achieve one or several of them is going to determine whether or not they are going to consider themselves successful. to my mind at the end of the day the major goal is the restoration of russia as a respected, by which i mean feared, international power alongside the united states, china and whomever else perhaps europe, the saudi arabians, and india. that is what russia wants in my mind. and everything else to me is just a matter of getting there. i am sure the others have different opinions. >> thank you. >> okay. to your question yes, this is an older plane but the russians assumed they would be operating over territory where there was not a threat to that plane. right? they didn't assume the rebels had anti-aircraft capabilities.

they announced the bombing against the rebels would be accompanied by fighter planes. so they are taking the threat environment more seriously than they did. as hannah mentioned on the military side they have made pretty significant strides in reform in the last couple years. a senior russian i was speaking with last week pointed out jokingly that of all things we said we will reform and the only ones with result is the military. it is true not only in terms of the professionalization of the for forces but developing new radar, missile and air enabled platforms. there is some of this stuff happening. russia is not a full spectrum force. it doesn't have the capabilities the united states has. but it has pretty significant

capabilities compared to a country like, say, china. i think we have to take that seriously. i think sometimes what was said at one time about them being an army with a state more than an army. in the military domain russia is probably punching their weight but the measures of national power are measured in a number of other ways. on the economic and cultural front and demographic front and others russia is a weak and less potent force. it has just chosen to place a lot of resources specifically on the military dimension of power where it has had success. >> a -- i heard the term from an analyst using the word usable

syria. i think that is what moscow is pursuing which is to say they don't need a thought to control the territory of the modern syria state or any post-assad government. what they want is some sort of reliable regime whether that is headed by assad or someone else that controls areas that are important to them. that acts like a client or partner or at the very least respective of russian interest. 70% of the country is controlled but it is mostly uninhabited. and i don't think that is the russi russian's worst outcome. >> we have seen breaking of relati relations in crimea and ukraine.

the action you did need to be short, defensive, and it needs to end right now. this happens mostly when you have a bigger country you can do a surgical event at. you will not bring any kind of detour and that will affect the economy and considering the social relations between two countries it is not something -- the esculation of this crises

isn't something neither government wants at this point. >> i want to thank my panel. and thank you for coming tonightonight today. tonight on c-span2, the manager of the bernie sanders campaign react do is the dnc decision to suspend their access to the voter database. and republican candidate ted cruz holds a rally in virginia. and we talk to weekly standard editor bill crystal about the republican presidential field. >> with congress on holiday recess next week we will feature a lineup of prime time programming. land mark cases. the case of roe v wade.

and then cultural divides in america. and on wednesday the annual methodist church, the site of a mass shooting in june, holds a discussion on gun violence. and christmas eve at the white house and on friday, bill clinton receives the bob dole leadership prize. and non fiction books and authors on politics. tuesday night at 8:00 features books on presidential history. authors talk about books on the supreme court. thursday at 8 p.m. people and events in history. on american history on tv and c-span3 we feature programs on russian spies and congressional history with senator mcconnell.

thursday at 8 p.m. eastern, the impact of the war. and on christmas we will go to williamsberg of the 1770 talking about colonial live on the eve of the american revolution. that is just some of the programs featured in prime time. this escening the bernie sanders campaign filled suit against the democratic national committee in response to the sanders' campaign being suspended from the database. they dnc took the action after the claim campaign leaders il g illegally viewed information they on rival hillary clinton.

campaign manager talked to us: >> how are you? quite a crew. two months ago, shortly after our digital vendor who conducts modeling for our campaign told us there was a failure in the fire wall that prevents campaigns from seeing one another's data. we contacted the dnc and told them about this failure. we were very concerned that our data had been compromised and we were assured the fire wall between the campaigns data. instead we found out two days ago, once again, the sensitive and important data was compromi compromised because the dnc and its vendor failed to protect it.

we have invested enormous campaign resources in acquiring the rights to use this data. the did knnc has denied us acce our own data. data collected by hundreds of thousands of volunteers. this database is funded by there over two million contributions this campaign has received from people all across the country. let me briefly discuss three issues involved in this matter: first as i pointed out earlier this isn't the first time the vendor hired by the dnc and the dnc to run the voter file program has allowed serious failures to occur. on more than one occasion they have dropped the fire wall between the data of competing democratic campaigns. this is dangerous incompetence. it was your campaign that made them aware data was being made

to others and we didn't run to the media but trusted the problem would be resolved. unfortunately, the vendor dropped the fire wall between the campaigns for some data again. secondly, after discussion with the dnc became clear some of our staffers irresponsiblely accessed the data from another campaign. that behavior is unacceptable to the sanders' campaign and fired the staffer immediately and made certain any of the information was not utilized. we are speaking to other staffers. third, rather incredibly the leadership of the dnc has used this incident to shutdown our ability to access our own information. information which is the life blood of this campaign.

this is the information about our supporters. our volunteers. the list of people we intend to contact in iowa, new hampshire and elsewhere. this is information we have worked hard to obtain. as i mentioned before, this is information gathered by our volunteers across the country, funded by the over $2 million in contributions we received online. it is our information and the information of all of these volunteers and the people that support our campaign, not the dnc the leadership of the democratic national committee is attempting to undermine our campaign. this is unacceptable. individual leaders of the dnc can support hillary clinton in any way they want. but they will thought sabotage our campaign. one of the strongest grassroots campaign in modern mystery.

we are

all employees we suspected involved and reviewed e-mail and google documents and restored any e-mails they had deleted during the relevant time period and reviewed them. the investigation is ongoing. in the heat of campaigns sometimes we make misjudgments.

i manage the campaign. data is being used. nothing was -- no data that i am aware of was exported in a way that could be used by anybody. an after action report was issued saying none of these reports were printed and none were exported. i am relying on them and have to rely on them. the monopoly vendor has soul access to this information because we have been cut off. you are getting their side of the story from them and it hasn't been verified by us. that is why we look forward to a full independent audit of the dnc's handling of data going forward. >> look. this is taking our campaign

hostage. we have a grassroots campaign, right? when we have people coming to the headquarters to call volunteers or voters to talk about bernie sanders campaign to transform america we cannot generate phone numbers to do that. it is impossible to mobilize the grassroots campaign we have without access to that data. and because of the nature of our campaign we are affected by this type of taking the data hostage by the dnc. >> does it make it impossible to win? >> i think we are seeing it online that people are outraged by the conduct of the dnc which is a heavy handed attempt to undermine the dnc. our data. how long are they going to freeze our access to our own data. they have not. and that is why we will have to go to federal court if this is not resolved to vindicate the rights of this campaign and the

millions across the country who want change. the truth is we are investigating this with inability to look at the ban that has been withheld from us. the dnc by their own action is hendering our ability to do this investigation they say they want. we have very high ethical standards in this campaign. bernie sanders is a different kind of candidate. we are running a campaign to transform america. people who work on this campaign have to understand even the appearance of something that is not right is too much. we let the staffer go.

it was a clear signal to take it seriously with respect to our data and others. we will not use anybody else's data or retain anybody else's data. the dnc is acting in a heavy handed and unprecedented way. i would like to see another instance where a presidential campaign had their own data withheld under similar circumstances. excuse me? two months ago we found out when we were downloading data it was dumping a bunch of other campaign's data along with ours which indicated the fire wall between the campaigns not effective. we segregated the information and put it in a password protected file so we could dominate there was a breach. because we were concerned large amounts of our own data was being violated. the dnc assured us this was

going to be taken care of. but they are not competent in terms of maintaining the security of data between the campai campaigns. what is that? [inaudible question] >> all i can tell you, i don't know the motivation of everyone at the dnc, but we have had c conflict about the surveillance transparency act night debate. they are trying to help the clinton campaign it seems. we are taking on the establishment and i am sure there are people in the democratic establishment who are not happy with the success senator sanders is having all over the country. to win we need our data which has been stolen by the dnc. that is what we want back. thank you, all. >> thanks, everybody. thank you.

>> c-span takes you know the road to the white house with best access to the candidates and we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always every campaign event we cover is available on our website website website: cspan.org. >> ted cruz held a rally in virginia and before the rally candidates spoke to reporters. this is 15 minutes. >> we want to see which

reporters have been naughty and which reporters have been nice. let me see. just kidding. merry christmas. >> merry christmas to you, too, senator. i am glad i brought the cool weather. >> it is a wonderful thing. your reindeer are not happy. >> no, they are not. >> welcome to our national fly around. we are having an incredible trip around the center tuesday state. we had a rally in las vegas. we had a pacted house with excitement in minnesota. we are in virginia and headed to georgia. the excitement we are seeing all across the country is breath

taking. we are seeing conservatives uniting behind the campaigns. we are seeing it in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and nevada but throughout the march 1st super tuesday states and throughout the country. from the beginning the message is simple: if conservatives come together we will win. with that i will answer questions. >> senator rubio said in an interview -- [inaudible conversation] >> i am going to let marco defend his own voting record. i flew back to washington, d.c. to vote against the omni bus. i think it is betrayal.

people are frustrated because we keep winning elections as conservatives and republican leaders keep advancing barack obama's agenda. this is funding all of obamacare and all of executive amnesty and all of planned parenthood. it does something to stop the iranian nuclear deal. it does nothing to stop president obama and hillary clinton's plan to bring tens of thousands of syrian refuges to america even though the head of the fbi said they can't vet them to determine if they are terrorist. there are 200,000 low skilled immigrants coming into the country to take away jobs and drive down the wages. this was a betrayal of the men and women who rose up in 2014 and gave us the majority.

it is now christmas time. with republican leadership playing santa to the lobbyist and special interest and it is high people are fed up with the washington cartel. you know, just this week, senator chuck shumer was candidate about what happened saying senator mcconnell wants the senate to work. the only way for the senate to work is for them to pass our agenda. that is exactly what republican leadership did is funded and passed barack obama's agenda. it is why people are so frustrated. but it is why we are seeing so much excitement in our campaign. people understand republican leadership in congress is not going to turn this country around. the only way to turn this country around is with a strong principle proven conservative in the white house. and that is why so many people are unifying so many

conservatives and fed up with wash are unifying behind our campaign. >> to become president ted cruz how do you think in a general election you can convince americans to become president? >> the only way to win a general election is to bring back to the millions of conservatives who stayed home in 2008 and 2012. we need to be the party of hard working men and women, blue coller workers, that want to believe again in the promise of america.

water carriers to act in big business and have more amnesty.

cheap labor that washington things is great for big business but it is not great for working men and women. i will always fight for the working men and women. i love rush limbaugh. donald trump is a friend of mine. there are a lot of people in the media who want to see a cage match between me and trump. i have no interest in giving the media what they want. >> i don't know how you could say that you never supported legalalization? a lot of people out there think you have been playing the washington game for years.

>> it is very simple, todd. i oppose amnesty. marco rubio sports amnesty. i oppose scitizenship. marco rubio supports it. i opposed the gang of eight bill. marco rubio supported the bill. marco rubio promised the men and women in florida if you elect me i would lead the fight against amnesty. in texas, i promised the men and women in texas the same thing. i said if you elect me i would lead the fight against amnesty. in 2008, everyone had to chose

the line they stood on. senator rubio made the decision not to stand by the promise he made to the men and women that elected him. instead he stood by barack obama and the big money in washington and lead the fight to amnesty. i made a different decision. i made the decision to stand with jeff sessions, steve king, and lead the fight to defeat the bill. >> at the time you said you supported what you were pushing because it would legalize -- >> that is factually incorrect. that statement is false. back in 2013, the rubio campaign believed it would benefit them politically if they broke their promises to the florida voters and pushed amnesty. it was because they thought the big money donors in the

republican party would reward them -- that was back when senator rubio was on the cover of "time" magazine labelled the savior. they are regretting that decision now. facts are stubborn though. so the rubio campaign is pushing that i introduced a series of amendments to defeat the bill. one of those was an amendment that said nobody here illegally can be ever apply for citiz citizenship. it is being spun that because i submitted that that i support the other aspects of the gang of eight bill. that is non-sense. i would point out supporting me in that fight for that citiz

citizenship agreement was mike lee and jeff sessions. i am not aware of anyone putting the claim that jeff was supporting legalization. jeff and my position were identical on this. it did work. remember president obama and others going on saying we have the votes to get this. the republican leadership in the house is going to take it up. we will pass this. they were convinced of that. and a handful of us, and it was a lonely handful in the senate, led the fight against it. jeff sessions and i stood on the senate floor a sail from all directions. i spent 30 minutes on the radio with rush limbaugh and the phones on capitol hill were erupting as people across the country lit up the phone and we

turned the debate. ... dano is to continue tapping this primary is over so they are trying to muddy the waters. they can't back away from senator ruby is longtime support so they are trying to suggest everyone else does. you know in the last 48 hours,

senator mike lee has come out publicly and said ted is telling the truth, marco is not telling the truth. senator jeff sessions has come out publicly in saying ted is telling the truth and marker was not telling the truth and rush limbaugh has come out publicly and said ted is telling the truth, marco was not telling the truth. and john adams famously said facts are stubborn things. i understand the political desire of other candidates to try to muddy the record but the facts are simple. i oppose amnesty. i have always opposed amnesty and i always will oppose amnesty and i will note the other candidates on that stage are not willing to say that because that has not come it is not and will not be their position. thank you. >> why didn't you tell us that for the last year? >> okay.

[applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> thank you very much. thank you. ♪ ♪ [applause] >> wow! [applause]

[applause] god bless the commonwealth of virginia. pastor thompson thank you so much for welcoming here and thank you irwin for being here. thank you for your friendship. thank you for your strong principle leading. but we say to the men and women of virginia, a strong principled courageous conservative. he was a remarkable attorney general. he would have made a tremendous governor of virginia. [applause] and he is a fearless conservative leader of the national stage, speaking the truth to power and the people of america are grateful to virginia for producing ken gooch -- ken cuccinelli.

[applause] you know the folks of this great state know a little bit about fighters. you have a tradition of patriots , and i would note that the commonwealth of virginia shocked and astonished washington d.c. when you sent dave bratton to join us in congress. [applause] [applause] there was a sonic boom -- sonic boom on the other side of the potomac and for a second people

realized it was almost as we the people were sovereign. i will tell you this dave and i spent all morning in washington d.c.. so it is great to be back in america. [applause] on tuesday in vegas, we had kind of a quiet evening. how fantastic is it that we have such a tremendous over a other young dynamic, talented republican candidates for president? [applause] and what a contrast. with the democrats.

i'm pretty sure the first democratic debate consisted of hillary and the chipotle clerk. well now actually that's not fair, that's not fair. we can't forget about bernie sanders. so now, the democratic field consists of a wild-eyed socialist with ideas that are dangerous for america and the world, and bernie sanders. [applause] and you know it's an amazing thing, they keep scheduling the democratic debate at like 2:00 a.m. on a saturday on pbs. it's almost like they don't actually want anyone to see their candidates for president.

which you can understand why. but there is good news, they have announced the venue for the next democratic debate. they are holding it at leavenworth. [applause] they wanted to make it easier for hillary to attend. [applause] we are here today because our country is in crisis. we are here today because we are bankrupting our kids and grandkids. because our constitution is under assault each and every day and because america has receded from leadership in the world and it is made the world a much more dangerous place.

and yet i'm here today with a word of hope and encouragement and exultation. i want to tell you all across virginia and all across this country people are waking up and i'm here to tell you help is on the way. [applause] [applause] so i want to ask everyone here to look forward, look forward to january 2017. if i'm elected president, amen. i want to tell you what i intend to do on the first day in office. the first thing i intend to do on the first day in office is

resend every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by this president. [applause] [applause] you know president obama likes to say he's got a pen and he has eight -- will you live by the pen and you die by the pen and my pen has got an eraser. sadly the corruption hasn't just been limited to the white house. it has extended across every agency of the federal government the second thing i intend to do on the first day in office is instruct the united states department of justice to open an investigation into planned

parenthood and these horrible videos. [applause] [applause] and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by the organization. the administration of justice should be blind to party or ideology. the only fidelity at the department of justice should be to the laws and the constitution of the united states. [applause] the third thing that i intend to do on the first day in office is instruct the department of justice and the irs and every other federal agency that the

persecution of religious liberty ends today. [applause] that means that every service man and woman has the right to seek out and worship god almighty with all of her heart, mind and soul and the superior officer has nothing to say about it. [applause] that means that the little sisters of the poor, a catholic charity right now being persecuted by the obama administration, will find the case against them is --

[applause] the fourth thing i intend to do on the first day in office is ripped to shreds this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. [applause] [applause] the single greatest national security threats facing america today is the threat of a nuclear i ran and we need a commander-in-chief who will stand up on the world stage and say i'm a good way, under no circumstance will the nation of i ran led by a theocratic

ayatollah who chants death to america, under no circumstances will i ran ever acquire a nuclear weapon. [applause] the fifth thing i intend to do on the first day in office is begin the process of moving the american embassy in israel to jerusalem the once and eternal capital of israel. [applause] you know a lot of presidential candidates, both democrats and republicans, have made that exact same promise and yet inevitably when they get to the white house they don't do it. because what happens is they are

teams come to them and they say you know if we do this, it will make other folks in the middle east really really unhappy. if you hadn't noticed, they are already pretty unhappy with us. and the single biggest difference between me and the other very fine men and women standing on that stage is set with me, when i tell you i'm going to do something, i'm going to do exact to what i said out to do. [applause] [applause] so that stay one. bats.

there are 365 days a year, four years in a presidential term and four years in a second term. [applause] by the end of eight years, they are are going to be a whole lot of newspaper reporters come editors and journalists that have to check themselves into therapy. [applause] in the days that follow, i will go to congress and we will repeal every word of obamacare. [applause]

we will pass commonsense health care reform that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable and keeps government from getting in between us and our -- [applause] in the days that follow, i will instruct the u.s. department of education, which should be abolished -- joe. [applause] i will instruct the department of education that common core ends today. [applause] in the days that follow, we will finally, finally, finally secure our borders and end sanctuary cities.

[applause] there are about 360 jurisdictions in america that declare themselves sanctuary cities. they are going to find every penny of federal money cut off. [applause] we are going to stop releasing criminal illegal aliens. we are going to pass caselaw and we are going to end welfare for those here illegally. [applause] in the days that follow, we will read build our military and we will honor the commitments made to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

[applause] and that includes protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of every service man and woman. [applause] so that the next time a jihadist walks into a recruiting center in chattanooga, he is going to encounter the business and other firearms wielded by a dozen marines. [applause] in the days that follow, our

commander in chief will stand up and say to the world, we will defeat radical islamic terrorism. [applause] we will have a president willing to utter the words radical islamic terrorism. [applause] and we will not weaken, we will not degrade, we will utterly and completely destroy isis. [applause] we will make clear to any militant on the face of the planet if you go and join isis if you wage jihad against america, if you attempt to murder innocent americans, you are signing your death warrant.

[applause] in the days that follow, we will take on the epa. [applause] and the cfpb and the alphabet soup of federal agencies that descended like locusts on businesses killing jobs all across this country. [applause] you know a few years back i was out in west texas and i asked folks there, i said what's the difference between regulators and locusts? i said well the thing is you can't use pesticides on the

regulators. and this old west texas farmer leaned back and said juan to that? [laughter] we will pass a simple flat tax. [applause] so that every american that fills the air taxes will -- [applause] and when we do that, we should abolish the irs. [applause]

there are about 90,000 employees at the irs. we need to padlock that building , take all 90,000 and put them down on our southern border. now to our friends in the media and i say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. but if you think about it i imagine you travel thousands of times. you are swimming across the rio grande and the first thing you see is 90,000 irs agents. you would turn around and go home too. [applause]

some of you all may be thinking, all of this makes sense to me. basic common sense, live within your means, don't bankrupt our kids and grandkids. follow the constitution, but can it be done? can we do it? scripture tells us it's nothing new. i think where we are today is very very much like the late 1970s. i think the parallels with the jimmy carter administration are the same failed economic policy, the same misery, stagnation and

byways, same feckless and naïve foreign-policy. in fact, the exact same countries, russia and i ran openly laughing at at us and mocking us and the president of the united states. the one person in america thrilled with the job barack obama is doing his jimmy carter. [applause] so why is it that analogy gives me so much hope and optimism? because we know how that story ends. all across this country millions of men and women rows up and contained the reagan revolution. [applause]

and it didn't come from washington. washington defies ronald reagan. by the way you see a candidate that washington embraces, -- it came from the american people and it turned this country around. we went from misery and stagnation to booming economic growth and billions lifted out of poverty into prosperity in america. lupin from our hostages languishing in i ran to winning the cold war and tearing the berlin wall to the ground. [applause] why am i so optimistic? because the same thing is happening again. all across virginia, all across this country people are waking

up. there is an awakening, there's a spirit of revival that sweeping this country. [applause] you know when we launched this campaign in march, here in virginia at liberty university. [applause] when we launch this campaign "the new york times" probably opined, cruz cannot win because the washington elite despise him i kind of thought that was the whole point of the campaign. [applause] listen, if you think things are

going great we need to keep having the same basic direction filling in around the edges, then i ate your guy. on the other hand, if you think washington is fundamentally broken, that there is a bipartisan corruption, of career politicians in both parties that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interest and grow and grow and grow government we need to take power out of washington and back do we the people. that is what this campaign is all about. [applause]

[applause] [applause] let me close with this. you know for all of us, freedom is not some abstract concept that we read about. freedom is real, it's personal. for me, i think about my dad. my father was born and raised in cuba and as a teenager my dad fought in the cuban revolution and he was imprisoned and tortured. when he was 17 years old and was thrown in prison he was lying on the floor in a cuban jail cell covered in mud, blood and grind. his nose was broken and his

teeth were shattered out of his mouth. and he remembers thinking comings thinking i don't have any kids. nobody depends on me. it doesn't matter if i live or i die. but thankfully god had different plans for my father. he was released from that jail cell and he fled to america in 1957. he came here, he was just 18 years old, couldn't speak a word of english, had nothing. had $100 sewn into his underwear got a job washing dishes making 50 cents an hour. he worked seven days a week, paid his way through school. he and my mom went on to start a small business. so i grew up in texas as the son of two small business owners seeing the ups and downs, the challenges and the triumphs of running a small business. today my dad is a pastor and he travels the country preaching

about it. [applause] now my whole life my father has been my hero. you know what i find so extraordinary about his storied? it's commonplace. every single one of us here, we have a story just like that. in our backgrounds. some of us it's us, others of their parents, others that are great great great grandparents but with ties americans together, each and every one of us is we are the children of those who risk everything. and that's why i'm so optimistic, because it is the fundamental dna of what it means to be an american to value

liberty and opportunity above all else. when i was a kid, my dad used to say to me over and over again, when we face oppression i had a place to flee to. if we lose our freedom here, where do we go? that is why all of us are here today. because we are not content to go quietly into the night. we are not willing to give up on our kids and grandkids and i will tell you this today, if we continue to come together and stand together and fight for the constitution and fight for the values this country was built on , if we come together as we the people, then we can and we will bring back that last best

hope for mankind, that shining city on a hill that is the united states of america. thank you and god bless you. [applause] [applause] >> let me begin by asking in a divided government you don't get everything you want. based on your vote on the budget do you disagree? >> today on the budget vote -- budget vote was at the trail against the republican majority in both houses of congress. for too long we keep electing republicans to end up voting to

define barack obama's agenda. this was a trillion dollar budget negotiating the dark of night thousands of pages. it funds 100% of executive amnesty and 100% of planned parenthood. does nothing to stop this catastrophic iranian deal and does nothing to stop president obama's plan to bring to america tens of thousands of syrian refugees. even though the fbi tells us they cannot bet those refugees to determine if they are isis terris among them. there is a reason the men and women in virginia and all across the country are feeling a volcanic frustration. we keep winning elections. >> if elected you want to change republican leadership in congress? >> what is clear now is leadership is not going to come from congress. republican leadership in congress is either incapable or unwilling to lead which means what we need is a strong

principled conservative in the white house. if i am president i will make unambiguously clear if you send me a trillion dollar budget filled with corporate welfare i will veto it. we need a president who leads and you know the problem we face is what i call the washington cartel. it's the career politicians in both parties that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interests and they grow and grow government. you think about the last time we broke the washington cartel was in 1980, the reagan revolution. he came from the people. a tidal waive that arose from the grassroots. when i'm so encouraged by now as we are seeing this presidential campaign that same grassroots tidal waive building, we are seeing conservatives unite behind our campaign. you know today we have had roughly 600,000 contributions from people all over the country pentagon to ted cruz.org. people are standing together and i'm convinced 2016 will be an election like 1980 that we will win by following reagan's

admonition by point painting in bold colors. snack on the question was taught by your strategy post-iowa and this is now a campaign between you and marco rubio? >> our strategy is simple. from day one we will bring together that old reagan coalition in what i'm so encouraged by is we are seeing that happen. we are seeing conservatives evangelicals and libertarians coming together. we are seeing young people as panics african-americans jewish and democrats all coming together. people are fed up with washington. they are fed up with politicians in both parties who say one thing and do another. they are looking for someone who they can count on to be a consistent conservative saying yesterday today tomorrow. in my time in the senate i've tried to do two things. number one tell the truth and number two can't do what i said i would do and i think that's the reason we are seeing -- if it continues to happen we are going to win this nomination and

we will win this nomination will they bring out to the polls in november 2016 the millions of working men and women that have been left behind by the obama clinton economy that are frustrated by president obama defend this nation by radical islamic terrorism. that's how we turn the country around. it's how we read night the promise of america. >> thank you very much for your time. you are on c-span. we appreciate it. >> thank you, appreciate it. tonight we went to talk to some the rally attendance at the crist event viewer first time. >> i'm here to learn more about who i'm voting for next year. >> would you do into my? >> i learned a lot about our country and what i want to do. what do you think about senator ted cruz? >> is really nice in these funding and what's best for the people. >> you are not able to vote and he came with your sister. why? >> because i wanted to see what he can do for our country.

