pick up the audience from over here i will take two or three. >> the economist dressed as the demonstrators and underneath it was haunting europe. and the story was to abolish strategic nuclear weapons to make a higher rask with a war in europe either conventional with a limited nuclear war to be confined to the battlefield. one year later they

published a report to which gave concrete expression to those fears. so what role did the summit place to raise those concerns? and to heighten that debate of the short range nuclear weapons and inf in the '80s but. >> you have a question or comment? >> with the question of how we should regard what happened. at the very last session that ended without agreement , a proposal was on the table to be put in writing and they have to be colin precedence. that proposal which gorbachev could not accept

that called for eliminating ballistic missiles over a decade. poolsides would have the right to deploy a defense but the reason why this is so important that they have to explain the objection to sdi would have spent -- would have been if eliminated? this with the soviet argument. the soviet side could never give the adequate explanation in the absence

of offensive and nuclear weapons. >> >> talk about the importance of two men of how they are pushed back with the effective military ended think this is very important with both countries. if you can reflect a little more, a chore that presidents of the united states one of four policies? coming from the of military to have its own views to be a case was the research

program and what they saw the political adviser as well. >> >> first of all this discussion it is an important reminder and listening and to adapt story is powerful. so if anybody in the auditorium i cannot think you enough's. >> stopped right there.

[laughter] >> it is a rhetorical question but what is so powerful to me is and these two people in a very small building, managing the future of the world for a couple of days. i say to myself will never happen again? can that happen in that age of today? one that is what you have left me with. >> we do have some extra time so i will go back to the question if he with like

to add something. >> 84 being here. i think you very much but to be at reykjavik. an important point that reminded us why the soviets were so scared of the sdi with and why they were not ready to sign up for the elimination of all ballistic missiles. they saw american technology in general and american technology in particular as black magic. they felt inferior in their technology one to sort one sdi. they never thought they would get that anywhere near

as people. and with regard to the prospect of eliminating ballistic missiles and that leaves the united states with the delivery system such as cruise missiles. for years afterwards i would not be surprised if you do hear that as well. >> she raises the point of the military budget. bill i cannot but remember president eisenhower leaving office to make a very specific point about the power of the military industrial complex. becoming from a general who fought in a war. he did not catch a cold.

but yet in terms of the relationship of the military in the united states measured up against the diplomacy of congress and the president, there is and also respect people have when the guy in uniform walks in with a lot of metals. if two men have an opportunity to do any number of things, but one of them was the possibility to address that single issue then we get to the point where it is important. not today but it was at that moment and to say to yourself they were ready.

so think about that in terms of proportionality and think about the power of history with the lessons of history. i know that cannot be happy but it has very little to do with the end of the soviet union. the end of the soviet union was created by the system itself. it died because it deserve to die and very little to do with t11. but the diplomats feel good to say we held off a fantastic adventure.

>> but they were woefully inadequate. >> so what is your sense and of the idea that people learned later for them to get rid of through clear weapons complex in nike mention all the people at reykjavik who now believe that getting rid of all those nuclear weapons was fantastic that we could do that. why didn't they do that then? what was so important about that extra moment of sdi? i still don't understand. >> deal understand it is 30 years later and? >> starting with the last

point and it may be the most important to tell you the truth, a new relationship between t11 and the end of the cold war. marvin makes a point when anything is conventional wisdom right now the soviet union collapsed under its own weight, it was a lousy system, very pour. why did it have to collapse quicks we have had pour countries for a long time. got around from country to country. north korea is now on its 85th year? people are eating grass. there is no revolution there. cuba is under call castro there is no collapse given

the rise and fall this is a powerful situation. to go bankrupt in less than 300 years. so what was going on in the soviet union next? it will open a whole can of forms of controversy but the cia estimates 1986 the soviet economy was growing at 2.5%. you can say that and they could have been wrong. fate could have been right. people were making fun of it

at the time that it was respectable but they were growing. you can talk about the conversion all you want. there is a whole military wilderness of data with the relative decline during those years of the u.s. soviet comparison. this cia was reporting in '86 and '87 there was a growth and then it jumped up at 4% bennett came down at 2% and 1%. does not a precipitous decline one and the per-capita wealth of the soviet union is where they

go for a vacation. it has a per capita income of $1,000. they were so pour and out of it and getting pour all the time. to have a revolution. i just don't buy that. rtc that evidence in history for the ottoman empire to be put into decline one. >> wide did it break up? because gorbachev wobble wanted to compete with united states in terms of technology there was no high-tech that they could match the fbi so he had to change the way the whole

system of mott operated. perestroika and have a glass nose to because he could not imagine how you reformat i could not blame him. at that time there were 30 countries with communism to capitalism. but not one has ever gone from communism to capitalism there was no road map. communism with a human face if there wasn't. perestroika was a mess. there is no path and glass nose was a raging success because they open up the pages of the past. when you open up the closed pages there are headlights'

right interface neither one is very pretty at all. >> the intervention is one of the reasons that it collapsed. and that is on the sly. and then looking into boris yeltsin which is a considerable number and then you have several people like the scholars of russia who were shaking their head. because one of those defense with a group to launch a coup were in the number of

other repeaters in the soviet union to gather ridden the soviet union processing. and with all kinds of reasons to get back to t11 i do think it played a role because to be happy about gorbachev. he resigned and that was behind the scenes. but very quickly people in the audience they want to

say something and then we will go to the next panel. >> with the reagan principal advisers for what was on the table. and has richard perle suggested by his comment the allegation tried to come up with a variant that probably some of the strategically minded advisers were less destabilizing and more advantageous to the united states than giving up nuclear weapons one. >> i was a young natalia moscow correspondent.

from italy. but you mention of the of western europeans that were there. that usually enemies of any type of america. maybe they were much more conservative. and does not concern to any change of the system from two years after that they do prefer to have to germany's rather than one. also put them into the context of the nuclear question. >> we will take the last question behind you first. >> this is a very stimulating discussion. from the foreign policy council, one of the things

that came to mind with the discussion is how much people got a wrong throughout. at the time i was at the u.s. information agency the job we had was to explain what they are trying to do and what reykjavik was all about. and trying to connect the dots this year that some intelligent person has spent wrong about most everything. it should not be surprising that most everybody including reagan's closest aides and worst enemies in the press and elsewhere and

that would be the result of reykjavik. so taskforce of reflections with those reforms audiences to screen out the quick impressions of people that are very close to what is going on as they try to inform the rest of us of the way it was supposed to do and how should we try to screen out what would be terribly wrong how long the soviet union would exist? website to have an early volume of testimony before congress possible the experts. will most obese sought a glimmer. >> an important last

question. i was very upset in the summer of 1991 as they disappeared on me. [laughter] and there was quite a different view. and dennis on with us sunday morning. select your absolutely right. had the deal gone through with the european allies with the nuclear deterrent one in the united states collapsed.

as for the speculative question. one in preparation for this conversation to see how close did exactly on several occasions.

>> but to have the ability to sign it like that. with anxieties and controversies if they had cited the british and french had established one nuclear force what they would have done what the rest of the world would and would they have objected non? there would have, on board eventually wobbled. but how you get this information out keep reading

history because you will not get it of french. and provide headlines day-by-day and after a while we can describe what has happened duquesne pickup things but the gorbachev story having read his book and books about him there is a great book baird to be done. but gorbachev had accepted reagan's proposal and to combat to moscow. laugh laugh. maybe.

>> and the article that is still out there that was not on the agenda. but thank you very much for your time. with the most vivid recollection i hope you get plenty of other stories. and good luck with your trip and if you get a chance to stay another night. and it is interesting. if not.

and thank you for those recollections help people get a copy. >> i think bathhouse will be haunted by gorbachev and reagan laugh laugh. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] . . >> the discussion expected to go until 5:00 eastern. live coverage jhansi spend too. president obama making a decision not to go to florida tomorrow in the advance of potential stormy weather ahead of hurricane matthew. ted deutch, congressman from florida tweeting to his constituents and others, prepared to stay safe. senator marco rubio also

tweeting sank get ready florida employers. please consider giving your employees time to get ready. the issue of hurricane, potential east coast landfall came up at today's white house briefing. we were sure as much as we can. >> let me start by letting you know the president has been updated this morning on hurricane matthew and the potential impact in the caribbean and in the united states. as we discussed, fema has deployed officials to centers in florida, georgia, south carolina and north carolina. fema has repositioned resources to incident support bases in albany, georgia, and fort bragg, north carolina. this is a relatively new innovation that fema as incorporate into their emergency response efforts.

the strategy is essentially rooted in the idea that marshaling resources and storing them at a facility that is out of the path of the storm but still in proximity to areas that could potentially be affected by the storm can expedite the provision of assistance in the immediate aftermath of the storm. they will be mobilizing and already beginning to move supplies into albany, georgia, and fort bragg, north carolina, anticipating those supplies needing to be delivered to affected there's shortly after the storm has passed. in addition to that, and incident management assistance teams at the north collect emergency operations center, and today fema's to put additional teams to a planet to support preparation activities and ensure there are no unmet needs. subroutines around the country already deployed on short notice to affected areas as necessary.

in addition to that fema ration response coordination centers in atlanta and philadelphia will activate 24/7 operations today, and the national response coordination center which is here in washington, d.c. that fema headquarters will begin 24/7 operations with full staffing on thursday. in the meantime, we encourage everyone in potential to affected areas from florida up for the mid-atlantic to begin taking steps to prepare. information on what exactly you can and should do is available at ready.gov, and that the fema, on the fema smartphone app. as all of you news outlets are reporting the our locations in the caribbean to already be affected by this storm. the usaid office of u.s. foreign disaster assistance has deployed disaster response teams to

haiti, jamaica and obama's. those teams were deployed in advance of the storm's arrival, and these disaster experts are actively monitoring the storm's track in real-time communicating with officials on the ground in jamaica, haiti, cuba, the dominican republic, the bahamas and police to ensure that relief efforts are being coordinated if you assistance is necessary. in support of those goals that you as a idea has also repositioned emergency relief supplies including shelter metro, links, hygiene kits, helsel items and water. dictation equipment to ensure that they can be negative on short notice in communities that are directly affected by this storm. some of those countries that i named. i read nearly the resources that we do in this country to deal with a storm as severe as

hurricane matthew, and the united states stands ready to provide assistance to help people in those countries who are in need, but as i mentioned yesterday, these are countries that don't have significant modern infrastructure and this is one of the strongest storms to come along in several decades. at least in this part of the world. obviously want to keep our thoughts and prayers with people in these countries who are come even as we speak, facing a rather difficult situation. due to the expected or at least the potential impact of hurricane matthew here in the united states, president obama's decided to postpone his travel to florida that were scheduled for tomorrow. the president had produces confidence in both tampa and miami. in tampa the president planned to discuss some of the progress that a country has made as a

result of the affordable care act, in miami the president was planning to participate in some campaign activities in support of secretary clinton campaign. we are hoping to be able to reschedule those events relatively soon but that will be determined by the impact of the storm and but other components of the president's schedule. i will keep you posted on all of that, all right? i did want to make one of the forget to your questions, which is on a very different topic. today the united states supreme court begins its fall term without its full couple of justices as it takes on important issues that impact the lives of everyday americans, including the right to vote, their housing and protecting fairness of the stock market. the supreme court is in a position of being understaffed, even though the president did his job and put forward an imminently qualified nominee to fill the vacancy. the supreme court is in the disposition even though the

president in many qualified nomination fulfill his process including meeting with a variety of members of the united states senate, democrats and republicans. he filled out his questionnaire. he was somebody who achieved the highest rating was given the highest rating by the american bar association, and he is somebody who has been prepared to pursue the into coverage and process including earrings, but yet we see republicans in the senate refused to do their job. the supreme court is essential in this position because the parts in this lecture the republicans inflicted upon congress is now affecting the supreme court and republicans have offered no substantive reason for the refusal to give chief judge garland to qualify supreme court nominee in our history a fair hearing and an up or down vote. in fact, thanks to republicans admittedly unprecedented instruction of the site qualified nominee this will be the first time since the civil

war a supreme court seat was kept vacant through election day. i will stop there. i've got more and than happy to discuss this at greater length if you are interested one thing i want to commend to your attention. the president has written an op-ed that was recently published in the "huffington post," and i certainly commend to your attention as well. it's on this topic and i think it underscores the significant questions of our democracy that are raised by the refusal of republicans in the senate to do their job and give fair consideration to an imminently qualified nominee that even republicans previously acknowledged as the consensus pick. so with all of that, let's go to the questions may be on your mind today. >> let's start with -- telling the pressure he can go to hell. he also said that -- [inaudible] apparently referring to the very mutual advance treaty that the

white house has released it remains unaffected by the philippines leader for colorfull comments. in the past was asked about these things have said. egotism of elements of our cooperation given last year, a site is relationship or new twist on but am wondering given these continuing inflame comments -- >> i'm angela stent, the director of the center for your ration, russian and european studies at georgetown university and also a senior nonresident fellow at the brookings institution. i have to say i'm very tempted before we get into the question about what's happened since the collapse of the soviet union to make two brief remarks about 1986. one of them is, and the question of why the soviet union collapsed. when gorbachev came to the united states in the early 1990s after the soviet collapse, he gave a talk at the

library of congress, and the librarian of congress said what was your biggest mistake? and he said, i underestimated the nationalities problem. sunday want to come back to what fiona hill said at the end. approximate cost of the collapse was in italy to work out an agreement between the center and the republics of the soviet union. and that was related certainly -- but that was of the thing in the end that brought the soviet union down. and the other brief reference about 1986 to show gorbachev had only been through a major destination before he met president reagan at reykjavík was i arrived in the soviet union and moscow three days before the chernobyl accident. i have fellowship one with at the institute for world economy and international relations, and fight with me in one year old son, and that's relevant to what i'm going to say the chernobyl. i hav had been to today's. i'm listening to the bbc radio

and a realized some catastrophe has happened in terms of a nuclear accident. and the next week, a few days later i gave a talk at the institute and i was trying to be forward leaning and talk about the importance of improving u.s.-soviet relations. and the press who hosted me, the chair of my pale and started packing for the point unemployed police said united states attorney about chernobyl. there had been no accident. no one had been killed. so that was one version. and by the what after my talk i people privately come up to me and say what's really going on. anyway, into three subsequent weeks, gorbachev at a complete turnaround after foresaw the ninth is something happen. he went on television. he admitted that something had happened, unfortunately i then it was too late for some of the children, for instance, within polling soccer on may the first in radioactive dust, places in kiev and other place in the

ukraine. anyway just before i left the soviet union, on my last day every man who had attacked me when i gave my talk came up to me and said, you know, thank you very much for being here. a terrible tragedy happened and went to work together. we have to cooperate. the united states and the soviet union, to make sure this doesn't happen again. so this is a transformative moment. fortunately when you're some of the things that in many today from the kremlin about who was responsible for what in the world in the downing of malaysian airliner and everything else that's happening, it sounds a little reminiscent of what it was like in 1986 before gorbachev admitted what happened at chernobyl. anyway, so i think the first but i want to make having listened to this fascinating panel is reykjavík and even though we know it didn't succeed completely, it was a very important process. and something like that, it's hard to imagine that something

like that happen today because of so much based also on the personal relationship between these two leaders who, despite all the differences, got on rather well. we i'll present article today where u.s.-russian relations are worse than they been since any time since before gorbachev came to power. even though the personal relationships between the two presidents are almost i was a poisonous but they're very negative relations. and, of course, we know that yesterday, and fiona hill again mentioned this briefly in her introduction, the kremlin announced president putin as russia was withdrawing from this agreement that it had with the united states on the disposal of weapons grade plutonium. and the united states was of course blamed for that, and putin when he announced this, said that the reason rush was doing it, and i'm quoting now,

