be prepared to absorb that. i would add though that i am skeptical about iranian abilities. i think they are less proficient than people make them out to be.

you have to understand that all western services would be watching them quite closely, their diplomats and spied based in the embassy. i think iranian black ops, the folks that work outside, i think the capables have been exaggerated and would have an extremely hard time maneuvering and operating. that's not to say the iranians couldn't hit us, i think they could. i think the discussion of this gets a bit hyperventilated. the repercussions from the attack, whether the attack would be successful, which is more interesting option, ken will get to that. the repercussions from that attack, i think, are quite sustained -- what you might be -- sustainable. we could absorb it. if you think about what the

repercussions would be of the iranians actually having a nuclear weapon. which is the thing that you have to focus on most clearly. then the blowback from that, i think, isn't all that severe. and in particular, i'd like to mention the notion that the iranians are suddenly going to dismantle a rock. actually, i'd like to see them try. i think the capabilities of the iranians all by themselves in iraq, as furious as they maybe in iraq, they are going to have to be waging war against the iraqi shiite, and essentially killing their own brothers, spiritual brothers, i find this hard to believe. could they come after the americans and do us some damage? sure. primarily their war would have to be against the iraqi shiite. i don't think that will fly. even somewhat of a timid soul

rose up about the iranian assassination teams inside of iraq. i really don't think the iranian government has much to play there. and in afghanistan, i would just note the iranians are becoming much more lethal in their aid to the taliban and repeating their performance in some ways they did iraq. their entire focus has always been on the west. they are not comfortable in afghanistan. they have to operate through proxies, the hazad, shiite, sunnies, it's a limited game, i think, they can play. i just would recall when i was in afghanistan before 9/11, i was with mr. mazoud.

i got the opportunity to meet them later. and they weren't -- actually they were sort of from sorts. they are white. -- whitty. i asked them whether they liked being in afghanistan, their response translated was i really hate this place. you know, those were tehrani boys. they wanted to get back. i think we have to be very, very careful in how we depict the iranian, the iranian capacity what we have to fear from them is their terrorists potential. again, i think for us to shy away from striking them with -- taking out their nuclear facilities because we fear terrorism should, in fact, tell you that under no circumstances should they be allowed to have

nuclear weapons? >> i'm happy to have you address any of the comments that you've just heard. one question that rises in my mind that you might address am i wrong to think that the repercussions of the use of military force would depend in great measure on the perception, not reality, if the force had been used brilliantly or effectively, or bundling it ineffective at the end of the day and hasn't accomplished it's goals and information war over that about? i can imagine iran saying you haven't heard us and determining if that's true. >> absolutely. that's one the issues that we've going to have to out, it's going to be the circumstances of any kind of use of force against iran. i think most people in the room know that i am a skeptic when it comes to the use of force against iran. not because i'm a pacifist, but

as an old military analyst, i do the math and it doesn't work out the way that we or anybody else would like it to before we go to head with it. the area is whether or not there's a provocation, i'm surprised that reuel hasn't mentioned the iranians are their own worst enemy. they shoot themselves in the foot all the time. it's not certain how they are going to handle the next several years. we ought to be thinking about in terms of how we help them down the path. if this is the case that iranians do something foolish, that calculus may change. it maybe in the case that in the future, the circumstances for military use are much more larger than they are now. as reuel was suggesting, i too, when i look at the use of force, i do focus on the question of

the day after. the question of what happens after. it's much more about the day after than the day of. i'm pretty confident that the u.s. air force and navy will set the israelis aside for a moment. i'm confident that the american military can destroy every single facility in iran that we know about. now i said that's specifically because, of course, there are the things that we don't know about. and we don't know what we don't know in many cases to quote donald rumsfeld. that is one the issues out there. as someone who lived through our experiences in iraq and in particular in 1991 when i can remember my friends who worked the technical side, who worked the nuclear program, you know, assuring us, the u.s. military, everyone else, we knew exactly what the iraqi program looked like, the three major facilities, ten or 11 other smaller facilities. we flattened them in desert storm. the iea went in afterwards, and

low and behold, there were three other massive facilities that we opportunity know had anything to do with the nuclear program. at least two of those three could have been produced a nuclear weapon. that's one thing that i worry about. it gets to the larger question, which i'll come to in a second. what do we do with the iranian program? i want to deal with the issue of the well table which is important in terms of retaliation. i largely agree with the depiction that reuel put on the table. he's right. there will be a response from hezbollah, regardless whether the stars on the planes had five or six points, i suspect the response will be similar. i also agree with him while there will be terrorists attacks from iran, we shouldn't go completely insane over that. i think iran is quite competent reuel and i might have a debate

