on. >> so james you agree there could be air strikes? >> no, i agree maliki should intergrate his cab bit in the shiites and the kurds. >>. many bremer. >> we agree and i'm glad to hear you support the idea of a political -- let me be clear. both of these things have to happen. there needs to be a military strategy which is enveloped in a broader political strategy which in turn eventually will be broadened in a strategy to address geopolitical unrest in the region. all three of those things have to happen but unless you do the military part the other two are just talk. >> just to be clear, drone strikes? do you think that's a good idea? >> yes. here's the problem. the military strategy would have two objectives. stop the southward flow. to do that, you can attack the lines of communication and the assembly bases, including some

across the border in syria. that can be done with manned aircraft. but retaking the cities is not a job for manned aircraft. too much of a risk of civilian casualties. that's when the drones come in. both of these require better intelligence on the ground. >> so why can't the iraqis get the intelligence? >> the iraqi intelligence system is still relatively new. we set up a -- an intelligence ministry effectively in early 2004. you don't develop a robust intelligence system, obviously, overnight youchlgt say well it's a decade. yeah it's a decade but it takes time. they relied during surge very much on american intelligence, people on the ground who could help the drone strikes, for example. so you're trying to take mosul. you need somebody on the ground who says the bad guys are in that building not that one because a drone strike is a precision strike. and hopefully reduces collateral

damage and civilian casualties. you can't do that with an f-16. >> we'll go to john next in win some say lo winston-salem, north carolina. an independent caller. >> mr. bremer, i had two questions, you answered one already. the first question and i'll get off the phone as quickly as i can. why are we still supporting [ inaudible ] it has nothing do with the middle east, it has to do with the english and the french. and my second comment is thank you for the explanation about the ba'athist situation because i never did understand it and i guess i'm going to have to go out and get your book. thank you so much. >> well, thank you. here's the thing, john. you're right. the sykes picot was an arrangement made by the british and french diplomats during the end of the first world war that said the turkish empire will collapse in this region and we need to figure out how to organize it and it created lebanon, syria, iraq and the

kingdom of jordan out of that collapse. i didn't say i supported sykes picot. we'll have to address the question of redrawing borders. redrawing borders that were drown artificially 100 years ago is not something lightly undertaken as we've seen in yugoslavia and crimea. once you pick apart borders, even if they're arbitrary, you better be sure you know what the end result will be so i'm not advocating one way or the other on sykes picot. so once you start if i hadling with borders you're handling-pi. so once you start if i hadling

with borders you're handling dine mate. >> let me show you the "new york times" op-ed. ann marie slaughter has a piece "don't fight in iraq and ignore seria. "she says why is the threat of isis in iraq a sufficiently vital interest but not the rise of isis in syria. and the war that has destabled jordan, lebanon and iraq. >> i agree with her and i don't often agree with her. basically what she is saying is we should have done something about isis before it got to iraq. i agree. for three years i have been advocating doing something to arm the more moderate rebels in syria and to attack assad's air force so that he doesn't have the capacity for these terrible barrel bombs she mentions in her article. have have now killed something over 160,000 people in syria.

it's a reflection of the fact that we didn't do something in syria and that's a broader lesson of foreign policy in general. problems end to get worse. a good starting place to understand foreign policy is procrastination very often makes things worse and we're paying a price for that. >> front page of "financial times" this morning "selling terror, how isis charts its brutality in annual report." this -- since 2012 the islamic state of iraq and he haven't has outlined in geographical detail its operations. the number of bombings, assassinations. suicide missions. and people taking that they have converted to their cause. what does this tell you? >> it tells us this is al qaeda

on steroids. these are evil people. we've seen pictures of them just killing what we would call prisoners of war. they have started programs of amputation. they have imposed sharia law in mosul where they -- which they took over. these are taliban-like actions and al qaeda-like actions. and that's why i think president is right when he says we can't afford to let these people have a foot hold in iraq. >> jersey girl says this on twitter. "if we invaded iraq due to the fear of wmd and found that they were not there, why didn't we simply leave?" >> well, that's a good question. put yourself in the position of the president who took the decision to get rid of saddam. we can debate the whole problem of the intelligence but he did it. there then are essentially two choices. the one you're talking about, jersey girl, which is just pull out. so what is left there then? probably a complete mess.

some -- or do we take some colonel out of saddam's army and say, okay, you're in charge here the way qaddafi was for 30 years. first of all, our intelligence was so bad on the iraqi leadership of the army that we couldn't possibly have identified a colonel. we didn't even know the names of many of the generals. now, there were in the iraqi army 12,000 generals. in army, which was the same size, there were 307 generals. so it was a rather top-heavy operation. so i don't see how we had any choice. on a political basis for american president to send a half million americans halfway around the world to throw out a dictator and then just wash his hands and go home seems unrealistic. the president's view was we ought to help the iraqis recover their country in two ways -- get their economy going and start them moving towards representative government. and i think that was a correct

decision. obviously implementation is difficult when grow from tyranny and dictatorship to freedom and representative government. it's not easy. but i don't think washing our hands of it was an option. >> and ten years later, haven't the u.s. soldiers and the u.s. personnel there done the best they can to provide what you said was the goal of the bush administration? >> well, we not only did our best, we did it. they have a constitution, it's the most liberal constitution in the arab world. they've had six elections, including one just a couple months ago. al-maliki for all his faults is an elected democratic leader which is unique in the arab world. the economy today per capita income is six times what it was when i arrived in 2003. internet is available, cell phones, light goods, cars. it was a booming economy and a successful military operation to the end of about 2009. it has deteriorated dramatically, obviously, in the last couple years. >> we'll go next to john in glen

view, illinois, democratic caller. hey, john, go ahead. >> hi, good morning, mr. bremer. can you hear me? >> yes, we can, john. >> caller: i was hope you could help put to rest -- you were there since near the beginning. the first call mentioned libya and nuclear weapons and i've never heard that before but you very frequently hear, well, they have chemical weapons in syria now, they must have come from there. i was hoping you could put this to rest and i wanted to let the listeners know there are a lot of military reports that have come out about what they did and what they found and most people don't realize we had pretty much taken over the entire country. we had access to everything, all industries, factories, everything. and a chemical weapons program, we're not talking about a closet like with biological weapons. chemical weapons program is huge. a full industrial thing that involves manufacturing, purchasing, tracking employees, parts, storage, maintenance, raw

materials, payments from different companies, hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of documents that need to be kept and even if you try and hide them most of those documents aren't government documents, they're documents to contractors, factories, et cetera. and our military knows what they were looking for, no matter how much we try and hide that, they know the kinds of things, the materials, who would have control of them, etc. and for people to believe that you could just move these weapons to syria and not be able to find records of a fall industrial program like that, those people have to believe our military were incompetent to an unheard of degree. >> let's take that point, john. mr. bremer? >> well, we did find evidence of -- we did actually find some chemical weapons. they were old and probably not effective but we did find some. and we certainly found great deal the kind of information you're talking about, about his

plans for his nuclear program. documents and people and we interviewed a number of the people in charge of his nuclear program who made an important point which kind of relates today. they said that saddam's intention was as soon as sanctions were loosened at all -- which would have happened if we hadn't moved the military -- as soon as he had kept in place the personnel, programs, and plans to restart his nuclear program. so while we didn't find actual nuclear operations, we found a lot of the kind of stuff you're talking about, the paperwork that you're talking about. there was no doubt he hadn't had a nuclear plan and he had a biological program that the inspectors missed for five years after the first gulf war. we didn't find them until 195 and only when when some iraqi exiles told us go look at that farm in that barn and you'll find biological weapons and we did find them in 1995.

