to mean, nonislamic. it is not specifically, i don't know, black, hispanics, brown people. no, it is muslims he does not like. that's it. and yes it was very anti-muslim. he talks how he wants the jews and buddhists and all the people of europe to join with him to fight against the islam maization of europe. that is his big thing. whether or not that is connected to the insanity on some molecular level i don't know but for "the new york times" to describe him as now condoleezza rice retells her tenure in the bush of administration from 2001 to 2005 and as the secretary of state from 2005 to 2009. this is about 50 minutes.

[applause] c. it's one thing to learn about american history in the classroom. it's quite another to absorb these lessons up close and personal with one of the 21st century chief architects of american foreign-policy. the leadership lecture series was established by sue cobb to commemorate her husbands 50th birthday. mike had a birthday present. please join me in recognizing sue for 25 years of providing the university of miami community with the opportunity to host its insightful and provocative leaders from all walks of life. [applause] i also want the students, two thank them for generating 300 is secretary rice is very big books

which were given to the first 300 students who attended this year's event. [applause] now, the university takes no credit for doing this. i want to thank our good friend mitch kaplan of looks and books. the university met with him to discuss launching a new partnership to bring to campus in one week later he called to say we were going to have an opportunity to host secretary rice's first public book tour event. mitch i think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. thank you very much. [applause] now that cops have sponsored other distinguished speakers, caspar weinberger, ross perot and the eighth commissioner david stern, david gergen.

sue and check have dedicated their careers and energy to serving their country and their community and a variety of ways. between them they are formidable diplomatic corps that spans from iceland to jamaica to d.c. to tallahassee and miami. sue served as u.s. ambassador to jamaica from 2001 to 2005 during the same time with secretary rice serving as national security adviser and u.s. secretary of state. governor jeb bush appointed her secretary of state of florida from 2005 to 2007. she has taught at the foreign services in sudan cochaired the united states mandatory seminars for newly appointed ambassadors. an interesting twist, she was an alumni of stanford university were secretary rice is a very distinguished member of the faculty and former provost and the university of miami school of law. check cobb was the u.s. ambassador to the republic of iceland during the of administration of george h. w.

bush and during the reagan administration he served as a the under secretary and assistant secretary of the u.s. department of commerce where he was responsible for the trade development expert promotion and international travel and tourism and he was appointed by florida's governor jeb ocean charlie crist to serve on statewide boards. both sue and chuck served on the border tractors of a console of american ambassadors. chuck is a double graduate of stanford. we can't claim him as an alumnus but he is a long time member of the pasture and the board of university of miami's board of trustees. please welcome miami's diplomatic dynamic duo the ambassador's cobb. [applause] >> thank you resident. dr. rice, ambassador cobb, guests, we are very pleased to

have all of you here. this whole thing is sort of unfolding around the infamous husband and leadership. so when we have been able to have outstanding leaders come through this area, we have arranged to have the university of miami students and our guests participate and that has been an extraordinary pleasure. this year we hit the jackpot. with condoleezza rice. we do have the relationship that goes back, as you know, think dr. rice was the provost at stanford and is back at stanford now at the woodrow wilson institute. chuck and i spent eight years on campus at stanford. it was not because we could graduate. but that is a different story. and we have many bejeweled

friends from our service it stanford and elsewhere. of course we also had the privilege of service to our country at a very consequential times. one of the things that i enjoy thinking about is leadership also and i think of dr. rice as a transformational leader. in fact i think president chalela and -- is transformational leaders. you might think about and ask what are the common traits? vision, contextual knowledge, understanding the environment in which you are operating, communication and motivational skills? they are challenging but empowering, rocksolid integrity, unusual determination and perseverance, perseverance and

perseverance. well, as you might guess i'm a great admirer of dr. rice, not quite as much as moammar gadhafi. i don't have a scrapbook. [laughter] [applause] but i do have an enormous regard for dr. rice and am very very pleased that she is here and to do her formal introduction i would like to invite ambassador cobb to the stage. [applause] >> good morning everybody. thank you president chalela and my wife for those nice, nice comments. before i introduce condoleezza rice, i want to share with all of you a favoritism might have, a bias that i have.

