very much to say that these clerics have attained enough positions in the west and have enough access to muslim you through multiple media vehicles to have a growing -- to have a growing impact. they are influencing muslim males and the west. much the same way that they have for years influencing them in the middle east, asia, and africa. those who doubt this would be well served in reviewing the escalating number of militant religious activities that had been uncovered and stopped in the united states since 2007. to note the growing number of u.s., young you as canadian, australian, and british muslims going abroad to fight and trained under al-qaeda banner in somalia, yemen, and afghanistan and also to note that the very successful recruitment of talented u.s. citizen muslims to

run media operations targeting muslim communities in the english-speaking world. .. indolent once the be even with these differences, with her, facilities overseas missionary activities or in the indispensable aid to al qaeda's organizational, military and media activities.

threat expatriate saudi preachers, islamic ngos and direct funding for local muslim organizations, the saudis have created muslim communities in most areas of the world that are alienated and even -- alienated from and even hateful towards the west. and so these communities are contingent environments for hosting al qaeda presence. in the balkans in india and bangladesh, in the north caucasus in south asia, and north america and europe and in sub-saharan africa these preachers, ngos and doses of saudi cash have for decades prepared the ground for al qaeda and its allies. to the saudis realize this? of course they do. we must always keep in mind that the only islamist terrorist insurgent attacked the saudi leaders disapprove of are those that occur outside of the inside the kingdom rather to read a final point to make on the symbiotic saudi arabia al qaeda

relationship, outside of the arabian peninsula is that saudi activities abroad relief al qaeda of the need to fund, staff and manage a humanitarian educational health services wing like those run by hamas, hezbollah and the muslim brotherhood. and therefore, bin laden is to focus on spreading his organization and planning military activities. bin laden, al qaeda and their allies, and those they inspired are the third of the persian gulf threats and the most dangerous to the united states. the are the most dangerous not because they are more powerful than the united states, nor because they are supported by all muslims. they are most dangerous, they are the most dangerous threat to america because the u.s. bipartisan governing has uniformly refused to accept reality. from the first bush to clinton to george w. bush to barack

obama, americans have been told they were at war because al qaeda and its allies are motivated by hatred for liberty, way of life and space institutions. this is a palpable and lethal why. we are being attacked because of the half century relentless innovation and the muslim world. it is in the can of the defense pact 50 years of intervention that we find the main motivation of america's islamist enemies as well as the principal organizational glue that provides the modicum of unity to the movements always fragile cohesion. the islamist motivation is to be found in the perception of u.s. foreign policy as an attack on the islamic religion and its followers. this is a view that is held not only by those carrying the ak-47s, but its extensive polling by reliable western pollsters as reliable by nearly 80% of all muslims worldwide,

young and old, moderate and militant, men and women. nell minnow american must accept the islamist indictment of the entire muslim intent of the foreign policy. but to defeat the economic ruin and the widespread domestic violence u.s. leaders must acknowledge and explain to americans it is the muslim world perception and requires all of us to accept the hard truth that perception is always reality. and the policies motivating the london tv, then i can list six of its policies the mud and enumerated in the late summer of 1996 and to which he has held closely the next 15 years. also note four of the six policies motivate to a greater or lesser extent are the foes and saudi arabia. according to bin laden, america's declaration of war and

islam is clear in the following facts. first, the u.s. military and civilian presence on the arabian peninsula. second, u.s. and? western exploitation of the energy resources. third, the u.s. military presence in the muslim land outside the peninsula. fourth, u.s. support for nations that oppressed muslims, especially russia, china and india. fifth, and lists and on qualified u.s. support for israel. six, u.s. support and protection for muslim tierney. it is policy, not a lifestyle that is the cause for the war bin laden declared on the united states on 23rd of august, 1996. and yet, nearly 15 years on there has been no public contention by any serious political figure. ceram paul and dennis kucinich that they are motivated by any more than a blind blood lost in