>> by the way, we should let our viewers know that the former vice president dick cheney along with his daughter liz cheney who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs write today in the "wall street journal" piece "the collapsing obama doctrine" and they write that rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. go to michael in imperial beach, california. michael, you are an independent caller. go ahead. >> good morning, greta, good morning, mr. bremer. mr. bremer, i was wondering if you could expand on these stories of the palates of $100 bills that were brought into iraq by c-130s that supposedly disappeared. if you were in charge of that theater at the time, you should have the ultimate knowledge. could you please inform us if those stories are true and do you recommend sending more pallets of hundred dollar bills? thank you, sir. >> well, to your second question, no, i don't recommend sending more pallets. let's be sure we know what we're

talking about. the money that we dispensed, these hundred dollar bills in packets and so forth was iraqi funds that had been in escrow in the u.s. federal reserve bank in new york. the money belonged to the american people. it was not american money. it was the only way we could pay the expenses of the iraqi government was in cash. there was no banking system, banks were closed: under saddam hussein there were no checking accounts, there were no atm machines, there was no mechanism for electronic transfer of funds in his banking system. i had a monthly payroll for the iraqi government that was working for me of $250 million. so a billion dollars every four months had to be paid out just to pay payroll. the only way to pay payroll was in cash because there was no banking system. so we had to basically get the money to baghdad and then fly it out on military aircraft or take it out in convoys to various

towns all over the country so we could pay our payroll. to pay our pensions, to pay any expenses we had had to be paid in cash. we finally got towards a better system after we introduced a new iraqi currency in the months of october through january, 2004, and we could shift the iraqi dinar. but the important point for americans to remember is this was not american money, this was iraqi money, it belonged to them and it was essential to keeping the government going. >> and why did we have iraqi money. >> well, we had iraqi money for two reasons. there had been money that we had from seized assets during -- after the first gulf war. then there was a program to put a certain amount of money effectively in an escrow account under the u.n. resolutions that where the iraqis were not going to -- defense a way to try to starve saddam of money during the 1990s. so this was iraqi and then we confiscated about a billion dollars worth of assets, both in

the central bank when we went into the central bank and various kinds of jewels and other kinds of assets that were in saddam's -- he had 22 palaces, in his various palaces which were part of the iraqi funds. >> let's look at iraq by the numbers. 32,000 u.s. troop. what is the waste in iraq when it comes to money? >> well, some of it is construction, it's just plain badly spent as well but corruption is key and we knew there was going to be a corruption problem because dictatorships always are correct by definition. the dictator controls the resources and doles it out to his cronies and there's always a kickback. when i got to iraq there were 15

different exchange rates for the iraqi currency into other currencies. so you got the good exchange rate if you were a buddy or crony of somebody in the revolutionary council. you got the bad rate if you were just some guy on the street in a bazaar. typical of corruption. everything becomes corrupt because the system is politically corrupt. we tried to deal with it and i can say not very successfully in retrospect by setting up independent inspector generals for the first time in iraqi history and each of their ministries -- the ministry of finance, ministry of agriculture, ministry of natural resources. we established a national ombudsman based on the swedish system where you have a national independent person to whom any iraqi could report suspicion or acts of corruption. we established the independence of the central bank for the first time so it didn't just take orders from the ministry of finance. we dade variety of things to try to started a dressing at least

in a structural way the problem of corruption. i would not pretend that we succeeded because there's still plenty of corruption there. but one of the problems is there's a lot of money in iraq and when you've got a lot of money sloshing around a lot of it is going to go missing. >> judy next, virginia beach, democratic caller. hi, judy. >> caller: hi. good morning. >> you're on the air. >> okay. >> i have a couple comments and questions. first i think that al gore should have been president because he would not have invaded another country. he would have considered what the u.n. was doing and let the people who were there look for the weapons of mass destruction now i've seen you on tv a couple of times and i'm wondering about your qualifications to speak about what's going on currently

when you failed terribly on what happened in the past and we have lost thousands of lives, injured thousands of our military when we could have been doing something with other countries and considering what the u.n. suggested. >> all right, judy, we'll take that point. >> first of all, i don't have a view of what al gore would have done. my sense is that probably he would have done the same thing given the intelligence we had in the wake of 9/11 but it's a counterfactual question. secondly, i don't accept that we failed. in fact, during my time and effectively up to the end of 2008/2009 we succeeded. we succeeded economically, we succeeded politically, we had six elections, the economy is

booming and so that's important to remember. you mentioned other countries. it sometimes gets lost but it's important to go back to the facts here. 42 countries in addition to the united states had trooped on the ground while i was in iraq. 42. including every one of our nato allies except france and germany. i had on the political side of the government citizens from 25 different countries and it's important to note that all of these people were volunteers nobody was assigned to go there. so everybody who came there wanted to be there, wanted to help in the reconstruction and i believe that the record of the time i was there from 2000 to 2004 will show we tlad basis for a stable economically viable representative government. i don't pretend that it has succeeded as of today because we have a real problem today. but i'll take responsibility for

the time i was there and i made mistakes but on the whole i think we did pretty well. >> kristin powers writes in "usa today" disagreeing saying "according to the council on foreign relations isis emerged in the ashes of the u.s.-led invasion to oust hussein. so no invasion; no isis overrunning iraq. minus the invasion there wouldn't have been maliki's shiite government isolating iraq's sunni and kurdish minorities leading to an entirely foreseeable sectarian war." >> i think kirsten, whom i have great respect for, has it wrong. isis emerged in syria not in iraq and it emerged in syria in the last three years i would argue largely because the united states did not take action to deal with the situation in syria in time. isis was not there. al qaeda -- there was an al qaeda group there iraq and it

was defeated and it was defeated basically by the iraqi army with help from the americans by the end of 2009. so i just think her facts are wrong. >> let me ask you, because the caller brought up, she's seen you on t, you did an interview with cnn's aaron burnett, things got heated. you wrote a piece in the "wall street journal" that you've touched on a little bit here today. why are you out talking about this now? >> well, i'm not talking -- mostly because you and your colleagues in the press have asked me to defend myself which i intend to do. >> but you first wrote this "wall street journal" -- >> no, that was the platform. >> why did you decide to write that piece? >> because i'm very concerned about what's happening there. i think there is a crisis of political authority in iraq inside of which there is a crisis of the military and outside of which there is this even more important problem of the regional geopolitical structure which eventually we're going to have to get to some

kind of a new concert of countries agreeing on what's going to happen there. it's an important -- to me it's an important event and it was something i was involved in and i felt it was important to give my views. >> john in woodbridge, california, independent caller. hi, john. >> caller: how are you doing this morning? >> morn. >> caller: i always find your program so interesting to listen to the ignorance of people and i have had tremendous respect for mr. bremer during his career and understanding what he had to put up with when he entered into iraq unbelievable circumstances for a person just to exist let alone be successful and i wish he were our secretary of state at this time as opposed to what we've had to deal with. >> that makes one of you. >> well, i'll stand up for that. the question, the regards to the

military circumstances, i often thought that the it would be simply leaving europe. we sat on germany for a half century and we would move the third infantry division down into iraq and maintain our presence overseas for an expended period of time as opposed to pulling everybody out immediately under the obama administration. the reason for my call is that i'm concerned about what the kurds are doing right now. i understand they put a military resistance up to isis after they took mosul and the kurds would take advantage of this situation and -- >> john, let me jump in. that's something we haven't talked about yet. mr. bremer, what's your thinking on that? >> i think that's right. the kurds have really shown that they have the only disciplined organized military force at the moment. it's called the peshmerga, the

guys on the ground are probably 100,000 or more of them. and you are right, they fought in mosul, they actually captured kirkuk, which is very important. kirkuk has long been a contested -- it's sort of a kurd/arab town that the kurz have insisted needs to be kurdish. it will now be kurdish because they've captured it, they're now going home and i think the kurds are potentially the precipitating event of tearing iraq apart because if the situation against isis and the south gets worse and the iranians decide to intervene to protect the holy cities of karbala and najaf, which can't be excluded, i think the kurds are likely to declare independence in the north and secede from iraq which is something they threatened to me when i was there. so i think the kurds -- it's very important. now, it's important to remember, the kurds cannot be comfortable with an isis extremist group

running a large part of the count country. that's -- they are not extremists. they have some among them, obviously, but they are not extremists. they're also not going to be comfortable with the irgc, the iranian revolutionary guard taking overthe south. but they would draw their own conclusion which is that they have to establish an independent kurdistan and that may sound benign, it's not benign. because both iran and turkey have very large restive kurdish minorities and particularly in iran. so one has to consider the possibility that a kurdish declaration of independence leads, in fact, to a broader regional war. > . >> how so? >> because -- well, people forget that the iranian people are a bare majority in iran. the persians. it is still, in effect, a persian empire.