about how competent, i think the bottom line is the same. the terrorists operations are hard to pull off. they take a lot of time to do it. if you are vigilant and willing to have full body cavity searches at airports, which i for one am looking forward to the next time that i fly to florida, you can do a lot to stop those kinds of attacks. in addition, i think he's absolutely right that the notion of the arabs would rise up, i don't see that being the case. i would agree that iran's capacity to do damage in the united states than iraq is dramatically less. if i could pause for one commercial break, it's worth keeping in mind what the change in iraq has done in terms of our relationship with iran and what's going on in the region. in 2006, i would not have said that at all. in fact, i would be making the opposite argument -- in fact, i was making the opposite argument when reuel and i were debating

in 2006. at that moment in time, given many iraq was iran's capacity to do damage was enormous. today it is minimal. that's really about the change in iraq. and it's why a continued american engagement with iraq and why continuing the progress in iraq, one the many reasons it is so important. okay. now back to iran. our previously scheduled program. i will also agree with reuel that, you know, i think that we need to be careful in thinking about just how broad the retaliation by iran might be. as i said, i think that to a certain extent, there will be terrorists attacks. they might try to stir up trouble. but there as well, their ability to do so is somewhat limited. nevertheless, where i make take exception, at least in the stuff that he was talking about, i still think an israeli/hezbollah

war will be troublesome. i'm much more ready to handle it than 2006, this is opening pandora's box that i'd prefer not to have to go through. and i think the people of israel would prefer not to have to go through, if at all possible. i think the scale of iranian retaliation does get greatly exaggerated, i don't want to suggest for a most that what the ironnian could do couldn't lead to a set of bigger problems. the other issue that i'd like to put on the table and talk about a little bit is the question of iran's nuclear program itself. for me, that's the other big question mark when it comes to the use of force. will the use of force actually result in an end or significant delay? a meaningful delay? iran's nuclear program. if the answer to that is no, there's no particular reason to run any of the risking involved in retaliation, and bear any of the inevitable cost that are

going to be involved. there, i remain skeptical. i think there will be something of a rally. i based that both on what i've seen from iranians over the course of time. they do seem to be quite nationalistic. they seem to dislike it when anyone attacks them even if they don't like their government. i also base it on the history of strategic bombing. for decades, almost centuries, certainly decades, people have suggested if you bomb people long enough, they will turn on the other government saying you guys got us into that so we blame you. it doesn't work that way. the people tend very consistently to blame the people bombing them. whether or not they do like their government. and so i am skeptical that you would see the iranian people turn in a meaningful way as a result of the bombing. i think it is much more likely. whether or not they do, i'm quite convinced that this regime will use the bombing as an excuse to further crackdown and

do what it wants to do. i very much fear that the hard liners, the hardest of the hard liners, those who really wants the deployed weapons capability will use bombing as an excuse to basically say to anyone who is to the left of them and the people to the left of them are not exactly leftist, they are just not quite as far to the right as the hard liners. and they will basically say to them, look, the reason we got bombed is because we don't have a nuclear weapon. what's the difference between iraq and north korea. north korea had a nuclear weapon, iraq didn't. this is proof that we have to. i suspect that they will use a bombing to withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty, and to go about moving, shifting the focus from the japan can't that they talk about to a full-fledged nuclear arsenal. you know, there is having done a lot of work on dealing with those two situations, there is a big difference in the terms of the stability of the middle east between iran with the japan, versus iran with the deployed

capability. the ladder is much, much more dangerous than the former. last point, i've heard a number of people raise the iraq 1981 as being good reason for a bombing attack on iran. and the argument is made like this, when israel struck iraq, the best israeli estimates they might set back the program one to three years. what happened? the iraqis never got a nuclear weapon. true statement. it's also a dangerously misleading one. the matter is the strike did not turn off the iraqi nuclear program. instead, it caused saddam to redouble his efforts. he went from a small, quite backwards program, that most estimates believe to take about ten to 15 years to produce a nuclear weapon, to a much more aggressive, much better concealed program going from a single track to six different

tracks across the country. at least three of which the iea concluded afterwards, could have been produced a bomb. what prevents the iraqi from acquiring that capability was not the strike. it was desert storm. let's remember when we innocent after desert storm, iea concluded that the iraqis might have been as little as 12 months away from having a nuclear weapon. the strike did not stop the program. it actually made it more dangerous. it certainly caused the regime to make a much greater investment in the program to make a much more aggressive effort to acquire it and much more aggressive effort to conceal it. that's what i'm concerned about with iran. can i prove that's the case? no. that's the way the evidence suggests is more likely. when it comes to do something like bombing, military operations, my feeling is opening pandora's box, as we've learned in iraq, it's something that you don't want to do unless you are certain there's no other