this bias is that i have a strong affinity for smart, strong, powerful, successful and charismatic women leaders. as evidence of that -- no. [applause] and as evidence of that, i have been married to one of those ladies for 52 years. [applause] by this second evidence of that, i had the pleasure to chair the search committee for the university of miami resident and our first choice by far was donna shalala because she had all of those skills in all and all of those talents. [applause] and then thirdly, i am on the board of the woodrow wilson

center and i had the honor to chair its search committee recently and our first choice was condoleezza rice, who clearly has all those skills as i will talk a little bit more about in a moment. [applause] unfortunately, we couldn't get her away from stanford and we couldn't get her away from writing this great book. and so, we were successful in encouraging congresswoman jane harman who was a congresswoman from california and also a very charismatic, driven, powerful, wonderful smart lady. so it is quite obviously think obvious i think from all of this that i really do have this bias and for that reason it is really an opportunity and a pleasure for me to introduce the most successful woman in the world and i really do believe that. so, you have heard from my wife

about leadership skills. and clearly condoleezza rice has all of those but in my opinion, the most important leadership skills she has, and i think all successful leaders have this, is the ability to bring people together to team build, to seek a common ground and no one has more skill in this than condoleezza rice. as the national security advisories you all know, it is her job to bring really diverse personalities together so in her case, it was cheney the vice president, colin powell the secretary of state and don rumsfeld, secretary of defense, really different personalities, really strong personalities, a lot of tension in the room as you will read in this book, but she brought the consensus and under her leadership and the

president's leadership they made some of the most important decisions of this century, and because of that great ability to team build. now she also used that skill is secretary of state and dealt with some really tough problems in palestine and israel on the one hand and then it was pakistan and india on another and day after day, countries that had really diverse and different fundamental differences. again no one was better at ringing everyone together than dr. condoleezza rice. at age 38, secretary rice was named the provost at stanford as you heard. that's her alma mater. she was the first woman, the first minority and the first provost in history. she showed exceptional leadership skills at stanford and since that time the universities all over the country are trying to get her to be their president.

again, they were as unsuccessful as i was earlier at getting her. she is a leader the leader with incredibly diverse skills. she is a concert pianist, a sports aficionado and because of her leadership skills has been offered to be the commissioner of the pac-12 and it has been considered the commissioner of the nfl and a lot of other sports franchises. she serves on the board of hewlett-packard, chevron, carl schwab, carnegie, transamerica and any other boards and corporate and civic organizations. so ladies and gentlemen, it is my really distinct pleasure, and they think "no higher honor" does this university have been to have a leader with so many talents and experiences so i present to you the former secretary of state and the national security advisories, condoleezza rice. [applause] >> thank you, chaka. that was beautiful. thank you very much chaka.

thank you very much. thank you. >> let me start with a question. one of our students asked how do i get to be secretary of state? >> good question. let me just start by thanking you very much and i have known president chalela as the is the secretary chalela but also as my friend, donna and thank you very much for having me here at the united united states, right? [applause] i want to thank my good friends, the cobb's, the ambassador cobb's for their service to the

country and for their extraordinary friendship as well. and thanks to you university of miami students for having me here. so how do you become secretary of state? alright commie start as a failed p.m. a major. that's how you start. i went to college to be a concert pianist. i studied piano for the age of three and there was never any doubt that was what i was going to do. in the summer of my sophomore year i went to something called the -- which a lot of prodigies were there and they were 12-year-olds who played what i could play only after one year. they were 12 and i was 17. i decided i was obviously going to end up teaching 13-year-olds to learn beethoven or maybe playing at nordstrom someplace, find careers but not really for me. fortunately i blundered into international politics and i was taught by a soviet man named joseph carville, who was madeleine albright's father. he opened up the world of