very large azari minority in the west, a large uneasy kurdish population. they have arabs in the south along the gulf, they have bluch chis over on the boarder with pakistan and afghanistan. they have tajiks up in the northeast. so from a persian point of view, the prospect of iraq breaking apart raises immediately the question of persia breaking apart. so you have to ask yourself if you are the national security advisor to ayatollah hamanahi and he says what should we do in iraq? that national security advisor might very well say if iraq breaks up, we're going to have our own problem here. we're going to have a problem with the kurds, with the azairerys and some of the others. >> when you take a look at the religious breakdown. 95% shiite, 5% to 10% sunni. how does that play into what you're just saying? >> well, the sunnis are going to

wind upmostly -- i don't know the precise demographics. they're probably mostly down on the gulf coast where most of the arabs are. there are what they call faily kurds who are shi'a kurds. that i think less important than the national question, though i'm not an expert on iran. but if you are an iranian leader and you look what happened to the soviet union when it collapsed with dagestan and chechnya and tajikistan, you could be somewhat nervous. >> let me get a couple more voices. first on twitter. "why is the iraqi army so ill prepared to fend off isis after all the training we gave them?" >> it's a fair question. i think there are two reasons. one both related to the fact there are no american troops on the ground. one, when we left in 2011 we basically pulled back almost all of our intelligence gathering capability on which the iraqis

had come to depend. you can argue whether they should have depended on us, it's a fact, they did. and so they don't have the kind of intelligence that they needed. you can't have an effective military operation if you don't have good intelligence. which is why i'm glad to see the president is still talking about at least intelligence. and the second point is that as we've talked several times the -- one of the things al-maliki did was purge the army of a lot of the people we train sod there was a collapse of discipline that there will be a lot of afteraction reports. my guess is it's those two things that have led to the problem. >> we'll hear from nick in pittsburgh. go ahead, nick. >> caller: i'm in disagreement with about everything you said here so far today. a lot of people and i'm going to start with the first thing you said that you know the american people are really opposed to this, we've been opposed to it from before. we didn't support it the first time around, the cost of it you're not even dealing with any

of that. and you're not dealing with the issue of conservatives in this country with bringing the debt down, the cost of everything and the money spent there and wasted, you're in denial on so much of this. so many people -- of course you're not going to accept that you failed over there, why would you? it would bring the whole bush doctrine down and cheney doctrine, not the obama doctrine. that would put a lie to everything that bush and cheney said and these people in these countries that did go in, they went in because they were coerced, they were lied to just like the soldiers in this country that paid the price. >> okay, nick, a lot on the table here, we'll have mr. bremer respond. >> well, first of all let's be careful about what the polls show about american support. actually if you go back and look at the polls in 2003/2004 and later the polls were quite clearly supportive of what president bush did. they don't now, i agree, but let's be precise historically here. on the cost, i'm concerned about the cost, whatever it is. people have the numbers, a

trillion dollars, i don't know what it is. i happen to believe in balanced budgets so for me it's a problem. i think one can say it was a mistake for the president -- president bush -- not to raise taxes to pay for the war because that would have brought it home to everybody sooner what the war was costing. you said one thing that's not true which i definitely want to point out. allies were not coerced into assisting us. the allies -- people don't put soldiers on the ground unless they believe it's in their interests. there were 42 nations who decided it was in their interest. they might have been right; they might have been wrong, but they weren't coerced. >> paul bremer, we will have to leave it there. thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. >> thank you for having me over. >> thursday on washington journal, former army national guard commander scott perry and pennsylvania congressman discusses the political and military options for the u.s. in iraq. elliot engel the ranking democrat on the house foreign affairs committee talks about iraq, benghazi and the release

of sergeant bowe bergdahl and we'll take a look at the u.s. economy and the latest news coming out of the federal reserve with "new york times" senior economics correspondent neil irwin. washington journal airs every morning at 7:00 on c-span and you can join the conversation by phone, facebook and twitter. >> a reminder, you can watch all of our programs in our video library at cspan.org. the head of gm was on capitol hill taking questions about the automaker's recall of defective ignition switches. here's part of ceo mary barra's testimony. >> ms. barra, would you like to open? thank you, please full microphone close to you. thank you. you have to turn it on as well. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the chance to

appear before you again today on the ignition switch issue. before i proceed with my brief remarks, i want to again express my sympathies to the families that lost loved ones and those, too, who suffered physical injury. i'm ever mindful that we have a special responsibility to them and to those families and the best way to fulfill that responsibility is to fix the problem by putting in place the needed changes to prevent this from ever happening again. when i was here 11 weeks ago, i told you how we intended to proceed with this matter. i promised we would conduct a comprehensive and transparent investigation into the causes of the ignition switch problem. i promised we would share the findings of the report with congress, our regulators, nhtsa and the courts. i promised we would hold people accountable and make substantial and rapid changes in our approach to recalls. finally, i promised we would

engage ken fineberg to develop a just and timely program for compensating families who lost loved ones and those who suffered serious physical injury. we have done all of these things and more. and i welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you further. the report as you know is extremely thorough, brutally tough, and deeply troubling. it paints a picture of an organization that failed to handle a complex safety issue in a responsible way. i was deeply saddened and disturbed as i read the report. for those of us who have dedicated our lives to this company, it is enormously painful to have our shortcomings laid out so vividly. there's to way to minimize the serious of what mr. vol lucas and his investigators uncovered. on june 2, he presented the findings of his investigation to the board of directors of general motors. i will leave it to him to comment on his report. but for my part, i want you to know my reaction to the report

and some of the actions i have taken since reviewing it. first, we have made a number of personnel decisions. 15 individuals identified in the report are no long we are the company. we have restructured our safety decision-making process to raise it to the highest levels of the company, addressing a key point in the report that critical information was kept from senior management. under the new system, this should never happen again. we are currently conducting what i believe is the most exhaustive, comprehensive safety review? the history of our company. we are leaving no stone unturned and devoting whatever resources it takes to identify potential safety issues and all of our current vehicles and on vehicles no longer in production. our responsibility is to set a new norm and a new industry standard on safety and quality. i have told our employees it's not enough to simply fix this problem. we need to create a new standard and we will create a new norm.

we've announced the creation of and have implemented a new global product integrity organization that is already enhancing the overall safety and quality of our products and we are taking a very aggressive approach on recalls and we are brings greater rigor and discipline to our analysis and decision-making process regarding these recalls and other potential safety-related matters. it's difficult to announce so many recalls, but it's absolutely the right thing to do. as we discussed last time, we've engaged kenneth fineberg to review options for establishing a compensation program and the process is moving rapidly. mr. eligibility criteria for victims and to determine the compensation levels. he has indicated he will share his final criteria with us by the end of this month, and we expect to begin processing claims by august 1st. we've created a new position of vice president of global vehicle safety and appointed jeff boyer, who's a highly respected expert in the field, to this position.

i have personally told jeff that he will have whatever resources he needs to do the job, and he has many already. in fact, we've also named a senior attorney to support him and to facilitate rapid information sharing across the organization. in addition, we've added 35 safety investigators that are already allowing us to identify and address safety issues much more quickly. and, finally, we've instituted a speak up for safety program, encouraging employees to report potential safety issues quickly, and we are recognizing them when they do so. this is more than a campaign or a program. it's the start of changing the way we think and act at general motors. two weeks ago, i addressed the entire global workforce about the report. i told our team as bluntly as i knew how that the series of questionable actions and inactions uncovered in the investigation were inexcusable. i also told them that while i want to solve the problems as quickly as possible, i never

want anyone associated with gm to forget what happened. i want this terrible experience permanently etched in our collective memories. this is not another business challenge. this is a tragic problem that should never have happened and must never happen again. the report makes a series of recommendations in eight major areas. i have committed the company to act on all of the recommendations, and many of which we had started before and are already implemented. finally, mr. chairman and members of the committee, i know some of you are wondering about my commitment to solve deep, underlying cultural problems that were uncovered in the report. the answer is simple. i will not rest until these problems are resolved. as i told our employees, i'm not afraid of the truth. and i'm not going to accept business as usual at gm. it's time, in fact, it's past time, to insist on total accountability and to make sure vital information is shared across all functions of the company.

