[applause] >> please be seated. well, good evening to all. my name is john, i have the

honor to be director of ronald regan foundation. please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the floog of -- flag of the united states of america, to which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty just and justice for all. please be seated. before we get started tonight, i would like to recognize one person in particular in the audience his name is ben sutton. ben, thank you for coming. [applause]

the matter one might practice to introduce a famous or important person, it's often not easy, at least not for me. i think one is called on to do their very best and to go beyond the simple reading of an impressive resume when a guest has gone out of their way and spent their life-time in the realm of the public service. i think they need to be lotted, thanked and actually introduced in a thoughtful way. so, that would challenge that i faced as i once again sat down and prepared to write an introduction of both vice president cheney and his accomplished daughter liz. for those of you who follow events at the reagan library you know quite well that both of our guests have been here before.

so what do to impress upon an audience once again that our visitors are something special. well, one theory holds for us that if you've introduced someone before, well, stick with it, or in other words, take the easy way out. thanks the miracle of modern technology, i plan to do just that. [laughs] >> i am sure that for the more than one thousand of you gathered here this evening, it is indeed, special, that is because tonight we are in the presentation of another true american hero, vice president cheney and liz, welcome to the reagan library. [applause] >> another more modern definition that i know his

family and millions of people would easy i embrace, hero, a man of distinguished courage and admired by nobel qualities. in all honesty, it does not do the man justice. how do you define someone who has quite literally dedicated his entire life to his country, someone who has faithfully served five presidents and in the process has selflessly come to do the aid of our country in times of crisis. if anyone that you are counting, that's four presidents, not five as i previously noted. the fifth that vice president, and without hesitation, first as foot soldier from intelligence committee and deputy.

okay. not bad. [laughs] >> lost a few pounds. that's good to see. i want to say that every word of that introduction remains both timely and true. but what's new and exciting about their visit today is that they are here with a book entitled, "exceptional, i don't know if they have had for the journal published last year. they wrote then that the obama foreign policy doctrine, trying to leave the world from behind was in a state of collapse tanned ramifications for america

were dire. they were both just published and it is a must-read, ot only -- not only those following the campaign trail of 2016, i am hopeful that it will be a assigned reading in history class for decades to come. that's what it is. historical evidence that american exceptionalism that president reagan help to define and defend has been under attack by president obama and the administration for years. it has been an assault that is quite simply leading to the undoing of america statute and position in the world. so with that, ladies and gentlemen, let me please ask you to join in woking to the stage

former vice president dick chain any and liz cheney. [applause] >> knock it out of the park. >> thank you. thank you very much, it's a real joy and honor for us to be back at the reagan library. as john mentioned, the whole concept of american exceptionalism is one that president reagan worthy of belief have even questioned. in many ways, we were very inspired by president reagan both what he did and said during presidency and before, and his notion that it was critically that thenitis lead the world,

without us there's no one who would step in. the rejection of ideals were at the forefront. you'll see when you buy our book, which i hope you'll do, that we opened the book, the quote that lead to the whole thing is by president ronald regan. on march 23rd of 1983, it is up to us to choose, and choose wisely between the hard and necessary path of preserving peace and freedom and temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day. we are, again, as we sit here tonight at a moment when the nation is under tremendous threat and when we have to decide, it can sometimes be very

easy to sort of say, things are such a mess, washington is such a mess. i'm going to live my life and focus on what is happening very close to me here at home and try to shut out the fights and the debates that are going on. one of the reasons that we wrote this book is that the people not do that. british historian andrew roberts once said to the question whether america was born great, achieved greatness or had great stress upon her, the only possible conclusion must be all free. that we were born of this revolutionary ideal that endowed by creator with certain rights, and that made us a model for us around the world. and then during world war ii, we became freedom of the defender. and that's where we begin the

book, talking about the role america has played beginning really in 1939 and defending freedom around the world. at the end of the cold war because of the leadership of president ronald reagan we became the world superpowerrened and it's not just our involvement in world affairs that has made our difference, our leadership, our willingness to lead. my dad and i felt very strongly that when you talked to your kids, my kids and his grand kids about what they are learning in school, it isn't what they are learning. they have not learning that america has been a greater force for good than any other nation in the history of mankind. they are not learn that because of us hundreds of millions of people around the world are living in freedom. that's a critically important part of the book.

