stronger but eventually the cat got into his group. the prime minister looks weak on democratic reform and i think he looks weak there. by having a clear concise message got there and she made her point. don't know if she will connect with canadians but she got into the debate. >> i agree with the point alyssa made that the prime minister had me worried. i thought he came out of it maybe a bit scuffed up but he wasn't battered and bruised by those guys. >> what you think about his answer that is not his job as a leader to apologize for the actions of others when asked if he should apologize. >> given the toughness of the question he gave a little bit of an awkward answer. >> harper was good on the question of separation when i came in and mulcair and trudeau were going after each other. he was on the hotseat taking a lot of attacks and we heard that

is not true so many times out this debate. trudeau as well has performed well especially on the issue of the senate the same broken promise many times. .. , to go in favor of that. >> a clear preference. 83% saying we should change the system. >> not surprising. >> often times people will say governance doesn't matter. a clear preference, second-highest topic discussed for the election. >> an important idea discussed to read we will hear more about it over the next few months. >> be sure to tune in after the debate as we explore the issues

on a number of fronts. how canadians are responding in person and online. we will hear from the moderator about being in the middle of the action. the party leaders are here to take on the final issue. mr. wells: welcome back to read the final topic is foreign policy and security. if there ever was a distinction about the choices canada makes abroad, it vanished last october >> voters inspired by international terrorist murder soldiers.

>> canadian security is being challenged in iraq and syria. commitments to allies are tested in eastern europe. our relations with the united states are still another area. we'll discuss canada. ♪ >> our first question on this goes to tom, canadians are reluctant to combat, mvp both sending troops in combat has never been tested and power at the federal level. would it ever send troupes -- troops and if so, where? >> we have shown in the past. we withdrew that when we changed

the mission that they were asking to support. they consulted and we agreed with that, so yes, there will be times when that will be appropriate. before i will ever risk their lives, i will think about them. i will think about their families andou i'll make sure tt we have a clearly defined mission and clear exit strategy. when mr. harper started we said, no way, not every single person on this panel agrees with the persons of fighting terrorism. the question is when we put can addian in harms way. >> the united kingdom, is that not a broad enough consensus.

>> multilateral has been a canadianti approach. this is not a mission. so we think that we are taking iran headed approach here and we know that a lot of the horrors that we are seeing are the result of the last misguided war. canada gotde it right when it sd we would stay out of the war and we are seeing the mistakes of that wrong-headed war right now. >> with all due respect that second vote where every democratic vote about libya, the u.n. was the responsibility to protect in libya.

at the moment that we as a country, canada said the rebel forces, we did that knowing full well those rebel forces included alfo qaeda. i wasae the only one that voted against. it seemed pretty clear to me with that peace offer we should see if it worked. ended up being emptied out by terrorists and ended up disstabilizing ma will recollect -- mali. how cainn we in the country that have always stood for peace keeping when everything i just said was already clear?

>> indeed, when it becomes clear that it morphed into a mission for regime change. that shows the -- mr. harper is in favor of every single possible use. >> while doing the tour of parties that are in government and asking when to use force, you think they mandate before we send troops abroad? >> that's a clearly indicator that we should be involved and other indicators where we shouldn't. i supported our engagement and the fact is that i'm proud to actually have among us in our great team of candidates the former commander of the army who was on the ground in afghanistan. the liberal party knows that canada has an important world.

i disagree with the prime minister in current admission. it's not that it shouldn't have ae role against i s il, i just disagree on the approach. unfortunately mr. harper hasn't seen a war he doesn't wanted to get involved in. that was very clear when he support george w. bush with war against iraq. the fact canada should have a role to play, it needs to be the right one that's actually going to help the local forces. >> what do you make about it? >> well, i don't think this government has actually gotten involved in military. it's not true what he says. all of our allies support this.

virtually all of the countries support this. this organization has become the global nerve center slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in iraq and syria and it's a threat to the entire region and globe. it demon h -- demonstrated the ability it would be foolish for us not to go after the group before they come after us. i'm proud of the men and women. they understand it's common sense. >> a question that one of my colleagues put to you, if not isis, who? >> we support being part of the coalition against i s -- i s

>> when they sent into harmes way, there has to be a clear plan, there has to be a clear expectation of success and reasonable justification of the specific action canada taking. not just these people are bad and we need to do something. we have to be thoughtful because our allies, canadians expect us toac be thoughtful. if we are going to send our troops overseas, we need to make sure they are properly taken cared of them when they come fm and mr. harper has failed our veterans by nikeel and diming them and not giving the service, the help that they need and it's something that we should all be ashamed of, that this government that likes to wrap in the flag is not caring for those people who have fought and in many

cases have died. >> 35% more directly than we were when we came to office. let me go back to the central question of the isis mission. what we are doing in isis is the mission that our international allies think we should be doing. these are the parties, hit them in the air. he has provided no reason why he's against that other than flag the military when asked why they shouldn't go there. it's a mission supported by canadians and allies, if you're prime minister you have to be able to make these kinds of decisions. >> it's a tricky question. we don't have permission. wen wait for his permission. that was pretty strange because he's a butcher.

