johnson. send in many, many more troops. send them all in at once and we can win. but that's not what had happened. and now i'd like you to listen to ronald reagan comparing eisenhower in korea, his model, as to what he wanted to see done when discussing negotiating about vietnam. >> my statements last week about what should be done at the negotiating table, include former remarks by president eisenhower. the effect when you sit down and negotiate with a communist, we should keep in mind that two years of negotiations in korea in which during that period of time, more than 20,000 americans were killed, and i think you have to recall president eisenhower coming in as a new president, toward the end of that two-year period, draw an end to the negotiations and settling the conflict by simply releasing the word the united states was going to review its operations, weapons, theater of operation, manner of fighting

and so forth. i said the same thing to be true in these paris negotiations. at the given time we let the enemy know they've shown no sincere desire to settle this conflict, that they are procrastinating, using the negotiations to gain what they couldn't gain in the battlefield, then we must be prepared to threaten them with force. i don't believe the same conditions president eisenhower submitted would be the conditions here. a review of our strategy, review of targets, review of leaders of operation, meaning whether we're going to continue to fight this war and destroy the cities of south vietnam or fight this war on their own soil. the first two weeks of these negotiations, the death rate for americans in combat has gone up and set new records for this entire long war. the idea [ inaudible ] -- whatever is required, if that

should be done. meantime, the enemy should see preparations. but the enemy must believe and see you are amassing weapons and mobilizing the forces that are going to result in an invasion. >> so ronald reagan was recommending, as had eisenhower, that the american navy should threaten an invasion of the north, as well as threaten to use atomic weapons. he wanted the vietnamese quaking in their beds every night. he wanted to win the war. if president johnson committed our troops, which he did, reagan and ike wanted to win the war. in may of '68, reagan said things were different when ike was in charge. twice during those eight years menacing soviet movements against berlin were disposed of without the call up of a single reinforcement simply by a show of calm, unwavering resolution. now i'd like to end this section where ronald reagan reflects

upon the technological triumphs of the eisenhower years and all that the kennedy/johnson years had squandered. he's going to go through a list of weapons that we have, not to glorify war, but to show that we were prepared under the eisenhower years. i'd like you pay special attention to one particular phrase. eisenhower complained when truman called him back from being the president of columbia university to head nato. he was coming to help truman get his chestnuts out of the fire. and reagan is going to use that same expression and he only would have gotten that through discussions with dwight eisenhower. >> where did we take a recent course. in recent days there's been smiles in the kremlin. they've been warm and friendly. but i wonder if they're smiling or if they're laughing at us. we're now ready to talk a nuclear weapon treaty that will

stop us from protecting our cities as theirs are already protected by a bum listic missile program. russian weapons are killing our young men and raining down on the innocent civilians of saigon. but our national leaders indicate that they believe we can enter into a treaty in spite of the fact that this other nation has already broken more than 50 treaties with this country and has indicated that it believes it is its right to break a treaty any time it suits its national purpose. lenin said to tie one's hands in advance and to openly tell an enemy who is presently armed that we will fight him and win is stupidity. a great society has made a big point of its supposed freshness of outlook, its zest for innovation and its gift for invention. the truth is that great society has brought forth little that is great and nothing that is new. practically all the truly commanding weapons systems now in american inventory were developed or brought forward during the eisenhower years. the ballistic rockets with their

numerous variations. the development driven to completion by a brilliant young missile man of a new breed, general bernard shriver, of a miniaturized thermo nuclear warhead. the supersonic jet strike force conceived and made operable by general curtis lamay, the father of the strategic air command and one of the greatest air geniuses of all time. the entire polaris concept, born of an admiral's persistence. but where are these men with their drive and determination now? adding pulled america's chestnuts out of the fire in the '50s, what do they have to say about american technology in this decade? >> to bring this to current times, what do you think reagan and eisenhower would say whether in advance we should tell when our troops are going to be withdrawn from iraq and afghanistan. there was very little opportunity -- and certainly i

would find fault with ronald reagan of the very little that publicly he thanked dwight eisenhower. part of my research i was able to find the actual one moment when he did. listen to a reporter. his words are a little garbled at the beginning. he asks ronald reagan if eisenhower's use of the term "common sense" might be a good campaign theme. >> some expression i like, general eisenhower said we are the party of common sense. he thinks that would be a great slogan for us. >> well, i tell you, i used a slogan at a campaign in california years ago, and i agree with it. matter of fact, he was the inspiration for it. >> he was the inspiration for it, his direct attribution to the reporter of the critical importance of eisenhower to him. now what happens in the summer of '68, i know i'm not spending very much time on that convention. eventually eisenhower does

