produces some changes to make those markets and have a bit more integrity and a little bit less risk of catastrophic damage. >> in the book you write that you're quite pleased with dodd-frank. he felt that it really did make a difference to go along ways making this financial system and you also write about this and someone would like you to comment on why this guarantees authority and why this is problematic. so can you talk about that in the context of some of the things that aren't so great about dodd-frank? >> let me just describe two of the most important things they heeded. we did put in place a new frame for consumer protection, better accountability, it will be

better, it won't be perfect but better at the stuff that happens. against the risk of future financial crises we have much better authority to impose much more undertaking much more broadly. and so the ones that existed a flight to about 40% of this and they were too thin. but now they are much more conservative and probably much more broadly, that is a much more restricted bank on consolidation and we have forced big banks to hold much more capital and this is a systemic surcharge. and it's better to dismember large institutions like bear stearns and aig and others. those are all good things. but in this extra deeply populist moment in washington,

they took away some of this that was so important to protect from the much worse recession. they took away the guarantee authority and i think less consequentially do a lot of tightening up for stuff that i recommended. and i felt that the fed shouldn't be able to do specific interventions like this. so if you want to do for specific things, that should be less of this in the government. it was one of the most effective things that was done to limit the force of this and it's the only way that you can break. what happened was congress got caught up in the belief that in finance the fire stations cause fires and it's not true.

it just doesn't happen that way. they got caught up in this belief that somehow if you limit the tools available you make fires less likely and that is not true. and so that is where the condition that authority and what that means them is that it's so deeply unpopular, it will be late like it was this time and that is going to be a very costly thing. but if you look at the reform these core reforms limiting risk are very powerful and they are very well designed. and they have the chance of buying us a long time of relative stability. not permanent. because those people as they

become more confident, this will be migrating around the constraints. but the reforms, i think, are really pretty good. >> i think we have time for one last question. are you still doing your taxes their? [laughter] >> i have a good education and the complexity of the tax system and generally believe in paying for advice. [laughter] >> thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> on the next "washington

journal", the chief economist of the national association of realtors on the housing and mortgage market. and we will talk with correspondent joanna kitson author of the book steamrolled. "washington journal" is live with today's headlines with your calls and facebook comments and tweets every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> coming up on c-span2, leon panetta and then treasury secretary leon panetta in his book, "worthy fights: a memoir of leadership in war and peace." then we had timothy geithner, author of "stress test: relections on financial

crises." >> coming up next, leon panetta talks about his courier in public service ranging from his years in california to his most recent post as secretary of defense. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good evening. thank you for coming. i am the deputy director of politics and prose and i would like to begin by thanking you. we are in the throes of another dynamic season of events together. please check out our website for more information. we also host events in our bookstore on connecticut avenue and almost every night of the year we offer classes and book clubs. please stop by and visit us. tonight we have the honor of speaking to leon panetta who has a long and storied her as a public servant. in 1976 he was elected to the u.s. congress where he represented california's 16th

congressional district. he acted as the instructor of the united states office of management and budget and as a chief of staff from 1994 to 1997 he founded the institute for public policy and in 2009 he became the director of the central intelligence agency. from 2001 through 2013 he served as the 23rd united states secretary of defense under president obama. tonight he comes to us with a new memoir and in it he examines his life and political legacy with the focus on his time as secretary of the. his unwavering sense of morality in the exhausting work of public service radiates off every page. as written in "the washington post", he is a man who always

fight mike is, as "the new york times" pegs him, man we demand to wake up to you. as bob woodward declared, you don't have to do anything else homages read this. this is what promises to be a very lively conversation after which we will invite you to join in. ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome leon panetta and mike allen. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. welcome to all of you who are here, somebody pointed out to me

that this is more expensive than hbo in demand and we will try to make that worthwhile. mr. secretary before we start here, would you like to say hello as he did last time? >> yes, i would like to say hello. >> yes, jeremy spencer here as well. we want to thank everyone here. we welcome you all and we appreciate it as we kick off talking about were the fights. earlier today we are getting tougher questions from the readers. >> well, costco was kind of

tough. because people are shopping for big things they are and as you heard in the introduction we worked in city government, you've been a democrat, a lawyer, and the army intel office, in washington this is good. house budget chair and the white house chief of staff, so what is left on this bucket list? and i'm waiting for the pope's position to open up. [laughter] >> you know, i enjoy being back home and as i said it's nice to

be home working with a different set of nuts. [laughter] and so almost all of your life 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] >> yes, we were all kind of bachelors back here when our wives were back in the district and we were all kind of living separately and george miller had a house on the hill. we were all friends and we would go out to dinner and he finally said what we all stay together, so we all moved in to george miller's house and it was chuck schumer, a guy named marty riso from illinois and chuck schumer and i were on the bottom and he