it has caused loss of lives. we stood back and didn't do anything. that wasn't isis murdering people, that was a civil war, are w slaughtering each other ad isis is taking advantage of that. are we going to help bomb isis, there were some people that said isis was probably helpful. >> isn't that one of the awful tricks of history that most of the world's crisis areas -- >> why does this group of dispickable thugs put their horrific acts on youtube, because they want to draw us into the region. they are following a not official text of the their -- what they a claim is essentialla

muslim book of revelations that would lead them in results. so we are actually doing what they want when we go in with bombing missions. >> ukraine andn eastern europe. if nato nation is attacked all nato nations must attack. >> of course, ukraine not being a member of nato i'm not sure that the question would pertain. >> neighbors. >> again, w ie will of course support nato, we are proud members of nato and that's why i made reference earlier. that should be one of our multilateral cornerstones despite what mr. harper just said. the mission in iraq is not a

nato mission, period. putin is a danger. we stand firmly with ukraine against the aggression by russia. there are things that canada can and should be doing. our allies have a complete list of people being sanctioned. mr. harper is sheltering them. they are not on canada's list. my question to you is why are these two individuals being blocked by our allies and you're giving thesem a free pass? >> we have sanctioned a record number. not just of russian officials and officials that were involved in ukraine territory. we're trying to minimize damage

to our own where all of our alliese list people that we follow in the list and we do the same. >> are thesewi two individuals n the list of closest allies. mr. harper is refusing to put them on canada's list and refusing to saying why. >> one final round of questions. you had to make difficult decisions of security at home, opposing to take action in international isis and supporting the antiterrorism legislation even though you will change it later. why do these issues raise questions about your judgment? >> the fact is the government of canada and the prime minister is expected to do two things, the first one is to keep us safe, the second is to uphold and

defend our rights and freedom. mr. harper doesn't think we need to do anything more to protect our rights and freedom. hemr doesn't think we need to do anything more on security. the liberal party has been very clear. we need to do both of them together. we supported the legislation because there specific elementst protect canadian security and actually bringing in the proper oversight that our allies all have by elected legislatures over our national security agencies to make sure that we are protecting. also bringing in sunset and review clause to make sure we are narrowing and specifying the definition. we managed the committee to encourage the government to bring in significant amendments that removed a number of very

problem elements in not pretending there's a politic al choice to be made. we can take a responsible position because mr. harper wants everyone to be scared that there are terrorists behind every leaf and rock. the fact is any canadian government needs to do them both together, and that is what the liberal party has demonstrated in the years following 9/11, that's what we continue to demonstratele. >> i'll let him explain his own position. what i say is this, paul, our argue is very clear that security and freedom go hand in

hand. we knowmr that the international jahadi's movement is menace to this country. we made sure that we are up to those standards. we've also provided -- we have moved oversight in a very different direction. we have oversight by independent experts, people that are experts in the field and they are chaired by prominent formers judges. >> when you -- >> i don't support this kind of oversight.su that is our -- that is our role to draft laws, make laws.

when it comes to operations of the government, i don't think those things should be done by politicians, they should be done by experts and judges. >> there's no oversight at all. if you listened to security experts and i urge everyone watching doing intelligence work with canada, this antiterrorism act makes us less safe. it's very likely to make us less able to disrupt while at the same time eroding our freedoms. this legislation is dangerous and when asked by contacts and colleagues, is there anything canada is doing they said absolutely not, they're sitting on a tragedy waiting to happen. >> we all agree, paul, that we have to -- we strongly believe

that you have to do that without , all concur that bill c-51 represents rights and freedoms with nothing in return. there's nothing in there that hasn't been captured by existing legislation. we have one clear answer to the canadian public. it will repeal c-51. if there is evidence that something is missing, for example, conservatives left completely silence the question radicalization. for example, president obama will talk about working with houses of worryship and

religious leaders. mr. harper points out and singles out mosks. he knows why he is using that language. muslim women should get the hell back where they came from and he's about to sign that person's nam nation's papers. >> are you using code words again? >> absolutely not. it's the same on this every single time. every piece ever presented it has been opposed. allowing security organization to share information on terrorist threats, allow them to intervene before plots development to prevent the very kind of thing that happened in october. it is important -- i believe it is important that we call the international jahadi's threat exactly what it is.

anyone that thinks that that la labeling, not just in this country but around the world. if you're not prepared to call the threat we face by the name it is, you are not prepared to confront it and we need to confront it as a country. >> c-51 does not do the things that the prime minister just said.er the u.k. has brought in to confront t risk of radicalizati. we've got the -- the 18 in toronto. we arrested young people who were about to leave montreal. c-51 creates a secrete police. it will create separate security groups, not knowing what the

other is doing. this legislation must be repealed. lookn at the recommendations to anyone here and i hope to be playing a key role in the parliament. look at the recommendations and use those recommendations as the basis for drawing the legislation. this is a disaster. >> are you surprised liberal members leaving that support this issue? >> there's a lot of division going on in politics these days. there will be people disagreeing on the left and on the right with our positions. i'm fairly confident, i am confident that we have the right position here. we need to talk a lot more about

attacking -- addressing radicalization, working with various communities to make sure that we are engaging in the kind of counter radicalization that other countries are doing. we need to reduce the kind of politics and division and actually work together to make sure that we're keeping canadians safe. that's certainly something that the liberal party knows we need to do. >> there are important measures in c-51, but the fact of the matter is, the reason we have had such success in this country in breaking up plots before they have occurred, we know what some of those are, it's because our law enforcement and security agencies are working more closely with communities that are vulnerable than anywhere in the world and they get great support. that's because werl have strong

policies that promote multiculture in the country, and we don't have the kinds of problems in britain and elsewhere, these are the kinds ofnd policies the government of canada and agencies are doing today. >> it has left us weaker. for the first time since the united nation was created canada missed -- we were thrown out by long-time allies like portugal, we can get back to a canada that's respected on issues of international aid and development. we'll put back the international aid budgets that mr. harper has cut. we will protect, promote values on the international stage. we also will start to respect our international obligations, stop working against the world, start working for the planet.

