and i appreciate you all for coming today. let today. let me just begin by saying that the accusation that president bush abused his power and presided over a lawless administration which is frequently leveled against this president is certainly nothing new. proverbial displays of hypocrisy regarding presidential power tend to criticize the sitting president whether he is a member of the party are not. excuse me, on partisan grounds. putting that aside i would say that george w. bush has

been subjected to some of the worst demagoguery. unfortunately it comes unfortunately it comes from a number of my scholarly comrades especially historians and law professors who consider themselves x to have expert on the presidency. i find this particularly disturbing in that historians are supposed to wait for documents to come out supposed to wait for oral history to be conducted supposed to wait for memoirs from both domestic political figures and foreign political leaders as well and are supposed to do the unsexy worker going to an archive and spending lots of quiet time looking a with newborn documents. unfortunately far too many historians abandoned any pretense of objectivity and seemed unwilling to place george w. bush's actions in the historical context. and i'm talking about historians who are pronouncing in 200-54-2006

that the bush presidency was already in epic disaster and one of the worst presidents in history. i'm not saying that george w. bush was a great president by any stretch the economic collapse, the war in iraq. a number of issues the need to be put in the equation. but at but at the least it struck me my scholarly comrades had an obligation to wait until the presidency was over before proclaiming is one of the worst ever command i would argue here we are five, six seven years out and it is still early to make sweeping judgments about any presidency command just as a reminder at this time after harry truman's truman's departure from the white house he was still a remarkably unpopular figure and certainly in scholarly circles at this time

eisenhower was considered of rank mediocrity. nonetheless this conventional anti- bush narrative which also sometimes suggest that vice president cheney was actually pulling the strings you know persists to this day and among people who should know better. again i'm referring to my fellow scholars who have avoided the hard work of history in terms of doing some actual digging as opposed to reading the op-ed page of the new york times. many many of the same scholars who have condemned george w. bush as a lawless presidency celebrate the presidencies of john f. kennedy's administration wiretapped doctor martin luther king jr. and plot of the assassination of fidel castro. there is some consistency but it is the exception.

they have also they have also celebrated the presidency of franklin roosevelt who use the federal bureau of investigation as his private detective agency american citizens and military tribunal that hastily dispatched the defendant to the electric chair. to make matters to make matters worse many of my fellow activist scholars abandoned the precepts of their craft as i said before by pronouncing misjudgment prior to examining a single document or conducting a solitary interview. i think this deep scholarly animosity was the result of the fact that bush was the 1st president to face a serious challenge to american security since the enactment of a new regime

post-watergate post-vietnam reforms designed to curb the imperial presidency. these reforms have the effect of enhancing the power of congress and the court to check the executive and in concert with an adversarial media and skeptical scholarly community produced the kind of permanent hostility to executive secrecy as alexander hamilton called it secrecy and dispatch. since the founding of the nation the court to congress of defer to the executive branch on these issues but that tradition began to erode in the 1960s and 70s. likely so in many cases. the courts would align themselves with congress order to check the executive branch. bush and cheney tried to play by the old rules, by the pre- watergate pre- church committee rules. as 2014 we can say that they appear to have lost in their effort to restore the system back to its pre- frank

church pre- watergate committee mug. but i would warn you that history can be fickle. at least in regards to bush's war on terror i believe someday they will become to be seen in a more favorable light i don't expect that. i don't ever except for bush to emerge in the top ten list of presidential greatness where harry truman resides. if we want to talk about torture we can have a a lengthy debate over the truman administration's use of hundreds if not thousands of ex- members of the ss as intelligence sources. so if we are going to look at cases of waterboarding command we are if we're going to look at rendition we also the need to do history justice and re-examine the presidency in a number of progressive

presidents who unfortunately are frequently cut a lot of slack by my fellow academics precisely because they are progressive, not conservative. george w. bush is low standing reflects in part the rise of partisan scholarship the use of history as ideology and as a political weapon a political weapon which in my view means the corruption of history is history. again, i don't believe that george w. bush was a great president. in fact, he will probably come out at some time as a below average or average president but the conventional wisdom regarding the presidency of george w. bush i believe is misguided and a revisionist account of this presidency at least in regard to his national security policy is overdue. not too far from the world trade center site. put put yourself in bush's

position or in his seat around 912. put yourself in his seat and ask what you would have done. i no what he did that day or the next. he told his fbi director and is atty. gen. to do whatever it took to make sure that this did not happen again. and i have to say, had i been in that seat i probably would have said the same thing. thank you. [applause] >> september 11 was clearly a defining moment a horrific moment with close to 3000 people incinerated in an instant. the question was what did iraq have to do with september 11. if you ask yourself as the

last bigger suggested what would you have done in september 12 why would you attack a country that had nothing to do with this horrific attack? just today a report has come out from the nobel prize-winning international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war. they have done some calculations. they released a report saying this investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has directly or indirectly killed around 1 million people in iraq 220,000 in afghanistan 80,000 in pakistan a total of around 1.3 million not included in this figure of further war zones propagated

by the media and major ngos and this is only a conservative estimate. the total number of deaths in the free countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million whereas the figure below 1 billion is extremely unlikely. 1 million deaths in iraq in the last decade. in a country, the bush administration said they were going to save cheney had once told greek us soldiers. as vice president cheney said we are going to liberate the people. sadly, the bush administration exploited

september 11. the blueprint for what happened command i think it is important to go back even not so far history is drawn up years earlier by the project for the new american century. am reading for my 1st book the exception to the rulers. that was called teaneck. a think tank formed and 97 to promote american global leadership. it's founders are a who's who of the neoconservative movement which seamlessly morphed into the top officials of the bush to administration. secretary of defense donald rumsfeld, vp dick cheney cheney's chief of staff scooter libby, deputy sec. of scooter libby, deputy secretary of defense, defense policy board member national security council staff member among others.

the members had a reputation around washington explained a retired cia analyst with 27 years experience as mr. negroponte was talking about, the presidential daily brief. yes, ray mcgovern was one of the cia analysts. he did it for vice president george w. bush, but he observed that we saw these people talking back in town all the said the crazies civic razorback. mcgovern said their wildlife geopolitical schemes were typically going right into the circular file. in september 2000 there was a report issued to dominate global sources. the key to realizing this was some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new pearl harbor. the mass distraction and

iraq itself, the pretext for a larger scheme. larger scheme. according to lock the unresolved conflict provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial american force presence in the gulf transcends the issue of the regime of saddam hussein. and so on and so on the morning of september 122001 donald rumsfeld reacted to the world trade center and pentagon attacks by declaring to bush's cabinet that the united states should immediately attack iraq. it did not matter that or later that iraq had no connection to al qaeda or the september 11 attacks. national security adviser condoleezza rice told senior national security council staff to think about how you capitalize on these opportunities. she compared the situation with 1945 to 1947 the start of the cold war. but not all people on the

national security council felt the way that those administration officials did take richard clarke who advised presently enjoy george w. bush. carried over and also with president clinton. he was shocked when rumsfeld the day after so we have to look. he was shocked when president bush told and look one of the things he told cbs 60 minutes when talking about president bush he has done a terrible job on the war against terrorism. he said months before he had warned the ministration. we have to look at al qaeda. to be told the day after you must look at iraq. and think about it today.