diplomacy and eastern europe to me and all of a sudden i knew what i wanted to be. i wanted to be a soviet specialist for the first lesson of how you get to where i am is you find something that you absolutely love to do. so i would say to each and everyone of you, find your passion. not what job you want. not what career you want but what you are passionate about. what makes you get up every day and want to go and do that? secondly, if you are fortunate, your talents will come together and i went on to become a professor at stanford and i met when i was a young professor in a seminar at stanford a man named brent scowcroft to attend the national security adviser to president gerald ford and would become the national security adviser for george h. w. bush. he took an interest in my career and went president george h. w. bush was elected he took me with him to the white house soviet

specialist. i was fortunate to be the white house soviet specialist at the end of the cold war. frankly doesn't get much better than that for the second lesson is find people who are interested in you and in your career. to help guide you and open up opportunities. we sometimes say i want to get there on my own. nobody gets their absolutely on their own. there is another important lesson and sometimes we say you have to have role models that look like you. if i had been waiting for a black woman soviet specialist mentor, i would still be waiting. [laughter] so your mentors, your role models can come in any color, shape or size. just find somebody who really cares about you and cares about your career. the final part of that story is that when in 1990, they came to the white house and we were sitting together on the lawn of the white house in marine one,

the presidential helicopter getting ready to take off to california. a rich off and his wife in the secret service, i thought i'm really glad i change my major. [laughter] so if you find your passion. if you find people to mentor you in if you work hard and you don't worry too much about what comes next, incredible opportunities do open themselves up to you. finally i would say get involved in politics. find a candidate you like, work for them, ultimately that is really how i got to be secretary of state. i worked for george w. bush and i became his secretary of state so those are some of the facts i have but the most and start -- import and starts with find your passion. [applause] >> wonderful. let's talk a little bit about the organization of decision-making in your role in the nfc, the national security console. that role was almost painful for

me to read it because it was like herding cats. if you were to advise now after your experience in najaf particular a president of the united states, would you suggest to them that one characteristic of the members of that team whether the secretary of fed, treasury, even the vice president would get along well with others. >> that might eliminate a fair number of people in washington. [laughter] i would be careful about that criterion. there is no doubt that we have very strong personalities, but i hope that i gave the impression in the book that they were debates about substance. these were not personal issues. nonetheless, we got along just fine until the most restful time. the most stressful times were around the war on terror and around iraq. so perhaps the lesson is that in the so-called normal times to the degree that things are ever

normal and decision-making in washington, it is important to have -- and even do -- deal with some tension that's when things get really tough it is easier if people get along. and that perhaps is the lesson that i would say to the president, a new president, you can do fine with personalities that may clash if things are going well. when they get rough it's a lot harder. >> let me follow up on that question. it's the personality but it's also different points, very strong points of view. some black and white, some more nuanced as you describe in your book. does the fact that each political party have kind of this big strategy, does that need to be reflected in the foreign-policy leadership or can we just bring people and and consult with them? >> i'm prescient pretty hard on how you put the team together. >> it is a really fine line

because if you put a team together where people have views that are too similar to get groupthink and that is not a good thing. when i was secretary of state i actually had a couple of curmudgeons on my staff who would come in and challenge me about everything i wanted to do because i have always thought if you are constantly in the company of people who say amen to everything you say, find other companies because you don't test your assumptions in that way. so i would tend to air in the direction of people who do have strong views, who do express them, but who can also put them aside ultimately and find a way to work together. >> within the political party, both the republican and democratic party they do have people with this widely different view. if you were actually advising a president, if he anticipates you are going to go for some time,

so what characteristics of that foreign-policy peace? in past years we have had people on foreign-policy teams that are lawyers but not necessarily the substantive expertise that they do have. >> that's very true. we had on her foreign-policy team if you think about it, we had quite experienced people. don had been secretary of defense before and -- attends chief of staff and colin powell have been chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and deputy national security adviser. i've been in the white house before so we actually have a lot of expertise. i am really not quite sure why sometimes the personalities didn't gel and i am not actually sure, don't actually think it was observable before we got to washington. that is why i say i think it was -- that i would say to a president of the foreign-policy team, do you think about talking to people about internal

