get? >> that is a good question. i think there is something like 200 peace studies programs in the united states and five military histories. it's based on the principle that war can break out by accident or diplomacy can prevent wars. military history is based on the idea that wars caused some times for tangible reasons, but often over a matter of perceived interest, pride, fear. the great novelists said of the falklands, to baldheaded men are fighting over a clone. ..

>> if you get a republican president, a democratic legislature, do you think the whole opinion on drone assassinations completely change? >> i'm cynical in the view of partisanship, and, as you know, the republicans are in a terrible dilemma because they supported this protocol, and it was renditions, guantanamo, wiretaps, intercepts, drones, and barack obama's in a dilemma saying they were shredding the constitution, knocking the door op the middle of the night, closed guantanamo, and then he more or less embraced or expanded all the protocols he

criticized, and the right didn't know what to do because they thought, well, wait a minute, on the one hand, he's shoot and post national, everybody likes him, a had kill bad guys and not criticize him like bush, but the other guys say, he demagogued the issue and hurt us as a senator, pay him back. they didn't support what they otherwise would have supported. it's all of the issues hinge on whether they are successful or not, and if they are successful and drones, whatever you say have been successful, so that's why the republicans, except for people like rand paul, have not b objected to them. they are not sustainable, drones aren't, simply because the united states, if you take the word "drone" out of the vow vocabulary and think cia assassination cold war, it's the same idea with the target list. barack obama leaked or someone in the administration leaked, said shut the f up to one of

them saying he was so anguished about drones he had to read st. thomas before he ordered the next hit. what he was trying to do, you can see what he was trying to do, tell the american people, i'm not a cold-blooded killer because the operation is cold cold-blooded killing. it's a dilemma for the president. one more question. somebody had it. yes. >> you mentioned several of the generals have had personal failings. >> yes. >> can you comment on the current climate where we want our soldiers and generals to be great at the military things, but also nice guys, good husbands, and is it possible to be a general and a great guy? >> i can't answer that because i'm baffled by the notion that we are risque and victor yaws at the same time. in other words, you see the kardashians on tv, you can see near pornography, people use the

f word, the lyrics, the video games are joust absolutely morally and ethically atrocious, and, yet, we have a national melt down because petraeus, late in life, was attracted to a very atrabtive brilliant young woman and had an affair which is regrettable. in olden times like world war ii, we were a much more traditional society, appalled by rap, and the cheap pornography, and yet eisenhower, if i could be bold, we say probably because we don't know, there's a memoir saying as much, but he was probably having an affair with the chauffeur, nobody accused david petraeus of that. george patton we know carried on an affair with the step niece leading the third army. now, that begs to question, so you go to our risque society, no

holds barred, trashy society, if you ask me, and we go to a guy like george patton saying, you know what? we found out you slept with a young, beautiful woman, so we're going to take third army from you. a lot of people are going to get killed. we did that when he slapped two soldiers. we know where that leads. it's a schizophrenic society. the more in the daily life that we have no ethics or morality or traditional concerns, almost in the matter of medieval pension or pennants, you're a money lender or you're a philanderer, and you want to go to heaven, give six blocks to build the dome, buy your way into heaven, but now we live trashy lives and say, i'm not going to buy a block to get in heaven, but damn david petraeus, just shocked that he's doing the same thing that everybody around me, but nobody makes the argument that he was a less effective -- you

could make that argument, but when general allen, we realtortureed general allen. i should, by exchanging silly e-mails that everybody seems to do at one point in life, and i'm worried about, it's an excellent question because in cop collusion, if you look at the four great generals over the last 20 years, i'm not talking about tommy franks or george, but there were four of them, general mathis, suddenly, i think, retired a little bit early under pressure from the administration. there was david petraeus. there was general allen that i knew at the naval academy, and general mcchrystal, and each retired early for some reason other than the military capability, and i think they had a lot of contributions they would have made. we lost those people, and if we're going to lose those people for moral outrage, we, the people outragedded, have to have morality, and we don't. thank you very much. [applause]