i would love nothing more than as prime minister next december to go to the international conference on climate change in paris and to do just that, get us on track to deal us with the issue of climate. >> canada is most admired country in the world because we take strong stands and we do what we believe is right. there is movement in the united nations, this government haofs taken a very clear position. we will not support that. it is wrong. this is thepo only country in te world whose existence is under threat. this is the best friend and ally the country has. >> i'll take no lessons from

anyone on defending the right of israel. we want a safe state and a safe state for -- that's a balanced approach. >> all parties are. in agreement on this. we have been talking about international relations. we have the worst relation with the united states. >> we have covered so much in the last two hours. now it's time to close with remarks. >> thank you, paul. >> ladies and gentlemen which is about who has proven to keep canada safe and our economy strong. we know that beyond our shores the global economy remains in a state of turmoil and uncertainty. we have yet another debt crisis in europe.

we had the best economic growth, the best job creation and the best growth in middle-class incomes of any of the developed nations. while other countries are descending into deficit with tax hikes and cuts to their programs and services and economic stagnation, we have a balanced budget with lower taxes, increase money for the things that matter and benefits for families like yours. the other parties want a different course. they w would replace low tax, balanced budget plan. they want to spend tens of billions of dollars additional tond be financed by high taxes, higher taxes and permanent deaf -- deficits. they would take in whole or in part child care benefit.

they would hike taxes on business and workers, tax increases on the pension plan and tax increases to employment insurance. countries that have gone down the road of higher taxes and permanent deficits are failing around the world. you though that there has been and has been no better than this country canada. i ask for your support so together we can continue to build the best country in the world. >> thank you, steven harper. the next closing statement is tom. >> thank yaiou, paul. thank all of you at home for joining us in the middle of the summer. in this election there's a clear choice. four mtiore years of steven harper's conservative or my plan

for positive change. under mr. harper's plan incomes are -- mr. harper has the worst job record since the second world war. he's added $150 billion to canada's debt. and these -- sorry, mr. harper's plan h clearly isn't working. some have been sent to jail. theav biggest risk for canada is four more years of mr. harper's government. it is timer' for a change, chane built on hard working living within your means and accountability. these are the values that will continue to guide me. my number one priority is to kick start the economy and get

canadians working. we will invest in local infrastructure and help small businesses to create jobs. and we understand that good jobs and a clean environment go hand in hand. i have fought for canada my whole life. i know that canada is the greatest country in the world, but a lot has been lost under the conservatives. ir have the experience to replae mr. harper and the plan to repair the damage that he has done. canadians are ready for change, we'rane ready too. i invite youea to join us. thank you. >> thank you. and the next round of closing remarks to elizabeth. >> thank you. as we currently stand on august 6th involve all of us in

an english-language debate. i want to say that it'll be a shame if we don't have more debates because we have not discussed social policy, we have not discussed to how we respond to reconciliation, expand our medicare systemd to include farmer care, young people facing crushing level of student debts and their families. everyone is talking about the middle class. i support the concern, the 86 wealthiest families in the country have the same wealth of 11 million canadians. this.e to address so i ask you to consider the grand prize. i ask you toen get to know us. we are not what you think. we are not a one-issue party.

i'm proud to be joined by deputy leader daniel green in quebec from coast to coast, people like gordon miller. we're running strong candidates to be strong because we want to work for you. we want to go to work for you in a more willing to work across party lines to deliver what canadians want. we believe in a canada that works. we believe in a canada that works together for all of. help us now. visit the election where we would get our country back. >> thank you, elizabeth. i've never seen politicians keep to their time. i appreciate you doing that.

>> silly as they are, they do pose an important question, how can you decide whether someone is ready to be your prime minister. here is what i think, ask them what they want to do with this job, whyis they want it in the first place. 43-year-old father of three kids, i love them deeply and i want them to grow up in the best country in the world, one that we can all be proud of. what i learn from my father is that to lead this country, you need to love this country. love it more than you crave power. it needs to run through your vains and feel it through your bones. mr. harper part ways on many issues, our differences go deeper than just policy.

mr. harper is dead wrong about one thing, he wants you to believe that better just isn't possible. i think that's wrong. we are who we are. canada is what it is because in our hearts we've always known that better is always possible. an economy that works for the middle class means a country that works for everyone, a country that is strong not in spite of our differences but because of them. the world needs more of both those things and after ten years of mr. harper, so do we. >> thank you. >> that's why i want to be your prime minister. >> this concludes the first debate of this campaign. this whole experiment was a new

experience for everybody. i want to thank theex leaders fr the leap of faith that they showed when they agreed to participate. good luck to all of you. i want to thank the viewers at home and online for tuning in tonight. make sure to look at the website i'm heading over there right now per the new special, your vote, your future. i'm paul wells, from toronto. >> tonight on c-span the lingering impact of urban riots one year after the shooting of brown in maryland. one of the people on the panel professor german, here is what he had to say in the discussion. >> i don't think we want to police to entirely go away or

disappear, but i think a lot of people want the police to be more accountable. that is something positive. i've been try to go -- trying to think of things that are positive that come out of these events. people are starting to demand more accountability for the police forces. politicians are coming on board with that. new york mayor signed an executive order. now people have been asking for that since 1965 when the congress on racial equality with demanding civilian review board. it was put in place just recently. new york state governor, i'm not really a huge fan of policies, but he have said that police officers, if local prosecutor will not pursue police issue,

than the state will. there's been positive movement to hold police more accountable. >> the discussion always feature kelli talking how urban riots lead to policy changes. you can watch it tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. white house press secretary tells helds the final briefing. the nuclear deal with iran and the economy. >> good afternoon, everybody. happy friday. can we do short remark and then

go to your questions? today actually marks the one year anniversary of the air strikes in iraq against isis targets, you recall one year ago today that isis had advanced across iraq and other parts had fallen in the year. most had fallen. it was advancing rapidly where u.s. government personnel were located an forces were leading threatening against the people. they commit atrosties. but in the last year we have made considerable, considerable progress in our effort to

destroy isis. u.s. lead coalition has hit with more than six thousand air strikes. in iraq they have lost the freedom to operate in 30% of the territory that they held last summer. overall they have lost more than 17,000 scare between syria and turkey. coalition forces are struck leadership targets to the extent that they no longer have safe ha vrk --

>> as the president said, this will take time. we have made progress and we will ultimately prevail. while our commanders continue this mission, there's one thing that congress can do to support their efforts, they can vote on the authorization that the president present to congress. so with that, some questions, mark? >> straight to iran. >> okay. >> how big a role to the decision effort to avoid having congress -- making common cause?

