of 08 but paulson and bernanke: the top 10 bankers, citibank ceo and bank of america guys and so on. it's 12 guys in a room basically say look, we control 70% of the world's finances and if we don't fix the problem we will have an economy on monday. i thought holy, it's 12 guys in the room remained the group. maybe i'm wrong. so is the libertarian is not just government that makes me nervous. also, any kind of power block in which people are doing things in closed rooms that i don't know about this take me nervous, does the wonder, maybe we need some controls because sometimes people can't amount to conspiracies. i tend to be scant to call. thank you so much for coming. i appreciate that. [applause] >> this event is part of freedom fest can't libertarian conference held annually in las

vegas. to find out her visit freedom fest.com. get the booktv schedule at e-mail to you. to sign up coming as a website, booktv.work in alert that or use your mobile phone. text the word book 299702. standard message and data rates apply. >> now from freedom fest 2011, transfixed, author of "in defense of the bush doctrine." mr. kaufman debates the merits with jacob hornberger, the founder of the freedom for future foundation. this is a little over 45 minutes. >> is about that time to get started. welcome, everyone, to her debate today on the bush doctrine, one of the most important issues within the political right and a key division between libertarian and conservative thinkers.

my name is ryan calle and i'm an opinion writer for the orange county register for a senior at the associate research institute. i am here to listen, much like you are on this very, very important issue. with two distinguished guests. to my far left, we have mr. hornberger here today, president and founder of the future of freedom foundation, born and raised in laredo, texas and received his ba in economics from virginia military institute and law degree from the university of texas. i know we have some other university texas people will be here telling you what he does not believe in the bush doctrines. and then we also have, to my direct left, bob kaufman, a professor at the school of public policy at pepperdine university. it's reverts including henry m. jackson immoderately with the

book in defense of the bush doctrine, which he thought at the time it made him a spot in witness protection program. our debate format today is each of our two debaters will, then give a 10 minute introduction and then followed by a five-minute rebuttal and then open it up to questions from all of you in the audience. there's a microphone in front of me, dryclean front of me, trickling from them in another microphone over here. so when we get to the question-and-answer portion i ask you can link really quickly and keep the questions concise and we appreciate that. without further ado, let's get our debates underway at night to ask that john hornberger, to the line. [applause] >> you know, conservatives used to like to point to the fact that ronald reagan brought down the soviet union by making it

spend its way and bankruptcy, and they cannot spend much money that the government and nation essentially what wrote. you don't hear conservatives making that point very often these days. and the reason is because principle applies right here in the united states as well. and everybody is becoming aware of the problem. at the future for freedom foundation we've been saying this is a fact wrote this country is headed down. this is the fact that the government advocates, advocates of the u.s. empire, the welfare state taken our nation doing controlled spending, debt, inflation and all that comes with it. sure enough that's where we are. people figure out finally bit the big spending problem is a big problem in the united states and are starting to realize

comes from the award for weight and the welfare state. and the big spending has consequences. we see it in terms of violations of financial privacy and in terms a voracious government that can't bear enough. we see it ironically enough from the government are going from the very regime of many people in my generation and the vietnam war, a word that is still sacred to the government conservatives. there seemed to be nothing wrong, nothing tomorrow, the brutal communist regimes in history. hiroshima killed u.s. soldiers and borrowing the money to fund their imperialist adventures in the warfare state. now if you think you're exempt from these problems, think again because when they need their

money, they look at it. when that crisis comes like franklin roosevelt, and other government advocates it, make it a felony offense to on the goal at this conference. they even nationalize the iras because those are nice, juicy targets and that's at the argentine government does when it ran out of money. the worse their faith has a perpetual war. they have admitted it, that this work is on forever. the war on terrorism. from the standpoint of advocate, this is a dream come true, better than the cold war because the berlin wall might fall unexpectedly. it is better than the warrant drugs. this thing goes on forever and never. in fact i have written them is the biggest terrorist purgation.

