>> thank you. [applause] i just want to say i think the other key is not just a citizen movement that has developed but an incredibly vibrant alternative and dissident press represented by so many young people in the media centers represented by democracy now, demonstrated by non-commercial radio and community radio, demonstrated by the african-american and latino independent press, which should not be considered just an ethnic press as people regarded it as part of the dissident press of america throughout its history, and i think that these examples really give enormous hope for what can be done overall end of media system. and so i think that clearly, i have been privileged to work with democracy now and the whole

democracy and now through all of these ears. years. i tell you, commercial newsrooms in america today, there is nothing but pessimism and fear. in the noncommercial and community press, there is hope, there is a sense that change can be made. there's a sense that you can make a difference, that your journalism matters and i think that is, that in itself shows you as a great singer said, which way the wind is blowing. [applause] >> well the book is called "news for all the people" the epic story of race and american media also special thanks to diana and dennis moynahan who will coordinate the whole journey that joe and juan are being too -- going to ban. when you think about the holidays think about the gift

technology can give to someone to understand how the media system developed in this country and never forget your local library and how important it is to keep these public spaces alive, and tune into democracy now every day. it is all over the country on television and radio. you can check your local listings or simply watch it or listen to it or read it on line at democracy now.org. again, congratulations, juan gonzalez and joseph torres. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> and now on booktv, james farwell talks about pakistan's political dynamics and the forces that shape the way pakistani leaders or act. this is -- leaders or act. this is about an hour and ten minutes. in.

>> it suspect there's some of you here who may have been, as i have, a reader of the new york review of books, what we sometimes call the new york review of each other's books. but the current issue has an ad from the johns hopkins press about some of their recent publications. and it's entitled, "confronting history." not the easiest thing to do. and history is not really an exact science. in my relationship with contemporary students, i'm learning that they are quite, they have quite a different perspective than i had growing up in school when i was assigned a history book. it was history, i was reading history. and now questions are being asked because history is not an exact science. history evolves and shifts and changes over years particularly,

i guess, with respect to wars. we see them early and in a more patriotic memory, and then we get more perspective as time goes on. sometimes it's very controversial, but that's, that's history. it, it is, it is a changing process. and i think many young people are beginning to understand that. but i think what jim farwell has done here cannot really be questioned as a serious piece of objective history. we don't get a lot of that particularly about certain parts of the world. the main theme i want to stress is that history matters. azzam huntington -- as sam

huntington wrote many years ago, cull churl also matters -- culture also matters. what jim has done today is present us a history of pakistan very, very much needed in this day and time. because it will become more and more of a controversial question. we have military officers who served on the ground and who see the consequences who are warning us about and asking us to take a look at the history. we have others who are a little more perhaps chauvinistic and threatened by what history says. jim is not trying to make any case. that's why i was very much attracted to this, and it's desperately needed in the american public right now particularly on what's ahead of us in terms of discussion and debate about that part of the world. he, he really just looks at it that way. now, jim farwell is an unusual

character. he and i met in a taxi cab on our way to a hearing at the senate some years ago, and we discovered that he worked, i guess, for president nixon, and i was -- at that period, and i was on j. edgar hoover's enemies list, and we had quite different backgrounds, and we compared that. i discovered some years ago we had a play at sundance, he actually had a movie. he has a play perhaps to open sometime next year in london, but he also has worked in strategic communications and what i would call strategic understanding. and that's why i come to feel this book is so important. as i say, it doesn't argue one way or the other, it just gives us a look. and i think the american public more than anything else as they watch and hear this debate that's ahead of us needs someplace where they can go to

get that look. so i salute and congratulate jim, but the rest of us, too, for having this effort to set the history in front of us of this troubled part of the world which will be more and more a sense of debate. so, jim, i thank you for taking the time and the effort and the background that you bring to this and presenting us with this very important work. jim farwell -- james farwell. [applause] >> well, juliana and joe, thank you for that kind of introduction. we can all go home now. it's -- you have heard all of the great things. joe duffey was gracious enough to write a really wonderful introduction to this book which was a lot of fun to write. one of the people who is here

today must be acknowledged. in the back of the room, he's hiding from me, but that's dr. marvin weinbaum with the middle east institute. books like this work when people like me are lucky enough to meet people like dr. wine balm and other people. this book was peer reviewed very extensively by great people. nobody more so than dr. weinbaum who became, really, the chief reader of the book. he and general scott and general daley have all been wonderful and great critics. you know, you send it off to people like dr. weinbaum, general daley and sir richard, and you say can you look at the book and maybe say some kind words and what do you think about it, and they all write you back and say this is going to be a great book someday, rewrite

it. [laughter] so one goes through that process, and eventually one finishes a book. but i must acknowledge the incredible input of dr. weinbaum who was a very tough task master to make sure i got it right, and that goes to the other people. so, marvin, thank you very much and homage must be paid to my mentors to whom i owe so much. i am, by background, a lawyer and a political consultant and became involved with the pentagon after 9/11 because some people there wanted me to look at various things that the pentagon was doing from the point of view of a political consultant, an information war strategist. and one thing has led to another, and now almost all of my time is devoted to national security. but with my background, and this frames the context in which my book was written, i'm interested in how political players use communication to compete for power and how they use