1 million iraqis dead. the bush administration did not do it alone. they had a compliant press to amplify they're allegation the falsehood. and that also has to be looked at. during the years of the bush administration where was the press? the white house propaganda list was launched on september 7 2002. british prime minister tony blair stood side-by-side with president george w. bush and together they declared evidence from a report published by the un international atomic energy agency showed that iraq was six months away from building nuclear weapons. president bush said i don't know what more evidence we need. actually any evidence would've helped. there was no such iaea report.

at the time few mainstream american journalists question the leaders outright lies. the the following day so-called evidence popped up in the sunday new york times hundred 20 by line of michael gordon and judith miller. they wrote more than a decade after saddam hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass distraction iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. this according to bush and ministration officials. in a revealing example of how the story amplified it included the phrase send to be repeated by president bush the sure sign of a smoking gun. the publisher john macarthur censorship and propaganda knew what to make of this front-page bombshell he wrote gordon and miller

inflated and administration leak in the something resembling imminent armageddon. the bush administration knew just what to do with the story they had fed. the day the story ran vp dick cheney made the rounds to sunday talk shows to advance the ministration focus. purchased aluminum tubes to make enriched uranium. it didn't it didn't matter that the iaea refuted the charge before and after it was made. cheney did not want viewers just to take his word for it there's a story in the new york times morning and i want to attribute the times. this was the classic disinformation to step. the white house leaks the line. the newspaper publishes it as a startling exposé command the white house conveniently masquerades by the credibility of the new york times. what mattered was the

encumbered rollout. what matters now is that we had a media in this country that acted as a conveyor belt for the lies. why does that matter? because the lies took and are taking lives. that is what we have to look at. not all in the press were complicit. there were many on the frontlines were trying their hardest to get out the truth on the ground which takes us to the moment the day before the us marines pulled down the statue of saddam hussein april 8. you you had a young reporter who had just joined al jazeera in the baghdad offices. he went on the roof to set the camera and was

killed when us helicopter strafed the building across the street abu dhabi tv were shouting on the air help us as they were being strafed. within a few hours the palestine hotel became a target for the us military. now on the wood that time that the palestine hotel in baghdad was where well over 100 on embedded journalists for staying. they were working hard. when the abrams tank set their sights on the hotel and opened fire they killed to reporters on his balcony filming. it was about to be the fall of baghdad. and then there was was a coastal on another balcony filming. both of them were immediately killed and many

others were wounded. that that was april 8, 2,003. then you come to the summer of 2003. mohsen donna another videographer, one of their finest was outside what would later become world-famous of the grave but not yet. he was there with a soundman covering what was happening. within minutes he found his own death as the us soldiers attacked him. the soundman said we have just been speaking with the soldiers. soldiers. later a pentagon spokesperson was say they accidentally engaged the cameraman. take take this forward to the beginning of 2,004. ethan jordan was the head of cnn. he was inadvertently caught on a microphone at the world economic forum saying the us

military had targeted dozen journalists who have been killed in iraq. there was a great firestorm. and ultimately he resigned after 23 years. not wanting cnn to become a target. journalists targeted in iraq and those are the journalists. now i want to talk about the whistleblowers. the brave the brave people who step forward. for example soldiers who were horrified by what they saw. the new york times very much paved the way for war. they also published a few very good op-ed pieces. like the piece honoring those he said no. they began in january 2004 specialist joseph m darby a 24 -year-old army reservist discovered a set of photographs showing other members of his company

torturing prisoners at the abu ghraib prison. the discovery anguished him and he struggled over how to respond. he recalled later, i had the choice between what i knew was morally right in my loyalty to other soldiers. i cannot have it both ways. he copied the photographs onto a cd a cd, sealed it in an envelope and delivered it on an anonymous letter to the army criminal investigation command. three months later seven years ago today the photographs republic. he found -- soon found himself the target of death threats to be testifying at a pretrial hearing for a fellow soldier he said that the abuse violated everything i personally believed in and all i have been taught about the rules of war. yes, there are many brave people on the ground soldiers, journalists who did speak out. sy hersh published those

photos in the new yorker. they were horrific. you actually have not seen the worst of them yet. so now let's talk about what they did not talk about the word torture. there is no doubt torture played a major role in the push for invading iraq. while the senate report and other critics say torture produced false information that could have been one of the programs goals. in 2009 mcclatchy reported the bush and ministration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation. a former senior us intelligence official said there was constant pressure

on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially a few high-value ones we had. and people kept coming up empty they were told to push harder. the iraq torture connection gets only bare mention and bear mention in the senate intelligence report that the executive summary which was released in december but it is still significant. and in a footnote the report cites the case of shakeout libby. after us forces sent him for torture and egypt he made of the false claim that iraq provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al qaeda. secretary qaeda. secretary of state colin powell used his statement and his famous february 5 2003 address to the un security council and address he would later call a stain on his career. that speech at the un falsely alleging iraq possessed weapons of mass

distraction. the senate report says libby later recanted the claim claiming he had been tortured and only told them what he had said that they wanted to hear. torture. it is so important to talk about this today. what has gone on and who should be held accountable. the senate intelligence report the executive order -- the executive summary was released in december and it covered between 2002 and 2006. even senator john mccain a a man who himself was tortured in captivity as a pow in vietnam called for its release. graphic new details of the post september 11 us torture program came to light in december when the senate

intelligence committee release that 500 page summary of its investigation and the cia with key parts redacted. the the report concludes that the intelligence agency failed to disrupt a single plot despite torturing al qaeda and other captives in secret prisons worldwide between 2002 and '06 and details a list of torture methods used on prisoners including waterboarding sexual threats with broomsticks medically unnecessary rectal bleeding. the report also confirmed that the cia ran black sites in afghanistan lithuania, romania, poland thailand and the secret site thailand, and the secret side on the guantánamo naval base on a strawberry field. so far no one involved in the cia interrogation program has been charged with a crime except for the whistleblower who just came out of two years in prison and is currently under house arrest.

