of this book is "a mere machine" and i thought the people probably would not have jefferson quote in the back of their mind so i wanted to put in the jefferson quote in the front of the book and the press thought that might look like thomas jefferson had endorsed the book so they wouldn't vote on it. so the idea was "a mere machine" is what we should be thinking about in our courts. we should be designing institutions such that we are restraining our courts are mapping the power to overturn the actions of the democratically-elected legislature. >> host: and the harvey is a professor of politics at new york university, the author of this book "a mere machine" the supreme court, congress and american democracy. thank you. >> guest: thank you.

next on booktv leon panetta talks about his career in public service ranging from his years as a u.s. representative from california to his most recent post as secretary of defense. this is about an hour 15. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good evening. thank you for coming. i am list titled deputy director of events at pulitzers -- politics and prose bookstore. ours is a cherished cultural partnership and we are in the throes of another dynamic season of events together. please check out our web site for more information. we also host events in our bookstore on connecticut avenue and almost every night of the year we offer a wide range of cultural trips, literary classes and book clubs. please stop by and visit us. but tonight at six and i we have the honor of welcoming leon panetta. mr. panetta has a long and storied career as a public

servant. in 1976 he was elected to the u.s. congress where he represented california's 16th congressional district for 16 years. he acted as president clinton's director of the united states office of management and budget and then as his chief of staff from 1994 to 1997. he founded the leon and sylvia panetta institute for public policy and in 2009 he became the director of the central intelligence agency. from 2011 to 2013 he served as the 23rd united states secretary of defense under president obama. tonight mr. panetta comes to us with a new memoir, "worthy fights." in it he examined his life and political legacy with a focus on his time as secretary of defense. his unwavering sense of morality and belief in the exhausting work of public service radiates off of every page. as david ignatius writes in the "washington post," panetta comes

across in his book is a man who has never shirked the fight he thought was right. tonight he will be in conversation with my gallant chief white house correspondent for politico and the man behind politico's playbook. my guess is "the new york times" famously pegged him the man the white house wakes up to. he is written for publications including ty the "washington post" and "the new york times." as bob woodward declared you don't have to do anything else. just read mike allen. they will be in what promises to be a lively conversation for roughly 40 minutes. afterwards we will invite you to join in with questions. ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome leon panetta and mike allen. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. appreciate it very much and

welcome to you and lab street land. as somebody pointed out to me that this is more expensive than hbo and demand so we will try to make that worthwhile. my chief of staff and his lovely wife robin. [applause] and jeremy's parents are here as well and i thank them for coming. you want to thank politics and prose and six then i've for some amazing setting. welcome to all of you in the balcony as well. we appreciated as we kick off. mr. secretary you have been out for a week now talking about "worthy fights." you have another week to go and you're about to head to california. earlier today did you get tougher questions from the readers at gw or at hopkins? [laughter] >> cosco was kind of tough. people are shopping big,

shopping for big things there and they want you to deliver the best product you can then i told him to read the book. >> that's pretty big. mr. secretary as we heard in the introduction you worked for city government, federal government, given that republican and a democrat. he has been legislative specialist executive assistant was in washington as our -- director of the u.s. office of special breaks congressman and white house budget director white house chief of staff secretary of defense to what is left on your bucket list? >> while i'm waiting for the pope's position to open up. [laughter] i enjoy being back home. as i said i have a walnut ranch out there and it's nice to be home working with a different

set of nuts so i enjoy it. >> overall have your experiences are enviable but you have done one thing that i'm not sure everyone here would be jealous of. you have been roommates with senator schumer. [laughter] >> yeah, we were all kind of bachelors back here and our wives are back in the district. we came back to washington and we were all living separately. george miller had a house up on the hill and george miller eventually, we were all friends and we go to dinner and he finally said one away all kind of stay together. we all moved in to george miller's house and it was for congressman, myself george miller or landlord chuck schumer and a guy named marty russo from illinois. chuck schumer and i were on the bottom floor and he slept on the

couch and i had it bad that i had moved into one corner in the room downstairs. this was truly animal house. this was really animal house. chuck was the kind of person, i mean chuck would munch on anything. my son every once in a while would come back and stay with me and he would buy a serial because we didn't have any cereal. we didn't have any food. most of the time we ate out. he would buy cereal for himself and schumer before he would go to bed would eat the dan cereal. [laughter] my son would always wake up and say what the hell happened to my serial? i said i'm sorry, schumer took care of that. >> it was an early washington lesson. mr. secretary you with the most amazing life for those of us here in washington. there are so many things to learn from in "worthy fights."