slept on the couch and i had a bed that i lived in in the one corner of the room downstairs and this was truly an animal house. [laughter] and chuck was the kind of person, he would munch on anything. my son every once in a while would come back and stay with me and we didn't have any cereal then and so he would buy cereal for himself and chuck schumer before he would go to bed would eat the cereal. so my son would always wake up and say, what happened to my cereal. and he said, i'm sorry, that was chuck schumer. so it's an early washington lesson that happened. >> you live the most amazing

life and there are so many aspects of it to learn from and you go back to the beginning and you talk about when you're running for congress. but you are talking about running for congress and you talk about one individual came out to campaign for you and it did not go so well. >> well, chip came out and it was wonderful to have him, a big irishman from boston came out and we did a fundraiser with democrats and he went out there and said that i just want you to do everything possible to work for leon panetta. my good friend leo. and he said it several times. most of them kind of took it in stride because he was enjoying himself, he had a few scratches. and everybody enjoyed this.

but from then on when i did get elected and i went to congress, there was another congressman whose name was norman and he was japanese american and he would constantly wind up calling the norm. and he called him leon. and the real problem was the carter white house screwed up as well. when the italian prime minister came to town they invited him to the white house. and when the japanese prime minister came to town, they invited me. and finally norman i put a baseball team together and we played under the sign of the rising pizza. >> one thing that we see in this book, mr. secretary, is in dealing with congress we help

with the crime bill and we have a very effective speaker. so what we do then and what we do now that is missing? >> well, they rolled up their sleeves and they wanted to get it done. o'neill was political, he was a democrat from boston, all politics are local. but he had a heart that i think was unmatched in terms of wanting to do the right thing. and so whether it was ronald reagan or carter or whoever was president, he was really devoted to help not only the president but the country and so even though it might be somebody from

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

and he said that we are going to move on, and we did. what was refreshing about him is that he really respected the fact that the house institution has to have the opportunity to vote on issues. and he also believed, and you hear your it talked about. regulative order and that's how it's supposed to work. the presidents and that the proposal and it goes to a committee and it goes to a subcommittee, the subcommittee holds hearings, the subcommittee goes to the full committee, the full committee marks it up and adopts the bill and then it goes to the floor where amendments can be authored on the floor. in that process allows members to be a part of the process, which is missing today.

if members can be part of the process and they can be engaged, then they own a little piece of that bill. and as a result that they will help to move it through and that's why it a lot of legislation in my time with bipartisan. that is also something else that is missing now is that that is what an adept working congress was. you said that there was a grand budget bargain that they had between he and the president. >> first and foremost i remember when the whole simpson-bowles recommendation came out, this was a commission that the president appointed. the president when they reported their record and it was bipartisan and there were some numbers that did not report it, it had a bipartisan vote supporting simpson-bowles and the president asked me should he

supported and i said that he should. i said you should support those, mr. president. it is your commission, they have been working at it it is bipartisan and you may not like each of the pieces. but the fact that they came together is important and i said if you support this chances are the congress is going to have a hard time with this proposal, but you will be in the right place. you will be in the right place. and for whatever reason he didn't support it. and so we go to the budget negotiations and it was this kind of back-and-forth and joe biden was leading the charge to try to develop an approach. and i think there was a moment there where everyone kind of stood by what they thought they had agreed to that we could've had a budget. but i don't know whether it was

the president or speaker boehner, it is probably both of them, i'm sure the president was getting some heat from the democrats and at that point when there were some wavering going on, i think that spelled trouble for them. >> i know that you hear an earful from democrats as much as republicans as to how they feel neglected by this president. why is it that you've never manage that relationship with her? >> i think that part of the process in this town has to be the engagement with people who are in political positions upon the hell and governing as top. that means you have to deal with people you may not like. 435 members of congress, 100

members of the senate all from different parts of the country. some are smart, some are not, some are honest, some are not. some want to be driving and some do not it's a cross-section of america that is represented and there are a lot equal and particularly today probably more in terms of numbers of people that are just very tough to deal with. and yet the challenge and the legislation is to totally engage people. so why doesn't the president do that? i think that the president believes that part of it if he presents an issue in the logic of an issue and that people should embrace it and that he's not, the difference between bill clinton and barack obama, both who are extremely bright and capable and i think they are quick studies when you freeze