>> former secretary of defense, donald rumsfeld is next on booktv sharing observations on leadership, politics, war, business, and life. ♪ >> thank you very much. [applause] ♪ thank you so much. nice to see you all. [applause]

what sandy did not say is i lived one-third of the history of our country. [applause] which tells you what a young country it is. [laughter] or what an old map i am. [laughter] well, i am so pleased to be here, and, sandy, thank you for the moderately good introduction. [laughter] george and gavin and all the members of the president's council, thank you so much for supporting this important institution. we appreciate it. i'm a supporter myself. i thank you. i, as sandy said, i've been traveling around talking about this book "rumsfeld's rules," and i might just take a few minutes. i'm told you ready to ask questions, and i will answer the

questions i know answers to, and i will respond to the others. [laughter] before i do, just a few words about the book. i spent four yores writing my memoir, "known and unknown," and as i did that, i thought about "rumsfeld rules," and i decided to do that. it started because my mother was a schoolteacher, and i would ask her what a word meant, and she would tell me to look it up and write it down, and i started caring little three by five cards like this, and i still do to this day, and she said, well, then, at the end of the week, read them, remind yourself what they mean, and i started down writing down thoughts, ideas, things i thought were important, and i did that as a young man, as a boy scout. i did it as a navy pilot, i did

it when i was in congress, and then as sandy say, i resigned from congress in 1969, and my fourth term, and i went into the nixon cabinet and serveed in the office the economic opportunity, and it was my first executive job, and i started making notes about that, and then when president ford came in, he called me back to share his transition. i was ambassador to nato at the time, and i came back and servedded as white house chief of staff. we were in the oval office, and i mentioned a rule. he said, what's that? i told him. i said, well -- he'd be a loaght tore -- legislator, never served in executive position, and i told him i kept the rules, i don't know what i said to him, but something like the staff should not say the white house is calling. build tionz can't call. [laughter]

so he said, well, let me see this. i had it typedded up, showed it to him, and he said, you should circulate that to the senior staff in the white house. i did, and it ended up being named "rumsfeld rules," gain the a life of its own, and "new york times" wrote about it and "wall street journal," and people read it for a quarter century now, i guess, and i decided to write a book about the rules, and that is what is now just come out last tuesday. i tried to write it in a way that it would be interesting to college graduates starting at the very beginning, to people who were in the middle, and had to have meetings, a chapter on about meetings and that type of thing. i have a chapter on, oh, a chapter on wrestling because i wrestled for ten years, and that's where you learn the relationship between effort and result.

it's terribly important. the other thing you learn is try to put yourself in the other fellow's shoes and see what the world looks like from their perspective, and that's useful in negotiations as well. i then spent time in business and learned rules like a's hire a's, and b's hire c's, and it's true. one time, my daughter said, gee, dad, what do you think i ought to do? what company should i go to? what business? what state? what -- i said, you're asking all the wrong questions. the question is who will you work around? find someone bright, sparkly because you'll find the people around them will be sparkly, and you'll learn a lot. she said, well, what do i do? it dufnt matter what you do. be around those people, and she said, well, like who?

the first names was dr. herman con, a futurist, who i happened to know, and he was an interesting fellow, long since gone, and another was william buckley because he was intelligent and interesting as a person, but i proceeded to make other chapters, and towards the end as i was finishing the book, i thought about the fact that american business does not defend the capitalist system very well, and i saw this occupy wall street, and occupy everything, and people sleeping out in the parks and tents, and i listened to the national campaign, and i heard people talking about government growing jobs. [laughter] it reminded me of a rule that washington, d.c. is 60 square miles surrounded by reality. [laughter]

