discusses his book "rumsfeld's rules," his observation on leadership, politics, war and life. this is about an hour. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you very much. >> let sandy didn't say is that i have lived through one third of the history of the. [applause] which tells you what a young

country it is or what an old man i am. i am so pleased to be here. sandy, thank you for the moderately good introduction george and gaffe then thank you for supporting this institution. we appreciate it. i am a supporter myself and i thank you. alves sandy said life in traveling around talking about the book "rumsfeld's rules." i'm told that you are ready to ask some questions. i will answer the questions i know the answers to bid i will respond to the others. [laughter] but before i do, just a few words about this book.

i spent four years writing my memoirs, "rumsfeld's rules," i mean the known and unknown and as i did that i kept thinking about "rumsfeld's rules" and i decided that i should do that. it started because my mother was a schoolteacher. i started carrying a load cards like this and i still do to this day. she said at the end of the week read them and remind yourself of what they mean and i started writing down the fault or ideas or things that i felt 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 said iran resigned from congress in 1969 in my fourth term and then went into the nixon cabinet and served in of the office of economic

opportunity. and with my first executive's job i started making some notes about that. and then when president ford came and come he called me back to the transition. i was the ambassador to nato at the time. i told them. he'd been a legislator that never served in the executive position. and i told him that i keep those kind of little rules and i don't know what i said to him, maybe something like the staff shouldn't say the white house is calling. buildings can't call. he said what the shavit. you should circulate that to the senior staff and the white house and it ended up being named rumsfeld's rebels and it ended up gaining a life of itself and then new york journal and people

had been reading it for now a quarter of a center of the i guess. but i decided to write a book about the rules. and that is now what has come out last tuesday. i tried to write it in a way that would be interesting to college graduates who were starting at the very beginning to people who were in the middle and had to have meetings. it was the chapter of the meetings. we have a chapter of rustling because i wrestled for ten years that's when you learned the relationship between the effort and results and it's terribly important. everything that you learn is to try to put yourself in their shoes and see what the world might look like for their perspective and that is useful in the negotiations as well. i knew then the present time at

a business and learn the rules like a's tire a's and b's higher c's. it's true. one time my daughter said to me what you think i ought to do? what company should i go to or what business or what state. you are asking all of the wrong questions. the question is who are you going to work around? find someone bright and sparkling because you will find the people around the movie starkly and he will learn a lot. wonder why you? it doesn't matter what you do. be a around those people. she said like who? one was dr. herman, who was a futurist and was an interesting fellow that is long since gone. he was so intelligent and interesting as a person.

but we proceeded to make other chapters, and towards the end as i was finishing the book, i thought about the fact that american business doesn't defend the capitalist system and i saw this occupy wall street. i listened to the national campaign, and i heard people talk about a growing government jobs. [laughter] it reminded me of one of the rules that washington, d.c. is 60 square miles of reality. [applause] the chapter on capital my road

because i was worried that people in business -- christa all very few people and government had ever been in business because it's hard. it's easy for an academic to go into business. they can leave and come back to their world. it's easy for a lawyer to go into government and then come out. it's very hard for a business person. it their small business person, it's their business. they have to be there. of the are in a larger corporation, they get knocked off the ladder and they are out. and it's very hard to re-enter. as a result, you have people in business that my wife tells me that if you are in the government looking at business, you understand it intellectually but it's one dimensional. you don't have any idea. if you are in government what the government delayed us to business. you don't have any idea what uncertainty as to business.

you don't really feel the impact of the regulations. i send my taxes every year and i always add a letter to whom it may concern, here are my taxes to be a i want you to know that i don't have the faintest idea if they are accurate. [laughter] i said i went to college. you know, i've got average intelligence. and my wife went to college and she won't even read them because she knows that she doesn't understand them. and i just want you to know that that is the case. i paid 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] but can you imagine this country with the lousy tax system like that? is an excusable. how many people here understand their taxes? let's see, i don't see many hand is going up.