the cultural political religious hatred for america and the west. why is such the case? i believe it is because america's governing elites are addicted to interventionism. it is sadly the default response to international affairs. obama, clinton and mccain intervening on both sides in today's e junction crisis. from obama to speaker boehner to senator mccain from "the new york times" to the "the washington times," from fox news to the national public radio and most of the u.s. professoriate punditry to many of the top pastors of the christian evangelical community u.s. leaders left, right and center believe there is no political problem war, gender equality efficiency, revolution, conflict, crooked elections, jailed female or religious clash

it doesn't require direct american involvement. in what is whether or not they can identify even a single genuine u.s. national interest at risk. in making this claim i do not suggest we can read the mind or the hearts of those that have for three decades designed the disastrous foreign policy in the muslim world. because no one has such be fine in sight to take as my guide general washington that the views of men can be guessed by the words or actions. using this metric, our leaders base bipartisan and doctrinaire interventionism emerges in sharp relief. u.s. intervention then is the islamist main motivation for fighting america. while u.s. citizens can to be the policy status quo should be kept or one or more of the policies should be amended or abandoned, maintenance of washington prevailing assumption that muslims the americans for who they are and how they live

and not for the u.s. government does in the islamic world will lead to nothing than a case of self deception yielding eventually calamity for the nation. indeed, the united states today may stand in a historical unique position. no other great power in my memory has faced the situation in which it is likely to be attacked at home in a manner of the stems and probably more severe than 9/11 and have no means with which to respond to the enemy in a militarily telling manner. having already destroyed the known infrastructure of al qaeda and taliban we are the meaningful military targets and left with only the most likely default response to attack iran the matter who attacks us or attack symbolic targets such as population centers in afghanistan and pakistan or holy places such as mica or medina. thus after a second attack in the united states, the choice for washington would be one of

two. to either standing motionless in a bloody rage or launching attacks the would like the late professor huntington warning of the clash of civilizations all to proceed. in america today as i think you'll agree the foregoing analysis isn't mainstream. india i've often heard it dismissed as pathological. yet more than 14 years after al qaeda declared war on the united states this cynical act of political expediency in iraq known as the surge is unraveling. as u.s. casualties resume, sectarian violence grows and more elections come and go. they've lost beyond recall and president obama has marooned our military forces making them dependent on the resupply routes the traverse of style russian and pakistani territory. pakistan is in genuine danger of going the way of afghanistan

with unfortunate consequences for the nuclear proliferation. and the mujahideen believe through from iraq is already visible in jordan, syria, turkey, lebanon, and gaza. the insurgencies have been rekindled but the mujahideen and the insurgents spreading into west africa. similar insurgency's of ferrying and building facility are under way in yemen, southern thailand and the north caucasus. the cities of hindu have been attacked by islamist leaders and the movement in western europe is growing. and in britain and the traditionally security services to the point of public despair. as for the united states, bin laden long ago delineated al qaeda's worrying for defeating in three cups ice freezes. first, to to get the attention of the economic situations internationally to help lead

america to bankruptcy. second, to spread out u.s. military and intelligence forces to staff their flexibility and exhaust their reserves. third, to strip away america's allies and disrupt domestic political unity in america as much as possible. i will leave it to the audience to decide using these three metrics whether there is any reason for bin laden and al qaeda to be discouraged about the progress they have made in the war the began in 1996. now let me move to discussing how we can begin to blunt the trend from the persian gulf. the best foreign policy a device for the obama administration, in fact for any u.s. administration has been heard by anyone who's flown on an airliner to each passenger a stubborn case of emergency place your oxygen mask on first and then help others with theirs. i have referred to this common sense instruction in my looks, and i believe it is a direct

pertinence to the u.s. foreign policy. for the few allies who can fight, who will fight rather can defeat the expanding islamist movement and beat this we must, and unfortunately with more military power than we have used to date. washington must put its own political and foreign policy houses in order. america can help no alliance partner or other foreign nation until it is anchored in its own history and traditions. indeed until the reading during occurred america cannot even help itself. to achieve the goal we must return to the governing doctrine crafted by washington and the other founders in foreign policy dickie to anchoring is an approach that is more independent and less interventionist. if there would be one principle rooted in the jefferson the combined, jefferson wrote in '91, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquests.

