. [speaking spanish]

a [speaking spanis[speaking spa

[speaking spanish]

>> i want to say good afternoon to everyone and first of all, i want to thank the secretary of state for hosting meet here today along with my delegation. i thank her as always for the generation -- generosity that she shows when we come to meet. the united states and columbia enjoyed a very close relationship as our personal relationship is a close one. we hope this will continue to the benefit of both our peoples. we have discussed a very broad and far reaching an agenda, one that includes all kinds of topics like clean energy, the fight against terrorism, the fight against narco trafficking technology. as you know, colombia has suffered greatly from norgard

trafficking and terrorism, to about issues that go hand in hand and to a certain degree become synonymous. this is a serious threat that we are all facing and we in columbia know this full well, unfortunately. also unfortunately, many times in different parts of the world countries speak out against atrocities that are committed, or they speak out against the assassination of people as a result of terrorism or narco trafficking. unfortunately, not all of them are willing to lend the same hand when it comes to cooperation. in the u.s. we have found a partner that provides us with cooperation and also provides us with an effective friendship and leadership in this area. it is important to be able to carry out effort such as these everywhere. drug-trafficking is something that we will make sure is going to stop. and it is only when everyone is cooperating that we will be able to achieve this. columbia wants this completely and we know that the --

columbia wants this to the and we know the u.s. will help us towards this goal because we know this will be a benefit to vote -- to all of us both regionally as well as on our entire continent and eventually the entire globe. columbia does not just ask for cooperation. we also offer cooperation when we can -- colombia does not just for cooperation. we also offer corp. when we can. and we have learned from the suffering. we are trying to provide our experience in haiti, mexico, guatemala, panama. we are delighted that we will çsoon be signing agreements wih the united states on this very topic and we hope that we will be able to embrace such agreements regionally and in the future. once columbia is free from all of these scorches that -- once colombia is free from these scourges, everyone will benefit as a result. i couldn't -- are the 42

continuing work on are very broad agenda. -- i look forward to continuing work on our very broad and agenda. >> i wonder if you can comment, madame secretary on the state of king john hill -- kim jong-il whether there's a door open to renewed negotiations. >> the briefing of my husband and those who traveled with him has provided to us is extremely helpful because it gives us a window to what is going on in north korea. but our policy remains the same. our policy is consistent. we continue to offer to the north koreans the opportunity to

have a dialogue with in the six party talk from work with the u.s. -- frame work with the u.s. that we think could offer many benefits to the free -- the people of north korea, but the choices are up to the north koreans. they know that we are committed to the goal of full and verifiable denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we are exploring with our six party partners as well as other international partners what additional steps could be taken to begin the framework discussions once more, but it is going to be up to the north koreans to determine. >> what window has been opened? >> well, that is up to us to determine whether there are some opportunities and some insights that could be used to try to

create this positive atmosphere, but it is true the of to the north koreans. >> >> despite explanations [inaudible] >> well, i think i very clearly described what it is and what it is not. i certainly hope that anyone who is speaking out about the agreement will take the time to understand that this is built on years of agreements between the u.s. and colombia.

planned: yacht is a commitment that the u.s. made -- plan colombia is a commitment that the u.s. may going back three administrations, if i am not mistaken, to assist them in their courageous struggle against the narco traffickers. i think what the foreign minister said is really important. we all should be cooperating with one another. we all should be supporting each other in the fight against terrorists, and the fight against criminal cartels and drug traffickers because they are so destructive -- disruptive and damaging to the fabric of society. the assassinations, the intimidation that goes on is not just a threat to the country in which it occurs, but to everyone. i believe any fair reading of a of what it is we are discussing is about our continued commitment to assist columbia

and has nothing to do with other countries. i only hope that other people will actually take the time to understand that. >> of an orchid speaking spanish -- [speaking spanish) ç

>> alleges wanted to point out that i wanted to reiterate that what columbia needs is more effective mechanisms of cooperation and of this mechanism and to gather with the u.s., this is one that we have had for a very long time already, building on a number of other mechanisms that we have been working on. the principles contained therein are very clear, the principle of sovereign equality of states, the principle of nonintervention, and the principle of the territorial integrity of state. these are very important tenants and i think it would be extremely good to have more agreements, not just with the u.s., but with others that -- other states in the same vein purify -- in the same danger --

in the same vein. >> the man was convicted of killing over 180 americans over lockerbie may be released. how much pressure are you putting on scotland to not release him? also, briefly in afghanistan there is an upsurge in violence ahead of the elections and reports of fraud and ballot trying, where does that leave the legitimacy of the results of those elections? >> as to the first question, the u.s. has made its views known over a number of months and we continue to make the same point that we think is -- it is inappropriate and very much against the wishes of a of the family members of the victims who suffered such grievous