it's an empire that got aces 700 to 1000 pieces and some 130 countries. it embargoes, sanctions, supports brutal dictators, invade, and violates wars. i mean, this is socialist central planning on a worldwide basis. this is where you got the u.s. government which dictators to support, which was to invade. is it any wonder why there's so much chaos increases? this is a central planning does. and what they do is go and create these enemies with bombs, impatience, embargoes and sometimes make light of it. for example when madeleine albright the u.s. ambassador to the united nations told six minutes at the deaths of half a million iraqi children from the root of embargo were worth it. i wear her words, worth it.

imagine that. as they create a the killings when the inevitable retaliation comes, the terrorists hate us for freedom and values. nothing to do with the fact we've killed hundreds of thousands of iraqi children are doing all kinds of horrible things. it's only americans that get angry when innocent people are killed on 9/11, the foreigners hate us for our freedom and values. when the terrorists are asked why they attackthe world trade center in 1983, before 9/11, when they attacked the uss cole, kenya, tanzania embassies there, the statement is consistent because of what your government does and that we are retaliating and that is what ron paul is saying at that point when he said to judy on, the reason they came to kill us is our government has been over there killing them.

finally we have to keep the cost to s. with empire, militarism, embargoes, impatience come to the loss of liberty. this is the madison said. of all vietnamese liberty, the greatest is for because that is when our government becomes the greatest threat to our freedoms. with the worst comes a reason standing armies, debt, taxes and inflation, centralization of power, the war on terrorism, socialism and of course the nation and the nation state history. you've got the patriot act but the power to issue search warrants that even king george would have been embarrassed to have. they sneak into people's homes,

american songs. they go into banks with national security letters that they write themselves. they don't even get a warrant. an assault to search her records are records of your fellow americans. it's remained full of the old quote, karpel newman has his first they came for the communists and in this group but we all stayed silent until they came for us. you see these people, this regime in this warfare state have the power now to take americans into custody thanks to the warfare state imperialist foreign policy. if the power to seize us, cardoso is an enemy combat, no judicial process. it yields amended tierney. this is the power that the teachers have. the power that people are rebelling against, they're

asking to lift them the power to take any american into custody, cart them away, torture them, indefinitely incarcerate or even assassinate, which is now the power these okasan. this is not a good road. if you're interested in freedom, there is no way you're going to find it on pre-welfare, warfare imperial state. we've been arguing for 29 years of a free society and dismantle this name. you bring all the troops home. discharge them. the cold war is over. get them out of japan. i don't want them in japan anyway. korea, south america where they're used as cops and the drug war. close all the spaces, including guantánamo bay. liberates the american people, the private sector. their philosophy is isolate the american people, unleashed the federal government on the world. our philosophy is commemorated the federal government.

you know, bring it, isolated and liberate the american people in the private sector to travel, trade and interact people of the world. this is the way out of this thing. but he had assisted the government can't feel his government and the taxes, spending, crisis, permanent impairment of catastrophe, then keep on this road. the welfare warfare state, in aerialist foreign policy. if you want a society before you die, if you want to know what it's like to live the life of a free man and for a woman, join up with us, those of us who call for a dismantling of the empire in the restoration of the republic. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. kaufman.

>> my distinguished debating partner reminds me of john callahan, eloquent, handsome, passionate and wrong. the united states will not be safe for four more prosperity since the united states disengages with the world. that is that history teaches us. i.this bush debate was supposed to be at the bush doctrine saw give you information about what the bush doctrine is, how stipulates in how it is grimly into the best of the american tradition. the bush doctrine came out of the heinous attacks of 9/11. there were two premises to the dock turn. wonders in this day and age there are certain types of

threats emanating in certain types of actors that can't be dealt with by conventional strategies that can emit or deterring. you need to respond preemptively because force and threat if you wait too long to fight cancer. that is premised on. the second premises in particular the root cause of this dangerous synergy between the spread of radicalism was the culture of tierney in the region. now let's be precise. the bush doctrine does not say that you go to war with somebody if there is tyranny. however our regime imposes a grave threat to you and you do get an award, the remedy for the audience to deal with the recounts of it and transform the nature of the regime.