you go back to the beginning and you talk about when you were running for congress and it wasn't even near the beginning for you but you talk about running for congress and he talked about tip o'neill later was your speaker came out to campaign for you and it didn't go so well. >> tip came out and it was wonderful to have him. a big irish man from boston. we did a fund-raiser with the democrats and tip one up there and he said you know i want you to do everything possible to work for leo panetta. my good friend leo panetta. and he said it several times. fortunately most of the crowd took it in stride because he was enjoying himself. he had a few scratches and everybody enjoyed the evening. but from then on when i did get

elected and i went to congress there was another congressman whose name was norm panetta. he was japanese-american and tip with constantly wind up calling me norm. and he called mineta leon. the real problem was the carter white house screwed up as well. the carter white white house when the italian prime minister came to town, they invited norm mineta. to the white house. [laughter] and when the japanese prime minister came to town they invited me. finally norm and i put a baseball team together and they said we played under the sign of the rising pizza. that was our team. >> one thing that we see in this book mr. secretary's wheeling and dealing with congress.

president clinton's crime bill. we saw a very effective speaker. what is it that he did in that you did then that dell is basic? >> they rolled up their sleeves and wanted to get it done. it's probably the best way to say it. tip o'neill who was political, democrat from boston all politics is -- our local was tip to tip had a heart that i think was unmatched in terms of wanting to do the right thing for the country. and so whether was ronald reagan or carter or whoever was present, tip was really devoted to trying to help not only the president of the country. even though it might be somebody from the opposite party he felt it was important to move

legislation, to move proposals forward. i will never forget when ronald reagan, when reagan was -- and with brought the budget to the floor. i was on the budget committee at the time. we brought the budget to the floor and we lost the budget vote. we lost the budget vote which was devastating to majority party to wind up bringing a budget to the floor and have it be lost. a lot of the southern democrats supported ronald reagan when that happened. and tip didn't miss a beat. he lost it. the republican budget came up. he was passed. he didn't stop it. he didn't shut down the congress. he basically said this place votes by majority rule and it did. he lost the vote that he said we

are going to move on and we did. and what was refreshing about him was that i think you really respected the fact that the house is an institution has to have the opportunity to vote on issues and he also believed, and i mean you hear talked about now which is regular order. what regular order means is the way they legislative process is supposed to work. the president sends up a proposal. he goes to the committee, goes to a subcommittee. the subcommittee holds hearings. the subcommittee goes to the full committee. the cold full committee marks but tops the bill, goes to the rules committee and then it goes to the floor were amendments can be offered on the floor. that process allows members to be a part of the process which is missing today. members can be part of the process if they can be engaged

and they own a little piece of that bill. as a result of that, they will help move it through. that's why a lot of legislation in my time was bipartisan. >> something else that is missing now is that adept working of congress. you have said that there was a grand budget bargain to be had between boehner on the president. what ended up happening? >> well, look. first and foremost i remember when the whole simpson-bowles came out and don't forget this was a commission that the president appointed. ..

>> joe biden was kind of reading the charge to develop and approach. i think there was a moment where everybody kind of stood by, you know, with what they thought they had agreed to that we could have had a budget proposal. but there was some last-minute wavering and i don't know if it was the president or john boehner, they were giving key,

john boehner was getting heat from the republicans and the president was getting heat from the democrats. and at that point when there was wavering there was trouble spelled there. >> democrats as much as republicans about how they feel neglected by this president, why is it that he has never manage that relationship? >> i think that, you know, part -- part of the process in this town has to be the engagement with people who art in political position up on the hill that you may not like. let's not face get around, let's face it. one hundred members of the congress and senate all from

different parts of the country. some are smart, some are not smart, some are honest, some are dishonest. and someone to do the right thing and others do not. but it is a cross-section of america. and there's a lot teeple, numbers of people that are just very tough to deal with. and yet the challenge is to engage people. and i think the president, i think that he believes that he presents an issue and the logic of an issue and that people should embrace it. bill clinton and barack obama, both of them are quick studies on you brief them in terms of understanding issues and they ask great questions and deep

down both of them want to do the right thing for the country. but the differences that bill clinton loves the political engagement and loves the process of rolling up the sleeves, dealing with individuals, he loved politics and he knew every member's district and they would say you're running the wrong campaign. and you're running on the wrong issues. so let me tell you what you ought to run on and they would tell you what the issues were that they would run on. so he was engaged in that process and that makes a difference. and i think the president obama is not into that kind of political engagement he wants to work with people on the issues and to get it done, it is like everything else and it is a

personal process of wooing people, listening to them, understanding what their needs are, understanding how you can convince them what is in their interest to do the right thing. it is the entire process that ultimately results in getting things done and that is where the president has to engage in terms of dealing with the issues that now confront the country. >> one of the many personal relationships is the relationship with the foreign minister of israel. can you tell us about that? >> he and i were friends going back to the clinton administration when i was chief of staff and have the opportunity to work with them. we've developed a strong friendship and i see that he has a very remarkable background in terms of history of the family