way to deal with the problem. >> thanks, ken. i'm going to ask two more questions. while those questions are being answered, let me know if you want to ask a question, i'll go to this. i'll take the moderators prerogative and ask, the presumption that use of nuclear force would be against the facilities. i think other options, one of which was suggested according to the wikileak document dumps by saudi, which has cut off the head of the snake. which i assume means target the jihadi leadership. the other option that i've heard, not so much as the nuclear facilities, but before there are nuclear weapons wiping out all conventional military forces, wipe out the navy, air force, leave the regime badly

humiliated, and intensely vulnerable. can i ask you, general amidror, just to comment on the other possibilities of approaching? >> i assume that if it is coming to israeli decision, we have to understand our limitations. israel is not in a position to take iran as to one target in which we would spread our capabilities all around. we live to be focused and to be sure that after the end of the operation that the delay will be as long as achieved as possible. and i don't see any other targets than those who are strictly connected to the nuclear plan. i must say, i want to say something about the iraqi example. you are right that at the end,

it was desert storm. but without hitting the nuclear reactor by israel, desert storm wouldn't be countable at all. because the iraqi would have a nuclear bomb before desert storm. you cannot put it aside and say, hey, guys, it didn't achieve in the nuclear reactor bomb. we did it? desert storm. it's true that the next stable was done by you. i think that you are a little bit exaggerating about the capabilities of the iraqi before desert storm. i was very much involved in the research of the united nations themes in iraq. and i think that it's a little bit of an exaggeration describing iraq as having a day before having their nuclear

capability, but anyhow, without the nuclear bomb before that, desert storm could not be implemented because as you know, you don't attack nuclear stakes as an example. and this is why exactly because of that we should be sure that we are not coming to the stage in which iran is north korea. that we cannot do anything -- we, the world, cannot do anything. because iran has a nuclear capability. and think about the world in which iran has it. not just how the use the umbrella to blackmail the -- it's neighborhood. but think about what would be the perception of all of the middle east states understanding that both the united states and israel couldn't stop iran. what will be the reaction of all of this strong and weak state

iran? i think that you have when you put it -- it's not just the delay. it's also the question what will be the reaction around if nothing will be done by both israel and the united states of america. don't measure it just by time. by the atmosphere that it will build around the whole notion who is leading the middle east. if you want to understand where the mood is going, look at the weakest element in the middle east. lebanon, how do they move from one site to another? and try to understand what will be the hole in this picture, not just relating to the delay of the iranians, but by extending of what can be done and cannot be done when israel and the united states of america both

are impotent. >> i'm going to let jeffrey respond, i will not ask my second question. there's a lot of interest of asking question. jeffrey and reuel. >> one observation. then if you pardon me, a question back to the panel. the, you know, one argument opponents of any military strike make is that the u.s. military is over stretched, tired, fatigued, et cetera. if you go talk to people at centcom, for instance, you'll find that's not true. i'm not talking about people that support the military strike, very few people at centcom do support the military striking. what they will tell you the is u.s. navy and air force are underutilized right now. [laughter] >> well, they are looking -- you have to justify your budget somehow. no, they are not. the fact is they are not warlike or hawkish on this question at all. they simply say to you the following, that we can do this

and we have the bombers sitting in the louisiana and south south dakota, that can do it, come back, and do it again. it's not a big issue. iran's navy and air force is nothing in comparison. i think what you are going to hear in the next couple of years, particularly from people like lindsey graham who's taking a lead on this is the idea that if america is to do this, of course, lindsey graham is one of those people that thinks america should get ready to attack iran. unlike israeli attack, an american attack would target all of the iranian air force and naval assets and possibly economic assets as well. which it can do with relatively little difficulty. it's harder, actually, to find the nuclear facilities than it would be to find the air force bases. the only question that's sort of looming in this panel right now is where we think president obama is on this question.

because i realized in covering this issue that b.b. is not the barack is not the most important player nor the iranians. since i believe they are moving towards the nuclear threshold, the question is where is president obama? and i would love to hear the panelist on that question. because that's absolutely key. the israelis will only make their decision once they are convinced that president obama under no circumstances will seek a military option to deny iran it's nuclear weapons. so if i can put that out there. >> well, do you want to respond to that? >> yeah, one thing on ken that i largely agreed with. i think it's fair to say that the people who are not left of hamad are in prison right now.

the people that you have to deal with are him and the revolutionary guard corps. let me remind you as the 9/11 commission lets us now, the iranians aided and abetted al qaeda, he has been the poster boy to a man and organization that looked very fondly and operationally aided al qaeda. i would agree with ken. i think the main issue here, that sort of gets to jeffrey's question, is going to be about iranian misfiring. they have the ability to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. i think what's much more likely, not that the americans would preempt or israelis preempt or prevent, they would do something