>> well the president stands by the argument he made on wednesday. i would -- you sited the two members of congress that have come out in opposition to the deal. but there are -- we're now up to 12 members of congress. it's seven in the house and five in the united states senate, so certainly the two members that you mentioned are influential members of congress. >> it's going to be the number

one democratic -- >> i think what the president took on directly in his speech is that the individuals who were advocateing are the same people that made the same arguments in 2003 in the march to war against iraq. this includes people like john boehner and john mccain, newcomers like donald trump. for people who are supporting the agreement are those individuals who like the president of the united states oppose the iraq war from the beginning or has since acknowledged that the vote in support of that march to war was a mistake. and as i mentioned some of their

names already, there's also people like nancy pelosi who have strong records on these matters. so anyone -- anybody who has been covering american politics for the last 12, 13 years would recognize the fault lines of this political argument. it's not new. it's a difference of opinion dating back to 2003. that's why i would describe this as an announcement that would not -- would not particularly surprising to anybody here at the white house even if it was disappointing, but it doesn't change our confidence that we will be able to mobilize substantial majority of democrats in both the house and

the senate in support of the deal and if necessary to sustain the president's veto. >> all right, you mentioned -- [laughs] >> you needed to know that. >> could you tell us if he watched the debate and his reaction? >> he indicated that he did not watch the debate last night. i did have an opportunity to watch the debate. i was disappointed that it started so late. there was a point where i did doze off for a little bit during the debate. i woke back and thought i was in 2012. [laughs] >> claims about the country and use and priorities. i don't think republicans are

useful line of attack last time but it appears that maybe they are doing it again. >> surprised by what you saw or you need to fact-check anything? >> not particularly. >> he might at least catch a clips. >> well, i think he had seen -- he had seen some of the coverage but he did not watch it last night. >> the head of the military task force traveled to russia -- now that that's a concern what is your reaction to that and concerns raised about russia and iran? >> well, jeff, i've seen those reports as well. i'm not able to confirm them,

however, i think what i would remind you of is we have indicated from the very beginning that our expectation was that this effort to reach an agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would not address the long standing and lengthy list of concerns with iran behavior. he in particular is someone who has been subject to u.s. sanctions for quite some time because the effort that he has undertaken to support terrorist organizations around the world, and, again, i can't confirm the specific reports, but it -- it is an indication of or ongoing concerns with iran and their behavior. in the mind of the president it makes it all more important that we pursue to prevent iran from

building nuclear weapons. well, again, i -- we have found over the course of this diplomatic engagement that russia has been an effective partner. the international community, and russia has benefited from the willingness to cooperate in reaching an agreement that would prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. we hope that russia will continue to act with the international community moving forward. >> you not worried -- >> i'm not to confirm the individual reports. >> going back to iran, this development is not surprising

but disappointing change calculations for campaign going forward -- >> no. i do not anticipate that the president will spend a lot of time making calls. i think most of the president's time on martha's vineyard will be spent with his family or golf course or both. well, i think jeff was clear that there are still a number of people who have not announced a position on this issue, and that's why you can expect that there will be continued discussions between senior administration officials and members of congress even though the next several weeks congress is out of town, and we do

continue to be confident in our ability to build strong majorities in both the house and the senate among the democratic caucus and one of the reasons that that is the case, is that there continues to be ample public data to indicate that this is an agreement the democrats across the country support and some communicate that they are majorities of american jews who support this agreement, and that continues to give us confidence that as people consider the terms of this agreement and as they consider a strategy we have a strong case to make in terms of persuading members of congress and the american public that

this is the best approach. >> a number of former senior administration officials last night, i'm wondering if senator decision on the issue is to any -- >> well, ultimately the only -- this is a question for democratic senators. this is a vote that they will cast in early 2017, i believe that's the way the system will work, so you know, this is a line of questioning that came up in this context when senator reid announced his retirement. the white house would not take a

position on those future leadership elections in the senate democratic caucus. that continues to be true today. i wouldn't be surprised that there are individual members of the senate and democratic caucus that would consider the voting record of those who say they would like to be the caucus. >> i know that no positions have been made. i'm wondering is this a point where it's kind of getting to language and cross the t's and the i's. >> i don't have any comment on any consideration of actions that the president might take in

pursuit of priorities that we have layed out. the president made clear that middle-class families would benefit if more families had access to pay leave, that those kinds of policies help middle-class workers better balance the obligations they have at the office with the obligations they have at home. when those policies are implemented, they have a way of improving productivity and loyalty to the employer. that ends up -- that's why we've seen so many private-sector companies take action on their own. i know that -- i believe it was netflix that got a lot of attention for a paid-leave policy that they are implementing in that company. they are not doing out of