endorse richard nixon. richard nixon actually went to eisenhower to ask for his endorsement, and the two families were getting together. david eisenhower, ike's grandson, was about to marry julie nixon, nixon's daughter. what else could eisenhower really do? but here is reagan reflecting upon that endorsement. >> the possible effect of general eisenhower's endorsement of richard nixon, i think the number of republicans must have taken great pride in his unqualified statement of approval of all the other republican leaders who have been mentioned. he is a revered and honored figure of the republican party. >> i'm not going to go to the last part of my talk. we're going to go beyond his governorship into his presidency and even after with the briefest of samples of the continuing

influence of dwight eisenhower throughout the remaining years of ronald reagan. 1975, reagan is no longer governor. he's not yet challenged gerald ford in 1976. but he reflects back on eisenhower. ike ended a war in korea that had killed tens of thousands it and for the rest of his eight years, no young americans were being shot at. he halted dead in its track the advance of communism. big government didn't get any bigger. never had a nation's wealth been so widely distributed. never were we so strong. in january of 1978, this is while reagan is running for the presidency for the third time, one of the big issues of that era was whether the panama canal should be returned to panama. william buckley, the person who was mentioned earlier, a conservative, was in favor of that. ronald reagan was against it. but here is a little bit of a debate that reagan and buckley had. i'd like you to listen as to

whom reagan cites. this is almost a decade after eisenhower had passed away. >> but i also know a president you didn't mention who was first engaged in the problems in panama. president eisenhower. president eisenhower told me the idea he had for the treaties and is far different than anything contained in these treaties. as matter of fact, he was toying a very interesting idea of forming an international cooperation of shipping nations, all the nations of the world, a quasi corporation to own both the suez and panama canal, and thus with all participating and all using those canals, there would be no possibility of one jumping the traces. he told me that in a golf cart which was a pretty good place to hear it. >> of course again it is the two of them discussing foreign affairs. think of all the different areas in the world that reagan is

discussing being mentored by dwight eisenhower. well, during that 1980 campaign, reagan is asked, who's your favorite president? he answers, he really can't choose just one. and of course, mentions that the obvious choices for anybody would be george washington or abraham lincoln. but he immediately switches the conversation to dwight eisenhower. he tells the reporter, ike was a darn good manager. those were the really last prosperous years we've known. there was certainly peace in the world, and he then brings up the firm stance that eisenhower took. he told it the reporter, ike said they'll have to climb over the 7th fleet. nobody tried to. there was no war and the two remained free. there is even an academic paper that was written about during the 1980 campaign, that reagan used the term "common sense" to discuss the soviet threat. reagan also used the words "common sense" during his 1984 state of the union address directly from dwight eisenhower.

there behind reagan's oval office desk he kept a photo of ike. in his private study reagan kept a bust of dwight eisenhower. and in ronald reagan's cabinet room he hung a towering portrait of eisenhower. he liked to give speeches with a not with a teleprompter but with index cards. >> you can see this event and any other c-span program on c-sp c-span.org. we leave this recorded program for live coverage from philadelphia, a panel discussion on national security policy challenges for the next president. co-hosted by the center for american president live on c-span3. welcome to the university of pennsylvania and welcome to perry world house. my name bill burke white and i'm the inaugural director of this extraordinary new institution. when our doors opened formally on september 20th, and you're all invited back to philadelphia for what will be another great,

though i promise more politically diverse panel, once we open our doors in september, we will be the university of pennsylvania's global public forum, convening the greatest academic and policy minds from around the world and pointing them towards some of the most pressing global challenges. we will help bring penn's academic knowledge to bear in seeking innovative solutions that might lie just over the horizon. the speakers gathered today are the kinds of thinkers and doers perry world house will convene in the days ahead. on behalf of myself and associate director michael horowitz, it's my pleasure to introduce the president of the university of pennsylvania, an educational visionary who has championed and charted pn's internationalization and policy engagement including the establishment of perry world house. a prolific scholar in her own right whose books and articles have grappled with the difficult questions of deliberation and

democracy, identity and equality, the very questions we are all grappling with here in philadelphia and in our global public stage today. it is my honor and privilege to present dr. amy gutman, president of the university of pennsylvania. >> thank you, welcome everybody. thank you, bill for launching us on this great bringing the world to penn adventure. i do want to thank richard perry who made perry world house possible. so thank you, richard. really, really great. so adelaide stevenson was one of my father's political heroes. my father was an immigrant. the immigrant experience is very close to my heart and part of my

reason for being. he fled nazi germany, lived in india for 14 years before he came to america and met my mother, and america was truly the land of freedom, of liberty and opportunity for him. adelaide stevenson, as you all know, ran twice for president, and he lost twice, but he always had a rye sense of humor that seems especially appropriate these days. he said, in america, anyone can become president. that's one of the risks we take. so stephenson was a great statesman and diplomat. he served notably as kennedy's ambassador to the united nati s nations. we all think of those days, and those were the days where i