the emergence of a threat to strategic stability as a result of unfriendly actions by the united states of america against the russian federation. and he is now tied russia rejoined his with three condition. would've been nader should withdraw forces which are in russia's neighborhood, beefing up our forces because of what's happened in ukraine. secondly, we have to end the sanctions that were imposed after russia annexed crimea and then launched a war in the donbass region and then thirdly congress has to aggregate the act and this again i think shows a continued lack of understanding in the kremlin about separation of powers in the united states or how our system works. those are three conditions which income they will not be met obviously so russia would hopefully withdraw from this agreement. so the purpose of our panel today is to ask why is it being so challenging since the soviet

collapse to reach and to maintain and increase arms control agreements between the united states and russia? you would've thought with the collapse of communism, the end of the soviet union it would be easier to reach such agreements, and has been pointed out, in every presidency since the collapse of the soviet union, the presidents have started out rather hopeful about arms control agreements, and in a second term if we're not talking about george h. w. bush administration but in the second term, clinton, george w. bush and obama, these arms control agreements have really stagnated, they have been frozen and they have not been able to proceed. and this is tied to a broader theme which is in the past 25 years each american president has come into office or in george h. w. bush's case it was already in office, seeking to

improve relations with russia. there have been four different races find that a more productive relationship. all of these have been good in disappointment because obviously where the very different understanding of what productive relationship with russia would look like. what has worked in the past 25 years has been issues where russia feels we are treating it as an equal, and where it feels its interests are respected and where our interests and those of russia rather narrowly defined. one of those has been what happened in the fall of 2001, the cooperation with russia in the first place of the war in afghanistan and the initial defeat of the taliban or the russians were very helpful and cooperative with the u.s. because we very much a common goal. there's some more examples the u.s.-russian cooperation in disarming syria of its chemical weapons in 2013, the discussants we had to the agreement on iraq,

and the arms control agreement. because in arms control in general this is a field where the u.s. and russia deal with each other as equals. we are the two nuclear superpowers and russia's usually feels it is being respected as a world player because we come to the table as equals. all the more reason to question why it has been so difficult to complete and to sustain these arms control agreements. we have to actually speakers. we couldn't have any better speakers to discuss that with us today. i'll be turning first to stephen rademaker, a principal, a former assistant secretary of state dealing with arms control issues in the george w. bush administration. is also worked on capitol hill coverage expands into with these issues and then, of course, brookings on steven pifer, former ambassador to ukraine, having dealt with various levels and the state department and the

national security council with arms control issues. is of course a senior fellow at brookings and he said the director of the arms control and nonproliferation initiative and has written widely on all of these issues. i'm sure that he will have a great deal to say about all of us. i'm just going to say a few words about the background to in george w. bush came into the white house, about what happened during the clinton administration in terms of arms control agreements and then we can move on to see what happened since then. and so when president bill clinton took office in january 1993, he inherited to nuclear arms control agreements from george h. w. bush administration, start one and start to make. we heard all bu all of it aboute backgrounds in the previous panel. start one reduced each side to no more than 6000 strategic warheads on 1600 strategic

nuclear delivery vehicles and start to which a just been completed before the first president bush left office went for the reduced each side to more than come to no more than 303,500 strategic warheads and also from this perspective, for importantly, supposed to ban all heavy icbms at all icbms with multiple warheads. now, s.t.a.r.t. i entry was held up by an issue that we reminded of very much today didn't come and that was the question of ukraine and its readiness to give up its own nuclear weapons. of course, when the soviet union collapsed, ukraine was the third largest nuclear country in the world, and the clinton administration and before, the george h. w. bush administration, worked hard on trying to ensure that russia would become the only nuclear success of state on the post-soviet space and that involved ukraine, also belarus

and kazakhstan but mainly ukraine being able to transfer their nuclear weapons to russia. anyway, i give great kudos to the clinton administration. they managed to do it both ukraine and russia were ambivalent, reluctant for different reasons and they signed agreement in 1994, but, of course, that was tied to the infamous by no budapest memorandum which gave ukraine assurances that if it relinquished its nuclear weapons its territorial integrity would be guaranteed, and it has secured entrances from the signatories which, of course, included the russian federation. in 1996 the senate finally ratified the train to aggregate but then there were problems with moscow. this is not a tale in the 1990s -- s.t.a.r.t. ii agreement. the difficult second limiting these agreements because of the generating political relationship, and particularly in the mid-part of the 1990s the russian military was not happy about giving up on a

multiple warhead and heavy icbms. and then, of course, you have the beginnings of the descriptors with russia about nato enlargement an in the lattr part of the 1990s and then, of course, in 1999 with the nato actions against serbia over kosovo with the bombing, et cetera. so they delayed ratification of the agreement. so it did start in 2000 but this is we come back to star wars and know we will do more about the summit star wars missile defense but duma didn't hide it, saying the senate to ratify the 1997 agreement on the abm system, the anti-ballistic missile system. s.t.a.r.t. ii which had been ratified, which has been signed

into law by president george h. w. bush was then pulled back by vladimir putin when the estates and others, it was unilaterally withdrawing from the abm treaty at the beginning of 2002. by then, of course, you all these missile defense issues which are not intruding on the arms control agenda. so with that brief background on going to turn to you, stephen rademaker and we will look for to your discussion of arms control in the george w. bush administration, and whether you have used about why discussions on arms control did or did not impact on the ability of the states to cooperate with russia on other issues. >> well, thank you angela and thank you for inviting me. i guess i would've throughout the 90 idea on the table before i get into my discussion of the bush administration. in 2009 i wrote an op-ed was

published in "the wall street journal." they gave it the title why democrats fail in arms control. that was their title, not mine. but the issue i looked at was a paradox, that my reputation, republicans argued the skeptical of arms control and democrats are deeply enthusiastic. yet if you look at the history of bilateral strategic arms control between the united states and the soviet union, and now russia, the scorecard is kind of astonishing. republican presidents have a lot of the publishers they can point you. when i read that article in 2009 it was the case that no democratic president had negotiated what ever negotiated and brought into force a strategic arms control agreement with the soviet union or russia. why is that? how can it be that the guys who

are skeptical see double or success at this event has are so enthusiastic. you can offer this. one theory would be some of democrats that bad luck. i think maybe jimmy carter, not his fault, the soviets invaded afghanistan to make you can excuse his inability to bring about the ratification of s.t.a.r.t. ii. but in that article i sort of put forward a different theory which was that it kind of common sense among people, among all of us that been a negotiation, and we negotiate in our personal lives all the time, the sense of enthusiasm usually, it's not conducive to getting results that you want in a negotiation. you are buying a car, you know, even if you find a car that you really want, i guess i should say especially if you find a car that you really want, i think

you all know the last thing you want to do is to convey to the seller that you made up your mind, it's about car and no other. if you can fake that, if the sound becomes aware your demand curve for the car has become really inelastic. what happens with the price goes up. a negotiation becomes prolonged because that's something i'm not going to leave any money on the table. i've got someone who really wants this car. i'm going to get as much out of this transaction as i can. that's just common sense. our personal business transactions. for some reason i think some of our presidents can not just democrats, i think george h. w. bush for example, in the chemical weapons convention with a little too enthusiastic ended up getting a bad deal, too. for some reason many of our presidents have failed to translate what is commonsense, is a business transaction we buy negotiate at a personal level. and understand this implies between nations. -- they don't understand.

with negotiation with russia conveying a sense of enthusiasm can actually backfire. that was by thesis in this piece i wrote. that was in 2000. president obama did succeed in 2010 in negotiating his arms control treaty with russia. though i would argue that negotiation became prolonged again because of excessive enthusiasm on his side. with that background i want to turn to the bush administration, which has been accused of many things but never accused of excessive enthusiasm for arms control. so what was the record of the bush administration? the administration came to office more of us committed to abolishing the abm treaty because it had become an obstacle to the point of missile defense systems. and also given the security department, that exist at that point, committed to reductions

in nuclear force level your but not at all committed to the idea that this needed to be negotiated and agreed between united states and russia. the first thing the administration did was, in december of 2001, it aggregated, provided notice, approximate the preceding decade every single issue of the magazine arms control today had run an editorial about how the abm treaty was the cornerstone of strategic stability, without the abm treaty the entire architecture of arms can go as we know it would collapse, that the inevitable result would be new arms race between the united states and russia. so in december 2000 this theory was put t to a test, bush provie a notice of termination. five months later he finds -- e.

signs of arms control treaty with moscow, provided for reductions for the force level under the nuclear force level under the existing s.t.a.r.t. treaty was 6000 warheads, first, reduced to no more than 2200 under the moscow treaty. first oldest treaty without the abm treaty you could have arms control was disproved within five but because actually arms control had its first, the first successful strategic arms control negotiations between the united states and russia in more than 10 years that took place in the wake of abrogation of the abm treaty. but i think also the background to the musketry is interesting because it was not your traditional arms-control negotiation. what happened was the bush administration did an internal review, nuclear posture review, and determined enemy of their

force level that it felt was appropriate industry environment and announced unilaterally that kind of us could reduce its nuclear forces to this new level. and the russians at that point basically came knocking on the door and said, we are very happy to reducing their nuclear forces, but we really need a treaty. because it's very important to psychologically to make the mutual. and tru two to its complete lacf enthusiasm to arms control, the reaction of the bush admin official was no, we don't need a treaty. it just was not important to us. it's really important to us. we really want this treaty. and the base of the bush administration said look, if it's that important to you i guess we could sign a treaty. but you know i here's what it's going to to see because we are just not interested in years of negotiation and wrapping it all these other issues.

this is to take it or leave it. we will sign this. the arms-control industry -- i think someone credited on the front and back of an index card to show how bareboat it was because it was a short treaty, unlike start, new s.t.a.r.t. that runs thousands of pages. this was a treaty you could put on an index card but it did require reduction of both sides, more than 2200 operation big vote strategic nuclear weapons. it was interesting that confronted with the ministrations was basically in different to whether we got arms-control grid or not, suddenly the russians were not the obstacle here they were essentially insisting on an agreement, and this was in the position of saying okay, but it's got to be on these turn. in the in the russians suggested to these terms. it was the first success in

arms-control in more than 10 years, and maybe come into in a we can talk about why the clinton administration, it didn't necessarily want a very large u.s. nuclear force. it was prepared to give reductions, too, but it had some problems getting agreement with russia upon what it wanted to do. basically it got itself completely wrapped around the axle tied to preserve the abm treaty and the russians took advantage of that, and effort to negotiate arms control agreements during the clinton administration. by committing the treaty, the ground was cleared such that a bilateral arms control agreement was possible. now, that's how we started in the bush administration. things come as you suggested, angela, things kind of went downhill especially towards the second term. i think the rail budget issues at work there.

paul saunders did a very interesting paper on when things go wrong. i was astonished, you get lots of russians like, near the top of the list was the kozak memorandum. i could ask for a show of hands, how many people know what the kozak memorandum was? it was an effort to resolve the disagreement in moldova about russian armed forces in moldova your the russia were deeply embittered by the way the bush administration handled that. i know the traditional answers are nato enlargement, decision to deploy missile defenses in poland, supporting the georgian government. these are the traditional answers but it's much more complex because the important part is the kozak memorandum, believe it or not.

i think it became difficult to maintain that moment i think it had a lot to do with president putin and his effort to return russia to something like the role that it is played in the past. maybe i will stop there. >> thank you. steve, do you want to pick up the story? >> sure. we will save the kozak memorandum for the q&a. i think if you look at how arms-control has played in the obama administration and its relation with russia over the last eight years, there was were three cases. and the first phase was to reset from 2009-2011. and it was pretty clear when barack obama became president, yes, he wanted to do something big, and we saw that in his speech in prague in april 2009 when he embraced the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. also being a bit realistic and said this may not happen in my lifetime, as long as there are nuclear weapons went to a

deterrent that is secure, that is safe and reliable. in some ways he's going back to the first panel, obama and reagan were the ones who think that he passionately about religion some significant about getting rid of nuclear weapons. you had in those first months the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, early progress on new s.t.a.r.t. so that when the president went to moscow in july of 2009, they have begun u that's what a new s.t.a.r.t. treaty would look like. and that reflect i think a return to more traditional approach that the russians were comfortable. the complaint about the bush ministry when i was out of government talking to russians, yes, and then the american desire to limit warheads only but you limit deploy warheads and you don't limit reserve for its anti-don't limit missiles and bombers, and how does that not create a huge breakout potential to fighting the russians were more comfortable in the obama administration

indicated early on can go back to the more traditional approach of limiting both star warheads. new s.t.a.r.t. had a boost from reset but i think also new s.t.a.r.t. get a boost reset. early progress was good for the broader u.s.-russian relationship. i'm in a group that still thinks that was a success but i think we they are small, decreasing number of people but it's a success in terms of what i think its regional purpose was which was not to get the relationship to nirvana but to get out of whole we were in with russia in 2008 and get the russians to be doing things that the obama administration early on defined as a u.s. interest. so as a strategic nuclear ours reduction agreement. it was more russian help of ending tyranny nuclear program and it was russian help in afghanistan which just in terms of getting supplies and forces easy to afghanistan. and those areas and first couple

of years the obama administration to look back and see important things. by 2011, made in may or june, it was clear the recent had run its course. they declared it a success. but looking at the new star trek it was very clear and the president made this public, he wanted to go beyond new s.t.a.r.t., and battling negotiate further cuts in strategic weapons but also bringing nonstrategic nuclear weapons. so the first on this idea that you might have u.s.-russian negotiations as looking at everything. had been he began to see the russians i think fall back. trying to figure out why, it's an interesting question and we can speculate. it was clear the russians were content with new s.t.a.r.t. a lease at that point in time, we're not prepared to go beyond it. part of the reason was the russians look at lyrical post above and beyond the strategic value and moscow self perception

of russia as a superpower in whittle away they can compete in the world and claim superpower status with lots of nuclear weapons. another part of it and this may be changing but certainly in 2010 the russians still saw themselves with significant gaps vis-à-vis nato and to the conventional military forces and this on nuclear weapons as part of the act which was nato's policy very much during the cold war. part was missile defense. this conversation came up in the first panel about just how much the russians feared sdi. i was post at the embassy in moscow from 1986-1980 and whe wi got the utah talked to soviets about sdi. there really was the palpable fear that in 10 years the americans are put us out of the ballistic missile business, that american, it's kind of interesting how much speak the russians have in american technology. i think in 87 people -- close

adviser to gorbachev begin sank look boss, this is what rocket science. it's hard to do. and as the leadership in moscow, that i think impossible to be linking that you saw with the soap is going to the imf treaty and to distort when treaty which was no give on the american side. but i think that technology on missile defense still applies today. i go back to a comment made by a russian deputy prime ministers talking about the european days. we know there's going to be a phase four, five, six and seven. so there's i think in moscow this fear that somehow the records are going to be of enough to come up with something on missile defense side that will change the occasion to put on missile defense, exactly start out as a positive issue between washington and moscow. in september 2009, the obama administered announced the reconfiguration of missile defense plans for europe can

replace the bush plan with you being phased approach. originally that seemed to be winning approval in moscow. it seemed that missile defense had been diffused as a u.s.-russian issue. at the end of 2010 you had a nato-russian summit. they met with nato leaders and agreed, let's eat we can come up with a cooperative nato-russian defense. in early 2000 water from both american and russian participants was there's a lot of winking. they agreed, there can be a single system because nader doesn't want with russia and russia doesn't work for nato but get to system that would interact jointly command center. what would be a david fusion center? we take early warning data from nato, centers and from russian census, bringing together can combined and it would be and as project back to both sides? the second center, talked about the threat to europe and had to deal with it? kind of impaled with a, the russians begin talking about

they want a legal guarantee, a treaty that american missile defense would not be going against russian strategic forces. then they said it has to have criteria. las.. arms-control begins to drift a bit. you see the russians to bring other questions. we can talk about nuclear reductions but there has to be a discussion on arms-control in europe and others. we took all these linkages that make it very hard to on ravel it

then you have your both in russian the united united states have presidential elections. arms-control goes on from late 2000, 2012. the result 12. the result of that is, instead of obama and vladimir putin, the chemistry is there but it's not good chemistry. can we reinvigorate arms-control to put forward a new idea on missile-defense transparency but they really got no traction from the russians. i think a big of the problem is that the context has changed. vladimir putin, when he came back, when he and matt announced he was going to run but he was also going to be the president, was merely a formality of the election.