the chapter on capitalism i wrote because i was worry the that people in business -- first of all, few people in government have been in business because it's hard. it's easy for the academic to be in business, they leave, come back to their world, easy for a lawyer to go in government and come out. it's hard for a business person. if they are a small business person, it's their business. they have to be there. if they are in a larger corporation, they get knocked off the ladder, and they are out. it's hard to reenter, and as a result, you have people in business who don't -- who -- i'll at mitt, confessions good for the soul, my wife tells me, but if you're in government looking at business, you understand it intellectually,

but it's one dimensionally. you don't have any idea what delay does if you're in government, what government day does to business. you don't have any idea what uncertainty does to business. you don't really feel the impact of the regulations. i send taxes in, and i have a letter, to whom it may concern. if you're my taxes, i want you to know, haven't the vaguest idea if they are accurate. [laughter] i went to college. you know, i've got average intelligence. my wife went to college, and she won't read them because she knows she won't understand them. i just want you to know that's the case, and i pay money to an accountant, and he helps me, and i hope they are right. if you have a question, just

give us a call. [laughter] could you imagine the country with the lousy tax system like that? inexcusable. how many people here understand your taxes? let's see. well, i don't see many hands going up. i wrote the chapter because i felt i was in business, and i know that a businessman has, in a large company, has shareholders, customers, and they have employees. their shareholders, customers, and employees are all across the spectrum in political views and ideas and parties, and, therefore, business people are very reluctant to challenge the government, to criticize the government. they don't want to divide stockholders, employees, or shareholders. they also worry about the irs. they worry -- [laughter]

well, if you don't understand your taxes, you ought to worry. i worry. i mean, i know i don't know. they also, if you're in the pharmaceutical business like i was, you have the food and drunk administration, and they all have the securities and exchange commission, and all these alphabet regulatory organizations, and to the extent someone criticizes the government or challenges and approaches the taking, they worry that the government could be turned on them, and that is, in my view, why the current irs thing is so critical because american people don't want to feel that their government, it's their government, could be turned on them in a way that targets people. if you target one person, target someone else. it doesn't matter if you're liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, and i think that's why that's so central. now, what i'd like to do is have

sandy or somebody -- where are these people? do you have microphones? i think you do. there you are. i'd be happy to respond to questions, as i say, and even answer some, and i'll do my best -- [laughter] and what you need to do, i suppose, is raise your hand, and sandy will bring a mic. i always hate the first question. [laughter] >> where -- >> nip who pops up like a jack in the box with the first question scares me to death. >> hello? >> yeah? boy the lights are bright. [laughter] make it a good one. i'll embarrass you if you don't. [laughter] >> here's what we'll do, mr. secretary, if i may -- >> turn the mic on. you had the floor here before, sannie, you know that. >> who has the first question? okay.

anthony, is the mic on? >> mr. secretary, two quick questions. >> no, no, i'm 81 in july. i do not need multipart questions. >> okay. [laughter] it's 7:15 here, 10:15 in washington where i flew in yesterday. single part question. >> okay. [laughter] >> but i'm feel free to go ahead. >> okay. [laughter] first question is -- >> no, no, you only get one. [laughter] turn off his microphone. [laughter] >> will you write a book for republicans called "rum field's rules: thou will not tax without a tax decrease" or raise expenses without -- and without some sort of cut in the middle?

i mean, i remember when i watched your interview on the letterman show, you would suggest that that, you know, there's a time in which, i forget what it was, a hundred billion dollars, something like that, and the world went crazy. >> i was there. it was in the presidency of johnson, i was a congressman, and it was the first federal budget in history that hit $100 billion, and everyone just gasped at the thought, but now -- >> now it -- >> now we have a trillion dollar deficit -- >> doesn't look like the republicans are helping us any, so will you write a book for them? >> well, let me say that about something about that. i think the republicans, you know, there are people all across the step trouble in both parties, but the -- i was asked -- i was speaking about my other book "known and unknown,"