learned politics, not professionally, but just absorbed it through my family. we all think of those days as an era of binary risk. there were the russians, and there were the americans. one one or the other did basically defined the parameters of international security. crude, simple but a basic truth of those times. we all know that's not the case today. today challenges to national security are defined as often by non-state players and by the events and forces of actors that act across national boundaries. not that russia isn't a factor. i needn't tell all of you that, but russia is a factor and by no means the primary or exclusive

o one. this is a great group we have, and i was joking, but only partially joking with this great group assembled that we have all security bases covered here. we have state and defense and national security and the armed forces and usaid and political affairs and legislative affairs and policy planning, and we have great people who have done great things and who have tremendous wisdom to share. so i just want to say welcome to madeleine albright, tom donnell lon, seth molten, leon panetta, rajiv shaw, wendy sherman, jake sullivan and a wonderful moderator as well who will introduce this formally. i want to say that while our paths have crossed, getting you all toperson is a true treat.

thank you for being here. let's give them all a hand. [ applause ] >> a special shout-out. i really resonated with madeleine albright's speech last nig night. [ applause ] >> making connections is important. i was a big fan of secretary albright's even before. but then she pulled the mother and grandmother card, and it is the right -- we also share being mothers of daughters, and now grand mothers of grandsons. it really does teach management skills. so there you go. that was a truth. so when we talk about national security today -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, we have a new problem to solve here, technological.

when we talk about national security today, the subject matter prominently includes challenges such as isis or p pandemic disease and global shugss are not measured in tanks or long range bombers. yes, hard power matters and power certainly still matters. but power essentially includes our ideas and knowledge and discovery and understanding which is why i'm so pleased to welcome this amazing group here today. i have to say something about the university of pennsylvania because it's a place where we work hard to maximize the impact of our quest, and it's an avid

quest for knowledge, discovery and understanding. it's at the heart of everything we do. i really do want to focus on the understanding part, the creative understanding part. a penn pale tolt working with a colleague in china recently found a forest preserved in volcanic ash from a time nearly 300 million years ago when the earth went through a rapid change from cold to hot, similar to what we're experiencing today. what we're learning there can help predict global warming and how it will progress. another penn team has developed a rapid low-cost genetic test for the zika virus. the ability to rapidly and reliably identify disease outbreaks is the first critical step in effectively controlling them. elsewhere at penn, at our annenberg school of communication, our dean is here

with us today, scholars are working at annenberg and across the schools of arts and sciences and other skoos, engaged in pioneering work, understanding how isis uses the tools of social media and the internet to provoke fear and inspire followers, and what tools are available to combat these terrorist forces before they gather and spread. so as these examples suggest and as this wonderful new building, the perry world house makes manifest, and as our new facility in beijing, the penn war and china center makes abundantly clear, penn has a global outlook. we are profoundly american institution with a global perspective, and we work in the world and across the world promoting the very ideals that motivate what's most needed today, and it can be summed up

in one word, diplomacy. we have here great diplomats from across a spectrum that is absolutely relevant to national security, and they stand as our university stands for greater understanding, knowledge and trust among peoples of all nations for the sake of making our country greater, which begins with safety but doesn't end there. you can't promote that safety without understanding. so i just want to say in conclusion to my remarks that, how important soft diplomacy is in our world. it's not the only key, but it is a very important key. soft diplomacy meaning the greater understanding, knowledge and trust among peoples of all nations. it's key to our confronting many of the challenges in today's

world, and one of the best forms of that diplomacy is what i call educational diplomacy. american universities are admired and recognized as among the very best around the world. and as a result, other countries send their very best students, their future leaders in science and business and the humanities and government to us, to be educated. next month, penn will welcome our incoming class of 2020. i wrapped my mind around that, the close of 2020, our undergraduate class. roughly one in seven of the students who are coming in a few weeks to penn to move in will be international students, from countries other than the united states. one in seven. in 1980, you only have to go back 40 years -- in 1980 -- one

in seven is about 14%, 15%. in 1980, you want to guess what that percentage was? .7%. so that is a dramatic change and that really speaks volumes for what it means to be a global institution. we have students coming from antigua to zimbabwe and a hundred-plus countries in between. they come to penn to learn, but they go from here with a deep and rich understanding of the united states, our relation to the world, and our highest values and our most profound hopes for the world. so penn is engaged in the world and we engage the very best students from around the world, creatively and innovationly

making a positive impact on the wourmd. that's educational diplomacy. our work is in a very real sense your work, everybody's work here. and in welcoming you here today, i invite you and i urge you to think of us always as a willing and able partner in the supremely important task of promoting understanding here at home and all across the globe. that -- i can't think of a higher purpose than doing that and i for one, being someone who works in the world of soft diplomacy and educational diplomacy think that it's a calling worthy of our partnering with everybody here at home and around the world and welcoming them all into an inclusive community. i think it's probably more important than ever to speak that as self-evident as it may