>> what did you learn? >> he wants to destroy isis. >> would you vote for him if you are 18? >> i would for a second term. tonight we will make our way down there for the ted crist supporters. tell me your name and why you came today and what you took away from this event for senator cruz? >> my name is tom from williamsburg, virginia. my wife nancy, we both came today because we really believe the last hope for us and for our children and grandchildren is ted cruz. he is a selfless person. i believe he is doing this from his heart, more so than politics. >> and we need to take your country back. >> we need to be winners. when you see nancy take our country back what you mean? what's wrong with our country today and why do you think ted cruz could change the country? >> i think he's a very intelligent man and i think he

knows what's going on behind the scenes better than the american people do and we don't need a president like obama any more. he is has ruined our country. he has ruined christmas. he has let the muslims in. we can't say that word. we are a proud people and we are going to take our country back. [inaudible] >> he has scared children. they are not allowed to have santa claus in the schools because it might offend muslims. what about defending us? or works both ways. >> political correctness have just gone completely out of control. i mean it's totally out of control. the smallest minorities in this country are ruling what takes place and the quiet majority of folks like ourselves and probably you also are just voiceless and that has to stop.

>> ted is the man to make the change. >> thank you both very much. you are both participants at this rally. why did you come out today and what did you learn from the ted cruz remarks? >> we are really enthused and we like what he saying as far as what he can do for small businesses and that kind of thing. at an immigration. >> 10 -- ken ted cruz when the nomination? >> we think so. we have dave pratt. we knocked on hundreds of hours per day so it's not our first rodeo. we are really in thirst -- enthused. >> what did you learn from make campaign? congressman brad was on the "washington journal." when did you sense he was going to defeat the house republican leader eric cantor? >> at the republican delegation when we defeated cantor when we

voted for the republican nomination. when you talk to dave you know how sharp he is. it's easy to get a lot of people on board for him and we liked dave's position on immigration as well as smaller government. dave is a sharp economic professor and we are small-business people. we know where that comes from so the regulations that affect us. >> let me move down here because it's getting into the dinner hour. this was a rally that was supposed to happen midmorning. you are still here now, why did you come? >> i wanted to learn more about ted. i'm still on the fence about who i'm going to go for and whoever had an r in front of their name i thought i would go for. i think like paul was saying about dave brad, they are similar in their conservative ideas. i'm a businessman and i'm also director of a small bank and he didn't mention -- mentioned

dodd-frank. we are strangled in regulation. killing small-business and the economy. you are probably sitting in one of the most conservative countries -- areas in the country. they carried ted big-time. dave came in and right up until that night until finally he took it to him. i think if the party had an on the other things the country particularly what happened out of mississippi so i think the movement is afoot and probably trump, putting him in person they have 50, 60, 70% of the photos of there's a movement going on and people are just sick of washington d.c.. >> thank you both for sting with this. i'm going to move over and talked to more artistic bent of his rally.

was there one thing from senator cruz's speech that stands out tax. >> i really cannot answer that. >> what did you think about the event itself? >> fantastic. we knew dave rat before dave wanted to run and when he agreed to run i promised him that i would give him 24/7 for the rest of my life and ted cruz, those two guys are two of a kind. they come along once-in-a-lifetime and ted cruz, he is another dave rag. i will work until the day i die for both of those guys. >> thank you both for talking

this. i'm going to move back here. are you a ted crist supporters? guest:mayanne. every four generations america goes their crisis and here we are again. we need and we always have a warrior priest type character, man of godly character who is also warlike and we have that with george washington. we had that four generations later with abraham lincoln and four generations later in fdr and here we are now. we are four generations later and again we are in the winter of that repeating cycle and enable to get to the springtime we need a priest warrior. the reason trump is up there is because he's the warrior and people are forgetting about the priest. ted cruz has both sides of that equation.

you have dr. carson, you have huckabee, you have santorum, you have a lot of good strong christians and his moral christians dropped out that christian conservative constitutional support is going to coalesce around future president crews. >> any thread the coalition to win the peace they dominate and defeat the democrats? >> this is a christian nation regardless of the 70% center-right nation. the conservatives are out thinking democrats. he is the complete package. one other group over here, some younger voters, potential voters why did you come out today?

are you supporting ted cruz? which are take away from his speech? >> i am taking away mainly the military isis and i am a new bahrain that just got back from boot camp. i personally am gung ho for everything that he supports come everything from isis to planned parenthood, everything he supports. i completely support command. >> let me talk about you, why did you come here and what's your name by the way? >> gabriel. >> i'm from richmond virginia. >> i'm from virginia. i'm originally from come originally from northern virginia but left there for a reason. >> because? >> is a horrible place traffic wise. >> what do you think about ted cruz? >> i think ted cruz is great. he's the closest thing, we have

seen to reagan in a long time. someone has to come in and do that clean up and ted cruz is the one that can clean up obama's mess. >> you are smiling over here. what's you name and why are you smiling? i completely agree with what he is saying. he will stand for what he believes and the establishment and believing in standing up for what he thinks. >> we have two more people who have been very patient. don't shake your head. i want to ask you what was your take away from senator cruz's speech than why did you come? >> my name is rachel allgood. i enjoy posting to him. we all need a change in washington seems like he is there to do that. >> do you think ted cruz can win the nomination? >> i think so, i think so.

we'll have to see in another six months i guess. >> are there other candidates who you like? >> would kind of like trump also. i think cruz, trump take it would be good. >> what you like donald trump? >> because he stands up and says it like it is and what most americans would like to see here and would like to have the courage to say themselves. >> we will give the last word. what is your name and why where you today? >> my name is allgood and the vice president of the mechanicsville -- and i like him. he gave an excellent speech and i think he would make a terrific vice president for donald trump. trump is a leader. he is running the whole show is for the nomination process is concerned that everyone else is more or less following along behind him and i see mr. trump

is for the 6% -- mr. cruz really is in mr. trump is out there and he's doing it. he is leading the show. he is running the whole nomination process, and i think ian ted cruz would be an excellent team. >> let me ask you one final question because a lot of people have criticized the tone of this campaign from donald trump. you are shaking your head. why? >> the whole thing as too politically correct. you can't say anything. you can't call an illegal alien an illegal alien. you have to say illegal immigrant. they are not illegal immigrants. they are illegal aliens. they are in the country legally

or you are an illegal alien. there is no other category no other category site support mr. trump for telling it like it is. i believe everything he says and i think he will make a conscience's effort to do everything he says is going to do. as long as his name is on the ballot i'm going to vote for him. >> we will just have to see what the numbers show it and who wins. >> thank you. >> thank you both -- both very much. we appreciate it.

>> it's an opportunity to work and to learn what was going on. i had a good law practice. as a matter fact i had a great law practice and politics was the last thing i wanted to get involved with. >> bill kristol this is a continued conversation we have been having with our viewers. since the first time since 9/11

governments -- turned negative. people do not feel safe. >> guest: it was the worst attack since 9/11 so that's part of it and the sense of the world is chaotic in the middle east is becoming increasingly chaotic and that can be contained there. you can't just say we are getting out of their reach and out of iraq and syria. i think chaos will be -- but it won't come here. paris and san bernardino have rocked home we can't do the whole region of the world generate into chaos with huge swaths of land controlled by terrorist groups. >> is there a difference in 2015 than in the past? >> guest: people have been very worried and they have been about terrorism for a long time and they were before 9/11. i do think the situation on the ground in the middle east and the refugees you can easily get

come easy to get to the united states as 11 hijackers did. and that sounds is more worrisome than it has been and there are bad moments during the bush presidency. at the end of the day in 2008 we have watched iraq and other parts of the region. 2012 some of us were worried about president obama's policy but it didn't look as if it was just developed. i do think you have a sense now. >> host: the house today voting on the spending bill the so-called omnibus. this is what rush limbaugh had to say and i just want to get your response. this is a transcript from rush limbaugh.com. now the republicans have the largest number of seats in the house they have had in congress since the civil war and it hasn't made any difference at all. nancy pelosi still running the house and harry reid is to running the senate. the. is not even a word here.

what's happened is worse than betrayal. betrayal is pretty bad but it's worse than that. we don't even need a republican party he said if they are going to do this. just about democrats and disband their pub can party and that the democrats run it because that's what's happening. >> guest: i don't like the omnibus spending bill and i would vote against it if i were a member of congress because there's a lot of bad things in it that are necessary. this is supposed to keep the government going and it's got all kinds of policy riders. some are favorable to the markets and some are favorable to republicans. they want to bring these things up on the floor, they should pass these tax provisions and other measures, a lot of your remarks but there's immigration provisions on hostile to it.

having said that it would be a lot worse if they control the house and harry reid controlled the senate. let's not kid ourselves. it doesn't make the case that republicans don't matter but it is the case paul ryan's artist of those, the clock was running out he felt he had to go with the way it's gone last two years. he says they are going to go to regular order but let me give an example. immigration provision in the omnibus i think what gerbils the work permits for democrats. that would be a good idea. maybe we need a lot of people to work in summer and jobs in america won't qualify for. but let's say that. that's a matter of public policy. there's no reason i can be reported out of committee in both houses. that's a perfectly intelligent thing that public policy to debate him. it's being smuggled into the

last-minute omnibus bill with no chance to be voted on separately. that's just bad governance and process. paul ryan says he doesn't like it either but i don't know the air marks for the coast guard that the coast guard doesn't need and cochran the chairman of the senate appropriations committee from mississippi said lobbyist working for shipbuilding and mississippi. .. s in the primary. host: what you think about donald trump? like donald't trump. i don't think he should be president of united's dates -- united states. i do not respect him.

he says things that are foolish and irresponsible. he is an effective demagogue. challenging the political elites. the even though he is one of those elites in many ways. it is an interesting challenge for the other candidates.ll i sort of do feel that ted cruz or marco rubio or chris christie were togethert they probably can't deal with prudent and isys. it is a good test for the more established candidatesr , can they sort of channel, co-opt what is true and trump or trump -isms or at least what is legitimate in public discontent while not being irresponsible and foolish? >> have you ever seen a person like donald trump runor for president?