and at the military base, not the prison -- [laughter] and there were, i think, 1490 majors from mostly our country, but from around the world too. it's a big school there. someone asked me what's the biggest problem i worry about going to bed at night? the answer was american weakness. why do i say that? i think the signal sent out from this country is that basically we're modeling american economies on europe. it's a failed model. it doesn't work. no way you can have the deficits you've had and have the debt we're incurring without sending out a small to the world that this country east not going top what it was in the past. there's no way to do that. if you're not going to act

responsibly, people take that message, and they see it, and you turn around, and when i went to washington, eisenhower was president, and i served with kennedy and johnson in the congress, and we spent 10% of gross domestic product on defense. today we spend less than 4%. our allies in europe spend less than 2%, and the signal that goes out to the world, now with this sequesteration, is that we cut $493 billion out of the pentagon's defense budget and about to cut another half trill bringing it close to $950 billion out of a ten-year budget. the signal that that sends to the world is that the united states is not going to be in a position to contribute to a peaceful and stable world in the decade ahead. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations] ♪ [laughter] [audience reacts] >> mr. secretary, in the rear of the room, a questioner. >> we'll count him as undecided. [applause] >> mr. secretary, i'm in the back here. >> yes, i see you. >> first, i want to thank you for your service. second, i want to ask you in temperature-plus years since the start of the iraqi war, i'd like to know what you thought about what happened, and i'd like to know what you think what's going to happen in iraq over the next few years? >> sure. well, first, with respect to the

popular slogan that bush lied, people died, bush didn't lie. the intelligence was fashioned by george tenant and the u.s. intelligence community. it was studied exhaustively by colin powell who made the presentation for the country, to the united nations. it was supported by the congress of the united states including senators hillary clinton, senator john kerry, senator jay rockefeller, agreed to by our allies. it had been the policy of the united states for a decade that there should be regime change in iraq. it was passed by a democratic house, democratic senate, and signed by becket, the president of the united states. the idea that that has become a theme against president bush, seems to me, is, a, unfortunate,

and, b, a as a result of the fact a narrative is promoted in much of the media which fact factually is not the case. now, on iraq, what's going to happen? i don't know. we know a couple things. we know saddam hussein is gone, the butcher of baghdad, who used chemical weapons on kurds, his own people, his neighbors. we know that he killed hundreds of thousands of people. the mass graves in that country were heart breaking to see. we know that the country still has ethnic divisions among the kurds and the shia, and the sunni. we know, however, that they've elected a prime minister and a president. we know they have a parliament. we know that the people were proud that they votedded. the sunnies didn't participate the first time around and were sorry they didn't, and later

jumped in, and now are participating. is it a tough part of the world? you bet. is it going to be an easy path from where they were to where they are going? no way. it's going to be a tough road, but it was a tough road for us. i mean, look at our countries. we had slaves in the 1800s, killed 600,000 americans in a bloody, horribly bloody civil war. women didn't vote in the 1900s. it's a bumpy road for almost every country. how it'll come out? i don't know. i know they have a chance. i know i have a lot of respect for the young men and women who served over there, and they fought on behalf of our country. [applause] >> hi, mr. secretary, thanks for

coming all the way to the wild, wild west to see us all. we appreciate it. you said you saw one-third of the country's history, so i'd like to -- >> i've lived it. >> you lived it, that's right. >> seen it all. >> that's right. the question is can we turn it around? because right now, you keep seeing one thing after another and another out of the government, and you think that's going to do it, that's going to to do it, turn the american public around, they'll start paying attention, what can we do to turn it around? [applause] >> i think the first thing we have to do is recognize that the idea that any one citizen can't do very much is simply not true. our whole system is rooted in the reality that for it to work, each of us has to participate in