seem. there was a "new yorker" cartoon i remember from years ago that i always am fond of of a little boy tugging on the coattails of thomas jefferson, looking up at hill and saying, if you take these truthing to be self-evident, why do you harp on them so much? we harp on them because they're not self-evident without teaching them. i want to thank you all for being here, and i want to thank all the organizations, the wonderful organizations that partnered with us to making this forum possible. a warm welcome to you all, and especially to our panelists. thank you for joining us in this mission. >> i'll keep this very brief. i just want to -- i'm a fellow of the foreign policy program at

brookings. i want to thank the co-sponsors involved in this terrific event and thank you to bill burke white, my friend, and congratulations on the opening of this wonderful building. our co-sponsors are the truman project, center for american project, national security leadership alliance and third way. the second and more important thing is we understand there's about 15 members of the armed services, veterans in the audience. we wanted to recognize you for your service before we began. if you can please stand up, and join me in welcoming them. [ applause ] room he held a photo. >> with that and since the introductions have already been done, vic rum, i'll hand it over to you oochs we'll keep all this moving along very quickly and very brief and we'll have plenty of time for questions at the end. >> thanks, tom, thanks everybody. welcome. i'm going right into this. secretary albright, we're in a

time of unprecedented change in the international security environment and also in the midst of an unpress deptd election. the question before us today are the national security, what's at stake in this election. can you tell me, do you think the dynamics of this election are actually impacting american national security right now as we speak? >> thank you. i'm delighted to be here and the answer is yes. i think that we are in a very delicate time. and i said yesterday that i was concerned about some of the comments that have come out of the other candidate and that they are a national security issue in many ways. just having trump run for president has raised questions about how we see national security. let me just put it into context. i do do an awful lot of traveling and i was at the warsaw nato summit. they had a parallel summit going on of experts.

from there, i then went on to cambridge university in england in order to be a discussion about our politics and their politics. so i kind of feel i was in very interesting places at a complicated and interesting time. i'm a great believer in nato. i have followed it from its inception. i was born in check vac yea czechoslovakia. it was after the communist coup that nato was created in 149. i'm also very proud that i was in office when we expanded nato with the first tranche of taking poland, hungary and the czech republic into nato. since i heartened back to truman yesterday, we signed the agreements and independence on truman's desk. also, i had been asked at the 60th anniversary of nato to look at a new strategic concept given the fact that everybody thought

things had changed, that europe was secure and that we ought to think about what, in fact, was the mandate of nato in a different world when issues were out of area. it makes ne me realize now that, in fact, it was a lesson in always questioning assumptions. buzz all of a sudden, the nato meeting taking place in warsaw had to deal with an old threat. what was it that russia was doing? why were the pal ticks feeling threatened? what was going to happen in asymmetrical warfare, a variety of kinds? i was there at an important time. i know president gutman was talking about diplomacy. i started out by being undiplomatic which was in my talk i said brexit had happened as a result miscalculation and incompetence. and then i ran into david camer

cameron. but i do think that actually the two events went together because i do think that the nato summit went very well, and i went very well because people realized it was the existing institution to keep europe together, and in a very ironic way, brexit actually strengthened it because people recognize the importance of nay toechlt it also made us recognize what had to happen in order to keep europe unified and looking in the direction of how it would act together and made very clear the importance of united states engagement. therefore, when i was asked about what was going on politically here and had to try to explain that we had not lost our minds, and what was it that donald trump was actually talking about, why was he for undermining and taking nato apart? why was he questioning everything that went on? therefore, while we think we are

talking to the american people, and we are, mostly also we're listened to abroad. i think that's a very important part in terms of how the political impact of what is going on. i then did go to england, and it was very interesting, and also a lesson in terms of how domestic and foreign impact. they had absolutely no plan b. they have no idea what they did. most of the people that voted had not really followed what was going on, and i think that it also is a lesson in terms of how essential this aspect of what is going on domestically and in foreign affairs really can be. i'm very glad i was there in order to kind of pick that up. i do think that we are at a particularly complicated time because most of the things that we grew up with -- by the way, when the president was talking

about her life and made me feel very old. adelaide stephen son was running for office when i was at wellesley, sometime between the invention of the ipad and the discovery of fire. it was the beginning of my political career. and so it's very interesting to think about how the world has changed. at that stage it was the red and the red, white and blue. i think we now do have a lot of complications. and i re recently was in a terrific discussion with david miliband who had been the foreign secretary of the uk. and he said -- the whole theme of the talk was a decade of discord. i think we need to figure out what happens in that decade where domestic and foreign policy intertwine. >> thank you. secretary panetta, reflecting on what secretary albright just said, what do you think in terms of how this election is playing into real national security