charity. good business for companies all across the country. but i don't have any announcements to make at this time about actions that maybe under consideration in pursuit of that goal. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm wondering what the president is thinking of assessment of positions of russia and iran on with an issue that came up -- the president or the administration officials had conversations with iran government about syria, and secondly what the u.s. is doing

to seize advantage that sort of take advantage -- >> it sounds like an act of characterization what the president said in the interview and the was based on own analysis. many analysts with expertise in this area have concluded that president's grip on power is not as strong as it was once. there's reason to believe that it's not just analysts in the united states that have made this observation but other interested parties in the region have reached this conclusion as

well. it's unclear exactly how that is going to change anybody's strategy or actions in the region, but as the president pointed out it does offer at least a little bit more hope that our long sought political reconciliation in syria -- >> shouldn't be considered -- maybe some additional intervention against the regime? >> well, i don't think that any of the steps that you just named would logically make some of the countries that you named in our originally question more likely

to be constructed. it is safe if your to assume that the security team has been ant continue -- and continue to watch the situation closely. to consider a range of options that could improve what is just an awful situation. you know, i had an opportunity to refer to it earlier. the united states has committed significant resources to try to leave that and ease the burden on other countries in the region that have taken responsibility for syrian refugees. there are a variety of situations to be concern in syria and we continue to watch closely. >> did he call the president to inform him of the decision?

>> he was given a head's up. >> you said you would be surprised if the democratic caucus members would take into consideration, how provocative would it be against this deal? >> well, again, i think ultimately that will be a decision that individual members of the senate will have to make and i'm not sure that my opinion on that matter matters too much. [laughs] >> in this case i'll defer. exactly. can you measure the frustration level inside the white house right now? >> i would -- i think i would

city with my description before as not surprising. it is a difference of opinion that president obama and senator have had for quite sometime. senator is in his announcement made a strong case for the president of the united states seeking to impose the will of the united states in the middle east and previous efforts to do that like those that occurred in 2003, and that is the essence. and getting back to the debate last night, was there one comment that was made that you would take most exception to? what struck you as being something that you had a problem with last night with the way

they were talking about the president's record? >> there were so many. [laughs] >> and i'll try another one. ..

>> >> but again, just the raw numbers one vote for members of congress to comment on

the democratic side is the indication of the momentum we have to build on for the strong majority of the democratic caucus. >> what do you say like someone from georgia who is the democrat to win against him? >> from mr. scott statement. is hard to evaluate the subject. >> a a verbal fisticuffs between chris christie and president obama. were you there for that piece? [laughter] in your opinion what was the essence of that?

because he was upset. >> we did not have the opportunity to talk about this in 2012. [laughter] and i think from other people is the willingness to set aside their own partisan identity and political ambition and particularly at a time of crisis to ensure the interest of the people they were elected to serve are protected trying to meet the needs of the people of jersey were significantly was significantly affected by the storm that is the

expectation we expect to have robust debates even occasionally with our own political party with the expectation that elected leaders will put aside political differences to focus on the interest of their constituents. this was just before a significant national election. but this is the governing style that people expect the and the approach of president obama has prioritized in a less scrutinized situation to travel to other areas of the

country and even when is clear the vast majority of the local population did not support that election they appreciate the president is there to have that opportunity to visit communities in both oklahoma and arkansas affected by tornadoes. even i was struck by that. it is clear there was not a lot of obama of voters with the motorcade or voters picking through the bubble of the neighborhood destroyed by a tornado, but it featured we have seen the president warmly received and that is the feeling they have for their political leaders and one of the reasons the president is proud to lead this country. >> in this time because it

is such a hot topic, one of the reason other presidents reach across the aisle some ideas think there is more of an effort to reach across the aisle? >> said you saw the president to sign legislation into law to create a wilderness area in the state of idaho with the government -- republican members of congress from idaho that is one example to find common ground and in this case to find a common ground with obamacare despite those political differences that i am sure that they have that is another illustration not just the president's effort to reach out to find common

ground but also a manifestation of the expectations with the darkest read congressional districts in the country. with the expectations of those people working with a democratic president to advance the interest of their community. >> i was not there. maybe you should tell me. >> disappointing but not surprising. >> are you under the expectation and looking at that campaign approach? >> it is not fair what

expectations people have of the timing of senator schumer is decision. to work closely with him to understand the facts of the agreement and the details of what was agreed to. the best way to prevent iran from irritating nuclear weapons. i mentioned the effort by the administration to engage schumer predated the completion of the agreement that schumer had indicated a willingness to interact with the president's national security team to understand the details. it would have been foolish for the administration to rebuff merely because of his widely known views as it

relates to the iraq war in in 2003. we would engage him in pursuit of an opportunity that we could succeed to persuade him to support the deal but it did not turn out that way. i don't think anybody was surprised. >> but with the timing in your point of view? that the president would not do anything on vacation but vacation? >> i think i was a little flippant to answer the question earlier. that was my intent to try a to convey there will not be much time to spend making phone calls but he may make some but that would have been true regardless of the timing or ultimate conclusion reached by senator schumer.