and he used to ask me the history of my family. and we both kind of share long family histories. he played the piano and i played the piano. i am sure that he is better than i am. [laughter] but we both enjoy classical piano. and he is someone who i found that you could really talk with in terms of what is in the interest of israel and what is in the interest of the united states, and how can we work together to try to serve the interest of both. and as defense minister when i was secretary of defense, we had some tough issues to deal with because at one point benjamin netanyahu had indicated that israel was prepared to go ahead and strike iran because they were very concerned that iran was developing enriched fuel

that they could speak to the development of a weapon. their feeling was this was representative to the state of israel and this is how they do things. they have the obligation to protect their country and that is what they do. that we were suddenly going to have a war break out in the middle east. i talk with them about it and said that we have the same goals and we do not want iran to have a nuclear weapon. but if you attack them you're just going to give them a black eye and you will have destroyed the international coalition that has developed all of these sanctions and put pressure on iran. besides that, they will then come back with a vengeance in terms of developing a nuclear weapon. but if we do this together, the united states has an even greater capability to make sure that you really do damage in

their ability to develop and enrich fuel. and we talked it through. ultimately he thought that we did have a better capability to frankly do it if we had to and i think a common nation of him talking with benjamin netanyahu and others, convincing them that they were willing to hold off until we could see what happens with iran and ultimately the negotiations. so it was a strenuous moment for me, but the joy i had was working with him. we also work together on providing military aid to israel. and one of the weapons that we provided was a weapon that involved these missiles that can strike down the missiles that were coming out of goss a recently. and so was very effective at bringing down those missiles,

almost 90% in terms of effectiveness. both of us were responsible for helping to put that weapon in place. >> with the introduction of we just heard, there was a quote from a favorable review with sunday's outlook section on the cover, the headline of that review is wider than leon panetta seek that sooner and would it have been better to speak out at the time and perhaps even resign on principle? >> i was always one who believed in speaking up and letting the president know my views. i never hesitated that way and i've done that throughout my life. i always thought was important. i did it with bill clinton and i do that with barack obama. tell them what you think. tell them if you think you're

going to do the wrong thing. they may not like you or your views, but they should -- the president of the united states should not have just a bunch of yes people around. >> does this president have that in a. >> i think at the time i was there at the national security council, there were a lot of people. >> what about now? >> secretary gates and secretary clinton and others -- i don't know. i honestly can't speak to how it works now. but there are some good people there, obviously smacked you worry? >> i worry that you have to have individuals on the staff for national security council that are willing to challenge what is being presented and to tell the president about their concerns about certain paths that may be taken. that is extremely important and i can't tell you how true this

is. but i have seen it as chief of staff to bill clinton and i have unit, you know, in the white house under this president and i'm sure it's true under other presidents as well. people get in a room with the president of the united states and they are immediately intimidated. and they don't want to say something to the president that might offend him. as a matter of fact, one of the things that i often sense is that oftentimes everyone's trying to read the president. and then they all try to march in line. and that is really important for the president of the united states to be exposed to a lot of different theories. the president ultimately makes the decision. but to be exposed to a number of views the present to him -- you know, what are the consequences of different positions decisions and what is the impact in terms of the country? so to go to your western, i

would say my position and presented and sometimes the president would agree, sometimes not, i do have this day that within the four years i was there and the president largely agreed with the operations that we were involved in what we were trying to do at the department of defense -- that's not much of a endorsement. >> he embrace those operations. but there was always some of the operations where there was a discussion as to just exactly how we would do it and we might do some revisions as a result of that. he strongly supported the operations that we were involved with and i think that he was right in doing that. certainly he supported the operations against osama bin laden, which was very risky. and i give him tremendous credit for making the right decision on a. >> in your book, aligning your book that has gotten the most airplay is too often in my view, the president relies on the

logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader. you are the second in a row whose memoir question is presidents facility and spirit as commander in chief. >> there's nothing wrong with having the approachable situations when you are dealing with the issues confronted as president. i don't find those that use a law professors kind of approach to analyze issues. but in the end they need to have the heart of a warrior and they need to be able to take on the battle and get it on. and that is the challenge. i have seen this president do it, but i would like to see him do it more. i would like to see him engage in the battles that have to be thought in order to try to get legislation passed on the hill. i would like to see him engage in the effort to try to do what needs to be done and to get a budget deal past and to get the

structure funding done and to get trade legislation passed, to do an energy bill for this country. these are all important issues and i know that congress is resistant and they are tough and there are people there that basically want to tear down the government cannot make it work. but you cannot just sit back and say that i guess we can't get it done. you cannot say that. you have to continue to push and you have to continue to look for openings and you have to can continue to work with the people who work with you. it demands constant pressure to be able to make it work. that is the nature of being the president of the united states is that you have constantly be in the ring fighting for what is right for this country. >> have you heard from the president since the book came out remap. [applause] >> i have not. >> we sent him a copy of the

book. [laughter] >> actually we sent a couple of months ago. but we never heard anything in terms of commenting on the book. >> have you take that? >> welcome i don't know how to take back. i assume that they probably have read the book. >> what do you think your next encounter with president will be like? >> you know, i've been around almost 50 years in politics. and i have engaged residents and members of congress and, you know, sometimes you challenge people and sometimes you fight people in the process. but in the end you roll up your sleeves and you say that's all part of what democracy is all about. sometimes we agree, sometimes we

disagree. i respect those that i work with. i respect this president. i want him to succeed in every way. they respect the office of the presidency and i certainly will continue to respect him in the office no matter where he goes. >> so in a comment by aaron david miller, disappoint her in chief. why has he failed to meet so many people's expectations? >> you know, look, i think that the president has, certainly in the first term, i think he did take on the issue of the economy and was able to turn the economy around and that is to his credit. he took on the issue of health care and was able to put importable care act in place. that is to his credit.