>> ross perot is the obvious comparison. i think perot is the more admirable person. the patriot for our soldiers and marines and servicemen and women. authentically was worried. did not run that demagogic a campaign. a someone who served in the 1st bush white house we were unhappy to have perot running. trump has been more demagogic. reminds me ofes jesse ventura running for governor of minnesota schwarzenegger in california, the celebrity you comes along. people are sick of politicsth as usual and they do well. governor is one thing. they survivenn a few years of maybe not great governorship , presidency is another thing. someone who praises putin

and says irresponsible things my muslims and just irresponsible things period. commentators, talk radio hosts, magazine editors, a it's a huge country and people can say a lot of things. ill-advised. there are that many people finalists were president of the united states and do have some responsibility to ca more judicious and careful.s. >> host: i'm sure you saw. gave the gop the gift of sarah palin. political styles are similar. she was an early beneficiary of the same conservative backlash. republicans the trump is currently profiting from, if

it is a bit strange can't believe the party would coalesce around trump.ah >> well, when she was governor of alaska, from mayor to governor, very bright young governor.ed i thought she should be considered for the vice presidency. she did well at times and poorly at times and it turns out afterwards she just was s not serious enough. she's not running for president. that is the difference. the she might be optimistic. i suggested her name. to be honest it was hard to tell. sitting governor and well-respected in the state. whatever the merits she is not running for president.

peoplepeople can legitimately say she was not as well prepared as she should have been but she wasum not demagogue the way donald trump is. she didn't are all religions or not a public policy. she was more of a movement conservative. trump support comes from conservatives and moderates, disaffected voters. more of a classic all-purpose demagogue. look, conservatives say things. they might disagree, more radically conservative. it's a big movement. donald trump has not beenld part of the movement. done what many have done in trying to support conservative think tanks of msrious projects. he has been totally

enveloped in himself with no interest in the conservative movement or ideas or policiesci and he does not now and is not advocating conservative policies. sarah palin is simplemindedve. i think it is unfair to say. they were movements that were mixede in their subtlety and complexity. but it is what the tea party was about, limited government restoring power to the people, fighting obama care kemal good things.ntna donald trump never talks about the constitution. he has succeeded in persuading, cajoling some t conservatives and the thinking that is the nextex stage of conservative leadership.ve we have good conservative leaders and not so good

conservative leaders, but different kinds of conservative leaders. donald trump is not a conservative leader. >> have you endorsed? >> the weekly standard does not endorse. on trump, ii don't think she u should be the nominee, president of the united states. they asked me if i would vote for trump. no. i don't have any confidence he would pursue conservative policy. no. whatever you think of themt?, everyone else up on theer stage maybe with theh exception of rand paul. foreign-policy, but even rand paul has views and has been open about them.wi i just disagree with them. the others are all prettyy much big picture

constitutional issues, the kind of justices they would appoint welfare, foreign policy, domestic policy issues, you know, they fall within the general sort of conservative critique of big government welfare statewe modern liberalism. trump really doesn't. i get a little tired. describe myself as anti-s anti- trump. kind of sanctimonious and overly fastidious.ea pretty early on that. the last three or fourre

months, i thought they were going to gradually let thewa air out of the balloon. the kind of deserved what they got. capture down to the comment that we should exclude allap muslims. even excluding american muslims from entering the country. but he managed to survive all the steps.ve people do have a sense, such a reaction that the reaction has gone too far as the mainstream media attack, we have to like it. i'm willing to be as critical as anyone. you can't just like everything that the mainstream media dislikes. >> bill kristol is our guest, founder and editor of i the weekly standard. paul is a republican.llin >> thank you for taking my call, thank you for c-span.

i hope the holidays are treating them well. w good morning and happy hanukkah. since the world was young. whenever i see you on the shows i don't change th' channel. your opinions and insightspi are informative. i agree with you on this last budget deal. at what point are both republicans and democrats going to get serious about the budget deficit? this is ajo major, major problem. i disagree with you onld donald trump. i don't think what he said about muslims is helpful. we need american and foreign muslims on our side if we're going to win this war against the new version of nazi -ism.on

my personal take it would be carly fiorino marco rubio. carly saysaz, and she is absolutely right, no matter what your beef is thehe political classes failed us, whether it -- think about it. the war on poverty goings, on since the 60s, the war on drugs going on since the 60s. schools, criminal justice, the political class justas continues to fail all of us. >> that is a lot on the table. very quickly i want to show you this picture. calling in from orlando. here are the x-ray detectors to get in the disney now. >> you know, i am surprised that it has not happenedr. sooner. this is a great city. we have so much more than the three big theme parks.

orlando international airport is one of the busiest airports. since september 11 i am amazed that somebody has not smuggled into the country one of those shoulder launched missiles and thator anyone of the airports in the country taken down theta plane. i'm surprised that more ask likese san bernardino avenue not happened. the previous segment about do you a trust the government to keep us safe from terrorism, i'm not sure that was yes or no. but i am very surprised that it has taken this long for the theme parks. it is said that it had become to this, but i've taken way too muchp of both of your times. >> and we will leave it there.o yo good to hear from you. we haven't heard from them recently. >> well, thank you for the

kind words in your thoughtful comments. what paul said, he suggested carly fiorino and marco rubio, talking and i suggested rubio fiorino or maybe fiorini rubio. both are very good tickets. both are strong tickets and have differentkg qualifications and backgrounds. and i thinki paul exemplifies the thoughtful person who understands he is not for trump but understands expressingti dissatisfaction of the political classes a sensible thing to do. it is like on the verge of fascism. express the opinion. that is right. not in every way.ma

not just political elites, financial elites, the meltdown could not happen. i put myself in this category to some degree. i was very critical. we called for troops veryro early. still, at the end of the day i was not very successful. the lily of handled a lot of things post- september 11, a lot of people working out the hard in the national security world, intelligence professionals, the military,ul but it has not always been what it should have been. bush's policies, but i, but i think people are entitled to be worried, upset, time for a change. i very much believe that. with rubio and crews and young governors like scott walker, chris christie and carly fiorino.

happy to see voters. i bi have been admiring carson as an individual. i don't think he is ready, but i do not begrudge people admiring him and welcoming him to the stage as he has been. originally i thought trumpgh could make a good contribution. i did not expect him to take off, but the way he hasy taken off i don't think has been healthy. i don't think it's the end of the world that i don't think he will be the nominee. i worry that people get so unhappy. these issues should be debated.

we can't underestimate how much that is hurt peoples sense of government. at least they have a fair shot. special workers to theig immigration process, part-time workers are summer workers, those kind of visas , that is a public policy debate. congress and president signs the bill. okay. we've got a shot to make our case. vote against a representative and senator next time. but i gets put in some bill like this. another reason also why morepe power should go back. more of an ability to govern themselves. or chance to make a difference. people feel self governedpp

slipping away in thiso country which leads to frustration and the frustration is not alwayson expressed sensibly. what has to really understand the frustration and sympathize with it. >> ron is in bradenton, florida on the democrats line. >> good morning. good morning. i have never agreed with you and tell mr. trump. and i take objection to jesse ventura. jesse was probably one ofof the best governors, and if you want to talk about grassroots, he was independent and he was actually probably preceding the tea party. and as far as mr. trump goes , he is tearing apart the party. and as a democrat i can sit back and laugh and enjoy it.

and enjoy it very well because he is going to do damage that i know is going to take quite some time. and as far as being, thinking the government is going to protect me, you know what i am afraid of? i am afraid that they will take and use too much of my resources to worry about al qaeda, isys coming in here and not worry about the other tens of thousands of terrorists, the white male in the united states that are shooting up clinics and congresswoman in theaters and churches. i want those they stopped. those are the things theyth are going to be lax about. >> that is ron in bradenton. >> i think we can be tough

on alle forms of violent crime and strong on law enforcement and strong on the war on terror. the amount of money we're spending certainly on the national defense is close to historic lows and even law enforcement and related activity, it's money wellh worth spending. they see a broad piece, strength abroad and security at home. some of these things cross state lines. ii am a hawk abroad and the law and order guy at home. i think we can afford to do it.we things we don't need to be doing. it is an interesting question.

is heis he really going to tear apart the party? it is possible. idiotic to say there is no chance of that. a i don't really see it yet. it had trump ahead. not minimizing his strength, but in the matchup so different republicans with hillary clinton the presumptive democratic nomineeil, trump is the weakest as of now republican candidate. if he won the nomination the real campaign he could charmrs and persuade a lot of voters , people change their minds. we have heard that. but i think as of now trump is the weakest candidate. marco rubio was leading hillary clinton. crews was smart. >> again empirically you started to say on stage with donald trump the most famous

republican in the country, damaging other republicans. it does not look that way. crews in early december. pretty good odds from muches lesser-known candidate. i would just say as of now, i plan to vote republican .-ellipsis donald trump. a new third-party it is actually a conservative party.yb i don't feel like he has done much damage. i don't think you look at him and think that's the republican party. you like him or don't likewh him. meanwhile there is rubio or christie are crews are jeb bush. he doesn't seem to have b done that much damage. the caller could be right. one can imagine trump

supporters saying they won't support rubio are crews. you could imagine the party in disarray. >> hello. good morning. >> good morning. >> you are so out of touch with the american people. people. you just pissed off one 3rd of the republican party by talking bad about donald trump. nobody bought trump up until you started talking. your ideas are sold they go back to george bush junior. >> are you a supporter? >> nobody up there, theho whole damn government is corrupt. up there being a hitman for government powers. >> what is your opinion of donald trump?ou >> why don't y'all retire? >> well, we got his.

>> it occurs to me occasionally. my weekly standard. i don't think i am posed. look, it's a free country. people do have a kind of strange attitude. annoying the 3rd of the republican party. e ll, sorry. supposed to not say what i say? people who like donald trump need to look seriously. entertaining guy. i did not sit around thinking he's i am my list of people. reality tv show guy.

kind of colorful and all of that. i just don't think he should be president. i guess my challengeen, you have got to really commit yourself.ld not that it is fun being for him n or annoying people like me for shocking the political class, those things can be fun but when it comes to voting people out to vote. that is what i do think trump support will diminishto as we get closer to the actual vote. >> we talked about terrorism, the spending bill that congress is bringing, donald trump and thein the presidential. it has kind of sucked the oxygen out of this program and the fact that that hasgu become our topic.es >> he has been fantastic and making himself the center ofnt attention.of surpasses trump over the weekend.

talked about it on sunday. i remember talking about that s with george stephanopoulos. tuesday night debate and suddenly trump monday afternoon comes back and totally dominates i. he is very smart, clever demagogue. just a term that describes a certain kind of politician which i think accurately describes trump. i think the others are doing better than they were two orer three months ago. the political class is just in denial. my god what is happening. t now many people see they have to explain there policies and take account of the frustration. people beginpeople begin to

take on trump, some morect effectually than others. and maybe this will make crews are rubio or christie a better candidate. >> john, southhampton,ho republican line, thank you for holding. >> good morning. i go back as well with w mr. kristol to when he was on the staff for the vp quayle. mr. kristol used to be an immigration enthusiast and a foreign-policy middle east hawk. i wasi was happy to see that a few years ago he began to moderate his integration and enthusiasmmi, but i agreear wholeheartedly and was encouraged to here him say that he failedei as far as being a political elite with respect to hisle middle east ideology.

obviously the financial elites have failed. the financial crisis and the like. the political classes failed.ca the media classes failed. the hollywood class has corrupted the culture ande failed. it would be tough to find a unique class that has not failed' the only issues are immigration and foreign-policy. and i am very encouraged to hear republicans, trump, crews, rand paul actually being sensible about the middle east, replacing tyrants, regime change, creating chaos and killing millions. there was no need to occupy afghanistan. we should have killed osama bin laden and the crew.

wewe never should have invaded and occupied iraq. it has cost trillions of dollars. c >> a lot on the table. mr. kristol.we >> i wishi wish all your viewers did not remember me going so far back. >> have you changed your position? >> i have changed on some. foreign-policysi. and i don't agree with the caller on pulling back from the middle east or the lack of necessity, really i know it is unpopular, but going through that. the last six or seven years 5,000 of syrians, exported everywhere. either in afghanistan or

iraq.. those interventions did not fail. they ultimately failed because obama for the south in 2009 and 2010. immigration, i was more liberal. i don't know that i was wrong at the time. i do think having ash republican president is probably the best chance to do it, but i also became more sympathetic to the argument. a very high level of legal immigration putting pressure down. and i just was convinced that i had been a little bit obviously everyone changes their minds. i had not really changed my mind. .. , it just happened that 9/11 happened.

you don't get to choose the parts of the world that you think a lot about. the rest of the world gets to choose you. that's what 9/11 showed. we were very good at thinking about afghanistan for a decade. i am convinced of the need for american leadership and strength. i think that's an important debate. it's a useful thing to have that debate. i think the marco rubio ted cruz is an intelligent debate. night, ithat tuesday thought this wasn't a bad demonstration of serious people. they only had 90 seconds to

talk. coherent giving worldviews. that is healthy for a political party. staff had this article. think the merits of marco rubio and ted cruz as candidates. i think it's an intelligent case. if trump were to win the nomination, he would be the weakest. nomination, ithe will be such an earthquake in american politics it's assumed to assume that everything goes back to normal. maybe they would stay mobilized for the general election. there would be a lot of democrats who would decide they would want to vote for donald trump. i think trump is a wildcard.

if people think they can say with assurance, it's foolish to say he could never be president. i think it's unlikely. i think others will have better chances for obvious reasons. i do think a matchup with rubio and ted cruz are probably the top two. hillary clinton would be very interesting. the democrats have always had good candidates. now suddenly democrats -- republicans look that way. that's a ticket of people who are in their 40's. secretary clinton hasn't been

around a long time. she first came to the white house in 1993. i think the generational contrast becomes striking. republicans can say they are the young party. paul ryan's speaker of the house. that is an underreported thing. it's amazing how little we talked about that. the speaker of the house is -- 45 years old. that is a big change i think for the image of the party. if mitch mcconnell once a little advice for me, he is a very shrewd leader. he should let the younger members step forward more.

has extremely capable members. cory gardner is in his 40's. and sullivan is 50. they've got a ton of the senators who are impressive and young. there are some good young republican governors. they remain impressive. whether it's scott walker or nikki haley. you think of that party, that is a different looking party from dole/push republicans. basically, the democratic party, i would be worried. maybe hillary clinton can pull it out. there are some young democratic governors.

hillary clinton is running against bernie sanders. the leadership in the house is mid 70's. chuck schumer is late 60's. this is not the face of the future. host: as

>> there were antislavery organizations in worchester. every town in the county had one. there were lots of, when war breaks out there are quite a few

aid societies organized as well by white and black worchester writes. it's a city that is very forward looking and very progressive in lots of ways. the first women's rights convention happened before the hall opened but afterward, most people came here to speak. worcester was a central location and mechanics hall is where everything happened. if anything happened in worchester it happened in the hall.