helping to guide and direct the course of the country. some people say, well, maybe i won't vote. there's somebody in the neighborhood who voted the other way. why bother? it doesn't make any difference if you write a letter to the editor, if you stand up and got mayors here and state officials and local officials. people are picking on them unfairly, doesn't matter if i defend them. it matters. it makes a difference. each individual can do a lot. now, what happens? i watched it over the years. every time things got really bad in the country, and plenty of times it's been bad, a lot worse than today. the american people work, and

can you not get it back? there is a tipping point. reach it, i doubt it. i have confidence in the american people, think of all the people who rushed into the world trade center and the pentagon and pulled people out who were burned and dying and injured and frightened. this country's streets were not paveed with gold, and those from other countries and built it into what it is. i've got a website, rumsfeld.com, which i put a peach by ad lay stevenson on that begin to my senior class in college in 1954, and if you've got young people faint hearted who wonder, gee, about the

world, read that speech. he was a democrat. he was governor of my home state. i don't think he would have been a terribly good president to be honest with you. he was kind of a screeb rail type. one of the campaign slogans was, eggheads of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our yolks. [laughter] his speech to my senior class in 1954 # was absolutely brilliant, and i think if you read something like that, you're reassured, and if you think about the people who do stand up and support people and understand how appreciation, you know, i've got a couple titanium hips and titanium shoulder. i wanted all new body parts, but they would not give them. [laughter] in comes a therapist to the house one time after one of my

hips was done, and makes you move this way, that way, and he did it for three days, and i said, look, i'm ad good student, i'll do i it myself now, thanks very much, and i sent him on the way, and he got to the door, turned around, and he said, mr. rumsfeld, can i say something personal? i said, go ahead. he said, well, i came from nigeria, and i've been here, i don't know, five, six years, and he said, this country is so special. he said i don't think those of you born here really appreciate it. he said if you went to any embassy across the globe at ten o'clock or eleven o'clock at night, there's -- an american em embassy, people sleep on the lawn trying to be first in line to get a card to come to the united states of america. it's that important.

we have to pause and think how lucky we are. how special this country is. given that, the answer to the question is i -- and i tried to write this in the last chapter of my book. it is, i think, not a good period for the country right now, but i think there will be a good period ahead, and we've been through tough times before, and i personally have a lot of confidence, and, of course, i came from the midwest, and we're optimistic people. thank you. [applause] >> mr. secretary, in the rear of the room -- [applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'm a current state employee and i want opinions on the recent benghazi situation. >> i think that the question was

about benghazi, and libya, and i think, first, that if you're going to put people into a position of danger, you ought to provide security for them. [applause] if you can't, take them out. it's not complicated. the brits were in benghazi, and they pulled the people out because they knew they didn't have the rights protection and because they saw the threat level. it was obvious. there were al-qaeda related terrorist groups in the neighborhood well armed, and they knew it so they pulled people out. our people were not pulled out, they requested additional security because they, too, knew that there were al-qaeda related organizations in the neighborhood that were well armed, and they did not receive

the security assistance they requested. second, the bush administration had to deal with september 11th, and in my view, they put in place a set of structures there have helped to protect the american people for 12 years sense then and did a good job. what we did not do a great job in is competing in the ideological space against radical islam, and the administration not only has this administration that will not compete there or do what is necessary to do, but they pretend it almost doesn't exist talking about fort hood being workplace violence, which, of course, is simply not true. it is people who rad calls,

determined to oppose the nation state and impose views on the world. it is -- people think when you say it's a war on terror, that it's a war, and it's going to be won with bullets. it's not going to be won with bullets. it's like the cold war. it's going to take decades, and we do not, today, we're not even competing in the ide ideological space as we did against communism, and it's because people do not want to be seen as against religion. american people are not against religion. if there's anything obvious in the country is that we are tolerant of all religions, and, yet, there's reluctance to name the enemy, and you can't win if you're not willing to do that. i -- [applause] on my website, i had a meeting