them in terms of understanding issues and they ask great questions and deep down both of them would like to do the right thing for the country. we want to do the right thing for the country. but the difference is though clinton loves the political engagement and the process of rolling up your sleeves and dealing with individuals and he loved politics. he loved dealing with numbers and he knew every member's district and every member would come in and he would say you're running the wrong campaign. and he would say that. you're running on the wrong issues. and he would tell them what the issues were that they were running on. and so he was definitely engaged in the process which makes it different and i think the president obama is not into that kind of personal political engagement. he wants to work with equal and he wants to work with them on the issues. but to get it done, it's like

everything else, it is a personal process of a sickly wooing people and listening to them and understanding what their needs are and understanding how you can convince them what is in their best interest to do the right thing. and it is that 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 him. >> one of the many personal relationships that you explore new book is your relationship with the foreign prime minister of israel. he tell us about that? >> he and i were friends going back to the clinton administration was the chief of staff and i had the opportunity to work with him. we developed a strong friendship. and he has a really remarkable

background in terms of the history of his family and used ascii the history of my family and i told them that and we both kind of shared a warm family history and he plays the piano and i play the piano. >> are you better? >> oh, i'm sure he's better. i'm sure he's better than i am. but we both enjoyed lascaux piano. and he's someone that i found you can really talk with in terms of what is in the interest of israel, what is in the interest of the united states, how can we work together to try to serve the interests of both. as the defense minister when i was secretary of defense and we had some tough issues to deal with and they were very

concerned that iran was the developing be enriched fuel in their feeling was this represented a threat to the state of israel and they had the obligation to protect their country and that was what they are going to do. i can remember that we were suddenly going to have a war break out in the middle east. and we will have destroyed the international coalition that has developed all these sanctions and put pressure on iran and i set aside that, they will then come back with a vengeance in terms of developing a nuclear weapon. where as if we do this together

that includes their ability to develop enriched fuel. we talked it through and ultimately we do have a better capability to frankly do it if we had to. so i think that the combination of him and convince them that they were willing to hold off until we can see what happens with iran and ultimately the negotiations. so it was a strenuous moment for me but the joy that i had was working with him and we also work together on providing military aid to israel. so one of the weapons we provided was a weapon that involve these missiles and these

were the missiles are coming out of gaza recently. and then both of us were responsible for this. >> there was a quote from a favorable review on the outlook section of the cover. the headline of that review is why didn't leon panetta do that turner sooner? would it have been better to speak out at the time and perhaps rely on principle? >> frankly i was wanted 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 trade i always thought it was important and i do that with bill clinton and i did it with barack obama, tell them what you think. if you think they're going to do

the right thing, if you think they're going to do the wrong thing, they may not like you or they may not like your views and on the other hand the president of the united states should not have just a bunch of yes people around. >> is this president have that? >> will i think at the time that i was there at the national security council there were a lot of people like secretary gates and secretary clinton and others that i think spoke their minds. i don't know about now. i really don't. i cannot speak to how it works now because there are some good people there, obviously. >> do you worry? >> yes, i worry that you have to have individuals on the staff on the national security council who are willing to challenge what is being presented until the president about their concerns about certain past that may be taken.

that is extremely important. and i can't tell you how true this is. but i have unit is the chief of staff to bill clinton and i have seen it in the white house under this president and i'm sure it's true under other presidents that 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. and sometimes everyone is trying to read the president, where is he going, then they try to fall into line. and so that is really important for president of the united states to be exposed to a lot of different views. the president ultimately makes the decision. but to be exposed to a number of views that can present to him what are the consequences of

different decisions and what is the impact in terms of the country. so i would state my position and present it and sometimes the president would agree and sometimes not. i do have to say in the four years that i was there, i think the president largely agreed with the operations that we were involved in and what we're trying to do at the department of defense. he largely agreed with the operations. it's not much of an endorsement. but there was always some of the operations where there was a discussion just to how exactly we would do it. and we might do some revisions as a result of that. but he strongly supported the operations we were involved with and i think he was right in doing that and certainly he supported the operation against bin laden which was very risky and i give him such tremendous credit for making this. >> a line align in 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 reader. you are the second in a row whose mr questioned this president facility of energy. >> there is nothing wrong with having to coach of a law professor and dealing with some of the issues that you have to confront this president and i do not mind presidents who use this as an approach to analyze issues. but in the end they need to have a heart of a warrior and they need to be able to take on the battle and get it done. and that is the challenge and i've seen this president do it and i would like to see him do it more. i would like to see him engaged in the battles that have to be taught. in order to get it passed on the hell i would like to see him engaged in the effort to try to

do what needs to be done and to get a budget deal passing to get immigration reform passed in to get infrastructure funding done and to get trade legislation passed in to do an energy bill for this country. these are all important issues and i know that congress is resistant and top and there are people there that basically want to turn on the government cannot make it work. but you can't 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 continue to work with those people who work with you and it demands constant, constant pressure to be able to make it work and that is the nature of being a president of the united states is that you have to constantly be in the ring fighting for what is right. >> have you heard from the president since the book came out way back.