but we wanted to put it into historical context and to talk about the truth about america and what we did in world war ii and in the colder war and in the first years of the war on terror, ronald regan said, if we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. and we were very much inspired by that and the ideas that our kids have to have a place they can go to understand the reality of what america has accomplished. and one of the great blessings for me was being able to work on this book with my dad, who a long with my mom gave mary and me the tremendous blessing as kids as learning to love history and learning to love this great nation and somebody who obviously has been involved as participant, not as far back as 1939 but close.

[laughs] >> and so i'd like to start tonight by getting your impression, you know, when people talk about president obama, for example, one of the things that we did was sort of go back and look at the context of this president and talk about the extent to which you think where does he fall in the spectrum of democratic and republican presidents, and how does the policy fit how they come before the side? >> that's a good introduction. [laughs] >> i wrapped my brain trying to understand why president reagan operates the why he does -- >> obama. >> president obama operates the way he does.

i was welcoming the way you are for a president even though i didn't vote for it, i'm a republican, conservative, but i was deeply disturbed 48 hours into the administration when he announced that he was going to close guantanamo and they were going to investigate initials in cia, in terms of national security agencies, our ability to be able to intercept communications can al-qaeda overseas or their contacts in the u.s., what we call the enhance interrogation program. these people that carried out the introductions of the president of the united states, programs that have been approved by the the national security council and signed on by the justice department and done

books by the legal standpoint, et cetera, he wants to get people investigated and arrested. i thought that was an outrageous proposition from the standpoint i understood he won the election, he gets to put policies in place, but what i did not understand that he was prepared to prosecute men and women who were patriots that put their lives for the rest of us. that's one of the things he came to office was going to do. i found that deeply disturbing and that raised questions in my mind why these were the first things to do when he went into office. we spent a lot of time reading a will the of history, specially interested in world war ii history, family background, but

as i thought about it and i thought about the fact that there has been, i think, over the decades for 77 years basically a bipartisan consensus between republican and democrat alike on a proposition of the u.s. role in the world and a need for significant military capability, the willingness on occasion to use when necessary, and that included people like fdr and world war ii where truman took over in unbelievable circumstances into the war and into the cold war, john kennedy, there was a consensus basically, they didn't always agree on everything, there were differences on the parties and often times on election time, but barack obama was clear outside that basic consensus that in my opinion based on my

reading and study of history, fundamentally disagreed, was not in acore, if you will with i think is bipartisan accord by the u.s. world and has dominated our history, policies, aks over a period of time, and that's partly what stimulated or thinking about the book, but if you look at the book and go through, i think you'll find we've documented very carefully where we believe that he has in fact, done things that are not the way they would have been done if they would have been done by earlier presidencies outside the mainstream, if you will, of presidential leadership or even raising questions of how big a role the u.s. ought to play in the role and the policies over the course over the last six, going on seven years now, are remarkably at

odds with our history, what we believe as a nation and what we are going to have to be able to do going forward if we are going to get through a very bad patch. >> president reagan gave a famous speech in the oval and he large part of the speech he talks about defense spending and layed out the way they ought to be put together. it's critically important the threats and allocate the resources to it. one of the issues that we talked about in the book and receive a set of recommendations at the end is the issue of defense budget. and it's an issue that we've heard some of the candidates talk about in the election cycle but i don't think it's gotten enough attention, and i'd like

to hear you talk about that, the extent to which we have to make a real change in that regard. >> sure. well, i'm often times asked what job i like the most, vice president, secretary of defense, congressmen from wyoming, chief of staff for ford, all of them had to go to appeal to, i loved all aspects of my career, i was very fortunate to be able to do that, but my favorite job was being secretary of defense specially during desert storm and collapse of the soviet union at the end of the cold war was a high point certainly in my career, but i came away with that, with deep regard for our military, what we had to do to run the department on a reasonable basis and understanding of why in my view that role of commander in role is the single most important responsibility by any president,