i think that he made the decision on bin laden, which was a tough decision and that is to his credit. and i think for the first four years that this president was a very strong president when it came to being able to push the issues that he wanted and being able to provide the leadership on foreign policy issues that he needed to provide. i think that in the process of doing that, there are liberations and part of the process in the white house, and i remember bob gates been being concerned about it when he wrote it in the book, which is that when you are in the national security council and your secretary of the ends, you feel like you are wanting to have the president hear what you have to say. and i think that there was a sense that the staff in the white house sometimes got to the president for us to try to move the president in a certain

direction and then one of the defense department to go along with that particular position. and i think that that is what offended gates because he is someone who believes in the process of policy making. >> did you have a similar view remapped. >> i have some of the same experiences in dealing with the staff and for that matter, i am sure what secretary clinton have her experiences was the same as well. some of that is frustrating. >> so what did you experience that disappointed or frustrated you in regards to the staff? >> it's the process of having your policy people develop a strategy, develop the elements is what you think should be presented. as you are about to present it, having white house staff say no, no, don't do that, do this or do something else to try to assess

exactly what you are presenting. and i think the president is entitled to the best use from the secretary of defense and the military leaders and that those shouldn't be shaped necessarily by what the white house staff wants. what they need to do is to allow a process that provides the best from the secretary of state and the secretary of defense to be presented so that the president can ultimately make about this decision. not only can she those decisions before they go to the president. >> you have seen this president behind the scenes almost more than anyone. as a leader, what is he like behind-the-scenes? in the book you write about how to blow off steam and he would do to with crossword puzzles. what does this president do? >> i don't think he does crossword puzzles. you know, i think that these very serious minded.

he basically looks at the issues and reads into the issues. >> what's he like mcafee joke around? >> you know, well, i think he watches basketball. you can talk about that with some of the sports going on. we have talked about that. but he's not someone who chats. no, he sure as heck isn't bill clinton in terms of chatting. [laughter] is much more serious minded and much more disciplined. bill clinton was not very disciplined. [laughter] >> for barack obama is very disciplined in the way he behaves. it's a very different character. for me, i know that bob gates kind of reflected in frustration with that process. but for me, i understand that

process, having been through it as chief of staff and having been in politics, i understand that kind of process that goes on there. but in the end i do think that even though we had to fight our way through it and that in the process, in the end the president would pretty much agree with the positions that we recommended and he said that and i've said that as well. >> you don't want to go to the white house if you are looking for plus and. [laughter] >> you know, go to the caribbean or go to quiet, but don't go to the white house. the white house is -- it is a place where you have to engage you want to get it done. you have to love your sleeves and you have to get into the process and, you know, frankly i like the process of engaging with people even though they may

not agree with you, the challenge of talking and debating and saying why you should do something, it's really important. let me give you an example. we have captured a number of russian spies who have been placed her at one point. and we had to proceed to arrest those spies because we were concerned that one of them might go back to russia. so there are 10 of them, very smart move to the russians, they have placed them here, long time ago they developed their community relations, they married and had children. they have become part of the community and then ultimately they moved. fortunately we were aware of what we were doing. we were going to proceed to arrest them. but the problem is that the president was meeting and there

were some people that said, you know, maybe we shouldn't arrest them. because it might upset our relations with russia. and i said, excuse me? we've got russian spies here. [laughter] now, i want you to envision "the washington post" headlined, if we don't arrest these people and pick them up. so even though there had been some debate, i could see the lights go on in their eyes when i said that. the result was a sad, okay, we should do that, and we did and thank god we did it. but that is part of the process that you have to engage in. >> when the secretary says, excuse me remap. >> while you were shopping at costco, the white house press

secretary josh earnest said the strategy against the islamic state state is that we are succeeding. he said we are in the early days of the expectation of that strategy would certainly be evidence indicates the this strategy is exceeding. is that true enact. >> i think that the right pieces are in place. i think that it's been tested though. and i think the jury is still out as to whether or not ultimately we are going to be on the right path in terms of dealing with isis. the right pieces are in place, we have our troops trying to help with the iraqis. we have airstrikes and a coalition, a pretty strong coalition put together to try to go after it. but isis is well-trained and funded and individuals that are well armed.