he really began to talk in terms of things like russian nationalism, rushes a great power, russia reasserting its place on the world stage. a significant bit of anti- americanism mixed in with that. it looks like that is a big part of how russia looks at itself in terms of regime legitimacy. you have domestic politics now driving a more adversarial stance toward the west and arms-control doesn't really fit in well with that. that becomes a problem. then after 2014, it follows russia's seizure of crime crimea and at that point you have russia and u.s. relations at the lowest point since the cold war. the administration worked to isolate them politically and apply sanctions and generally ratcheted down normal diplomatic business but it did hold out, exempting arms-control. there was really no movement, no

engagement on that. also in december 2014, you had nuclear forces when the u.s. government concluded or made public its conclusion that russia had tested a ground launch cruise missile in violation of the inf treaty. then they responded with charges of american violation. arms-control is becoming a problem on the agenda. again you hear it more and more russian complaints about missile defense. arms-control which at the beginning of the administration was a positive and contributed to the relationship, by the last couple of years it has become a negative. in some ways, it seems to me this is something like the clinton and bush administration experience. at the beginning, arms-control wasn't on the top of the george w. bush list of things to do, it

did do some things in a way that were positive in terms of the u.s. russia relationship. in the second term of the clinton administration, the the bush administration and obama administrations, arms-control has become problem issues that contributed to more difficult relationships. >> thank you both very much. i wonder if we could just say little bit more about what happens, we've magnified that they have violated the inf treaty. what are the implications of that? >> we have pointed the finger at the russians. yes, we've determined that they were testing missiles and therefore these tests are illegal. i'm not aware we made a finding of actually deploying those. one would suspect that they are testing in there holding out

that option. going back to my time in the bush administration, i had conversations with russians. they are unhappy with this treaty. they have some legitimate complaints. they for bid missiles of a certain range but the only countries that are subject to this prohibition are united states russia and several others states to the soviet union. iran is not subject, north korea, china, india, pakistan are not subject to it. if you're russia and there's all these countries that are free to deploy these missiles and some of them are deploying, you start to wonder, how are we supposed to respond, were were fred bidden by this treaty.

is this really doable over the long term. i guess relations are getting better with cuba but if cuba were deploying inf range missiles, how much patients with the united states have with the idea that we can't reciprocate because we got this treaty with russia from 1988. it's been my thought that it feels like they will pull out of this. it seems to me what we are seeing is them taking steps in the direction of them getting ready to do that. my advice would be, let's not do the russians in favor of terminating the treaty ourselves if we can avoid it. they just terminated the italian agreement this week. they took a hit on that come out let them bear the onus for that and likewise on hours should

they proceed to deploy inf range missiles in violation of the treaty, i would hope they would terminate the treaty in accordance, in respect of that decision. if they don't maybe our hand will be forced. i don't think we should make it easier for the russians to deploy inf range missiles. in the meantime i'm in favor of trying to talk to them to persuade them to back off. i do think as long as the rest of the world is free to deploy these missiles and lots of countries are moving in that direction, it's probably not realistic to expect the russians to continue with the treaty. >> i do somewhat understand the russian position where you look at the country that are developing these missiles, they're all much closer to the united states but having said that, the point the point i made to the russia was when you look

at the other russian forces, there are strategic forces and conventional forces, it's not like they need an intermediate range missile to match with the chinese of the russians have. that will be the first point. the second point is that if the russians decide they really have a problem, the way to do it is not to cheat on the treaty but exercise the provision built into the treaty to withdraw from it. russians don't want to do that because they don't want to bear the critical responsibility for killing inf. so far the charges that russia has tested but not yet deployed, i think think as long as they haven't deployed, a cautious response make sense. if they do begin to deploy these missiles it will change the game. one of the reasons i believe the obama administration has been cautious, at at least on the american side, there's not any specific military requirement at this time for building an american range missile. you would have to put it someplace other than you the

united states. having gone through dual track in the 1980s when we did deploy cruise missiles, it was a pretty painful process. you ended up doing it and deploying those missiles to europe was one of the key reasons we got the inf treaty. i don't know anybody on the other side of the atlantic that would want to go through that experience again. the question is, where do we put it if we wanted to have that missile reach russia. our options are somewhat limited in terms of response. >> there's also missile defense response. >> right. before we go to questions, i will exercise my chairman's right. if you don't mind, i'll call on you prof. william hill as the great expert on the memorandum since you've written a book a book about this. i think a lot of this is a red

herring but i would like to hear from you if this is a major issue that really. [inaudible] could you give. >> i have students hear from my russian foreign policy class that i'd normally be teaching and i want them to listen to this too. >> there may be a quiz. >> thank you. or maybe congratulations or commiseration. the argument in the book is that the russians, what they took his disrespect and embarrassing their president. >> could you explain. >> what was a memorandum negotiated by vladimir putin's chief of staff, at the time sent down to parallel the

negotiations that i was heading. i talked with him and couldn't get him to join the efforts and he claimed that they wanted to do it separately. they told me the russians wanted to do it separately. the key was probably that the russians really desired to keep a pretty meaningless troop presence as a political hook both on meld over and on ukraine they rushed through the memorandum just ahead of the osce presenting an agreed memorandum to the two sides and the one that they showed to me to get western approval did not have three key articles in it which had to do with a long-term

troop presence in the country. when the version with the troop presence was leaked to me, i sent it back to a couple of places in the u.s., the time zone meant that the u.s. ambassador had to go in and solana was able to call himself real-time. i think his words were you can kiss meld over's european future goodbye if you sign this. he agonized the night before vladimir putin was to come to the country and signed the memorandum and called him around 45 in the morning. the russian press was already on the plane. vladimir putin was preparing to fly down and this happened two days after they were carried out of the georgian party meant on live tv and there were meld open citizens protesting with nooses

in trees. in any case, the russians took it very seriously. the point of the book is that the russians take the near broad much more seriously than we do. think missiles in cuba or russians in cuba, you remember the cuban brigade in 78, 79 when that broke. the fallout, it was about that time in whether it was georgia or meld over or all of them together, it was a clear turning point on the ground for my own foxhole of the russia that we were able to cooperate with at some point or on some things in a russia that was more suspicious and less willing to let westerners of various sorts

in. the attitude, whether this is accurate or not, they screamed at us from across the table at a meeting stating when you interviewed in the balkans, we didn't like it but we didn't stop it. we didn't get an agreement or settlement in our area and you wreck it. things went downhill from that time. as you pointed out, they go up and down but they remember it far more than we do because it is really in their backyard. the position is the equivalent to steve hadley. it is part of an area that is sensitive as you and others have

noted and we don't always appreciate the importance that we they attach to these countries. we saw that it began ukraine in 2013, 2014. we took a look at it and we said it was unworkable. it was a breakaway piece and gave them the ability to veto foreign-policy and they said we want to veto it. we went back and said it's not our place to tell you not to

sign this. you can sign this but were not going to endorse it. the embassy wasn't going to go to the population because they thought there would be domestic pushback. >> the first version is the one you looked at and came back and we told them they did the same thing, told them we couldn't support it but we felt if he was going to sign it we couldn't scare him off because you had not yet seen the portion for the articles with the two-part thing he wanted western or eu approval of doing it. he had told the russians this. allegedly he told me later that the russians told him the osc had approved which was not the case. it's clouded in stories of each participant who claims they did

it one way or another, but the point is, at the end of the day, with vladimir putin sitting in moscow, the other at the airport really angry and another wondering what he done, you had had resentments on all sides of something that had been close to settling one of the things and had failed spectacularly. >> we have the dueling narrative problem. we do have time for questions on arms control and other aspects of the u.s. russia relations according to what you've heard. we will start off with you. please identify yourself. >> my name is jeff haun, i'm a master student at american university.

in the last panel that discussed the summit in great detail which is very fascinating, i was wondering about the legacy, specifically of gorbachev and his warm relations with the u.s. and the impact it has on vladimir putin and any future russian leader because gorbachev is so widely despised in russia today and any future russian leader would fear looking weak, especially on the subject of arms control. you feel this negatively impacts future negotiations? >> that's a good question. who would would like to take that up. >> i don't have any great insights into that issue, but i do think we need to understand, rush is going to do, it's a great nation. they are going going to do what's in its national interest. conventional wisdom is that countries that fill week in conventional terms, they often

fall back for the safeguard of their security. that's what we did during the cold war when we felt we were inferior conventionally in europe. today, clearly the roles are reversed. the russians think they've lost their allies and they feel weak. i hope they. [inaudible] obama's objective to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, i think that's a nice a nice idea but you will find zero support for moving in that direction from the russians. if that's our objective to negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons, i don't think

were going to find takers in russia. is that because of the gorbachev legacy, i don't think so. i think that the calculation by the russian leadership of where their national interest lies in the current global security environment. maybe i'll just go further, i think obama, a big part of his problem negotiating with russia is he's set this grandiose objective and it's his objective , but obama successes being measured with reference to how much success he achieves in realizing this. to make progress he needs to sign agreements with russia. for the russians, that the source of leverage. obama want something and you're not enthusiastic, it's it's the flipside of what we experienced during the bush administration.

today, what obama faces is he's the one who had this political need to sign new arms control agreements with russia and the russians really don't have that. i think they are basically satisfied with the current arms-control regime. i don't think the russians want a nuclear arms race, they don't need nuclear reduction but to make obama happy they might be prepared to agree to some for a price, but it would be a price we would pay, not what what they would pay. that's obama's frustration that they are trying to make a fair price. i think you would have more success if he hadn't set this objective and hitched his own political fortune in trying to achieve it. >> i think it was much more in the short term whereas despite

the initial suspect that he had failed, you have the inf treaty banning an entire class of nuclear weapons, then you have another treaty. those were pretty significant achievements. to make the point, it did make thinking about going to zero respectable. i personally think, i support the idea of ruling out nuclear weapons, if it make sense of the policy goal, but i don't know how we can get there. that's based on two reasons. one, i. one, i believe nuclear deterrence while it succeeded during the cold war, it came close to breaking down. the result of a breakdown would've been 400 million dead. the question is do you want to live without risk. i think given, if you if you can have a verifiable non- nuclear world, with the united states, given geography and land structures and american conventional power, the risk are less than a nuclear world.

i think vladimir putin doesn't buy into that at all. he looks at his situation and says wait, i am the leader of a declining power with a stagnant economy, i, i have one and half billion chinese next door, nuclear weapons are about the only way i secure my security and that's going to be why moving in the direction significantly is going to be difficult because the russian perception from their viewpoint is very different from how we look at it. >> i'm kate boston, i'm a master student at georgetown university i got the impression from your comments about the inf treaty and the possibility that russia may, in one way or another find itself outside of that treaty or not back out because of the political lenses, but break it. it seems to me that it does

have, russia has an interest in an update of the treaty as opposed to backing out of it. an update to include the circumstances of today's world and the presence of nuclear weapons and other actors that are not included in the treaty. it seems like on this particular issue they may have more interest than some of the other areas. i was wondering if there's any possibility that could come about. >> in terms of modifying the treaty, the one you hear suggested is instead of getting rid of it, why don't we globalize it. addressed their concern by expanding it and deal with the countries that are subject to its restrictions. that sounds like a great idea

that i think you need to talk to the chinese, how many of them are interested in doing that. i think opponents of that idea argue that proposals to globalize or mount an effort to globalize the treaty would probably translate, in practice to the abolition of the treaty because it will fail and those who tried to oblige will have a good excuse for why they decide to leave. the rest of the interest has expressed no interest so why should we keep it would be a conclusion one could draw if efforts to globalize the treaty collapse. short of globalize it, i'm not sure how you adjust, certain areas russia could have inf range missiles but not in the european theater, that idea i'm

sure was addressed at the time the treaty was negotiated. missiles of that size are mobile if they had them in one area, they could move them to another in a crisis so i don't get would be a modification we would be very comfortable with. >> i think it 2007, 2008 they made a proposal eight they made a proposal at the un which government supported to mobilize the treaty. there was no takers. it hasn't been pushed since then. >> over there. >> christina mcallister, i was just curious, with the elections coming up here and recent elections in russia, what nonproliferation nuclear arms

goals would you recommend for the next administration. >> good question. >> you can take this wherever you want. >> with russia, i'm not optimistic that is a prospect. i honestly think the united states looks kind of ridiculous coming in asking for deeper reductions in nuclear weapons when russia's margin, they look at us like were from a different planet planet and we don't get what's going on. the big problem on the horizon are iran and north korea.

think, especially with the hillary clinton administration there could be direction given to a new diplomatic initiative to try to replicate success we made with iran and i'm skeptical that any negotiation with north korea because it basically includes bribes that we would give them to stop doing bad things. the history of the past years illustrates that they are very happy to accept bribes but they are not happy to deliver on their part of the bargain. i don't know why we would expect a different outcome. the clinton and bush and menstruation tried that. to its credit, the obama administration hasn't tried it. i think they recognize, fool me once, shame on you, for me twice shame on me, for me a third time, time, i think that's basically where we are.

iran, there's not a lot of people celebrating how we solve that problem. i personally think we put it on hold for ten years and it will be back in a much more variant form and they will have a much more robust nuclear structure, if that's what they want to have, but the ability to restrain them in ten or 15 years , will be a bigger issue. north korea will continue to be a bigger issue. russia is a big player in that. i'm not sure that figures in and a big way on the agenda. if you've gotten back to some kind of a dialogue between the united states and russia on arms control, if you move forward, you would have to reconcile two different approaches which has

been an american desire for further rejection but also nonstrategic weapons. then there's missile defense and advanced missile strikes. there may be ways to bridge those differences but it's when you take a lot of work. >> i'm from the university of washington. i was fascinated by the way you talked about the element affecting this administration. i would like you to reflect a little bit more on the moment of unilateralism at this. of time and unilaterally the united states decides one thing and hope that the russians would come and treat us as equal. then how somehow there is a change in the context in moscow

and there is more aggression moving forward. if you can piece these two episodes together, do you see that moment is actually a reflection or response to a moment of more strength on the united states part, affording unilateralism and now this is the time to pay the price you were talking about. >> i think if you look at how vladimir putin looks at the united states, this is part of what's going on in the domestic politics pretty goes back to 2000, 2008 and he was good on economics because the price of oil went up and the economy grew. that was sort of, this is what the regime was about. when it came back to the presidency in 2012, the economic

situation was more complex. there has been a big part of it. another part of it goes back to the bush administration and the clinton administration. he has a huge chip on his shoulder, sense of grievance that the united states of the west mistreated russia and he states nato enlargement that was organized by the united states, britain and germany to contain russia to bring military force to russia's borders. i think it looked very different. it was designed to appeal to central european countries who said we want to be full members of europe. likewise, look at the way he talks about the evolution and ukraine, these are manifestations of populations that say our election was stolen

or were unhappy with bad governance. these are designed for regime change in moscow. he talks about it so much that at some point i think he actually believes it. he has a sense of grievance, a sense that he's defending it against an encroaching west and that may explain things why his less interested in arms control. >> use the term unilateral with the bush administration. when that term is thrown out it's usually criticism.