>> walter stoddard attributes his first interest in space travel and his first interest in a career in science to a day in 1899. he went outside with a saw and a hatchet and he was meant to tramon the dead branches off of a cherry tree and he climbed a tree grade i think he made himself a little at her to get up the tree and while he was up in the tree, he looked down on the field around him and he thought, how wonderful it would be to build some kind of a device that could leave the earth and maybe even travel.

a former u.s. ambassador to turkey joined a panel of foreign policy analysts to discuss russia's military involvement in syria and how it affects u.s. and turkish interests in the region. from the atlantic council in washington d.c., this is three hours. >> thank you john molina for getting us all started today. i would like to joining in welcome everyone to the atlantic council. we take great pride in bringing voices from the region in whatever we discuss regional events. we take great pride in being multidisciplinary, cross disciplinary and in this case we have the eurasia center and the hariri center for the middle east working together on this fundamentally cross-regional issue.

and even as american russian and middle eastern diplomats are together new york wrestling with the same problems we'll be discussing here today. we would just like to go to our experts who began speaking. i should note that at the bar principle discussions here today, speaking from papers they will be presenting early in the new year so you are getting a prepublication. ambassador hoff if you would like to begin. >> thank you frank. this is the paper to which frank refers will be published to think in the new year. it rests basically on five assumptions. number one, the russian and our brand were separate but entirely compatible reasons want to keep the shah and assad in power indefinitely or the foreseeable future, at least in part in

syria. the second assumption is the nature of the military campaign being waged by russian aircraft and iranian assembled omissions in syria against armed groups, not iso- fighting the assad regime defines russian and iranian priorities in syria. for both the battle against isil seems to be a pretext for assembling forces aiming to eliminate alternatives both to assad and isil. the assumption underlying this work is that or iran, keeping assad in power mainly has to do with assad's willingness over the years to subordinate syria to iran on all matters related to hezbollah in lebanon.

keeping hezbollah fit to fight, israel and politically dominant in lebanon are crucial iranian national security priorities. assad has delivered. there are no constituencies to this particular relationship in syria beyond the ruling family and its enablers. it sees bashar personally as embodying whatever residual legitimacy as last to this regime. fourth, for russia assad's continued incumbency proclaims moscow's return to great power status. putin claims that washington has been on a democratization and regime change jihad since 2003 in iraq. he wants to stop it cold in syria.

he wants ideally to confront president obama with a binary choice between a barrel bomber on the one hand and kayla baghdadi on the other. he wants president obama to eat is 2011 words on assad stepping aside. rush i believe sees the diplomatic process is a time buying instrument. the russian military operations in syria are fully consistent with the goal of forcing binary choice on washington but it will take time to create the requisite allen perry facts on the ground and extended process can provide time although i have strong doubts that russia militarily will be able to achieve this objective. now, these assumptions, these five assumptions might either

now or in the fullness of time proved to be absolutely erroneous. russia and iran may come to see bashar al-assad as expendable. john kerry may persuade them that a continuing political role for this regime is indeed poisonous to the prospect of united syrian front against isil i think they argue now this. it's just that their interests lie elsewhere. this is just my opinion. on the other hand the russians, they actually think the dash that there currently pounding in the province really are isil. maybe iran thinks that there's a genuine appetite in syria for subordination that transcends the assad family. so because my assumptions may be wrong i have tried to devise an alternate stereo strategy for

obama administration consideration i would not be at odds with the current vienna process. my proposed alternative is based on an assumption about the kind of syria president barack obama ideally would like to hand off to his successor. such a syria i think would have the following characteristics. one isil would be gone. two, assad and his entourage would be gone. three, serious territorial integrity would be an impact or an inclusive national unity government in damascus which consolidate stability, protects the vulnerable -- preserves governmental institutions including the military and qualified staff pursues accountability and

reconciliation, facilitate humanitarian assistance and begin the processes of reconstruction, reform and constitutional overhaul. finally in this ideal syria that barack obama would like to hand off, refugee return and reintegration would be underway. now about these five characteristics or at least making significant progress in achieving them would form the objective. the strategy i would like to think about would involve three elements. one, defeating isil militarily in eastern syria, ideally before another paris like incident. this would require a ground combat component powerful enough

to pose with and kill the enemy. ideally this component would be drawn largely from regional states. at present, the appetite is not there. it would have to be stimulated by a sustained and heavy american diplomatic list. it would have to include american skin in the game. it would have to feature sustained american leadership for the duration. the second element of the proposed strategy would center on protecting syrian civilians from the mass casualty atrocities of the assad regime. doing so would deprive isil of a recruiting tool, fulfill a practical precondition for productive negotiations and political compromise and mitigate the premier humanitarian abomination of our time.

diplomacy first, urged russia and iran to take their client out of this filthy business. this i would hope would be the focus of today's meeting in new york and no doubt it will be so. if the russians and iranians can't do it or won't do it, limited military countermeasures would be justified to make it somewhere between hard and impossible for the assad regime to continue to kill people at wholesale rates. my preferred methodology would involve the standoff systems such as cruise missiles and would avoid anything that has the word's own attached to it. third and finally given the syrian opposition and opportunity the financial and technical support to establish decent and effective governance in areas liberated from isil.

at the assad regime chooses vienna to negotiate it will have an interlocutor. if it continues the collective punishment and mass homicide it would face a non-iso- alternative ultimately replacing it albeit sometime during the term of mr. obama's successor. now none of this, none of it would be easy. all of it would be very problematic. options have narrowed over the years from bad to worse but if the objective of the obama administration is to hand its successors the kind of syria i described cannot and might you rely on the good intentions of russia's president and iran's premier. it cannot leave syrian civilians defenseless and it certainly can't wait for an iso- plan,

mass slaughter, operation and the united states to defeat these people in syria. at the very least the administration should be a syria in which isil is gone, civilians are protected from atrocities and a decent alternative to the regime itself is taking root in areas liberated from isil and expanding into rebel controlled areas of northwest and southwest syria. an authority that can build an and all the syrian national stabilization force that could if need be eventually oust the regime that made isil possible in the first place, a regime whose continued existence sustains isil. if my assumptions about russia and iran are wrong they would

oppose none of this. indeed if my assumptions were wrong they would promote inclusive syrian government they signed up for at vienna and will send their client packing forthwith. >> the assumptions that frederick hoff is out there? >> thank you very much. thank you very much for inviting me here. my problem is much easier than mr. holt because i was asked to speak about the aims of their russian accidents in syria so some of my presentation with several points and if i have time -- so if one looks on the major driver that were mentioned already a chance for mr. putin

to confound the united states and policy of intervention. lucia pose for many years beginning before mr. putin came to power. he and mr. putin see the possibilities to stop the american involvement and to counter it so this is i think the first direction behind his actions. the second one i would say russia belongs to. putin wants to intervene in

syria and claiming russia's once again a global power just so -- to draw attention to his homeland. of course actions in syria as a superpower nevertheless it is some kind of -- for a new regional state calling for -- once again. the next point of course is using the possibility mr. putin wants to find some common ground , with both the united states and europe on the counter terrorists intended to find out some grounds to restore the relationship between russia and

the united states and the rest in general which are in bad shape it to the ukrainian conflict. these are the three drivers and there are more concrete issues. five of them domestic and international. domestically first of all mr. putin wants to have a small war outside of the russian borders. for claiming and showing his fellow citizens is needs and is once again active in the mobile arena. the second is of course is the change of focus from economic issues. during his first 10 years in power the political ones in the geopolitical determinations because economies don't do so well as everyone knows and since mr. putin has returned to the kremlin and the gdp growth rates are falling down from around 4.9% in the first quarter of

20122 -- and we have a think around 4% of gdp this year. mr. putin needs to turn attention from economic issues to political issues and geopolitical and military one so this is also an element of the strategy. the third one is of course to turn the attention of russian citizens to a new one, because everything which happens in the ukraine is not so encouraging and mr. putin doesn't have an incentive to go out into eastern ukraine. therefore it needs another point in the world to present himself as a hero they are. the two latest issues are first of all during several years the

military in russia were not in very good shape because first of all the minister of defense involved in ukraine and military operations. it was not publicly announced in northern ukraine. it was some kind of hidden operation and therefore now they have the possibility for the first time in many years do it openly to test military capabilities so to protect in this way, to protect russia outside. the military industrial complex which is quite them porton provides 15 to 17% of jobs in russia and being supportive of mr. putin. the last one of course is a terror threats because fighting

terrorists may be in some grotesque away was for many years mr. putin a big gain and now once again this issue of the fight mr. putin wants to get the dash on this issue. three reasons for international scale is of course the relationship with iran because they were in alia russia and the middle east. now after the iranian nuclear deal and after the sanctions were lifted in january for iran russia feels its european plans so putin somehow maneuvers to retain or regain the good relationship with iran is a common cause of stabilizing syria because as was mentioned

it's a very crucial issue for the iranian up politicians to have control on syria and assad. the second is fired he said some kind of cooperation with the united states on antiterrorist agenda and what we have seen in new york and the terrorists visit to moscow proves that putin is quite successful at this than the last but maybe not the least point is mr. putin wants to make some kind of -- over ukraine. i will finish with this. i think the russians will definitely try to stabilize the situation and to keep assad powerful as long as he can. i think they will launch a ground -- maybe not an expensive one but they will. of course i would say i don't

trust the russian leadership in some kind of decent negotiation with the west. they have different agendas so i can't see any political compromise. the last is american strategy because it was mentioned today. i would say i doubt someone can achieve a victory. i really doubt that we can speak in the future about uniting around syria. think the best way to do the job is actually to make a petitioning of the state because it's really unviable for years to come. maybe mr. assad and continue his rule in the country but i'm completely sure that he will never succeed in defeating isis

or brazil in the coming years. i think of mr. putin wants to do this, let him try, and if you want to have a very necessary and good ally on the ground you should openly speak about the possibility of an independent state. so i think syria is gone. the strong coalition with russia is out of the question. thank you. >> i see a painful overlap in your validation of the assumptions particularly struck by your point that you don't see a common purpose between what russia is about and what secretary carries about for example. that is a very sobering thought.