losses with the actions that led to the bombing of the airline. we have made our views known to the libyan government as well. i take this very personally because i knew a lot of the family members of those who were lost because there was a large contingent from syracuse, university -- from syracuse university, so in the time i had representing new york, i knew these families, had talked with them about what a horrid experience it was, and i think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been in prison based on the evidence about his involvement such a horrendous crime. we are still encouraging the

scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not. with respect to afghanistan, we have made a number of statements in the last several days supporting the electoral process, speaking out against the uptick in violence. i think one way you can view the violence is an effort by the taliban to intimidate people from actually voting, to try to create an atmosphere of violence and fear that will keep people away from the polls. and there are problems with this election, as there are with any election, but we still believe that is the right of the people of afghanistan to pick their own leaders and we are encouraging them to come out and vote and we have worked very hard over the last months to provide the security with the help of a lot of our iosaf

partners and others present in afghanistan and we will hope that the election goes well. >> thank you, good afternoon, madam secretary. the state department has said that different locations in venezuela has not done enough, drugs in the region. some believe that is the reason why president chavez has criticized so much the agreement that your countries are going to sign. i wonder if you agree with that opinion and why do other governments, like the brazilian government for example, also have concerns about the agreement? >> i do not want to speak for any other government. they can certainly express their own views, but i do want each person that speaks out about this agreement to understand what is and to recognize what is not. -- what itç is and to recognize what it is not.

it is a bilateral agreement, a very clear of recognition of territorial integrity and sovereignty and all the of the key principles that the foreign minister mentioned. i hope that as more is learned, there is not just an awareness of the relationship that the u.s. and colombia have had for many years and are continuing cooperation on what we view not just a threat to the two of us, but to the whole region, but i would also ask that more countries actually help us in this fight. do not just stand on the sidelines. and certainly, do not contribute to the problems by doing and saying things that undermine the efforts that our governments are taking to try to protect the entire region from the scourges of narco traffickers.

i think the people are free to say what they will, but the facts are very clear here. this is a continuation of a partnership that we believe and the colombians believe will help make life better for the people of columbia. . colombia. we want to make it possible, as it now is for people to be free from intimidation and violence in colombia and not so long ago you could not say that. i really applaud the colombian government and the leadership for what they have done against a really ruthless enemy. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> and white house spokesman says president barack obama is

not shifting from the public force option as part of the health care reform. robert giggs says there's nothing signaling a policy change. more about that from today's white house briefing. >> good afternoon, guys, sorry for being late. >> were you late? >> did you hear something? good morning, james. better late than never, jake. just one quick follow-up from this morning's discussion. i think i was asked -- this is in conjunction with the meeting today where the president looks forward to hearing from president clinton and thanking him for his reason humanitarian mission to north president clinton has debriefed with an sec staff twice and members of his team -- with nsc staff and members of his team have

debriefed with the state department. this is just a follow-up. >> [inaudible] >> i assume so, yes. >> on the reports that there are agreements on the settlements in the west bank, projects are continuing. does the view -- does the u.s. view this as counter to the president's demands to stop it all? does this surprissuffice? >> i will certainly echo what i think you heard the president say in the oval office today. we have made good progress on this and other issues with the israelis. on both sides. i think we're moving forward with a process that continued today with president omar here today -- president mumbar here

to discuss long-term peace in the middle east. >> it seems as if you are saying there are projects, but it does not go far enough. >> i do not think i said that. i simply to noted that we were pleased and the president has been pleased that progress has been made. i will say this and i think it bears mentioning every time we talk about this. i said this this morning, so let me reiterate this. these are not steps for one side to take. the president had a discussion with president mubarak a about the discussions and obligations that we all have had in this process. riffe questioned some steps that this administration believes the israelis should take. they're obviously some steps that we believe the palestinians have to take. there are steps that the neighboring governments in the region have to take.

we will all have to take steps together in order to succeed with a comprehensive middle east peace. >> does the president agree with president mubarak 's statements about the borders? >> i would have to talk to the president about that? -- about that. >> what has been your response so far to the suggestion that the health care reform might not clear the public option? is it winning any hearts? is it in during supporters? >> was the question? >> what is the response to this suggestion in recent days that a public option might not be part of health care reform? >> as i have said yesterday and earlier today, the president's position and the administration's position is unchanged. we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in the

private health insurance market. the president prefers president prefersoption as a way -- the public option as a way of doing that. if others have ideas, then we're willing to listen to those details. that is what the president has said for months. that is also what the secretary of health and human services has said for months. it is what i have said for months. i think the suggestion that anything that was said on saturday or sunday as being a new administration policy is not something that i would agree with. but there seems to have been a lot of people -- a lot of people took it as floating a trial balloon. >> meaning, the media. >> some supporters in congress actually do read it as a change. if you look at what the president said on the 15th, he's said that the public option is

your friend. he is not saying that anymore. >> what you mean? >> he is no longer proactive about it. >> the president was clear in two questions that he received at the town hall meeting on saturday. about the public option with the second question, the man in the red shirt asked about the public ought option and the second to last question, the guy about the debate in the second or third row right off the podium had the same question. let me read this to you. "secretary sebelius, july 12, 2009. i think you're going to hear from senators in a little while about a variety of strategies to get to a tooption. this is not one size fits all there is a competition of joyce and how to bring that into a public marketplace.