[inaudible] it was unilateral, it was not a negotiated. [inaudible] it was a decision that we decided to make. i think basically the bush vision, was that in announcing nuclear reductions on our side, strategic nuclear reduction that the russians would match them as had happened with the nonstrategic nuclear weapons. think they were frustrated because they like using the process to urge the u.s. on other things like missile-defense and conventional strategic weapons.

they have a whole list of things to slowly advance their interest without taking the arms control hostage. it took much longer than it really should have because the russians kept trying to link it to other issues. he would get this treaty and be prepared to make concessions on some things but not on some things he wouldn't talk about. >> can i comment on the proposition that the intellectual arms control during the cold war's anachronism today. arms control as we have understood it in the past is not very important, not very

relevant, and no matter whether we attempt agreements are not to attempt agreements it won't make much difference. >> i think that is largely true. we were in a nuclear arms race. the first goal of arms control is to stop the arms race and trying to roll back -- we do face a different security environment today. there is no nuclear arms race that they're going to spend billions of dollars to tried to gain nuclear advantage in the

current environment. i think there are obstacles reap improve relationships because you set up these processes and especially the way, i have some sympathy for the russians. they are playing and we can't. what you do when you have a weak hand? have to pay play it pretty well. they use these processes to gain advantage. i do think it ends up danger in the relationship.

we're not going to spend six years in geneva hammering one out and discuss the things we don't want to talk about in geneva. take it or leave it. obama has this agenda of abolishing nuclear weapon so he needs agreements to make progress. that invites the russians to pay a price and that's what they need to do. >> i think there still is value in using arms control as a tool to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the united states. you have to be smart about these negotiations. i think bringing the numbers down does help. it also brings transparency.

their support brings inspections and you know a lot more about russian nuclear forces that you would know using your own unilateral means. i think there's a place for it. the bush administration did make that. had the russians come back, i do think there is a continued place for arms control in terms of a competition that is. [inaudible] if you do have a breakdown in nuclear deterrence the results are catastrophic. i do agree with their conclusion that we can increase nuclear

weapons. [inaudible] that is in our interest. >> i'm an undergraduate student. from this panel i get the idea that russia perceives a threat from its nuclear neighbors which is not a threat that the u.s. has. lavishly you want to avoid making concessions from the u.s. perspective. how would you approach future negotiations to ease russia into the idea that reducing these arms numbers is important but from the perspective that they don't want to do this. >> i said earlier, russia is a a great power with lots of intelligent people. nothing makes the russians angrier than to be told by

america what's in their interest. they really get mad when they are lectured by americans about what's in there best interest. how we are going to educate them about the nuclear threat they perceive and how to deal with iran, we need to be careful about what can be achieved. progress will be possible on arms control when russia concludes it's in their interest to do arms control. they were talking about the verification aspects of arms control. i do think it's important but i think it's more important to the russian because we have much better surveillance capabilities. we have a much clearer idea what's going on on the ground in russia than they do in the

united states. it's astonishing pretty went back and looked at the negotiation, the russians kept trying to tear back verification because it was a way of sticking it to the obama administration and they were trying to take away things make that were more useful to the u.s. than to them. it's a tribute to the way the u.s. went back into that negotiation. president obama needed that deal more than they did politically. i think if we approach negotiations with them, they are are less than 30 astec, less breathless manner we will

actually get a better result. >> i guess i go back, under the new start treaty, russia is going to have 1500 strategic nuclear warheads. is that somewhere between 4000 and 5000 nuclear weapons nuclear weapons. i think that number allows them to feel comfortable against north korea or india or pakistan they don't need to insist involvement from these other countries. there needs to be some kind of multilateral for the next investigation. what they said is how they would envision that negotiation going forward. they haven't done it because it's very difficult to come up with a negotiation that doesn't ask that the united states and russia come down or accept

unequal limitations which they are unable to do in a legally binding treaty. maybe you can ask the defense in china to make a unilateral effort but it won't increase as long as they are coming down. you're not going to be able to get much in terms of third countries when there's a huge gap with the united states and russia and nobody else about 300. >> jill doherty, i'm with a fellow with the woodrow wilson center and a former student of angela staten. i just had a question, not necessarily on arms control but on the modernization of nuclear weapons. we have president obama who talks about reducing the numbers

and yet we are looking at this proposed $1 trillion, i believe, it could be spent over a number of years on modifying the united states nuclear weapons or potential for nuclear armed cruise missile, et cetera. could you bring us to the russians perspective and some modernization of their own. what is there 1 trillion-dollar plan. are they going to match this? >> the russians announced a $700 billion plan to modernize all their military forces. what they talked about specifically is over a ten-year period, it was building 400 missiles. if you look at the force, it looks like russia wants to have about the right number. part of what they're doing, like what we were doing is building new missiles to replace old stuff.

there's a lot of missile missiles that had they had the money back in the 19 '90s they would've replaced ten years ago. a lot of it is replacing old stuff and it looks like they're now sizing the force within the level of the new agreement. >> i think one of the things, modernization is always hard to talk about. the russians are doing a lot now we are going to continue to be building as well. replacing old stuff is necessary. i know when i look at our strategic program i would question certain aspects of it. here's our plan and by the way, nobody in the pentagon has the faintest idea how we are going to afford to build this. we are kind the road.

maybe we ought to think a little bit more in a long-term sense about are there ways you can design a modernization program and i think we should continue to maintain a triad. i do question the need for long-range cruise missile when you are going to spend $80 billion for something that has stealth and welfare capabilities. we are going to have to come to grips with this. i think that's what the next administration will have to deal with, otherwise it will find itself in a position around 2025 where it's about rebuilding the intercontinental missile or by aircraft or something else. :

>> this. >> pdf the weapon systems built in the of '50s and then they need to be replaced and cost many. -- money but i don't know the 30-year cost estimate but one that would have then so enormous it would have scared off. when you start quoting the numbers it is with the intention to look at the annual cost. don't look at how much you pay over a lifetime.

so what is the annual cost to make these investments and how does that compare to the nuclear enterprise? and then it is a lot less money that we spent during the cold war. so talking about national defense through the cold war the numbers are not as much as the critics would have us believe. >> i will push back on a few points. >> actually i disagree i think there is a notion but, don't think that it has then offer rationalized to talk about that missile submarines or the ballistic missiles basically that is

what they would have wanted. i am not sure n that program or in absence what the obama administration could have i do agree with the addition -- the vision but there were qualifiers to have a reliable deterrent. once it you talk about the 30-year members that is difficult but if you look at the current budget environment or the projections for social security, medicare interest rates it is wise for the pentagon to make an assumption 10 years from now it will appear to allow them to avoid hard choices with the icbm.

if we think like that we will start spending a lot of money on programs after we have done the development one end to get down with a less effective established overall. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> goal of this discussion this available while mine. fixed life to press, at valley arizona air rally for donald trump. kerf this is the co0 of the campaign we have live coverage on c-span2 do. >> hello press, arizona. [applause] to think they want to take our guns away. not on our watch. is such an honor to be here with you guys.

you deliver the county for be overwhelmingly. it is an honor to serve endorse state treasurer with hard-working taxpayers better here. >> to give a special shot out the largest women's republican club in the country. [cheers and applause] i brought my beautiful life. and who has been with me the whole way it is honor to serve as state treasurer not as a big honor for the chief operating officer of the national trump campaign we

will make america great again. [cheers and applause] >> where else can you turn out to a crowd like this? by the way who slept overnight? and we just tartu prince the coins for the campaign these other first ones. sleeping overnight to be in the front. [applause] >> we will make america great again i promise. working so hard.

the day after the debate but the record as we know it for fund-raising was ms. romney raising $6 million the day after the debate we just had to the trump campaign raised $18 million. [cheers and applause] so let's rock this place on the count to three. [chanting] what are we going to do to protect our second amendment t6 make our neighborhoods safe again? t6 will we do to make the military strong again? what about economic prosperity back to america? vote trump and what will we

do to make america great again? vote trump. [cheers and applause] mike thornton. [applause] >> >> isn't this great? what a great day in arizona i want to thank all of the patriots and my comrade in arms of men and women who served in a great nation god bless each and every one of

you. haag's on behalf of of recipients and the admirals' to support donald trump because we want leadership again. will lead to keep our country safe and free. ladies and gentlemen, this is the most trying time in my lifetime. we cannot stand for more years of this type of leadership. america should not be bound down to other countries. we should stand tall. [cheers and applause] we talk about how this great nation was represented by

the constitution of the united states. mr. obama has secretary clinton changing it to the obama clinton but we cannot let that happen. [booing] i would like to ask you one question. how many jobs as mrs. clinton got started in this great nation of america? look at mrs. clinton, many times as she voted on behalf of the men and women in uniform? and we look for leadership. what about benghazi?

is that the who we want to send it to the white house to say i got your back? >> no. >> ladies and gentlemen we need true leadership somebody we can look up to. meetings and gentlemen, the bureaucrat government in washington d.c. needs to go down the drain. we need leadership. [applause] t6 t6 >> ladies and gentlemen right now have the great honor and privilege to introduce the next president of the united states, donald trump. [cheers and applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] >> thank you t. t20. i am so thrilled to be back in arizona. i just wrote the liner went outside face said they had between 15 and 20,000 people outside i have never seen anything like it except that other donald trump brawley's [applause] pretty amazing. they are watching on the big screen adjust one to say thank you. it is a little hot but all of those outside think very much. we love you.

[applause] if there is anybody in this room who would like to give up their place please raise your hand. in 35 days we will win this day and we will win back the white house. [cheers and applause] we are going to make america rich again. i am going to end illegal immigration to stop the massive inflow of refugees coming keep them jobs from leaving our country they are going one way. out. a disastrous trade deal and to reduce taxes and i will tell you we will reduce taxes big lead and regulations don't and will

be cut in half more than that. [cheers and applause] my economic agenda is very, very simple. jobs jobs jobs. [cheers and applause] i want to send our best wishes to our great governor mike pence as he prepares for his debate tonight. [cheers and applause] great guy. the debate will be a contrast between our campaign of big ideas and bold solutions for tomorrow first is the small and petty clinton campaign that is stuck in the past. [booing] we are changed. she is four more years of obama and we cannot take that.

[booing] clinton cannot talk about real problems facing our country because she is the one who helped create all of those problems in the first place. you cannot do anything about it. to hide her corruption she deleted 33,000 e-mail's after getting a congressional subpoena. [booing] how did she get away with that one? [chanting] how did she get away with that is a disgrace. hillary clinton has been there 30 years and has not fixed anything. she talks and talks and talks. in fact, she just made

things a lot worse she bailed upstate new york promising to create 200,000 jobs but manufacturing is down in new york state by almost 40 percent. she failed overseas unleashing death and destruction. she failed latinos and african-americans producing only more poverty in our inner cities. [chanting] [cheers and applause]

[chanting] [chanting] this. >> by the leg is there any place that is more find more creative to me them the donald trump rally plaques --? [cheers and applause] and then there is no place safer believe me.

after years of failure and she complains about how i use the tax laws of this country to my benefit. i ask is simple question then why didn't she ever try to change the law so i could not use them? day you know, why? she could have changed the law when she was in the united states senate but she didn't prepare she named a few buildings that is all she did. the reason she did not do that is heard donors and contributors have used those same tax laws as i did the same way. [applause] i know all of their names and i know who they are but it is not up to me to make them public figures. check it out. those public hillary supporters are known is

george soros claimed losses of 1.$5 billion. in just six months. and then declared a hundred $73 million did he write to those of? i doubt that. there are many more. there is a long list but look at her daughter's. i know how the tax code works better than anyone and i will fix it so it is fair and just and works for you. for you. for these politicians don't have a clue and if they do they can do it because their donors will not let them. remember i am my daughter. imi donor.

we have a movement like has never bend seen before even my enemies back there look at all of the press among the most dishonest people in the world. [booing] even our enemies in the press say it is one of the great political phenomenons of all time but we have to get out and vote november 8 or frankly it is just a waste of time and energy and money. [cheers and applause] get out and vote. do your early ballots if you can. as a very successful private business person following the laws of our country hillary clinton made germany as a corrupt public officials violating the law and putting her government office up for sale. [booing]

remember she left the white house they said they were broke and now they're worth to reduce $50 million? how did that happen? the problems we face as a country are immense and it will take bold action to turn things around. right now we owe $20 trillion in debt and it has doubled under president obama. [booing] our infrastructure is like a third world country. the homicide rate last year in the largest cities is on the biggest increase in 45 years. the biggest single increase in 45 years. homicide. forty-five years biggest increase. the border is wide-open and drugs and criminal cartel is pouring into the country and

nobody knows that better than the people of arizona. [cheers and applause] we will stop it. [chanting] we will build a wall and mexico will pay for that we will stop the drugs coming into arizona and every other states and our union to poison our youth. i want to thank cheryl f. joe who has been a supporter from the beginning. >> also the border patrol and vice both of them gave us their endorsement they have never done never any presidential candidate before 16200500 border

patrol agents and vice thank you for your door -- endorsement you have never given that before. to 20. thank you thank-you. thousands of refugees are being evaded with no way to screen them and instantly made eligible for welfare and free health care even as our own veterans are dying waiting for medical care that they desperately need. our annual trade deficit with the world is nearly $800 billion per year. who the hell negotiates these deals clacks in it will change. said trade deficit $800 billion per year? it will change.

have you watched the stock market? whenever i do well in the polls theater countries it goes down a little bit. not much. we don't want to lose a hundred billion dollars for what plaques remember america first. [cheers and applause] it is about time. america first. [applause] the federal budget is a complete and total disaster. [chanting]

al worse state department mostly under the watch of crooked hillary clinton misplaced or lost $6 billion. how are you misplace $6 billion? we have the worst recovery and i called it so-called since the great depression. the worst. we're not growing as a nation we're down 1%. if it is sevener 8% it is a national crisis when we are at 1%. 1% and react like it is wonderful. we are in a bubble and we have to be very careful we need strong and smart leadership knows what is happening.

we are a nation divided with race riots in the street look at what is going on with race riots in the street the college students graduate loaded with debt only to discover they cannot find jobs that they are trained for. overseas our failed leaders have power over iran that was nothing three years ago now they tell us what to do. but that deal with teheran is a disgrace we have unleashed isis that came out of the vacuum created by barack obama and hillary clinton.

it is total chaos the allies and not paying their fair share with countries like russia and china you saw today russia broke the deal. in syria. russia. no respect for this country no respect for our leadership they have no respect for hillary clinton or for obama. pressure broke the deal and now they are shooting and bombing fetishes and fast but they don't to me respect us and the taxpaying citizen said foreign aid all over the world even when they cannot provide the most basic services.

ameritech needs to turn around fast. it needs to combat america and needs change. change. and that is why i am running. [applause] [chanting] first we will repeal and replace obama care. [cheers and applause] the architect of the bombing care from two years ago, hit men did obama said if you

like your doctor you can keep your doctor. remember? he promised it would reduce premiums by $200,500. instead they went up by over $5,000 and people cannot afford it. and now, i did you here yesterday? of all people, president

bill clinton came out and told the truth about obama care. yesterday. he is absolutely trashing president obama is signature legislation. remember hillary clinton said it was one of the greatest accomplishments of the democratic party give me a break. d.c. what is happening with your premiums going through the roof? sixty or 80 percent. but clinton has a much different view. this was yesterday. he said it was a crazy system where people end up with premiums that are double and coverage cut in half. he is right. he said it is the craziest

thing in the world these are his exact words by the way. for bill clinton said, the people out there are busting 60 hours per week and why did their premiums double and the coverage cut in half? the people that are getting killed in this deal or small business and individuals who make just a bit too much money so they have to get the subsidies. he is right actually. right? and bill clinton added bit does not make any sense from the insurance model does not work. at least he is honest. key is very late but in the meantime he wants to double down the bombing care. i bet he went through hell last night can you imagine?

can you imagines? can you imagine what he went through after making that statement? he went through hell but honestly there have been many nights when he has gone through hell with hillary. [applause] so honestly want to thank him for being on the citizen dash secret that is exactly what he said which is why on my first day of officer will ask republican congress to send me a bill to immediately repealed and replaced obama care. [cheers and applause]

this is essential for arizona because with the obama care most of the state will only have one carrier next year. they are all leaving every insurance company is pulling out. premiums are expected to go way above 50% next year. good luck. you better hope donald trump wins. you better get out there and vote and by the way above 50% your deductible is so high you can never use that unless it is a really low blow dash up you could never use it. the deductible is so high you can never use that you are paying far more and you are getting nothing. that is why the early

ballots are mailed out october 12th in arizona because you need to mail them back as soon as you can [cheers and applause] next, very important for this date, and this is where i made my first major speech when i decided to run for president. [cheers and applause] we had a massive crowd everybody was surprised day remember? we had a crowd almost the size of this one we had a massive crowd and a lot of people like real professionals said i think we just met your next president. they could not believe it.