stupid. the particular islamic hubris will get the better of them. they will do something like hobart towers ii when they struck us in 1986. then you have the great question put forward to president obama or whomever else, do you retaliate? and if you are going to retaliate for this act of terrorism, will you at that time say i really do not want to regime to have nuclear weapons? and even though ken is absolutely right, i cannot guarantee on a time line this is going to be a two year delay, three year delay, or 20 year delay. i do not know. we will nevertheless strike? because the known fact of having nuclear weapons is too much to bear. >> let me go to congressman mike kaufman, i'll do my best. everybody can be brief. >> thank you, cliff. i was in israel with a

congressional delegation in august of 2009. i asked the same question about israel's response to iran and their development of nuclear weapons to netanyahu, perez, and senior military leaders. they all gave the same response. they said it wasn't practical. in iraq, it was once a facility aboveground. they wouldn't fess up to syria, but they said in press reports, syria has a facility aboveground. the best course of action was for the u.s. to go forward with aggress i have sanctions. and iran was at a tipping point. they would require relief to stay in power. obviously, they might have been spinning me to get us to go back and move on aggressive sanctions. i was wondering if you could

comment on that. >> they were spinning you to get to push for aggressive sanctions. [laughter] >> okay. are we finished with that one? [laughter] >> does anybody else want to comment? >> actual willly, i also want to comment which is again it's the issue of provocation. the nature of a strike changes dramatically if there's a provocation. there's another element that i chose not to bring in in the interest of times. which is, you know, we have to think about the question of going back to the day after. if the iranians, it's most likely the iranians would try to rebuild. what happened the day after someone of the other big problems is under the wrong circumstances. a strike can destroy everything that the united states and israel and all of the allies have been working to build up over the last seven years. in which the obama

administration, i give them a lot of credit has done a really remarkable job over the last year and a half. we do have a good international coalition. certainly a hell of a lot better than 18 months ago. resolution 1929 is a hell of a lot harsh than iranians and anybody else expected. there is real problem as general amidror pointed out on the iranian regime. moving forward, we want to be in a position where we can maintain that kind of pressure, where we can keep them isolated so if they do try to reconstitute, they are not free to do so. in the case of provocation, i suspect we would be much better able to hold on to the international support for sanks and the other elements. my guess that stuff all goes away. we told you not to bomb.

now the iranians have withdrawn. they will blame us. we will argue until we are blue in the faces, but my fear is that's the response. the issue is an important one. also the point that you are making. right now there's an alternative. at least for the moment. general amidror pointed this out as well, the iranians are having trouble with the nuclear program, in part because of sanctions and someone's covert action campaign against them. we can only wish that country well and hope that others will join in the effort in part because of a whole variety of factors having to do with their own inefficiencies and confidence that gives us some time. the piece that jeff quoted me on is one i put in the national interest talking about how to ratchet up the pressure, using more sanctions, pursuing human rights, as a way to bring more

pressure to bear on them. >> to the question, i don't think it was a spin. because it is really a belief, and more than belief, the prey of the force of israelis and the decision makers that sanctions will make the job. and for them, it's not a scene. it's a real wish and hope. now ask me to assess if we will lead to the situation in which forces will not be needed, i'm very skeptic. >> i just one little thing with ken. since i have to continue. that i agree everything that ken just said. however, i think we need to be very careful about about not letting the process actually become the end. it's a very dangerous saying and it's recurring thing. and it's most natural where the process of trying to stop the iranian nuclear program actually becomes more important than stopping the nuclear program.

>> okay. come on right down here. michael goldstein quickly. i know a lot of hands up. we'll try to get questions in. >> this will be quick. ken, your comparison of the strike causing iraq to redouble times six it's effort. isn't it true that iran is already doing -- they are up to as much speed as they can get. attacking them isn't going to make them work any harder. isn't that correct? so that in way, the analogy fails. >> i would disagree with that and on two scores. first, there are certain things the iranian could be doing they aren't doing just yet. like hiding their facilities. we've seen them try with the gome facility. we need to realize the ieta is gone. for the american strike, 90 to

95% of the gledges -- intelligence is going to come from the iea. after we lost the inspectors in 1998, that's when all of the sudden we had the ridiculous assumptions, improved ridiculous, at the time they seemed responsible about what the iraqi program was becoming. it pointed out how blind we became what was going on in iraq once we lost the inspectors. those inspectors are absolutely without question the best source of information as to what the iranian program is, whether it is, what it is doing, everything else, once they are gone, the iranians can do a lot of stuff that they are not doing now, in large part because the inspectors are. even the gome facility, they were trying to do it in a way that the inspectors wouldn't find it. we did. >> ken timmerman. stand up so we can see you.