there are a variety of strategies on the table." any guess on what network that was on? >> that was on cnn. >> a very correct assumption. >> on sunday she was also on cnn and said that the public option was not an essential part of health reform. she did not say that on july 12 or june 15. on june 15, the president probably o said that probably option was the way to go -- the public option was the way to go and then the secretary on sunday says it is not the essential part. the president said on saturday, "if there is one or not 1." he has not said that before. >> the president has said repeatedly that he is open to different ideas and discussions and his preferred option was the

public plan. he said that on saturday. i said that on sunday. secretary sebelius on your network said that on sunday. this notion that somehow something is markedly change -- let's understand first of all, i want to step back fo just a second. there are the notions of choice and competition. let's discuss why you need choice and competition. in the insurance market were 30 or 40 or 46 million new participants or consumers could come into the marketplace, in a marketplace that is potentially dominated by in some regions or areas of the country what injure dominates the market. my holmstedt about namma, blue cross blue shield has 89% -- my home state of alabama, blue cross blue shield has a 9% of the market. -- 89% of the market. when one place dominates the

market, it is born to be tough to keep down costs. if you have one place to be launched, do think it would be achieved? probably not. if you had two places to be, but competing dishes might not be as expensive as if there were only one. the notion of consumer choice through greater competition is the goal that theç president hs always said house to be paramount. when he talks about the essential this of health care reform, let's understand the principles he has put up there. but we have to cut costs for families and small businesses. that is essential. it has to be deficit neutral. that is essential. it is essential but we provide accessibility to health care reform to millions of those that do not currently have it. >> so when you say that a public option has not been the president's preferred choice, he has said that before. >> i have said that repeatedly. >> is it an essential part of

health reform? >> i think the president said on saturday. >> it is essential. the secretary said on sunday it is not. >> what did the president say on saturday? >> he spoke positively about a public option but he also said, we could have it or we may not have id. -- it. if he did use the word essential on saturday, why did his health secretary not use the word on sunday? >> go back and look at the transcript. i promise you, you will answer your question and wonder why you are freezing it the way you did. no offense, you seem to have heard what the secretary said on sunday, but not what the president said on saturday. go back and take a gander at the transcript.

>> understanding that the president believes that the public option is the best way, is the president convinced that co-ops, while not as strong a measure, would be able -- or a viable alternative to republican option -- to a public option? >> i do not think anyone has seen a level of detail and thus far that would be able to make a completely educated assumption on what we have seen. >> conrad said on sunday that the votes are not there in the senate for the public option. do you guys agree? >> i would have to talk to lance phares on that. i think that is what a lot of people have said. i have not talked to them recently about that.

>> on a lighter note -- in a letter sent last week to the national supervisors, the president of the onion expressed his disappointment that you chose the postal service as a scapegoat and made it an example of inefficiency. has the presidency in that letter? has he responded to using the post office as an example of efficiency? >> i doubt he has seen the letter and i do not have any reasonable -- reason to think that he regrets it since he has repeated it. >> there is a request about detainees at bagram. the pentagon responded by saying, we have information, we are not going to give it to you. does that go against the president's promises of transparency given that the pentagon has released that

information, but no names? but i saw your blog post about this, but i have not seen the letter and i do not have any other information. >> >your policy position is consistently that position public'soption lobbying important is not a deal breaker. >> yes, that is what we said in june, july. >> so, working from the premise, we can all agree that is the stated position today, that does not give much comfort. >> before the ama, the president did not ever say it is a deal breaker. >> just read that.

>> consistency aside, i guess my question is that assuming this has been a consistent decision, this is a position that really bothers democratic members of congress. we are seeing it probably expressed more virulently than in the past. we're clear that this has been in administration position all along, but what the president is saying is that at the end of the day, theç ofoption is optional- the public option is optional. >> i am not a democratic member of congress. >> it is clearly something that is important to them. >> i will point back to what the president said. on saturday, the president strongly believes that we have

to have the notion of choice and competition. without consumer choice, without competition among health insurance providers, you are certainly not likely to see cuts in costs, you are certainly not likely to see the competition on quality. those are the goals that the president has. >> but the president's position, consistent or not, has been that he could envision a scenario without a scenariooption. he has said he could not envision a scenario that allows people to get the best health and quality if they enter a private health insurance market. that is what the president's bottom line is. do we have a system that provides that choice for

consumers and among insurers of quality and cost? >> [unintelligible] >> the president is focus on many different goals, cutting costs, coverage for millions i do not have accessibility, making this deficit neutral, which he has reiterated that the town halls, and insuring a choice and competition. -- ensuring choice and competition. >rahm emanuel as fishing out wet and david is in michigan and i doubt they are -- what's of using the charge from the republicans on the hill? they are asking -- >> are you