the second aspect of the push to train, regime change when someone has brought word to you it's not novel. it's tried and true. virtually every world in the united states has resolved itself since world war i. we played the identified the nature of the regime we were fighting is the root cause of the conflict and waiting to change it. we were right. the problem in world war i was not our intervention. it was the opposite i was trying from europe, by withdrawing from the world is eloquent debate partner advocated. we did make ourselves more promise is insecure. we did make the world safer for democracy. we made it safe for hitler, stalin and mussolini in kenosha. we didn't make that mistake

after world war ii. ronald reagan brilliantly conducted the end of the cold war dedicated to the soviet regime he rarely identified as the root cause of the conflict. winston churchill rightly identified the nature of the imperial job in these regime is the root cause of those conflicts not one in world war iii, we determined to change those regimes. you're right. we succeeded. as for preemption, the bush doctrine does not say preemption is justified under any circus and appeared ready to say it's whether you use sooner or later is a prudential judgment that depends on the circumstances, the gravity of the danger, the alternative strategies available, consequence of waiting too long.

we know from history that there are times that using force in her to quote churchill can save much luck, toil, tears and sweat later. one was in the 1930s we waited too long with hitler. another was in 1941 churchville preemptively destroyed the vichy french fleet harbored in iran. a third was the israeli decision rightly shigeo cyrix reactor in may 1981 without which saddam hussein would've had nuclear weapons by the time of the first gulf war. one final thought on the cost of office, the bush doctrine does not say you go to war with everybody to change the nature of the regime. what it says is when there was a connotation of circus dances, and gathering danger conny

tierney that the us sometimes the same for sooner is better than using force later. for the cost of this endeavor, we've heard a lot of pratchett cares about the warfare state. let's be precise. right now the defense budget is 4.7% of the gdp compared to 6.6% under ronald reagan, 8.6 under john f. kennedy. the problem is not military spending. the problem is domestic spending. caught a break that. as ronald reagan often when he rejected isolationism, when he decried appeasement and identify churchill is the greatest hero of the 20th century, reagan said, it takes generations to build freedom. you can visit a new generation and if you do said, it is often

going to be because he withdrew from your responsibilities in the world. i handsome, eloquent colleague quoted actually teacher i know for, not cardinal newman when he was citing examples of what happens when you wake up and find you have no friend. naturally the quote proves the opposite point. von hawker was making that observation can decried appeasement and withdraw in the 1930s exponentially raise the cost of dealing with hitler. they're gathering dangers dangers in the world which only american power can deal with. you don't want to do it, that the alternatives to not doing it are infinitely worse. klotzbach

[applause] >> well, i never thought i'd see anyone ever defend world war i. i mean, that's absolutely phenomenal. if there was ever an example of that horrendous failed, ill-advised military adventure, it's got to be world war i. i mean, what a total waste of american life. bob, let remind you, this is the war to end all wars. this was the work to bring democracy to the world. the war to end everything -- all the other wars in the future and always did is is produce the circumstances or the rise of adolf hitler and the rest of world war 220 years later. and it's interesting that conservatives to defend world war ii and in the very next as he talks about how important it was to stop the soviet threat. do i need to remind him that the soviet union was there part

where can world war ii, allied? the end of world war ii, the big government people at turned over all of eastern europe in east germany to the soviet partner, the soviet allied? that they then turned into an enemy soon. i would justify ever-increasing military expenditures throughout the cold war, not to mention not worse in korea that cost 50,000 american men the time and on and on. by their fruits you will know them. that says we're only going to have regime change when they attack us, when they are threat to us. has he not heard of iran in 1853 when the cia effected a regime change there because the british were mad because most the prime minister who was democratically elected and nationalize british real interest? has he not heard of guatemala in 1954 with the cia announced the

president of that country? this is why we have the blowback from iran today. this is why there are more than a million people caught in guatemala silverware. and then he talks about is only 4% of gdp and we don't need to worry about military spending? this is what we are the liberals, that we can't do anything about age to the public or medicare, medicaid and social security because it all individually in small portion of the problem. well, they spend on military armament, more than all other nations combined. this is a warfare state. make the mistake. when you are 1000 or 700 military bases, that's an expensive process that includes the country clothes for all the generals and that will take a family for a shame. when you occupy two countries, that is a major contribution to the fiscal problems this country is facing.