but, i wrote the chapter because i felt i was in business and i know that a businessman has been a large company has shareholders, the of customers, and they haven't we ease. shareholders, customers and employees are all across the spectrum in the political views and ideas and parties, and therefore business people are reluctant to challenge and criticize the government. they don't want to divide their stockholders or their employees or their shareholders. they also worry about the irs. [laughter] if you don't understand your taxes, you ought to worry. i worry. i mean, i know i don't know. and they also if you were in the pharmaceutical business like i was, you got the fed said the

cut food and drug administration and all of these alphabet regulatory organizations and to the extent someone criticizes the never met or challenges and approaches they're taking the worry that the government could be turned on them, and that is in my view why the current irs thing is so critical because the american people don't want to feel that their government is -- that their government could be turned on them in a way that target's people pity if you can target one person, you can target someone else it doesn't matter if you are republican, democrat. and i think that's why it is so central. now, what i would like to do is have sandy or somebody -- where are these people? do you have microphones? >> i think you do. there you are. i would be happy to respond to questions as i say and even

answer some. i will do my best. what you need to do what i suppose is raise your hand and sandy will bring you a microphone. >> i always hate the first question. anyone that pops up like a jack in the box with a first question scares me to death. >> those lights are bright. they did a good one. i'm going to embarrass you if you don't. [laughter] >> here's what we will do, mr. secretary. >> someone has to turn his microphone on. you had the floor appeared before. >> who has the first question? okay to the you've got it. is your microphone on? >> okay. mr. secretary, i do have two quick questions -- no, i am et one in july. i do not need multi part questions. [laughter]

it is 7:15 and 10:15 in washington where i flew in from yesterday. single part question. [laughter] >> okay. >> but i mean, feel free to go ahead. [laughter] >> first question is will you -- know, you only get one. turn off his microphone. [laughter] >> will you write a book for republicans that says dell will not tax without dipping a tax decrease, thou will not raise expenses without some sort of cut in the middle? i mean i remember when i watched your interview on the letterman show, you suggested that there was a time in which our debt had reached like $100 billion or something like that and the world went crazy.

second i was there. it was in the presidency of lyndon baines johnson. i was a congressman coming and was the first federal budget in our history that it $100 billion. everyone just gasped at the thought. >> but now it doesn't seem like -- >> now is a trillion dollar deficit. >> it doesn't look like the republicans are helping us any. so, will you write a book for them? >> let me say something about that. i think that the republicans, you know, there are people all across the spectrum in both parties. but, the -- i was asked -- i was speaking about leah their book known and unknown at fort leavenworth, the military base, not the present. [laughter] and there were i think 1490 majors from mostly our country

but from around the world, too. it's a big school. someone asked me what is the biggest problem that i worry about when i go to bed at night? and the answer was american weakness. why do i say that? i think the signal that is being sent out from this country is that basically we are modeling american economy is on europe and it is a failed model. it doesn't work. and there is no way you can have the deficits that we have had and have the debt that we are incurring without sending out a signal to the world that this country is not going to be what it was in the past. there is no way that you can do that. if you are not going to act responsibly, people take that message and they see that. then you turn around and -- when my men to washington, eisenhower was president. i came out of the navy and then i served during kennedy and johnson. we were spending 10% of gross

domestic product on defense. today we are spending less than 4%. our allies in europe are spending less than 2%. the signal that goes out to the world now with the sequestration is the week of $493 million out of the pentagon defense budget and we are about to cut another half a trillion which brings it closer to $950 billion out of a ten year budget. the signal that sends to the world is that united states isn't going to be in the position to a more peaceful and stable world in the decade ahead. >> [inaudible] >> [booing] ♪ ♪