seeing the charge from the republicans on the hill? they are in asking [unintelligible] >> that is ridiculous. they would have loved his farm to join -- an agreement i think that sort of because david left the firm. he is being paid for the fact that he created and sold it, which is somewhat based on the free market. >> [inaudible] >> he is going to talk about again, -- you will not see him at -- not see a difference in message. you will see the boring consistency and of ensuring that we cut costs, ensuring that we take the steps that are necessary to relieve the burden on families and small business. obviously, the president will

talk about the importance of providing access to affordable health insurance to the millions that currently do not have it. >> so the focus will be on the uninjured rather than the public option. >> the president will talk about what he thinks is important with a health care and that will include all those topics. >> has the white house been taken aback at the $7 million pace authorized for the new ceo of a i.t.? -- of the aig? >> this will go to the process of ken feinberg to ensure that is consistent with his principles and obviously, the board wants to find a ceo that is knowledgeable about insurance companies and running an

insurance company and hopefully getting an ailing company that was once a successful insurance company the idea of putting -- the bright idea of putting a hedge fund on top. >> they owe taxpayers who make 34 the thought -- $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 per year. why should the ceo of this company gets $7 million per year? >> look, the board is going to make a decision. we have talked about and the president has talked about not micromanaging these companies, governments not making these decisions. the boardç wants an insurance company ceo that can help take a company that was once successful, as i said, somebody had the bright idea of putting a hedge fund and on top of it and now it is a royal mess. i think the board wants to see some good, confident leadership

that can leave the company back toward profitability and hopefully recoup some of the investment the taxpayers put out in order to prevent calamity to our economy. >> on another issue, does president obama @ ever speak with either bill or hillary clinton about health care and their experience? >> yakimyeah, the secretary of e was in the oval office today as part of a larger delegation meeting. i do not know the degree to which they discuss health care. >> have you asked about [unintelligible] >> i have not asked and i am not an darvish for the amount when to keep private conversations between -- not going to keep private conversations between the secretary of state and former president.

>> [unintelligible] >> i saw that right before i came out here. obviously, i think the allusion is to -- i think, that third wek in september. i think it will be an important opportunity to continue to make progress in the middle east. the players in the region and the countries will be represented in the general assembly. weope to continue to make progress, but i do not know of a specific plan that the u.s. will present at that time. >> do think it will be about israeli settlements? >> i think you have seen what the president has said on settlements. but it is hard for me to comment on the i do not think it's this. >> the iraqi government is back to the referendum to force the

american troops to pull out a year earlier than the original plan. what would be the consequence of that as far as security in iraq? >> i think that is a question largely for iraqis to debate and discuss. this is a proposal in the iraqi government that will be debated and discussed by iraqis and that is the of replaced for it to happen. >> you let us know today if the president agrees with president mubarak's statement that israel needs to get over the idea of a temporary solutions or timber borders. i mean, you did say that. could you try to get back to us on that? is the presint aware of a better means of obtaining reduced cost and improved health

care quality than a public option? >> obviously, there have been many ideas that have been batted around. >> there is a gao report a about nine years old that says it cannot -- >> i would not look any evidence 9 years old. >> it looked at co-ops and whether they could get a a sufficient market share. >> i hate to surmise about a 9- year-old gao report on health care coops. you obviously have different parts of congress' continuing to work on different alternatives. when there is enough information on those to evaluate defensively, we will certainly evaluate those and come to that opinion. >> it is -- is it safe to assume that the president considers the

house bill committee to contain all threeroducts to achieve the goals he has stated the exports of in the president had discussed that a public option is his preferred method to provide towards and competition, but he is open to discussing other ideas. >> is the flag idea still a good idea? >> yes, it is. it was consolidated on a reality check. the people of questions or concerns about some ruling that they're hearing on health care reform, there is a mechanism to get the truth. >> so, it has just been put together. >> consolidated from two platforms into one of. >> one other issue on the internet privacy, the white house announced a couple of weeksç ago a public comment timeframe on removal of a nine- year ban on persistent cookies.

the idea that if you come to government websites you could be in some way, shape or form tracked. have there been public comment about this? >> i have not talked about the comments. i know the policy of this government is not to alloweb te. we are continuing -- continually adding to the platforms in order to provide greater openness and transparency in government and trying to do so in a way that always first and foremost protect people's privacy. that will always speaks what we do first and foremost. >> and this idea of allowing, perhaps, ltd. persistent cookies is consistent with that even though it might compromise some people's internet security if they go repeatedly to government website? >> again, you should discuss

with omd on conversing on cookies. they are slightly different than what you and i are discussing now. but obviously, we are trying to develop tools that broaden the amount of information, the ease of -- the ease with which people get, if someone goes to your blog, they are providing information, personal information to a website. we want to ensure that we can continue to use spherthe best ts possible to provide the greatest the ease of use and the best protection tools possible. >> as far as the public option

being the preferred choice, in the past he has said we must have had. and when did that become his position? >> i will pull up the document that i had that i did not bring out here that has a series of comments of him talking. he was asked very specifically in a press conference -- in fact, in this room, about whether there was a blank line on the public option and he said that it was preferred, but that he was not going to draw any lines. >> this has been consistent over, at the last three months? >> i think nancy and apparel gave an interview -- nancy ann the parle gave an interview far before that. i hate to bring up -- again, a little more than a month ago, the same secretary that you quoted on sunday said something very similar on july 12.