more important than anything else we do, build highways, grow food, all the very things the federal government gets involved in, but that is in my opinion the single most important responsibility the president of the united states. it just is. i also became very much aware of -- i don't want to get tangled arguments about the budget, one of the most important things is the length of time it takes to change course when you have to do that, if you inherit a mess that spreads to the united states, you can't write a check and turn the thing over night and take off in the direction you want to go. it doesn't work that way. i was tremendously impressed, frankly and it involved ronald reagan when i got to be secretary of defense, that the

first week of the crisis the president sent me over to get the egyptian and saudi and we were able to deploy in relatively short over, half a million men and women and produced what was known as the desert storm. as i thought back on that, we were blessed because ronald reagan had been president. he gave us the qualities he needed, attracted a service, been through the mill in terms of training, the f-15 fighters, fighting vehicles, m-1, abraham's tank. that's what we used to win in desert storm and remarkable

order ten years later. first thing i did after desert storm was i called president reagan. he was then retired living in beverly hills and i thanked him for -- when i first got him on the phone i thanked for 600-dollar seats. he said, dick, they department cost $600. yes, president, i understand. during the welcome-home ceremonies, i had the opportunity to go visit president and mrs. reagan in their home, i spent a couple of hours with the president, he was still doing pretty well health wise and interested in all aspects of desert storm and also the relationship with the soviets. i remember he sat me down in a chair like this one and then he

put a foot stool over in front of me and he stood facing me directly and focused right on my face and started asking me questions. i think part of it was an effort on his part to compensate for some of the memory problems he was beginning to deal with, but he kept me about two hours grilling me on what we were going to do. and i again, i thanked him profusely for everything he had done because he was interestly responsible for what we were able to do ten years later. now i think about going forward with what barack obama has done, the military is terrible shape today. we had the army chief of staff retire, superb soldier.

he commanded for a significant period of time, but ray made a speech here, testimony before the congress within the last six months, just retired. he said, that in terms of the readiness level of the united states army that the army ready levelness today is worst than it has been any time. it goes back 200 years. the chief of staff has announced that we are in and out operating the air force with fewer aircraft and older aircraft than any other time in our history since the air force was set up and of course, that was right after world war ii. all of the chiefs, but in the last year given testimony in congress that given the current state of affairs readiness and so forth that they're not

capable in a crisis probably to being able to execute the national strategy that the milt ray is told upon to do. military is in terrible shape. we have not had a budget prepared in a normal way where you look at potential threats around the world, you decide what you need to meet the threats, you put together a budget and goes through the process in the white house and now we have a thing call sequester, this is a result of the budget act of 201 #, and what it does, it was adopted because it's egregious. now we have the sequester and kicks in across the board to all of the spending accounts but hit the military more than anybody educational.

defense department accounts for 17% of the budget. we are now at the point where very serious question about how well we perform in a crisis about our capacity to meet the threats that we see around the world because of what's happened to the united states military during the obama era. it's a huge, huge concern to me in our recommendations in our book, and sort of number one in terms of the agenda for the next administration and what they need to focus on or worry about. and we were finishing our book, the agreement on the iran nuclear deal was announced, and so we have a section in the book that analyzes the agreement, you gave a major speech yesterday in washington. one of the things that you talked about in the speech was the extent to which some of the concession that is were made at the end have a potential to be de stating. you talk about the lifting of

the restrictions of icbm program as giving the iranians the ability to launch a nuclear attack on the u.s. homeland. it's a very direct and tough criticism of the deal, obviously the administration is out there making claims about it. i'd like to hear you talk about sort of the issues and the concerns that you have with the deal and particularly what you think about some of the claims the administration has made just in the last few days. >> well, it was intriguing. i gave the speech in the american enterprise yesterday scheduled for a couple of months. the white house response was to put up on their website basically an attack on me. it was personal more than policy. they didn't answer any of the policy questions that we raised or the people had raised about that, and i don't mind getting attacked, it goes with being vice president. you know, if i wanted to be a