>> mr. secretary, in the back of the room, a questioner. >> we will count him as undecided [applause] [laughter] roskam and mr. secretary, i am in the back. first i want to thank you for your service and second, i want to ask you it's been ten plus years since the start of the iraqi war. i would like to know about what you what happened and what you think is going to happen in iraq over the next few years. >> sure. first, with respect to the popular slogan bush lauded people died, bush did not lie. the intelligence was fashioned by george tenet and then you listen to the tonnes community. it was studied exhaustively by

colin powell. he made the presentation for the country. to the united nations. it was supported by the congress of the united states, including senator hillary clinton, senator john kerry, senator jay rockefeller of hitting it was agreed to by our allies. it had been the policy of the united states for a decade that there should be a change in iraq. it was passed by a democratic senate and signed by bill clinton, the president of the united states. and the idea that that has become a theme against president bush it seems to me is unfortunate and it is the result of a fact that a narrative has been promoted in much of the media which just factually is not the case. now, all iraq what's went have been? i don't know we do know a couple

of things. we do know that saddam hussein is gone, the butcher of baghdad that used chemical weapons on his own people come on his neighbors. we know that he killed hundreds of thousands of people. it was heartbreaking 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 have elected a prime minister and the president. we know they have a parliament. we know that the people are proud that they voted. the sunnis didn't participate the first time now and we are sorry they didn't and later joined 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.

look at our country. we had sleeves into the 1800's. we killed 600,000 americans and a horribly bloody civil war. women didn't vote into the 1900's. it is a bumpy road for almost every country. how what will come out? i don't know. i do know they have a chance and i know that i have a lot of respect for the young men and women that served over there and that fought on behalf of our country. [applause] hello mr. psychiatry, thanks for coming all the way to the wild west to see us all. we appreciate it. you said that you have seen about one third of the country's history to it so i would like to know -- >> i have lived it. i have seen it all.

>> that's right. so, the question is can we turn it around? because right now seeing one thing after another after another coming out of this government, and you think that's going to do it to it that's going to turn the american public around. they will start paying attention. what can we do to turn it around? [applause] >> i think the first thing we have to do is recognize the idea that any one citizen can't do much is simply not true. our system is rooted in the reality that for it to work, each of us has to participate helping to guide and direct the course of this country. some people say maybe i won't vote. there are so many in the neighborhood that vote the other way. why bother? it doesn't make any difference if you write a letter to the editor or stand up and you have

some mayors and state or local officials. if people are picking on them on a fairly it doesn't matter if i stand and defend them. it does matter. it makes a lot of difference and each individual can do a lot. what happens? i have watched it over the years. any time things got bad in the country and there are plenty of times it has been bad. in a lot worse than today to lead the american people have gotten out of their chairs and changed their priorities. if the pendulum gets pushed too far one day they get up and they shove it back where it belongs. they've done that. now is it possible there is a tipping point the pendulum gets shoved too far one way and you can't get it back? i suppose there is a tin plate pagen have we reached it? i doubt it. i think -- i have enormous confidence in the american people. think of all the people that

rushed into the world trade center and new york. the people when it was attacked. think of the people that question to the pentagon and started pushing people out that were burned in the dining and injured and frightened. the american people have a lot. these streets were not paved with gold and the people that came from other countries and that built it into what it is. i have a web site, rumsfeld.com. i put a speech by adamle stevenson that was given to my class in college in 1954. and if you have got young people that are wondering about the world, read that speech by adamle stevenson. he had to have any democrat. i don't think that he would have been a terribly good president to be honest with you. he was kind of a cerebral type.

one of his campaign slogans was eggheads of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our yolks. [laughter] but the speech to the senior class of 1954 was absolutely brilliant. and i think if you read something like that you are reassured and if you think about the people who do stand up and support people and understand how precious -- i have a couple of titanium hits and a titanium shoulder. i wanted all of their body parts they wouldn't give them. so in that comes a therapist to the house on time after my hip was done. they need to move this way and that way. he did it for three days. i said look i'm a good student. i can do it myself, thanks very much to be i sent him on his way to get he got to the door,

turned around, and he said mr. rumsfeld, would you mind if i said something personal? i said no, go ahead. >> he said i came from nigeria. i've been here, i don't know, five or six years. he said this country is so special and he said i don't think that those of you that were born here really appreciate it. he said if you went to any embassy all across the globe at ten, 11 from 12:00 at night, you would see, the american embassy coming you'd people sleeping on the american lawn trying to be first in line to get a card to come to the united states of america. it is that important. we have to stop to think how lucky we are and how special this country is. given that, i guess my answer to this question is -- and i tried

to write this in the last chapter of my book. it is i think not a good period for our country right now. but i think there will be a good period ahead. we have been through tough times before. and i personally have a lot of confidence. of course i can from the midwest and i guess we are optimistic people. thank you. >> in the back of the room. [applause] >> thank you mr. secretary. i am a u.s. department employee e and i want to get your opinion on the recent situation in benghazi. >> i think the question was about benghazi and lydia. i think first if you are going to put people into a position of danger, you ought to provide security for them.