communication to consolidate their grip on power. and it's through that dimension that this book examines what makes pakistani politics tick. one of the things that you learn, and i work here at home at all levels from local elections and congress and the senate to the presidential level, and i've done the same thing abroad. but one of the things that strikes those of us who do campaigns is what politicians say and do in public actually matters more than what they do and say in this private. as an example, in america all of us are watching what's going on in the iowa primary to see who will win the republican nomination for president. you don't need to be in the back room with mitt romney or rick perry or newt gingrich or anybody to figure out what the dynamics of that race is. we can all look at it by watching television or going on the internet and seeing what they're saying or doing.

it applies to most countries in the world just as one of the very few things people realize is most of the elections around the world are handle led by political consultants. we export two things in america that are unique, one are our movies, and the other are our political consultants. [laughter] i'm not sure of the value that the fact political consultants do that, but this' what we do. and it's lots of fun, and it's very interesting. so that's the dimension through which i looked at this. and i was also very interested as i went along to write this book with the events of 2011 to examine the current status of pakistani politics. that is to say what was the impact of the attack on bin laden not only in pakistan, but on the dynamic between the united states and between pakistan which is and has been very complicated over many decades. and one of the conclusions that i reached, and you i should sayo

you that this -- my remarks today are not going to regurgitate what's in the book. the book is available as a christmas present, an easter present, a new year's present and wouldn't want to deprive you of the pleasure. but i thought i would share with you some of the insights that i took away from my research in writing this. but one of the things that strikes me about the post-bin laden era is that in pakistan that the politics there today are very much the outcome of five decades of dysfunctional politics. pakistan is a fascinating country. it has very talented people. i don't think that in this country pakistanis get credit for the extraordinary energy and the extraordinary amount of talent that the people of that great country have. i have a lot of respect for pakistan. i think it's a lovely country. but one of the things that's interesting about it is that it doesn't have politically

particularly strong national identity. and that has bred a culture of conspiracy in which there is a sense of betrayal and a sense of blaming external influences over which they have no control for their own problems. and this affects in a very dramatic way the way that key political players have used communication to advance their own ambitions and to undercut those of their adversaries. and it's a very interesting and very kinetic, politically speaking, kind of dynamic that takes place in pakistan. and so that's one thing that i wanted to say. when you look at the bin laden attack, it really does crystallize the nature of it politics and the differences between the way the u.s. looks at things and the way that pakistan looks at things. for example, this country said we would track down bin laden no matter how long it took, and

americans had two words that summarized the results of the attack on bin laden: mission accomplished. pakistanis had a completely different reaction to that. a pew poll taken after the attack showed that 55% of pakistanis thought that the attack on bin laden and killing him was a bad thing. and that's not because pakistanis think that violent extremism is a good thing. they don't. by overwhelming margins polling consistently shows tremendous opposition among pakistanis to violent extremism. they're not particularly pro-american by almost equal margins. they have strong reservations escalating into real hostility to what they perceive as american interference with their own sovereignty. and so while from an american point of view the impact of the

attack on bin laden was a great success as i think it was, from a pakistani point of view it put them into a politically untenable position. if they did not know that bin laden was in abbottabad, then they looked incompetent and ignorant. if they did know, then they were complicit. and nobody likes to be put in that position. and from a pakistani point of view, it was seen as just the latest in a series of breaches of pakistani sovereignty. pakistanis are rightly a very proud people, and they resent what they perceive as slights imposed upon them by the u.s. now, i'm not offering editorial comments on this. i'm simply saying that this is a country with 180 million people, 100 warheads that are nuclear. two countries that very nearly -- that is to say a country that very near he went

to war with india as recently as 2001 and 2002. and thanks to some joint work by the state department and dr. weinbaum was at the state department at that time, the u.s. played a very decisive role this be cooling off attitudes and helping to avert a conflict that had been long brewing from escalating quickly into something that was out of control. so it's really important that we understand what makes pakistani politics tick. because we have to engage with it. not engaging with pakistan is not a prudent option, in my opinion. so that's one takeaway that i'd like to leave with you. what this book did was in examining the dynamics of pakistani politics was to look at it through the stories of two particularly colorful individuals. one is benazir bhutto, the former prime minister, the other is pervez musharraf who was the

former president and now would like to go back to pakistan in march to be president again. pakistan says if he shows back up, they're going to arrest him. he's running around this country raising money, he's doing better than any of the republican candidates for president. so i don't know, maybe he's got something going. but in looking at their stories and how they looked at each other and how they used communication to be able to get what each of them wanted, you really get a very interesting feel for the dynamics of pakistani politics. and i need to say that all of this exists on top of other types of analysis that one might do about pakistan. pakistan is a very complex, very conservative society. it has been dominated forever by a feudal aristocracy and a self-perpetuating urban elite. it is a country that is tied together by kinship, its