dynamics because if you can't get them to think -- have strong views because strong views are important. don't want a president who just here's one side the story but think about the key dynamics as well. >> let's talk a little bit about latin american and caribbean. do you think it makes sense to focus on latin america and that caribbean is a region developing u.s. policy given the fact that so many of the countries differ in their states of stage of development and so many of them, their issues are really global issues. >> well there is one sense that i do think we want to think about latin america and the caribbean as a region and as a matter fact i would say the western hemisphere which is bad there is a kind of natural affinity for trade policy. by duscher some problems of the transnational borders of trying

to deal with trafficking of arms, trafficking in drugs and so there are reasons to work with the reasons. i also think the organization of american -- have a democratic charter. we should have a view of our hemisphere first and foremost in your neighborhood is being democratically make a very good point. once you get the on those sort of vague categories you really are talking about countries that are very different in how they interact. brazil thinks of itself of course is a regional leader, but were still is also one of the most important emerging economies for the whole lovell economy. it is one of the as we call them the bricks, one of the merchants in companies that has the chance to structure how the international economy is going to look going forward. when you think about countries like of course obvious that the united states has a global world. when you think even about countries along the pacific rim

of latin america, they may connect more to the economies of asia. i was always struck when i would go do something called the summit of the americans which is really about latin american and caribbean and we would have these sessions in hugo chavez for takeoff and everybody would close their ears and whatever. but then, almost a week or two weeks later we would go to the asia-pacific economic council, aipac and their it's the pacific rim countries of chile, and up the pacific rim all the way to canada and all the way through japan and china and korea and the conversation was completely different. it was about global trade. it was about free trade so i actually always thought those countries have more in common with their asian counterparts

than their latin american counterparts. >> it's how they receive the stage of development. >> i think it is because if you look at places like chile, not quite developed in many ways, columbia getting there in terms of development, a country like brazil is interesting because on the one hand it is leading, one of the leaders of the global economy with huge distribution economies that keep them more on the developing country side. if you look at some of the poorest countries in central america like guatemala for existence you are talking about places where you can even reach the farmers and the high lands by highway. so their problems or try to put build infrastructures they can join the 20th century economy, forget the 21st century economy. yes you have radically different levels of developments but when you think about you have radically different levels of development within countries. look at the north of mexico and the interior of the country and

you have very different levels of development but even within the country. >> does the secretary of state viewed differently as part of the region because of the domestic politics and the relationships? >> i think we think of cuba differently because it is the one country in the oas that can't even take a seat at the table because it doesn't have a democratic -- democratically-elected country. the decision to install soviet nuclear capabilities that threatened the territory of the united states, highly anti-american regimes there. so there are reasons principally we have a different relationship with cuba, but i hope is that in the larger democratization that is going on across the world, cuba cannot specifically be left behind. it absolutely might be the case that when fidel castro goes the cuban people get a chance to let

their next government with raul pastor. raul castro. [applause] >> that was a setup question. both the national security visor insert made the secretary of state are almost firefighters as far as getting woken up in the middle of the night. someone does something stupid within your order in a station around the world. how do you anticipate the future though? there is some evidence that while there was a basis for the arab spring or even other predictive of the soviet collapse, how do you anticipate the future when you are in those particular leadership roles where both the present but more importantly the country and how you organize yourself to do that? >> be yes, obviously you try to have experts who are keeping an eye on events and in this regard

having embassies where people really know the place and can get out into -- one of the things i try to get since foreign service officers to do was to not talk to other foreign officials but get out in the country, get a sense for what the conversation is on the streets in the country. that sometimes will give you a bit of an early warning. secondly, on the arab spring, think we knew something was coming. the freedom agenda that we launched about the middle east, gave -- president bush had given a second and not grow address when he had talked about the need for there to be no man, woman or child including in the middle east. i gave a speech at the american university in cairo saying that egypt needed to lead the revolution and i can remember going to see mubarak before he gave a speech. and saying to him mr. president,

get out ahead of this. get reform started before your people are in the streets, because what you could feel by being in the middle east was this kind if seething anger that was growing against authoritarians who were corrupt, authoritarians who are planning secession's themselves with their sons. you could sense that mubarak or ben ali in tunisia were increasingly isolated with people telling them their people love them but on the streets the people did not love them. so really, we have a sense that this was coming. what you can never know is the farc. the farc would have been a shopkeeper self emanating in tunisia is what you can't see so you see them gathering but you don't know when it is going to ignite. the best thing you do is expected that might ignite ignite at any time and try to

get ahead of it. so trying to get ridiculously our friends in the middle east to reform before their people were in the streets with their way of trying to get ahead of what happened ultimately in egypt and tunisia and other places. >> what about the collapse of the soviet union in terms of what scholars knew? you are right there. >> i was and gorbachev is long to fall from power but when? it was the issue because a general sense that things are going bad is not enough. ..