popular and well-lofled, i would come to california and be a movie star. i wouldn't be vice president. [laughs] >> but, no, it -- it's a terrible deal and -- in so many different ways. one is that the president has made a lot of claims but the claims are not valid. this will stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. no it won't. once the iranians have nuclear capability even before that, others in the region are going to want theirs. they're not going to have all of those countries in the saudis, emirates, so forth, are going to sit tight and allow the iranians with nuclear weapons. they will go acquire their own and some of them have the money to be able to buy them. we've had proliferation problems with the middle east before, but there's no doubt in my mind

about what the agreement will precipitate. part of the frustration is that at the very end of the negotiation, all through negotiations we were told that it was just about a nuclear question. it's not about terrorism. t not about what iran does and terrorists organizations. it's not about ballistic missiles they said, it's not about conventional weapons, nuclear conventional weapons. it turns out it was about all of those things. obama put on the table at the tail-end of the negotiations. liz mentioned the embargo on ballistic missiles are doing business ballistic missiles has been lifted. same thing for the approach on conventional weapons, but since the agreement was signed earlier this year, general who commands

the force, the worst of the worst in terms of evil proxy, if you will for the iranians, has been building the ied, explosive devices, guest against our troops and afghanistan and iraq. and those other related issues are all on the table. they lift it had -- lifted the sanctions that had been imposed. he's been to moscow since the agreement was initialed a couple of months ago to buy f-300's. ..

and the non-weapon state which is everybody else including the iranians signed up in there, for example, not to enrich. the iranians have demanded as part of this agreement that they be allowed to enrich, and we sanctions the right to enrich uranium. even though it violates the

nonproliferation treaty of 1970. it also tears up at six u.n. security council resolutions that were adopted over the years, five of them pushed, promoted by the u.s., three of them went through on an animus of votes. all of those six basically are targeted on the iranians because of their bad behavior. the agreement that obama side wipes out the six u.n. security council resolutions. they are now zero to our and we have sanctioned the ability of the iranians to have enrichment capability. they are now the only ones under the npt that are doing that as a direct violation of the npt year but all of that has just been ignored and that is thrown out the window. so as you go through the process and think about and look at what's been done, i think the outcome is bleak. i think it's a terrible direction to go down.

i think we have done a lot of work over the years with respect to try and avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and they think the president has put in place not an agreement that is bound and determined to create enormous pressures for the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east. and we will have to live with all that in the future. >> i think another point our way to sort of some of the people should think about the agreement. sometimes when you're the president say it's better than nothing, and remember this is the man has been telling us he will not accept a bad deal. enough using this bad deal is better than no deal. it seems to me it's more to remember it was not a cop is what with respect to the nuclear weapons for a number of reasons my dad listed, also because the inspections regime is swiss cheese. is absolute full of holes.

it will not enable us to have any sort of understanding, in depth understand what the iranians are doing. i will not enable us to catch them if they cheat. it's been amazing to see john kerry said we will know with certainty what the iranians are doing. we certainly won't. so won't prevent them from having nuclear weapons. it will give them international cover and legitimacy because suddenly you're having international business run is, sadly they are no longer a pariah state because of this agreement. at the sant same time it gives m all of these benefits come $150 billion in cash, the lifting of restrictions my dad mentioned. so you will have iran which is sworn to destroy israel, sworn bracelet to do everything it can to attack america, with chant death to america on a daily basis, now provided with funds come with weapons and the pathway to nuclear bomb. and you think you're the