dynamics are very much governed by tribes and clans and families and the leadership of that. the two principle political parties, the pakistan people's party and the pakistan muslim lead, identified with sharif are really family dynasties. there are a few other minor parties, and all of that one understands in talking about pakistan. but that understanding only gets you so far. what's important if you're going to look at how the people who are the main players deal with each other is you really need to look at how they've used communication and what they've done and how they've maneuvered much as you would in many ways, um, in other countries to see what is going on. um, let's start with benazir. which is how she's referred to by everybody. and that's because the bhutto family has enormous influence in

the country, there are many members of an extended family that run for office. so one uses the name of that, it's easy to understand. her father was probably the most famous politician other than benazir that the country has produced. benazir is a fascinating person, and i thought she was somebody that was very striking and somebody who really stood out. she was that rarest of political figures, somebody who from an early age had the power to change people's attitudes both about her and about themselves and about events. she is somebody who at the height of her political career managed to do something that is very rare in the muslim world. she was a powerful, an eloquent voice for democratic pluralism and for religious tolerance. she wrote two autobiographies,

one "daughter of the east," the other "reconciliation." reconciliation contains her ideas on how western -- eastern cultures could be and non-muslim cultures could be reconciled. it is a powerful and el went thing. but what's important about her as a political figure is that throughout her political career whether she was in washington where one would expect her to say things that are pro-democracy, but whether she was in the east, she was consistent in her advocacy of these ideals. she was forceful, she was eloquent, and she was courageous. my friend walther isaacson who is doing wonderful things with his latest book on steven jobs -- walter, like me, is from new orleans -- was at harvard and oxford with her, and i was chatting with walter. i said, well, what did you think she was right? he said the things that struck

him most about her was when you looked in her eye, there was raw courage there, there was a determination, there was a steel. i mean, she was also a very warm and interesting person. but the thing is, this is a person who saw herself as a figure of destiny and was resolved to succeed at the things that she wanted to do, and she really did want to make a difference. at oxford she became the first asian woman to be elected the head of the oxford union. i went to cambridge and, of course, if you go to cambridge, you sort of look down at those people, at the other place, but -- and rightly so, i might add. [laughter] i mean, i can't help it if they went to the wrong university. but the fact of the matter is to be elected president of either the cambridge union -- arianna huffington was one at cambridge, and then benazir became president of it at oxford -- is a signal achievement. it really does matter. in england traditionally if you became president of either of those societies, you got an

automatic invitation from one of the major political parties to stand for parliament. and she was a very irreverent and interesting person. in her first debate, she wrote, she, i mean, perfectly happy, as you know, to intervene in pakistani politics where, of course, she was prime minister. but she was equally gleeful in commenting on american politics. one of the first debates that she was in at oxford was one in which she was debating richard nixon, and she made the statement that american george washington started off with the president who refused to tell a lie, and then in nixon america had a president who couldn't tell the truth. whatever you think about nixon, the point is that this is somebody who had opinions and was not afraid to express them. equally, she wasn't always totally serious. she was perfectly happy, as she did at the oxford union, to propose debate topics such as this house would rather rock than roll. and so she was, not surprisingly, a very charismatic

person and very popular. she goes back to pakistan when her father is the prime minister, and she arrives right at the point where her father who is facing problems with the military. and pakistan -- and this is something that is familiar but important to stress -- the power in that country does not rest with any elected civilian government, and it never has. it rests with the military, and that's something that has been true since the time that pakistan was formed after a partition with india. her father was a mesmerizing guy. i'm not one of his fans, but one cannot deny his brilliance. he was a man who was a self-styled populist who one could argue embraced socialist policies. he had, after all, gone to school in california. and where he picked these things up. being from louisiana, i just have to laugh. but he came back to pakistan and

was an amazing politician, a would-be populist who nevertheless failed to put together a populist party so that he would have a political base from which to operate. but one thing he understood was the necessity to have an army chief of staff that he could trust. and the intelligence services in pakistan who were rightly wary of somebody like bhutto because he was, to put it mildly, his own guy sucker punched him into pickingal hook the chief of staff. and that's because he looked like a very conservative general who wouldn't get anything done, he was a junior guy and, i mean, what is there to fear from somebody like that? well, the answer is everything because srx ia managed to stage a coup against him in the late '70s after a snap election was called by bhutto on, if you can believe it, the advice of the intelligence services. this would basically be

tantamount to obama allowing herman cain to decide what his political strategy for re-election would be. it was not one of the smartest things and, indeed, as soon as the coup was staged in the name of democracy, zia instituted a dictatorship which was aimed at making a more radical form of islam common and the law of the land in pakistan and realized that bhutto would not go away. and that's the difference between this country and pakistan. in this country if you run for president and you lose, two principle things happen to you. you should make a note of this, because it's important to understand for any of you with political ambitions. the first thing is that you get a talk show. the second thing is you get a bestseller. so if you're wondering how to succeed and be a typical american success story, one way is to run for president. in a place like pakistan, very bad things can happen to you.