>> i have not. >> we sent him a copy of the book. [laughter] and actually be senate a couple of months ago. but i never heard anything in terms of that. >> i'm not sure how that would work. i assumed that after now they had read the book. so what do you think your next encounter with president will be like? >> i have really been around almost none of engaged members of congress and 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 that is

all part of what our democracy is all about. sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. and i want this president to succeed in every way. and i certainly will continue to respect him in the office no matter where i'm needed. >> that same had a second piece with a headline about disciplinary and chief. >> you know, 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 he took on the issue of health care and was able to

put the affordable care act in place. that is to his credit and i think he made the decision on bin laden, which was a tough decision. that was to his credit and i think that for the first four years as president was a very strong president when it came to push the issues that he wanted and i think that in the process of doing that there are these collaborations and part of the process in the white house and i remember bob gates being concerned that when you are in the national security council and secretary of defense, you feel like you want to be able to have the president hear what you have to say, i think it was the sense that the staff in the white house sometimes got to the

president first and tried to move him in a certain direction and then wanted the defense department to go along with that particular position. i think that is what offended him because he is one who believes in the process. >> did you have a similar situation? >> i'm sure that the secretary did as well. >> what did you experience the disappointed or frustrated you. >> we try to develop the elements of that strategy which we think should be presented and as you are about to present, having the white house staff saying no, don't do that, do this or do something else to try

to affect what you are presenting and i think that the president is entitled to the best views from the secretary of defense for military leaders and that those shouldn't be shaped necessarily by what the white house staff wants but what they need to do is to allow a process that provides the best views from the secretary of state and the secretary of defense to be presented so that the president could ultimately make the decision not to backdoor the process in order to shape those decisions for they go to the president. >> we saw the president behind the scenes more than almost everyone and as a manager of a person, what is he like behind the scenes? we write about this. what does this president do? >> i don't think he does crossword puzzles.

[laughter] >> you know, i think that it is very serious minded. he basically looks at the issues and he reads into the issues. ..we talk about basketball sometimes. likes she the sports going on with'll talk about that. but he night -- >> host: he is not a chatter. >> guest: not a chatter. sure as hell isn't bill clinton when it comes to chatter. [laughter] >> guest: much more serious, much more disciplined. bill clinton was not very disciplined. [laughter] >> guest: but breck broke is very disciplined in the way he behaves. so a very different character. for me, i know bob gates kind of reflected a frustration with that process. but i have to tell you for me -- i understand kind of that

process, having been through it as chief of staff and certainly having been in politics, i understand that kind of process that goes on there. in the end, i really do think that even though we had to fight our way to it, even though we had to fight sometimes the white house staff in the process, that in the end, the president would pretty much agree with the positions that we recommended, and gates said that and i said that in the book as well. >> host: doesn't sound like a very pleasant place. >> guest: you don't want to go to the white house if you're looking for pleasant. [laughter] >> guest: go to the caribbean or go to hawai'i. but don't go to the white house. the white house is -- it is a place where you have to engage. if you want to get it done, you have to roll up your sleeves and have to get into the process. and i frankly -- i like the process of engaging with people.

enthough they may not agree with you, the challenge of talking, of debating, of saying why you should do something, was really -- it's really important. let me give you an example. on -- we had captured a number of russian shies who had been placed here -- russian spies who had been placed here, and we lad to proceed to arrest those spies because we were concerned one of the might go back to russia. so there's ten of them. very smart move by the russians they place hem here a long time ago, they developed their community relations, they married, have children, they become part of the community, and then ultimately they move into spying. fortunately we were aware of what they were doing. we were going to see to arrest them, and the problem was that

the president was meeting with medvedev, and so 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 have russian spies here. i want you to envision the "washington post" headline if we don't arrest these people and pick them up. and even though there had been some debate, i could see the lights go on in their eyes. when i said that. and the result was they said, okay, we should go ahead and do this, and we did, and thank god we did it. but that part of the process. >> host: the takeway there when the secretary says, excuse me --

mr. secretary, while you were shopping at costco, josh earnest said our strategy against the islamic state is succeeding. his full sentence is: we're in the early days of the execution of that strategy but certainly the early evidence indicates that this strategy is succeeding." >> guest: you know, i think that the right pieces are in place. i think it's being tested, though. >> host: because -- >> guest: i think the jury is still out as to whether or not ultimately we're going to be on the right path in terms of dealing with isis itch think the right pieces are in place. we have our troops trying to help with the iraqis. we're going to arm the rebels. we have airstrikes, strong coalition put together to try to go after it. but isis is well-trained-well-funded, they