in america's dealings with iran and less obviously with saudi arabia, as well as its war with islam, we are losing because of a bipartisan governing elite and its academic media apologists have turned mr. jefferson's guidance on its head much to the nation's detriment. because of this interventionism, which the founders would have dammed to hell, we as a nation are mired in an environment in the persian gulf region that is conducive to an endless war with muslims. foreign policy is that based about creating multiple options to choose to protect genuine u.s. interests and independence in and always unpredictable world. but when americans celebrate independence day this coming july, i would predict neither president obama more senator mccain will have the courage to tell americans the truth, which is that over the past 35 years both parties have consciously and eviscerated u.s. and dependence on the single

most important foreign policy issue, the decision about whether or not to go to war. both parties, for example, have failed to move the united states closer to energy security since the first saudi oil embargo in 1993. instead of freeing the u.s. economy from the debt pointed it's it it's hard to the american presidents, democratic and republican have publicly vowed to the payments to the tire rims of the peninsula in the quest for more oil. the same presidents, moreover, have enormously over some of the public treasury that america is now further in the same era of tyrants who with china by the largest part of the death. i can only remark there are few better definitions of the had checked foreign policy than one that puts u.s. energy and financial security in the hands of its enemies. because of such leaderships, americans find the have lost

control over the peace or war decision. and i saudi unrest in the kingdom's eastern province of your seriously curtailed oil production, u.s. forces will deploy the defendant security police state and restore the flow of oil. the reality of an automatic goes beyond the arab world. currently, mexico was one of the top oil supply years and is creeping towards the failed status of a failed state. by 2015 the united states will import 20% of its crude from the niger delta region. if production in either place and both already have an insurgency is ever significantly reduced and to restore production and if you think the insurgency in iraq and afghanistan are nightmares, wait until u.s. forces are fighting in the niger delta 27,000 square kilometers of swamp and forest. as for mexico, i can only think that over governing elites

criminal failure to enforce the indispensable component of national defence known as effective border control has set america up for a tragedy of shakespearean proportion. a tragedy that when it comes will be of our own making and one that wants to start it will unfold graphically and bring with it the strong possibility of significant violence in parts of the united states. americans also have lost control of the peace or war decision because the leaders have involved them almost inextricably in the unending and the on and double religious war between the arabs and israelis, ignoring and even ridiculing the founders explicit guidance to avoid getting americans involved in other people's wars. both parties not only involved us in the middle east conflict, the have involved as in other people's religious wars. can there be any better definition of a foreign policy than the one that today finds the united states not only involved to the hilt in this

irrelevant religious or mac, but politically backing and arming both of the major antagonists in the war, israel and saudi arabia. by being israel's cash cow, and i am questioning protector, and the only protector of the fundamentally anti-american saudi state, washington has created a situation in which america will be crawling into in the air is really war that includes any arab state beyond palestine no matter the wishes or the interests of the american people. having all but - d devotee of the united states to abstain from the war for leal in major wars between arabs and israelis, the u.s. political elite has continued an active subduing for americans through its apparently limitless yield for overseas democracy crusading. a perversion of what america stands for that can only lead to war and more war. the american elite in iraq has destabilized the entire region

creating new threats to oil supply and making prices and predictable. it also is costing american taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars, has killed more than 4500 soldiers children while wounding 30,000 more and has set the stage for the potential regionwide sectarian civil war had. a few more missions accomplished like this one in a democracy building from will bankrupt the nation. and the still pending fresh of other war to impose democracy this time in iran, which is of course a more representative state than washington's islamofacist would be in - achievement if america proportions. war in iran would be built as the war to elaborate or to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but in reality, it would be like iraq no more than a war to protect israel. in terms of american independence, just conjured for a moment the underlying reality