i do not know if you read the story then. >> this video address to the country on july 18, he said, must include. let me ask you about the focus on this in general. do you regret that it has taken this larger than life role? but i always regret when you guys take something and make it an outside thing. >> we do that? >> on occasion. i would have loved to have been in the newsroom with you on sunday and deduce the same rationale that you ask me about now. again, i do not know why the secretary of health and human services said something a month earlier and then it garnered a different reaction. i do not know why of what i said on sunday, which is exactly what she said on sunday, which is it that what i have said in your four months guard outside attention.

it is a wonderful journalism review question that i'm certain someone will buy the ponder. >> the president's schedule in july and august, several interviews, several public appearances about his position on health care. why have we not heard anything from him on monday or yet today about health care? if he is committed to a public plan and committed to going forward with this, why is he not out there talking about this himself? but i think he talked about health care, albeit briefly, yesterday, addressing the myths and rumors that health care reform would impact the way veterans receive their health care. >> on the health plan is specifically, he has not been out there giving an interview. >> not yesterday or today. >> why is that? this is the quietest i've seen him on an issue.

we have not seen him publicly for a couple of days on this. when you want him to get a point across, he comes to the podium, if it is this one or anyone, and makes that point. why is that not the best idea here? why has he not come forward to try to clear this up? >> i will go back to what i said yesterday and on sunday, we do not think there is something to clear up. the we think what was said -- and i will make the point again -- what was said by the secretary on sunday was completely consistent with what she said five years earlier why do i clear -- from the president out today to clear what she said five weeks ago? >> is there something in the way that other groups have perceived this that it needs to be cleared up? >> we will certainly continue to work with and talk to groups and entities about their cares and concerns about health care, understanding that we are at an

important moment that we can make serious progress on delivering on the promise of cutting costs and increasing both care and accessibility. >> i do think that you answered the question about president obama talking to president clinton, whether he talked with him or not because he was in p'yongyang and the last time they spoke was in march, you said. >> i also said based on what the president has told me, he does not feel comfortable discussing with everyone involved discussions that he has with former president clinton, that he might have with former president bush, 43 or 41. >> the controversy involving glen beckham of the television commentator, and there you said the president does not watch cable television and does not keep up on it. is anyone motta during the

controversy in the white house? >> i have got to tell you, it is not on my top 10 list. what is the controversy? >> remarks that mr. beck made and the sponsors of backing away? you are not aware of any of that? >> i think keeping up with that would be more than a full-time job and i have got a good one. >> would you talk about how important the medicare advantage program is to the overall reform and is there any danger that opponents of reform in general might use that to charge that the president is talking about cutting medicare? >> i doubt that the opponents of this made -- may seek to scare seniors. the president talked about this as far back as in the middle of the campaign. we did an event, if i am not mistaken, at a senior center in iowa in 2007 and discussed the waste and fraud that we can see

in health care and to the volume on the medicare advantage program. there are reports that note correctly, in our opinion, that for about $177 billion over a 10 year time frame there is no appreciable benefit to beneficiaries under the medicare advantage program. it seems to be a multi-billion dollar giveaway. and it does not seem necessary to deliver the type of medicare that seniors have come to expect. >> is the president's idea to do away with it? >> subsidizing with taxpayer money a program that the start, based on the data -- that thus far, based on the data that the gao has collected, we have seen no appreciable benefit in terms of quality of care. >> [inaudible]

>> let me talk to those guys specifically about solutions, but i certainly think it is an integral part. every question that the president is asked about health care savings -- i cannot remember in montana, but in grand junction, it is the example he used for the funding needed to be -- i'm sorry, the subsidy that needed to be cut. >> the drive for competition, for instance, like blue cross blue shield in and out -- in alabama, was ever considered to sweep away so that the private sector can go in there, like aetna and others the experts that is largely what is envisioned through a healthy exchange. _ -- like edna and others? >> that is largely what is envisioned three health exchange.