are individuals who are well-armed, and they have combat command that knows how to make this move on the ground. they're going against cab ban any. they're moving in anbar province. they are kidding us on different fronts. i think we are the ones that are going to have to be able to adapt to their strategy and be able to confront them. we're in the process of doing that. i have full confidence that we'll be able to do that. but it is going to take time. it is going to take time. and we may very well suffer some losses in the interim. >> host: mr. secretary, when you say the jury is out on whether they're on the right path, what worries you about the current path? >> guest: i think the key is that you really do 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. now, in iraq, i think it's pretty clear that we can develop, i think, iraqi security forces to be able to go in and retake the lan that was lost. the real key there is whether or not we can get the sunnies to be part of the effort. if we can get the sunnies to be part of national guard, part of an effort to do it, then i feel very confident that we're going to be able to move that in the right direction. syria is a much different ball game. it's chaotic, we don't know what is going on the ground and the key is can we develop the sources we need in order to get that done? understand, in counterterrorism, 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 should be and being able to hit those targets. to develop those sources in pakistan took us three years. to develop those sources in the yemen took is one year. so it's going to take time to develop the sources of information we need in order to be able to conduct the operations that i think would be effective at disrupting and defeating isis. >> host: one more on this. on sunday, on "state of the union," senator mccain said that candy crowley of isis, they're winning and we're not. >> guest: i don't -- i think that's going pretty far for senator mccain to say that's the case, because they obviously have moved forward. they've gained territory. they do represent a threat. but these airstrikes have been effective at stopping the momentum at really inhibiting their ability to move as fast as they wanted to move.

so we have been effective at stopping the momentum. the real question is, can we continue to do that? can we continue that pace? and can we continue the toe hit the right targets? so that we are effective in using air strikes? that's going to be the challenge. 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 cannot only disrupt them but defeat them? >> host: mr. secretary issuing mention secretary gate's autobiography a couple of timed. you have a great moment in "worthy fights pechowski when you're getting ready to make this extraordinary move over to secretary of defense and you first learn the job would be open when secretary gates took you aside after a meeting and said, leon, 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. in the book you say i didn't know then, and on alarm from book's memoirs he also suggested hillary clinton, colin powell and michael bloomberg. >> guest: that's right. and bob gates, when he said that, we had gone to lunch for -- used to have regular lurch ford the intelligence operations cia, dni, and others within the intelligence operations. dia. to talk about intelligence issues with the secretary. and so it was after one of those lunches when he pulled me aside and said, i want you to become secretary of defense. and i said, bob, no, i am -- i really do think it's time for me to go home. we just got bin laden. i said, it's a good time to get

the hell out of here and go home. you know? when you leave washington, leave on a high. and so i said, i've -- i really want to go home, and i've done this. we did well. and i think it's necessary he said no, need you to do this. i think you'd -- you understand the troops, you understand the need to really protect them, and do it. and i just -- i really resisted. i said, go and get somebody else. look at others because there are others. i said, colin powell and others. they ought to be recommended and do the same thing. and then bill bailey, the cleave of staff, followed that up and basically made the same offer, and i told bill, i said, look, talk to others. because this is -- i really don't want to do this, and i'll at the you the reason. i said, i don't want to stay

beyond four years in the administration, and if i'm secretary of defense, frankly, you ought to have somebody that's going to stay longer in that position, and they said, no, that doesn't make any difference. you'd be great. do it, get it done. and i just said, no, i said, 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 and indicated he want ped me to take that position. and again, you know, throughout my life, when the profit the united states usually asks you do something out of respect nor office you do it. >> host: when you read your book, next to secretary gates' book, you have the feeling on some of these national security questions there haven't so much been camps as we so often say in the press but there have been types between the president has either taken action or resisted action that is almost him and

all the advisers on different sides. did you experience that? do you agree with that? >> guest: i have to say when i was there, that there was a very good give and take in the national security council, and that we all had a chance to kind of present our views to the president. look, matter of fact, when weapon did the bin laden operation and the president rent around the table and asked for everybody's views, many of the people around that table thought that the operation was too risky. i could understand it. we didn't know for sure whether bin laden was there. we were going have to fly 150 miles at night into pakistan, and be able to conduct this commando operation, not really knowing what kind 0 resistance we would run into. so there were a lot of people around the table, including secretary gates, who was very concerned about the risks involved, as were others.

and i remember when the president asked me, i said, look, mr. president, i have an old formula i've used going back to congress, which is that when you face a difficult decision, think about asking the ordinary citizen in your district if you knew what i knew, what would you do? and if the ordinary citizen knew that we had the best information on the location of bin laden since tora bora, and that this was the one opportunity to try to get our number-one enemy issue think the average citizen would say, you have to do this. and in addition to that, i had tremendous confidence in the ability of special forces to conduct the operation. now can the president didn't decide that night. and frankly, if you had to count around the table, i'd say probably there was a majority that were opposed to the operation. >> host: and you were for.