issues right now? >> well, first of all, thanks for the invitation to be here. it's great to have this opportuni opportunity. in my over 50 years of public life, this is the screwiest damn election i've ever seen. i can't believe what we're seeing. i've served under nine presidents starting with lyndon johnson, republican and democrat, all experienced. all had a great appreciation for american leadership in the world. this is the first election where there is only one candidate who has the experience and the temperament and the understanding of the world to be commander-in-chief. the other candidate doesn't have any experience, doesn't know the

world, shoots from the hip on all these issues, shot from the hip today in asking russia to do a cyber attack against the united states, for god's sakes. i know it's funny, but it's deadly serious. this is deadly serious business. people that are up here know that better than anyone. we're living in a world that has a number of flash points. this is probably in many ways a world that has a lot of instability since world war ii. you know what all of the issues are, from terrorism and isis and failed states, dealing with nuclear threats from north korea, continuing to worry about what iran may be up to, concerned about russia, a new chapter in the cold war, concerned about china.

we have a strong economic relationship, but we also want them to abide by international rules. cyber attacks. we're living where there's a new battlefield in the world today, and that's cyber. it has the potential to virtually cripple this country. all of these areas, plus others, climate change, et cetera, these are huge challenges that are going to face the next president of the united states. to think that there's even a possibility that somebody like a donald trump could become president of the united states, a guy who said, mott only we ought to back away from our alliances, not only are we to undermine our nato alliance, but he's also said that u.s. troops ought to torture, our personnel ought to torture in violation of our own constitution. he said we ought to sped nuclear weapons in asia, in the middle

east. this is a guy who said we ought to stop all muslims from coming the this country, build a wall. i mean, this is crazy stuff. and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. the fact is, what he has said has already represented a threat to our national security. because if you go abroad and you talk to people abroad, they are very worried that somebody like this could become president of the united states. it has already raised questions in terms of where the united states is and whether we will be there. let me tell you, for all of those challenges i just discussed, we are not going to be able to deal with all of those challenges without building alliances, without working with arab countries, without working with israel, without working with nato, without working with countries in asia.

we're not going to be able to do that. yet you've got somebody who is running for president that basically says we should do none of that and basically retreat into isolationist america, america first kind of attitude. we know what that position did for us in the '30s. yet he's talking about doing exactly that. so i worry about that, largely because, as the son of italian immigrants, the reason my parents came here is because they believed they could give their children a better life. that's the american dream. and i worry about my children and their children and whether or not we can provide that better life if you elect somebody who is as irresponsible as donald trump. so for that reason, i hope that you will pay attention and that you will vote and that hopefully hillary clinton will be our next president. tom donnell lon -- you can

applaud if you want to. >> thank you, secretary panetta. secretary panetta mentioned walking away from our alliances. you were national security adviser. if you were sitting in the white house in your previous role and you had just been told that the russians had definitely hacked into an american political party in the course of an election. what would you think about what we're facing and what would you tell the president? >> he would invest the cia to go after them. >> right. >> but then i couldn't tell you about it. >> thank you, and than, for having us here. i'm on the stage here with colleagues i've spent hundreds of hours with over the last seven years, working on very hard problems. leon panetta and i have probably

been in 500 -- no exaggeration, 500 meetings over the last several years. we've never been in a place with natural light though. so richard, thank you, appreciate it. this is a new experience. >> the circumstances are private sector experts at this point have put forward a strong case that the dnc networks were penetrated by a couple of groups closely associated with russian intelligence, one associated with the fsb, one with the fcr. if you want to look at some of the evidence on this, crowd strike that did the forensics from the dnc published their paper on this. you can take a look. it's a pretty strong case at this point. so we have circumstance where advanced persistent threats sponsored by russia, at least according to the outside experts, have gotten into the

dnc systems. the fbi has been asked by the president and the u.s. government to investigate this. they'll investigate a number of things. they'll investigate attribution which in the cyber world is a challenging task. they will investigate intention. with respect to intention, there's a range of possible intentions obviously here. the scale and timing is such that it goes back to intention, they're trying to either embarrass or affect the election. that would be the first point. second is that we look at statements, look at the reaction from the russian government. the statements made by the russian federation spokesperson were not credible. to say russia never engages in such activity is not true. the russian federation has engaged in recent years in cyber attacks in a number of places and bit's become public. in georgia, estonia, ukraine. it's important to point out in the ukraine incursion, eastern ukraine and the takeover of