well, it is so important to assess the bush administration and i hope in a few years you will be doing the same for the obama administration as you have done in the past. it should president bush, vp cheney president cheney secretary of defense rumsfeld and cia officials be tried for torture? that is a very serious question. a human rights group in berlin has filed a a criminal complaint against the architects of the bush administration's torture program called the european center for constitutional and human rights accusing former bush administration officials like cia director tenet and donald rumsfeld of war crimes calling for an immediate investigation by a german prosecutor. the move following the release of the senate report but it is not only international law groups that are calling for this.

yes president bush's own counterterrorism czar richard clarke has called for the same. i want to congratulate hofstra for holding this assessment of the bush and ministration but i think now it has to go beyond assessment. this is to a larger audience if we really care about national security and being a model for the world of justice. it has to move from assessment to an accounting and accountability. thank you. >> thank you very much. but any of our panelists like to comment on any of the presentations that were made it today?

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it was working at the podium. >> the cia did it.

>> were coming together. >> were okay now. i just simply have an interest of fairness. we respond a little bit on the senate select community on intelligence study on rendition detention and interrogation was a partisan political study. it was not two-sided and there are further facts that might -- that must come out from those who are able to correct some of the misstatements in the senate study. that has not happened yet. i hope that it will because i do believe the american public needs to know the truth of all of us. the senate study is not the full truth. >> was there any truth in it? >> say again?

>> was there any truth in it. >> of course there was some truth in it. it was a cherry picked selective presentation of information to support and narrative that was made before this report actually was started. the announced purpose of the report of the study correcting chairman feinstein was to make sure this never happens again. i am not sure what the this was. but apparently as you go through the report, as you go through the study there are a series of observations that involve information that the decision-makers could have provided to the people doing a report and would have given a more fair and complete understanding of what happened and why.

if you want to know why something happened it is a good idea a good idea to go back to the people who made the decision and ask them. they calculatedly and interminably avoided going back to anybody that they thought might spoil their narrative. consequently yes there is information that is cherry picked picked, some out of context and some actually factually correct as far as i no. i have not read a word of the report. i have not read a word of any of this stuff because to me it is purely partisan political and the polarization of intelligence in this country is going to hurt only one person, and that person command that is every citizen of the united states. >> i just wanted to quote senator mccain. >> i love senator mccain command i would certainly agree with you that senator mccain is the icon of prisoner of war.

he he has suffered greatly for our country and made great sacrifices and deserves to be listened to but he does not have all the information either. >> he said it is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that i believe not only failed their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the us and our allies but actually damaged our security interest as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world. >> he is welcome to his opinion. i doubt he has read the report. in any event he has not asked the people involved in this activity what they think because they have all indicated that he has not asked them. even he is dealing with less than a full deck. >> ambassador. >> well, i think i would love to hear some questions from the audience but i would recall to those of you

who might not have been here this morning and peter baker, i thought it went well and it is a.that i made in my initial presentation. the administration was a dynamic one. it. it evolved. there were certain behaviors that occurred in the early part of the administration. baker talked about waterboarding. and said, yes. the last case of waterboarding was in 2,003. mr. goss took his job in 2,004. i didn't 2,005. this was an evolving situation. about about the president being a good customer of intelligence, let's remember that neither mr. powell nor president bush -- mr. powell did not deliberately mislead the security council when he made that presentation in february of 2003. i was

2,003. i was sitting right behind him. he believed it in good faith. turned out that the source who should not have been believed in this wareal intelligence failure had deliberately deceived his handlers and deliberately said fabricated the information that iraq had wmd because he was an iraqi source and they found out later that he wanted us to do exactly what we did in the wake of his testimony and that of others. so this was an intelligence failure that led to a significant intelligence reform but neither bush nor mr. powell were trying to mislead anybody. they believe that intelligence themselves and were very deceived by the fact that it turned out to be false.

the last.i would like to make is i know this is a talk about the bush doctrine and counterterrorism counterterrorism, but i think that we want to keep in perspective that the foreign-policy of the bush administration ranged over an enormous variety of issues whether it is the free trade agreements that the president accomplished his policy toward africa in the program to say people from the effects of hiv-aids virus his strategic move toward india establishing relations with the country of india that were unprecedented in recent decades between the united states and india and his outreach to china the people's republic of china as well. so just remember presidents have a very full plate in

addition to of course, the domestic responsibilities. i would say over time -- it won't happen today or tomorrow, but over time i think the president is going to be evaluated for the entirety of his foreign-policy and not just the war on terror and the two wars in afghanistan and iraq. >> i believe you had your hand up. >> no. i was just going to say that if those who remember that era of 20 01 and two when we were talking about weapons of mass distraction the conventional wisdom was they were there command it was not just something that was manufactured. every intelligence organization on a global basis within the networks were talking.

there was a lot of different information coming from a lot of different sectors. it was all a little bit sort of with the information. there were some things that were pretty clear. one of -- i think it was saddam hussein's son came out and gave information and went back and was summarily executed a sometime. i think that is correct. it has been a while. but i remember the celebrated moment was when director tenet had announced to the pres. that president that this was a slamdunk. of course they had weapons of mass distraction. i don't believe anyone was intentionally misleading anybody. what i said was our intelligence was not up to snuff because we had hollowed out our capacity as part of the peace dividend. the fact that we did not

have the best information is sad and lead to tragic consequences in a number of cases am sure but we did learn the lesson and the lesson was rebuild our intelligence community which is what we're trying to do. but it will never work if we politicize for partisan gain or some other agenda the facts and try and tell only part of the narrative rather than the whole narrative. that is my beef with us in a study. >> all right. i almost want to laugh when we talk about the politicization of information. it is certainly well known and understood by this time that vp cheney at once not twice at five times, not five times, not seven times

went to the cia headquarters and pressured them to come up with a certain a certain result. if that is not politicization of intelligence i don't know what is. i think it is important that we keep that in mind. again, particularly because that pressure on that agency and other agencies of government led to policies that proved to be enormously costly for other people. i don't want to spend a huge amount of time about who lied who didn't know, whatever. as pres. of the united states the director of cia and asks if the intelligence really is reliable and the cia guy says it's slamdunk. that is persuasive. i don't necessarily feel like that is the most intelligent consumption of information on the part of the president. i think it would have been important for george bush to ask more questions and not but to go beyond all this i think ambassador negroponte alluded to this.