>> guest: i was for it, and i think secretary clinton was for and it others that were for it as well. but i didn't know. i didn't know. next morning, we had everybody in place, and the president called and said, it was a go. so, that process is okay. i think that's the way it should work. everybody has to present their views, but in the end, president of the united states make the final decision. >> host: the president talked about how he had to go to white house correspond ends dinner do a comedy routine and keep a secret. we learn in the book you also at that dinner were at time magazine's fable you, too had to keep it a secret. >> guest: we all had to keep our mouths shut. we had to laugh at the jokes on bin laden that were going on at the time. >> host: when you were named dcia dish have to ask you --

when you were on the hill and even in the white house, you were very grateful -- you were not known for being discreet, and you become dcia, secretary of the defense, suddenly the keeper of the secrets. how did you pull that off? >> guest: it was tough as hell. it was tough as hell, because you're right. as a member of congress, i was very much engaged with the press, and would talk with them about what was going on, and was always enjoyed that relationship, and even in the white house as chief of staff, enjoyed a good relationship with the press and with others, and really kind of liked the give and take of the process. and now i'm cia director and i got keep my mouth shut.

and it's much tougher because you still want to have that engagement, you still want to be able to say, what's going on and what is happening? that is one of the things you like about this town, is the ability to kind of look at different pieces and who is on first and 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 cia, we had to keep it confidential. the good example was on the plane when i would take a trip as cia director, there was no press. we didn't bring press along. and so i'd go into a country and they'd take me to wherever i went, visit with the leadership, went to visit with our stations, and got out of town. when i was secretary of defense, we had a whole hoard of people

from the press that were part of our contingent. >> host: you got sick of jeremy? >> guest: i'd sic him on them. and trying to be able -- frankly, the first few times when i was secretary of defense, got in trouble for making comments that i would make to people on a -- swear a little bit. i'll share with you a story. gandolfini, when he played me in this movie "zero dark thirty" he wrote me a note and said, i'm italianer you're italian. i now you don't like the way i played this role but a i have a great deal of respect for you. i called him up and met him a couple times before and said, look, i'm glad -- just glad they picked an italian to play my role. i said, but you did a great job in the movie. it's a movie. and you really were fine. he said, yeah, but you know, it

was one thing that really bothered me, was that they made me swear a lot. and i said, you know, that's the one thing you got right. [laughter] >> host: and speaking of swearing, there's a rumor in here about rahm. >> guest: two things that rahm. >> host: you said there war a rumor after you worked together in the clinton white house he got his language from you? >> guest: i doubt that very much. and in here you tell about when he worked for you in the christian top white house, a brass plaque he had on his desk. undersecretary for -- we can't say it. >> guest: i mixed audience iwant to bring -- >> guest: by the way, the story i do tell in the book is that rahm is a real go-getter.

and he moves and he does it and times the'll step on anybody to try to get it done, and the president said -- actually, him and both george stephanopoulos, the president said issue really think we ought to move them out. i was becoming chief of staff and i had worked with george and of course had worked with rahm, and they're both very bright, capable people, who have a good puts on the political side, especially george, and rahm was somebody, when you till hem to take the hill, he takes the hill. so i didn't really want to lose them. so i kept saying to the pret, look, met me work with them. let me bring them under my wing and we'll try to make sure that i control what they're involved with, but i really do think they could be valuable. and so i managed to -- instate of having them walk into meetings, weibring them in when i wanted them to be part of a

meeting, and i think it really worked out and the president finally became comfortable with the fact they were there, because both of them were extremely bright, extremely able, and i think it's an example that sometimes people who are good may be tough, may be brazen, may get in your face, but the key is do they do the job? and if they do the job, you damn well want to keep them. >> host: we would love to bring you into the conversation. there's a couple microphones here. we'll take your questions while you're doing that, in this book, a number of times secretary clinton is on the same side of an argument as you, and the effect of this will be that should there be a clinton presidential campaign, this will be very helpful. >> guest: well, i'll leave that

up to the candidate to decide. there are some -- one of the thing is try to do in the book is to basically kind of shake the system a little bit so that people understand that in order to really get things done that you have to do, you do have to roll up your sleeves and you have to fight for it. >> host: you're saying he -- she did. what was she like behind closed doors. >> guest: she was very tough, but she was very thoughtful. she knew the issues. she didn't speak without knowing the issues and what she was saying, and i think it was always effective when she did speak up, peopleliened. >> host: because in a debate, if she wants distance from president obama she can say, don't listen to me, listen to secretary panetta. i'm sure i'll be quoted a lot. good and bad. >> host: but was that your intention or simply the effect.