crimea, information warfare was an essential part of their operations. cyber attacks and information warfare, controlling the propaganda was an essential part of their hybrid war that we've talked about, is about in europe. so those statements are just not true. of course, we have lots of evidence they've been engaging in trying to interfere in european elections, funding european parties that they think can add to division in europe. what the government can do is try to establish attribution. in my judgment you have to think about what would youd do with the information. i would confront the russian federation and do it publicly and talk about consequences. we went through a similar exercise with respect to the chinese where i gave a speech in the spring of 2013, calling them out for the first time, with respect to different deals. it was long time cyber and economic theft. it was a different deal. but that led to an engagement with the chinese about what could be on and what isn't on. the way not to deal with this, of course, would be to encourage

an adversary, a foreign power to engage in hacking the private e-mail of the secretary of state of the united states. that would not be -- i don't think that option would be in the options paper that would be considered by the president of the united states going forward. it's dangerous, frankly. i don't know of any public -- never mind apartment candidate -- i don't know any public citizen asking for hagging a public or private sector. the last statement i'll make, it's a broader issue with respect to some of the dynamics in the world. we would certainly discuss this if we were considering it. you need to understand what your adversaries in the world are about. there's been a tendency by one of the people in the race to

dangerously embrace a set of strategies by the russian federation which are intent on undermining key western institutions. these institutions are under a lot of pressure. the european union has been under a tremendous amount of pressure as a result of the crises, from the economic crises, your i don't zone cri s crisis, terrorism, migration, brexit, russian pressure and an attempted queue in turkey, under tremendous pressure. one of russia's goals wub to undermine these institutions and making statements to undermine them, playing into if hands of russian strategy as opposed to understanding we need more cooperation, tighter alliances, more cooperative effort to meet the challenges to these institutions. that would be a sense of the discussion i think. >> thanks, tom.

>> i think tins tugss we're talking about are somewhat abstract to people. julia, you've probably worked for most of the people on this stage, working with these institutions and these alliances. why does it matter if we're pulling away? why does it matter to americans that europe sort of can keep being -- >> it matters a great deal, to our own security and because we've invested so much in the european project. we are not a member of the european union, but we certainly contributed to the foundation upon which that institution was created. nato is an american institution that benefits greatly from u.s. leadership. i think that's why so many of our allies are confused by some of these comments they've heard from donald trump, questioning u.s. commitment to the ally angs. they're questioning his

questioning because no u.s. president has ever called into question our commitment to the nato alliance. no presidential candidate, no president has ever done that. and we haven't done that because nato as an institution has guaranteed that war has not broken out on the european continent for the better part of 70-some years. and we want to ensure that that doesn't happen again. we remember world war ii. we know we lost 60 million people, 420,000 americans. and we want to commit ourselves to an institution that will guarantee that we all have an iron-clad guarantee to each other's, commitment to security. nato membership is not optional. it's not conditional. it's not available just on a tuesday should you desire. you don't get to pick when you want to be a nato member. when you become a nato member, you commit. you have an unwavering

commitment to this institution and to all of its member security. whenna allies like those in europe and even our canadian friends look at what's coming out of this campaign, they are deeply troubled by it because it's not a democratic value. it's not a republican value. this is an american value. europeans don't want to see us center a phase where we forget about the benefits of nato and why we created it in the first place. unfortunately donald trump does not have -- seem to have the history to understand why we created this institution in the first place. >> i want to go down the line to representative moulton. you fought with nato allies and arab partners in the wars of the last decade.

as secretary panetta mentioned, the importance of our allies, you've actually brought your iraqi translator to the united states as a refugee. can you tell us how the discourse we're hearing right now resonates with you, both as a soldier and a representative of your people, of your state? >> i can absolutely speak to that as a marine, not a soldier -- >> marine. hoo ha. sorry. and i know better. >> seriously, it's frightening. it's frightening. i've been working on refugee immigration with the siv program for iraq and iraqi and afghan translators. these are men and women who put their lives on the line not just for their country, but for ours. the fact that we would abandon to them due to the rhetoric on the republican side and especially from trump is really

going to churt our ability to conduct foreign policy down the road. i was in iraq and afghanistan last week, and i was visiting the troops -- let me back up and explain this. i was honored to be a part of it. it was the chairman of the armed services committee, chairman of defense appropriations and this one freshman democrat from massachusetts who has little foreign policy experience because i was on the ground. i was honored to go on this co-del. i was approached on the floor by the chairman and asked to go. i said what weakest? he said i think it's the third week in july. i said i don't think that's right. that's your convention. he said, no, that's right. we went over there and didn't do the typical bagdad and kabul embassy visits. we really got out, because we had a small group, o to solve o the bases in the midst of this conflict. i never try to bring politics into this. some of the troops brought