>> yes, ken timmerman, i'm going to ask my question with the hat of foundation of democracy in iran. general amidror and the rest of the distinguished panelist know the problem is not iran's nuclear weapon. israel does not fear nuclear weapons in great great britain. you don't fear them in france. you fear them in the radical expansionive, imperillist, genocidal regime. the problem in iran is the regime. why is the united states government, because israel doesn't have the capability, why is the united states government not focusing on helping the people of iran instead of just looking at a kinetic solution? the best nonproliferation proof that -- proliferation tool that we have is regime change. why are they relying on the

state department officials, not the bush political people, but the state department professionals who canceled the money for the pro freedom movement, why is the obama administration not helping the profreedom movement which is our best tool against nuclear arms iran? >> i think whoever wants to defend the obama administration? [laughter] >> thank you, cliff. let me say what the policy that ken was abdicated was containment, it's regime change. people don't look at it what way, but that's what it is. i would just say this isn't really a defense of the obama administration. but regime change, covert action, which is what the gentleman is talking about, is extreme live difficult. i'm all in favor of it. but it is extremely difficult,

the central intelligence agency where both ken and i used to work, hates it passionately. will fight it doggedly, and would require the president to exercise unanimous amounts of attention and muscle to even take the bloody thing move. so again, i am in favor of it. let it be said. but it will have no illusions about it being able to get off of the ground very quickly. covert action takes a lot of time. you have to build up the cod ray and they always fight programs where they actually have to know something. [laughter] >> so it is -- it is going to be an extremely difficult task. and i'll let that be said if ken wants to add anything. >> you can serve, take your $200

million, keep some of it for himselfs. >> i'll be quick. i can't resist the number of times in my lifetime that i've agreed with ken timmerman are few. i take this opportunity to say i agree with ken. i suspect we might disagree on some of the details, but this is one area where the obama administration needs to step up. i think we need to be doing more in terms of helping the iranian opposition, whether it's the green movement or a variety of other groups. i think it's critical. we need to make a much greater focus on the human rights group in iran. it's the right thing and the strategically smart thing to do. >> i think it's good to we can bring together at the meeting unexpected coalition. with that in mind, robert. >> i don't know where to start.

>> let me stop right there. we need a question, not a speech -- one question. one question. then we'll move on. i'm going to be very tough about this. >> what's missing from the discussion is the fact that in the white house and in the american military there's zero appetite as jeff goldberg pointed out for an attack on iran. there's no legal basis, international law or anyone else to justify such an attack, and our allies as well our adversaries like russia and china could scatter instantly in the event of an attack. so for all of these three reasons, it seems to me that this is off of the table. as much as the president says it's on the table. what am i missing? :

>> and i think he's really, he's been seized by the issue forever as we know. and i don't necessarily see president obama won the supporting a military strike on iran's nuclear facilities to save israel or to save united arab emirates. but i could imagine him taking some definitive action in order to prevent history remember him as the president the most sought

a nuclear zero world who in early oversaw the greatest expansion in the number of nuclear powers in the world. it would be an active extremely muscular counter proliferation. but i don't think he's a passive -- that's one of the things i've learned in the course of doing this reporting, that he's really seized by this issue. whether or not that translates into military action, i don't know. to the front row. start writing. i just want to throw this out. it may be it is useful to doctor or the world would be like if there were to be an oil-rich jihadists nuclear armed regime in tehran. how do you feel about it? [laughter] >> i think -- [applause] >> on balance i think it would be negative. [laughter] >> i'm just the moderator. >> reuel, as you know, i bought

myself a bmw motorcycle. i would describe such an operation as topical as opposed to the strategic. but any strategic sense if israel were to get it i think the u.s. would see not finishing the job as a lost opportunity, one that could be a disaster at the polls. and so unassuming it was a one-two punch, could the regime survive such a bombing as i suspect that these people really want to get rid of that regime. and rather than rally around the flag, i think this would be the opportunity, not only for a much greater for the people, but also an opportunity for us this time as mr. timmerman suggests to help the people and solve many, many problems that literally when half the long war.

>> first of all, will the u.s. lose the opportunity? sure, we lose lots of opportunities. another we take advantage of i can count on my hand. so let's not bank on that. but more importantly, i understand the sentiment behind the question and i can surly sympathize with the desire. but again, i'm a student of military history. i teach courses on a. i spent my whole life on it. the idea that you're just before this one that people have believed for decades. the problem is we have tremendous amounts of evidence. it has never happened, never. people do not rise up in response to any bombing attacks. so we can wish that it would be the case, but the evidence argues compellingly the opposite. that's not to say that there are things that mommy accomplishes. bombing can accomplish certain things. it has never accomplished that.

so that's what you're looking for come you've got to look at some of the other stuff that i'm talking about in terms of helping the iranian people, in terms of putting people on the iranian regime come in terms of naming and shaming and sanctions. that's the way you go about it. but bombing doesn't produce a popular revolution. >> but at the same time, if i may, bombing does not leave rally around the flag. as far as it's going to the experience in the middle east, in 2006 we had an operation against hezbollah. hezbollah is not stronger within the lebanese population today that it was before, before the operation. someone crush the nuclear reactor, and it is not now stronger within the population that was before.