president of the united states who has put all of that in place it really is very, very difficult to understand why he would think, if you it's a 10 years ago our president is going to be providing the money and the weapons that iran needs to attack the united states, that's exactly what this deal does even if we get to the each of the pathway to nuclear weapon. it's a very dangerous deal. and it gets back to this notion of sort of the presidents view of the world. one of the things that is a theme that runs through the book that we spent a lot of time on is the extent to which president roosevelt, truman, eisenhower kennedy, you know, nixon, ford, carter to a lesser extent, reagan understanding the weakness is provocative. this president doesn't understand that. and i think they will be interesting to your sort of the assessment if you look at places

like russia and china what the impact of his unwillingness to defend red lines come to project american power from two lead in the world, what impact that is having and we see those relationships going in the future. >> we have been focused the last few days obvious on the iranian situation, situation in the middle east. is a huge set of problems that get worse. but also you must look at russia and look at china. when we start to talk about our strategic situation, our capacity to do with it. one of the great strengths the u.s. has had taken going back to world war ii is without a significant advantage from a technical standpoint and all those asic technologies that you need in the military. things like stealth aircraft or precision guided munitions or the abrams tank which is so

absolute the best in the world. nobody else can be. that technological advantage is disappearing when you look carefully at what's happening in russia and china you will see evidence that that gap that has been a great advantage for us, nobody's been able to best us over that period of time, you begin to worry when you see what's happening. if you look at russia just yesterday i saw an article, clips about the get-go that the russians now are building an undersea unmanned robot submarine. that will be able obviously did all of those things underwater that we can now do with the drones. possibly an underwater drone and that's got all kinds of ramifications for it. pictures to publicize what they're doing. if you go to china you will find if you look back at the defense

budget, since 1989 there's only been one year when the chinese defense budget hasn't gone up by double digits, only one. we are a long way from having defense budget going up by double digits. that doesn't happen anymore because of the sequester to china to develop a ballistic missile that will take out a submarine. we are very concerned about our submarines. that's been a major core of our strength, especially in the western pacific. they know what our aircraft carriers are capable of doing, but they get now a ballistic missile that will take out our aircraft carriers. you can look at what they're doing in the south china sea where they have gone in and built man-made islands. there some shallow reef's there, but if you look at what they're doing, building airbases, turning them into military facilities and just climbing part of the south china sea that has been international waters up till now. look at what putin has done in

ukraine, crimea. i think he has aspirations of similar activity with respect to the baltics. estonia, lithuania and latvia, they're all part of the soviet union. now going back to world war ii, they all have significant minority russian population and they are all 100% dependent on russia for the natural gas supplies. they are all members of nato. we have solid obligation to come to their assistance should they be attacked. question, can we do that, are we capable of putting together the type of operation if we had to? i think putin is bound and determined while the bombings in the white house to take advantage of that. he knows weakness when he sees it. it is provocative, and i think he also had an objective, the desire to undermine nato. i can see them pursuing a strategy, a series of operations

basically don't put a lot of pressure on the united states. remember, we're 75% of the nato budget. it isn't an data without the united states leadership and use force to be a part of it. at all that i think will be tested in the next couple of years by mr. putin. he watches, he can read the newspaper, he knows what's happening to our defense budget. he obviously has a set of beliefs. somebody suggested the other day, more dangerous than the predecessors gorbachev's predecessors when you had brezhnev and others. the argument was at least there was a whole of your there he had to answer to. he doesn't have to answer to anybody. one man dictatorship with aspirations of trying to undo what he sees as the damage done by the end of the cold war. so there's a lot of concern both on the part of the chinese, are part about the chinese and the

russians, and both the chinese and the russians are working very hard to try to fill those gaps, please visit or we have military capability that they haven't been able to challenge previously, like a ballistic missile that can take out an aircraft carrier. and the threat that poses to us, the weakness that we've impose on ourselves, the antimissile capability we are going to build emboldened and the czech republic that obama threw away, closed down that part of the program. there's a long list of threats out there, but it's a multiplier. you see one foul up, one problem, one weakness, one budget cut adds on to the other entity do something like move into eastern part of the ukraine, and what penalty has been imposed? not much. we see china moving into the south china sea. not much.