you can be killed or forced into exile. and probably zia would have exiled bhutto except that he knew that bhutto was not about to disappear from the scene. so he staged a trial and accused bhutto of murder, and not until it was too late did bhutto really understand that his life was really in danger. somebody interviewed him when he was in prison and said, well, what about it, and what are you doing in prison? he says, oh, i'm spending all of my time reading about napoleon to figure out how he controlled his generals. but it had a tragic outcome because in many what has been, i think, rightly called an act of judicial murder, the court convicted him of murder, and zia had him hung. and then he perpetrated the most awful crueltieses upon benazir. she was put into prison under the most hideous conditions. and what's interesting there and striking is the fortitude and the courage with which benazir addressed this kind of hardship.

it would have broken or killed most individuals. this was truly a woman of courage. this was truly somebody that was determined to succeed and to fulfill whatever destiny that she had envisioned for herself. and eventually, thanks to ambassador peter galbraith who was probably better known for the great courage that he showed in blowing the whistle or karzai's fraud, election fraud in the last elections in afghanistan in 2009, but peter galbraith helped intervene and helped get her released from prison. when she goes back to pakistan again from exile, it is in 988. -- 1988. at that point zia has been killed, and now we learn something else about the nature of pakistani politics which is you have this curious alteration between military rule because the military has content for civilian leadership. from a military point of view in pakistan, their concept is we

are professional, to be promoted in the pakistan military you are promoted on merit, not on patronage. the civilians are corrupt, all they do is fight for political power to decide how they're going to divide the spoils. and so every now and then we have to come back in and do the right thing for pakistan. that's their attitude. one can quarrel with their wisdom, but one must understand how they look at life. but zia is killed in a mysterious plane crash, and they decide that it's time to hold an election. and so benazir returns home. and once again she's 35 years old. 35 years old. when i look at somebody who's 35 at my age, i think they're in high school which is probably a function of what happens when you grow older. people who are younger look much younger than they really are. but for somebody who's 35 to go back into that country with the history that her family has had with that military knowing that the intelligence services are

out to get her takes courage. and let me see if i can just put this into some context. when you look at people who dress up with berets and in blue jeans and grow beards and quote or decide their going to be part of the wall street protests, it's easy to say, ah, there's somebody who wants to stand up against the establishment. we call that cheap signaling. there is a big difference between talking about changing a government, about preaching the need for transformation and putting your life on the line and going into a very hostile situation and risking your life to fight for something that you want to believe in. it's not enough to just say, well, of course she did that. she wanted to be prime minister. if it's this country and you can get a talk show, i understand

it. if it's pakistan and you're likely to be killed if you are not careful, it's quite something else. and that says something about, just to go back to what walter had said earlier, about this being a woman of steel. and i think that she showed this throughout her career. and she is welcomed by millions of people and runs a campaign, and she outfoxes an intelligence service that outdid itself in its imagination in trying to malign her good name. ..

>> affects your ability to exercise political power of

the apolitical country. my book looks at that from that point* of view but benazir bhutto had to put up with all of this and she was lucky part of this particular case we had an unusually able ambassador he had a lot of clout to in went with her to talk to the generals even though she won the election the last sayings these guys were implicit of what happened there for her family was for this 350 person was to become prime minister. it took a lot of negotiating and u.s. pressure which helped persuade the pakistani military for her to take office. she could not interfere with the military or meddle in afghanistan and had to stay out of the secret nuclear program but there let her take power. out they use all of their influence to bribe of a lot

of the talented people she may have brought into government. 35 years old, takes office and walks all-out -- walks into almost of their office. what do you do prime minister of the country like pakistan and you're not sure what to do? it is easy to say i want to be president or prime minister but what she did was gathered up the people they went to london to down the street and got instruction on how to run a parliamentary government. a was very ingenious. an example of the resourcefulness that she continued to new displays for her life. throughout the first 10 years the prime minister's she got more done than her critics thought and was able to undone what some had others had done from what

was enacted 1979 that made it very difficult not only for a woman who was raped to complain but put them in to a trick box if you complain you were raped and didn't have the witnesses then they would put you in jail for adultery and the punishment for that so it is a terrible and bar barrick lot. she simply did not have the political votes in parliament to repeal that. and then the military gets rid of her they do see musical chairs take place between her and omar sharif although she is more populist the point* is that

she refused to take no for an answer the next time there was an election she came back in won it again. this continues through all of these things somebody who has resolved, but that is interesting the way she did it. let's stop and go back to talk about musharraf became president of pakistan as a result of the ku of 1999. he was the army chief of staff who did not get around -- along with the prime minister at the time literally tried to kill him when his plane was coming back it was denied landing rights running at a few it would have crashed land with passengers on board except musharraf thought quickly they figure out what was

going on and they managed to save the situation. he lands and then he is ejected to exile in musharraf takes power of what he calls a liberal on a crowd. whatever that means but some say he is more open-minded but not the absent dictator never having absolute power. musharraf is an example of the people that could be produced from pakistani politics. also not object lesson for anybody looking at any situation around the world. where the military inserts himself. here is what you could take to the bank in politics. very few generals make the transition from success in the military to be the