something to keep in mind is that there were weapons inspectors. because of the un resolution which you help to get through saddam hussein and those last months admitted weapons inspectors and is country without restriction. there were inspectors going there from the international atomic energy commission. there were other inspectors there were looking for chemical and biological weapons. barrett a from the nucleoside said they found no evidence of saddam hussein restoring a nuclear capability no nuclear program, none. he went many places. just remember, rumsfeld and cheney saying we know where these weapons are. not just them we know where they are. the un inspectors presumably and communication with americans who know where these weapons are. weeks are going by and they

are not finding anything. you're the president of the united states and you're being told by two teams of weapons inspectors other definitely not all we don't seem to be finding it. give us more time. and instead of responding in that way and the international support is eroding with everyday because people are becoming more and more suspicious. instead of doing that the president decides to invade. whether or not the cia did its job are not the question still is why didn't the president of the united states -- if you wanted to avoid a war why didn't you listen to the un teams? >> it's time for us to take questions from the audience. what i would ask -- there is a microphone that will go around. okay. when you ask your question

if you want to directed toward one of the panelists indicate which. if it is a general question then it will be up to one of the panelists to take that question. please remember, we are here to ask questions and not make statements. i believe you had your hand up. that's right. >> this question is for the professor. what would you do if you are in the scenario. what about from january until september 10 when he ignored the numerous warnings from the intelligence agency? i think that the more important question. >> you know, i think bush -- both presidents bush and clinton deserves some criticism for not giving the threat from al qaeda the priority was do. richard clarke would disagree saying the clinton

administration did focus. you know, al qaeda declared war the united states and 96 camara. the declaration and 98. in the meantime he had the two embassy bombings in africa the uss cole in the fall of 2,000 other advanced where al qaeda was increasing the intensity of their attack. there is plenty of blame to go around in my view both president clinton and president bush and that interim timeframe did not give al qaeda the due attention. attention. to be perfectly honest i think they failed in a critical role was the pres. has to play, to educate the american public. again the fact was this group was determined to strike the united states and kept escalating. look how many americans were surprised.

i should not have happened. it should not a been a surprise anybody. >> can i ask a question? just a quick question. if we knew then what we know today we might have done things differently which i think is a very reasonable thing to say. >> thank you. >> do you think that mr. negroponte knowing what we know today the iraq war was wrong? do you think that torture is wrong? >> well, well, torture is never right. >> do you think the bush administration was wrong? >> i said torture is never right. my 2nd. i we will just take with the way i i felt during the time i lived through those events. you can find quotes of what i said when i was ambassador to un. i was asked if i thought we should use force. i said well, in questions like this i think we ought

to approach the issues was a great deal of caution. i also said that we ought -- and i felt that we ought to allow the inspection process more time to do its work. i was disappointed that it was not allowed. you know, you have one president at a time. a time. is the commander-in-chief with the constitutional authority and that's what he decided to do. the last.i would make to your issue about conflicts we had a chance to reminisce about this a little bit later on. and i said to him it's amazing. this inspection thing and we never found anything. what the heck happened. he said you know that's right. he said, i still don't understand why saddam behaved so guilty. maybe that is why he had some doubt. he was -- saddam sort of admitted emanated this sort

of sensation that he was hiding something. some people have speculated and i think think there was an fbi agent to interview him extensively that actually he wanted some people to think that he had it in the wake of the iran-iraq war. maybe this was part of his strategy. if indeed it was a strategy boomeranged. >> next question from the audience. [inaudible question] >> during your time as ambassador. training squads and torturers. i'm wondering if anything was done the crackdown on that. that could be part of the legacy that the us is

associated with some very vicious elements. thoughts on that. the 2nd element question other elements of bush foreign policy, consider columbia a great success? weight human rights abuses murders by paramilitaries. in mexico. is that a success? also what about about the us support for the congo? you mentioned africa. i agree that the aids initiative is positive, what about the us role in supporting the rwandan military and the 5 million deaths that occurred in congo? >> well, i think probably we don't have time to go through all of these issues exhaustively, but i think that the thought that colonel steele was training death squads in a rack is utter nonsense. certainly our objective when

i was ambassador was to stand up a professional national army. i consider that a priority. obviously we have had mixed success at best until now. but that was the objective. on columbia, all i would tell you i think you mentioned columbia. columbia has been a great success. started by bill clinton, pursued by george w. bush and columbia is a democratic country. has had a series of democratic elections and the country is more secure and safe and it was before. war is so. we know that. but i think that president uribe and santos after him both approached the conflict with democratic ideals in mind. they were not trying to be

dictators are behaving some kind of beastie away. they were trying to win the security of the country but preserve his democratic framework. >> i. >> this question is really for just about anyone. after the postinvasion in 2003 there were these massive bloodshed's within the civilian population. why did it take the bush administration so long to realize that they had an insurgency? why they fail to protect the civilian population? >> i suspect. my answer to that would be

simply the situation evolved rather quickly from what we thought was going to be the desired result of what some thought the policymakers that would be the desired result. somebody somebody said flowers will be strong that our soldiers would be greeted. well it turned out we did not really have that. we had a pro- counsel and ambassador who brought things along. the process of what we were trying to build democracy there were people in nearby countries and in nearby groups trying to destabilize and make sure that those efforts to plant seeds of democracy did not succeed. i would give you iran is a a case in.for telling our soldiers we were providing the equipment while at the same time they were trying to bring the democratic institutions to bear and set

up friendships between people who were not friendly to show the power of the country in a system that would look like a potential way to bring forward change in government in the future without violence and bloodshed. the problem is we're dealing with something since 640 a.d. if not longer if you take in the condition of humanity. and these folks still are trying to settle the score. we withdrew. a vacuum took place. the surge worked for a while. we left. we did not we did not have status of force agreement and look what we have today isis. what we have had a 12 year sooner? fair question to ask. >> all the way in the back. yes, you. >> it's good. >> i.