when the united states takes bold talk, they look at obama's approach to the ceiling and redline when he was going to get active militarily, went pressure on the side used gas on his own people and then he did that and obama turned around and walked away your our allies and adversaries no longer respect the united states the way they have in the past and every day that goes by there's more evidence acted especially something like the iranian nuclear deal that really pounds home the proposition for adversaries after they have nothing to fear from the united states. >> let's talk about iraq. the video you mentioned the white house put up yesterday in response to your iran speech was criticizing you for the decision to liberate iraq in 2003. in my own personal view, is anybody prefer to isis as a jv team is not really in a position to election anyone on the topic

of iraq. but let's talk about iraq. your sense of what you did, why you did it, was it the right thing to do and what of the impact it had the people may not be fully aware of? >> sure. after we did desert storm, the question of whether we should go on to baghdad then, there was unanimous view that we should not. there wasn't anybody urging it. what happened between that, 1991 and 2003, was a little item called 9/11. when we lost 3000 people in the united states, sal the world trade towers down, a big old and the pentagon, had flight 93 would've taken at the white house or the capitol if it had not been for the courageous passengers on board. we had reported in the aftermath of that that bin laden was time to get his hands on the nuclear weapon.

remember, 9/11 was makin 19 guyd with airline tickets and box cutters, that's what they had, airline tickets and box cutters to launch the attack. just not a lot of evidence that thing where do we that individual is another attack like that with far deadlier weapons, bugs, gas, nuclear weapons. we had been cut if you look at the history of the world and that part of the world and this whole question of proliferation, one of the things we're concerned about was the proliferation of nuclear weapons. it wasn't something that just came up on one invalids report prior to 9/11. you go back to 1981, baghdad, saddam hussein had a nuclear reactor operating outside baghdad. israelis took out. 1991, saddam had restarted his nuclear program again.

we took it out in desert storm. then you fast-forward up to 2003 and would make a judgment based on the fact that we're getting a ton of intelligence that said saddam hussein was again back in the nuclear business, and we went in and took them the saddam hussein regime. one of the things of doing that ended in a threat coming immediately from iraq, but it also a significant impact on the proliferation problem because two examples already, 81 and 91, but also what happened after we took out saddam hussein is moammar gadhafi got religion. gadhafi of centrifuges. he had uranium feedstock and he had a weapon designed. when we took down saddam hussein i think us five days after we dug it out of this hole, moammar gadhafi got religion and announced he was going to turn over all his nuclear materials to the united states, and he did. very wise man.

that did a couple of things. one was, think of what would've happened in libya in subsequent years he did not turn over those nuclear materials to the united states when he was finally overthrown and isis moved in, killed gadhafi, the radicals did. they would have inherited that libyan nuclear program. a second thing it did when we went in and took that back from the libyans, then that uncovered a.q. khan. mr. kohn was the pakistani engineer who had a major hand in building nuclear inventory, nuclear weapons for pakistan. and they get caught in the business for himself as the black market operation. libya was his biggest customer. but he had also been involved with the north koreans, with the iranians. it turns out he go back to 1987 in a meeting in a hotel in dubai, it was mr. khan and his

people who got $3 million in return for providing the basic design of centrifuges for the iranians. so 1987 iranians get their start with something that came from a.q. khan. we shut them down. he went under house arrest in pakistan. we shut down his black market operation. so those are all examples where we use military or the threat of military operations to halt proliferation. the other thing that happened was in '07, -- showed up in my office. it photographs he said of israeli intelligence, photographs taken inside the nuclear reactor built by the north koreans from the syrians in the eastern city. that was '07.