leader of a democratic state. i can't own these eighth of three. it is very rare. the policies that make the the effective military leader are different from the qualities of you need to the. a democratic government. musharraf from the very beginning although initially popular ran into trouble. taking power from the coup you don't have legitimacy. what is the one thing that you really want? legitimacy. musharraf was never really willing to put his legitimacy to the honest vote of the people he takes those elections and never was in charge of the country of those that gave them the legitimacy which was too bad. musharraf, was a patriot and

the idea was which is important to understand. there are several instances that i examine that he used to indication and how he and benazir dealt with each other and he is brilliant in his use to separate from the media because the new wealth that hong khan did not act on his own behalf the was the road operator going off on his own to traffic nuclear weapons. that is not true but not all times the knowledge of consent to have fed general who traveled most of the time the most closely guarded installations were those who didn't just walk out with the middle of the night.

but that was a problem because the posture that pakistan took was that we the government never involved with nuclear proliferation of doing bad things and to protect the military this book explains how he did that. very imaginative in the way he executed the strategy in order to protect pakistan's interest that men not being completely truthful. when he goes to a benazir benazir, we go forward through 2007 what will the do? it is interesting again to watch these two figures as they jockey for power because they have strong assets and liabilities.

of the one hand the country is tired of having musharraf as the chief of state you could only stay so long in politics before people get tired and he disliked benazir but he had a lot of problems. one was that he was terminated. he wanted to be both army chief of staff and president of the constitution prohibits that flatly and he kept looking for a way around that and could not and gave up but how he did that was interesting and in the end he does make the mistake to be embroiled in to a battle with the judiciary of pakistan which sent to the lawyers into the street. when you have thousands of lawyers demonstrating and writing in the streets been you know, you have yourself a very middle-class country the concept of sending lawyers into the street

being a lawyer myself is that most of us have not in the bars and restaurants but in pakistan that bar association has a great history of social activism to make their voice heard. and how musharraf tried bradley to do that is very important and he negotiates with benazir who also has a problem. two of them. she wants to be prime minister again but also term limited. there were criminal charges against her and her husband and the deal struck between them is something called said national reconciliation board is enacted so she can come home in her husband can come home with her and she can campaign for prime minister and despite the fact many charges were leveled against benazir for

corruption and then have been proven one way or the other in one of the issues is not whether you agree or disagree about whether she committed any violations under pakistani law. nevertheless the controversy that swirled around her affected her own credibility and she had to deal with at and she did so by standing firmly for the notion that if she came home she would restore democratic government to have a civilian government that was more dominant in the military that was radical. and she was in washington and she talked about leading the revolution from the ukraine. had she returned home and we elected which i believe would have happened had she lived come with their would be no other choice that

would give pakistan to modernize itself of that barriers to upward mobility. it is interesting to see how they stop with each other. she was always on target gaining support gaining international press and consistent why she was coming home. she survives the assassination and then musharraf faces reality the supreme court but not to be let him army chief of staff and also to denounce it all the zero stumbling to one another they tend not to be

variate well. then lead to mobilize popular support the to read what he stood four. to make a case for why a his actions merited the support of anybody in that country. that is no politics is about. there are a lot of lessons to be learned from that. examines the problems the failures in terms of performance. he always thought i'd day she was joined the right thing not in here the evil of all. the other thing that i the coup will in july i the coup

with conveyed the upside-down nature of pakistani politics because he had reasons that or unaccountable failed the security to protect her from assassination that she should have done. her people and insists he had promised to provide this kind of security and it is not forthcoming but from his point* of view he read argue he give her more than anybody else but what he never understood would kill a lot of his political fortunes and once the assassination took place would you do about it? so i wrote the dictator playbook that is a precept however dictator could do damage control and a defective cover up from his point* of view and i set forth rules of the game.

for example, not exactly what i wrote but as an example, if you think the target was not killed by a bullet, it is probably a good idea to talk to the attending surgeon before the press conference before he says the target was killed with a bullet or it could be embarrassing. i show what the evidence shows what he did politically to protect himself and what it showed in what happened with the assassination. one of the interesting things is the conventional wisdom that she was killed of bet tribal militants is not supported by the evidence. that to element was very much responsible for what happened. says you read the dictator playbook i hope you get the insight into the mindset how

they deal with things but they just don't understand anything how you have to be able to put forth a rational case and incredible case of what you have done. for the way that this year's the culture operates. we remember after princess dae was killed how the egyptian press went on forever. fill the rich stories of how the palace is responsible for having killed with the conspiracy. that is child's play to pakistan. they're ability to come up with intricate conspiracies for the littlest things are amazing. if they applied 1/2 of that creativity for everything that it did, they are amazingly creative.