plus they have combat command that knows how to make this move on the ground and they're going against cho bonney, they are moving in the provinces. they are hitting us on different fronts and i think that we are the ones that are going to have to be able to adapt to their strategy and to be able to confront them. we are in the process of doing that. i have full confidence that we will be able to do that. but it is going to take time. it is going to take time. we may very well suffer some losses. >> mr. secretary, you said the jury is out on whether or not we are on the right path. what worries you about the current path? >> i think that the key is that you really need to have sources on the ground that can tell you what is happening and what is taking place so that you know

what the targets are that have to be struck, you know what the dynamic is in terms of the ground forces that are moving and trying to make a difference. in iraq, i think that it's pretty clear we can develop iraqi security forces to be able to go in and retake the land that was lost. the real key there is whether or not we can get the sunnis to be part of that effort. if we can get them to be part of that, i feel confident that we can do that in the right direction. syria is a much different ballgame. it is chaotic, we don't know exactly what is going on on the ground. the key is can we develop resources that we need in order to be able to get that done? understand and counter terrorism, which we have been involved with for a long time now, the key to counterterrorism is having the ability to identify those targets that the

leadership -- what the targets are and to be able to hit those targets. to develop those sources in pakistan took us three years. to develop them in yemen took us one year. so it's going to take time. it will take time to develop the sources of information that we need in order to conduct the operations that i think would be effective at ultimately defeating isis. >> senator mccain said that the candy coating of isis, they are winning and we are not. >> you know, i think that is going pretty far for senator mccain figure that is the case. because they obviously have moved forward and they've gained territory. they do represent a threat. but these airstrikes are effective in stopping the momentum and inhibiting their ability to move as fast as they want to move.

so we have been effective at stopping the momentum. but the real question is can we continue to do that and can we continue that pace and can we continue to hit the right target so that we are effective in using airstrikes. that is going to be the challenge. but i really do think that we have come a long way in this war against isis and that we have at least set them back. the real challenge now is can we move against them in a way that can not only does rub them that defeat them we met mr. secretary, you mentioned the autobiography a couple of times. there's a great moment when you're getting ready to make this extraordinary move and you first learn that secretary gates took you aside after meeting and said, i'm about ready to go. and i just want you to know that i'm going to recommend you to

succeed me and in the book you point out that he left something out. and in the book you say i didn't know then and only learn from memoirs that he had also talked to billy clinton and michael bloomberg and others. [laughter] to no, that's right. when bob gates said that, we have gone to lunch -- we used to have regular lunches for the intelligence operations cia and others within the operation to talk about intelligence issues with the secretary. so was after one of those lunches when he pulled me aside and said, you know, i want you to become this. and i said i think it's time to go home. we just got bin laden. i said it's a good time to get

the heck out of here and go home. you know? when you leave washington, leave it behind. and so i said i really want to go home. we have done this, we did well and i remember he said i need you, you understand the troops, you understand the need to really protect them and to do it. and i really resisted and said go and get someone else, look at others because there are others, colin powell and others and they ought to be recommended. and then, you know, bill daley, the chief of staff follow that up and basically made the same offer and i told him, you know, talk to others. because i really don't want to do this. the reason was -- i will tell you, i don't want to say beyond

four years in the administration and defense secretary if i'm secretary of defense, you should have someone who is going to stay longer in that position and they said no, it doesn't make any difference, you would be great, do it, get it done. and i just said no, look at others and try to make that decision. and then i think it was on one of the flights back to washington where the president called me directly on the plane and said that he wanted me to take that position. so again from my life when the president of the united states usually ask you to do something, out of respect for the office, you do it. >> we read your book and we have the feeling that some of these national security questions -- there have been times when the president has taken action or resisted action that is almost

like on different sides. you agree with that? >> i have to say that when i was there back, there was a very good give-and-take in the national security council and that we all had a chance to present our views to the president. as a matter of fact, what we did with the president and around that table and asked for everyone's views, many of the people around the table thought that the operation was too risky. and i can understand it. we didn't know for sure whether bin laden was there. he would have to fly 150 miles at night into pakistan. and to be able to conduct this commando operation not knowing what kind of resistance we would run and here. there were a lot of people around the table including secretary gates that was very concerned about the risk involved as were others.

and i remember when the president asked me. i said i have an old formula that i used going back to congress that when you face a difficult decision, think about asking the ordinary citizen in your district if you knew what i knew and what would you do. and if the ordinary citizen knew that we had the best information on location of bin laden and that this was the one opportunity to try to get our number one enemy, i think the average citizen would say that you have to do to us. in addition to that, i have tremendous confidence in the ability of special forces to conduct operations. but the president did not decide that night. and frankly if you had to talk about that, i would say probably there was a majority that were opposed to the operation.