the israelis took it out but imagine what would've happened if they had not taken it up. outcome for now smack dab in the middle of isis territory, part of the caliphate the isis now has. another instance where we were lucky under islamist radicals did in defense of nuclear material. but it's only a matter of time. i think we're safer today than we would've been if we had not taken down saddam hussein to those who argue against it have to explain the fact that just saddam hussein around. but it was a very, very important. i think, believe in and believe that we did the right thing in 2003, that the world is less threatening now than it was, but barack obama is about to turn this on its head with his operations in the deal he to do with the iranians. >> isis, the rise of the isis, do you think the caliphate can be contained? >> i'm not sure how you contain the caliphate if you're going to

withdraw u.s. forces. you can cross your fingers, you can pray, you can try to find somebody who will go in and do it for you. but i think i said is such a deadly combination. caliph is a very significant thing. it's the first time we've had one hundreds of years with have now established a regime, governs under sharia law, extraordinarily radical. we've seen what they do recruited successfully for example, even here in the united states. some of the stories of young people being encouraged to go to syria and sign up with isis and the be a part of the new system. very potent, very deadly force committed to the destruction of all the infidels another foothold in libya as well. 50 i worry about some of the refugees now i want to leave syria, some of them will be

operating, some are members of isis but are trying to transfer their revolution now to europe because there' there is alreadya significant presence of them there. i think the only option on the isis, i think they have to be destroyed. we have to do that sooner or later. it's only going to be more costly and take longer the longer we wait, and it's going to be especially dangerous if by the time we decide we're going to do something about it to have a nuclear weapon. because one of those governments over there has fallen after they've acquired that capability, and then we will have grave grave difficulty, situation where you of great instability of undress, terrorist control and the evidence of deadly deadly weapons than they've ever had before. >> let's talk about hillary. [laughter] spent why does everybody laugh?

>> secretary clinton had a very interesting approach to e-mail. [laughter] as secretary of state. and i'd like to get to thoughts both on her decision that she could conduct all services including we now know sending top secret e-mails on a private server that reside in a bathroom in denver, and what you think this is a better it is to be commander in chief? it's not a trick question. [laughter] >> i don't think she's qualified to be commander in chief, obviously. i think this question, this private server, anybody who has been there and been through those processes with your second at defense, state, part of the cabinet, even with highly classified information all the

time, you don't make mistakes like that. there some reason why she did. i assume we'll find out what it is sense in a pretty progressively pursued what was on the server. anticipating the last couple of days they found that there was, there were top secret papers on that server. that's the highest classification it is and let you get into very specialized areas. and i don't, i'm not a hillary fan, okay? >> that's breaking news. [applause] >> i'm getting the look that says move on. [laughter] i should look at 2016, i know you mentioned to me before we demand that you wanted to use the opportunity to to announce your endorsement. [applause]

>> that is a fast one. it's not part of the program. i haven't endorsed anybody yet. i know a lot of the candidates, worked with him over the years. i have consciously stayed away from endorsing anybody for a couple of reasons. one, because of the book. what i'm really concerned about and that liz has been concerned about is we want our efforts that we've made with the book, its intentions to i don't have put the party, i also get to reince priebus, after finance chairman, i go and help them raise money for the republican party. at that for a candidate at this stage because they've got a lot to do as well, too. but the thing that concerns me most is to make certain that these issues can the kind we have just been talking about, national security issues, are front and center of this campaign. it ought to be if it's the most

important thing a president has to be and has to worry about, it out to be right in the top of the agenda when it comes time to make a choice about who i want to support. i'm interested in today's candidates will respond to our suggestion to i don't expect to go to dictate policy at all but those are the problems i see other based on my 40 some years in the business. i think the records of their for itself obama has taken us down a primrose path and the next president, man or woman who is going to have to take on that task the day they arrived in office. i want to make sure that i think they are up to the test. so that sort of a number one priority spent some no endorsement cannot? >> no endorsement tonight. >> sorry. it was the case but has worked on the book there were days, especially when we're doing

research and writing about the obama and that it could be really dispiriting. we have a whole section on the extent to which the president traveled the world during his first year in office, literally apologizing for us. and talking at every opportunity, taking every opportunity to make sure that he had conveyed to foreign governments, foreign audiences, that he believed america had been eric and company believe america had not listened. he listen to diatribe by daniel ortega about the things com, als that ortega told about america. the president response was just as i am glad he didn't blame me for things that happen when i was three months old. eat into this apology tour, we know, from cables that have been leaked in news reports when they went to japan. before he got to japan the american ambassador sent a cable