the vast majority of people receive their health care benefits through their employers through private entities. the president is building on that system in health care reform, but part of what the president believes howç to hapn is we have to broaden some of those closed markets with that choice in camp -- and competition. if not, you will not be able to drive down costs and provide health care. >> what is the competition have to come through the government? why can't it come through private insurers? >> it does not have to, but i have lived in alabama. it is a decent market. there are a lot of people there. i assume there is some reason why a series of private entities have not come to seek a market that at this point, nine out of 10 people -- dominated in nine of 10 people by one company. i think the ama found that 94%

of metropolitan areas faced the same problem where the private health insurance market is dominated by one in sherer -- one insurer that does not allow choice and a decision. >> the the president speak about human rights in egypt during the talks? courts let me give the specifics before about the other topics. >> do you think is fair that there is a physician -- perception of human rights issues that have been downplayed? >> i would not agree with the premise that we have somehow swept under the rug in either this relationship or in

relationships with other countries, the notion of human rights or greater democracy in the world. obviously, those are important foreign-policy goals that are the national interest of this country. we will continue to pursue those, as well as issues related to comprehensive middle east peace. >> the fact that the judges have accepted the lockerbie bomber's request -- allowed him to drop his appeal mean that he might be suing. senator clinton -- secretary clinton and several others have urged not to let this happen. what is the administration position? >> it is the policy of this administration, as enunciated by secretary of state clinton, that this individual should serve out his term where he is serving it

right now. that is the policy of this government. >> will the issue of prepping all americans or most americans be a primary piece to this? >> yes. >> there are liberals better upside with the white house or this issue and they are saying that if you do choose to go away from [unintelligible] that you are going back to square one on health care reform because they are saying, look, you know, a whole premise of this is about covering most americans. >> it still is. that is one of the goals i outlined a few minutes ago that is tremendously important to the president, along with cutting costs. >> so, if co-oping were to be a

preference at one time, would it have to contain something that would cover most americans? you are saying a co-op would exclude more than the 46 million that are not insured. millions upon millions would be without insurance with a co-op. >> i'm not entirely sure how one could come to that conclusion. obviously, is that of insurance reforms are instituted in part of the legislation that you have heard a president? so many times about that does not allow -- the president talked about so many times that does not allow health care reform to exist in the market tuesday and is based on the market -- based on a pre- existing condition. i would have to look at something to know that more people would be on injured as a result of that. -- uninsured as a result of

that. >> you have consistently said, at least since i have been here listening to you answer this question, that the president strongly supports a public plan, but that it is not a deal breaker. it sounds like you're saying now that he is open to other, better ideas. does this mean that his position is that it has to be"a@au1%ì(lc+ plan or better? >> look, the president will evaluate this idea or any idea based on the degree to which it satisfies the goal of choice and competition. if there is a mechanism whereby greater choice for consumers can be had through increased competition from private insurers as it relates to some policy idea, he will look at that, evaluated, and determination. >> is the idea that he prefers more than a public plan and will

he accept a bill that is not a public plan as a compromise? >> the president have to be satisfied that any idea contained in any legislation let the strong goals of providing towards and competition. -- joyce and competition. cruxes the president have any interest in the world poker final table? -- a choice and competition. >> does the president have an interest in world poker final table? >> i do not know, but he has a great interest in playing poker. >> you have any reaction about robert novak? but i have not had a chance to talk to him about that. let me find out something about that. obviously, we will have some scheduling of dates for you throughout the week, events that

may or may not be added on health care. obviously, the point at which the president will largely be down in joint his vacation as well is, i think, a vacation that millions and millions of americans would enjoy their time off. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to get in the wake of the first amendment, if that is what he wants to do. but i will not specifically put in a recommendation from april and bill. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know that determination has ultimately been made. i think you have seen only a handful seem interested in the type of comprehensive reform that so many people believe is

necessary to ensure the principles and goals that the president has laid out. i think there seem to be many that do not share a desire to see costs cut, increases in coverage and quality the degree to which others want to see. . .

tonight, the author of "bailout nation." doug stands and who read "ho rse -- doug staton, who wrote "horse soldeiers." >> the supreme court, in the first sunday in october to c- span. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i do not know. i think some of it is government waste. >> it is not public. >> probably donations. >> i am going to sit for me,

from my tax dollars. >> alice c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a private business initiative -- no government mandate, no government money. dealers afghanistan's elections begin this thursday. we'd get an update to protect out -- people from the taliban. this is about an hour. today we have damian cantwell and eric tremblay. the general damian cantwell has been the chief security force and eric tremblay has been a spokesperson for the past several months. as i mentioned, both of those officers are joining us from kabul. this is the first time they have

joined us in this forum. i will turn it to you for opening remarks and then we will take questions if you look like. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, i am general eric tremblay. i have mentioned, i am also with damian cantwell. as you know, earlier today a vehicle had an explosive charge on the streets of kabl killing one service member, seven afghanistan east. this vicious attack also injured in employees and more than 50 ines @ @ citians. this incident, once again proves that the insurgents have no respect for the afghan

population. -- this vicious attack also injured employees and more than 50 innocent afghans. we have conducted numerous security operations over the country. and have worked very closely with afghan security partners, the afghan national police, and the afghan national army to prepare and provide a secure environment to the people of afghanistan for the elections. the objectives of these operations and preparations were to minimize and mitigate the risks to the lowest level possible. there will always be some setbacks. this is especially the case in places like afghanistan. as you can imagine, conducting elections make these elections

even more challenging. having said that, the insurgents have averaged about 32 attacks per day over the last 10 days and around 48 attacks within the last day. clearly, they do not have the capacity to intimidate and prevent 15 million afghan voters. only 1% of 6500 potential voting people is a maxim number. the afghan people have expressed their determination to vote, and we will continue to support them so they have the right to choose their next president. it is now for the afghans themselves to decide their future.