in birmingham alabama, and i thought this is a very difficult place and you start to get a sense that something is really wrong so i think the specialists knew that the infrastructure was weak. it took, however, a true believer in the ideology that it is triumph over the fact people were estonian or ukrainian as it took somebody who believed you could reform the soviet union, gorbachev tried to reform and finished collapsed. still in 1990 the soviet union collapse was defender 25th, 1921. 1991 where reunifying germany in the fall of 1990i don't think anybody thought the collapse of

the soviet union. >> one of our students wanted to make sure i asked about social media and how the foreign policy establishment now follows the social media around the world and whether that is a part of the intelligence gathering and what. >> it is. one night might i took someone named sean mccormack in the white house interested than in an emerging social media. there that wasn't yet facebook order that people were on the internet all the time and chat rooms and so we started to understand better what was going on there. i also asked former student of mine a gentleman named jerry cohen would later go to work for secretary clinton to go and start thinking about it we even want to try to help people to use social media to democratize, so he created a group of friends

for instance people who would help overthrow terrorism in colombia who could chat with people in the middle east who were trying to deal with terrorism so we were starting to use social media. what we've begun to understand of course now social media is an accelerant, it's not the cause of the trend but sam exhort and what is interesting is what is happening with social media and china because the regime is doing everything it can to control the internet. it's terrified of the internet in fact hacking into servers to try to find the last human rights advocate who might be on line and apparently social media is going wild and the regime isn't so certain maybe it's not a bad thing people have a way to vent through social media. so you remember of the story of this girl that was run over in

the streets, that exploded into the social media in the china but i would say to the regime is one thing to think people will just prevent, but eventually they will want to organize to do something about it and so social media i think is going to continue to have a huge impact on how revolution and reform and democratization takes place. >> foreign policy experts in the years ahead are going to have to follow the social media. >> absolutely. >> plus the intelligence. >> i think it will be one of the most important in understanding the pulse of what is going on that meets the government because the governments are not irrelevant by any means to this but populations are more in power than they have ever been by social media. >> i have to ask about iraq because one of the things you do is put a broad context, and a broad justification on the reasons to go into iraq, and you

describe i think as a kind of eminent security risk, and my question is first how do you change the collection of intelligence information after your experience in iraq because clearly there are questions about how accurate the information was. >> the most important thing we did was to reorganize the intelligence agency and by the we both are a result the intelligence failure on the part of my nell irvin and the intelligence failure with iraqi because in the prior case we had a wall between domestic intelligence which the fbi did and external intelligence which the cia did and when they crossed as they did we couldn't -- they couldn't talk to one another. in iraq -- >> excuse me. would you explain because many

students may not understand why we have that gap between the fbi and the cia. >> the gap, double as i like to college was there for good and legitimate reasons which is we didn't want our foreign intelligence agency at the cia being active inside the country and perhaps this body cannot use that word on domestic defense on american citizens and so forth, so the cia was kept to a foreign intelligence agency. the fbi which operated under rules and the laws,, law and order, the fbi was the internal agency. to give you one example a few nights before 9/11, a telephone call was made in san diego by one of the men who would ultimately be the suicide hijacker to afghanistan but we

couldn't track that boundary because we didn't want the tracking of phone calls inside the united states by foreign intelligence. what i like to have known what he said a couple of days before 9/11? when we realized that of course we had an internal security problem attack on the internal security we had to sew the gaps of the cia and what they knew about what was going on outside the country and the fbi and what they knew what was going on inside the country could talk to one another and that is what the so-called patriot act you probably read about actually close to that scene so that was one intelligence problem. the iraqi intelligence problem was different but also structural. we had as many depending how you count them between 15 to 17 different intelligence agencies in the united states. the defense department had one, energy department, the state department had one, the cia,