we went around with 17 people and one by one by one now we're down to one. one person. [applause] it is the difference between making america a great again and having a failed nation because she will create a failed nation. for more years of obama care we cannot take it. she will be worse i think she will be worse than president obama. next we will unleash american energy. with the energy that produces in colorado the people here and there and in our country are amazing. they are great they are incredible people.

and these leaders in the energy field are begging with the government to create jobs and wealth that it is virtually impossible. as part of the plan to reach 4% growth we can do much better to create 25 million new jobs we will lift restrictions on shale oil, natural gas, clean coal sowed jobs that produce american energy. fixing our trade deals is the foundation of our economic revival. june 16 last year flood of the primary things was immigration and illegal immigration. the other thing is our trade deal we had the greatest negotiators in the world but

we don't use them. we use political hacks. china. japan. europe. their printing huge sums of money with the devaluation of currency is staggering for what represents for this country and our citizens. they take our businesses away and drops away. we are not on a level playing field and the politicians to understand what the hell is going on. the ones that do will not do anything about it because they're taken care of by the company's. our jobs are being lost and we are not making things in america like we used to not even close and we will change that. [cheers and applause]

to much is made in other countries. and i am president we will start making things in america again. [cheers and applause] companies like apple and others will start making their computers in our country. [cheers and applause] for our nation has lost one-third of the manufacturing jobs since bill clinton signed in after one of the worst trade deals ever any time or any place. pet is the deal that is heavily supported by signing of nafta was perhaps the single worst trade deal ever made not just this country but anywhere in the world it wiped out manufacturing in our country and we will do a lot about that.

it also cost another 100,000 jobs in was south korea for us it was catastrophic. look at the jobs we lost on that. sense china enter the world trade organization, as 70,000 factories have shut down or left united states. that has to be a misprint. 70,000? shutdown. fifteen factories closing per day. and bill clinton made a very

tough. never in history has they surrendered so much wealth and jobs as the factories leave our money leaves with them and job dissipates. schools suffer the tax base erodes wages fall and the quality of life and declines we have people right now in this room making more money 18 years ago with one good job but the company last -- they left. and now they're working harder, their older they have to jobs sometimes three jobs and making less money. the only thing that i can say, if you think this is

not work. his work. but i see the end and i see the results and we will win on november 8 to making america great again. we have rebuilt other countries at the expense of our own and that will not happen anymore. we will get along. look at china it drains money out of west. but yet they built a massive military base in the south china sea they're not supposed to do that they take the money then do whatever they want. look at iran we have made them rich and strong and powerful spend a taunt us

and capture our sailors except all those payments started a $150 billion the $400 million of cash and then it turns out to be wrong it was $1.7 billion in cash. [booing] that led cash would fill up that side of the renin nobody has ever seen like it. what do they do? there in such bad shape they taunt us. they have their jet fighters so they feel emboldened so instead of saying thank you very much they feel emboldened we will make sure

they do the right thing. it is a whole different ball field. it is so sad to see what has happened to our country that is why the congressional medal of honor. what a great guy. the recipients of the congressional medal of honor those 200 admirals' they are endorsing us because they are sick and tired of us being weak and very stupid. led by people who don't have a clue led by a man who cannot use the term radical islamic terrorism. if it is sad companies like carrier or general electric or motorola and so many others are moving jobs to

mexico and other countries. as you stand here they are negotiating to leave the united states. that will not have been now for has announced two weeks ago it is moving all the small car transportation production to mexico. that is on top of the massive $2 billion from two years ago that is what i will win ohio and michigan because two years ago, . [cheers and applause] [chanting]

[chanting] ok. get him out. is there a doctor in the house? get a medically is. -- medic please. a doctor, please? to 20 thank you very much. >> [applause] is he okay? he looks tough to me. [applause]

some of these people have been waiting here 10 hours. and it is hot. the other day they said on television donald trump was making a speech and all looked like he was sweating. it was 109 degrees. what my going to? it is hot in here. we love you. thank you. that is why i think we will win the state of michigan and ohio because i have spent talking about the car business and the car production capacity and talking about it six years and you look at what is happening. mexico is like the eighth wonder of the world.

i have a friend to build plants he knows what is going on in mexico what about the united states could see said not so much. we want to mexico of to do great. but it has to be the two-way highway. so we will bring back car production and win michigan and ohio. we are up in ohio by the way. [cheers and applause] and also an arizona. [cheers and applause] we will renegotiate and if we don't get the deal we will want we will withdraw immediately from nafta and start all over again and create a much better trade

deal. [cheers and applause] nafta is under the vat system it has been that way for many years. and when we sell into mexico we are charge of that tax. when they sell and to us they get no tax. that is why you don't see them coming the opposite direction. so why didn't people like hillary clinton renegotiate that deal with mexico right away? we will also stand up and to this single biggest threat of currency manipulation and nobody does that better than china.

we will apply tariffs and taxes. jobs will leave from other countries and come back into the united states. believe me for. [applause] factories will, rushing home from school sang communities to be revitalized and our citizens will get new jobs and higher pay with a brand new hope for their lives. [cheers and applause] then i want to say where it is jan? thank-you governor. that is a good group. everybody. joe. a great supporter from the beginning.

but to be a rich nation we must also be a secure nation. security begins at the border. right, joe? [cheers and applause] asia and that does not control its borders is not a nation at all. a country that does not protect its people just isn't a country. our government that does not put it in its own, remember when the government doesn't put its own citizens first it makes them onward the and unfit to lead its people. totally. look at the crime, look at the drugs look at how the youth is poisoned.

not only the youth but those of low and from the border. heads will spend. here are heartbreaking examples countless americans would be alive today if not for the open border policies of hillary clinton m. barack obama. , and n everybody. enjoy yourself. pick-up your health care. this includes incredible american lives like 121 year-old the man who killed

her entered federal custody than was released into united states community under the policies abroad obama, a hell of a clinton and this administration. he was released again and now he is out large nobody has a clue to where he is. graduating from college just one day before with a 4.o grade average number one in her class. and she dade -- died one day after graduation killed by a vicious animal that should not have been out. the mown the victims of the open border policy was a 21

year-old convenience store clerk. murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member, by the way the drug lords and the gang members a number one. they are out. they are going back to the country that they came from which hillary clinton would refuse to do. she would not pressure the country's to say we don't want them. she refuses to take them so we take them back. fast you will not even

believe it. [applause] but was killed by an illegal thing member convicted of burglary and also had been released from federal prison. another victim gunned down in a sanctuary city san francisco deported five previous times. sanctuary cities will be defunded quickly. [cheers and applause] that is the case of the 90 year-old who was brutally beaten and savagely attacked led to bleed to death in his home the perpetrators were illegal immigrants with criminal records who did not

meet the obama administration parties even though everybody said get them out fast. in california a 64 year-old airforce veteran was sexually assaulted and beaten to death with a hammer. the killer was arrested on multiplications but -- multiple occasions. also my friend in california lost his son at the age of 17 the football player and a student getting scholarships walking home to see his father viciously shot and killed by an illegal immigrant but was not

deported from our country nobody even knows what is happening with this. a 2011 report from the gao found illegal immigrants in our jails are around 25,000 homicide arrest fifth there are more than 2 million chameleons when i have president we will get them out and get them out fast. [cheers and applause] [chanting] [chanting]

we're going to build a wall. [cheers and applause] believe me. are you ready? who will build a low wall? we will they will pay for it . they don't know that yet. the mexican people are incredible. between the border and trade tremendous. we don't do anything about it. did not know what they're doing their incompetence. pdf when you look at the trade deficit you will understand exactly because

it is peanuts compared to the trade deficit that we have. if you want something built and will be in one form or another you can count on that 100 percent. illegal immigration cost more than $113 billion per year. the money that we will spend on illegal immigration over the next 10 years we can provide 1 million common now this is something that is important, risk students with a voucher with education to help rebuild inner-city is. we could do so much with that money and at the same time for our country is infiltrated right now by

terrorist by taking thousands and dozens of people into our country, we have no idea who they are or where they come from. just yesterday and immigrants from bangladesh was charged with the plot of isis high-risk regions have been implicated from inside the united states since 11. the terrorist to planted the of bomb in new york and new jersey they were foreign nationals admitted into the country as was the shooter in washington. look at the cases of the boston bombers for asylum or san bernadine no shooting. remember they gave the shower for the baby?

for those same people were shot and killed and they were here. from saudi arabia. whoever heard blacks' she probably radicalized him. also the supporter from afghanistan i will keep the terrorist the hell out of our country. [cheers and applause] >> hillary clinton wants a 550% increase of syrian refugees. she is for open borders, i

am not running to be president of the world i am running to be president of the united states of america [cheers and applause] for the first time in american history we have the endorsement of the ice officers and a border patrol progress so many people have endorsed us over the short period of time and see what is happening and what is going on. they see that movement but they have never seen anything like it. they are not happy they have not seen anything like what is happening right now and it is embracing -- a great

thing. don't we love that blacks? we will build a wall. and we are going to keep our people save. the chaos and violence and crime will come to when and beginning january 2017. [cheers and applause] and we're going to end the of government corruption. hillary clinton with your e-mail's is open to foreign hacking but then she destroyed 303,000 females after the subpoena and lied to congress under oath. . .

from the banana republic and today we learned that the fbi made a deal and it was a side deal that people didn't know about with clinton's top aides, that it was okay for them to destroy their laptops. this was just reported. hillary clinton is the ringleader of a criminal enterprise that has corrupted our government at the highest levels and the american people have one chance to stop what's

going on. send your ballots in now and get out and vote on november 8. [cheering] get out and vote. you have to vote. don't let them take this away from us, folks because they may talk about this great movement like they have never seen but you know what, if we lose it was a big waste of time, energy and at least in my case a lot of money. we are also going to fix our inner cities. 45% of african-american youth live in poverty. 58% of african-american youth don't have jobs. more than 3000 people have been shot in the city of chicago since the beginning of the year, think about since january. 3000 people have been shot in

obama's hometown. homicides are up nearly 50% in washington d.c. and more than 60% in baltimore and all other cities it's a disaster. the democrats like hillary clinton have run the inner cities for 50, 60, 70 and in some cases more than 100 years. they have produced only more -- failing schools and rising crime. they have horribly failed and abused our african-american and latino communities. to those african-americans and latinos suffering in our country , i say very simply what the hell do you have to lose? vote for donald trump. i am going to fix this. i am going to fix this. it can't get much worse and i tell you what have you got to

lose? i'm going to fix fix it. to everyone in the country i can almost say the same thing, you look at our massive debt. you look at our depleted military, the greatest people people on the earth are depleted military. you look at what they want to do with our 2nd amendment. you look at so many things. you look at our borders better in some cases nonexistent and i can say the same thing, what the hell do you have to lose? you look at $400 million in cash being paid. you look at the 1.7 million because when they said 400 they made a mistake. you look at people that were going to be deported, 800 people that were going to be deported for a very serious reasons that they made a mistake and instead of deporting these people, guess what? they made them proudly united states citizens.

but like the $400 million in cash, can you imagine what that looks like? like they were wrong with that, they were wrong with 800 people because now they are saying it was 1700 people that were going to be deported and are now united states citizens. so i really do, i say to you folks, i don't want to be negative but what the hell do you have to lose? [applause] we will have safe communities for everyone. school choice for your children. we are going to buy the way and common core and bring education forward. [applause] we are going to make great trade deals that bring jobs into our country and not out of our

country. they will come into our country, folks, into our country. everyone will be included in the new american dream. here are the amazing things that we are going to do for our country starting in 2017. we are going to have the biggest job creating tax cut since ronald reagan and in some ways even bigger. [applause] hillary clinton is going to raise your taxes very substantially. we are going to eliminate every unnecessary regulation which is choking our companies and she wants to increase regulations. stop the jobs from leaving our country and going to other countries. if they want to do that, it's fine but there will be retributions. there will be consequences. it's not going to be very easy

or cheap for them to send their products back into our country after all those people are let go. we are going to repeal and replace job-killing obamacare. we are going to make childcare affordable. we are going to save our 2nd amendment which is under siege. [applause] we are going to support the great men and women of law enforcement. [applause] we will rebuild our depleted military and take great care finally of our veterans. [applause] and we are going to appoint justices of the united states supreme court who will uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. [applause]

we are going to rebuild america. we are going to revitalize america. we are going to unite america. imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people under one god, saluting one american flag. [applause] [chanting] >> you are going to look back at this rally for the rest of your life. you were going to remember this day. we are going to make history. this is a movement like nobody has ever seen before.

[applause] history will be made. you are going to look back at this event and you were going to look back more importantly on november 8 when you cast your vote and you were going to say it is the single greatest of vote that you have ever cast and it is the most important vote that you have ever cast. [applause] you are going to be proud of your country again and you were going to be proud hopefully of your president again. [applause] a vote for me is a vote for change and a vote for me is really and truly a vote for you.

that's what it is. [applause] you are voting to believe in yourself. a vote for common sense government, solutions to problems is what we need. it's a vote for jobs. it's a vote for a government of, for and by the people. altogether we are going to make america wealthy again. we are going to make america strong again. we are going to make america safe again and we are going to make america great again. we love you. november 8, god was you. god bless you. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> hillary clinton the white house the rest of the world will never forget why they have always looked up to the united states of america.

>> before the second debate between hillary clinton and donald trump we are looking back at the past presidential debates saturdays on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. saturday the 1992 town hall debate between president george h.w. bush, arkansas governor bill clinton and businessman ross perot.

>> 1 dollar an hour for labor no environmental or pollution controls in a retirement. and you don't care about anything but making money there will be a gap going south. if indeed the jobs are going to move south because there are lower wages there are lower wages now and haven't done that. i just negotiated with the president of mexico. the north american free trade agreement. >> grow the economy and reduce the deficit by controlling health care costs, cuts in domestic programs and as for the wealthiest americans and foreign corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. >> it for national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we tried every other course and we are sure military action will succeed and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits.