>> obviously the president is not on the ballot but his policies are under attack. tuesday with the republicans , you say it is the reason why because of the situation because of 2003 but they say because obama ordered troops out. can you at least comment on that it was the direct attack on obama policy? >> it does serve to illustrate those approaches by republicans and the approach by president obama he has made it clear he does not envision a scenario that u.s. military personnel would be engaged in a sustained combat operation

in syria or iraq. many were on the page last -- from the stage thus i articulated their support for a strategy to include a significant commitment on the ground but the president does not believe that would be a the best way to keep the national security interest and ultimately the american people will have their own judgments and the president does not support that approach. >> when obama ordered the troops to go down to iraq? >> going back at 2003 that al qaeda and iraq it was not there and told the invasion

and since then we have been dealing with the consequences of that invasion and the infiltration and propagation of those extremist forces in and iraq and reared dealing with those consequences today. >> with the iran deal what does the united states gets. >> it is something that republicans and even the prime minister netanyahu has said is a top priority this to verifiably to obtain iran and -- to stop iran from obtaining nuclear weapon. that is the goal that the prime minister all agree. and in the president's mind the best way to accomplish

that goal. >> is this a change of policy? that vhs is changing the policy. >> as we discussed just a day that the president has long acknowledged is a difficult challenge that has been difficult to confront i will refer you to the department of homeland security and would not want to describe it as a different way to give confusion in that court case but it is a challenging issue of that case. >> with the response that to

me period from july -- june 28 through july 11 that half of those were released this is because the white house is changing policy how the detention centers are used and their policy? >> i will refer you to dhs. >> yesterday we saw the announcement the u.s. had transfer the wife of a senior isis leader to the iraqi kurdish custody. in a statement from the white house said she was complicity in the detention of the american. so she will not face charges? or if there was a policy decision to not more aggressively pursue that

avenue? >> a couple of things factor in their. the decision to transfer to the iraqi government was based on the unanimous interagency consensus that detainee's transfer would be appropriate with respect to legal diplomatic intelligence considerations. the large number of badges should give you an idea how many agencies were consulted the determination of the process from the government of iraq and iraqi government that when the other thing i would add to is that the u.s. personnel did have an opportunity to interrogate for an extended period of time to maximize the

collection of available land useful intelligence. she was married to a senior isil leader that was killed in a raid earlier this year and we do suspect he was a member of isil to play a role and activities and we to believe she and her husband are composite in the captivity of a u.s. citizen killed. we also believe they are a composite of another woman who was rescued at the time at the capture. we have a firm belief that in the context of the iraqi criminal-justice system she will be held to account for her crime. >> is there a disappointment

to be engaged at a fairly senior level is now outside of reach? >> the decision to press charges in the u.s. court is made by prosecutors at the department of justice and that is the position they could make to give you more of an explanation but at the same time the reason you have brought interagency consensus that this was the right approach, is the united states as confidence in the iraqi criminal justice system. >> wesley, -- lastly you have talked about policy. how was this communicated to the families.

>> it was prior to the announcement. >> that is a good question. >> but i don't know how that occurred but it was communicated to the family here in united states before the public announcement of the decision was made. >> was that considered a crime in iraq? >> she is an iraqi citizen. i refer you to the iraqi criminal justice about that. there is the reason to be is skeptical of the syrian justice system at this point. with the charges that she bases i will refer you to the iraqi criminal justice system.

but that is the tissue is a citizen of iraq. >> [inaudible] >> i think we have been forthright and candid a about the challenges we face to implement this strategy when it comes to recruiting recruiting, training and supporting moderate syria and opposition fighters. to take the fight to lou isil on the ground for the one of the most significant challenges is conducting background checks. there is a priority to make sure those individuals who receive significant to equipment are not

individuals who are prepared to do a turnaround to use that training equipment against a coalition force. or for the opposition element. this has been and a difficult challenge that i have often said the united states that the president and his team is interested to major we're constantly reviewing the politics we have in place to refine those to accomplish our goal >> for an update on the current status? >> i will refer you. >> for the iraq war, is

their confidence of that decision? >> in those other areas i could cite that senator schumer has ben supportive of other democrats in pursuit of the president's agenda. there is no denying this disagreement or difference of opinion that emerged overnight has existed for more than a decade. >> but the details of the visit from russia from other officials with the u.n.

security council so unless there is some kind of investigation and? >> i will refer you to the mission that the united nations. but i may just remind you we have been very clear we do not anticipate even a successful implementation that would prevent iran from rotating a nuclear weapon is all the concerns with iran's behavior including the behavior of this individual. >> if this report is true so with the accusation of the opponent that he is given

carte blanche to operate? >> the opponents your make game that argument are wrong with those sanctions through the united nations that the u.s. sanctions with his support for terrorism that we are mindful of his activities at that level of concern is greater if he had access to a nuclear weapon.

>> this house like cnn is a source. [laughter] >> as he was ready to leave on vacation he regards the past several months as especially tough as an indication. >> it is true those who have been closely following the president will vote his schedule has been especially demanding the last several weeks i think he would be quick to tell you that they have been especially rewarding. they included a historic trip to africa from rotating a a nuclear weapon that the support of the security council with the passage and

we are hopeful to allow the united states to complete a trade agreement that runs again unfolds the constitutionality of the affordable care act and a firm bear right for everyone in this country. ed has been a rather rewarding and satisfying couple of weeks. the pace of the accomplishments and progress >> to move up the departure by a day to be anxious to get out of town? to read he looked at his schedule that he could fill the immediate responsibilities to spend a

night in martha's vineyard do get started on his vacation first thing tomorrow morning and i know the president is looking forward to spending time with his family when he gets up there. >> did you ever find out with this speech even the president's have trouble. >> i think there was a snap pharao -- trouble with the backstage printer. >> no wonder he needs to get out of town. [laughter] >> if it's not one thing it is another. >> but 2.0 that this is the taliban? >> united states condemns in

the strongest terms last night's bombing in kabul that killed more than eight people i think it is up of 14 or 15 or even more and wounded as many as 400 civilians including women and children. it demonstrates once again the extremist and the people of afghanistan. it certainly shows a blatant disregard for human life on the part of those extremist. in recent years the afghan people have not into word much but they are resilient. even in the face of a brutal insurgency. we continue to believe a man to purge the taliban for the call of reconciliation to

make genuine peace with the afghan government. i hasten to add in terms of who is responsible for it the attack would refer you to the government of afghanistan. i can confirm that from here but what is clear there appears to be an opening. and we're hopeful that the taliban will take advantage to try to pursue a genuine peace with the afghan government. that he were in support that effort and we hope those overtures would be reciprocated by the taliban. >> but they will not be part of those divisions sanctions >> but it is both.