that 300 million americans could a weak one morning soon to find themselves at war with iran because a man named netanyahu or mahmoud ahmadinejad both foreigners no american ever voted for decided to expand its religious war in which no genuine u.s. interest is at stake. as i noted, our participation in such a war would produce the iran sponsored terrorism and it just might temporarily unite the entire muslim community. 1.4 billion people if you are counting in the chehab against the united states. america's bipartisan governing elite and with the support of the media and the academy have brought the united states face-to-face with war at every turn. the war overall yield, over religious conflict in which no genuine u.s. interest is at risk and the war to impose a secular democracy on people who will fight it to the death. the situation is surely the antithesis of what the founders

intended when they designed the system meant to limit the chance a far richer in government that needs inevitably to tyranny. the founders knew and contemporary americans are painfully learning there are few better definitions of tyranny than one that finds an asian repeatedly late into the war where no national interests are at risk by the personal beliefs, and oceans or even whims of a single individual in his or her closest advisers. to have a shot at negating the persian gulf threats to american u.s. leaders must be made to abandon their half century binge of interventionism and begin to rebuild the politically cohesive financially solvent american republic to replace washington's already collapsing attempted empire. the question is of course how to begin to retrieve the blank check commitment u.s. leaders have given to the foreigners. let me suggest several ways of proceeding. first, america must consolidate

who alternative energies expand the power, and further exploit fossil fuel reserves. in america nothing should be allowed to determine the ingenuity and initiative of americans from securing greater energy self-sufficiency. year is induced by the bp oil week shouldn't keep controlling halted and demand for protection for the arctic kravitz the gulf of mexico from the field wreaths or the sunni oil rich pacific waters off california that the cost of dead soldiers and marines should be ignored. beyond o leal, america has no national interest in the persian gulf arab peninsula region. save the freedom of navigation which the u.s. navy can assure. it's our dependence on foreign energy declines would become clear they would allow them to protect the gulf and other muslim tyrannies. regimes that cloud our economic

destiny steadily expert religious hatred for us and make your advocacy of freedom appear to be pure and even spectacular hypocrisy. for america and its allies it will also and the current cruel reality that sees a portion of the price parents the pump flow from oil to islamist insurgents who are killing their soldier children in iraq and afghanistan. second, the impossible must be done. the converse made to be fined a backbone or to be purged in the coming elections to read a backbone with which to end its supplying and surely he legal education to the political branch of its power to declare war and thereby restore constitutionality and therefore sanity to the u.s. or making process. in infamously no congress has declared war since december 8, 1941, yet we have repeatedly seen america dragged into the

war because one man and his advisers decided that it is the right thing to do. joint resolutions permitting the president to start the wars are covered the act of surrender constitutional prerogatives and allow senators and congressmen to have it both ways. they cannot what the troops and beat their chests of the war goes well or undermine the president if the war goes belly up. our postwar history is littered with failed wars initiated by the president and which divided americans among themselves. perhaps the restoration of the founders' intent on the issue of war making would allow americans both to win the war abroad and not reach them against each other at home. there, the united states must stay out of other people's wars particularly the religious wars. america for example now stands as the had checked loser in israel hezbollah conflict, the israel palestine war, the economic strangling of hamas and

the periodic israeli invasion of gaza. indeed america is losing to bin laden and the islamist movement because of its absolute backing of israel which among other things the coddling of the arab tyranny and self-defeating blind eye for the saudis aggressive jihadis spreading. america, and i would suggest europe must withdraw from the savagery. no vital aspect of western lifers' activity would be negatively impacted israel or palestine or both disappeared tomorrow. this really ought to receive great attention today as the hezbollah politician becomes the lebanon's prime minister and by replacing the to mubarak and the tyranny towards the muslim brotherhood all of which and would further compromise the security.