so we can unleash the full power of our 200,000 employees, our 21,000 dealers, and our 23,000 suppliers. we are a good company, but we can and must be much, much better. this is my focus, and this is my promise to you, our employees, our customers, our shareholders, and the american people. thank you again for having me here today. i'm pleased to take your questions. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2 here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most ref haven't congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends c-span3 is the home tore american history tv with programs that tem our nation's story including six unique series, the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and key event, american artifacts, touring mew sees and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past, history

bookshelf with the best-known american history writers, the presidency looking at the policies and leg cyst of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into the past and real america featuring or chiefl government and films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. at his final white house briefing spokesman jay carney was asked about the escalating violence in iraq. mr. carney has served in the position for 3 1/2 years and will be replaced by josh earnest. ♪

>> that is some good rock 'n' roll. i got a few things at the top. my last briefing. to celebrate a nation of makers and empower students and entrepreneurs to help invent the future. me has always been a nation of tinkerers and the president believes the rise of the maker movement represents a huge opportunity for the united states. nationwide new tools for democratized production are boosting innovation and pray sureship and manufacturing in the same way that the internet and cloud computing have lowered the barriers to entry for digital start-ups creating the foundation for new products and

processes that can help to revitalize american manufacturing. the white house maker fair features innovators of all ages using tools such as 3d printers and design software to bring their ideas to life. some may very well create industries and jobs of the future. as part of this year of action and this week's focus of efforts that will expand opportunity by spurring manufacturing, info have a vegas, the president also announced new steps, the administration and its parter ins are taking to increase the ability of more americans young and old to have access to these tools and techniques. that's my official talker. then i wanted to mention that some of you may remember i came out with an oakland a's hat, but it was the a's hat that my son's

team wore when they won the championship in their little league, their baseball league. on saturday my daughter's team which was visited by the president and after that visit went on a substantial run of wins won its championship. and while i don't have a royals hat although i'm trusting josh earnest will bring one as an k.c. royals fan, i want to say thank you to the northwest little league aaa champions kansas city royals. i know the president was glad yesterday to hear they won their championships. i know if you have children that you love them all equally. finally, i want to say thank you to all of you here. this has been an extraordinary experience. i have loved every minute of every day. even the many minutes of many days i spent in this room. as i think most of you now understand and believe, it's

always a pleasure no matter how hard it can get in here, how hot it can be and contentious it sometimes is. you know, the president, to many of us said of the jobs we have here in the white house, that most of us will never be in a position to do more good for more people as we are in now. and we should take advantage of it. and that is something that we all here take to heart and i don't ever expect to be in a position again to be a part of something that has at least the potential to do more good for more people. and that's been a very special thing, indeed. i loved my years as a reporter. but as you better than anyone else understand reporting -- sometimes can be an autonomous exercise. it's your story, it's your

byline. what was so different about the experience for me is it was all about a team effort and all about a goal that had nothing to do with any individual, not even the president. and that's been extraordinarily gratifying to be a part of. what i won't do although if provoked, i will later, is go through a list of all the things, the very many good things that have been accomplished by this president, this administration in my time here that i believe represent doing a lot of good for a lot of people in this country. and around the world but i think that record is a good one and one i'm proud of. i guess with that, i will go to questions. at the end i would like the opportunity to say thanks to my colleagues. you know what, i'm going to do that now because i have a feeling it could get loss a little bit.

first of all, to the president, the vice president. the first lady and dr. biden my deep thanks. thanks for this opportunity. vice president took a chance on me. the president took a chance on me. and i hope i didn't give either of them any regrets. the chiefs of staff that i served, dennis mcdonaugh, jack lew, bill daley, rahm emanuel, valerie jarrett and pete raus, david plouffe, a key adviser and friend, alyssa demonco, rob nabors, kathy romler, jen sacky, anita, daniel, tom, susan. the list goes on. tony blinken. these are extraordinary people. ron klain, ben rhodes, jeff tiller, marissa hawkins, hally ledbetter, all superb individuals with whom i have had a great privilege to serve and have some good times with.

i thank them all. marvin and pete, i think i probably owe you some money but thank you, as well. i know i have forgotten a lot. the uniformed and secret service agents are extraordinary people who serve their country and the president and others so well. the folks who work in this building and who work on air force one, i'd like to thank them and then finally i would like to thank you. some of you may remember ben feller who was sitting in that chair asked me on my first day as my first question about how i viewed the job. i said, first of all, we are all here to serve the president and the country. we work for him, but the press secretary is in a unique position within a white house and not not just because i'm a journalist because i think every press secretary

understands this. we work to promote what the president is doing and the message he's trying to convey with the american people but i also work with the press to help you do your job. cover the white house, cover the administration and report on what we are doing here. and that's what you've tried to do. you will be the judge of my success, at least in part. finally, i want to say thanks to my deputy, josh, soon to be white house press secretary. no one has been more ready to do this. i want to say thanks to eric and sean. you guys are in good hands with them. any questions? >> thanks, jay. on behalf of my colleagues, congratulations on making it to your last briefing. >> thank you. >> and on your post white house endeavors. if we can get to iraq, the president is meeting with lawmakers here in afternoon. is he going to be in a position to tell those lawmakers his decisions, and if he's not in that position, how much longer

can he afford to wait to provide the iraqis with assistance given what officials here have said is the urgency and gravity of the situation? >> first of all, the president, as you noted, will meet at 3:00 p.m. with senate majority leader reed, senator minority leader mcconnell, speaker boehner and democratic leader pelosi at the white house as part of his ongoing consultations with congressional leadership on foreign policy issues, including obviously the situation in iraq. it's part of our ongoing consultations with congress on this issue. when it comes to the options that the president is considering, first of all, i want to make clear the president has ruled out only sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. ultimately the solution that is needed is an iraqi one. and any action and any u.s. action including possible military action would be in support of the strategy to build the capacity of the iraqis to effectively and sustainably counter the threat posed by extremists.

we have been clear about the elements that we are reviewing. first how to most effectively deal with the urgent and imminent threat from isil. how to build the capacity of the iraqi security forces to fight the threat in the short and long term and how to encourage iraq's leaders to put aside differences and facilitate nonsectarian cooperative governance. military action is a component of the options the president is considering, but to reiterate what we have been saying, this is not primarily a military challenge. iraq needs help to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capability of iraq's forces but there is no military solution to sustainably solve iraq's problems. and any consideration of military action must be informed by the situation on the ground and the objectives to be obtained as well as the consequences of its use, so the meeting today will be part of a process of consultation with congress. the president obviously will

inform him of some -- inform the leaders of his thinking on some of these issue, but will also want to hear about their thinking. we here in washington obviously and this includes the leaders visiting have spent a lot of time over the last decade thinking about and understanding iraq and the complexities there. so the president looks forward to this meeting. >> sounds like he's not made any decisions, so i'm wondering do those situations get harder, does the situation get harder on the ground the longer it takes for the u.s. to provide assistance? >> i would say a couple of things. the right way to go about this is to assess -- is to develop an approach that's inclusive of the three elements i mentioned. it cannot be just about what direct action we may or may not take. and it also has to be one that keeps in mind what our objectives are. the ultimate objective here is to protect the national security

interests of the united states. to prevent portions of iraq, portions of the region from becoming a safe haven for isil extremists who may ultimately pose a threat to the united states over our interests abroad and our allies. and that is the lens through which the president approaches these matters and these decisions and that obviously especially includes any contemplation of direct action. ultimately iraq has to take responsibility for its own security. we in this country spent more than eight year, nine years and spent a lot in both blood and pressure in an effort to give iraq the opportunity to move forward democratically as a sovereign nation. and we are still obviously very much in support of iraq and the iraqi government. but ultimate ly

they have to make some key political decisions about governing in a nonsectarian and inclusive way. because only that will create the kind of stability that iraq needs to move forward and protect its sovereignty. >> i know the president has ruled out putting combat troops on the ground in afghanistan. but he has notified congress that up to 275 american forces -- i'm sorry, iraq. are going to iraq. officials said he's considering special forces to do training missions there. what does it say about his willingness to put americans on the ground in a deteriorating security situation even if they're not there specifically for combat? >> we have had situations in which military personnel have been used and their numbers reinforced when it became necessary to protect embassy personnel. and, as you know, the decision