politics up to me. while i would never purport to speak to all the troops, i can tell you there's real concern out there about what's being said, about the danger that trump's rhetoric troops' lives in today, not just hypothetically if he were to become the commander-in-chief, but just by what he's saying on the campaign trail, how that hurts our ability to fight these wars, to survive in places like iraq and afghanistan. i think that's frightening. i think the other part of this, as a politician, a very new politician. i'm the first congressman that my parents ever met. this is a very new job for me. it's also frightening that when you have a major party candidate who does things like call on one of our greatest adversaries to conduct cyber attacks on the united states, it's frightening for americans that so many people are still planning to vote for him. the lesson we all have to take

away from this -- there's probably not a single trump voter in the room. sir, i'm going to pick on you because you're the closest to me. extremely well dressed, smart tie, you have "the new yorker" and the economist underneath your seat. there's a lot we can talk about. we've got to get out there as americans and talk to the people who are planning to vote for this maniac. that's really important, that we come out of this week and go do that across the country. when i was an undergraduate at harvard i was doing primary source research at the kennedy library. i was writing a paper on vietnam. i saw this list of different boxes we could take out of the archives. one said the president's desk on the day he died. i requested that just out of curiosity. i didn't think they'd give it to me, but they did. of the little things in temperature's desk was something his secretary, secretary lincoln had typed up that said the

president's favorite quote. a quote you probably all know from edmond burke. the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, i think that's a lesson we all have to heed today. the only good news is that edmond burke didn't contemplate the power of good women. >> i wanted this to be more of a conversation, but we're so pressed for time. i'm going to rkt through a few more. raj, you oversaw the civilian counterparts people forget sometimes, our diplomats and aide workers out there in all these dangerous situations. it's only an issue when it makes the news, normally in some bad or tragic way. could you reflect a little bit on where you see this idea of integrated power, of using all elements of national power? it sound like a sound bite and

in real life an afterthought. >> it's anything but an afterthought. the reality is with kind of isolationist language and tendencies being described by candidate trump, one should be quite terrified that this retraction of american engagement around the world is both to our alliances that are oriented around security, and it's to the alliances and initiatives we've established that are fundamentally about helping to invest in the forward defense of our national security by fighting poverty and fragility in some very tough places around the world. the language that mr. trump used in his acceptance speech around refugees, in addition to being extraordinarily inaccurate that refugees are statistically a threat, a terrorist threat, we have layers of very careful analysis and vetting, and of the refugees that have entered the

united states after that well-run process, we've had no significant threats emerge from people who have been placed as refugees. that's all thinking about us here. the reality is there are 61 million refugees around the world right now. it's the highest level it's been in our history. we are the world's global humanitarian leader taking care of displaced persons, refugees, all around the world. the minute we step back and say we're no longer interested in that moral mission. we're miss defining what a refugee is as a terrorist threat and pulling our resources and leadership out. the minute we do that, everyone else will stop investing and supporting those refugees. everyone on this panel has hosted or directed what we call donor conferences around different crises. it is almost always the case that american leadership in that moment of crisis on humanitarian

and moral values and grounds is what keeps the global community fighting for justice for those displaced individuals. what you know with what donald trump is proposing is terrible in that regards and another fight is ebola. i am sure people are real, genuine fears. it was hard and difficult for president obama and the security team to make science based decisions to keep flights and travel ongoing, to encourage american health workers to go in west africa and putting troops on the ground to create safety evacuations and treatments. had u.s. aid at that time had 10,000 local individuals in liberia under employment, fighting that disease with new

technology and approaches. had we not done that, had we said this is not our jobs anymore and we are not responsible for problems that happen elsewhere, we'll be still be dealing with ebola in this country today. these things don't always capture the headlines when they work. the reality is from haiti to ebola and serving refugees coming out of syria to what happened just last week of the bipartisan bases passed and the party signed on the food act which helps moving 95 million people out of poverty, resurgence and support for farmers to do better. they are an important part of our national security. they can be done in a way that guard us with tremendous bipartisan support and just being dismissive of that is a

higher set of moral obligations and not only deeply threatening to our national security and how we define as who we are as americans. [ applause ] >> i would like to ask ambassador sherman and jake there who started and ended this incredible process of iran, nuclear deal. one fascinating thing is it is also it is highly criticized and used as without an explanation as an attack line. take us into the negotiating room and help us understand what is happening that we are no not -- it is not seen as a triumph of american diplomacy but rather, a political football. >> first of all, thank you for being here and thank you for inviting all of us here

together. it is great to see everyone again. we come to conventions so we can see each other from time to time. um -- you know, i actually think it is a triumph of american diplomacy but more than a triumph of american diplomacy. it is encouraged by president obama and extraordinary planning in the national security councils at the time started by tom donadlon. we use every power that we have. people think of this as a negotiation and i will come to that in a second. my colleague jake sullivan and our ambassador read the channel and challenge to get this going. but, it was not just the negotiation. we looked to our american military and we arrange our