in addition, we are talking to the saudi timoney because of the cowardice of politicians. we also must reject the contention that u.s. western and israeli national security interest in the muslim world are identical. america is now shedding blood and treasure in iraq because of the country's neoconservative and his really citizens and their journals. these men provoke a hubris war based on the idiot idea that a democratic state could be treated in muslim iraq the would be less than wholeheartedly anti-israeli. in doing so, the shield for the israelis and the security are permanently compromised from the moment the invasion of iraq began. moreover this isn't a fixable situation. because a potential iraq regime

ambivalence toward israel exists only in the mind of pro-israel u.s. citizens. these are the men and women who at the days and are the most lethal enemy is. the cost of the unqualified u.s. support for israel has been measured only in dollars and political capital. and as such has been largely ignored by americans to the washington's medical waste of both. we are in a situation where the cost of support for israel is or soon will be measured in the lives of american children. that costa think will quickly become obvious and utterly unacceptable to those parents. i think most important the government and its allies must stop trying to spread democracy abroad by military financial humanitarian or political intervention. no young american man or woman should die for the insane goal

of giving the people of iraq and afghanistan a possibility of increasing democracy. a phrase used and deny them by u.s. presidents and other western leaders to read the small republican governor like verdone has the right to spend the lives of its young in a military crusades for unattainable obstructions such as giving liberty and justice, gender equality and democracy to foreigners who do not want them and will fight them to the death. this is especially true when our youngsters lives are spent as they have been in iraq and afghanistan by a governing elite that doesn't intend to win the war it starts and refuses to allow the use of the conventional military force, tax payers have brought to protect the country and their children. the foreign policy than must revert to what it was before the cold war gave license to politicians to become democracy maundering interventionists.

foreign policy is meant to defend our country, not to define who we are by doing what our eletes de sign as good deeds overseas. in america, foreign policy need to do but one thing. it must protect america so as to allow for the domestic expansion of liberty, freedom and equality of conditions. if a foreigner votes in an election and i would europeans would be nowhere salt and our efforts to build democracies abroad at the track record of making us less safe, not more safe. indeed, washington's interventionism and its more recent democracy crusading in the muslim world has impoverished house treasurer, blood, the mystical unity and what mr. lincoln called the right for example -- the red for influence of the republican a sample. to protect the purchase legacy's

our ancestors have built here in north america over the past four centuries, we in america must return to the founders' goals for the country that of being the well-wishers of freedom and independence for all. the indicator of our own. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to have some questions after that speech. i would encourage you to freeze your question as a question and we will take one per person only. second row. the one behind you. we will get to you. >> i'm confused about the relationship about the saudi family and al qaeda. can you explain that a little

bit more and particularly, what does the saudi family established the sales in the united states? how does that work? what is being done? >> the saudis are an offensive and pure realist purveyor of islam. they are indeed the people who want to build the caliphate worldwide. bin laden is more of a jihadists wanting to take back the land that he believed were taken from islam. the saudis and muslim brotherhood in egypt and elsewhere are both sponsoring and paying for subversive activities and indeed trying to make the world entirely islamic over time. the relationship with bin laden and the saudis is always a cloudy one. they have disowned him but i

think you will accept things are never quite black and white in the arab world and is officially in saudi arabia. parts of the family are said to still contribute money to bin laden and other islamists. certainly wealthy families and wealthy muslims around the bald continue to do that. so, the saudis are shielded by smiling by the president of the rose garden, but the taliban is not far from being what saudi arabia would be without the royal family. the telegram was educated by the educational educationists if you will. >> another question right in front.

>> bin laden several times was anxious to bankrupt the west every target except the pentagon and the west was an economic target and other parts of the world watching sports and pakistan in the west was economic and then of course part of the culture of people who aren't tend to exaggerate. were they convinced it was responsible for the united states going bankrupt if the u.s. government does things that looks like it's not going to go bankrupt what's going to stop them from attacking the troops from afghanistan, etc.? >> i don't think i missed seeing it, sir. i think it is de bin laden's first priority to take advantage

of the conditions internationally to try to help the process along to bankrupt us. that is clearly his intention to be he said publicly we can't invade milwaukee or it works to that effect. the goal is clear we to make us spend money to the point we don't have any left to spend and we seem to be quite well at that at the moment. >> [inaudible] >> there's no way to do it until we tell the american people the truth and we began to fight the enemy that exists. once we tell the american people that's what the government does and not how they lived perhaps we can have a rational discussion. but until then, we are going to keep spending money without much effect. for example, we've spent, what,