that was not stronger after the reactor in the '80s. i agree that it might not lead to a stronger opposition in revolution, if that would be, even if it would be very successful attempt. but on the other side, i think that there is a myth that it will bring the opposition around the government to support the government, if that project would be appealed by nuclear forces from the outside. >> he will now defend ken pollack. [laughter] >> i would disagree a little with ken and i don't think that a bombing runs on the nuclear facilities are going to make people and iran loath khomeini. they love transit and the revolutirevolution regard corporate however, we have just

witnessed the regime successfully dismantle civilian protest vote over too many people on the street. they have deployed rape and torture quite effectively. they havew borrowed pages fromw saddam hussein. i am deeply skeptical that any type of military operations short of an invasion would change the political control inside the country. of these on a short-term. and amid long-term, i don't know.w i do believe that if you lose the battle, and if united states were to actually destroy those nuclear facilities and the regime has repeatedly, if thew israelis is even more embarrassing, if the israelis are capable of doing that, than to lose about is not something that went to a long-term approval in the court of your own people. and the iranian government has

said repeatedly that the americans and particularly the israelis do not have the will and the means to destroy their nuclear program. so that actually were destroyed, i think in the mid-enemy to longer-term -- the mid-to long-term the regime would have some answering to do. >> just going back, there's a huge debate in the israeli defense intelligence community about this, a lot israelis who believe that bombing would imagine that the regime and, therefore, allow people to rise up and i think it more compelling argument is the regime would use any attack as a cover to kill, literally kill, at least imprisoneimprison and rape and torture what remains of the green movement. i think it's a perfect cover for a disaster the regime. i would see, tendency an attack setting back the democracy movement, not giving it legs. >> i'm going to go to joel rosenberg.

i will ask that we go quickly to this question. i want not a lot of people to be angry with me when this is over with. let's go quickly. >> jeffrey, your assessment of netanyahu, because i think as interesting as your article was, the article, the interview you did with them hours before he took the oath of office, talk about apocalyptic regime in iran, i think assessing him, assessing obama, assessing him, assessing every regime, that's the question. if netanyahu can't get obama to do what he wants to do, the question is, does netanyahu believe it's his role in history to do what is not very somewhat may? >> i think so, but i don't know. i mean, you're dealing with a couple of contradictions within the same person. he is a person, those of you know who is israeli politics and

he does not like to make decisions. asked sharon said, thank you from the chair, the prime minister is less different from the view of the opposition. and he would be more cautious. however, i do think, i tend to think at the end of the day he would feel as if he had failed jewish history if iran crossed the nuclear threshold on his watch. and so ultimately i think if all else failed he would make the decision to at least try to stop the iranian nuclear program. >> stanley, right here. >> i'm just curious, if one seems to be -- [inaudible] >> last resort, we certainly have tried ineffectively to bring about sanctions that are meaningful. it would seem to me that the administration could bring about sanctions that would be formidable, that would bring about a major change in a rapid time.

sanctions haven't worked because they haven't been effective by this administration in bringing pressures economically that would prevent everything you were talking about from happening. sanctions against iran, effective sanctions any short order would bring about a revolution and all the other things we're talking about. i've been to iraq. i know the situation there. i can tell you that they don't have a chance of succeeding. it's an absolute police state. there is no way they're going to be able to rise up. i have no guns. and ammunition. they have nothing, except strong feelings. so the answer really, peaceful answer, the real cure is effective sanctions. congress, 99 senators voted in favor of sanctions. what has happened? nothing. nothing. a new bank just opened have owned by cairo, half owned by

egypt, becoming an international -- at the windows about it. america has done anything about it. we can all these things internationally by economic means. sanctions is the answer now, but effective sanctions. >> we have and enforce them yet, who wants to attack stanley's question and if that would work? >> first i agree with you that we need to be putting a greater emphasis on sanctions, and i think that there is more that can be done. let me make two refinements perhaps the points you make. i did the administration credit for getting a lot more effective sanctions that i would have expected. going into resolution 1929 i had very low expectations. the resolution was a lot harsher. i think that makes the case. my biggest concern about it is why you are right there are cases where a rapid imposition of heavy sanctions have brought about rapid changes in regime

behavior, there are also cases out there where it has not been the case. i can, iraq seared into my own memory from my own experience, we senate resolutions -- we set of sanctions that should have been the most draconian in history. they were the most draconian in history and we thought it would force the iraqis to change their behavior in 145 days. abounds basically was okay, you want to, you are my people to starve? fine. i have no problem with that. it's helpful to me. and then we had to do with a sanctions regime that stretched out for 12 years. again, as one of the people allowed to make if they were, within three years it was falling apart. we got to be prepared that they won't last a short term but we got to be up to make them work in the long-term. we've got to be thinking about sanctions that can actually have staying power, that can be sustained in terms of international public opinion. it's why for me the right model for iran is not iraq, it's south