you could really see it for what happened in 2011 the assassination of the governor and the assassination of the minister of minorities, appliques of cia agent who did not have proper paperwork who was detained for shooting two people who were clearly trying to rob him. all into the interlocking conspiracies theory. you sit and think is the situation, the hour politics? and benazir is the one who summarize all of this. and pakistan is the story behind the story. we could have used you as the governor of louisiana to understand the complexities and intricacies of intrigue

at its best. the book list all of these things in looks at these relationships letter so important today and in order to understand where pakistan is today for the last five decades understand the culture and to think of a strategic communication and as you look over the horizon go to amazon and the barnes & noble if you all do me a favor and by 20 copies. [laughter] you could put a lot of them

in your briefcase. it is worth its weight in gold. but thank you for hearing me out hope that you find something new and interesting. thank you. [applause] i will be happy to take questions. >> i am a researcher from the dc metro area in those ideas the a idea that some people in washington with the nuclear capabilities being transferred away to the armed extremists to say

that probably will not be the case. can you expand? i am sure there is a lot going on. >> it in writing a book like that i was very lucky i had great source is. it was a question i would have looked into because it would back yourself as a political player. there is a strong consensus that pakistani nuclear inventory not withstanding some attacks reportedly have some elements but the consensus that is not in any danger to be taken over by violent extremists.

so that important part of the pins are transported in the insecure way. i cannot comment because i don't know. military and civilian people did not feel that was a serious danger. even though there is instability in pakistan, not a significant danger that the extremist takeover the government. there is a danger of increasing extremist influence on the culture of the country there is that kind of risk. and i do have to worry that if the islamist managed to

capture political argument to say civil government anti-islam make on top of that is a complete mess never to provide justice for people? i would worry about a lawyer for example, of waste the in troops in pakistan, without cause the collapse of the state? in my judgment those are very unlikely they do not send troops into pakistan it is very unlikely is something people like to write about not a major concern for me. >> could you talk about the pakistani and indian relationship? >> when pakistan was formed

when muhammed all the who is george washington was around, whether or not the muslims each other own separate state or if they should be part of india. he did not want a partition but have muslims be a part of india with a bold choice. but ghandi did not want that. he has been very romanticized in his movie with ben kingsley but he was somewhat more dictatorial much more concerned of having power for himself and the movie tends to make him out for me. -- out to be. they were forced to have a partition that was handled very badly. the flash point* a lot of

violence took place as the muslims move to the new pakistan and the hindus moved into india up. ultimately it is with kashmir, a princely state would be part of india nor pakistan. you had the state's costs that were ryan to chewing but in the march rise shot shot -- decided to sign the instrument of a succession of a kashmir part of india. part of that is in dia is majority hindu so from of

pakistan pointed o probably would have then their view is what is fair is fair. to be confident this shows that hindus want to be part of india and not be a part of pakistan is the interesting fight. looking at the modern era to make a long and complex story short, it is not about to have decided to for any reason if you have one that resulted in independence india's sphere is that cause is another groups to begin to lobby for an independent

and they stand firm on the point* under international law of the signing of the instrument of succession is much more complicated than that but the long and short is from the pakistani point* of view people should decide for themselves what they want to be part of. altmann the you have a deadlock. the truth is not entirely clear but arguably the shot came very close to settling this issue with nds and problems with the supreme court and launched on islamabad. there is some debate how close those work is not unlike the debate on israel are palestine if they really

came that close or it was just the very air. but i think for india and pakistan it is vital but there have been several developments last couple weeks going forward there was a move to normalize to make it easier to go back and forth and the last couple weeks said cabinet if granted the most favorable nation status to india. this economic ties between the country but that is the best opportunity for the lessening of tensions and that is important because although it takes forever to talk about it, the fears that pakistan sense of military encirclement affect

very drastic way what pakistan does and does not do with respect to the taliban in afghanistan. >> i have the specific strategic communication. what can the united states do given all the things that has done wrong already? doing a good job to explain some of that? what could we do to reverse the islamic setian r. taliban is setian of the culture? >> we can i do anything but the pakistani staff to do this for themselves. but it is my view the pakistani government needs to be much more assertive than they have been.

when they launched the offensive in 2009, at they got everybody together and they said we go and take the militants they ran a pretty good campaign to wrap the campaign to protect the deals of islam and to protect the motherland. us first this them. some of the response from outside of pakistan but what is important it shows you could shift attitudes. sa cool to say those who

commit the bombings are the taliban and these people are bad people. not sufficient to stand on the current president-- precedent because they have been dragged into a conflict it did not want to make. the pakistan is fighting america's war. that is a huge problem and the campaign could shift those attitudes to delegitimize five lead to extremism bank could create an environment that is more possible for the pakistani military to deal with tribal militants in particular with al qaeda in its own country and that is important. while the red drawn attacks serve the american interest let consequence is alienating elements of the military the educated middle

class of pakistan and the old met consequence would be very detrimental to everybody's interest. the long and short is the first saying i would do is ask the government to get a hold of itself. he is not a good public leader to make a bombshell look like the most popular guy in the zero world. i think he was at a 10 percent approval rating not a very good public politician. the second thing we could do is to encourage the strengthening of economic times between india and pakistan year in a better position this is something that we talk back and forth is that this is the issue.