50 billion, $100 billion on gadgets at airports and crossing points around the country? so now we are fully capable of stopping a guy carrying the bomb wearing an i loved osama t-shirt as long as he comes through at miami or niagara. if he happens to drive a 13 year old or 18 year old pickup truck from across the border of mexico to houston, he doesn't have a prayer. so, we are on our way. what did they say that those cargo aircraft bombs cost $4,500 plywood that we've spent over a billion in beefing up our defenses. but it all starts out recognizing the enemy. >> can you talk a little bit more about what you just mentioned, crossing from mexico and canada? you would say that hezbollah and iran has already established

>> there's a great deal of evidence. if you read what the fbi has written about it and said publicly there are strong al qaeda or hezbollah organizations and north carolina, new york, montreal, toronto, vancouver, los angeles. initially established with the iranian intelligence service to keep them on mashaal and his followers but it's designed also to have a dual use which is to strike back against us. it's not talked about very much. the bush administration talked about saddam hussein having a capability here and he didn't, but the iranians have a person believed to precedent here. >> on the left into phil roe. >> i have a question or when asked for comment on the failure of the intelligence community pitch is part, it is rapidly grown in funding and also, in

the united states and is a large part responsible for the war that we engage in. >> the intelligence community can't declare war dewitt no one declares war any more so let me step back from that. the intelligence communities and particularly the cia it is the instrument of the president of the united states. what intelligence community does is order authorized by the president so the idea that that somehow the cia and the community organization is kind of nonsense and you are see the absolute if you will of the president of the united states, mr. obama and planning the intelligence community for not telling him this stuff was going to happen in the middle east. the past 30 years the intelligence community has reported the tyranny in the middle east but on the knife's

edge, they will be just fine as long as they are brutal and repressive and nothing out of the ordinary happens. if he didn't know that it was a failure of his senior advisers or ability to see the world as it is rather than he wants it to be. i suspect the only intelligence failure was an inability to predict the day he left himself open to nisha. just as the intelligence failure in 9/11 of course was mr. clint's failure to killed in london when he had multiple chances in 1998 and 99 and the reason the war is going on in afghanistan today is because mr. bush didn't killed in london when the community had identified his presence at the port of borut in december of 2001. over the course of my career intelligence failures are generally the result of republican and democrat presidents failing to act on time on intelligence that they

had. >> ruffini to move on. there is a gentleman right behind you and then we will go to this site. >> i thought your presentation was very courageous and intelligent. is there any way that -- i would like to go through it again. is that available? >> this one is all marked up. i can send a copy if he wants to put on the website or send it to people who request it i don't think that is a problem. >> this is being podcast as well you can download it probably within a week. >> you presented some very interesting points about alternative approaches to foreign policy and domestic policy. can you tell me what kind of following and what kind of support we might see in terms of

congress or the executive branch with anything you have? >> i think mr. paul is the only one who speaks on this, but the one thing i would tell you is i have toured the country quite a bit speaking and people between the ages 24 and 36, 37 are doing interested in doing more at home and less overseas and so i tend to think the quality of the leadership in both parties is so bad that this particular time and the the only thing that is going to get us off the mark either on foreign policy or debt or a number of other issues is calamity. they won't do anything until a disaster occurs. i hate to be that cynical or that , but i've watched this for an awful long time. avery small portion of it but i've watched bin laden attack us for example in somalia in 94,

twice in saudi arabia in '95 and '96, destroyed two of our embassies in east africa in 98 and sink the coal in 2000 and then 9/11. after each of these things i thought the american government isn't going to let this go and fester forever and it never did. and so i -- i guess i would say i'm resigned to waiting for the calamity that will trigger change. >> why did we pull back? >> we were on the job bricker team talking about at that time and they said that gary said they had everything trying to lead and they knew exactly where he was, that it had to do with the generals. >> it is a blessing for the war is the fact that the next generals won't be bureaucratic paper pushers.