>> and you were for it? >> there were others that were for it as well. but i didn't know. i didn't know. the next morning, you know, we had everyone in place and the president called and said that it was a go. so that process is okay. and i think that that is the way that it should work. everyone has to present their views, but in the end the president of the united states makes the final decision. >> he then had to go to the white house correspondents dinner and we learn in this book that you also at that dinner, you are at the time magazine table and you had also disagreed? >> oh, yes, we all needed to keep our mouths shut. [laughter] >> spirit there were a lot of jokes were going on at the time. >> so when you are on the hill

and even in the white house, you are grateful that you are not known for being discreet. [laughter] >> and you become suddenly the keeper of the secrets. how did you pull that off? >> it was toughest tech. [laughter] >> you know, it was tough as hell. and as a member of congress, i would talk with them about what was going on and i would always enjoy that relationship and even in the white house as chief of staff, enjoyed a good relationship with the press and with others as well. and really kind of liked the give-and-take of the process. you know, now i am eia director and i have to keep my mouth

shut. and it is much tougher because you still want to have that engagement and to be able to day what is owing on and what is happening and that's one of the things that you like about this town is the ability to kind of, you know, look at different pieces, who is on first, who is not getting anywhere and who is trying to screw who. that's all kind of fun in this town. but as director of the eia, we have to keep it confidential. a good example was on the plane when i would take a trip as cia director, we didn't bring press along. there was no press. so i go into a country and the take me wherever i went and we visit with the leadership, went to visit with the stations and when i was secretary of the ends, we had a whole horde of

people that were part of the contingency [inaudible] >> wilhite sic him on him. [laughter] and i tried to be able to -- and frankly the first few times when i was secretary of defense, got in trouble for making comments that i would make to people a little bit. when in the movie "zero dark thirty" he played me, he wrote and said i'm italian, you are italian, i know you don't like the way that i played this role, but i have a lot of respect for you. and i called him up because i'd met him a couple times before. and i said, i'm just glad they picked an italian to play my role. but, you know, you did a great job in the movie. it is a movie. he really did fine. and he said yeah, but, you know,

one thing that really bothers me was that they made me swear a lot. and i said, you know, that one thing that you got right. [laughter] and speaking of swearing, there is a rumor in here. there's a rumor that he got his language from you. [laughter] >> i doubt that very much. [laughter] >> and i heard you talk about when he worked for you in the clinton white house. [laughter] >> so the story that i did tell is that he is a real go getter. and he moves and he does it and

sometimes he will step on anyone to get it done. and the president said actually him and george stephanopoulos, the president said i really think we should move them out. and i was becoming chief of staff and i had work with them and they are both bright and capable people who have a good pulse on the political side, especially george, and he's someone if you tell him to take the hill, he takes the hill. so i kept saying, let me work with him. let me bring him under my wing and we will try to make sure that we control what they are involved with. but i really do think that they could be valuable. and so i managed, instead of having them walk in the meetings, i would bring them in one i wanted them to be part of

the meeting and i think it worked out and the president finally became comfortable with the fact that they were there. because both of them were extremely bright and able. and it's an example that sometimes, you know, people who are good may be tough and they may get in your face, but the key is, do they do the job? and if they do the job, you darn well want to keep them. >> there's a couple of microphones, feel free to come down and we will take your questions while you are doing now. this book, a number of times secretary clinton is on that argument and the effect of this is should there be a clinton presidential campaign and this will be very helpful. >> i will leave that up to the

candidates. [laughter] >> one of the things i try to do in the book is to cheat the system so that people understand that in order to really get things done and you have to do, you do have to roll up your sleeves and fight for it. >> but wish you luck behind closed doors? >> very tough but very thoughtful, she knew the issues, she didn't speak without knowing the issues and what she was saying. i think it was always effective when she did speak up because people would listen. smack in the debate she will be able to say don't listen to me, listen to secretary of panetta. >> i am sure that i will be quoted both good and bad a lot. >> was that your intention? >> know, and i wrote the book to basically tell my story and i'm

pleased that i did and i hope others will do with it as they will. >> hello, i'm wondering if you could add the governor of california to that bucket list. [laughter] >> you know, i've been in public life almost 50 years and going back to my time in the army and all the of the other positions that i've held, i really enjoyed it and that is the story that i tell in the book is all of these positions. and i really enjoy going back to my home and to my wife into our dog and our sons and grandchildren and having the opportunity to enjoy my family. and so that is what i'm going to focus on. and also we have an institute for public policy to try to inspire young people to get involved in public life.

i really do think that we have to get young people interested in getting into public life because they represent our future and frankly they are the ones that will have to make a difference. >> hello, there's been a lot made since your book came out about centralization and the white house staff controlling a lot, people saying that the national security council are making a lot of decisions instead of providing strategy to the president. you think that that is the case and if the process is broken as you mentioned, what should we do to fix it? >> that's a good question. and by the way it hasn't just happened in this administration. this has been a process that has been developing over the last 20 or 30 years in white houses. and what has happened is that

more and more power has become centralized in the white house. and in the white house staff. and a lot of what you're saying is reflective in the decision-making process away from the department of state and away from the department of defense and bringing those decisions into the white house through the white house staff. now, no question that proximity to the president is power. the closer you are to the president more power that you have heard the what has happened is that when one of these issues, domestic issues, defense issues and national security issues, they are drawn into the white house and the result is that, that turns out usually a lot of the decision-making process and when the departments are called in airplane ketchup.