we're ready for your questions. >> this is courtney from nbc news. i could not understand some of the statistics you just gave in your opening statement. did you say there have been 48 attacks per day for the past four days? is that an average for the entire country? can you say how many polling stations there are. >> within the last 10 days, 10 days ago, the average daily insurgent number of attacks against the afghan national security forces or local citizens was in the low 30's. within the last three or four days, this has increased daily

to the height 40's. when we put this in perspective, the number of potential bulli pl ling sights, if you take into account 6500, 1% of that is 65. chances are when you are looking at the numbers, they are not going to be able to attack even 1% of the entire polling sites in this country. >> good morning. we have been working on behalf of the commander here in kabul to assist in the coronation of the activities with the elections. it is the commanders highest authority. we wish to do everything we can to support our afghan forces in

the security for the upcoming election. in particular, in relation to the number of polling centers across the country, the independent electoral commission, the afghan body, which is charged with the actual conduct of the election, has stated that they intend to open approximately 6500 polling centers. that number is not yet firm, because an interest of allowing many people across the country a suitable access to polling centers as possible, we have been working very hard with afghan security partners to conduct area security operations to reduce the effect of the insurgents in those areas where some members of the population had not had access to a particular polling center. our polling center numbers across the country are still in the state of slight flux because the intention is to try to

insure that as many polling centers as possible are able to be accessed by as many people as possible. >> can you also give us the most up-to-date numbers on other election security? how many afghan security forces will be directly involved in securing the pulling places. the rundown of the facts around the security. >> certainly. if i can describe the arrangement which has been agreed to by both my staff and the afghan security partners and also i would like to stress that our afghan security partners are the lead agency organization for the planning and execution of security across the country. it is important that we are able to facilitate and enable their activities wherever possible, but they are the lead agency. the afghan ministry of defence

has the lead amongst the other agencies to execute security for the elections. with respect to specific numbers, rather than speak to any particular operation or details, what i will say is that the afghan security forces have committed themselves fully across the country with the intent to provide all they can within the resource limitations and the manpower to ensure that the security picture is able to be presented to the community, to reassure the afghan people that it is safe to move from their homes to where the polling sites are located. are in the execution of the critical process as safely as can be under circumstances and know that the security forces are working hard for them to ensure their security and safety. there is a very important role

with regard to each particular polling center, we will be prepared to provide ground forces if we need to move to wear any security incidents may arise. we have a fully committed afghan national army. we have a fully committed afghan police. and we have our resources, which are fully committed to ensuring that they have the support they need to execute their very important mission on behalf of their people. >> i am from bloomberg news. can you talk about why it is so important considering the increase in violence in recent years in afghanistan? why is it so important that the afghan security forces take so much of the profile, so much of the lead in this operation? and how confident are you that

they can really do the job that needs to be done? >> ok. i think it is very important for the afghan national security forces to be seen by the afghan people as the lead agency in execution of security for their elections. isaf is a security assistance force. we are here to facilitate and an able our assistance wherever possible. also, it reflects the will of the people. as you can imagine, the sense of confidence that will be generated to see, other than foreign troops on the ground nearby, they will see and interact with members of their

own security force, in particular, in the first responders, the afghan national police, people they used to see moving a monk's their communities, ready to be prepared to deport the afghan national police and execution of their responsibilities. i think it is important that they are now able to step up to the task that is before them. there are is no doubt that there are many challenges. we are aware that there is an active insurgency. but the reason i think it is critical that the afghan security forces are seen by their people as a critical response and pro-active circumstances put in place by their own agency to reassure them that they are a security -- that they are doing the best they can within their resource limitations. we recognize that that they have

some way to secure -- develop. we have been involved from the very beginning through a series of national and regional rehearsal activities to ensure that each of the agency's are in play. so that they are all aware of the challenges that would rise on the ground as we lead up to the elections and to have coordinated joint plans in place. i think it is a critical step in the development of both the afghan security forces, but also the country as a whole for the people to see and develop trust and confidence in their own security agency. >> what is your actual threat projection for election day? or what at this point do you

anticipate for that day? my fault what is it now that you have had two suicide car bombs in the past couple of days, what is your assessment of that? do you believe there is new capability on the part of the insurgent to manufacture and deployed the suicide car bombs? what do you think is going on? >> it has been a little bit difficult to take apart the threads of the threat. it is difficult to say what they are looking at doing, other than what might be in place as part of the overall insurgency campaign, but the indications are that the leadership has expressed a desire to interrupt