ed [applause] then if for some reason you can't, you take them out. it's not complicated. the brits were in the benghazi and they pulled their people out because they knew they didn't have the right protection. the threat level was obvious. they were al qaeda related terrorist groups in the neighborhood that were well armed. they knew that, so they pulled their people out. our people were not pulled out. they requested additional security because they knew that there were al qaeda related organizations in the neighborhood or well-armed. and if they did not receive the security assistance that they request it. second, the bush administration had to deal with september 11th. and in my view they put in place

a set of structures that helped to protect the american people for the 12 years. and they have done a pretty good job. what we didn't do a great job in was competing in the ecological space against radical islam. the administration not only has -- this administration will not do what is necessary to do. but they pretend that it almost doesn't exist. they talk about fort hood as being workplace violence, which of course is simply not true. it is people who are radical and determined to oppose the concept of a nation state and to impose their views on the world. people think when you say it is a war on terror that it is a war and that it's going to be one with bullets.

well it isn't. it's more like the cold war. it's going to take decades. we do not today -- we are not even competing in the eddy logical space as we did against communism. and it's because people do not want to be seen as against religion. some people are not against a religion that there is anything that is obvious in our country is that we are tolerant of all of the religions. and yet, there is a reluctance to name the inning. you can't win if you are not willing to do that. i -- [applause] on my website i had a meeting with the combatant commanders back in 2003. i got back to the office and i was concerned and i gerdemann know and it is on rumsfeld dhaka.

i said basically we don't have the metrics to know if we are winning or losing the war montara. we have a pretty good idea the number of people that are being killed or captured. but we don't know the number of people that are being recruited. we don't know the number of people that are being trained in them pravachol madrassas and pakistan funded from the people all across that part of the world. we don't know the amount of money that is being contributed to train terrorists and to teach people how to strap on a suicide vests and kill people. the purpose of terror isn't to kill terrorism, it isn't to kill people, it is to terrorize them, to alter their behavior. you can't defend against terror because they can attack any time and any place using any technique and you can't defend every place every day every moment it is physically impossible. the only thing you can do is to

go after them where they are come up pressure on them, make everything they do more difficult. harder to raise money come harder to talk on the phone, to move between countries come to find a country that will be hospitable to them. and above all the harder for them to recruit and fill in the training of additional her breasts. it isn't that complicated. it's hard. and it will take decades -- don't get me wrong. it's a very strong strain of radicalism. but it is doable. just as is dealing with a communist threat was again brought with bullets, but by competing against their ideas. so, i will take the next question. i'm looking for 1i don't have to answer. [laughter] >> this is probably -- >> i stand by what i meant to say. [laughter] >> i don't see a thing around

here likes of where they are people who have the microphone? someone you love me. 12:00? good for you. you must have been in the navy. >> i wanted to know what you thought of a democratic president who's been compared to the two major republican presidents as abraham lincoln the next one, and now -- >> you have to speak up will get better for me. >> i said -- >> i don't understand a word. >> wanted to ask you about a democratic president who has been compared to two major republican presidents. one entering as abraham lincoln's successor, and now the politicians -- >> i can't follow the question to. what is the word you are using?

entry? >> what i am saying is what do you think of a democratic president who has been compared to two major republican presidents? first, when entered he was compared to abraham lincoln. now he compares to the nixon politician. >> i think i get it. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. secretary, what we are going to do next is we are live streaming this program globally over youtube, and we've taken

questions over the last few days. we are going to put one up and i'm going to read it to you because you can't see it. the question is what lessons or practices can politicians and government leaders learned from the private sector? this is from brian wilson of tolino. >> the first thing that popped into my mind is what he said that the trouble with socialism is that eventually you ron elbe of other people's money -- you run out of other people's money. in business you are using your money and in the government using other people's money and there is a big difference between how people handle their money and other people's money.