forces in a way that says we'll do what we need do to make sure that iran does not get a new nuclear weapon. deploying a new weapon that would able to penetrate an under ground facility. our intelligence community went to work in unprecedented way that i cannot talk about. [ laughs ] >> we began diplomacy all around the world to import sanctions and secretary clinton led an unbelievable effort to get multi lateral sanctions throughout the world that did not stop and we are never going to stop iran's nuclear program but we are going to force iran to make a very tough choice. to focus their minds to bring them to the negotiating table. we literally send teams around

the world to say, this is the german ambassador, to say to our europeans. >> oh, give me a break. >> i know, i am introducing you. >> but, to get our european colleagues to stop importing any, any iranian oils. to get good neighbors like our friend, the ambassador, who had a strong relationship with iran to look at what they were doing. oh, we, in fact, use sources of information shall we say to create a virtual embassy to reach in the iranian people and try to talk to them about what's going on. while i want people to understand that while i joke we negotiated inside of our government, led by the president of the united states which took

a few hours of our time in that very darkroom. we negotiated with our european colleagues because we did it with all of the permanent members of the city council and the european union and iran on the other side of the table. we negotiated with partners all around the world because japan and korea and india and china. we are dependant on iranian oil but cut back of their imitati importation of iranian. >> and stop doing some things with iran. and ultimately, we negotiated with all of our partners around the table and every now and again with iran. >> an incredible process for almost two years begun with extraordinary channels that jake

can describe. it requires a president and why i think personally that hillary is that president is a required courage. president obama made an extraordinary decision understanding that we could not bomb away iran's knowledge that jake and bill byrne could offer something to the iranians. that took political courage to do it in secret. it takes commitment and clarity of objectives which we had in the government and spending hours and hours achieving on a constant bases. it took timing and righteousness because for two years we went running around with the president accomplishing almost nothing but except getting to know each other. it took a change in the government in iran and the possible opening that we

ultimately came to an agreement. now, it was controversial because there was a lot at stake and our dearest allie and partner in the region, israel were quite concerned as well as our gulf partners of what we are doing. there is no doubt in my mind that we have prevented iran from getting a new weapon. secretary clinton is committed vigorously enforcing this deal. >> i know she will not hesitant to use every option including the military if necessary. iran knows that. i don't know where iran may go in the future but we may have to use all of our tools diplomacy and intelligence and everything else that we do. i am hopeful for the iranian people because they do want another life and world. that future remains to be seen.

let me turn it to jake. [ applause ] the question why it was not met across the board is appropriate one. i think it is an important question because it bears lessons for hard diplomatic progress that we would like to make in the years ahead. from my perspective, there are four basic reasons. the first is the nature of the threat. if you live in israel as wendy said or one of the gulf states, the prospect of iran getting a new weapon is a grave threat. our level of skepticism of

someone bringing you hey, don't worry, this is going to solve the problem and it is quite high. from a starting point built into this is a certain level of anxiety about, did you had get everything you could. that's point one. the second point is when you are dealing with something like a potential military nuclear program, you are talking about a level of complexities that makes public debates extremely difficult. separate work units in advance centra fuses and the core of a plutonium of a site called iraq which is not in the country but rather -- trying to explain this to members of congress who passes judgment on it. that means the issue is d

demagogue and people can spreads mythologies on it. why would we want that? it sounds bad. >> because of the level of complexity of this kind of issue, it is just not easy and it pierce through the misunderstanding. as people gain more information about this, they come to see of this deal that's profoundly interested in the united states. the third reason is because there has been a change in the nature of our politics when it comes to national security. it is quite worries. donald trump is a whole another deal. even before donald trump came to the scene, we were already fighting. as wendy knows very well.

a letter was sent to iran that says this guy barack obama does not represent in the united states or does not speak in our behalf, he cannot negotiate this deal. i read the letter for the first time and i thought it was a letter from congress to the president that was sort of telling him about our systems of government and thought it was kind of strange. i had to go backup to look and see to see if the two lines were the iranian leadership. it stunned me. at any point, i don't think our history has a boat in our party corresponding representing senator, sent a letter under minding the president during a controversial negotiation. never during reagan or kennedy or truman. it is been my experience that once a norm gets broken like that, it is very hard to restitch. we got to get it restitched it.

we got to get behind our president whoever our president, who ever she maybe in the future. in order to ensure the united states is speaking with a single voice on these issues. and then i think the final reason why there is a divide on this issue goes to the hard of what raj and wendy are talking about and that's diplomacy and the civilian use of power is inherently i am paternit-- impe. okay, people will come along and saying why would you get a better deal in oh, a better deal. >> i only thought that we could have only this deal but it never occur to me that you can get a better deal. at the end o f the day, the negotiators have to use near