so we are back in the zero-sum game days, we were going to split today's program into this first panel to talk about how we got here with the idea on the second panel would be where we go from here. there is substantial overlap and i don't know if you want to have the presenters were find anything before before we go to the other commentators on this. >> thank you very much and thank you for inviting me here. i enjoyed reading both papers very much and i really don't disagree with anything that you said. i'm going to confine my remarks to russia and russian goals and maybe reinforce some of the words you said but that you weren't going to get any good news for me either. just to reinforce what you said that russia has multiple goals in its campaign today in syria and some but not all are actually related to syria itself paid i wanted to just say a few

more words about the broader context to both of you have already alluded to. to insist that the u.s. and its allies recognize that russia's interests here are as legitimate if not more legitimate than the wes goals so he has forced the united states to deal with them since this began after the u.s. and its allies for 18 months to try to isolate russia because of what's happened in the ukraine and i think you'd be quite successful in it because right now he's the go-to man if you want to get something done on syria as we saw with secretary carries visit to moscow a few days ago. i think a second context here is putin does believe that russia not only has a right to influence the dash in the talk about the need for new order and things like that but i think

italy's russia has the right also to establish, to reestablish its influence in areas beyond russia particularly the middle east where the soviet union has a lot of influence and when russia lost with the collapse of the soviet union. i see this as a broader strategy of russia to -- and put the middle east. if you look at the last six months we have had the leaders of each of saudi arabia jordan kuwait united arab republic and israel. saudi arabia at least on paper promised a 10 billion-dollar investment in russia which would be mainly in the agricultural year. we were talking about this with mark a forehand. that may not well happened and if it did happen it would be the largest single investment in russia. given the history of russia's relations with saudi arabia that is in itself a very interesting data point if you like. the new element in russian

policy in this part of the world since the soviet collapse russian israeli relationships and the fact that israel's point of view bashar al-assad may not be the desired leader but what might come after him in terms of israel's security. this is russia rwanda and the west to recognize it has a right to reestablish its influence on the part of the world. i also believe a lot of this is about domestic politics in russia. i won't go into this but obviously you have as you point out a folding economy, low oil prices. they keep going down under 40 dollars an hour -- 40 dollars a barrel now. ukraine disappeared from russian tv and assault international

now. putin has to keep showing himself as a strong leader who can deal with these threats to russia. there's a basic paradox that you see here at the moment because the united states continues to be demonized in russian media and if you listen to some of their statements we have mr. never shed a couple of days ago saying it's time to abolish nato when he was speaking in serbia. you have an image of it states that you also have now the public face of mr. putin again saying in his press conference a very interesting press conference yesterday that russia and the u.s. the two big powers to join together and lead this coalition against the islamic state and it's going to be like the anti-hitler during world war ii. then you really have to ask yourself is there some kind of it cognitive dissonance between these two approaches to dealing with the united states. just take couple of comments on

the russian view of president assad in this authority been said. from britain's point of view the support for assad has to do with russia's own goals in syria but it also has to do with this issue of regime change. putin is putting russia forward as the champion of established sovereign governments all around the world. obviously from russian point of view a secular strongman in serious but preferable to anything else that putting russia forward is at the center of these kinds of rules in that part of the world is supposed to the state, russia's power post to the u.n. that goes around the world trying to do regime change. i found it during testing testit mr. kerry finally said in moscow interested in regime change which i don't think any u.s. officials have quite said it that way before. from the russian point of view

president putin pointed out the u.s. abandon president mubarak and abandoned moammar gadhafi. this is all about supporting legitimately from russia's point of view in this part of the world. and another interesting thing is the conference in october mr. putin said that russia doesn't really distinguish between islamic state and other opposition groups in syria. as far as russia is concerned they are all terrorists. i know we have had other things have recently and couldn't really say that russia was supporting the free syrian army? there's also that kind of feeling that you cannot distinguish between the different groups in syria. so i think going forward, i think it's unlikely that the

u.s. and russia are going to be able to work together to form a coalition to defeat the islamic state. i agree with what was said before that russian islamic state isn't the issue. supporting the assad government, maybe a government that might as russia has to say and retains its influence there and so i think it's highly unlikely that this is going to work nor can i really see russia and the united states agreeing on a transition in syria because again it's a fundamentally different view of mr. assad and what might happen after him. the press is going to happen between us and rushes to continue to constrict air operations and we will continue talking in this different form but i think that's the most we can accomplish.

>> thank you. [laughter] >> i would like to thank the atlantic council for inviting me as well and both papers i thought were extremely interesting. in fact frederick hoff i agree so much and i agree this point the russian iran are more focused on supporting asaad than defeating isil. also moscow support for scott is important in defeating america's democratization jihad. moscow seeks to eliminate all syrian alternatives to assad and isil thereby leaving the west with a choice between assad and isil ruling syria and as worse as an alternative. i also think he's right in saying that the mosques have the main utility of the delaying tactic during which moscow can support assad and it's not an

actual conflict resolution process. i believe with his overall critique of the obama administration policy calling for assad to step aside, at least they used to but not doing anything to make this happen were to stop assad from targeting his own population with conventional means. i do disagree with hoff on one point. he argued that if it's necessary to defeat iceland syria in order to prevent further attacks such as the recent one in paris and even if isil was in serious which attacks could still occur. isil exists in many other places besides syria even if isil were eliminated everywhere other eliminated everywhere other javascript sense of the fighters could could launch such attacks. these concerns of course do not mean that if you can isil serious not worthwhile goal but we must be realistic about what will result from a parent i find hoff's strategy for the u.s. and syria to be quite sensible and this explains why it won't be

lamented. [laughter] seriously russia and iran are not the only actors in syria for comment defeat of isil is not the highest priority. indeed while almost every actor supports the school is not the highest priority for any of them. i think for turkey keeping the kurds down is more important than defeating isil. for saudi arabia and the gulf states iran's presence in syria is more of a threat than his isil. for the obama administration the possibility of another large-scale u.s. military intervention, that's more of a threat than isil. for the e.u., for jordan, for lebanon refugee flows are more of a threat than isil and so i think this is a problem. everyone opposes isil but everyone has some more important goal but they pursue and therefore it's not priority, not an actual priority for anyone.

turning to the paper i agree with most of his point is well especially putin is motivated not just by concerns about syria but larger geopolitical and domestic concerns and formulating his policy for that country. i think he is the non-the nuclear agreement was something that worried moscow and russian intervention in syria allows moscow that quote from and to find new points of cooperation that could prevent iran's unpredictable moves both in political and economic issues i.e. moving somehow toward the west. i also agree with him that moscow may feel compelled to introduce ground forces into syria as assad controls a little there despite russian or support as we have learned air support alone doesn't protect the weak ally. if this operation does occur soon as he indicates russian

hopes to emerge naturally as a leading force of any perspective antiterrorist coalition in my view may remain unfulfilled. the basic problem of putin's approach to syria as outlined as well as is directed against west it's also intended to gain western support for russia as not just a member but the leader of the coalition against isil and terrorism in general. even though the u.s. does not oppose aggression of -- in syria against isil. there's another alternative and that is to simply let russia suffer from all of the ill effects of intervention in the middle east that washington is all too familiar with in moscow should be as well. this refers to the believe in moscow that america will somehow be forced to cooperate with moscow in syria and elsewhere that this is not inevitable by any means.

those in the west who may calculate that at a time when russian hostility for the west is rising it's much better for the west bogged down and middle eastern conflict. the obama administration does not think in such michael verland terms. a recent visit by secretary kerry to moscow during which he reportedly backed off from washington's previous admission that the assad has to go agreeing with moscow's position that the same people should decide prince said. in john kerry's defense i like to say he and mr. lavrov clearly have different expectations about what it is that the syrian people will decide about assad but it obviously is a change in approach and when the moscow welcomes. this leads me to the observation about putin's call for broad alliance against isil. everyone is familiar with the adage vietnamese my enemy is my friend but there's another adage

about alliance that goes as follows. on the premise of an alliance comes to an end the alliance itself comes to an end. the western allies and the soviet union quickly disagreed about who should govern in eastern europe. to suggest that a vice was defeated for his strength appears to be significantly degraded differences about who should govern syria among the coalition partners fighting isil will reemerge as strong as ever. if moscow intends to deploy it ground shifts to syria put me populate -- apostolate their presence may be the deciding factor just as the end of world war ii was the deciding factor but they came to power there. sunni powers set by saudi arabia though may see what became of the soviet occupation of afghanistan in the 1980s as the guiding analogy for what could happen to what they will

see as a russian occupation in syria. the united states even the obama administration may not be employing mock a billion logic it's allowing moscow to take the lead in syria may enable the next administration to do so. thank you. >> thank you for addressing that point. i was going to ask it as we have actually heard white house versus the people's taking to the russians being caught in the syrian quagmire and welcome to it. it's something we can soon prevent. ambassador feca give us a perspective on all of you for her but also this question arab world reaction to what russia is doing and are they calculating their long-term interest are making serious miscalculations here? >> but me start by saying i'm

going to be the devil's advocate frankly. one because i enjoyed and secondly i think it's necessary to have the russian discussion about this. secondly given the last speaker i want to throw out my conclusion for someone explain why. this is not about whether you going to engage russia or compete with russia or whether you are going to cooperate with russia. you can do all three of those at the same time. it's simply a reality that either the u.s., the west russia or for that matter iran and has a conclusive tool in his hand to solve the syrian issue or to deal with isis alone. we are going to have to do all of that at the same time. the real question isn't whether we do that. the real question is are we going to pursue crisis management or conflict resolution and they are two different things.

that applies to the isis issue and applies to the syrian issue. depending on whether we decide we want to limit the damage to solve the problem is a level of cooperation that we can achieve without pushing it. on the other hand if you are trying to resolve the problem then there's going to have to be a grand bargain not only between the u.s. and russia but also regional players because they will all have to make serious compromises. but by strategic rather than tactical. >> with that go back a little bit. i'm always provoked by my background that goes along with with -- people telling me who has the right to intervene in my region. what seemed to be provoking people here is that russia has the right. what gives them the right? i need you in any directions.

it's not a matter of whether you will be there or not. i won't advise you as i would advise the russians to come and help us address these issues because frankly i can't solve them alone. as was said by the speakers here does anybody believe he you can deal with isis without ground forces? who will put them there? will be americans, with the russians? we will have to find a way to work together. the issue is how much we do this and how much not but let me go back to the russian issue. when i was foreign minister at the time for assisi we met president putin and spent an hour with him. 45 minutes he spoke about

extremism and the threats to russia from extremist and we went through the whole package of extremes. 10 minutes western which is political a few minutes on geopolitics and we spent a little bit of time in at least egyptian terms and hours more than 15 minutes so we spent some time on egypt and russia. i actually believe and it doesn't contradict what's been said in the papers here but it complements it. i think those are the reasons. i think he is serious about his concern about extremism. there's no question that he is angry about his perceived his country is treated by the west and its political interests. that's not questioning there. clearly he has that interest.

my question to all of you frankly is can you do without the russians? is how you do it with the russians wet -- rather than give the russians the role are not. nobody here is looking at the age bracket here. nobody believes that any of us pursue policies out of interest so we obviously have an agenda. we obviously have an interest but the positive side that i see in all of this is we all know we can't do it alone. so there'll be a point in time where we will have to start engaging the others and probably there will be said that where we move away. i am from my contacts with the russians over the last year. they know very clearly that their operations are not sustainable long-term, that they need to move from that faced

with political phase. i would argue also i don't think the vienna talks took us to a new level but there's no question that the intervention by the russians created a sense of urgency be it that the west got scared they would play the role again or on the ground that all the parties came together for the first time, the regional parties as well and came to be enough. he created a sense of urgency that this issue has to be dealt with. in that respect i actually find the intervention as a tool, not the policy. i see it tactically as having had a reasonably positive effects. now is the policy right, it depends on if this ends up being different party simply using force without the policy paradigm that we are going to try to solve the isis issue or

the syrian issue than you were going to have a lot of different forces on the ground and it will be very dangerous for all of us. therefore the result would be much more negative than positive but if it causes all the different parties as i think henry kissinger said recently that the russians have been in the middle east after the 70 were -- 73 war and now they are back and they are back for a reason. nobody else was there and there were a lot of problems. as a middle eastern or frankly i will engage the west as much as they can to help solve what's happening in the middle east and i will engage the russians equally so to help solve that. the middle eastern perspective there is tremendous sensitivity and a little bit of an exaggeration frankly as to how many conspirators -- conspiracies the west has managed to get the middle east where it is. i'm not a big conspiracy fan

although you give me a lot of ammunition to think and move in that direction. nevertheless we can't solve this without russia. my argument to all of you frankly is sure they have agenda and sure they want to play a role there but how can i take advantage of that rather then is this going to need a coalition where we all embrace the same goals exact weight and walk at the same pace or is her competition necessarily mutually exclusive where we have to -- more than we gain. it depends. i frankly believe engaging russia is a good thing and i also believe they understand there's only so much you can do without engaging other parties but i'm not ready to say yet

that this step per se is the beginning of the situation. that bit depends on the politics after that. >> beyond the sectarian issues that are involved there and the motivations of the gulf states versus iran or iran's sectarian motivations do you detect all your travels across the region of the world much sensitivity to the humanitarian cost and she became the blame for that to iranians and russians and a seib 1.0 world diplomacy ought to be at least agreement on fact, and stopping the girl bombing. some sort of cease-fire that we stops to degradations against civilians and it's clear what the source of that is. it's russian-made aircraft flown

by syrian pilots presumably with russian matériel. is there sensitivity there or is that not even in the secondary or tertiary level of conversation and? >> six or seven months ago i would argue that you could look could look at the center of east of the arab middle east as being more sensitive to western interventions then russian interventions have been. they are more sensitive about the russian intervention. now whether it's because of realpolitik or otherwise they're still is a lot more sensitivity to russian intervention in the western part of the world. there's a larger degree of realism that well can they be pushed in a positive direction

and how many arabs leaders have been there? i think this is a good point. we will have agreements and disagreements with the russians. i don't question it. we don't necessarily agree on everything they do and we don't disagree on everything they do either but can we afford to do it without them? if we could frankly i would do it and i believe he can. i actually believe that while they may have policies that we differ with they are rational people pursuing those policies. i believe in the value of diplomacy and trying to engage them because i have no other alternative. secondly i am ready to have for living end quote unquote the aviation term and an open society and open skies there will be competition. it doesn't concern me that much but the point that i think as a middle eastern or we have to

emphasize much more is that the debate should be about whether it affects western interests or the u.s. involvement effects of russian interest but it really should be focused first, not exclusively but first on does this help solve the problems of the region and? that's really my point and part of that leads me to come to conclusions that are completely realpolitik. do i think we can -- if there was a clear solution to how we move from where we are in the tragedies and syria to a new syria we would do it but there isn't. i could drop a couple of formulas, the process of getting there is very complicated and one of the issues that have been raised how long first of all does he or does he not and how long is because bashar stay is one of the questions?