etc.. the person who was in charge of all of those as the director of the central intelligence was also the head of the cia. so we have a strange situation in which we have the different intelligence reporting but obviously the record of the cia was human and trusted his own agency more than all of these others that he was supposed to be over, and we found some of the counter evidence about what was going on in iraq weapons of mass destruction programs probably didn't get the air and into the hearing that it might have, so we created the director of national intelligence who is not the director of the cia, he is a separate person to call the intelligence, help the president when there are disagreements in the intelligence agency and give more of a total picture of what's going on with intelligence, so that was the big reform that was made.

>> you also have talked in at least one speech i know about self-defense as part of the context for making the decision to go into iraq. i really want to ask when you examine the iraq situation, and there was a discussion, did you look at other countries as well? if you look at the list of justifications were coming you could put those on iran as well and so why iraq rather than iran? and did you look at more than one country? >> iraq was generous in our view it was unique and it was unique because we get into the war against saddam hussein in 1991. he was systematically violating the that a pharmacist. he was found in 1991 to have had been one year from a crude

nuclear device. he used weapons of mass destruction against the iranians and against his own people. the constraints put on him were starting to break down including, by the way, the fact we were flying in the so-called no-fly zone to keep the air force on the ground. he was shooting at our aircraft practically every day i can remember the president asking donald rumsfeld what do we do to get a lucky shot and bring down an american pilot? so we were in a state of suspended hostilities with iraq not in a state of peace within iraq. in 1998, president clinton actually launched cruise missiles against iraq and the inspectors who were supposed to be keeping the programs under control left the country so he was different for his having dragged the region into war several times including us, the fact that he was continuing, we believe, to build weapons of

mass destruction according to the intelligence agency had reconstituted the chemical weapons, reconstituted the biological weapon and was on his way to reconstituting its nuclear program he tried to assassinate president george h. w. bush, shooting of the aircraft and 400,000 people in masquerades. he was considered the biggest threat as bad as north korea was and as bad as iran was they were not in the category like iraq where there were 15 security council resolutions that said that he was a threat to the international peace and security. >> does the also account for the need to focus on the israeli palestinian issue that they are also generous in the sense that it's unique compared to other parts of the world? >> yes and the israeli-palestinian issue while licht isn't the key to peace in the middle east and to a different kind of middle east, it is the key. any student of politics from the

time i was your age and in college which admittedly is a long time ago but from that time, when you took a course in the international policy people started with the most volatile region in the world is the middle east. and that's still true today some people have been trying to do something about this. the israeli-palestinian issue is one of the core issues that needs to be resolved to get rid of the volatility in the middle east. >> and every administration struggled with it. >> do you see hope out there? >> i do. i described in the book that all, the pamela starr of israel when i was the secretary of state and mahmudiyah boss, the current president of the palestinian authority were pretty close to a deal. a very good deal put on the table all and political and legal trouble so he wasn't to get up for a variety of reasons. but the reason i actually wrote

about it is i wanted to suggest it isn't a hopeless cause. there is an answer here that is available, but time is not on the side of either of them. >> i would like to go back to the soviet union because given your expertise about the soviet union, how do you see russia be flipping over the next two years, and do you think that they are important in the world and will continue to increase perhaps even suppressing china? i think the russians are in trouble in terms of global standing. and i think they know it. russia is say -- the russian economy is 80% depending on exports of oil, gas and minerals. that's not a modern economy. and i will tell you a little story about that shows how much the oil, gas and mineral is linked up with personal fortunes, political power. i was at the australian foreign

minister's house one day we were having a meeting about energy policy coming and he was going around asking people about the energy policies of the russian since we understand our wheel and gas fields are technologically behind but no foreigner will ever known, russian oil and gas. so we are going to buy the technology from the western oil companies. i had been a director of the corporation, and i said so, do you understand there is advantages actually in their technology they are not in to sell their technology to make you a better competitor. he said that's a really good point. [laughter] and then he said are you still a director of chevron? i was the secretary of state. but in russia, dmitry medvedev was also the chairman of the gas, so the state and the economy and politics and personal fortunes went out