>> i would take the use of force very seriously. i would be guarded in my approach. i don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. i think we have got to be very careful when we commit our troops. >> the 2012 debate between president barack obama and massachusetts governor mitt romney. >> and we do what i'm planning on doing which is giving us energy independent, north america energy independence within eight years you are going to see manufacturing jobs come back. >> we can't just produce benefits. we have also got to look to the future and that's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. by the middle of the next decade in a car you buy you will end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas.

last night candidates in the indiana governor's race met in their second of three debates. democrat debates. democrat john greg, republican eric holden and libertarian wreck spell are running for the seat left vacant by vice presidential candidate mike pence. during the debate a g.o.p. candidate lieutenant governor holcombe was asked about governor pence's decision on syrian refugee resettlement in indiana. here's part of what he had to say. >> what's happening in serious heartbreaking at the least and we know through intelligence that isis continues to try to do not only americans harm but others harm as well so while i understand where governor pence was when he made the decision, balancing and making sure we are keeping americans safe and when you hear the fbi director stand up for the country and say we don't know, if they are infiltrating this network dienger stingray came from but will continue to honor the

court's decision. we visited longwood virginia and spoke with some of those connected to the college.debate >> host: our first guest of the morning at the university ryan stouffer along with university he has the communications assistant professor in joining us, said mr. stouffer good morning. >> guest: good morning pedrodo how are you doing today? little

>> host: talk about your role as a professor in the debate is specifically what if you've been teaching her students about not only the debate but that this year's election? >> guest: my area for researcht: is political communications of the semester i've been teaching a class where we look at how the candidates communicate so we haven't so much looked at how the students feel about the candidates or issueses particularly about about how their candidates are talking about issues of b.c. about issues of b.c. this year especially with hillary clinton and donald trump a lot of character appeal, candidates talking about the personality qualities they have to become president is supposed tod policies are specific things i. i've been able to talk about that of my one class and of course through my other classes as well.ac i teach a lot of journalism and so such obviously leading news story of the day and alsoo day, becoming and longwood an exciting time to analyze the media on politics as well. >> host: as your students

eager in your communication or journals classes are they going to be directly involved in tonight's event? >> guest: they are. a lot of her students are working for "cnn" and for fox. . we have students doing the pool feed for the broadcasters and we have students that will be in the trailer with them. i know we have students driving golf courts around and shuttling people around so being a media focus major we have students all over the place and getting an unbelievable opportunity with the mehgan campus. >> host: to could you talk about the significance of the university and the world that is played in the hosting of the debates? i >> guest: yeah so we are one of the 100 oldest public institutions in the country and on one end of our country isn where the civil war ended in the other end brown versus board of education versus board of education got it starts versus board of education got it starts that we have a lot of civil rights history. being the type of campus and being such a clinically activein and historic state of virginia

the campus in the narrative itself is played a large role in attracting the debate and also attracting the media attention here. i know we have been blessed to have three networks during the live broadcast. more than that even doing the lab ruckus on the campus of the narrative of history and havingn connected civil rights in the civil war and where we are going now especially with their general education reforms along with the narrative has played a large role in attracting the vice presidential debate. >> host: in the involvement of your students use that specificr week we engage maybe on personal politics but have they expressed an interest in voting this year and will they be first-time voters and when it's about their specific role in the electoral process what you think it will mean to the students? >> guest: i think i have 22 students in my class and i asked from day one how many of you are registered to vote? i think 17 of them are registered to vote in last week

i force them on the computer lab to sit down and register to vote so all 22 are registered to vote i think for the most part our students are engaged. a lot of them it's the first presidential election they will have the opportunity to vote in. i think they're getting sick of the candidates. we have a different year in terms of the wake candidates are talking to voters in the amount of media coverage the candidates candideen getting. we are inundated with the coverage of both of the candidates. their political leanings are pretty strong to the left that they are definitely engaged and excited for the election and excited to have the opportunityt to vote. >> host: as someone who studied political communications talk a little bit about mike pence and tim kaine. what do you gather and what do you tell your students about what to expect and what do you tell the audience as well? >> guest: well it's going to be interesting night tonight.e t we started last monday inhofe stretch and we had a debate

mostly focused on character issues. we did have clinton addressing some policy issues but tonight will be interesting because we will get a lot more policy information.ce does. is mike pence going to go the republican party platform or expand on some of donald trump's policies? trump' i'm not quite sure what he will be discussing tonight but traditional republican party or expanding on donald trump or even releasing new policies from donald trump. i think obviously the religious factor is going to come up a loe both tim kaine a mic pence, religion plays a large part in their governing and their previous political life. that issue is going to come up a lot tonight so i think we will see a lot of different debates than we did last monday and we have seen in coming weeks. it will be much more policy focused and a lot more religious focus. it will be unlike any other

debate we will see in 2016. >> host: ryan stouffer is, with professor professor and litigation studies with an interest not only in politics but tonight's debate. mr. stouffer thanks for yourk time. >> guest: thank you so much, pedro. >> host: the editor-in-chief of the -- good morning.gu >> guest: good morning, how are you? >> host: tell us about the rotunda, what it is and what do you cover? >> guest: well we are at theper. longwood university student run newspaper. we circulate about 500 papers a week. we are weekly paper in reprint every monday. >> host: with tonight's debate , what are your coverage plans for it?t' d have you plan to attack coverage? >> guest: well actually we have a plan to have four people in the media filing center.

we all got credentials for it. unfortunately or fortunately all three of us, three out of four people got tickets to go into. the debate hall so we will be able to have an amazing see that most students will not have so one of us will be left alone in the media center to send off the debate is as it's going on. >> host: talk about leading up to the debate. how was your publication been covering this and having a chance to talk to the candidates themselves? >> guest: we haven't had a chance to talk to the candidates themselves unfortunately but leading up to the debate we havb done a lot of security coverage that if that's a major concern on campus and also talking about trying to inform the campus about the different candidatesue such as features on the vice presidential candidates and also hillary clinton and donald trump we are trying to make sure that our campus is informed on the politics and what's going on out there and their dances on policies. >> host: what has been the mood on the campus for this debate? >> guest: you know that's a

little bit of a tricky subject. actually, probably half of our campus has been very vocal about their complaints towards the disruption on classes and things like that with the security perimeter but a lot of other people are excited about the opportunity. i know the rotunda of the majority of us are very happy that the debate is here especially since we all want to go in careers with the media and the opportunities we have been provided, my immediate are then chosen some of us are written with "cnn" and fox rated to great opportunity for us and we really recognize that. >> host: you mention security twice. talk about your coverage in what is the security around the venue and what are the concerns about it? >> guest: just the security perimeter. people have been worried since there've been a few bombings ins other areas. we just get little nervous. we have just been talking about the amount of public safety officials who have been coming

to campus and the coalitionpu between farmville police, the county sheriff's office and police departments in their efforts to keep us safe. and about the volunteering to a lot of police officers are doing better coming from other agencies. that was an interesting aspect that i got to cover last week. >> host: so as far as you and your colleagues sitting in the debate hall tonight what are the stories stemming from the debate tonight? >> guest: for me i am personally writing an editorial column about the student perspective. we have a special edition vice presidential debate that reflects experience coming out on thursday that we are trying to put together an outsider that we are going to talk about hopefully the protests happening on campus especially at the barricades. a lot of us were at hofstraa university for the firstun presidential debate so he saw a lot of options for opportunities

for coverage here that we hope repeats itself and we are allowed to look at. >> host: have we already seen protests have been? >> guest: there was a gary johnson supporter protest yesterday i believe and that happened on high street. so that was pretty exciting. >> host: halle parker theat l editor-in-chief at longwood university. part of the plans leading up to the coverage in tonight's debate on how her team will cover it afterwards. ms. parker thanks for your timer and thank you also for spending time with us this morningth outside of our c-span bus. >> guest: thank you so much. >> we are pleased to be joined by the present of longwood university taylor reveley the fourth joining us and welcome to c-span.guest:

>> guest: well, good morning. this is a fantastic day here and longwood. >> host: tell us about the preparations are in it university has made for tonight's event. >> guest: we have been working on this for a year and this is a grand culmination. the campus has an electric field this morning and it's just great. this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for students. >> host: how much has the university invested in the preparations?r our st >> guest: to meaningful investment. the debates this cycle is about $5 million which is right about what we are spending. >> host: as far as that goes here's concerned why that high for figuring how much of that figure goes to security? >> guest: a meaningful part of it certainly goes to security and you can imagine all the reasons why.

this is a date known far in advance and a lot of it goes into obviously the production value of the tv event itself and then a lot of it goes to the ip infrastructure to make sure it's in robot shape. >> host: we have been showing viewers this morning pictures of the hall the debate is taking place. can you tell us about it? >> guest: yeah it's a beautiful spot.t is we usually use it for basketball but it has also got an academic wing to it. willis hall and obviously for tonight it has been turned into this intergalactic tv studio and a lot of our students are going to be in the hall tonight, whicr really does make me proud. >> host: do you get the sense that their students realize the importance of having this debate here and what is the campus done at the university done to prepare them for that?

>> guest: they really do. they really do. the thing i'm the most proud of along with -- we have a huge array of courses and you can hear the students cheering right now. dedicated specifically to themes of the election and themes of the debate and i think ourur students at this point understand that this may well be one of the most important vice presidential debates in our lifetime, given the importance of the issues, the age honestly of the presidential candidates and the experience of the vice presidential candidates. .. the n sense excitement of students. what is your advice to students post-debate? do you want them to take away from it? uest: i want them to take away

enjoying tonight, an hour and a realof what i hope will be substance, a real measure of civility, a real >> a real change of ideas. those have been in short supply in 2016 with all of the exotic dimensions of the 2016 race. i hope they really relish that and see that themselves as a pattern for the future.ing >> host: the president of longwood university, the side of the debate tonight. president, thank you for your time this morning and thank you for being on c-span. >> guest: absolutely. thank you. >> the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump a. >> with hillary clinton in the white house the rest of the

world will never forget why they have always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 20,162,016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kane, tonight from longwood university in farmville, virginia. this begins at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. at 8:3e briefing for the audience. at nine p.m., live for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by your reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on c-span, watch live in any time on demand at c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app.

>> c-span's washington journal, live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this wednesday morning, we are getting your reaction to the first and only vice presidential debate between senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence. join governor mike pence. join the conversation with phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. watch washington's journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> first ladies is the name of the book, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. mark, executive producer producer of c-span, what is this? >> guest: it is a book called first ladies in influence an image. we have taken every single program from presidencies and biographers of first ladies and taken them and putting them into narrative form in each chapter. every first lady has a chapter in which you learn about their biographer he which includes --

it includes great influence, some have less of an influence. >> host: wasn't hard to find records on first ladies? spee-02 some for slaters it's easy. abigail adams you go up to the massachusetts historical society and they have thousands of letters between her and john adams where she is lobbying him to remember the ladies. she is lobbing him on issues of slavery. martha washington had lots not so many letters. you go from one extreme to the other. the further further in time you see the adaptation of technology on the role of the first lady begins to emerge as well. now you have a very public role for most first ladies. in the past they could get away if they wanted to be behind the scenes and not due to much. they can't do that anymore. >> former first lady is running for president. >> the chapter on hillary clinton for anyone who wants to know how she approaches campaign, how she approaches politics, you read that chapter, one you know right away that she is the most famous women of the the world. the most well-known woman in the world. gail sheet she is with her on

the campaign trail. it shows how hillary reacted. the things that i think she would rather not have happened but she goes on the attack. it shows a very savvy first lady and politician even back in 92. >> host: what did you learn during the series and working on the book? >> guest: my favorite stories are the ones where when i knew nothing about the first ladies whatsoever. lucy hayes is known as lemonade lucy. she is deeper than that. she is someways ahead of her time. she is pushing -- someone like grace coolidge is almost a rock star and her time. she is the opposite of calvin coolidge. you learn even about the matter first ladies. lady bird johnson and offers ladies, they all sort of go back

to her as a role model because she is one of the first two takes on causes. eleanor roosevelt does but then there is a little bit of a break taking on a cause. lady bird takes on this cause and people think of it as a beautification. it is really, really environmentalist. so i learned that they really do play a role. the public stage in the public that they have now they can get a lot done. >> host: what is the involvement of historian richard norton smith? >> guest: he is a great friend of ours. his idea for the series, he is a guest on the martha washington program. he is a guest on the betty ford program and he makes a good point. it comes out when you read this book that some first ladies when you think about it probably had as much if not more influence on the way we live our lives. look at betty ford. she comes out for era, she is ahead of the curve of the first lady. she's not actually same things that joe ford wants to hear. but then you think about her causes after her time in the white house. substance abuse, and in a way she has had an effect on a lot

of peoples lives may be more than some presidents have. >> host: here's the book, first ladies, presidential historians, presidential historians on the wives of 45 iconic american women. it is now available at your favorite bookseller and online.u >> joining us now to talk about this debate that will take place of coverage at c-span at 7:30 p.m. is a joshua of purdue university. an assistant professor of media politics.an you talk abou can you talk about what phases both mike pence and tim came tonight as they face off in the debate? >> guest: the first thing for mike pence and tim kaine is introducing themselves to the voters. recent public opinion polls show that over 40% of the american public does not know who these two individuals are. outside of indiana for mike pence and outside of virginia for tim kaine, no one knows exactly who they are and in what way they contribute to the ticket with donald trump and

hillarycte e clinton. that would be the first big task. the second big task will be to pump up the top of the ticket. for mike pence it will be a full throated defense of donald trump. potentially meaning defending the recent release of donald trump's tax returns or the top sheet of the tax returns. for tim kaine and might be addressing some of the concerns with hillary clinton's e-mails as well as hillary clinton's's perceived trust issues.ate those will be the two big things that both of these and beat pete nominees will do tonight. >> host: with those that you mention, do you then expect a sharp debate between these two candidates?he >> guest: in a lot of ways the sharpness of the debate comes at the top of the ticket. at the bottom of the ticket the purpose of these two individuals is defending the parties of presidential nominees. so there will be some points of

contrast as we would expect with a political debate. in a lot of ways the sparks will be saved. for the top of the ticket. >> host: our guest is joining us to talk about tonight's debate, the role of the debate when it comes to vice presidential candidates and other topicst related to that. 202-748, 8000 if you support donald trump or 8001 if you support hillary clinton. professor, put the vice presidential debate and contacts in terms of history. what. what is history tell us about these debates and is theres anything from that that we can watch for tonight? >> guest: the first thing from history about the vice presidential debate is that they are not as well viewed as of the presidential debate. in terms of recent public opinion polls, individuals, approximately approximately 60% of individuals say they are

interested and or will watch the debate. however tonight that is down from what we would expect for a presidential debate. i would not anticipate that we would get north of 84 million individuals watching it as we did at the debate of hofstra last week. but i think that a good number of individuals will be tuning in tonight to see these two individuals square off. >> host: when it comes to numbers then if i read it correctly, the highest watched debates is when joe biden met sarah palin. >> guest: that is correct. in 2008 the meeting between sarah palin and joe biden was the most-watched vp debate in history. a few interesting things aboutut that debate that really drew audiences them. the first one on the democratic side, the historic nature of the contest between the nomination of barack obama. on the republican side it was the historic nature of the nomination of sarah palin. as the first woman republican vice presidential nominee. so those are the two dynamic set

really drew individuals to want to watch of the vp debate in 2008. >> host: when it comes to past debates, is there a standout in your mind other than the one between vice presidential biden and sarah palin? spee-02 i would say there's a number of particular moments in debate history that we might look to as examples that could shed light on the current contest. for example in 198084, the vice presidential debate between the covenant george hw bush and geraldine ferraro stands out as the first instance where you have a man and a woman facing off in a vice presidential debate. in that particular context george hw bush was attacked for being patronizing towards congresswoman ferraro. that. that would be one of those firs. instances where we might be able to shed light on what is goingld

on in the current contest. the other that i would say is an important debate to consider here's the 2004 debate between vice president dick cheney and senator john edwards. in that particular debate there were sparks. and that's and that's for number of reasons. one of the main one being that m john edwards invoked dick cheney's family and that debate and much to the surprise of dick cheney was able to shut down that line of conversation very quickly.presiden we might have those similarly uncomfortable moments tonight, particularly if the vice presidential nominees are pushed on some of the controversiesvice related to the nominees at the top of the ticket. >> host: again were talking about the vice presidential debates. vice president candidates as if they meet tonight.

our guest mentioned that matchup between them vice president dick cheney and senator john edwards, here's a portion of that debate. >> now it answer this question, i may say first that i think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. i think they love her very mucha and you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they are willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her, it is a wonderful thing. there are millions appearance like that who love their children, who want theird children to be happy.

i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and so does john carey. i also believe there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples and in long term committed relationships. but we should not use the constitution to divide this country. no state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another states marriage. this is states marriage. this is using the constitution as a political tool and it is wrong. >> again if you want to watch the debates and focal to our website at c-span.org. our first call is charles in new york, and york, and underside of border. good morning, you are on with our guest. >> caller: hello. my name is charles. i see stores in new york) i think donald trump should be a president. we. we need people who can keep things open and donald trump i've been watching what he is says and i agree that everything he says. he's a good guy. guy. i like to see him become president. >> host: charles, what do you think about his vice presidential pick with mike pence? >> caller: i think it's a good idea. >> host: why so? three well i been watching things and i like some of the things he says. i agree with most of the stuff he says.

>> host: about mike pence, he has a political record including that of being head of the state of indiana, how much of that comes into play tonight? >> guest: executive experience is important for many reasons. one being that from many ways politics mike pence has more experience and donald trump rated he is also a former congressman so he has navigated the halls of capitol hill. in those particular ways that is partly why he was selected as donald trump vice presidential nominee. the other key thing here is that in many ways mike pence of balances the ticket, both ideologically as a rocket ribiv conservatives in the republican party, but also as a midwestern governor. mike pence as part of the execution of a strategy on the part of the trump campaign to win voters in the midwest. particularly voters in ohio and michigan.