over the weekend to send a number of teams totaling approximately 170 personnel to baghdad from within the u.s. central command area of responsibility is about providing security assistance for embassy personnel inside iraq. they will engage in efforts to temporarily relocate some of our staff from the embassy to u.s. consulates in basra and erbil and to the iraq support unit in amman. now there have been a number of times we have filed similar war power resolution letters and when we we needed to augment security. and that is consistent with that. the military moved approximately 100 personnel into the area for logistics support if required. but we are not -- that is a very discreet and distinct mission. we are not as the president made clear, contemplating a of

sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. >> you are putting americans into a country that has a crumbling security situation, are you not? >> well, again, for this absolutely important mission, which is to ensure the security of our personnel who are there and we have obviously although we have reduced the number of personnel and are relocating the ones that i mentioned we do have a number of americans there and it's the right thing to do, make sure we have the right personnel necessary to provide them the security they need. jeff. >> jay, congratulations. good luck. >> thanks. is that it? >> we're done. [ laughter ] >> is the president leaning one way or another on air strikes? >> you know, if you read the news today, you might be confused. and i think that that just reflects that the fact is the president is assessing the option as valuable and he is approaching this with the three

objectives i mentioned in mind. and the one that involves contemplating direct action is part of the whole, the three objectives. we can't -- ultimately we can't be in a situation where we are the united states and our military forces are the soul guarantor of stability in iraq. and i dare say that is a view held by a vast majority of people around the country and here in washington. what we can do is engage in an effort to make clear to the iraqi government and leaders in iraq that it is absolutely necessary for them for their own medium and long-term security and the cohesion of their country to take steps to govern

not in a sectarian way but in a nonsecond tear way way and an inclusive way and to make clear that is their objective and one of the reasons we have seen the instability in portions of the country and the ability of isil personnel to make the gains they have is because of the failures of the iraqi government to govern in an inclusive way and to make it clear to all sectors of society in iraq that the government represents and defends all of them. and it is essential that the iraqi leadership take steps to repair that situation. that is an important element in our approach to iraq right now. any action that he might contemplate when it comes to the direct use of military force would be to deal with the immediate and the medium term threat posed by isil and to

make sure that our first and foremost objective in the region which is to deny extremists a safe haven is pursued and achieved. those are the -- that's the clear-eyed approach the president has when it comes to what our objectives are in iraq. >> can you give us a sense of a timetable on when that decision will be made? >> i would not be able to do that for you. i think that it is absolutely appropriate for the president to continue to both consult with congress and to move forward and when he has any announcements to make, he will make them. >> and one last question. there were attacks on the oil refineries. is the white house concerned about oil disruptions? and as are jason referred to yesterday, are you considering dealing with those? >> i think there was inaccurate

reporting about what jason said. as you know, i don't comment on that specifically except to say that we monitor the situation, we continue to monitor the situation. when it comes to the question about concern over the price of oil and any effect that the social circumstances in iraq might have on that, we are continuously monitoring the global supply and demand situation. and my understand something at this point we have not seen major disruptions in oil supplies in iraq. on the refinery you mentioned, my understanding is we have not as you said seen major disruptions in oil supplies from iraq. the refinery produces for domestic iraqi consumption and stopped production already several days ago. this is obviously something we monitor regularly. both localized in iraq and any

impact on global supply. >> did the markets misinterpret what jason said? >> i won't comment on the markets. >> so the iraqis at least twice have asked for air strikes. obviously the administration doesn't feel like now is the time. they feel it's the time. so why doesn't the president feel like now is the time to do something like that? >> michelle, i think it is important, again, to look at the approach the president is taking here and understand it is not -- the options he's considering and the approach he's pursuing is not one that's delineated solely by questions around the potential use of direct military action. the only thing the president ruled out -- and i want to be clear here -- is sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. but he continues to consider other options. and obviously work is being done that will help us see with more

clarity what the options available to the president are. as part of a cohesive strategy that includes working with the iraqis and urging them to take action to demonstrate to all of the people of iraq that the government is representing all of them and the security forces are engaged in an effort to fight a common threat to all iraqis which is what isil represents. isil doesn't have the interests of any iraqis at heart. it's a brutal extremist organization that seeks as we have seen in recent days to capitalize on instability to terrorize the residents of iraq and elsewhere for its own

ideological purposes, again, that have no shared objectives with any of the citizens of iraq. i think that the government in our view needs to move forward in a way that recognizes there is a shared interest in all of iraq's people joining together in the effort to combat the threat posed by isil. >> it sounds like you're saying you're waiting for the iraqis to show something or some kind of ability either politically or militarily. what does the administration think of their ability to hold baghdad? >> well, i think that -- i know that others don't let the lack of expertise get in their way when they comment on a situation on the ground and military

capacities of iraq security forces or of isil forces. so i would urge you to consult true experts on that. we are looking at this through the lens of our national security interests. and, again, the president has not ruled out anything except for sending u.s. combat troops into iraq. and he has always maintained the position that the united states retains the right to act in defense of our national security interests when the commander in chief views that as necessary. and he retains that right in this case and in all cases. but, again, taking direct military action by the united states will not solve iraq's challenges, certainly not alone. >> thank you, jay. >> let me move up and back. cheryl. >> thank you, jay. and congratulations. >> thanks. >> just so you won't miss us.

does the administration support a repatriation tax holiday to pay for the depleted highway trust fund? >> cheryl, i can always count on you on changing the subject and i appreciate that. >> i can talk about midsession reviews if you like too. >> the president doesn't support and has never supported a voluntary repatriation holiday because it would give large tax breaks to a very small number of death penaltieies -- companies that have shifted profits and in many cases jobs overseas. in 2004 just 15 firms got more than 50% of the benefit. with tax breaks worth billions of dollars on average. the jct, as you know, cheryl, probably better than anyone in this room predicts that a repeat of the 2004 repatriation holiday would cost nearly $100 billion over 10 years. you know, the president's view is -- i mean he's put forward a plan for paying for the kind of infrastructure

investments that we need. and he believes that that's the right plan. justin. >> congratulations, jay. >> we can stipulate that, if you guys want to. [ laughter ] >> i kind of wanted to follow up on what i asked you last week, which was both whether you guys feel like if you were to move ahead with any type of military strike, what the existing authorities are there under maybe the authorization to go into iraq the first time under a different authority. >> mm-hmm. >> some senate democrats have said that they think you do need to go back to congress and even if you do think that you do have that authority, whether the president feels as in syria that the nation would be stronger if he consulted congress and a vote on this issue. >> well, he is consulting congress, as you know, and we have discussed it already. when it comes to the amur that

you mentioned, the iraq authorization for the use of military force, the administration support, it is repeal of the iraq aumf since it is no longer used for any u.s. government activities. we understand that some in congress are considering legislation related to the iraq aumf. and we look forward to working with them. i'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about action the president might take since as we discussed earlier, he's still reviewing his options when it comes to direct action. so i think i would say we'll cross that bridge when we get there if we get there. olivia? >> thanks, jay. >> in light of the lack of performance the iraqi armed forces, is the president taking a fresh look at readiness reports coming out of afghanistan? >> i think the countries are different. we look at assessments of readiness in iraq and

afghanistan. intext of the situation in each country. we invested a lot of resources and we paid a heavy price in both countries as part of our effort to allow governments in those countries selected by their people to secure their nations and produce for their people a better future. we have important reliefs in both nations that include security assistance. obviously afghanistan, we still have many troops there in an advise and assist mission at this time. but i think it is important to note that we as a country engage in an effort to help stand up iraqi security forces and train them and support them. we continue in that effort. we have missions even to this

day absent a presence of u.s. troops in iraq that still assist in the training and supporting of iraqi security forces. but ultimately the challenges that we have seen reflected in the inability of those security forces to control portions of the country reflect the failure of the government to govern effectively in a cohesive and inclusive nonsectarian way. and we can take steps to help deal with -- help the iraqi people and the iraqi government deal with the immediate threat posed by extremist groups like isil. but in the medium and long term, it absolutely has to be iraqi leaders who take the steps necessary to ensure that the security forces are up to the task and will provide security