clearly you are negotiating with syria. shouldn't be the reinvention of the old syria but to get there i can't simply talk to my friends. i have to talk to the other parties on the ground and as angry as i understand and respect and agree that with the syrian opposition and their anger with bashar there are a lot of other despicable characters frankly on the ground that are of tremendous threat to the middle east so again it's not simply am going to talk to the others comes complicated so because the complexity we need to engage each other as mature rational people and understand that i may differ with you on some interest but nevertheless it's better to me -- for me to engage residents say your interest or different than mine and we will play cards. if i may take the privilege of

asking you about assad nobody mentioned the word turkey which along with each of the neira borfitz close to my heart and a lot of my professional experiences there. seems to me there is banned major turn and turkish relations quite a dramatic one. i was there until a year ago and they had visits back and forth between then prime minister and president. people around person erdogan praising putin to the skies publicly and very dramatic turn even before the late november shootdown of the airplane and russian turkish relations going back almost to a cold war kind of rhetoric making us all rather anxious. do you have any insight or comment on how that is playing and how that is factoring into mr. putin's outlook on the region and what he is trying to do in syria?

oregon prospects for managing it? .. >> >> in to now once again

proved that he is strong and can somehow with that economic relationship to change the russians. but what is going on with turkey from moscow now from the up propaganda. >> if you read what he said yesterday in his press conference i will not repeat it because it was not very polite but linking turkey with the u.s. is now part of the propaganda that you see that russian officials say to threaten they even have things on russian tv.

>>. >> and as far as the other russian airplane going down over syenite are they overcoming that? >> i would be surprised frankly. there is the official committee that is investigating that. they are bound by the public statements to have conclusive evidence from the past experience they cannot say we expect this to rethink "this is it" so ultimately it will come out much later than other officials. the russians have said

publicly there is a difference between the russians and the committee but that is not its role. whatever it is coming is a tragedy we need to find out if it was done by a terrorist or not. but nobody has questioned if there is terrorism then we will make an announcement frankly. it will never be an excuse but if it is clear it is a much clearer answer there is no reason to hide this. >> in the country's move toward collaboration. >> just yesterday we invited

the eu's security team but we are a nation we only thrive if we have tourists did if they feel comfortable beyond how much it cost. >> so now we will open to the audience. >> a very good panel i would like to address my question but let me start by saying clearly the misconceived strategically catastrophic

from the united states disrupted the unstable status quo made that transition of unnecessary a violent and faster and everything you could say and probably help to create but nevertheless when we look at the problem, the lack of arab leadership for the willingness to participate and help weather militarily militarily, syrian refugees except jordan and lebanon that is the weakest of the week the local states are completely preoccupied with their allergy to iran they don't talk about syria or isis. the lack of cohesion and egypt is a big country with an armed u.s. military. maybe you cannot do it

without the international community that is now the russian and american problem, but how do we do it without something coming out of the arab world? so far it is next to nothing >> there is no answer. but the public and say there is next to nothing. the egyptian propose to the ground forces. we need the capacity and the tools. that has not gone through yet. that is open for debate and some countries are uncomfortable with that. today there was another coalition but that is just the beginning it does reflect the arab world is looking at what they can do.

i understand there is no question of vegetarian pressure and you said correctly they have carried a lot of this even egypt even though it isn't on board has about 100,000 refugees and the kuwaitis frankly have had an annual conference to provide financial support. will this be solved completely? no. there for the point i made is there is so much distrust in the region son in the west and russia unless we have a better understanding understanding, a grand bargain, you will not get a

strong commitment of russian forces. unless we have a stronger political understanding. that as well like to say have the answer but i don't have the answer. to talk with those who may compete with the with a different agenda. i think this is your point they need to do more and i have been saying that for years. >> and also calling for the year of stabilization force for a year of contributions on his annual poll that came now one week ago that showed substantial public support which was surprising. more than i had detected.

>> nevertheless if the united states were to mount that type of diplomatic campaign i think it should as an alternative to the president being forced to deploy american soldiers and marines in the wake of the incident occurring in the united states. i think the assumption certainly at the leadership level a very, very suppressed appetite to put ground forces into eastern syria against isil. this is an appetite that would have to be stimulated by the united states. i would not try to short change or understate the difficulty this particular administration would be making to make the case that

we're in this for a the duration and provide leadership with the skin in the game so maybe there is substantial growing popular support for a decisive intervention but it is my assumption that the leadership level the appetite for ground intervention would be under control. >> you have your hand up if you are part of the next panel but from an eastern europe perspective? or do want to save it? okay. we will jump over to this side. >> my question to the panel

is the question the russian offensive. let's be very candid it is a flop to date. progress is measured in scant kilometers, they have maybe 50 aircraft mostly with of the guided bombs and under the soviet union there were 8,000 troops stationed in syria at the time. look at the current ratio of the russian military that is seven / one if you work through the military requirements to maintain a sustained operation i put to the panel, we can do it. more importantly the iranians have taken enormous casualties much as the senior generals but at the second lieutenant level.

and the panel may know they talk about that on state tv and there are reports the iranian troops are pulling out meaning that the russians themselves will have to add more ground pounders and i put out how much what we see with putin is the same he tried to do with ukraine? he has tried to get away with a lot of the cheap. when push comes to shove, it can you really do? >> a very good question. id his trying to achieve some credibility actually a with say economically or

financially to send in ground troops to syria because it is cheap compared if they do this are not my position is they will try in the future the department of defense said they will play a role. but the russians come into question that as it unfolds this is my point of course, there will submit -- not succeed except for the local forces then they

should promise with the independent state but no russians or americans but my point is they feel as i will leave but how? i don't know. >> the point several of you made that the russians are not trying to succeed against isis. >> yes. but even in gauging in that operation but were never like to say in putin is very controversial with his attitude because before a

was no there are five or 6,000 people looking for citizenship for fighting in syria. so the russians have succeeded to squeeze out the terrorists out of russia and then put syria in the position of isis i the putin is completely counter-productive in syria but he does what he loves. >> he himself as profited you prefer to fight them there a man here in russia. i think part of the problem as we ourselves have learned just because you're there is

a meeting of the targets elsewhere but his government does not treat muslims at all. even if they are very successful is a huge problem that they're not dealing successfully itself. and basically being agitated what is happening in syria by russia itself so it seems that operation does not change cattle -- at all. >> what about putin schools and in syria? you said he was to keep in power and also he supports

the illegitimate regimes which is not exactly true because if you remember when the georgian president was elected he was accepted and moreover russia supported all three presidents so according to this we cannot say he always stands guard so when he says he wants to keep in power it is just his words and we know he is a liar. it is a matter of fact he

lies constantly and publicly >> the you have a question? >> don't you think he will give up assad as he needs it? >> i fink you misunderstood me a said he wants to project to the world but russia supports all legitimate rulers i didn't say that i agreed with that but that is certainly the message that they said that we support the leaders that are in power we are against a regime change. maybe i did not make that clear but for the moment it does want to show assad and whether that operation has been successful or not.

as much as russia intervened it was concerned that the forces were weakened in the government might be in danger. but they seem to be stronger and achieving limited goals. but some point they think that is in their interest as long as they have a say in who the leader is and can be you reinsure their influence will lasted is not tied to the man but for the moment that is where they are. >> also any suggestion russia calculates a big but hard-nosed based on power nothing emotional. >> there is no love lost it

is just the government in power. >>. >> from executive intelligence review. most of the speakers were singing from the same song she tore a beating from the same drummer want to ask a contrarian question with the presentation there is something about composition talking about with the russians than the iranians have to do due to come to a solution if you see them connected at the hip that is a very big mistake because they both have their own interest the only way to deal with the situation and especially with russia with the much broader spectrum of

interests that have to be dealt with to see them together read me the biggest mistake. second, the question is how much putin sections are proactive? if we have to go into syria to assert our great power aspiration and how much was reacted? remember what was happening in syria before that the u.s. was considering having a no-fly zone which of course, would have put that conflict in a much different context we would be on our way to a regime change by setting up an area under protection. and if the petitions they invest made the moves to counter that if you see it that way it was a brilliant move on his part to throw a monkey wrench into a very

dangerous development in syria. with regards to his proposals working together when he came to kennebunkport to talk with bush after 9/11 he said let's work together to deal with this terrorism problem and bush said yes federating that happened after that expansion of nato, missile defense we did not follow up on that and that was the biggest mistake in the world so there is a certain sense they put out the hand of friendship -- frangible long time ago and was rejected. >> when my paper is published you will see a little bit more new ones

with the russian and iranian relationship. they do come at this from an entirely separate set of interests. but where they come together for the time being is in the perpetuation of bush are in power in syria. now this touches on the plane to lamp absolutely in favor of engaging the russians to the topic of syria. the shortfalls of american policy the past two years probably this isn't an area where we can be criticized. most of 2003 we carried chase and when they finally

caught him he got a peace conference that was a fiasco. now we have the vienna process we can hope and pray succeeds. what i would like to see if they do think we're in crisis management mode i agree entirely. nobody has us silver bullet but the one thing that is absolutely essential for the united states and russia us to agree upon is mass casualty attacks on civilian populations are inadmissible under international law and must stop now. even the fact we're in the

middle of the privy your humanitarian abomination of our time and means nothing to individuals, how in the world will this be in a process get anywhere with the civilians on the bull's-eye? how does the opposition delegation come to new the table in the spirit of goodwill and compromise while the constituency is blown away on a daily basis? how do we fight isil with this marvelous recruiting tool provided by assad regime remains in effect? that is why the issue between the united states and iran and russia needs to be addressed up front

otherwise the vienna process becomes elongated permission slip of the continued slaughter that will stop anything good at all from happening in syria. >> from the atlantic council with the policy we have heard unequivocably the only issue that had bipartisan support that everyone in the u.s. agrees that assad must go but it was how much support in read never challenged the basic premise that the russian said it was dangerous and of the to the destabilization they have the german interest in was dismissed and maybe four years later can we challenge

the premise that the russians got it right in russia have listened? >> i think given the role of assad to make isil possible in syria and the ongoing roll to keep that organization healthy and well inside syria, tens to reemphasize the fact that if we had a strategy to implement the president's words, have implemented that strategy we would be a much better place than we are now. >> but we didn't so the question remains. i guess we can kick that to the next panel where do we go from here? >> you are right to with a very good point from the russian point of view that

the syrian problem could be resolved like chechen town -- chechnya and then demolished that and then establish authoritarian piece that occurred in algeria and after all why should the west complain? we have dealt with the a sock regime before what is the difference? in what is the difference between the algerians? or quite frankly just like egypt it is seen as similar. but that indicated the continuation of the assad regime shows that is the trouble but i have a feeling we will see in syria what everyone doesn't want that

iraq will be a defacto and maybe more complicated there will be a kurdish area or the arab area and isil has its area. and neighboring states have their areas of influence as well. that is what we will see even though that is what nobody wants. >> jumping in and, of course, it is a sensitive issue. . .