they will have seen their troops dhaka on the ground. the generals when we had been law then in the mountains decided it was bad public relations to lose our troops and to our own dirty work if you will and they found the two afghan commanders to go into the mountains to get him. garrey was on the ground, sent the names back to us and we did the naim traces, white people did the naim traces on the gentleman. both of them fought with bin laden against the soviets and both of them were commanders for the local mujahideen tribal who leave in the tours border area. both of them were his commanders, so they were clearly going to be a day late and a dollar short. they took their money and they were a daily and a dollar short and osama bin laden got away and the only reason he did is we didn't use the 6,000 marines and

the tenth mountain division that were nearby and were eager to go. >> more questions. >> if you could get this year in the corner who didn't have his hand up but did. yes. >> i wanted to ask about bin laden. use it one of his issues is we were exploiting the oil from the middle east. it seems to me that it's a two-way street. the fact we were dependent on the wheel is a plus for him, not a - comes a could you explain that? >> the argument is that until recently at least we have exploited the oil prices at less than the market would have required and so there was an amount of fat. he's an economist in part by training and there is a long discussion of how much other commodities have gone up and until recently the oil hadn't approached the growth in other commodities, so the idea is both

we were taking oil at the low market prices, but as important the muslim governments are coming to us by selling while the less than market prices. oil remains one of the harvest targets for al qaeda because they recognize it's our achilles' heel, but if they destroy it production facility in the middle east it hurts muslims which is one of the reasons they are so focused on a place like houston for example. >> very good presentation. to the point of -- it seems to me that you're advocating until we get to more or become an isolationist country again that kind to me flies in the face of how we have become so interconnected globally. so you know, what is the chance of that happening in your

estimation? >> the chance of it happening is probably pretty strong as we continue to be punished and beaten in various wars and the americans decide, the american people decide that it's not worth the candle, but i also think that isolationism is a slur. i think america has never been isolationist. if you get a scholarship in the last 50 years that looked at the air war period from 1990 to 1941 there were never engaged in the world economically. educationally, scientifically, not intervention doesn't mean fortress america. it means trade, it means international cooperation and climate activities, it means all those things. what intervention means it is not becoming involved in problems in which we have no interest, which we have basically very loyal knowledge, and at the end of the day, don't and hinge on our interests.

i think we have any way in my lifetime seen a bloating of what we call national interests. you know, freedom of the seas and now of the air for transportation. certainly unfortunately energy is a national security interest, but to be the parent of a 20 year old who's considering the marines to think that someday i might have to face a dead son because my government thought it was worth spending his life so mrs. mohammed could vote would be very painful i think. and so i don't think i am arguing for isolationism. i think i am arguing for a better definition of what is really in our interests. >> the current strike in egypt seems to be democratically inspired all sorts of persons at this time and in the past weeks

have been out on the streets. and i am wondering what kind of response you think we should make to egypt just to stay out of and what mubarak and others handle it. how should we relate to the current egyptian situation? >> i feel the way, we have proven the way we shouldn't which is to have come down on both sides. first we were for the quick transition to democracy mrs. clinton said and said with a minute, maybe we need mubarak to look over things until the election comes. i fink perhaps the best option is keep your mouth shut and let the cards kind of fall where they may. but to be realistic we really can't do that. we have put for 40 or more years we have built rather for 30 or more years our position on the middle east, on supporting

tierney whether it is in saudi arabia or the persian gulf war to protect israel we have maintained the jordanian tierney and the tierney in egypt. by not taking of the al asad we have with that too many exist also so the problem for all of us - to face is if there is a changing government in any of those three particular dictatorships, israel security is compromised. the compromise of its security that began the destruction of saddam hussein is multiplied because any government that follows those three is going to be less effective or influenced by domestic islamists.

i would offer a civil egypt would renounce the treaty but they would be less willing to expand or further that cooperation, and they certainly would not be a plan to kill egyptians who are trying to help the palestinians. the other thing i can say quite sincerely what i take away from the egypt situation is the utter failure of the american educational system to prepare americans for how the world is and not how we want it to be. the idea that any responsible politician in either party or the media would expect a democracy to emerge in egypt is either a signal that they don't know american history and have no respect since runnymede, and