my question is somebody made a reference to historians rushing to judgment about george w. bush. right. it is not my place to say how true that is. my question is going forward how possible is it we will do real work research wise history wise was so much of the information demonized. i think of the iraq war logs as an example. yeah. that's my question. >> so much of a the history. i miss the word you used. so much of the history is what? >> demonized now. well i'm not a professional a professional archivist. i no we have the director of the bush library here. but i'm not sure what you mean by demonize us are talking about quakers who

are still within the government and then decide to follow the path of snow. there are people who demonize them. the.being if you're a presidential historian a good a good one we will tell you you have to wait at least 20 years because you have to let the passion school. you have to do this day work. the problem is worse than you suggested because nobody put anything down in writing anymore which is an issue that was raised earlier today. they are afraid of getting a subpoena from capitol hill or from some special prosecutor that is created. the historical record unfortunately is riddled with holes they go well beyond what you just said. i would still i would still make the case that if you are presidential historian might god rest his soul our 1st messenger claimed in 2005 george w. bush was one

of the worst presidents in american history and in fact what the bush cheney administration was attempting to do was to create a system of world domination. that is editorializing without evidence. >> next question please. by the way, way i'll take this opportunity, to our panelists have to leave right now. i just want to thank them on behalf of hofstra for coming here today. [applause] >> we still have a few minutes ahead of us. let's take any other questions. yes. student over here. >> professor, you said with the events leading up to september 11th we should have taken more account, more focus. do you believe -- >> in afghanistan. >> yeah. so do you believe that now

we should be putting more focus on them? should we handle the situation any differently? >> look, i'm not trying to be evasive. even though i teach in a war college is not my specialty. it seems to be led primarily by iran which is a little troubling. but it is pretty clear that the american public has zero appetite for the old boots on the ground expression. whether we can contribute the airpower coupled with indigenous forces couple that the iranians whether that will work or not i just don't know. >> i would commend the human rights watch that came out today: after liberation destruction. it's about the areas of iraq

they were taken over by isis now with militias moving through they are destroying the towns. they have video. it is extremely important to understand what has happened today how extensive the devastation is. >> am sorry. the other panelists of left. the question applies to them has to do with the fact that we have supposedly 17 intelligence agencies with tens of billions of dollars expended on so-called intelligence. and yet we did not predict the end of the cold war. wouldn't predict wouldn't

predict september 11 and we have not predicted isis coming to power the way they did. can you explain why? >> yeah. we have had -- i agree and am kind of glad that they left. there are some serious problems with the intelligence community. [laughter] >> we may have to bring them back. >> i would have. they probably might have killed me. no. look what i'm about to tell you is very much -- is not the majority view. view. i do presidential history but i also do intelligence history. in my view a lot of damage was done. my colleagues will not agree but if you want to penetrate a group you have to do some pretty nasty stuff. that just is not so well with the congressional oversight committees which were created in the mid- 1970s after the church

community i alluded to earlier. i think there has been a lot of restrictions put in place and a lot of things that make the congressional overseers uncomfortable which is why it explains some of the intelligence failures, not all. a language problem is a critical one as well. i think we have made some improvements are. but the fact is -- and i grant you we need to have a debate as to how much of a player we want to be on the world stage. if the answer is one of the then you need an intelligence community that will be doing things that are not necessarily going to make us proud all the time but there is not an intelligence service in the world that does not undertake uncomfortable actions to say the least especially if your talking

about a group like isis or al qaeda. >> if you're talking about the us engaging in torture the practice of torture threatens our national security. what it is in the lead up to the rack is very interesting to hear mr. negroponte say that he had serious questions about going to war but this came from faulty information that came from people who were tortured who gave information that they thought their torturers wanted to hear. so when you question whether congressional oversight serves the democratic society i think the only thing that does not serve it is when and -- when the intelligence committee is not overseen. that that is what we have seen to the bush and ministration. >> i just want to.out that on the question of at least water boarding we do know that key members of the intelligence committees were briefed including nancy pelosi.

we won't go down this path because i believe she has since denied that but there is pretty good evidence to indicate that these folks were told in the immediate aftermath the word back was do whatever the hell you have to do and if need be do more. at the very least if you are opposed to torture don't focus your fire exclusively on the bush white house. a lot of it was coming from capitol hill as well. >> do you believe that there was any chance that any intelligence indicated a contrary conclusion would have prevented that war? i no what you will say. if they were here i would have addressed it to them. ..

>> >> we have time for one more question. >> just to broaden the

conversation with the decision to invade iraq former u.n. secretary general said this is a legal war of aggression. also the nuremberg tribunal was about accountability for that? just from the scope would you call it that buy off the back -- write off the bat? vivid with their kid legality of the initial authorization to use force when you do have congress to give bush the authority if you thought that was

appropriate. there was pretty decent bipartisan support to give bush the authority john kerry, harry reid, mr. gephardt, , etc. it cetera from the american standpoint i have a hard time dealing with iraq as the legal war. it was more legal than obama use of force in libya where he did not go to congress that all. >> but that is international >> a think it is pretty clear it was in violation of international law. >> i cannot speak for others but i think it is clearly a

violation of international law. going into iraq without the backing of the united nations and there was no likelihood that they would. so it seems very self-evident that the practical situation nobody is in the world could hold us to account it is important with the overarching perspective the extent in the bush administration as people looked around in the aftermath for it tousing can we did not have the soviet union that that to be careful for what we hesitated to do so not to be

the sole superpower to exert our power in the way we had not done previously. in that context the idea of you would attack another country that doesn't threaten you directly that somehow became an acceptable idea. they are not sure we learned our lesson from that either and i just want to end by saying it is important to a value presidencies. with the grass-roots movement that are the true movers and shakers of bravery of those who have spoken out and continue to.

the congress member from oakland california as you pointed out hillary clinton and others voted for war. barbara stallone in those weeks after september 11 saying war is not the answer she would not sign a blank check to make ourselves a for prurient has to look back in the movements that she represented these also deserve those who continue to speak out and are imprisoned we want to hear from all of them when they

cannot speak for themselves. >> is the last word of. >> relatively minor point no question the neocons to go into iraq but under president clinton to acquiescence the regime change of the united states government that doesn't necessarily justify the over invasion but there were a series of steps. >> with thank the surviving cattle west. [laughter] [applause] och

>> i've got one simple message, i have more experience with our national security the and any other candidate in this race. [applause] that includes you, hilary. [laughter] [cheers and applause] we will have a reset in russia that sticks. i know the players. i know our friends and enemies. but most importantly, they know me. i have listened and learned and prepared myself for the job of commander in chief i have served in the air force 33 years.