but the day after i can tell you because i have done this for a long time, hundreds of scenarios, and there are conflicting with each other. it is a question, and it will always be a problem until it is answered, but if you try to develop for the new syria and then back to

he will actually be the president. >> a reference to the morning after will resonate. we try to deal with the same issue with respect to saddam hussein. saddam must go in the thesis of the united states work with iraqi democratic opposition to construct this idea of the morning after, what would it look like. i don't regret that, but i think it was our failure to actually succeed in having a clear vision of how shiites and kurds and sunnis and christians and all the rest would hold that out. >> exactly. it was. we have got just a couple of minutes. why don't we see if we can put together whatever questions are there and in the panelistsany panelists would like to sum up we can

do that. the me take the farthest back that i can see. again, the last and i could see in the back and i will work forward. >> you know, from turkish equatorial, the imprecise bombing that has gone on by the russians. yesterday we had a conference. the number of people fleeing syria has increased. a lot of them are going. i was wondering, i have never heard anyone talk about russia. helpinghelping syria and the sod, are there any syrian refugees and russia? >> okay. thank you. the gentleman with the red tie. >> eastern europe and russia and nato. thank ournato. thank our egyptian colleague for asking us to be mature.

and i think that is very helpful. we have heard there is a redline on the part of the administration which seems to be accepted. if you're going to be mature and accept that we have to accept we are compromising with other people's interest. we have to make real choices. for four years we have played a part in keeping syria enmeshed in civil war. mr. kerry said that that was his objective. mr. obama has said on several occasions he does not want our side to win by force. that is a very peculiar argument. it does not do any good. i think there is a real need for maturity command i would like to see us. our initial presenter said to do the right thing to

give substance to our hopes. we still probably have to compromise, but in the absence we have to compromise more. i would like to suggest that the coalitions might not solve everything, but you did not say that but that seems to be the logic. therefore it is not worth it to have a grand coalition because we might disagree about the future afterwards. we think that kind of statement. >> one more comment only and then we will have to close. >> my name is dmitri. you said that you believe that the middle east cannot do it without the west end without russia. do you think the general population supports that idea?

and do you think islamist extremism has increased over the last ten or 20 years or do they just have more avenues and resources at their disposal? >> comments on use of force, people like to sum up. >> i will sum up by answering that question. i generally believe that the educated public understands that they cannot solve alone and therefore engaging the russians and the west and nato and europe is the only realistic way out because there is no support for the air were alone taking all the risk. so i think that is unfair. the emotional public dislikes the russians and americans equally, although

americans when a little bit on that. but that is not really my concern. who are the activists, the serious people that want to engage. the rational thinking is we need to do this together. >> if i could just address that point about the grand coalition. the trouble is there are certain patterns we see what wants to happen or not. the grand coalition against hitler did not lead to a grand coalition going forward. the alliance came to an end. i think that we have to expect something similar here. especially with putin's call , he works against the west and ukraine in particular, 2014, 2015. can we be allies together and syria?

i have ai have a feeling that will not be the end of the story. when he can. he will do so. understand the nature and so i think thati think that that -- we have to be very realistic. if it is defeated we are not going to be agreeing on what should be continuing in syria at all. >> i will may be just take off on that and go back to the question of what the russians expected. the language about the anti- hitler coalition was used in 2,001. why did it work? you know, the relationship seems to be on the uptake event. the russians were helpful in that initial phase, the fall phase, the fall of 2,001, war in afghanistan because we agreed on to the enemy was. it was in russia's interest

to have the us and allies go in there and take care of the problem. we are not in the condition today. of course we should try to work with the russians, but to have a successful coalition like this we have to agree on who the enemy is. we do not accept by saying in general it is the islamic state. we don't have the trust which in a way we did have even in that brief window because of everything that has happened in recent years particularly the ukraine and/or the russians have failed to say what they are doing. that is why we can try, but the conditions that make cooperation counterterrorism cooperation possible are not there now. >> okay. on the question about the, yes, i agree that it is rare

but then i think we can of course try, but i think it is too late. completely different. the coalition under such circumstances. claiming to help syria.

>> if a coalition of truly professional military forces and sufficient numbers i saw an eastern syria to the job professionals cannot. not sure about the effects how this is obstructing rather decisively the inflow of humanitarian assistance to needy syrians discussions

about the future, the composition of the opposition delegation all obviously interesting discussions but to the extent that they dominate, this vienna process to the effect that the protection of syrian civilians excluded from the discussion, it is excluded from american, russian, marion -- american iranian, this process would go nowhere. >> one might hope and think logically there has to be a focus everyone can agree on.

i would like to thank everybody. we went a couple minutes over. we will reconvene promptly and see you in 15 minutes. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i would like to thank everyone for coming this morning. as you can see, we havesee, we have a great panel. the importance of the conversation has been heightened. as we speak their negotiations going on in new york following secretary kerry's visit to moscow. with that i turn it over to

our 1st speaker. >> thank you. i am flattered to be here, delighted to be invited to atlantic council program and humbled to be among so many deeply experienced and wise co-pay lists. my task was to layout the motives for the russian intervention in syria and then say a little bit something about what it means in terms of the context. in my paper i layout two sets of motives. the circle of three at i consider to be primary or strategic consideration and three less important ancillary motives which may or may not intertwine in interesting ways. the 1st circle of three, the least ambitious and most obvious russian motive for the intervention in syria, mentioned in the 1st panel is obviously there was an ally in trouble.

over the last years but as of last summer as was mentioned in the 1st panel the regime looked to be in real trouble, and the russians don't have a lot of allies. the only days the russians have outside of russian federation territory. it would look that and be that for the russians if they lost the only ally they had in that part of the world. just like the united states intervened many years ago to protect south vietnam from being defeated the russians intervened. the 2nd motive alluded to earlier is that they put russia and the role of the kingmaker. they are there on the ground tanks and airplanes and other military accoutrement

and had become a much larger factor in any percent -- perspective settlement and then what might be done thereafter. the 3rd motive is highly speculative on my part. i have no hard evidence to back this up. it is a logical inference that we need to at least consider. the syrian regime over some four years which is not a very impressive order of battle managed to kill something like a quarter of a million people to create something like 4 million refugees and to create something like seven or eight internally displaced people's. the russians if they wanted to take kill three times as many people the.is to put a good deal of pressure on the european union.

aa great deal of difficulty coping with 800,000 refugees imagine what it would do if they had to deal with three or 4 million. i have no evidence that the russian government was deliberately trying to exacerbate and pushed to the right european politics, but i would not put it past him. the three strategic rationales. i also see the dolls nested inside of one another. the 1st is to create a rubble heap so that they can get closer to moscow in the 2nd would be to suborn. the 3rd goal would be to send little green men into a baltic state and watch what would happen.

it is possible in theory king previously harm nato than the asylum refugees in syria command is possible to put a great deal of pressure i grant the union. have already seen the italians a little wobbly against russia on the count of ukraine. these motives are not unreasonable. the three ancillary motives one of which has been mentioned a lot, his desire

as a matter of course in the course as was mentioned, a lot of domestic political residents and i don't think we should underestimate the domestic political motivations for a lot of what the russian government has done over the past several years. you can track what the russians do a broad the difficulties that are perceived in the domestic realm. but there are two other motives. i mentioned ukraine. if people's minds off of eastern europe and ukraine and this is worked wonderfully. after the speech is that president obama and president putin gave you will recall the french and italian delegates risk -- wished the russians well. what kind of amnesia do they

have to have? the 3rd ancillary motive command i am not a russian expert. it seems to me that one of the things we have been witnessing is a kind of international arms show designed basically sell weapons. the russians had to eat and $8 billion bill in the government in a rack went down. the syrians of them foreign have to $5 billion but more important the russians have sold the iranians the air defense system. the order of battle is basically useless. elliott something along the order of a hundred billion in cash. where will they get it? we are not going to sell it to them.

the only place they can go is russia. it is possible that they will decide if only for the cause of interoperability with iran to purchase a new russian conventional order of battle and add up numbers , you're talking about grocery money, looking out over ten years. that may not sound like a lot of money to the united states but in russia with the military-industrial complex being plugged in, that's a lot of money. two sets of three motives that i think explain with the russians are doing. the problem is it is easy to list motives. the problem is to assign what the priorities are in the minds of the decision-makers in moscow and then to say how these various motives interact. we don't have any hard evidence about how that works.

i would defer to the russian experts to counsel. last comment. what does this mean for the united states? just let me say briefly, if you think about the problems long enough you come to the following. asia is a problem. people can argue but after what has happened the last couple of weeks it is dangerous. there is a lot of discomfort that the policy right now that the united states is pursuing is not adequate in terms of likely consequences for urgency to have the the problem. you have to go after these guys on the ground. airpower alone does not work. who will supply forces on the ground?

there has been a change in the polls the last couple of weeks. more americans are willing to send large number of forces than i thought and probably for the wrong reason but i don't think president obama is slated. political efficacy, looking for allies on the ground. market pointed this out, it is not anyone's 1st priority. it is impossible to assemble a local coalition's main target is the destruction of the age. however, it is not impossible in my view to construct a coalition's target is the aside regime which brings us back to where we should have started in the 1st place. the regime is the problem. thethe russians on the problem in helping them in the iranians are as well.

the real danger in the region is an emanation of the problem. that is the larger strategic problem to my view. this puts us at loggerheads. our interest would be to displace and physically by re- caulking the battlefield so that diplomacy can produce the kind of outcome we desire. that's how i see it. if the united states decided to create a humanitarian zone my preference was at the turkish soldiers but no one paid any attention to me obviously. if we had done that we would have been they're 1st. the opposition would have a chunk of syrian real estate against which to trade for

influence over a political solution to the syrian civil war. the russians are they're 1st. suggestions we create a no-fly zone over a standoff weapons to attack the regime or degrade the regime or suggestions we create aa humanitarian keep out zone right into the fact that the russians are already there and raises the possibility of a clash between american and russian forces in syria. that is what comes from not using force judiciously and allowing it to fester so that this gets worse. >> wonderful. what i am going to try and do his complement what adam said and what i heard from the 1st panel as well.

i want to put into a larger context the issue of what is driving the russians and how we should respond. if you back to 1971 from the standpoint of in 1971 oh problem anywhere in the world could be resolved without the soviet union. vladimir would like to create that is a reality for russia. in 1971 we did not view it positively. supposed to regulate and make competition predictable. is it a good idea to put? maybe we can discuss that in the panel. i would like to say on the issue of terrorism and i heard this little bit, he said a lot of the right things. going back to 2,001 he said the right things. we agreed on the same enemy.

if you listen to what he said at the un what he said later in october, what he said in his december 3 presidential address the essence of what he said was we need to grant alliance forget about our differences and come up with a common front. we cannot differentiate between moderate and a moderate terrorists. we half to basically not have a double standard and should not be dealing with terrorist groupings. all those things sound good. in the december 3 address most of us were directed against turkey and when he talks about modern terrorists it is getting at us but it is fair to say that it is not consistent with his own behavior. who is he partnering with? he is partnering with the revolutionary guard forces,

has blah. these are two organizations it isis fair to say who have made terrorism a fundamental instrument. in the case of has blah it is fair to say that they invented the idea of suicide bombing. he has no problem being a partner with them and no problem providing air cover for what they're doing on the ground. that begins to raise questions about whether or not we can be partners when it comes to terror but it does not address the question of whether or not we can elaborate on syria. we should be -- there is no answer unless we are all they're and it is clear the president and secretary kerry also believe that. but what is interesting is they sound a little different. the objective is the same, but they are different in

terms of expectation. the president was confident that eventually he would come around, take some time but he will come around because of the logic of quagmire. the cost will be too high which will produce a change so that he will not support the same way and decide that he has to go after isys as opposed to where most of the attacks are coming today. kerry is much more enthusiastic. when you look at what he said in the aftermath of the vienna conference he said we agree on the same principles the secretary said we may not see eye to eye on every aspect of the syrian policy but we want the same outcome we see the same challenges. they both want to go after

this group. you know, that obviously creates potential, at least the administration and i really wish and hope that they are right. like you said, i want them to be right. i am afraid that they are wrong. i hope i am wrong. i say that because i look at the pattern of behavior over time. i ami am afraid the approach in syria is very much a zero-sum approach. i am afraid it is still very much one of backing the regime. you know, what you described i accept. it is no secret that he wants to preserve the military presence and access they have had. he wants to be an arbiter of

any outcome in syria. he wants to parlay being an arbiter in syria into being seen as the key arbiter in the region as a whole and the fact that you look at who has been going to moscow and he looks increasingly like he is succeeding at that command there has been a constant message as opposed to a zero-sum notion the message from the russians has been, and, and i have heard this constantly from my friends throughout the arab world, the russians are saying you may not like our support but we stand by our friends. that is part of what i think the approach has been. if you look diplomatically they supported the geneva principles but in december of 2013 in january 2014 a completely backed a sod.