together with a fair amount of political violence, too. now that mr. putin has decided that he is the once and future president of russia i think the chances that russia is going to break out of that and build on other strengths it might have including a very smart population both of those have receded, and i think unfortunately russia will not find greater strength in the international economy. it's pretty much an economy dependent on the price of oil. >> to go back to the arabs bring what do you think the lessons are? >> the lesson of the air of spring is that authoritarianism is not stable. it's simply not stable. if men, women and children don't have a way to change the circumstances and the government peacefully able to would violently. when we were in romania, we learned of something i now call

the moment in 1989 the revolution going on in poland and hungary and czechoslovakia he went into bucharest and was exhorting the people for what he had done for them and all of a sudden one old lady yelled lawyer, finton people, then 1,000 people, then 100,000 people were yelling lawyer and all of a sudden he realized he did better get out of there if something had gone wrong and instead of delivering him to freedom, the young military officer delivered him to the revolution. he and his wife were executed. the moment is when fewer breaks down either an old lady or a soldier in terms we from the crowd and refuses to fire them all that is left between the dictator and the people as anchor and that is what you got in the arab spring now and that is why a authoritarianism is

not. >> what do you think about leading from behind as the multilateral coalition? >> i don't mind multilateral coalition. i'm sorry, leading from behind is an oxymoron. it is. you don't lead from behind. [applause] and i actually think some in the white house may be sorry that they use that phrase. >> let me ask about a domestic issue because i actually share your view and had conversations with president bush about immigration reform and how serious do you think that issue is for the next presidential debate that we have? >> it is essential and let me tell you why the secretary of state gets to go routt in the world and see what people what my year about the united states and there are a lot of things that are not at my ear but one thing that is overwhelmingly

admired his wife called the national myth. you can come from the circumstances and do great things it doesn't matter where you came from it matters where you were going and that has led people to come for generations from around the world to be part of that. and it's why we have asian-americans and mexican-americans and german americans and indian americans. it's because the most ambitious people have wanted to be a part of that. now, i don't know when immigrants became the enemy, but if we do not fix this, we are going to undo one of the greatest strengths of the united states because the only thing that keeps us from the demographics of europe and japan is immigration. i am a major proponent of the comprehensive immigration reform that first and foremost -- [applause]

first and foremost recognizes we have people living in the shadows and we have to deal with that. we are not a country that wants people to be afraid to go and take a sick child to a hospital. that's not the kind of country we are to read and i worry that the states because the federal government has not acted are starting a patchwork now of immigration policies when really what we need is a federal policy that is true to ourselves but also true to the absolute fact that the united states of america is well served by the great amount of people that we are. >> i have three quick questions. [applause] >> let's pretend you've been invited to be the moderator of a

presidential debate. the debate's theme is foreign policy. what is the first question he will ask both candidates? >> do you believe that america as an exceptional and unique role to play in the world? or is america just any other country? because if america is just any other country, then you have no right to ask the american people to sustain the sacrifices that we have and play the role that we have on behalf of the international community for now better than 60 years. [applause] >> second question is even though you are not responsible and they can't officially we keep up any more, what keeps you up at night and foreign policy? what are the things you worry about that we often worry about?

>> i worry about the list of iran, pakistan. i worry about mexico. i don't think we pay enough attention what is happening on the southern border and if you live in california or new mexico you know the drug cartel's own a lot of the space between northern mexico and the southern border of the united states. two years ago there were five calls and chris -- 5,000 murders, probably twice that in the last couple of years, so very dangerous but you know what mostly keeps me that mike is the question whether the united states is going to reaffirm and some how do the internal repair that we need to do to lead. i'm worried we can't seem to get our entitlement under control and we can't get our budget deficit under control. i worry about immigration control and the fact in the case

through 12 education i can look in your zip code and tell whether or not you were going to get a good education and that is not just wrong it is ongoing to under less quickly because if we have people that are unemployable and they will be the will have to live on the bill because they will have no other choice. we will continue to have a situation in which only 30% of the people who take the basic skills test to get into the military can pass. it will indeed pull us apart as a country faster than anything else and if we are not confident and optimistic we will leave and so that's probably the one that really keeps me. >> trees my final question if you have a choice between running for the senate in california, being a university president were being head of the national football league. [applause] [laughter]