>> host: peter from michigan,, and undecided voter, go ahead. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? may i suggest that tim kaine is a joe biden -- [inaudible]t is a >> guest: in terms of what is a joe biden catholic. from what i understand from the usage of the term it is an individual who personally subscribes to the belief that life begins at conception or believes in pro-life principles. as a matter of policy supports reproductive rights for women, supports pro-choice positions. that is what i believe would be

the cloak of dualism of the joe biden catholic. >> host: the new york times highlights the fact that mr. pence's race catholic, he turned toward evangelical christianity. mr. kane went to jesuit school and was a missionary. on this case we might see ar debate over religious issues ani faith matters. >> guest: i think that is a fair assessment. you will see both candidates talk about faith as a matter of policy. in terms of how it applies to and inspires their policy. for mike pence pence he ran his campaigns in indiana based on his evangelical faith.h. similarly on the campaign trail, tim kaine has also talked about his catholicism as anabout inspiration for his drive fort social justice issues, not only in the u.s. senate but also as governor, former governor of the state of virginia. >> host: wheel here next from howard. howard is in west virginia, supportive donald trump talking about tonight's vice presidential debate.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to say that many people in america that i have spoken to and heard from others, we need a nonpolitician in office. one, to change policies from all geared towards politicians. yet he needs people around him that knows what is going on in the world. such as politicians. but we need someone in the office to represent us, the the working class america. we are being left behind is a middle-class person and i think trump will help us in thatect aspect. i live in a rural area, i know, i see things in this area, how we are being oppressed.

so that is my comment. >> host: anything you would like to add, professor? >> guest: i think one of the big things that americans all acrosg the country realize at election time is that there are individuals who not only show their beliefs, often times in our neighborhoods but also on the social networking platforms that we have read there also many americans out there who might ascribe to a different philosophy or different belief about the way the political process should work. so, i also hear from many individuals, my, my students for example or other individuals that i talked to, a variety of particular perspectives. i think that the color makes a really important point that there are issues in appellation, there are issues in rural america and the united states that remain unaddressed and

should be addressed. i think it is important that the candidates speak to those issues, not only to night in the vice presidential debate but also at the top of the ticket. also individuals should take the time as well to seek out opinions that they might not necessarily agree with. in that way it will be very important to then come together after this election and understand where we are all coming from. >> host: a supporter of hillary clinton in virginia is next. >> caller: hello. i am supporting hillary. i'm very frightened by the rhetoric coming from donald trump.te he really appears to me that he is unhinged. i think there could be danger. no will have a nuclear code, what he is doing with nato, what he says he wants to do with nato. furthermore, the continuouss lies, line hillary, come on? every other word out of trump's mouth is untrue yet people cut him slack. it slack.

it is like you are listening to a 4-year-old. >> host: if i can ask you, what you think of tim kane, the choice of hillary clinton for her vice presidential nominee? >> caller: i love tim kaine.d i supported him when he was senator, or when he was a governor and ran for senator four years ago. both he and his wife i was very impressed with. he is a catholic who who believes in the spirit. evangelicals get caught up into this, don't do that, it's all negative instead of where's the charity. where's the charity with the evangelicals when it comes to immigration and refugee's? how do you turn your back on refugees and call yourself a christian? i think it is hypocritical.polii >> host: professor, tim kaine himself having a background in record that could come up in this debate. talk about that. >> guest: tim kaine has established record in the u.s..s

government and the senate. that creates often times an occupational hazard in these particular circumstances. just as mike pence has a record in the state of indiana as well as in the u.s. congress. both of those records will come up tonight particularly when those records appear to contradict the positions at the top of the ticket. i use the example for hear of mike pence on free trade for example. mikemike mike pencef has takene stance on free trade that would appear to be in contradiction with donald trump. not one of the things that vice presidential nominees do, as they very much a meld and moldth their positions to suit the top of the ticket. i think you will see instances tonight where the moderator and where the candidates will try, the vp candidates will try to call out each other for positions that

they have taken in the past that might contradict what theiron partners at the top of the ticket believe. >> host: does your experience tell you that people who watch the vice presidential debate specifically to see how this person would be if they had to become leader of the free world? >> guest: that i think is a fair assessment. one of the big things and one of the big reasons the vp is picked, one of the criteria thee candidates uses thinking about can this person assume the office of the presidency should something happen to the willident. so through that lens many americans will be looking for, t not only for how they defend the top of the ticket but also how do these individuals come off in terms of character and personality. we have to remember that these are also intangibles that voters will pick up on from these debates. >> host: experience was thewa points made during the debate

between dan quayle and lloyd benson back on october 5 of 1988. here is part of that exchange. >> i will be i will be prepared, not only because of my service in the congress but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. it is not just age, it is accomplishments, it is experience. i have far more experience than many others that thought the office of vice president in this country. i have as much experience in the congress as jack kennedy did when he sought the presidency. i will be prepared to deal with the people in the bushtion. administration if that unfortunate event would ever>> occur. >> senator benson? >> senator, i served with jackck kennedy. i knew jack kennedy. jack kennedy. jack kennedy was a friend ofof mine. senator, you are no jack kennedy.

[applause] in a situation like that. >> that was really uncalled for, senator. [applause] obj >> you are the one that was making the comparison, senator. and i am one who knew him well. frankly, i think you are so far apart in the objectives that you choose for your country but i: did not think the comparison was well taken. >> let's go to j in fairfax, new virginia who is undecided voters three good morning. i just wanted to make a comment

that when i see both vice presidential candidates the, think they have have is thaty they are both raised christians. but when it comes to certain topics i feel like one wants to impose his views and beliefs to the rest of society. then the other one would take a step back and how shall he put it, when it comes to abortion, tim kaine is against it but holds the views as his own and pretty much goes by the law of the land. i just find that to be interesting that both candidate. , having similar backgrounds in that aspect would take those different approaches. just a comments. >> host: professor? >> guest: i think it's very v important in terms of understanding where the candidates stand on their religious faith. one of the interesting things about thisle election is the extent to which

individuals are planned to vote along demographic lines. you can see this playing out not only on matters of faith in terms of looking at various religious income lut also looking atat income level across gender, you are seeing these demographics, these bright lines among demographics in terms of who plans to support which particular presidential and vice presidential ticket. in this particular instance, you have a meeting tonight you have two individuals who deeply hold their faith and subscribe to it in different ways in the public sphere. table talk about it, but how it influences their policy and how it influences the implementation of policy is very different when you compare the two candidates. >> host: a supporter of donald trump in south carolina, matt, you are up next. >> caller: yes.. i fully support donald trump.

i'm going to watch the vice presidential debate tonight. >> host: what are you interested in learning most from tonight's debate? >> caller: i'm interested in learning what the views are and about different things and i would really like to know what their views are on trade. their in >> host: professor, do you think a lot of time will be spent learning about their individual views of the candidates rather than defending their running mate? >> guest: i think both candidates tonight will talk about their relationship with the top of the ticket. one of the things that is very important for the vice president to do is to show that there is cohesion between the president and the vice president. you have seen that as well withv the evolution of the vice presidential office. if you look for example at the

role that al gore took him bill clinton's administration versus the role that dick cheney took and versus george w bush's administration versus others, what is highlighted as the old time divisions that often existed between the presidentenn and vice presidential nominees can no longer be afforded in the television age. they can no longer be afforded particularly when the president has to bewhep everywhere, when the president has to speak everywhere, that often times the vice president has to have a consistent agenda, ar that is in concert with the president of the united states. so watching how both of these individuals tonight talk about the top of the ticket, are they talking about them in positive ways in terms of personality? in terms of how well do they know them or how well they have gotten to know them on the campaign trail or off the campaign trail it will be veryin

telling in terms of an indicator of the type of relationship that each of these presidential nominees has to their vice presidential nominee presidential nominee. >> host: houston, texas underline for thoseided undecid. >> caller: good morning gentlemen. first i would like to say that all though i live in houston one of my sons goes to longwood, he, he is a business student over there. it is good to see the college getting some exposure. i'm calling on the undecided line because the people at the top of the ticket when they tale they don't say anything. these people, the vice presidential candidates i have seen them and listen to them and they actually seem to say something when they talk. i am hoping hoping to get someinteren information tonight. >> host: what are you interested in most learning? >> caller: i would like to know

what the main differences between the two. what are they going to do to create jobs in this country? jobs is jobs is the answer to everything. people have a job than they feel worthwhile and they can live a good life. what are we going to do about bringing jobs back to the country. guest: >> >> in many ways that has not happened. manufacturing in the united states for example, still faces stiff foreign competition, however both

candidates tonight have ascribed to the fair trade principles of the passover talk about foreign trade will be a very interesting subject for both of them not only as bill talked about the sum of the other callers as well this is an issueer where it is difficult for the candidates to defense around public opinion. in the republican party has moved away from the course ode position. so what that means that only with the vice presidential candidate tonight and eventually the president will be very important. >> professor from purdue. university talk about tonight's format to end to benefits most quick.

>> in terms of the format i will read argue that they are very experienced by the debaters so mike pence has been through this in terms of his time in the governor's mansion in indianapolis natalie duringin the statewide political campaign but also during his congressional run as well as numerous press conferences and his gaggles with the press during his time in indianapolis but tim kane as well as governor of virginia and u.s. senator all hall -- all high-profile cases. so both of these gentlemen have a lot of experiencece with this format and political debate in and general.

>> and the format tonight quick. >> it will be the moderator asking and i believe between 60 and 92nd questions or response so that will privilege of the candidates have short amy klobuchar responses and i believe in these formats as well if they invoked via their candidate than that candidate can respond to the attack just as the presidential debate. these types of formats and the way that the moderator's engage our right down to the size of the podium are all negotiated by the presidential campaign ahead of time.

>> host: good morning supporter of donald trump. >> caller: mike pence will make a good president if anything would happen to donald trump during the first term because he has a good moral background and he is pretty smart he did a pretty good job in indiana perk i'd like to say one more thing has anybody picked up the news this morning that all refugees from overseas now with the state's half to except all of the refugees said allstate's that is the imperial presidency in my mind and now that we the people we don't have the say >> host: indiana third party supporter good morning >> caller: good morning. i have something to say

about mr. pence with his governorship in indiana. i have been here most of m' life. want and tell he, as i have not seen it was a right to work states that allowed all lots of the unions to go by the wayside without any type of input to get the better package for employment and he is also turndown the schools by utilizing the vouchers in such a way if you are special and the right parents to fill out the application properly to get you into a different school so 20,000 of my tax dollars went to that private school. to meet -- it to me that

goes down the public-school with the out-of-state government takes that out of their hand. it is very essential especially to those who were lacking in many. >> host: professor go-ahead. >> that is an important point with regards to the views of the of men and their home state. virginia has won elections for the of the governor as well as u.s. senator is relatively popular in the commonwealth of virginia. but with mike pence fay did generate some nationalte controversy over the term of is governorship with the passage of the religious

freedom restoration act. and his particular actions with regard to the assyrian refugees. but the republican nominee for governor has backed away from those positions with regard to the assyrian refugees. indiana between more evangelical republicans and the business community republicans who may be turned off with hish policies with the religious freedom restoration act. so that is an important point so to look at how each of the state's fish a view of their u.s. senator with tim kane to get another

perspective on how these two men may govern as vice president. >> host: also the story this morning the legislation it was blocked by a federal court reported by npr and other publications about that attempt by governor pence to block those cyrian refugees. third party supporter go-ahead. >> caller: i am little nervous. i am calling because i willvo vote for joe stein. for not bailing out wall street and with quantitative easing, she is against the fact that if i america in the top 1% only 90% of the

economy is not working for the vast majority and that 90 percent tax to bail out the bankers want that is pretty much what i wanted to say. g >> guest: the influence of the third party will be something we want to watchme in particular to see evidence or lack of evidence because the third party vice presidential nominee is kept off of this stage that is something that is very important for individualscandid. who are considered for the third-party candidate but i will say the commission on presidential debates with those standards with that level of support that candidate needs, that

threshold is 15% in public opinion polls. so the of color who will support stein eye interested to know other third-party individuals, they are watching the debate when the preferred candidate is not on the stage. >> october 13th 1992 the running mate for ross perot.ou t and do you recall that time? >> the comments are very interesting. it is like and who have michael x and of those other vice presidential debates. one of the elements to know that nobody knew who admiral

stock deal was that the same time it would highlight theth way those candidates areed portrayed as on the french. on the of way that we learn about politics in the united states the way we're socialized. we are not socialized to think, of the constitution party candidates.and libertaria so admirals' cocktail while -- stock they'll try to say who he was but fed into the notion of a third-party candidate to be on the fringe of politics.ob >> admiral stockdale your opening statement quick. >> who have michael x. [laughter] imi here? [laughter]

[applause] i am not a politician. everybody knows that don't expect me to use thein language of the washington insider. thirty-seven years in the navy only one of them up there in washington now l. i have an academic been' >> i said was this supporter of the conservative candidate but the debate team match sets this up in perdu i wondered more if you could that i hearken back to just a few months ago watching people over the i united states and politics give graduation speeches in

defense plays into the role of how they have been with the connections between political figures like the obama and mccain and other candidates how they pick the venue and to set up these things. can you explain the ofof politics and the media? >> i am not sure all of the logistics for the university put in bids to the commission on presidential debates. and just to clarify it is the independent pdf

bipartisan group. and to set the standard for these political debates. -- fi and it first began the operation in the late '80s and early 981 dash 96 pair met with different formats. and resaw the town hall format.s to work with t to work with the university's and where these debates can take place in those few words that are watching right now and will watch to night from the length of time for questions and how the rebuttals are handled.

or the of heights of the podiums or how far apart they are that is handled between the commission and the campaign. >> host: another caller. >> caller: thanks forha taking my call. most people have computers but don't look at the history of america.t have and then to be dominated the corporate one% from and then with the white flight to europe that is what you have ireland and to get out of other countries that are winding to dominate. >> host: it is about the umpires presidential debates to night. >> caller: they are both funded by the corporate 1%.

>> host: connecticut voting for hillary clinton. >> caller: good morning. i want to comment the last caller was a little more vociferous but i want people to understand they think a billionaire that dodges taxes and so self-centered will change is wrong.look and if you look back and look at before, i'm sorry, e pr. the debates before they select the president but during that time donald trump said punch him in the face i will pay your vehicle fees. you extrapo if you extrapolate that.