with a combat and commanders back in 2003, and i got back to the office, and i was concernedded, and i wrote a memo, and it's on rumsfeld.com dated october 13th or 16 #th of 2003, and basically, i said we don't have met tricks to know if we're winning or losing. the war on terror. we have a good idea the number of people killed or captured, but we don't know the number of people recrueted. we don't know the number of people trained in pakistan, funded from people all across that part of the world. we don't know the amount of money being raised and contributed to train terrorists and teach people how to strap on suicide vests and kill people. the purpose of terror is not to kill people, it's no terrorize them, alter their behavior, and

you can't defend against terror because they attack any time, any place, using any technique, and you can't defend every place. it's physically m possible. therefore, put pressure on them, make it difficult to raise money, move between countries, country hospitable to them, and above all, harder for them to recruit and fund the training of a additional terrorists. it's not that complicated issue and it's hards taking decades. don't get me wrong because it's a strong string of radicalism, but it's doable, just ask dealing with the communism threat was over in -- again, not with bullets, but by competing against their ideas. i'll take the next question.

i'm looking for one i don't have to answer. [laughter] i stand by what i meant to say. [laughter] i can't see a thing around here. >> i'm over here. >> someone yell at me. twelve o'clock, good for you, you must have been in the navy. air force? >> i wanted to know what you thought of a democratic president whose been compared to two stands by two major presidents, entering as lincoln, the next one -- >> speak up better for me. >> i say entering -- >> say it again, i don't understand the word. >> ceo -- okay. i wanted to ask you about a democratic president who has been compared to two major

republican presidents. one entering as abraham lincoln's next success sore, and now the -- >> i'm sorry, i can't follow the question. i apologize. what's the word? "entry"? >> no, no, no. what i'm saying is this. what do you think of a democratic president who has been compared to two major republican presidents, first when he entered, he was compared to abraham lincoln. now he compares to the nixon politician. >> i think i get it. [laughter] what do i think? i didn't vote for him. [cheers and applause] [laughter]

>> now, mr. secretary, what we're going to do next is we're live streaming the program globally tonight via youtubeing and we have taken questions over the last few days. we'll put one up, and i'll read it to you because you can't see it. the question is what lessons or practices can politicians and government leaders learn from the private sector? this is from brian wilson in toledo. >> first thing that flashed in my mind was what mrs. thatcher once said that the trouble with cormism -- socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money. [cheers and applause] the big difference between

government and business is that in business you're using your money. in government, your using other people's money. there's a big difference between how people handle their money and how they handle other people's money. it's just true. it's true. it's true anywhere you look. we all behave a little differently if it's other people's money than when it's our own. i -- in the pentagon, it broke my heard when i turned my head for a minute, and i see fans sigh exceptive wood paneling going up in one of the halls, and i said, good -- we wouldn't do that if we were a corporation. the advantage of a corporation is or a company or a business is that they can go broke, and that's a good thing. if it's badly managed, walk down

any retail street in america, go back a year from them. it's 10%, maybe the stores are different. one's gone, something else took the place. dead leaves die, new leaves grow. in government, they don't. they go op and op and on and on, and trying to find some technique you can use to get people in government to manage money like they'd manage their own money instead of how they manage other people's money is a difficult thing. the only way you can do it is for people to be vigilant, for people to understand the federal government ought to be the very, very last resort. you start with individuals, and it's individuals who need help, by golly, look at charitable and nonprofit organizations. next, look at local governments, the closest to the people,

people feel they have some strength and can talk to the people, and they can pick up the phone an call a mayor saying, by golly, i need help on this. if they -- if the local can't do it, then the state. only as a last resort, seems to me, do you go to the federal government, and only if we have people who feel that way and recognize that, and this is such app amazing country, the most generous country op the face of the earth. think of the things that voluntary organizations do and the assistance they provide people, not just in our country, but in all over the world, and there's a -- a congressman from missouri who was a mentor of mine when i was in congress, he used to say, public money drives out private money. if they see government, federal, state, or local, taking over an area, people don't want to help in the area. why pay for it twice? first in taxes and then