something has to be done to enable the pashtun of afghanistan to feel they have a stake in the success of the government of said day. 35 million pashtun it is inconceivable in the pakistani government would pursue policies that would be in conflict with the desires of minority that is that strong. their needs to be a sense that the pashtun has a stake and there is not as much focus has their ought to be. to see better results. i am not one who believes i am not an expert on afghanistan is skeptical of how successful we will be

because they will lose. >> you mention the treatment of minorities and then

to -- in the cities and the shiites now between the muslims and the chris janus. it tends to be toward the lower end of this scale economically and i feel there is a very strong sense there is a lot of religious intolerance but christians are not the principal target of the shiites. and one benazir had a chance to do the leadership that led to the populist upheaval to change that but this is very difficult to change that would not change overnight. one of the things is very clear if you ask the pakistani can something be done to take nine violent extremism if you say should be repealed what benazir

wanted to do i write about that in this book why she was a gutsy woman. that is very difficult. and as an american i could not tell you how to solve the problem. >> maybe i missed the statement that what is the comment on the current life of the former cricket star? the great player. >> but it he has risen anybody else raising with the very fixed groups?

we're not seeing a lot of difference from the players in the last 15 years. >> pakistani terms there is nobody to deliver a speech. and cricket and pakistan like american football is here. economists describe a room in a hotel that is paid on the cricket like having to make jagger. to be mobbed and if you list for what to -- the longer

the war in afghanistan goes on as he would characterize says warren occupation the last levels they would spin out of control costs for the pakistani state. it be the highest personal popularity in the country. i don't see him being able to gain power. you are elected president prime minister in direct the. and by the electoral college to consist of the assemblies and the two houses of parliament. and what enables you to get both. i don't see him developing

that kind of organization. if you have a direct election whether president or prime minister one could make an argument was it he did which was commendable was give up and three store them to the office of the prime minister. i have not seen anybody else who is the current player on the same two has the ability to break through. benazir son is a very eloquent%. speaking at a tense the assassination is the eloquence speech but in his early 20s.

is hard to find outstanding leaders. loss of those types of people change history she in my mind was unique to pakistan. >> of the military for them to be groomed? >> i don't know the connections but it requires os them organizational resources and ability and i don't see that taking place. you could be popular in a country that have been said countries all the time. you can come out of nowhere

out of a caucus that you really can be nobody. does not take place in pakistan. >> i work at the university of maryland. we are steadying afghanistan one big thesis cooperating both with the isi to pressure pakistan for democracy that cooperating with the isi and natural aid impedes development of democratic institutions and of fighting for insurgents and all the other groups groups, could you comment on that?

of very smart guy i tend to agree with most of wipies wrote in those books and stanch churchill said nations have interest one deals with the isa at by a transaction replaces rick it is in his interest. we have to find ways to redress the imbalance between civilians and military government. only they can do that but that can happen if leadership is governance that is the only way to do lipper i do not think but the fact of the matter is it is not all that unpopular but one of the reasons they provide support that a lot

of people in pakistan and sympathetic to the policy for kozo by far it -- apart from having a problem the average pakistani a is wary of the intelligence services. isi is not homogenous. the the night that benazir was assassinated coming to your house the 2:00 in the morning, i don't think isi proper was involved in an assassination think other elements were involved. you have been great. figure for coming. [applause]

>> would join me by crony capitalism? what we describe it by giving examples. free-market capitalist one would be steve jobs the founder of apple computer who joined from what they would call the 1% by creating products in services people wanted to buy he became very wealthy that is an example of the free-market capitalist. steve jobs did not have been a lobbyist. he was not active politically the purchases made of goods in products to

made him a wealthy man. they are interested in making money out of the political system. matters to them is not treating innovative products or services but political connections but to be set aside from the tax cut guaranteed government grants and access to information to help them on investment decisions. these are the two arch types today and being in the direction of the crony capitalist away from the free-market capitalist with steve jobs being an example. >> the phenomenon is a couple of different areas. first those are the politicians and how they extract their wealth then to talk about the people on the

outside that are politically connected and how they're able to build the system to use their connections to enrich themselves at our expense. what are some possible solutions and does this matter? politician is that have taken money under the table the railroad barons of the but century to cut sri her deals with the government should be really care? you could probably guess that i wrote a book about it that my answer is absolutely yes. so talk about politicians first. america is to be governed by a self governance with the notion that we send individuals to washington to represent ourselves and it is supposed to be a citizen legislature. six years 70 years ago that

changed now elected officials cannot own a come and perform public service but perform it relative the middle-class and they be very, very wealthy. one from each party because it is the bipartisan issue and a problem of human nature. not one party or the other. one is nancy pelosi nancy pelosi net worth was around $3 million and 20 years surging congress after that her net worth had gone up 170 6% compounded basis you average about 24% return on investment every year. i the george soros are warm buffett or i would kill for that type of investment. at least a large part of that is connected to the

political position. immediate before was dennis faster. having a net worth around $300,000. when he left less than a decade later it was in the millions potentially as high as $11 million. it is a function of him leverage saying his position. those are multiple others and a name people from both political parties in this information comes from the public financial disclosure with what they work on with legislation in access they might have now is it they are able to leverage that position?