and it distorts the way the process should work. presidents get couple of having people around him and they can walk down the hall, walk into an office talk to someone about a problem that is taking place or crisis taking place and members of the cabinet are not really part of that process anymore. they are largely used by this in the cabin of the white house. but it's true. you know, people who are very good and capable, most of them -- you don't remember who they are in the fact is that they are good people trying to run the department, they know the policies, but they aren't brought in to process the way they should be.

and so somehow what you have to do, i really think that you need to reduce the amount of people in the white house staff and you still have the key positions and you have to open that process up more to those that are in these key positions in the administration. not only to the white house but to the president as well. >> very quick questions and very quick answer. [inaudible question] >> i was there when the statue was dedicated. in your book, the legacy that you have created a exciting and it was a long fight for that. and then there was offshore chilling for most of the parts of california and i want to

thank you. >> thank you very much. it is one of the fights that i talk about, the fight to protect our coastline. it happened during the reagan administration and decided to put up or coast for sale to the highest bidder for oil sales and i remember going insane, what the heck are you doing. so i understand that you have to sell some of these areas for oil drilling. but what about these national treasures? you want to protect them for the future and he said no, no, let's just make the process. so that is when we were able to put legislation together to stop that process from moving forward and ultimately what i did was introduce legislation to create this national marine sanctuary in monterey bay to protect that area for the future. so was a very great fight.

[applause] >> thank you so much for being here. i'm curious about the tensions between short-term response when it comes to security and i'm just wondering how do you strike that boundary to respond in a way that appears effective and especially in regards to sustainability and security. >> it's a very good question. the reality is that when you are implementing a defense strategy, it has to contain both of short-term element and the long-term element. if we are using isis as an example come you have to basically stop the momentum that is going on at the same time you have to be thinking about what is the long-term strategy here. what are the long-term

objectives and part of the problem is -- and i think everyone recognizes is that in a rock i can see the objectives there and we can put the iraqi military together and i think we can get them in the right place and get the sunnis to be part of that and we have a ground force that can hopefully move against isis and regain the territory that has been lost. we can back it up with airstrikes and help with people on the ground. i can see the object of their and i can see a clear path to push them back. but syria's much more difficult and i don't see that kind of clear picture about just exactly how are we going to deal with them. yes, we will try to deal with an opposition force. but we don't even know if there is something called the moderate opposition force that we can make work there. in the meantime, what the heck do you do in terms of

confronting isis? you need to be able to stop them from doing things that they have been doing. so syria is going to be a much tougher one to try to feel out. but if you're going to conduct the war against it, you have to think both about the short-term to make sure putting him on their heels and then also the benefit about the long-term objective in order to ultimately defeat.and that is going to take a longer time. >> following up on the last question in looking beyond this as we move in a new era of counterterrorism, i wonder what you think about this and what is the goal for the counterterrorism strategy? >> that's a good question. i consider all of what we are

doing as part of a larger continuum that goes back to 9/11. and, you know, we all have short-term memories in this country. i just had a chance to visit the 9/11 memorial in new york city and to punch in the stomach to walk through that memorial and see what happens and what happened on that day. it's tough to bring those memories back. but the fact is that we were attacked. we were attacked by al qaeda. they killed 3000 people and as a result of that attack we went or against al qaeda and the war on terrorism. because they were an enemy and they attacked us and we did not want them to attack us again. so we went to war and we did a pretty good job at going after them using counterterrorism capabilities and we did undermine the strength of their leadership. and now we have this metastasis that is taking place with isis

and other elements involved in terrorism. and i think that we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with terrorism. part of it is counterterrorism. using that capability to target leadership to undermine their ability to be able to attack this country. part of this has to be cultural educational in dealing with how we prevent young people from choosing al qaeda and choosing isis is something they would do. that is a much tougher strategy and it has to be part of how we address the threat of terrorism and we can't just do this on the military side that we have to do the on the tide of how we improve the opportunities for the future and the education and the ability to participate in the opportunities that life has

to offer. to do that, we will have to work with other countries to get that across. saudi arabia is doing some of that, and i think we have to incorporate those kinds of strategies as part of the effort to address this war on terrorism. >> hello, i'm a student in public policy. thank you so much for this speech and your service in public service. so what do you think about the roles of the united states and united nations in regards to international peace and security. >> that is a good question. yes. you know, obviously all of us would love to have the united nations that could work effectively to try to deal with the crises in the world and i think that was designed of