separately? they back up. it is true. that is a truth. it's in the book. public money drives -- another one, you start talking about presidents back, first thing came to mind was truman who did a pretty darn good job after people figured out all he'd done, but one of the -- no, he went out of the white house way down, and people talk today about the fact when he was president, my, goodness, think of the things that took place. we had the department of defense, the cia, the national security council, the usia, usaid, i believe, oas, a number of things happened, nato, but one of his rules was if you want a friend in washington, get a dog. [laughter] the rumsfeld corollary was get a doxon, he may turn on you.

get a very little dog. where's the next question? >> mr. rumsfeld -- >> there you are, yes. >> since we're in the nixon center, and he made the opening to china, what do you think our prospects are for continues a good relationship with china? >> i think it's possible. china's a big country. it's app important country. china has trouble with its neighbor, india, border troubles. has trouble with his neighbor, vietnam, border trouble. had it has troubles with mongolia and tibet. it's making mischief in the south china sea, making troubles for the countries operating in that part of the world. they are investing in double digits in their defense capabilities, developing a blue

water navy, and they are going to have a growing presence. could be wrong, the expert on this is henry kissinger, not don rumsfeld, but as i look at it, it seems to me there's a tension between a growing economy, which means there are going to be a lot of people milling around the country with computers, cell phones, all this electronic stuff, probably facebooks and twitters, a enall ash and all that stuff you folks understand so well, and that is not highly compatible with the political system. there's gives. where does it come? if they try to repress all of the activity that inevitably goes on, if they repress it, their economy slows down.

i think. if they don't, the economic side of their economy will do well, but i think it'll probably cause pressures on their political system. i don't know what that means quite, but i think they will have to be changes, and in their political system, how it functions, how it operates, but i guess time will tell. they -- one of the chinese proverbs i always mused over was -- is sometimes you have to kill a chicken to frighten the monkeys. they do that. they do something that's invading india not long ago or

captured fisherman in the islands, and to frighten the among keys and us and everybody else, and but they're measured. they take a long view. i remember reading about defense minister, and he fled the country to go to the soviet union in a certain moment. he must not have. doing well, and his plane was shot down, and he was killed, and a message came in saying his defense minister was just killed in a plane crash. miles' comment was, rain will fall and widows will remarry.

you get a sense of -- they don't spook easily, but i permly think today -- when i was running a company, we had, i think, 5,000 employees in pay wan, and, today, the interaction between taiwan and the coast of china is just extensive. planes are flying back and forth. people are working. we've got -- i bet you three quarters of the employees are now chinese, and they are being led by taiwan businessmen. what's happening? well, what's happening is i think the chances of anything -- if there were to be a conflict between tie won and the people's republic of china, it would be the most colossal diplomatic failure of modern times. there just doesn't need to be. i don't think there will be. what's that mean?

what's it end up? i don't know. india is going to end up, i think, being bigger, and china has real problems, china's still got a lot of government corporations, businesses that are enormous, way over populated, have to be privatized at some point, which means you have enormous numbers of people out of work, and they have to put security forces in to put down the demonstrations and the criticism and opposition faced, and i should at the one baby policy is mindless. it means they are not accepting female babies. they have male babies. they are going to end up with millions, tens of millions of men without women, and their population, the demographics distorted, so they don't have a particularly smooth road in my view. i think that if we manage that

relationship well, it may very well be possible to navigate through bumpy times, but, you know, people say the solution in the south china sea is the law of the sea treaty, and, of course, all the countries signed the law of the sea treaty, and china does whatever it wants. it doesn't do any good at all. i remember when reagan sent me over to meet world leaders and talk to them into posing the law, the treaty, and i sought mrs. thatcher, and i sat down, and she explained what the law, that president reagan and i felt were the key element, and she said, well, mr. ambassador, that sounds to me like the international nationalization of two-thirds of the earth's surface. you know what i think of nationalization. [laughter] you can tell president reagan