>> that's no contest. >> i used one to be the commissioner but i told roger goodell when i was struggling every day your job looks pretty good but actually from northern california doesn't look so good anymore and these days i have to say these days being a university professor at stanford university where the stanford cardinals are having quite a special season you know what the special seasons are like. you've had plenty of them. let us have one. that is the greatest job in the world. >> thank you, madame secretary. [applause]

juan williams appeared at the 2011 texas book festival in austin to talk about his book muscles. he spoke and took questions for about 40 minutes.issu >> october 2010 here on the bill o'reilly show bill is going. through one of his risks but muslims at line 11 and you weigh in and basically had two lines, two things you were trying to get across.acro first of all you describe how you yourself could you or did feel uncomfortable sometimes getting on an airplane and with people in muslim garb and then what did you follow that with?

that with? >> what i said was to set it up a little bit, muslims killed us on 9/11 and the context was an argument that he had had about a location of a mosque near ground zero and that is when he made the comment muslims killed us on 9/11 which prompted two co-host's to walked off the set. and he said i am just talking about radical islamists or muslims and then they came back. it became a little sensitive. it was in the papers the next day. when bill had his own show he had me as his guest and said after showing the tape of this tell me where i went wrong? that is what i said i am not going to play political correct games with you. the fact is the people who attacked us on 9/11 were muslims and cited their faces as justification for the act they were engaged in jihad. i went on to say this thing

about -- let me tell you in all honesty with the heartfelt admission. to this day when i am getting on an airplane and the double-breasted muslim guard my mind first and foremost identifying themselves as muslims i get a little nervous. it makes me anxious. the second point that you offered me the opportunity to say that this is taken out of context. i went on to say america is a land of religious liberty and i would be upset if anybody would draw conclusions about my fellow christians on the basis of the actions of timothy mcveigh and we have to be careful not to stereotype people or encourage actions such as the minister in action who wanted to burn the koran. we should not be doing that. we have to be aware this anxiety exists in the american mind after 9/11. the fact that there is an indisputable connection between radical islam and terrorism in the world but at the same time

we have to preserve american principles of independence, judging people as individuals and protecting their liberty, particularly religious liberty. >> some folks heard the first part and ignored the second. >> if it was just that i think it would be forgivable in my mind and i have to work on my own level of forgiveness but what it was was there are people who are invested in attacking and trying to make a larger point and they were willing to sacrifice me and my journalistic independence to do it. the council on american islamic relations cared, bit like the idea that anybody would engage bill o'reilly to their point and say i won't play games with you. i think you were right because our look at the facts of who were in those planes and use those airplanes as instruments of terror so that anybody giving any affirmation to bill at that moment they viewed as their

enemy and they took that, and out of context and began a campaign on the basis of calling me a bigot. >> you got a phone call from npr. >> i have no clue that anything was going on and two days later i was asked the first question out of the box was what did you mean? i said i said what i meant. that is exactly what i meant and that was followed up with we have people who dress in muslim garb. that is an offensive bigoted statement. i never discriminated against anybody and was calling for discrimination. didn't say people should not be allowed on airplanes or nothing like that and you violated the journalistic standard of npr. whatever you say cannot be trusted by our audience. i set i worked here ten years. can't we have a conversation? you need to look at the entirety of the transcript to understand

what was said was that in order to establish a level of trust and honesty and to make a larger point about religious liberty to which i was told there is nothing you can say or do that will change our mind. you are fired. >> you were fired over the phone. you could describe them as unfortunate comments about you that followed from the npr officials. >> yes. unfortunate. the thing about glenn is glenn is a pulitzer prize-winning reporter and is so droll. he said unfortunate. you don't want to reveal -- in this role when i am allowed to say outrageous comments suggesting whenever juan williams said should be kept between him and his psychiatrist. this is said by the head of