to washington saying that the japanese government had rejected the idea that president obama traveled to hiroshima and not the sake and apologize for the nuclear bombs we dropped, showing no recognition at all, no understand at all of the importance of ending the war when we did it and why that was the right thing to do. so it can be dispiriting and want to end tonight with something that's more hopeful. and data service i want to redo something that charles krauthammer has written an eloquent in but asking my dad read a section from the end of the prologue in the book. so we write that there is good news. just as one president has left a path of destruction in his wake, one president can rescue us. the right person in the oval office can restore america's strength and our alliances to renew our power and leadership, defeat our enemies and keep us

safe. but it will not be easy. that are difficult decisions to be made and very little time. we face great challenges as a nation before, and the right leaders have brought us through. as charles krauthammer observed quote it is one of the enduring mysteries of american history, sonia providential as to give the most hardened ace this cause that should've produced at every inch point great name that matches the moment. are roiling revolution in british colony gives birth to the greatest cohort of political thinkers ever. jefferson, adams, madison, hamilton, washington, franklin and j. the crisis of the 19th century brings forth lincoln took the 20th fdr. we are living at in a pinch point of history and we require a president equal to this moment. we must choose wisely. and i want to ask my dad to read

on another duty we have as citizens. >> as citizens also have a duty to protect our ideals and our freedoms by safeguarding our history. we must ensure that our children know the truth about who we are, what we've done and why it is uniquely america's a duty to be freedom's defender. our children should know about the boys of point do haq, and doolittle's raiders and the battles of midway and iwo jima. they should learn about the courage of the young americans who fought -- excuse me. the light is bent. the courage of the young americans who fought the nazis at the battle of the bulge and the japanese on open all. they should learn what america was right to end the war by dropping the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki and about the fundamental decency of the

nation established the truman doctrine from the marshall plan, the berlin airlift and the north atlantic treaty organization. they need to know about the horrors of the holocaust and what it means to promise never again. they should know the ones that wasn't embark so evil and the rest of truth it had to build a wall to keep its citizens and. end of the free world led by america defeat it. they needed to about a terrorist who attacked us on 9/11, the courage of the first responders and hair was a of the passengers on flight 93. they should understand what kind of world of militant islam will create a we don't defeat it. they should learn about great men like george marshall and dwight eisenhower and harry truman and ronald reagan. we must teach them what it took to prevail over evil in the 20th century and what it will take in the 21st. we must make sure they understand that it is a brave men and women of the united states armed forces who defend

our freedom and security for millions of others as well. our children need to know that they are citizens of the most powerful, good and honorable nation in the history of mankind. the exceptional nation. ordinary americans have done several things that guarantee her survival. america's future and the future of freedom for all the world now depend on us. speak at omaha beach on the 40th anniversary of the d-day landings, president reagan put it this way. we will always remember, we will always be proud. we will always be prepared so we may always be free. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you.

>> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> next on "the communicators" a discussion on some of the issues facing the federal trade commission. then attorney general loretta lynch at the congressional black caucus legislative conference. >> c-span, great about america's cable companies 35 years ago that brought you as a public service your local cable or satellite provider. >> off and on this program we talk about in with the federal communications commission, but as another federal agency that's

involved in telecommunications issues, and that's the federal trade commission and we're pleased to have two of its commissioners join us on "the communicators" this week. terrell mcsweeny is a democrat. maureen ohlhausen as republican, the only republican currently on the commission. commissioner mcsweeny, what is the intersection between the fcc and ftc when it comes to telecommunications issues? >> the ftc is the primary consumer protection authority in the federal government. we have very broad jurisdiction but we were close with the fcc especially as it relates to telecommunications issues, the administration of the do not call list and things like that. for a number of years we've shared some areas of consumer protection jurisdiction primary. and ftc act prevents us from having too much jurisdiction in this space adventure will get to that in our conversation because it examines common carriers from our authority. >> commissioner ohlhausen, one of the issues that's been