i will explain why. you will recall when they were originally put in place period four years ago the united states traveled around the world including india to sit down with the government to curtail the amount of iranian oil day imported into the country. the acknowledged in the context of those discussions said this would be an economic sacrifice that the people of india and the economy of india would have to make. the indian leaders agreed to it by saying this is something we're willing to do if it can events our effort to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that countries like india had agreed we would take the

steps to try to reach the broader international agreement. has been reached by the international community. >> that is why it is so damaging to the united states for the united states congress to unilaterally killed the deal. no longer would country is like india and jamaica substantial sacrifice have any interest or incentive to continue to enforce those sanctions there is no claim as to why they would do that. with a significant negative impact on the credibility to be isolated in this way that

is why the president has said if they would move forward to kill the deal for the agreement it would yield a better deal for iran because we could see they would get sanctions relief with the proceeds to do so without having to reduce the stockpile of 98% with two with the reactor and without having to submit to the most intrusive set of inspections ever imposed a nuclear program --. that is why they will get sanctions relief that difference is if they would get anything for it. that is ultimately the choice and why we continue to be confident to build

substantial support al least for the democratic losses -- caucus. >> is administration has charge republicans with initiatives the president's support for something. does the president think if the republican president would produce the same documents? mcfadyen interest -- that is an interesting hypothetical but there is nearer denying the fact that senior republicans in the united states congress appeared to days before the agreement was reached and announced for the opposition to the deal. senator mcconnell on fox news sunday two days before to proclaim the deal was a

bad deal even before it was reached or announced. now the question is why? does he have remarkable powers of clairvoyance? it is possible but it seems more likely he is committed to the kinds of arguments that republicans made in 2003 with the run-up of the iraq war. diplomacy is not worth the effort and we can easily work our will and they're not worth paying attention to. this is the argument in the march toward and these are the kinds of arguments as they advocate against the

deal. >> so the fact they have negotiated this deal is the bulk of the opposition. >> it is hard to tell. the clearest is that senator mcconnell makes the same argument he would that it is the president's view that those arguments and policies ted nodded fancy interest of the united states in terms of going to war in iraq in 2003 and he did not believe the answer to the interest of the united states to kill an agreement that 99 percent of the world agreed on. >> with the multiplier effect with the democrats thought they could sway other democrats? >> not particularly. i would say a couple of

things about that but there is a story in "politico" hopes carefully covering our words as we have this discussion. [laughter] there was a story about the competing political pressures on senator schumer and because of their diligence of reporting that story the day interviewed a couple of democratic united states senators who continue to be undecided publicly. senator tester and senator mack haskell quoted in the story to say that senator schumer eventual decision has no impact and i think even senator tester that the reporter would not tell him that would not factor into the decision making but the

other point is senator schumer is a senator -- senior senator from new york and the junior senator announced her support. since he made his announcement, at least based on my tally but there is one democratic senator who has announced an opinion since then and it is senator baldwin. there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate they will make up their minds not based on senator shimmers conclusions but their own about the merits of this agreement and the strategy to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and then we will be content with our ability.

>> house engaged was gsa the republic -- the president is in the republican primary process? may be gone inauguration day this and he curious? >> the president is following the terms of the debate just not in realtime. [laughter] he is aware of a broader political debate and i am confident he is more than just a casual observer in the 16 months between now and election day. there have already been a couple of occasions he has announced directly about the averages claims of those looking to replace him but he has tried to shy away from responding. >> do you think senator schumer is influence?

>> it is hard to measure exactly what kind of influence he has on these matters. but he is also somebody who has arrived at a starkly different conclusion and i don't think anybody has a view to interact to suggest he is not paying attention to these issues as well. i think it is hard to quantify but we continue to be confident of that vast majority to make the decision based on their own conclusions. >> the president may or may not make a call but what is going on during this period? and even though to you only

have to get one-third, what is the strategy between now and then? >> this deal does not require congressional approval. we continue to be confident. but we don't take this for granted. while congress was in session and you saw a senior members spending a lot of time on capitol hill in a classified setting, a private meetings, even under oath to understand what is included. i would anticipate even when congress is out of session there will be a number of private conversations between the senior members of the national security team and members of congress i am confident they will return to the white house and a couple of weeks and

will reach engaged with that effort and will also make a number of calls and having conversations. >> according to the decision suggested that was just announced today but last night he did the deliberately because all of the attention was on the republican debate. >> we did not leak this. i am not sure who thought of seeking data on thursday night would bury it anybody in the business would announce announcing this of 4:00 on friday particularly the friday before you're heading out on vacation may have been a more effective strategy. [laughter]

>> said he did not spend his leisure time last night watching john stuart? >> i don't know. it definitely started too late for read but i could catch up on it over the weekend. >> just to follow up from sunday, because to be overtaken from sunday but to clarify does the president believes senator schumer is with the hard-liners according to the iran deal? >> but the president did say that the concern the president has with the action of the republican conference, is they announced their opposition before the agreement was

even reach shore announced or even available to the members of congress to read that is an indication of their ideological opposition hard-liners are also ideological opposed to this deal that is the point the president was making and i also point out common the other way in which the senate makes a common cause with the hard-liners is with a specific leader of iran with the argument that was made by the hard-liners to convince the supreme leader not to engage in the agreement. so that is the essence of the president's case and senator schumer reached a conclusion but the essence of the disagreement is different. he is advocating an approach

to foreign policy that minimizes the likelihood of success in diplomacy and relies far too much on the ability of united states to unilaterally impose to enforce if necessary on a middle eastern country. that is what he advocated 2003 the president did not believe that serve well the interest of the united states but he doesn't believe it serves them well to kill the deal. >> so even though the white house was disappointed in senator schumer it is not surprised is the distinction between east nine dash between his impression in senator mcconnell that he went to express his views in july?