for the whole country and for all citizens of that country and all regions of the country. >> so no new look at the afghan approach. this isn't a cautionary tale for the -- >> i think we are constantly -- our teams are evaluating the effort that continues to improve the capacities of the ansf. and that effort will continue. we obviously have a circumstance in iraq now that requires assisting iraq in efforts to deal with the immediate threat posed by extremists and assisting them as they hopefully make choices necessary to succeed in the medium and long term in dealing with the challenges they face. john? >> could we go back to the this question of authorization? when the president was considering air strikes against syria, he made the decision to

first go to congress for authorization for an attack on syria. is he considering anything similar regarding iraq? does he believe that he would need or prefer to have congressional authorization before launching air strikes on iraq? >> i'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about decisions that the president may or may not make with regard to the use of u.s. military force in iraq. i would note at least for the sake of clarity the differences you would see in those circumstances where in this case, as someone noted in an earlier question, the sovereign government of iraq has requested assistance. but beyond that i'm not going to speculate. >> does that make a significant difference? >> beyond that -- well, i certainly think it is a difference worth noting. i'm not going to get into, again, hypotheticals about

decisions the president has not yet made. >> just to play that off to you, why would that make a difference? i understand on many levels why it would make a difference but in terms of congressional authorization, congress would be authorizing the use of military force, not whether or not the other government was inviting us. it's a question of whether or not -- >> i understand. >> -- the president has the authority. i'm just asking if the white house believes he has the authority. >> that question was asked earlier. and i'm not going to speculate about an issue that has not come to pass. >> okay. i'm sure you've had a chance or had r have seen this op-ed piece that former vice president dick cheney has written in the "wall street journal." it has a rather critical tone to it towards the white house. rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many talking about the situation in iraq and in the middle east. >> which president was he talking about?

[ laughter ] >> i believe he was talking about president obama. >> look, it's obviously always good to hear from former vice president cheney. [ laughter ] you and i each know him reasonably well. i think many others have said it's pretty clear that president obama and our team here have distinctly different views on iraq from the team that led the united states to invade iraq back in 2003. so he's entitled to his opinion. >> can i get into two specifics of what he says. on one he says that the terrorists, the group isis has taken over more territory and resources than any terrorist group before in history and the president goes out golfing. and he seems blithely unaware or indifferent to the fact that the

insurgent al qaeda threat poses a clear and present danger to the united states. so your reaction to the vice president saying that the president is out golfing when he should be paying attention to this and seems unaware. >> it's clear the president has been paying attention and has been engaging with his security team. it's also very clear that the president has been deliberate surround the question of use of american military force and his belief is we should always be deliberate in that kind of decision-making process and we should very carefully weigh the consequences, both desired and undesired, that can come from the use of u.s. military force. and we should have a very clear focus in mind about what our national security objectives are and what we, the united states can achieve as opposed to what in this case the sovereign nation of iraq and its security forces can and must achieve unless the proposition is, as some in the past have suggested, the united states

should have occupied iraq in perpetuity. that's simply not the president's view -- president obama's view. kristin. >> jay, thanks. based on the latest reporting i have sign, the rebel forces are about 40 miles north of baghdad. is that consistent with your understanding and i know you don't want to give a specific timeline. but can we still expect the president to make a final determination in a matter of days as opposed to that? >> there is a lot of work ongoing and he is considering options ongoing with the war and has not ruled out any options beyond deploy iing u.s. troops into iraq. a lot of work is going on

already around the general pop proposition that i laid out in the beginning of this preaching and the three objectives we have. that have to govern an approach to iraq that has anything but the absolute short-term in mind. >> the president said it would depend on maliki creating a more inclusive government. have you seen any steps he has taken to suggest he's actually doing that. or is he hunkering down? >> first of all, it is absolutely i think self-evident that the future of a nation like

iraq with its diverse population is dependent upon the willingness of its leader to govern inclusively, at least the cohesion of the nation is dependent on that and a proposition that we have been discussing with iraq's leaders for a long time. and it remains true today and there's not been enough done by the government including the prime minister to govern and that has contributed to the situation and the crisis that we have today in iraq. and this is a democratically elected government. it is a country that has just undergone another election and which is in the process of the formation of the new government. a and, you know, what is obviously clear is that, you know, iraq and the people of iraq choose their leaders and we can only be

clear that all of iraq's leaders must about what they must do to unify the country and the people and effectively confront this threat. i would point out when it comes to the steps the president can take or might consider, there -- they are part of a whole package and what is true is our primary objective is not permit groups like isil from establishing a safe haven and the surest way to achieve that is for the government of iraq to govern in a way that is inclusive and that by being inclusive more effectively establishes security and stability throughout the country. >> if not enough has been done should maliki step down? >> that's not obviously for us to decide. as i noted earlier, this is a country that has had democratic

elections. there was a recent election that produced results that requires the formation of a coalition government. that has at least in recent past been a process that takes some time, given the circumstances, you know, moving expeditiously is obviously a good idea but that's something for the iraqi people to decide, not for the united states or any outside nation to decide. regardless of the decision about who is prime minister or what that government looks like, we will make the case that iraq's leaders need to proceed in a way that is reflective of the interests of all of iraq's citizens and all regions of the country and all parties and religious affiliations. that is the only way for a nation like iraq to succeed

ultimately in the medium and long term. >> just one more on a completely different topic. does the president have a reaction to the fact that the redskins' trademark was canceled tod today. >> i haven't spoken to him about that but in an interview with the associated press he was asked about the issue of the team name and said if i were the owner of the team and knew there was a name of my team even if it had a storied history that was offending a size of people i'd think about changing it so that's the president's view. i have no new view of his to provide to you. the decision today was made by the trademark trial and appeal board -- i think maybe cheryl knew that existed prior to that but i bet most of you didn't and it's an independent tribunal within the office and determines the right to register a trademark with the government or

if they already own it its right to maintain it. the board is not authorized to determine whether a party has the right to use a trademark, just whether it has the right to register it. so for more on this, i would encourage you to contact the united states patent and trademark office. >> can you describe the limits of the white house willingness to cooperate with iran dealing with the crisis in iraq? >> i can tell you that we are open to engaging the iranians just as we are engaging other regional players on the threat posed by isil in iraq. as you know the issue did come up between deputy secretary of state bill burps and iran on the margins of the pf plus 1 in vienna on monday. there may be future discussions the lower level, major, though we do not expect the issue to be raised again during this round of p5 plus 1 discussions in vienna.

any discussion about iraq will be separate from ongoing nuclear talks. on the broader question in any possible conversations with iran we would encourage them to act in a responsible, nonsectarian way and to encourage the government of iraq and all iraqi leaders to do the same. iraq's sovereignty must be respected and the government of iraq must focus now on strengthening its internal political and security institutions in a nonsectarian wane and the solution doesn't involve militias but the strengthening of the security torress to combat threats. any engagements we have in the iranians will not include discussion of military coordination or strategic determination about iraq's future over the heads of the iraqi people. >> you want the iranian government to rescind its general call for shiite militias to protect religious tribes in iraq? >> i would say that isil is clearly a threat, a common threat to the entire region including iran but they will

only successfully overcome by governing in a nonsectarian manner and building this their security forces and addressing the concerns of sunni, kurd and other communities. turning to iran is not going to accomplish these important steps and won't solve iraq's problems. you know, iraq's leaders need to make decisions that reinforce the idea for all of iraq's citizens that the government represents all of them and defends all of them and governing in a sectarian way or reinforcing a perception that the central government is pursuing sectarian interests is not a recipe for success when it comes to dealing with the common threat posed by isi will. >> as the process to