it's true. any way you look we all became a little differently because it is other people's money when it is their own. in the pentagon it broke my heart when i turned my head for a minute and see fancy expensive wood paneling going up in one of hall's. and i would say we wouldn't do that if we were a corporation. the advantage of a corporation or of a company or a business is that they can go broke. and that is a good thing. it is badly managed, walk down any retail street in america. go back a year from then, 10% mabey would be different. one is gonna pivoted someone else took its place. the dead leaves by the end of the new ones grow. in the government they don't.

they go on and on and on it. and trying to find some techniques that you can use to get people and government to manage money like they manage their own money instead of how we manage other people's money, it is a difficult thing. the only way that you can do it is for people to be vigilant, for people to understand that the federal government ought to be the very last resort you start with individuals and if they need help, by golly you look at the charitable and nonprofit organizations. look at the local government. the closest people feel they have some strength and can talk to the people and make them pick up the phone and called them a year and say by golly i need help on this. if the local can't do it, then the state only has a last resort

it seems to me do you go to the federal government p. getty and only if we have people who feel that way and recognize that. this is such an amazing generous country in the face of the refuting the of the things voluntary organizations do and the assistance they provide people not just in our country but all over the world. and tom curtis our congressman from missouri who was kind of a mentor of mine he used as a public money drives out private money. if they see the government, federal state or local cooking over an area, people don't want to help in that area. first for taxes and then separately. so they back off. and it's true that is a truth that is in the book. another one, when we start talking about the president's the first thing that can to mind was harry truman who did a pretty darn good job and after

people figured out all that he had done. he went out of the white house way down. people talk today about fact that 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 u.s. aid and any number of things happened. nato debate about one of his rule was if you want a friend in washington, get a dog appearing at and the rumsfeld corollary was get a box docksen. >> mr. rumsfeld -- >> there you are. >> since we are in the nixon center and he made the opening to china, what do you think our

prospects are for continuing a good relationship with china? >> i think it's possible. china is a big country, it's an important country. china has trouble with its neighbor, india. it has trouble with its neighbor of vietnam, border trouble. it has trouble with mongolia and tibet. it's been the lot of mischief in the south china sea and it's causing difficulties for the south koreans and taiwanese and the japanese and other that have been 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 is henry kissinger, not donald rumsfeld. but as i look at it, it seems to me there is a tension between a

growing economy, which means there will be a lot of people living around the country with computers, sells phones come all this electronic stuff, probably facebook and trotter and all that stuff you younger folks understand so well. and that is entirely compatible with a dictatorial communist political system. where will the giving come from? if they try to repress all of the activity that is inevitably going to go on if they allow the cell phones and computers and all that. if they try to repress it, their economy will flow down, i think. and if they don't, the economic side of the economy will do well but i think that will probably syst. pressure on the political

i don't know what that means quite but i think there will probably have to be changes in their political system and how it functions and operates. but i guess time will tell. one of the chinese proverbs that i have always kind of music over is sometimes you have to kill a chicken to frighten the monkeys. and they do that. they do something -- they invaded part of india not long ago where they captured some fishermen in the islands to fight the monkeys and us and everybody else. but they are measured and they take a long

i remembered reading that they had a defense minister that fled the country to go to the soviet union at a certain moment. he must not have been doing well and his plane was shot down, and he was killed and a messenger came in and told him that his defense minister had just been killed in a plane crash and his comment was rain will fall and widows will remarry. do you get a sense of -- they don't spook easily. but i personally think today -- when i was running an electronics company we had i

think 5,000 employees in taiwan. and today the interaction between taiwan and the coast of china is just expensive. planes are flying back and forth, people are working. three-quarters of those are chinese and they are being led by the taiwanese business managers. what's happening? what's happening is the chance of anything -- if there were to be a conflict between taiwan and the people's republic of taiwan i think that it would be the most colossal am i am diplomatic failure of modern times. i don't think there will be during it and what does that mean. india was going to end up i think being bigger. china has real problems and china still got a lot of government corporations, businesses that are enormous,