[applause] it'd has been a true pleasure and honor for christ image of my adult life as part of a team committed to defending america. protecting our way of life. making sure we're saved. politicians focus on elections military focuses on the mission. to defend america and protect the way of life the other nation in what we inherited.

>> one of the most important writers of the 20th century given every literary award possible before she died except the nobel prize. she was known for the of masterpieces.

and in 1943 with some restrictions not allowing her letters to be published or quoted in a full or in part to there is at least 3,000 every new about now. she said she left it to the uncontrolled discretion for the executors' to decide if they enforce the preference in they believed as an educational image that we ought to know more about her. >> butcher was the pioneer photographer in custer county western nebraska. he took photos 1886 through the 1890's of homesteaders

and was able to tell the story of the development of american history. >> one of my favorite images is actually a photograph of the sisters. it is four sisters who each would take a claman custer county the first time that women could only and on their own. that single women could own their own land. each sister to the homestead. so on part of the homestead act and to stay at the house

or work on the farm. set to make in nebraska.

>> alex rogers of "the national journal" follow the tennis a debate in this central role from senator rand paul joining us on capitol hill. thanks for being with us. has he achieved his objective in terms of this debate? >> keith thinks he has. we just met up with him after he left the floor moments ago. he is touting this as a victory but now to to his efforts with double collection of data is over but it looks like this and this will pass the was a freedom and act to end the double collection of metadata later this week. >> host: what this scene was like as he left the capitol yesterday driving off the capitol grounds?

>> it was an interesting moment for me. i have been hearing four weeks is about house senator rand paul was antagonizing his g.o.p. colleagues did not even go to the g.o.p. conference meeting to present his position on the topic. so when i saw him leave the capital knowing the employees would expire he got into the car but the kentucky congressman and he was in the passenger side been another republican on the house side was in the backside they drove away in the tesla it was the great image to share a smile as they would be better accomplished one of their goals that i mentioned the peace at least among fellow

senators but senator rand paul is really a lot. senator mcconnell in directly ripped into him yesterday and senator mcconnell had endorsed him so even among his closest allies it infuriated a lot. >> those that followed the debate there were some rather terse words from senator john mccain from arizona. >> yes. he is lucky to have senator graham as well who will be running for president is antagonistic to senator paul but mccabe as well as senators upper berth with into senator paul i think he said rand paul has fabricated in his own mind what this program is

referring to the bulk metadata so there has been some strong words thrown around in senator rand paul is not very popular with his colleagues. >> host: viet playing of the store with his own campaign to use this fund raising to will. >> sure. uc it brings up traffic on the front page of the weekend then he tweet me out the message that he gave on the floor yesterday was one of the best he has seen in the campaign so there are members and also libertarians' circles that would definitely agree that his message on his side the privacy advocates as well he is the only one that really

feels this way and to that point it is a fund-raising tactic he disagrees he said of the people question mark isis area have been fighting the battle since i have came here and there will always be cynics. >> talking with alex rogers from national journal and may be a short-lived victory will happen later this week in the senate? >> a procedural vote tomorrow and they're expecting tomorrow night into wednesday for final passage there will be some amendments also offered that in terms of senator paul size weaken the u.s. a free iraq but 36 back -- expect for the most part to be passed later this week.

>> alex rogers who is following all this for national journal. thank you for being with us. >> absolutely. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to speak about the fisa bill but before i do, i want to express what is on every one of our hearts of our grieving with the joe biden family. that family has hade >> mr. president i want to talk about the fisa bill but first to talk about the bided family who has had more than its share of

tragedy but what it has produced in the case of beau a service to serve his country not only by elected office but by surveying his uniform as well. most of us in this chamber know the biting family and they're now mom joanne mitchell are extraordinary human beings. that have contributed so much it isn't necessarily easy to be in public service as long as the vice president has and still raise a family that is so extraordinarily accomplished

to contribute so much. then to have his eldest son taken from him is like a dagger into our hearts. so we grieve with the family for them and with the nation and i just wanted to get them on the record. mr. president, we are here because the senate is not functioning. we were here last night because the senate is not functioning. it is according -- according to the rules which says the half to go through this arcane procedure of cloture

on the motion to proceed to get 60 votes before you ever get to the bill and once you get to the bill then you file another motion for cloture in the senate rule says there are 30 hours of less as has ben typical of senate business there is understanding, bipartisanship but one senator can withhold unanimous consent and that has been done. normally that may be standard procedure for the senate but it is getting in the way of our national security because at midnight last night the law that

allows our intelligence community to track the emails and phone calls of the terrorist has evaporated and it will not be reenacted and tell some time later this week because of lack of unanimous consent. but the senator from florida is not putting it at the feet of just one senator who was not withholding the unanimous consent the senator from florida says this should had been planned on over one week ago. and the senator says we should have gone through the laborious procedures not assuming the but have the votes last night to or their

ribby comedy and unanimous consent. this senator thinks we should have done this because of the urgencyf national security. it is interesting that the senator from florida comes here with mixed feelings. i voted for the al leahy bill that is identical to the house bill. but i did that because we didn't have any of their choice when i did i voted for the chairman of the intelligence committee which was to continue existing law , and i did so because i clearly thought that was in the interest of our national security.

but since that is not the prevailing votes in the senate we need to pass the house bill then i would urge the chairman of the intelligence community who is here on the floor, i would urge him to down the line with the six months transitional period that that be extended with the greater transition to 12 for 18 months and would further urge the chairman of the intel committee that a major flaw in the bill passed by the house that we will eventually pass this week week, that'd be added to it, a requirement for a certain amount of time that the telephone companies have to keep those business records so if there is an

urgency of national security going through a the fight is a court day are available to trace those telephone calls of the terrorist that would be my recommendation and i see the chairman nodding in someone agreement. stowe mr. president i hope that our hearts and minds will prevail and we can collapse this period of darfur there is no law governing of emails and phone calls them cellphone six cetera is to try to protect ourselves from the terrorist would hope that would be collapsed into a much shorter time instead of having to wait to until late tuesday wednesday our thursday of this week

mr. president i yield the floor. >> i ask unanimous consent the all morning business be divided. >> without objection. >> morning business is closed for garner the previous order the senate will resume consideration. the clerk will report. >> enact to reform the authorities of the federal government to look at business records for further purposes. >> mr. president i want to rise from my friend is your toussaint wish i had a magic wands i could collapse this but under senate rules one member can demand for the full 30 hours in every year in a process like that i hope there will be some