africa. >> in the back, although in the back. >> thank you. quick question for major amidror. can you comment on what seems the program has been one to two years away for about 10 years now? does this reflect the failure of are endless or the success of your saboteurs? [laughter] >> that's an easy to answer question. yes, both. [laughter] >> it's the one who in 95 try to convince your people that iran is going nuclear, and got a very cold shoulder. and it took us another three years to convince there is a plan in iran. the answer to the question is both. in some cases we did make the

real calculation, we didn't understand, and it is understood. what we took into account is the worst possible case, in which they don't have any problem come in which don't face any, any technical or knowledge, all that they can take time to solve. and, of course, on the minute it was understood here in washington, in other places, that iran is going nuclear, from the outside people tried to put as much failure and to stop iran from having everything debtño free. and it is going on positive, very dynamic to without any interference from the outside, what we said in 95 was a real

calculation that could bring iran to have nuclear capability in 2005. but then the world changed on the minute it was understood that if nothing could be done in 2005, the iranians will have thñ capability. >> i'm going to ask we go fastw now because we're going in thexw last five, 10 minutes. peter, then try to get a few more in. >> this is a comment that i would like to kind of get your reaction in to move to the other part of the world, north korea. i just came back from japan, and i won't say who but a member of the current party said the following. will the united states defended japan's with nuclear weapons if north korea uses nuclear weapons against japan? the second question is, when do you think is appropriate for japan to develop its own nuclear weapons? guys which are facing with respect to iran. -- that is what you are facing with respect to iran. >> if you look at the middle

east, you will see saudi arabia and egypt, and it's not my assessment. they told you people that is what they're going to do. it will not take a long time. i understand it cannot be a superpower in the area without having nuclear capability. i don't know what the reaction increase if they have a nuclear capability. it will be a disaster. and think about al qaeda, hezbollah and others. remember, syria gave hezbollah missile. something which was unheard of. if you had asked me, if they would give, to look at and to judge, from 200-meter, i would say no. and with a sunday, he gave him the sky the. the meaning of this change that if we will not be strong enough

and determined enough, we will find nuclear capability in hands of al qaeda, hezbollah, and others. not mentioning saudi arabia, egypt, turkey and, i don't know, you know you're better than make up who will be next in europe to defend itself. spent on good as or three quick question. poulter answers and you will respond to those answers. start right there. >> there is an implicit assumption that any kinetic action is only an airstrike, but what about a naval blockade with very limited, you know, air activity in order to defend that? that something that requires a lot less collateral damage. >> i will take several quick questions right here. right here, this woman right here. >> i just want to follow up with jeffries pointed witches obama's capacity or stomach for a

military strike. my question is what happened after, will the obama administration stand up her will help israel deal with hezbollah attacks? will extend it to you in when the u.n. tries to sanction israel for the attack? >> right next to you. claudia, just lined up. >> north korea, the method you need to send is that being a nuclear power does not make you bulletproof. just those in at the very last. what about shifting the focus, cut off the head of the snake in north korea which is going to a dicey transition right now, and let the people in iran look at that. >> to more questions. one right here. [inaudible] what were the panelists say about debriefing went on the hill november 272 years ago by upon air force general, now retired to my moaning his name in case, but he said one of 500 strides in 48 hours, special ops on the ground, there will be

little collateral damage, no after effects, and implicitly he was saying they would be a regime change and it would not include nuclear strikes, only conventional weapons and recently i checked and he is still of that mind. is that really what we would do as americans today? and would israel not do it perhaps more effectively and efficiently as they have shown? >> one more question there and then we will take answers. >> i wonder whether any of you have noticed if you believe it's true that israel may have made a strategic decision to persuade the obama administration to move towards military strikes. israel saying you're going to have to, we're not big enough. is that a decision is real passion israel may have made? >> one housekeeping answer at all this is over be addressed by dr. gary samore, arms control, we will start right here in

about two minutes after i left@ extensive responses take place. but you want to stay in placec for that because we will fight alone. who wants to respond to any and all of that they have heard? goc ahead. >> we don't have capability for making naval blockade in iraq. we'll have the capability in north korea. [laughter] >> i want to be very clear about both so -- [laughter] don't expect israel to take the job of both. >> the jewish community in north korea needs to rise up. [laughter] [applause] >> but i want to answer to the last question, no, we are not pushing america to take military action. this is the reason why israel prepared itself to do the job. we think that america has to

make the decision, if it is american interest, not israeli interest to attack iran. if decision of any other administration would benefit come it's not it is obvious states, israel is not pushing america to do a job. yes, we are pushing you to be more determined with the sanctions. it is in your hands, not in our hands. if you can, to lead to change in a regime, it is not for sure you better capabilities than us. the reason that israel is preparing itself to go to work myself is because we understand that we should not push you to do it. if you don't think that it is your interest. as always come israel is not asking someone to do this job for of defending israel. we ask for money for weapons