>> they have to decide. >> last question. it's clear the president would like many questions answered. among them are these:can you give me reliable target

information on the ground? and the absence of that is in part related to the lack of u.s. eyeballs on the ground to provide not only the target but the assessment of what would be successful or not successful. other things you'd like to have answers is an assessment of the fighting will and capacity of those security forces in and around baghdad. does the president's declaration that there will be no combat forces prevent him from sending those who might be best skilled in answering those questions to iraq to answer those questions to give him better options. >> the president has been clear that that is not an option that he is considering. we are not sending troops back into iraq. that is the only option he has ruled out. we are assessing a variety of different options. we are pursuing an approach that

has only one component. the contemplation of direct action question take. the questions you asked at the beginning about fully understanding the objectives that could be achieved by direct action is absolutely appropriate. as i mentioned earlier, a whole lot of work is being done as part of the president's approach to this challenge and when he has any decisions to announce, he will announce them. in the meantime i think you can be sure that we are taking an approach to iraq that is governed by our view of not only we can do to assist iraq but what iraq must do to assist itself. >> sending people to answer those questions would constitute sending combat forces. >> i'm not going to get into

hypotheticals but how we make assessments about the situation on the ground. what i have made clear is that the president is ruling out sending u.s. troops back into combat. we obviously have a lot of efforts under way that allow us to assess the situation. allow the president and his team to assess options. >> congratulations. ahead of this important meeting with the 3:00 with congressional leaders. some republicans are saying that they think the worst option would be for there to be no u.s. action. from some of your earlier comments, you seem to suggest that if he has a decision to announce, he will announce it. does that suggest that one option on the table is no u.s. military action? >> again, i think it's any time

you say as the president has said on many occasions that he's not ruling out and never does the use of military force in a circumstance like this, that's not ruling in or saying there is a certain use of military force. >> i just want to be clear. so it's not a forgone conclusion that there will be military action. he may not feel that using military force makes sense is that right. >> the president will make decisions in what is in the best interest of the united states and national security. we obviously have a keen interest in the reasonable because of the potential threat that a safe haven for an schemist group like isil could pose to the ut. that is why the president is

considering a variety of options but not limited to this consideration. >> when you talk about the isil and their influence, one thing the former vice president cheney mentioned about how there's a big difference between al qaeda central bin laden having a network that's trying to launch attacks against the u.s. home land and then you have the splinter groups like isis or isil that might not be able to launch terror attacks but now people are saying wait a second. maybe they can take over an islamic state and launch attacks. he quote said if a jv team puts on lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them kobe bryant. >> the president has been very clear as have the senior members of his security team that the principle concern that those al

qaeda affiliates that have demonstrated that they pose a direct threat to our people that could potentially include isil. we have been very focused on these region affiliates and the threat that they pose as core al qaeda has been diminished. it is certainly -- it was certainly the right thing to do to diminish core al qaeda. to go after the central authority figures that attacked the united states on september eleventh, 2001. that doesn't mean that we don't pose other substantial threats. the president and every member of his national security team has been very clear about that. we have as you have seen as a

nation in our collaborative relationships with other nations as well as acting on our own taking action to where we can mitigate the threat posed by extremist groups to the united states and we will continue to do that. >> to deal with this threat you were telling the major how important it is to press prime minister maliki to reform. if that's the case, why did the president have vice president biden call maliki last week? why hasn't the president called maliki directly so make this case? >> i think the president's views are very clear. he has had conversations with with prime minister maliki in the past. >> when was the last time. >> that includes this very issue. the vice president of the united states has obviously keen expertise and very deep relationships in iraq among all of the leaders there in the two years that i served as his communication's director. i believe we went there seven times. he has certainly been there

often since then and it's entirely appropriate that the vice president of the united states speak directly with leaders in iraq as he has consistently for so many years. >> before we go, what happened to lois lerner's e-mails. >> ed, i would prefer you to the irs. they've answered this question. they can answer it again. >> given the fact that they were requested, i think, about ten months ago. it was friday, when congress was informed that they've apparently been missing, will the white house pledge at least to guarantee that you will work to find them since previous officials at the irs have testified to congress under oath that there's back-ups of these e-mails. you previously said you will cooperate with legitimate oversight. is it legitimate to find these e-mails. >> as the irs said they are

producing e-mails from lois learn. as the irs said it professionals worked to restore her hard drive but were unable to do so. nonetheless, the irs has or will produce 24,000 learner e-mails from this time period larm largely from the files of the 82 individuals. i think that answers your question that they are trying to pursue getting e-mails in the absence of some of them. >> the irs obviously is taking action that i skruft descrijust you to supply in addition to the documents that they've already supplied to congress, additional e-mails as they can be recovered. chairman camp requested documents to and from the white house.

we found zero e-mails from learner and anyone in the eop during this period. we found three emails where a third party e-mailed learner and officials within the eop. one was a spam e-mail and somebody seeking tax assistance. >> again, i think the irs is demonstrating that it is undertaking this effort. >> thank you. >> laura. thank you for a job well done. congratulations. if the primary national security objectives of the united states is to deny extremists a safe haven and the most official way is for maliki to government in a naun sectarian manner. has the president come to the conclusion that this is the only way. barring those eforms is there anything we can do on our own short of occupying iraq to

achieve that objective. i'm wondering if he thinks that is even possible. >> there are several levels of hype oj hypotheys iss. it is extremely important that an extremist group cannot establish a safe haven. that is why it's important to be clear about the three pieces, the elements that i talked about, how to deal with the urgent threat from isil. how to build the security forces. it is always the case that when it comes to threats to the united states, the american people, our interests and our

allies, we and the president obviously as commander and chief take action as he sees fit. i think that's the best way i can answer your question. but the -- ultimately, setting aside assistance we are providing and other assistance we might provide in the effort to deal urgent threat posed by isil. iraq needs to take certain steps. short of that of assuring that iraq is a sovereign, secure, nation that doesn't provide a safe haven to these extremist groups. >> shouldn't those three goals that you mentioned, building the capacity of the iraqi military and facilitating nonsectarian

governorance. those were our goals from we left. we had more leverage then. how can we achieve them now that we're not there? >> i think your question in many ways provides the answer which is that it has always been and will always be the case that iraq must take responsibility for its own security ultimately. they they will have and do have in the united states, a partner in that effort but iraq is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government. they need to act and make decisions at the political level to ensure that we have in that country for the sake of the iraq

kri people f the potential fto >> al gore said that he he is likely to reject the permit for the keystone pipe line. has there been any discussion between the former vice president and the president that would lead limb to this conclusion. >> the president's position and our position on the pipe line has not changed. the process that is housed at the state department continues. i've seen that report but i don't have any light to shed on it. the process continues. it is being run by the state department. connie. >> are americans any safer just of what happened in iraq and afghanistan and secondly should we keep one of the seats warm

for you -- >> i can definitely answer one of those questions. connie, i think that our men and women in uniform principally, their families principally, our civilian americans who served in harms way in this country provided extraordinary service. in doing so, have made our country safe. there are obviously issues around the decision which then state senator obama opposed to invade iraq that historians will chew over for a long time but there is no question or debate about the extraordinary service provided by our men and women in uniform and by those who supported them. we all benefit from that and we are all grateful for that from the commander and chief on down.

but this is not -- when it comes to the safety and security of the united states and the threats posed by those who would do us harm, this is an ongoing propositi proposition. it's one that the commander in chief and his successors will always be vigilant about. that is why as we discussed earlier we keep even as we deal with the threats that were present when we got here. that will continue to be the case. i am very confident even as i step away from this podium which i am about to do. thanks jay. >> thank you all very much. >> before you go i want to say in front of all of your close friends, on behalf of your team and behalf of the president, thank you. i want to say thank you to you and thank you to clarence. i want to see thank you to hugo and i wanted to say thank you to

dela. we are going to miss you dearly. you've done unrelenting good work and service for us. we're deeply appreciate tif in how you deal with our partners in the press. jay, we're going miss you dearly. >> thank you all very much. i'm sure we will see each other again. >> jay, is this your last day? >> yes. no, not at at white house. sorry my last briefing. >> i will take that question. so when do you give josh the launch codes and everything. >> oh, i couldn't possibly reveal that. >> thank you all. >> bye-bye.