i'm with him. it's not solving the problems that people thought. yes, sandy, you look impatient. >> young lady in the front row. >> yes? >> i read your last book, "known and unknown," and i couldn't help but wonder sitting here in thinking about all the tough bosses you had, when you set out to do this book tour, what did mrs. rumsfeld say? [laughter] >> mrs. rums felted, whose name is joyce, and we met when we were 14, in high school. we'd been married since 1954, and if it were a little earlier in the evening, i'd tell you how many years that's been. [laughter] i don't want to guess and be wrong. [laughter] what she says to me when i go off on a book tour is, don,

avoid being infatuated with or resentful of the press. they have their job, and you have yours. that's pretty good advice in dealing with the press. i take that advice about half the time. [laughter] [applause] >> you've been at so many levels of the government, incoming secretary of defense. when you were there, you know all the inner workings of how the government works. in regards to benghazi, what is the time line and should the president have known what was going on, and did he know, and he's just not saying that he does know? [laughter]

>> it seems to me that a leader, if the people are being killed, get the people in the office, talk to them, and says i want ground truth. what's happened? how did it happen? what can we do to save some lives? how do we get this system that's, obviously, broken fixed? instead, he went to a campaign event in las vegas, and the thing political leaders sl have, the currency they have. we don't lead by command in the country, but concept, and we have to be persuasive, and people have to trust, and to the extent you allow that trust to be eroded, you're weakened, and our country is weakened, and it

seems to me that when president obama went to the united nations after everyone knew that it was an al-qaeda related attack, very well armed and organized and contended it was a youtube video that sparked a spontaneous demonstration, this is days later he went to the u.n. and said that, and mrs. clinton went to the families of those killed saying to them, we're going to find the person who did the youtube video. it didn't have anything to do with it. now, admittedly there was a political campaign on, no question that the people running in the political campaign want to win, and there's also no question but that with you have a narrative out there that al-qaeda is over, killed bin laden, it's uncomfortable for their to be terrorist attacks,

but, you know, you -- as huck fin said, you can't pray alive. the truth is the truth, and you need to get ground truth to the extent you're -- even well intentioned, you say things that turn out not to be true, and goodness knows we've all done that. we say something and find later that it was not quite that way. you need to fix it. as a navy pie lot, when your airplane's lost, the handbook says climb, conserve, and confess. get altitude, take a deep breath, and say your loss, and get help. by, golly, that's not bad advice for people in government. we all get lost sometimes. you need to stop. you need to step back. get people in there. say, look, this is not right. we've got to get it fixed. one big problem for the white house is really tough. i mean, the pressure in that place is enormous. too big problems is like ten,

and three is a perfect storm. they've got tough jobs. let there be no doubt about it. the things that they ought to have in the front of their minds is they got to prereceiver the trust of the american people, and the only way you do that is by figuring out the truth, getting ground truth, and saying what ground truth is even if it is unpleasant. >> mr. secretary, two more. the next one we'll take from our live stream youtube audience, and the question is, what was your favorite part about working in the white house? this comes from charlotte, north carolina. >> well, what was my favorite thing of working in the white house was going home at night. [laughter]

it's a pressure cooker. it's a tough place to work. as george schulz says the days are long and the years are short. come on, sandy, the next question. >> no, that was good. [laughter] the next question's right over there. >> good evening, mr. secretary, i applaud your service to the country. >> thank you. >> i'm a recent law school graduate, and the jobs forecast is not well enough in the country, and i'm wondering if you think that the road for this generation of professionals is harder than the one that those had after the aftermath of the implementation of lbj's great society. i know you had a lot of experience with that. >> you know, first of all, congratulations from graduating from law school. i dropped out. [laughter]

.. you question is an important one and i think that i am as they say, i'm from the midwest. i'm an optimist and it is tough not an