system, kind of capabilities that we can buy and it cannot produce, but in the and basic philosophy is that if it is not interested in the states, you should not attack. we will have to do the job if it is our interest. >> ken, very quickly. >> on the naval like it is an interesting idea. if we get to that point of time, it's something worth considering but it goes back to the point that bob made. there is no basis of international law for any good action against iran right now. as a result of something the united states would have to build and generate support for. deny state is a government of laws. more important than a naval blockade has to be sustainable. it is something that will take a long time like sanctions have an impact. so it has to be sustainable. you have to get international support for the i want to thank you, cliff, for allowing a registered democrat from the left leaning bookings

institution to come to your party today. it was an honor to be on the panel with you, and the particular reuel, it was aaa pleasure to be with you. i always learn something for debate and i look forward to the next one. >> the sympathy we have come don't read the left wing blogs for the next few days. do not read them. and i would just like to note brookings now has bob. : can we stop the lovefest for a second? [laughter] every adorable, ghostly when they get going. they are really adorable. [laughter] >> to answer the question on obama and israel, i asked a year ago already, i asked an arab foreign minister whom i won't name, but you can see his name in wikileaks -- [laughter] what his ideal vision of how this drama would play out, he

said, history is that israel will attack iran's nuclear facilities, screw it up. the hornet nests being aroused come the iranians will begin to attack an american interest in the persian gulf forcing president obama to come in and wipe iran off the map, to borrow some language. and at the end of the day he said what we will get, meaning the arabs, the persian threat will be neutralized and that the americans will be pissed off at israel's leading the arabs as the only friend. and have done nothing to achieve that goal. and i think it is borne out by what we've read in the last couple of weeks. so i don't, all i can say is that president obama is no different than any other present and that he doesn't want to force by a small country to go to work when he doesn't feel like going to war. i think that's a fair assessment to make.

is also not unaware that many americans, jewish and non-jewish, see iran as an enemy, and he understands that it would not necessarily be an unpopular war if it went quickly and well. but that being said, he certainly is not in the mindset of going to war with iran right now. when i say that there's a possibility that he would look at a threat to nonproliferation and go to war. i think that it's possible, but not probable. spirit our time is basically a. if you want to do about 10 seconds? >> i was going to say, if billy bob thornton play santa claus, president obama can go to work with iran. it takes time, i mean, people to forget come europeans got into playing the e.u. negotiating in 2003 after the rig of the program in 2002. they initially went into that not because they for the iranian nuclear program. they went into because they fear

george w. bush. it has taken the europeans eight years, but now they're beginning to ask you if you're a nuclear iran. they became invested in the negotiations. it was a very is that a very astute move. it was a good call. but these things unfortunately take time. the notion of a blockade, the notion of tightening sanctions, the notion of taking sanctions where they need to go, which is heating oil and gas, regrettably takes a lot of time. i don't know whether that time clockworks against the nuclear clock. we all will have to see. >> let me just thank ken and reuel, major amidror, even jeff goldberg for bringing so much insight on a given humor to a very serious difficult subject. thank you so much.zq [applause] [inaudible

conversations] >> this sunday at 6:30 and night 30 p.m. eastern and pacific c-span will air set green that supreme court justice elena kagan source interview. she dr. hosbach technology helps her manager legal briefs. inside the supreme court building come here's a brief look. >> justice scalia has taken to putting his briefs on an ipaq. how are you managing the briefs? >> i have a kindle. you know, i saw that justice scalia said he has and i thought maybe i should do it on an ipaq. but mine are on a kindle. and also of course sometimes have a hard copy. so i do both. but it is, it's endless reading.

it's because many of these cases, the only the parties submit briefs, but there are many, many organizations and individuals and governments who are interested in the case that said that friends of the court reef, amicus brief in some of these cases there will be 40, 50 briefs. so there's a lot of reading. and, you know, that's a big part of a job. if they can. >> or an ipad and make it easier, that's terrific. >> just in time for the holiday season the supreme court c-span's latest book is being offered directly from our publisher to c-span viewers at a very special prize, just $5 plus shipping and handling. that's discounted more than 75% more than the original price. this is the first book to tell a story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices themselves. 10 original c-span interviews,

including chief justice john roberts, stephen breyer, sandra day o'connor and sonia sotomayor. the supreme court gives a compelling view of the modern court rich with history and tradition, with 16 pages of photographs, detailing the architecture and history of the court's landmark building. a handsome addition to the bookshelf of any nonfiction reader. to order copies of the supreme court at the very special prize of $5, go to c-span.org/books and click on the supreme court book. place your order by december 15 to receive your copy in time for holiday giftgiving. >> an update now on congress, the house gavel in for a brief pro forma session earlier today.