>> no. write the book to basically tell my story, and i'm pleased i did. but others will do with it what they will. >> please say you you are. >> frank, i wonder if you could add governor of california to that bucket list. applause. >> guest: nowow, i've been in public life almost 50 years, and going back to my time in the army and all of the other positions that i've held, and i've really enjoyed it. i tell about the positions, and i really do now enjoy going back to my home, and to my wife, and to our dog, bravo, and our sons and our grandchildren, and having the opportunity to enjoy my family. so, that's what i'm going to focus on. and also we do have an institute for public policy think panetta

institute for public policy to inspire young people too get involved in public life. i real use do think we have to get young people interested in getting into public life because they represent our future, and very frankly, they're the ones that have to make a difference. >> host: good question. sir. >> kyle suspecter from d.c. a lot hat been made since your brock came out the centralization of the staff, talked about the white house staff controlling a lot. people saying that the national security council is making a lot of tactical decisions instead of providing strategy to the president. i'm curious, do you think that's the case, and if the process is broken as you mentioned earlier, what should we do to fix it? >> guest: ate a good question. by the way, is hasn't just happened in this administration. this has been a process that's been developing over the last 20 or 30 years. and 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 seeing is reflective of drawing kind of the decisionmaking process away from the departments, away from the department of state and 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. closer you are to the president, the more power you have. and so what has happened is that more and more of these issues, domestic issues, defense issues, national security issues, are drawn into the white house, and the result is that that turns out usually a lot of the decisionmaking process and so

when the departments are called in, they're playing catchup. they're playing catchup. and it distorts the way the process should work. and i understand -- presidents get comfortable with having the people around them. they can walk down the hall and walk into an office and talk to somebody about a problem is taking place or crisis, and so members of the cabinet are not really part of that process anymore. members of the cabinet are largely used for photo ops in the cabinet room in the white house. that's quite an extraordinary statement. >> guest: it's true. it's true. people who are very good, by the way, and capable -- most of you probably -- you know a few of the cabinet members, most of them you don't remember who they are, and the fact is they're good people, trying to run their deeps. they know they're deeps, know the palsies but the aren't brought into the process the way

they should be. and so somehow what you have to do -- i really do think you need to begin to reduce the amount of people in the white house staff. you still have the key positions, and you have to open that process up more to those that are in key positions in the administration so they can play a better role in providing their views not only to the white house but to the president at well...

i nt to ank you that. offshore oil drilling, the coast of california pacific coast, and i want to thank you for the. >> it is one of the worthy fights that i talk about, to to protect our coastline. it happened during the reagan administration. you know, head of the interior department decided to put it up for sale to the highest bidder. i remember going and saying, what the hell you doing? i i understand you have to sell some of these areas, but what about these national treasures. you want to protect them for the future. let's just make the process work. we were able to put legislation together to stop the process from moving forward and ultimately i introduced legislation which

protects that area for the future. [applauding] >> kai, i'm erica. thank you so much for being here. i am curious about the tension between short-term response and playing the long game when it comes to security and i'm just wondering how do you strike that >> unconcerned and am wondering how you strike that balance way -- versus laying the groundwork for sustainable future? >> while that's a very good question and the reality is that you know when you are implementing defense strategy it has to contain both the short-term element and the long-term element. the short-term element basically using isis is an example is that you have to stop their momentum. that's the short-term strategy. you have got to stop them. so whatever it takes you have to basically stop them and 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 that i think everybody recognizes is that i can see the objectives there. we can put the iraqi military together and i think we can get them in the right place. we have a ground force that can hopefully move against isis and regain the territory that has been lost. we can do that backing it up with airstrikes and with help from our people on the ground embedded with the force. i can see the objective there and i can see a clear path to really being able to push them back. syria is much more difficult and i don't see that kind of clear picture about just exactly how are we going to deal with syria. yes we are going to try to develop an opposition force and that's going to take time. we don't even know if there's something called the moderate opposition force that we can really make work here so that's going to take time to do in the

meantime what the hell do you do in terms of confronting ices? you need to have targets. you need to be able to stop them from doing some of the things that they are doing so syria is going to be a much tougher game to try to think out but if you were going to conduct a war against isis you have got to think both about the short-term to make sure you are putting them on their heels but you are also going to think about the long-term objective in order to ultimately defeat them. that's going to take a longer period of time. >> good evening. following on the last question but looking beyond iraq and seriously move into it. into a new era and i wonder what you think about why, what is the goal for counterterrorism strategy? >> a good question.