-- legal fees. he will do things his way as the demonstration.s he will put the muscle on everybody. it is very concerning but he will not help the middle class at all and will be a danger because of his past. >> host: if i take away that he will be spent mr. defending the record and policies. >> guest: i would be shocked absolutely shocked if my expenses not ask about donald trump's taxes if for no other reason he has released his taxes. so you see that acntradiction between the president and vice president on the democratic side you have a hillary clinton who has released over 30 years

and 17 who has released his. the only candidate who has not is donald trump. i should point out to the callers that the new york times article related totr tromps taxes noted that his tax loss in 1995 may have made it possible that he did not pay taxes. the key word that nobody knows if donald trump has paid his taxes because he has not released his tax returns and mike pence will have to address just like tin cain will be asked as well about hillary clinton's e-mail for good of first ave she was asked about the use of a private e-mail server and i am guessing tonight that he will be asked about that as well 57 professor in

the presidential debate is it that easy with the vice-presidential debate and how do you determine that quite. ♪ lost based on >> it is never that easy we are believed in it is on the cable networks or blocks or newspapers but things that our important that both campaigns will claim that they one of the debate. so you will see both sides of matter how good or how bad will claim that they won. individuals will use them as of lands so the republicansll te will think at the end of the night that mike pence a one

the debate but democrats will probably believe that tim kaine did better than mike pence. that makes it very difficult to determine who is a winner or loser. keep track of how the candidates answer each individual question. last week donald trump had a very good first 15 minutes talking about trade and economic issues but the remaining part hillary clinton did very well. that is the part that stuffed into the mind of individuals.i think we don't just fall into a horserace up downwind or lose but specifically how the candidates perform with each individual question

>> good evening. from case western

nagged good evening here in cleveland ohio i.m. gwen ifill i welcome you to the first and only vice presidential debate between vice president dick cheney and republican nominee john edwards the democratic nominee.are spons they are sponsored by the commission and tonight it will last 90 minutes balding head details were told by representatives of the candidates. dev i have agreed to enforce the rules to the best of my ability.w the questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic policy the candidates have not been told what they are. for each question there can only be a tim in responsed the 92nd rebuttal and ate discussion extension of one minute a green light will,

on with 30 seconds remained, yellow 15, ratified and flashing red tie and is up. there is also a back up thedi buzzer system needed they may not direct questions to one another there will be a two-minute closing statement but no opening statement. there is an audience here but they are instructed to remain silent. the order of the first question was determined in advance and there is new developments the former head of the coalition authoritywhicha to say we never had enough troops on the of ground. with the of link between now kayak and sit down hussain.

and that there is no connection with saddam hussein's? >> want to thank you for posting this tonight he did a superb job to put that together but like all thev developments in iraq with the global war on terror and after 9/11 became clear we had done the successful strategy specifically to go after the terrorist where we might find them and also the state sponsors of terror and film is to provide a safe harbor and we also had to stand up to democracy because that was the onlyg way to guarantee that they h would become a safe harbor.n the but listed on the state sponsor of terror to

establish relationships to pay $25,000 for to the suicide bombers and establish the relationship with the outside at. c and two years ago we talked about this relationship. and with respect to iran with up possibility it is between the terrorist and the biggest threat that we face today with a nuclear weapon in the lives of hundreds of thousands.end all if i had to for recommend that again in libya's sameis hisrse of action. government is no longer in power. >> thanks for moderating the

debate and all the people in ohio for having us here. mr. vice president you are still not being straight with the american people. the reality of you in george bush to tell people things are going well in iraq faciesi this every single day. we lost more troops in september and more in august and july. more in july than june. and the truth is the men and women in uniform the military has done everything they have been asked to do. there are republican leadersr like john mccain who said iraq is a mess and when asked why richard lugar said

the incompetence of the administration but what paul bremer said yesterday they a didn't have enough to securere the country or have a plan.resha in to make this successful. and then more staff and speed up the of reconstruction.h joh a new president who has credibility to bring us into this effort. >> we have made significant progress. the notion of additional troops but of point of the success of iraq is on return governance over to the iraqi people. they will have freee elections. also to rapid the traininga

on the security responsibility that is crucial to success in a racki and is well under way i am confident. >> mr. vice president there is no connection between the attack of september 11 andm saddam hussein. 9/11 commission has saidta that your own secretary of state said that you go around the country to suggested there is but there is not. now the cia says the connection between loci data and saddam hussein is tenuous at best. and the secretary of defense said yesterday and we need to be straight with the you and senator kerr >> you have said the war of iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time but if you had them president that saddam hussein would still be in power? >> and john kerry and i have

consistently said that. can to be the right way. that meant we were prepared.ect and to find out what we now know. so with osama the modena or oxide or those that attack on september 11.the way, that was the right thing to do but the military performed terrifically but bin n we had him cornered a division in uzbekistan but what do we do quite seek masterminded greatest mass murder and what did the administration decide to do? they gave the responsibility of capturing or killing

osama bin laden to the afghan war lords to just a few weeks before were working with 43. my point is not complicated. we went into afghanistan and very quickly they may aid a decision to divert attention with a planned invasion of iraq.the now listen carefully to what the vice president said. there is no connection between the attacks of saddam hussein and 9/11. the 9/11 commission, colin powell, the vice president keep suggesting that there is.>> mr. v and that is tenuous at best. >> there is not a connection

between iraq and 9/11 butthat' and the point is that you most likely see those terrorist come together with that deadly technology the fact of the matter ist prepared they're not prepared to deal with the state-sponsoreded terror. to look at the military force to defend america we heard senator kerry say there would be a global test before the u.s. troops are deployed. with that track record back at the '70s running for theo first time. then in of did '80s with those major defense programs. it is a consistent pattern overtime.

and little tough talk as part of the presidential debate cannot obscure our record of 30 years. and willing to go forward.d thes and with that strategy to defeat the enemieses guaranteed and then do not get attacked by the likes of outcry as. >> tonight we mention afghanistan and somewhere along the afghan or pakistan border what is your plan to capture him and what has sprung up to replace them ne quite. >> we never let up actively and aggressively capture or kill a kinda -- and we will aggressively pursue them to

get success in afghanistan and also to take down the talent and -- to 20 regime. john edwards after we went into afghanistan announced that it was chaotic with that situation and here we are two 1/2 years later for days away from the democratic election and those that have registered to vote. and that government that will take over next decemberwi with enormous progress in in spite of what john edwards said. he just got a wrong. the fact is we will pursue

osama bin laden as long as necessary with the afghan security forces to keep the u.s. forces there we have 16,000 every day as long as necessary in terms of dealing with the security situation making significant progress. president car's side is an power and they have donewr wonders for the first time ever that they are going to school the women will vote this is major progress no doubt about it that is the best antidote to terror. >> somebody did get a wrong but it wasn't john kerry or john edwards when they had osama bin laden cornered they they left this job to the afghan war loads -- warlord's then diverted the attention to the center of the war on terror while osama bin laden was still at

large.se t because these distortions are continuing. as a mention of the globald test what john kerry said it is clear to anyone who was listening. he said we will find the terrace where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the american people first. we will keep this country safe and defended this country as president of the united states. he also said clearly he will never give any country veto power over the security of united states americathe pres finally he likes to pretend that was not said but it was . here is what actually happened with those rosy scenarios and but now they are providing 75 percent. not only that but large

parts of the country are under the control of drug birds and warlords. there still insecure in the reality is the part of afghanistan where osama bin laden is is on the hardest places to control. >> 20 years ago we had a similar situation the insurgency control if i was there as the observer. the drive for freedom and the determination of these people with the terrorist kind n then they'll leave the voters to come back and not have their right denied to vote. so the power of that concepts. is enormous.iraq. >> the vice president just said focus on state sponsors

tf terrorism. barrymore dangerous today than four years ago. to two wondered to nuclear weapons or six or eight?has been an this vice president is over a decade lifting sanctions. is a mistake and strengthen the sanctions.to and to understand exactly what it is he said to talk about preemptive action to duenna way that passes of global test where people understand what you we're doing and can prove to the world was for legitimate not a gl and the same segment he saidint

point blank we will never give anyone the security of the united states of america ip says we will go back to the proud tradition of the united states of america over the last 50 years 75 years. first we will tell the american people the truth about what is happening to iraq or any place else. american people know the truth to use force and the explanation.a and to make sure that we tell the world the truth. the reality is for america to do what it has done 50 years coming into office it is critical they believe one

america takes action they can trust what we're doing, what we say what we say at the united nations th they need to know that the president of united states is always good. it is one of the reasons of the efforts of iraq. we of taken 90 percent of the coalition the americanye taxpayers have 90 percent of the cost.$5 billion. and then to cost $5 billion.cou. john kerry would never give up control of the security of united states of america. we will not outsource their responsibilities to keep this country safe. >> host: mr. vice president you have 90

seconds. >> the 90% figure is dead wrong when you include the iraqi security forces with the allies taking almost 50 percent of the casualtieso you probably were not there to vote for that but that is what has been allocated with the global war on care. but the allies have stepped forward of iraqi dead at plus 14 billion in terms of direct aid of the overall allied contribution not theur fa 120 billion so your facts are wrong senator. also you have a situation of credibility and you voted

for the war then you declared wrong war wrong place wrong time.the troops whe and then the troops and many did the equipment and fuel and the ammunition. you're not credible on iraq with enormous inconsistencies with john kerry and you have citedu and time after time during the course of the campaign of the political pressure ofer the moment is re your act. that he has the conviction to carry through. >> but the vice president just said is a complete distortion the american people saw john kerry on thursday night the donalde the vice president to tell them what they saw he was strong with conviction and resolute to do everything to keep the american people

troops oh success and iraq we have troops on the ground and because they have created a haven for terrorists. >> it would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up but there isn't you cannot use talk tough and a 90 minute debate to obscure the 30-year record in the united states senate to consistently come down on the wrong side of those issues. >> you have tim is to respond when he says senator >>rry is emboldening enemies in using me to get hit again if voters make the wrong choice is a dangerous thing to have john kerry as president? >> specifically i don't believe he has the qualities

for commander in chief based on his record that he would pursue those aggressive policies that need to be pursued with these terrorist.b we need to battle overseas sri don't battle them here at home.eptance s i am not questioning hisis patriotism one. one i never criticized his patriotism but his judgmentand d it is lost in the record is there for anybody who wants to look and in 1984 her opposed the elimination of a major weapons system that was crucial to the cold war to overall forces and when they invaded to stand up on the floor of the senate and back at i iraq and the problem that we have is the

record is that he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has a conviction we have seen a situation which first devoted to pick up the troops then they came back to fight at a favorite get the resources that theyey needed. i cannot find out why that happened. so howard dean was making major progress. so when in effect they canceled the vote and voted against the troops. if they cannot stand up to howard dean how did they stand up to al qaeda but. >> one thing is clear alonge resonate does not make good vedgment we have seen over and over again for these judgments made by the

minister asian to go back to what the vice president said the continuation of what he was doing it is a continuation kerrey has voted for the biggest military appropriations bill in the country's history voted for the biggesthe intelligence appropriations bill in the country's 80 wery. and then to cut over 80s weapon systems.pons these are weapons systems that the vice president himself suggested we get rid of. but the reality is that john kerry has consistently supported the very man that he served with in vietnam.eace.

they had no plan. we see the consequencesnd everyday on the ground with. we must have a plan. we also thought it was wrong to have a $20 billion fundards to go to a node bid contract to the vice president's former company was wrong then and it is wrong out.r itse. >> record speaks for itself. whh they are against it with the ratings are bad to not see that type of consistency thean commander-in-chief has to have for a leader in wartime to see the strategy through. noh it is clearly george bush not john kerry. >> and we must stay focused

on the people that attacked us. it was a threat and needed to be addressed directly but the inspectors aided time tom do their job.at we now kn they discovered what they now know that in fact, with that connection with 9/11. >> a new question with two minutes.t us and to get this out of the problems to internationalize the efforts. but they have no intentiond is john kerry is elected so does that make your effort or your plan now leave? >> start with what we know.prest the president and vice president did not build a

coalition to be genetically different than the first call for. we know they have not do it and they can with those allies leading up to the war also with the reconstruction and that has consequences. what we believe is part of the entire plan for iraq andnd we have a plan they have a plan also more of the same. we have a plan for success and that includes cleaning up the military be have less than half of the staff also to make sure the reconstruction is sped up so the iraqis see a tangible benefit by the way we can take the iraqis out of direct to trade than it is not secure enough to be training them there we can take them out. w we should do whatever has to be done to train the iraqis ma speed up the process.

that works in conjunction to make sure the election takes place on time. right now in the united nations it is responsible for the elections have 35 people. compared to a much smaller country they have over 200 people you need more than 35 people to hold an election in cleveland letter -- little-known iraq.e reality but the reality is we have a new president withre credibility with the real plan for success but success breeds cause -- but he attacks us about the troops they send 40,000 american troops into iraq without body armor while they were on the ground fighting theythis voted to deduct their combat

pay the height of hypocrisy. >> there are so many inaccuracies and nowhere to start. the troops would not have what they had today. talk about the effort when they don't have a plan basically you made the comment the gulf war coalition 1991 was far stronger but we have 34 countries and we have 30 today. is hard after john kerry referred to the allies of the coalition of the worst and the bride is hard tocess. convince them to participate in the process if you talk about if you demesne the sacrifice of the allies to say wrong place or longtime fed there's no sense at all.t a. there is not a plan. the most important ally in

the war on terror is iraq's prime minister he addressed ad congress recently was speaker of the house and john kerry rush job immediately after his speech was over where he would think america for the contribution and then went out to criticize and challenge his credibilityno that is not the way to win friends and allies you might get a coalition with that type of attitude. >> the vice president suggested we have the same number of countries involved now than we did in the firstin call for. that costs american people $5 million regardless of what the vice president says we are at $200 billion and. counting. not only that 90 percent of the coalition casualties are american casualties. ninety% of the cost of the effort is borne by americane and taxpayers as a directt

result of the failures off the of ministrations. >> he will not count the sacrifice of the iraqi allies it is their country they are in the fight they put their necks on of line to take back their country from the terrorist to move those regime elements. they're doing a superb job. for you to demean their sacrifice. >> is indeed. you suggest that they should not because you want to say that americans take 90 percent of the sacrifice. we cannot succeed in thisrt effort if you cannot recognize the enormous contribution the iraqis are making to their own future. when they take on responsibility for government or their own security. >> host: new question. i want to circle back to a question that did not get answered but of american intelligence.

if the report we would have gotten today is true as vice president cheney had ordered it do you think in the future that your administration or the bush administration would have sufficient an accurate intelligence to make a decision where to go next quick. wh >> plans to that question but first this unfortunatelying what the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with what i see every single day. it is a continuation of of there's a strong connection with saddam hussein and al qaeda.ing it is a continuation to insinuate from 9/11 it is not true. to say to the americans people in the vice president and that things are going well in iraq. contrary to those that have

them there including theyo republican leaders and what they see on the television every day americans being kidnapped or beheaded partsc of the country under the control of the insurgentsts. today. the vice president still has not said anything about the failure of having adequate troops to secure the country and the short-term.awe? look at where we are now. a direct result of failure to have the others involved in the effort this is not an accident. now back to your question if we want to do the things that need to be done to keep this country safely cannot be tried kicking and screaming. one thing that everybody does agree is 9/11 change things but what happened this of ministrations of post the commission to find out what happened and whatth

we need to do they oppose the creation of the department of romance security.y. we cannot react that way we must be more aggressive. when john kerry is president we are committed to immediately implementing all reforms suggested by the 9/11 commission so we have information we need.h >> when the stories of this report is one that i asked for ast lot of questions that is part of my job as vice president at daiwa quoted to say they yet have not reached the bottom line with the question of the relationship with saddam hussein and at 1.it points out some people were arrested some were released possibly at the request we know p. was running a

terrorist camp threatening terrorist in afghanistan prior to 9/11 we know he did not migrate but set up shop in baghdad he would oversee where the terrorists were developing their substances to use. bomb he is responsible for most of the major car bombings and the one you will see on the evening news. without question without doubt a terrorist. in fact, in baghdad for the war and now after the war.ter is this is exactly the kind of track record we have seen over the years. we've taken out.u >> host: in june of 2000on when you were still dash halliburton use said they

should be allowed to do business with iran because he unilateral tension almost never works. but now as vice presidentdec with the iran declared as part of the access of evilwe -- taxes of people. >> no. at the time of talking specifically of unilateral sanctions unless there is a collective effort that other people move then to take advantage of the situationct toi and then to penalize american companies. want to if they go to the u.s. security council to ask for those sanctions if they don't live up to theirga obligations of the international atomic energy agency. we have dealt with the rand differently partly because iran has not yet violated 12 years of resolutions of the security council to work with the britons and the french and recently actively

involved of the atomic energy agency with ane follow-up meeting to determine if they are living up to their commitment and obligations and i guess they will send the whole matter to the u.s. security council for the sanctions that i think is exactly the right way to go. we are invested in north korea. the chinese source south korea or japanese. one of the great byproductsin is that five days after recaptured saddam hussein gaddafi came forward to announce he would surrender all of his nuclear materials to the united states.. . .>> the vice

>> when the vice president talks about someone associated with al qaeda in iraq there are 60 how countries who have members of al qaeda in them. how many of those countries are we going toiran h invade? not only that, he talks about iran, the reality of that iran is that they have move forward with their nuclear weapons program on their watch.work they evaded responsibility to dealing with it to the europeans. the vice vice president, as you pointed outft spoke out loudly to lifting sanctions. john kerry and i believe we would stretch and the sanctions in iraq, including closing the loophole that allows companies to use aub