accommodation as we go through this because most members would like to resolve this and i will say specifically to his two points that there is a substitute amendment that has the was a freedom a glitch with two additional pieces at is a six month notification to nsa by any telecom company that intends to change their program as my good friend from florida knows there is to make sure we have the bill that is passed and from the house of representatives but i hope but i hope they will accept this of notification of the retention program as well as the deionized certification at whatever the transition

period is. there is a first-degree you and second-degree amendment the first is to exist -- extend the transition period from six months not a bad two years not 18 but 12 and that is the happy spot to agree and also to address some language in the bill that makes it mandatory on the part of the justice department to have a panel of amicus individuals that'd be voluntary on the part of the of courts with that first-degree amendment with that language. would like to tell the gentleman i hope by tomorrow afternoon we could have this

completed and sent it to the house by the time we go to bed to braunite this might be back in place. i remind my colleagues that any law enforcement case that is in progress is not affected by the suspension of the loan will provisions. those can continue but for the 48 hours it means we will delay the start of the investigation. and from the standpoint of the bulk data program it means that is frozen for a period of time but has not gone away in immediately as a reinstitute the authorities and the process and is say goes through to clear the data would be available to the national

security agency only once the prize the court provides the authority for them to do and. but a lot of misstatements have been made on the floor but i will say former colleagues what is metadata? it is a telephone number number, date and the time the call was made and the duration of the phone call. i am not sure how we have invaded any betty's privacy by getting a telephone number for the we don't know which belongs to and we never will until it is turned over to law enforcement to investigate because now is connected to a foreign terrorist. the cfpd craft agency collects financial transactions on every

american. nobody down here is trying to eliminate the cftc. i would like to eliminate them to borrow. but there is no out -- tomorrow but they collect a ton more information. every american has a discount card for the gosh ricard every time you use it your grocery store collects 20 times the amount of data from the nsa all identified with you we don't sell our data but your career she store does. i am for outrage but let's understand if we're in a society where data is transferred automatically that this is a program authorized by law, overseen by congress, house, and

senate and the executive branch at the white house in the program that has never, never, never had a privacy violation. not one in the time it has been in place. i am all for the american people isn't a function and they think that is what we have heard to transfer that data over to the telecom companies it is no longer a limited member of people who can access that information. we will open that up to search of their train door not or how they will do that to connect the dots to another dot. >> will the senator yield? >> mr. president it is a good example as chairman of the intel committee, a republican and the senator from florida a former member of the intel committee that

they agreed edward so frustrated as exemplified by the senator that there is so much misunderstanding of why this legislation as fish chairman has said that metadata is nothing more than business records of the telephone company. it is made to another telephone number on a day-to-day at a time for such and such of duration. that is all we do know who it is from zero or two but when there is the suspicion with those other things that are authorized by court order that the analyst can

get in to open up the content and it is agreed that there is so much misunderstanding in the press as has ben reported with the invasion of privacy as if the conversation is the one being held. by then national security agency. >> the collection has nothing to do with content of the call. it would take an investigation to an individual with a core process that would be looked at the fbi, not the nsa to look at content. when the american people see this dissected the telephone

number without my name is not the intrusion. the duration of the call now they're not collecting anything that is said. the original content the metadata is only telephone numbers. why did we create this program? it was transferred over to the intelligence community and the purpose was in realtime to search or query a massive amount of data. so a few weeks ago the united states went into syria and got the bad guy. hard drives and telephones

is some cards and then she tasted into the metadata data base. glading the american people justin above the terrorists are talking to somebody and what we have tried deduces 9/11 is structure something within the law or a presidential directive to gives us the head start to identify who that individual is. but really do that through telephone numbers, the length of the call, not through listening to content it is healthy to have this debate my friend from florida shares my frustration we're changing a problem that does not have a problem or does not need to

be changed and accepting a lower threshold of our ability to intercept that individual that may have the intention to carry out some type of fact. i only say this, i don't believe the threat level has dropped to of we were we can remove some of the tools the threat has gone higher but i accept the point that the debate has gotten to the point where the data storage capacity within the government will not be continued long-term. and i would say to my good friend that although i believe 24 months is a safer transition period hopefully our friends will see 12 as a good agreement between the

two bodies and that would give me confidence knowing we took care of technology needed now make no mistake this is the way from where we currently are i cannot get into the classified nature how long it takes to create database but there is no question it will lengthen the amount of time we need to connect the dots so for what may be an operational mode that is a concern but it is something we can look at as time goes on. >> if you will further yield , has the senator heard nobody has come forth to show us one case that

holding the telephone business bulk records has paid off. has the senator her that statement by the press? vicki has invited members of this body. >> has the senator come to the conclusion that the holding of that day than that there is so many cases that are classified, that has protected this country from terrorist by virtue of just the example that he gave of the terrorist records that were apprehended with federated is syria a couple weeks ago that those telephone numbers it is like mining gold to find other terrorist that

want to hit us. >> you've hit on agree to point i will say it this way with any member of the intelligence committee beyond the of four badgering to keep the program if in fact, in our oversight capacity whatever program that is absolutely worthless? the answer is no. we are down here to battle of the floor better on the committee are have been since 9/11 because we see the impact of this program and we know what it has enabled us to do and what happens with a trove of technology in our hands that we know gives the ability to see if there was tied to somebody if we knew about them or we didn't when you have groups like isil this

is to not come to the united states. stay in europe. here is 100 law enforcement officers that is how you can carry out jihad. it makes the tool even more important because we don't look data no-fly wister those individuals who will travel to syria it is those who grew up in neighborhoods that we never worried about the only way we could find out is to connect the conversation they have had or the fact that it took place and law-enforcement can peel back the onion to begin to look is this a person we need to worry about? the senator is 100 percent correct it is invaluable to the overall defense of this

country. >> if the senator would further yields and i would just conclude, the american people need to understand there is so much agreement behind the closed doors of the intelligence committee as they are invested with the oversight what is going on in order to protect our blessed country. might be now is that we would get to the point that maybe even by a waiting until tomorrow we can collapse this time to get on to pass this to send down minor modifications that the house can accept this to get it to the presidents of this important program that tries

to protect us from terrorist can continue. i thank the senator for yielding. >> also to my friend from florida for his willingness to come to the floor and i see my friend from arizona here. and that we need a longer transition period and i say for my colleagues there will be three votes at some point the exact language of the u.s.a. freedom bill, it makes to changes, it would have a requirement of the telecom to notify the government six months in advance of any change of the retention program for the data that i think is reasonable.