i consider all of what we are doing now is part of a kind of larger continuum that goes back to 9/11. 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 it's a punch in the stomach to walk through that memorial and see what happened to this country and what happened on that day. it's tough to bring those memories back but the fact is we were attacked. we were attacked by al qaeda. they killed 3000 people. as a result of that attack we went to war against al qaeda, a war on terrorism because they weren't enemy, because they attacked us and because we did not want them to attack us again so we went to war. frankly we did a pretty good job at going after them using counterterrorism capabilities. we did undermine the strength of their leadership but now we have

this metastasis taking place with isis with boko haram, with al-shabaab and other elements involved in terrorist. i think we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with terrorism. part of it is counterterrorism using that capability to target leadership to go after them to undermine their ability to ever be able to attack this country. part of this has to be cultural educational in dealing with how do we prevent young people from choosing al qaeda, choosing isis as something that they would do. that is a much tougher strategy but it has to be part of how we address the threat of terrorism. we can't just do this on the military side. we have got to do this on the side of how do we improve the opportunities for the future, their education, their ability to enjoy the opportunities that

life has to offer. to do that, we are going to have to work with other arab countries to get that across. saudi arabia is doing some of that. the uae is doing some of that. i think we have to incorporate those kinds of strategies as part of the effort to address this war on terrorism. >> i'm a student and public policy. thank you very much for your public service. so what do you think about the role of the united states compared to the role of the united nations and international peace and security? thanks. >> a real good question again. you know obviously all of us would love to have a united nations that could work effectively to try to deal with the crisis in the world and i think that was the design of

franklin roosevelt and harry truman in establishing the united nations, that this would be the primary vehicle to hopefully deal with crisis, to hopefully deal with the challenges of the world. unfortunately the united nations has fought down particularly in the security council and its ability to respond to crisis. almost anytime a crisis breaks out we would like the u.n. to respond and that's probably the best way to try to get countries together to do it and immediately it hits the wall and vetoes in the security council and nothing happens. so ultimately continues to fall back on the shoulders of -- to respond. the president himself said when people get in trouble they don't call russia. they don't call china. they call the united states and as we have seen a recent event at the united states is providing that leadership nobody -- nobody else will. i wish that were not the case. we would love to see nato and

air countries come to the floor and say let's get together to respond to these crises. it's the united states that drives the process and that frankly has to be the role of the president and it has to be the role of this country. we have a value system to ensure that we are the leaders in a world that is facing a number of dangers. >> i'm sorry. we are running out of time. we can take two more questions. this gentleman and then you have the final question. >> mr. secretary it's an honor to speak with you tonight. my question to you touching on something you spoke about earlier is what advice would you give a young person today who wants to start a career in public service? >> you know i think probably the best advice is to jump in and get involved. we take polls of young people at

the panetta institute and they are discouraging because young people are turned off by the dysfunction and they are turned off by the sense that public servants aren't really doing what they are supposed to do. they're just they are just fighting each other not getting things done. so the inspiration i have to get into public service is not just my parents, not just the army by the president to says ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country and i look at public service as a higher calling. now that is tougher. now that is tougher so my recommendation is for those of you are interested, get in and see what it's like. they, legislative assistant on capitol hill. become an intern on capitol hill. get involved somewhere in the public policy sector. learn how the process works or fails to work. learn from that.

don't get caught up in the politics of left and right, democrat and republican. get in, learn it, stand back and evaluate what is it that you can do in order to make a difference? let me tell you something. the most important thing you need to know is you can make a difference. i can make a difference in the jobs i have and i can tell you is young people get interested in government they can make one hell of a difference. frankly i would like the stalemate in this town to change from the top down. i would love it if the president of the leadership of the congress decided to start working together to deal with it. i don't know if that will happen but i do know one thing. if that does happen it will change from the bottom up and voters will say okay, we need to have people who are going to be willing to engage and do you know what? people your age let me tell you something. why am i hopeful?

because i have seen men and women in the military in uniform put their lives on the line to fight and die for this country. and if you're not willing to fight for this country there should be leaders that are willing to take a little bit of a risk to govern this country. [applause] >> the former student body president of monterey -. >> my name is mckenzie and i'm a senior at the university of maryland. i study international relations and governmental politics. a lot of pressure for the final question but i have always been interested in the relationship between the department of state and the department of defense. could you speak a little bit more or an interesting anecdote about when yont