way over populated have to be privatized at some point which means at some point you will have enormous numbers of people out of work and that have to put security forces in to put down in the demonstrations and the criticism and obligation that they are going to face. and i should add the one policy is mindless. it means that they are not accepting female babies. they are red end up with millions, tens of millions of men without women and the population is a demographic of being ordered. it's to navigate through some bumpy times. some people were running around saying the solution in the south china sea is still law of the

sea treaty. and of course of those countries are assigned the wall of the treaty and china keeps doing whatever it wants. and it doesn't do any good at all. i remember when president ronald reagan sent me over to meet some world leaders and talk them into opposing of the law of the sea treaty, i went to see mr. -- mrs. thatcher and i explained what i thought were the key elements. she said well mr. ambassador, that sounds to me like the international position of two-thirds of the earth's surface. and you know what i think of the nationalization. you can tell president ronald reagan the plane with him today and that is not solving the problems. >> of the young lady in the front row, sir. as i read your last book and i

couldn't help but wonder as i was sitting here thinking about all the tough bosses that you have had when you set out to do this book tour what did mrs. rumsfeld say? [laughter] >> mrs. rumsfeld, whose name is joyce and i met when we were 14 in high school -- we have been married since 1954. and if it were a little earlier in the evening. i would tell you how many years that has been. [laughter] but i don't want to guess and be wrong. what she says to me when i go on a book tour is avoid being infatuated with or resentful of the press. they have their job and you have yours and it's pretty good

advice when you are dealing with the press. i take that advice about half the time. [laughter] [applause] >> you have been met so many different levels of the government including the secretary of defense. when he for their you knew the inner workings of how the government works. in regards to benghazi what is the timeline, should the president had known what is going on and if not, is he just saying that he doesn't know. [laughter] >> it seems to me that if people are being killed, what gets people in the office, talks to them and says i want the ground

truth. what's happened, how did it happen, what can we do to save lives and how we get the system that is obviously broken fixed? instead, he went to a campaign event in las vegas. the thing that political leaders have, the currency they have, we don't lead by command in our country. we believe by consent. we have to be persuasive and people have to trust. it to the extent that you allow that to be eroded, you are weakened and the country is weekend. it seems to me that when president obama went to the united nations after everyone knew that it was an al qaeda related attack, that they were very well armed and organized

and contended that there was a youtube video that sparked the spontaneous demonstration, this was days later that he went to the u.n. and said that, and mrs. clinton went to the families of those that were killed and said to them we are going to find the person that did the youtube video and it didn't have anything to do with it. admittedly there was a political campaign and there is no question the people that were running in the campaign want to win, and there is also no question that when you have a narrative out there that al qaeda is over, we killed osama bin laden, it is uncomfortable for there to be terrorist attacks. but you know, you can't pray a lot. the truth is the truth. you need to get the truth to the extent even if you are well intentioned you say things that turn out to be not true.

goodness knows we've all done that. we say something and then find out later that it wasn't quite that way. you need to fix it. as a navy pilot when your airplane is lost, the handbook says klein, conserve and confess. get altitude, take a deep breath and say that you are lost and get help. by golly, that is not bad advice for people in government. we all get lost sometimes. you need to step back and get people in there and say look this isn't right. we've got to get it fixed. one big problem for the white house is really tough. the pressure in that place is an enormous. two big problems is like ten and three is a perfect storm. they've got tough jobs. let there be no doubt about it. and the things they ought to have in the front of their mind is they've got to preserve the

trust of the american people and the only way that you do that is by giving out the truth coming getting the ground truth and saying with the truth is even if it is unpleasant. >> mr. secretary, we are going to do two more. the next one we will take from our live stream youtube audience. the question is what was your favorite part about working in the white house? this comes from charlotte north carolina. >> my favorite thing working in the white house was going home at night to degette [applause] it's a pressure cooker. that is a tough place to work. as george shultz said the days are long and the years are short