the second is it requires the director of national intelligence to certify whatever the transition day is the software needed to provide so that the search can go through. in addition thereto other amendments the first will deal with expanding the transition period from the current six months to 12 months i would have preferred 24 we will settle on 12 and the last saying it was a change the language in the bill that is provided to us by the courts that this would be easier to fit with a program with a time sensitivity. as we go through the debate today and tomorrow hopefully

will have the amendments that will pass a report this out after lunch tomorrow if this works well. >> mr. president, i rise to address the bill before us the usa freedom to act and the predecessor of the patriot backed. before talking about the specifics i want to put into context what we are wrestling with and why this is so hard. '' we are trying juju this week is to balance to critical constitutional provisions the first is in the preamble to provide for the common defense with domestic tranquillity that is a fundamental purpose of this government of any government to provide for the common defense to insure domestic tranquillity is national security and it was

in the very core preamble to the constitution of the united states. the other provisions are found on the bill of rights that talks about the right to of the people to be secure with that person's papers from unreasonable searches and seizures. unreasonable is a key word. the people that drafted our constitution reduces. every word counts in the word was unreasonable so there is no absolute right to privacy just no absolute right to national security. we have to try to find the right balance year in and year out in relation to developments of technology in terms of the threat which we face a calibration that we try to make.

i have been a concern as a member of the intelligence committee as the retention of telephone data by the government. i think the program under which it has been analyzed is important. but i share the concern that simply having all that information in the of government computers even though with various protections with requirements of how to be accessed and the level of attention of detail there is no evidence it has been abused if that simply having the government retain that information itself was the danger to the liberty of our country. and like those that have expressed that concern.

therefore the freedom act proposes to leave the data with the phone company instead of the government to collect it it will be in the phone companies hands and if it is necessary to act then the government will have to go through the process to go to the justice department and the court to get permission. why shouldn't the government told that? have a subscriber to the maximum power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. weld the current illustration or the prior administration we have no inclination to miss use the data we have no idea what may come in the future and what political pressures there maybe a of therefore it is sensible to get it out of the government's hands.

the problem i have had with the usa freedom act i felt it went too far in the other direction because there is no requirement in the bill that has passed the house that the phone companies retain and pulled the data for any particular amount of time. it is now held between 18 months and two years which jews necessary to have the data available for national security searches necessary. but there is no requirement that they maintain that level. with an open hearing of the vice president's he said categorically we will not accept a limitation on how long we have to hold the data. that is a glaring weakness in the freedom act that led me to vote against consideration of the bill

when it had the motion to proceed past week. today or tomorrow, there will be a series of amendments proposed by the senator from north carolina designed to deal with several of what i consider consider, a technical but very important aspects of this program. one and was ted require that if the carriers decided to hold the data for a shorter period of time there would have to notify the government and the congress so we could make a decision whether we thought additional period of retention is necessary to adequately protect national security. another amendment that is proposed is the transition period to the private carrier holding the data

will be extended from six months to one year simply because it is a herculean task to develop the software to be sure the information is available for national security purposes on a timely basis. so the final question, is it an important program worth maintaining? there is a lot of argument if you cannot point to a specific plot flailed by this narrow provision, then we don't need it at all. i don't buy that mr. president. it is part of the national security toolkit. this is interesting with that history shortly after september 11 because of the gap in the security analysis was identified at that time

that we could not track phone connections not content, between the people who were preparing for the september 11th attack. for the reason this section 215 program was invented. i want to stop to make clear to the american people that this program does not collect or listen to or have anything to do with the content of phone calls. as i talk to people they say we do what the government listening to all of our phone calls. they don't. this has not conveyed any such authority we are talking about a much more narrow ability to determine if a particular phone number

of the duration and the dates. that is that. the example of the usefulness is the boston marathon bombing. the two brothers perpetrated that horrendous attack april april 2013. this program allowed the authorities to check the phone numbers to see if they were in touch with other people in the country to determine if it was a nationwide plot or simply just these two in boston. that is an some would say critical, a piece of information. it turns out they were acting on their own but had there been connections with similar inclined people in the country, that would have been an important thing for us to know. that is the way the program is used. is it absolutely critical

and indispensable to solve these cases? i don't think anybody can argue that is the case. is important and useful as the national security toolkit? yes. particularly when the invasion of privacy is so limited and is so narrowly defined. i liken it to a new book that a police officer carries added a scene of the crime. he takes out a notebook and makes notes. if we said they could no longer carry notebooks would eliminate a law enforcement's ability to solve crimes? no. but would it limit a tool that was helpful to them to solve that crime or another crime? i think the answer would be as. we should not take a tool a way that is useful or important unless there is a compelling argument on the

other side. since we're not talking about the content of phone conversations which number call another number and only access through up process that involves the justice department and permission from the court. i think it is a program were the of protection and usefulness to this country. i think it is particularly important now and it is ironic to talk about unilaterally disarming with the threat to this country has never been greater and the nature is changing. september 11 is terrorism 1. zero up plot hatched abroad the people perpetrated were smuggled into the country come a specific target and a specific plot they were working on.

that is september 11. then 2.o is the plot hatched abroad but communicated directly to those in the united states part of the jihad group but now we're on to 3.o back devices -- that is isis with a terrorist epb to anyone in this country who has been radicalized by the internet or the missiles. no direct connection it could be a facebook post. then that person takes up arms and tries to kill americans. that is what the intent is. that is the hardest for us to counteract. that is the situation where this ability to track numbers calling numbers can

be extremely useful and might be the only useful tool because we will not have the kind of specific plot that we have seen in the past. it is the most dangerous threat that we face today and to throw aside a protection or safeguard that i believe constitution in the gold luster to go the extra mile to protect the privacy rights of americans to get the data out of the hands of the government is one that is worthy of the support and that active work in this chamber to find the balance, of the balance between the imperative, the most solemn responsibility we have in this body to provide for the common defense to insure domestic tranquillity to protect the safety and security of the people of this country in light of the constitutional

limitations with the bill of rights that protect individual liberties to make us who we are. we can't do both things. there will never be a final answer to this question. but we need to assess the threats, the technology developments and try to find the right calibration that will allow us to meet the most solemn of our responsibilities. . . be a quick passage of this legislation in the next 24-48 hours so that we can look our constituents and the people of this country in the eye and say we took the responsibility to protect your security seriously. we also took seriously your rights your liberty and your understanding that the government is not going to