the epa proposed new rules recently to reduce new green gas emissions from power plants. an epa official will take questions about the proposal before a house subcommittee hearing on energy and power. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on cspan three. later in the day, republican senators ted cruz, mike lee and marco rubio deliver remarks at the faith and freedom coalition conference. the organization was founded by ralph reed and our live coverage begins at 12:30 eastern also on cspan 3. >> the idea behind 250 and 215, instead of trying to tell the entire history of st. louis as a

time line or era by era we would absolutely miss vitally important things. instead of trying to do that and failing, we decided what if we just gave snap shots of st. louis's history that would give people ape gli glimpse of all t differences that happened here so we chose 50 moments, 50 images, 50 places and 50 objects and tries to chose the most diverse section we possibly could. >> we're standing in the part of the exhibit and this is where people would call the real history. this is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of its history. it's an amazing story with lots of different breweries. of course the most famous is anheuser-busch which is the largest in the world. in the era talking about millions of barrels produced each year.

we think they are producing so much beer. this is from an era when things were a little bit simpler. it's fun to show people this object and gauge their response. in the day before they had cans or bottle caps, they put corks in the top of bottles and somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. you can see it's got foot bed pedals on the bottom. it's got three holes for three different sized bottles. >> this weekend, the history and literary life of st. louis, the gate way to the west on cspan book tv and cspan 3's american history t.v. next, a senate panel investigates stock trading practices. the subcommittee on investigations is examining high frequency trading for possible violations of antitrust and insider trading laws. senator carl levin shares the

2:40 minute hearing. >> good morning. good morning everybody. most american's image of the u.s. stock market is shaped by a single room. the trading floor of the new york stock exchange where traders await a ceremonial bell to kick off the day's activity and then trade shares worth millions on scraps of paper. in reality, most shares are traded not on a floor in manhattan but in racks of computer servers in new jerry. trades happen not at the speed

of a human scribbling on paper but in the milliseconds it takes for an order owe travel through fiber optic cables. increasingly, the money made on stock markets comes not from thoroughly assessing companies for their investment potential but from exploiting little advantages at unfathomable speeds earning billions off price differences measured in pennies. we're in the era of high speed trading. i am troubled as are many by some of its hall marks. it is an era of market instability as we saw in the 2010 flash crash. this subcommittee and senate banking committee shared in a hearing. it is an era in which stock

market players by the right to locate their trading computers closer and closer to the computers of stock exchanges confirm a little speed advantage yielding massive products. it raises the question of whether much of what we call the market is in fact an illusion. many, including this senator question whether the rise of high speed trading is overall a good thing for markets and investors. but without question, this era has seen a rise of conflicts of interest. these conflicts will be my focus today. other senators may focus on this or other aspects of high speed trading. new technology should not erase enduring values. financial markets cannot survive on technology alone.

they require a much older concept, trust. trust is eroding. conflicts of interest damage investors in marketed. first by depriving investors of the certainty that their brokers are placing the interest of their clients first and foremost. second, by feeding a growing belief that the markets are simply not fair. in fact, polling shows that roughly 2/3rds of americans believe the stock market unfairly benefits some at the exploitation of others. >> nearly after of americans own stocks or mutual funds who own stock or mutual funds. that lack of faith, if allowed to fester and grow, will

undermine a very important public purpose of stock markets. to efficiently raise capital so businesses might grow. create new jobs and add to america's prosperity. in previous hearings and investigations, this subcommittee has shown that our financial markets have become plagued by conflicts of interest. we have unkofred investment banks willing to create securities based on junk assets and then bet against those same securities, making a fortune at the expense of their clients. we have seen credit rating agencies assign artificially high ratings securities in order to keep or gain business. now, with that history in mind, those who argue that the conflicts we will explore at this hearing are manageable or acceptable have a nightly high

burden proof. what seems to your average investor to be a simple trade is usually a complicated series of transactions involving multiple parties, complex technology and ever increasing order types and payment arrangements. there are retail brokers like the ones found in main street offices across the country. there are whole sale brokers and there are doss of trading venues where shares are bought and sold. most americans know the new york stock exchange. there are now 11 public exchanging, including dark pools which are essentially private exchanges ran by financial institutions. as that complex structure has emerged, so have a number of

conflicts of interest. i will focus on two. the first conflict occurs when a retail broker chooses a whole sale broker to execute trades. the second occurs when a broker acting on behalf of a retail client or an institutional investor which manages pension funds if and retirement accounts. at both of these decision points, the party making the decision should only be influenced by it the best interest of the investor. that's what ethics demand. that's what the law requires. there's another factor in play. at both these, the current structure gives brokers an incentive to place their interests ahead the interest of the clients. here is now. the first conflict which is

illustrated in that chart, occurs when retail brokers receive payments from whole sale brokers for their orders. this money, known as payment for order flow can add up to untold millions and almost every retail broker keeps these payments rather than passing them onto clients. the reason they are willing to pay for order flow are complex. one big one is that whole sail broerks many can kibrokers. and profit from the trade. a process known as internalizing. the second is when a broker decides to use a public trading venue and then chooses which venue it will send orders to for

execution. under what is known as the make or maker arrangement, there is an incentive for the broker to choose the trading venue based on the brokers financial interests rather than the clien clients'. maker taker can be complicated. here is a simplified explanation. when a broker makes an offer on an exchange to buy or sell a stock at a certain price, the broker is classified as a maker. most exchanges will pay the broker a rebate when that offer to buy or sell is accepted. a broker who accepts a maker's offer to buy or sell is called a taker. it will generally pay a fee to the trading venue. the important thing to remember is that brokers, by maximizing

and bay voiding taker fees and can add millions of dollars to their bottom line, giving them a powerful incentive to send the order to the trading venue that is in their best interest even if it is not in their clients' best interest. it is significant that earlier this year. inspectlation that regulate yrs were considering restrictions f september some significantly lower. obviously there's a lot of money at stake in preserving these conflicts of interest. even if firms disclose these payments, disclosure does not excuse them from their legal and ethical obligations to clients. their legal obligation is to provide clients with what is

known as best execution. whether they are meeting that obligation is a subjective judgment. the outcome of this subjective judgment affects the way 10s of millions of trades are executed. some who profit from these payments argue that seeking this revenue does not interfere with their obligation to seek best execution. however, one of our witnesses today of the university of notre dame has done research kating that when given a choice four le four leading brokers send theirs to the markets offering rebates at every opportunity. the research further suggests that the exchanges offering the highest rebates do not in fact offer the best execution for

clients. these brokers argue that they can pocket these rebates while still meeting their obligation to provide clients with best execution. so while they make a subjective judgment as to which trading venue provides best execution on 10s of millions of trades a year. that subjective judgment always just happens to also result in the biggest payment to brokers. i find it hard to believe that this is a coincidence. many market participants are worried about the conflicts of interest embedded in the current market structure. in addition to professor b

batallio this panel will include bratly caugh bradley katsuyama. the second panel will include four witnesses, thomas farly whose corporate owners have described them as having a corrosive impact on stock markets. joseph radermin of bats global markets which operates exchanges that compete with the new york stork ex-change and has a different way. the third witness on the second panel is joseph brenin of vanguard group. a major mutual fund company that has expressed concerns about these conflicts. the fourth witness in the second panel is steve quark of

t.d.ameritrade. a retail broker that derives significant revenue from payment overflow and from rebates they receive from exchanges. the duty of lawmakers and financial regulators is to look out for the interests of investors and the wider public. there is significant evident that these conflicts can damage repyrement savings, pension holdings and other investments under which americans rely. even americans without a single share of stock or mutual fund account have something at stake because stock marketed exist to foster growth and job creation. conflicts of interest jeopardize that vital function. americans don't shy from innovation or technology. indeed we embrace them. but americans are understandably

suspicious when technology can be turned against them and their family's financial interest. they are rightly concerned when technology is used to undermine basic enduring principals such as trust and duty to a client. our goal is to advance the trust of investors in our free marketed by promoting those enduring values. i wanted to thank senator mccain and his staff for his close cooperation in this matter as has always been the case in all matters. senator mccain. >> thank you very much chairman. i think this is a very important hearing. i appreciate the hard work that you and your excellent staff have done on it. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. when michael lewis's book flash boys came out, the public knew

very little about high frequency trading. important questions were raised. is the stock market rigged by high speed traders with faster access to market investigation. advanced technology and sophisticated algorithms. is it adding cost to other traders without contributing any real value to the market. will stock markets face another flash crash like in 2010 when the dow jones tom pourarily lost $1 trillion in the matter of minutes. these concerns have fueled suspiciouses that wall street may have become the ultimate insiders game while the average investor can