you know, i think it was john quincy adams bedside, this country does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. when they went against iraq, i guarantee you no iraqi citizens with the iraqi president would then their ally had attacked the united states. why were they so convinced that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction? because they have the receipt because they were the ones that furnish the weapons of mass destruction during the 1980s so he could kill iranians who had the audacity of the big government people put into power as part of the regime change operation. this is u.s. foreign policy. nothing but bad consequences. it is the biggest immorality is that bob has yet to talk about?

is easy to talk about regime change. what he did talk about his number people he has to kill to achieve that. how many people up and killed in iraq and that regime change operation where there were no wmds, where they invaded for freedom and democracy? how many people it been killed, destroyed? we don't even know because they don't keep count. there is never enough resentment the net on her of iraqi oil that they come to the with these justify his foreign policy. a number of iraqis was worth it to kill just like any number of iraqi children set to die. what angers people overseas. that's the kiss him so angry, the callousness towards human life in the middle east and elsewhere. and of course he never talked about the loss of freedom this produces her as the people. that is the cost of their empire militarism. that is the cost, the loss of our freedom to keep us safe.

as we know, we treat your liberty for safety come you get either one. [applause] >> irony is that bound. i didn't take a conservative can't rent site would be debating the son of george mcgovern always wanted, calling us to come home america. but here we are. some history less. the problem with world war i was that he left europe after world war i as my debate partner suggested dominique in the world safe for the tick teachers. secondly, the reason we had to rely on the soviet union during the second world war was the gophers of the policy of appeasement, which squandered material advantage to such a

degree that by the time we woke up late at the two-day gathering of danger, with no choice but to make a devil's bargain in the state in europe in the first place and had something akin to nato during the cold war we would not do not position. people who advocate intervention or at least we are not callous to human life on the contrary. look at iraq before the american intervention. saddam hussein had killed half a million of his own people. he has launched a war against iran that resulted in the death of 1 million people. he used poison gas against his own population, against iranians. he had violated 17 u.n. resolutions. he had committed that were. an assassination attempt against an american president.

also if you leave the cake commission report coming if i know two things. one, when we went into iraq to do the first word, we found saddam was much closer to achieving nuclear weapons capability than we thought. to, saddam certainly behaved as if he had nuclear weapons and in tv studies did. thirdly, the report concluded that had we not intervene in iraq 2003, saddam had the infrastructure, where inevitably he would've acquired those weapons that they prepends g to take risk and use anything he did on past performance. unfortunately for you in the audience to say this is all in the realm of speculation, we're going to recast these two rival theories. under the obama administration, which is disengaging under

multilateral rhetoric, iran is going to acquire nuclear weapons. we will be safer with a nuclear iran. final thought for those who think we have workers they. and do this is a thought experiment for the past 100 years, including debt. suppose the united states did not exist. choose your region. east asia be more t-tango, more secure, more safe, leaving it up to the chinese, russians and japanese clicks will europe be more for your safe living in a to the germans and russians once again? is the middle east reads that really reaching a tranquility of four massive nation and imperialism of the united states? we are not a perfect nation. we have made mistakes, but my eloquent debate partner has committed the fallacy of moral equivalent.

for all the problems of the united states, for all the mistakes we made, american power is central to any decent game of provisional just to. and the 20th century and in the foreseeable future. [applause] >> now we have time for questions from the audience. if anyone is a question, there's a microphone right here directly in front of me. just why not.