first, the ipo that i would consider a form of legalized bribery. jon is in the united states senate i come into his office and i need a favor and i say here is a shoebox with $10,000 cash i appreciate your help. what will happen? if we get caught we go to jail. that is bribery. that does not have been any more. year about the occasional gentlemen that form is really small potatoes you could make more mini if you play right to engage i consider the goal. let's assume we go into senator john office instead we say i need a favor i am concerned about a piece of legislation and by the way i am involved with this

company in eyeball give you access to initial public offering shares of stock. the next day when they go public they will sell for lease $50 you could sell them the next day and make $100,000 that is perfectly legal and that scenario goes on quite frequently in washington d.c.. when the congressmen and senators engage in the ipo of stock they don't have to disclose it but listed as another stock transaction enterprise to go through disclosure forms the only way to find out if they receive the secret ipo shares is looking at the data to see if that was before it was publicly available for the rest of us. that happened in the case of the subject of the "60 minutes" of the sun.

nancy pelosi given access to 5,000 shares of stock in the credit card company be supper go blind of $44 a share the next day then they immediately so the $66 a share than in a matter of weeks it was over $90. there was then net gain of $100,000 with the psat ipo stock. was there a quid pro quo? i don't know but pelosi received access to those shares which is enormously difficult for anybody to get at the same time they received those visa had two pieces of legislation they were profoundly concern about on capitol hill. remember visa is not of credit-card issuer but a credit card company making money from that 3% from the

restaurant's zero or grocery stores the merchant swipe of the. that is how they make their money. not on interest rates or anything else. they dealt specifically of the issue of the swiped the. one of those was strong bipartisan support all the nancy pelosi never allowed it to. bitterly two years nancy pelosi took the position she would not support or get behind swipe fee reform. is that related to the visa ipo? i don't know but think about it somebody had brought her $50,000 in cash would there be any doubt there was quid pro quo? i don't think so but because it is done and through all legal mechanism, the practice happens quite frequently. piled-- how widespread? there were at least eight or

10 ipos they participated in getting access seen the value double overnight then sell the next day. now let's talk about inside information in. we could recognize the size of government has gotten much bigger and more intrusive whether the bailout in 2008 or their growth of government of the health care sector, clearly government has become much more involved in markets and the economy and you have a situation where government moves markets you can trade on an affirmation and do very well. >> the first example that

there is a series of meetings plant in washington d.c. one september 16th and 18th where ben bernanke the fed chairman and the treasury secretary sit down with senior members of congress to discuss the true gravity of the situation and. dow jones is still at 11,400. he asked and members of congress at that meeting had to be the blackberry's and cellphone at the door and we know based on paulson account we informed members of congress that this was a cataclysmic financial crisis and dow jones average to go down at least 20% and we were looking at potential catastrophe in terms of the

economy. the ration faced and stunned after that meeting 10 people were not a soul the bunch of stocks the next day. that congressman from virginia sold stock in 90 different companies from other members of congress to dump shares of the financial sector ended up buying shares with others that did very well. also and gentlemen who is from that financial services committee a ultrashort? q. what under this that? that is the options trade leveraged that use short the market because you know, the market will go down. literally made the trade the next morning.

while putting a couple thousand average is during the financial crisis as he was '08 day's trading t.a.r.p legislation he literally engaged 40 options trades that seemed to be well time to make a lot of money. his insistence he does not trade on inside information but to my mind if this was a corporate executive, the ftc would take a huge interest in this. >> un compromise is the name of the buck. the rise and fall and redemption of anna maria 10 patriot in the cia. when and how did you serve? >> i urge you to start working for the fbi as a special agent a little less

than five years and i transferred to work with the cia in 2003. high profile cases such as the uss cole end of bombing and the assassination and murder of the u.s. agents i was exposed to working with cia officers overseas that they value the culture of our linguistic abilities transferring from the cia to the fbi an immediate the to work in baghdad. obviously that was a successful operation but working for in the cia? >> we were there less than five years. this subtitle of your new book is the rise and fall and redemption.

why in that order? >> my career had skyrocketed that season and agents with years of experience give been a lot of missions that i need to accomplish were extremely hard and detailed in the but. but after i returned from baghdad i was falsely accused cb a supporter of tears some. i was exonerated than i am here today telling a much bigger story it. >> tell us about that accusation. >> it involves the terrorist group hezbollah and the fbi thought i looked into documents relating to the past intelligence but obviously that was not trooper the evidence was labeled secret and it was not shared with me but the

cia conducted an investigation with a federal judge and they both exonerated me from the case. >> host: were you arrested? >> no. i pled guilty because i was 10 and basically with a death threat. the government said they would announce the lebanese government that i work for the fbi and cia. i pled guilty to these charges. >> host: du detail all of this? >> i do. the cia missions, and fall din rendition for the fbi and describe the circumstances around the false accusations and finally the exoneration. >> host: as the arab-american and women in the cia did you face situations a white male would not? >>