is that where you are saying? >> cry and saying the month on the calendar is less significant than the timing of the announcement. he announced his opposition he referred to as the bad deal before it was even reached while the negotiators were still around the table in vienna. before it was even made available that is an indication he is ideologically opposed in the same way if the hardliners in iran are opposed. >> you are maintaining senator schumer the his persuasion was not effective? >> cry and saying that least he read the agreement talk to the experts over involved , spent time talking to experts to understand the nuclear bases for the conclusions that were reached by the negotiators of the said demonstrates a willingness to consider the

argument and yes we were disappointed he did not reach the same conclusion we did. but given his well-known view on policy issues, the result is not particularly surprising. >> could he encourage people to contact members of congress with the viewership regardless of political party but the viewership last night it would overtake his own appeal while the members are at home? >> no. we aren't worried about that >> just to follow up on the senator schumer case, he

indicates with a follow-up with his office they would vote to override the president's veto in addition ? >> i don't know the details of what was transmitted from senator schumer is office to the white house proposal i will refer you to his office for a detailed explanation if he could override a presidential veto. >> so to be asked about the matter and he said in your words, congress screw this up but the democratic senators are considering leadership should they consider the vote to disapprove rand override? i guess does that lead for the democrats?

>> based on the criteria come i don't have any advice to dispense but i would suspect they will apply that test as they consider their throats for the next democratic leader of the senate. >> so you say the white house remains pragmatic of the motion into you disapproved is not necessarily as important as the override vote? >> maybe i misunderstood the question. i think democrats in the senate will make up their own mind to apply their own criteria call they choose their next leader. i may suspect many of them will include the voting record of those who say they will leave the caucus. but that is their own decision to make. in terms of the best way for

members of congress to support the deal we both encourage them strongly it is not his fault in terms of the decision to oppose the approval or the effort to override the presidential veto. okay? >> a number of the republican candidates talking about discrimination but all 17 candidates. [inaudible] >> that is a hard thing to say. so much of the progress that

has been made is progress that a substantial number of americans have come around to supported. not just taking to the critically important political process is the least as important that the issue with denise type of political election or debate and i think it is my view that only some of the social progress would not have the impossible with political leadership but the real

power behind this change from so many americans as the perfect union is the american people and a significant change but to take action on this issue among the contractors. >> but i do think some of the social progress that has been made is attributed with political leadership including from the president of united states. there is no doubt we would like to see congress take some of those steps to make

it maurer just and fair but ultimately those to prioritize i am confident we to look carefully in the views and records there is no denying the authority that they could wield sitting in the oval office. >> regarding the transfer the the record the obama administration as that is part of the decision that

the dlj was building a case. to hold up in u.s. courts but also because the iraqi government and what about the iraqi authorities? >> there is a lot there. that is okay. we will get through all of that. in terms of why she is put through their kurdish system is obviously we cannot guarantee a particular result will we have a firm belief she will be held accountable for her crimes. and the united states stands ready to cooperate to support a prosecution to

ensure that justice is served. as she has been in detained and held the last few months and in the course of that detection inmate work close with the government and the criminal-justice authorities there and one of the reasons this makes sense interest in having her go through the system is the location of potential witnesses. i am not aware of any concern the department of justice expresses about the weakness of their case. but i do think that you'll can conclude it is the best

course of action because it did is the conclusion of the national security and law enforcement officials and this is the conclusion that we reached an agreement from iraqi officials as well. >> is there the request. >> certainly it agreed to this decision. >> tomorrow is the one year anniversary of military operation so with that expanded military option could be counterproductive debt there is some hesitance to describe the authorities epitaph against anyone attacked by the syrian government.

is anybody see that as counterproductive? >> no. because to discuss the legal justification that they have already taken to defend to train those forces that are fighting isil in syria. the administration has concluded it is appropriate for united states and coalition partners to go against the extremist better collation trained operating on the ground so the policy decision that has been made in the legal justification has already been made public >> to strike against syrian government forces if they would attack the troops we're training in syria?

>> we have indicated, i am not aware of the legal analysis, and maybe there has been i have not been briefed. what is clear is this is not the individuals we have had to encounter at this point. prior to that initiation of the wesson coalition air strikes, the united states admonishing the assad regime against interfering in those operations and that admonishment we delivered also applies to any temptation the assad regime may have to interfere with the anti-isil efforts on the ground trained by the coalition partners. >> slowly with the secretary

of state and also i have an e-mail from the u.s. ambassador and said the administration from being six months in india. so my question is of the planning to welcome the prime minister next month? has been invited to the white house by president obama before he leaves? >> i am not aware of any plans to the white house in conjunction with his troubles to the united states.

>> but at the white house may make a statement but also because of their looks. >> with this tragic event originally occurred with the innocent loss of life. to the families of those who had loved ones that were killed in the vicious attack. but this administration has

made in countering violent extremism like we saw in wisconsin and a top priority. and this extremism manifest itself and it is determined with local law enforcement and the community leaders large and small to counter it. it is something the administration does not take lightly. continuing seven days a week 24 hours a day. so with that, i hope that all of you take day vacation on the president enjoys his vacation so we will not be convening these briefings.

enjoy. [inaudible conversations] . .