rankling roosevelt and carry tremendous rushing the united nations and this would be the ability to deal with challenges in the world. unfortunately the united nations has been bogged down in its ability to respond to crisis until almost anytime a crisis breaks out, you would like the u.n. to respond and that's probably the best way to try to get countries together to do it and then immediately it hits the wall in the security council and nothing happens. so it continues to fall back on the shoulders of the end as the president himself said, when people get in trouble, they call the united states and as we have seen in recent events if the united states is in providing that leadership, and no one else will. i wish that were not the case. we would love to the nato and other countries say let's get

together to respond in this crisis. whether it's the united states or not, but it's the united states that drives the process and that frankly has to be the role of the president and the role of this country. we have the value system to ensure that we are the leaders in a world that is facing a number of dangerous strikes. >> i'm sorry, we are running out of time but we can take to ascends. >> thank you. it's an honor to speak with you tonight. my question touching on something you spoke about earlier is what advice would you give a young person today looking to her a career in public service? >> you know, i think the best advice to jump in and get involved as we take polls.

they are discouraging because young people are sometimes discouraged by this. they are turned off by the sense that public servants are really doing what they are supposed to do, they are just fighting each other and not getting things done. so the inspiration that i had to get into public service is not just my parents in the army but a president who said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. and so i looked at public service is a higher call. now that is tougher. so my recommendation is for those of you that are interest in to get in it, get into it and see what it is like. economy legislative assistant on capitol hill or an intern on capitol hill. get involved somewhere in the public policy section and loans how the process works or fails to work. learn from that and don't get caught up in the politics of left and right and immigrant and

republican. get in it, learn it, evaluating what it has been and what you can do to make a difference. the most important thing you need to know is that you can make a difference. i felt that i could make a difference in the jobs that i have and i can tell you is young people get interested in government, they can make one heck of a difference. i would frankly like a stalemate in this town to change from the top down. i would love it if the leadership decided to work together to deal with it. i don't know if that will happen but i do know one thing. if that doesn't happen, it is going to change from the bottom up and voters will say, okay, we need to have people who are going to be willing to engage and, you know what? people your age. let me tell you something. why am i hopeful? because i've seen men and women in the military put their lives

on the line to fight and die for this country. if they are willing to fight and die for this country, i think there should be leaders that are willing to take a little bit of that rest in order to govern the country. >> a speaker tonight is the formers due to money president of monterey hyatt. >> hello, my name is mckenzie. i'm a senior at the university of maryland and i study international relations and government politics. a lot of pressure for the final question, but i'm always interested in the relationship between the department date and the department of defense. could you speak a little bit more would you have anecdotes about one time when you guys went head-to-head in terms of politics and one time when you had to work together?

>> each department obviously has its own bureaucracy and they all kind of operate in their own area. and yet when you are dealing with a critical issue like afghanistan or isis or other things, it's very important that you work together. you have the diplomatic arm of the government working with the the defense arm of the government to be able to work together and get things accomplished. and frankly a big part is the personalities that are involved. and i just have to tell you that secretary clinton i because of her history of working together, we were able to work together because i said that we work with the office to get this done. so they went, we would set up

conferences together. we went to the u.n. together to meet with the defense officials from the different arab countries to try to develop their security capabilities. she was at the table, i was at the table, we work with the australians to try to develop and improve that aligns with the australians. and we did things together in europe. ..

[laughter] >> i think that there should be you know somebody who runs for the presidency who's got great experience and great dedication in this country and if it happens to be named clinton that's okay with me. >> if hillary clinton ran for president would you support her? >> sure, absolutely. >> after her last campaign the headline was for the money they brought and the clinton campaign should have done a much better job. how will it be different this time? >> well you know i think it's a huge challenge now. they're so much money in politics now that it scares "the

hill" out of me in terms of this kind of open warfare that you see playing out on television between the various pacs associated with it. i understand the game. you have got to raise money in order to compete against money and i'm sure clinton is doing it better than anybody in terms of being able to raise money and that's okay. but i really do think you have to broaden that effort so that ordinary citizens are contributing funds to a national campaign rather than just relying on big packs to provide that money. too much fund-raising is done in new york, chicago, silicon valley, l.a. where the big money is and not enough of that fund-raising is done among the american people themselves. >> secretary why do you think she should be president? [laughter]

>> you know she is somebody that i see who is dedicated to this country. she is smart, she's experienced and she is tough. what the hell else do you want? [applause] >> to end the conversation are like no note. you are a foodie. you are a foodie even before he talked foodies. where do you like t when you are in washington? [laughter] >> you can't say cosco. >> you know there is no place in washington in comparison to the food i get at home. amazon i make my own. my mother used to make gnocchi and she taught me how to make it and i have yet to go to a

restaurant that makes it as good as i do. [laughter] >> it's time to sign some books i want to thank all of you are watching and livestream land and thank you to political for lecturing it and thank you all for being here in person and thank you for politics and prose for putting this together and what a treat and thank you secretary panetta. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]