>> let's have the next question. >> you're next question is right over there. >> good evening mr. secretary. i applaud your leadership and thank you for your service to the country to the eye and a recent law school graduate. and i know like many of us the jobs forecast this isn't well enough in our economy and i'm wondering if you think the road for this generation of professionals is harder than the one that those have after the aftermath of the implementation of lbj's great society. i know that you have had a lot of great society with a lot. >> congratulations of graduating from law school. i dropped out. [laughter] >> it is a true story. i went a year and a half i have a wife and child and i went back to how you to manage a campaign and decided to go back to illinois and run for congress. do you know how many lawyers

there are in the department of defense? 10,000. is that breathtaking? we have such a litigious society that everyone has to get full year that every lawyer down the chain of command. you know your question is an important one. i am as i say from the midwest i am an optimist and i think it is tough and there is a wonderful editorial in well wall street journal -- mulken editorial but a book review on a book that bill bennett wrote about is college worth it, which talks with the cost of going to law school or college and the value that the society gives to that, the enormous investment of time and money. my goodness it is enormously expensive and the debt these

people have when they come out of college it is tremendous. but the short answer is for people who want to stick their head down and work hard and contribute, there is a bright future. my guess is that you will do just fine. [applause] >> i think i'm going to get the hook and i'm going to get the obligatory cup. [laughter] >> thank you. let us find him for being here this evening. [applause]

>> we see now of those buildings and we can see humanity coming from union station and we knew that it was going to be big.

who was supposed to be leading the march? the people were already marching to the it was like saying those are my people, let me catch up with them. the sea of humanity pushed us so we just walked on and started moving towards the washington monument, towards the lincoln memorial. it was a wonderful period i think in american history.

next, fred kaplan, author of the insurgents david petraeus and the plot to change the american way of the war. from washington journal this is 40 minutes. >> wednesday is a last hour of the washington journal. we pay attention to the recent magazine articles as part of the spotlight on magazine series. today we are talking with fred kaplan who read a piece for mit technology review in their july and august edition of the drones and the headline is the world as a free fire zone. let's begin with where the history of the technology. where did it come from? >> it is a very curious history cubist art in the mind of a physicist named john foster who had been the head of livermore

labs. he was the top scientist in the pentagon and a model airplane in the easiest for many years and he got into his head that this hobby could be the basis for a new kind of a weapon system. this was back in the 1970's a little more than four years ago. you could take a pilotless plane and put a camera and its belly and fly it over the enemy targets. somehow the technology didn't exist now but somehow trans test the footage back to some headquarters which would then get a good close look at the targets, and maybe at some point you could even load of bombs or to inside of this pilotless aircraft and maybe with the aid of some kind of a joystick push a button at headquarters, bomb the target as well. this was back in the cold war

days. the idea was to hit, you know, the soviet tank columns or ports or runaways deep behind the enemy lines and slowed down the pace of an invasion of western europe. but the idea that was in his head at least the weapon itself is very close to what finally materialized in the mid nineties to be a >> who was robert and how did the technology evolves under him? >> he was kind of a leading nuclear strategist at the corporation and the 50's and 60's. of around the mid 70's, one of the scientific high-tech agencies was in the agency called the advanced research project agency looking for some

ideas on how to deal with the soviet union in a way that wouldn't involve the nuclear retaliation. they paid him to do a study and he went through some of the ideas that were on the blueprints and discovered this idea which had since been turned into a prototype of sorts. the pentagon is coming up with prototypes of of zillion different things all the time. this one actually went somewhere because it coincided with the new strategic doctrine and of a study that brought the two together. he then outlined a vision of what the new weapon system could be. at this time in the mid to the late 70's, the microprocessor revolution was beginning. they're really were things like millimeter sensors and the

actively incorporated into the weapon systems and this kind of fantasy foster had in the early 70's was becoming more and more plausible. >> as you said and you write in the peace the final version emerged in the 1990's as the so-called predator. how was that used and what was its purpose? >> well, it was first used in an actual setting in bill clinton, and at the time it was -- they just had a camera, but again i was like foster's vision. it was a very small lightweight plane that existed in the hundreds. it flies over the territory and has a camera. the camera takes digital footage. the images are transmitted to a satellite, which in turn beams it down to the headquarters