the media of course is a cheerleader for these people, who today interview, the interview egyptians who are middle class educated english speakers. so what impression do we get the the one the secular democracy? does it make sense really in a time of turmoil, violence and perhaps instability for a prolonged period 32 million muslims in egypt would reach for an alien ideologies like secular democracy over a 1000-year-old faith in islam, it just strikes me our education system has really left us in a blind. i was on fox earlier this afternoon and had people and i kept my mouth shut because the

host was

to develop a very vigorous capability to attack cyber target's, and i've read that there was a either a couple u.s. or administrative joint effort to go after the ai iranian computer system or whatever it was, but i don't know that for the fact. all i can give you is speculation except that over the last few years i was still working at the agency cyber warfare was becoming not password kind of a free and concept and it was attracting large amounts. we are going to take one more question but i would point you to an article in the times magazine about three weeks ago about the creation of the employers between israel and the u.s. and siemens which is the corporation that makes the

generators that were sabotaged. >> [inaudible] mauney question is could america really get to listen to what you see? i'm assuming that the country, meaning america chris to tell now to be able to tell which foot to base it on. if we are going to go round for a long time or until we get this matter under control could america for instance survive the oil that we are going after and could america survive by doing a proper policy? wouldn't we think that by targeting different groups that

america judges pernicious to the country anticipating what it could be doing in the future? >> we have a limit and you have asked three questions already so we will answer one of those. thank you. >> if we understand it correctly, you want to know if we could possibly change policies. is that -- >> one question, please. >> it seems there is no choice for america to do that at this point. >> let me answer that. that is certainly a common concern on now 58 and perhaps one of the biggest change is since i was a boy is that when i was a kid america could do most anything whether it was go to the moon or when the cold war, and now everything is too hard. it's too hard to reduce the

deficit. it's too hard to change foreign policy. it's too hard to control the border. it's everything is too hard. well, life is hard. and when the talk about oil, imagine if we had done anything except move daylight savings time up three weeks in the last 40 years. perhaps we wouldn't be in the position that we are today. there's nothing on the eda peninsula that is what they did marine except for oil. and i was saying to somebody earlier today that i have been surprised americans would tell you israel and its security haven't been among the most aggressive and pressing for american energy self-sufficiency because if we do that we can stop supporting these tyrannies of the muslim world, and we can deny some of the blue of the unity that holds our enemies together. but it's like everything else in

life it requires leadership, and leadership is more than cheerleading, and unfortunately i haven't seen the president since mr. ronald reagan who is kind of or if a bucket of warm spit when it comes to being a leader. i guess we will leave it there. thank you for coming. [applause] >> thank you all doherty much for coming out tonight. [inaudible conversations] to learn more about michael scheuer and his work, visit non-intervention.com. we would like to hear from you. tweet your feedback. twitter.com/booktv.

>> i would like to congratulate you on another terrific book. this is the third one you've done on the history of al qaeda and osama bin laden and it's fair to say that you have established of the radical islamist movement, and i think this book shows why because its concise, fair and i think it is the best summary of what's happened since 9/11. let me start by asking you a very basic and it hard to answer a question which is what should we be calling the conflict about which you write? the some sidle says the conflict. what we call it? >> thank you for the comments. i'm very happy that you -- to have a well qualified author like yourself to read the book and that we are having this discussion. it's an interesting question. i don't think we've come up with a language. as i see in the book president

obama had an interesting question when he came into office about how to refine the war on terror and the liberal side of the democratic party and a lot of europeans would have liked him to redefine it as the police action against terrorists and the would be on the multiple levels for a start. al qaeda has been at war met with us since 1998 when they blew up our embassies in africa. they declared war on us and have done things for us to kind of pretend that it isn't a war would be long and all the other hand by screaming at as a conflict which he did after line 11 overestimated problem. al qaeda is a serious problem. i don't think that we have the language to explain that because it is a form of warfare but the nearest form of warfare in terms of historical terms is the war against the barbary pirates in the 18th-century which is

certainly a war but it wasn't an interstate war and it wasn't going to destroy the republic. ..

[applause] >> thank you so much for coming tonight. before i start i've wanted to thanks and special members of the audience. my aunt judy is here to listen, and a group of people who are cheered heroes of m