and to discredit this process. the sorts of tactics we're seeing on the ground are typical of those which we have seen in other parts of the country running up to the elections, but not necessarily related to them. this involves the use of information to intimidate, the use of propaganda, too much more murderous acts such as we have seen and as you describe that have occurred here in the last couple of days. i would like to point out that the source of threats are not unexpected. that is that we always look very carefully, along with the afghan partners, the source of threats which might materialize on the ground. the insurgents are often taken to offering up threats which are never followed through, but we're very careful to realize that on occasion they are able

to demonstrate obscene acts of violence against not just the afghan security forces, but critically against the own people. this is a measurement of the sort of character and ideology we're dealing with. there is no doubt a very difficult enemy. one that is prepared to inflict numerous injuries and deaths to promote his own political goals. if you take that to the next level of analysis, every vote cast, regardless of who they know it both for, is a personal statement against the taliban. so i think it is a very honorable and critical mission that we are undertaking in support of our afgani partners. we are seeking to assist the afghan security partners to

defeat the threat. we hope to build upon the successes and carry forth those sorts of ideas beyond the elections. the threat materializes in various ways and dynamic ways across the area, and those have been taken into account. we are never fully assured of what anyone will do. all that we can do is to do our very best working with afghan partners to provide the very best possible security posture in support of the afghan people and give them the confidence to take part in their political future. >> hope this is kevin theron from stars and stripes. -- this is kevin theron from stars and stripes. can you describe more the specifics of what does the rules amine? especially for the ground troops that have to be ready in case something happens. are they down the streets

waiting in the vehicle's? how close are they? how will this affect locals? on the same factor, there are reports of the taliban threatening to kill anyone with a purple thing there. -- with a purple finger. what is their reaction to this? do you have any indicators of what they might be doing on election day? >> certainly the source of threats that you have suggested along the lines of threatening to carry out actions against those clearly by showing the mark on his finger, the afghan people are probably becoming

brasilia to this. the people have been subject to enormous hardships over a number of years. having said that, the threat often materializes and brutal ways. we're doing everything we can to assist the people to gain a sense of community confidence so they can take part in this process. with regard to the arrangements i described earlier, what i will say is that afghan partners as the lead agency have a a big responsibility. this will be the afghan national police. they will be in close proximity to the polling locations themselves.

within a reasonably short distance from the polling center it is intended that the afghan national army units will be there prominently. they will be in a position to not only provide a sense of security in strength in the outer tier, but also prepared to move wherever they need to in support of their police colleagues should some incident arise. in courteney,-- importantly, isaf will be using a range of capabilities that the afghan do not necessarily have access to. for example a range of ground forces that are prepared to be able to move to either buy ground or by air quickly and responsibly to respond and assist the afghans in any incident that might occur.

we have reversed this. it is interesting to see as the afghans go about their business how enthusiastic they are. it has been very encouraging. it is very important to realize that they are very aggressive once on the ground to ensure they're doing the best mission they can. that is a good thing as well. with respect to our operations, of we will be monitoring what is going on from command centers and coronation control points throughout the country. -- in coordination control points throughout the country. iwe will have operation coordination centers. there is one in each reason -- region and one in each province.

they are supported by a number of staff and isaf staff to ensure that communications are in place and working well. if they are linked to the headquarters of the afghan military police here in kabul and also we have established communications to our command post here. i am confident that the operations we have worked through and the controls are in place are suitable to the task. also, we have done a number are regional and national according to the -- nationally coordinated rehearsals. the afghan ministers and the afghan leadership from the independent commission and other organizations are able to present their plans to raise series of fictitious and areas which might represent the sorts

of threats which might materialize on the day. not only was this a sign of the state of maturing security agencies, but it was also an opportunity for them to take part in a discussion with the ministers. the ministers of the department for who they work ultimately. and it is thought to reassure the ministers that there is a good deal of work under way. i would like to stress that we're never quite sure what will happen, but we do have a series of plans in place to be able to be pro-active in support of afghan partners and to allow them to present the security picture, which is imported for the community to work with them as they go forward and take part. it is an encouraging sign altogether. >> ha it is mike miller with cnn. -- it is mike miller with cnn.

what is the percentage of the country you think is going to be able to vote? and maybe i should rephrase it. how much of the country is in taliban hands where you do not think will be able to vote? and with the recent operations down south, in order to open up more sectors to voting, can you quantify it all? how much of that. do you think you have opened up to vote? and maybe total population or percentage of the country? >> ok. it is a great question because of course a number of polling centers that the iec that have declared that they intend to open is probably not the best measure. having said that, the advice we receive from the regional court commanders, the afghan security

corps commanders on the ground, and our own commanders suggest that we're probably going to be given reasonable access -- they will have reasonable access to about 85% to 90% of those that are registered to vote. most of the registered voters, we think about 15% -- 15 million to 17 million voters should be able to take part. we think we should be able to provide reasonable access to the 85% to 90% of the total number. this will be shaped by the attempts and committed the confidence that is built and held by the committee members themselves. in respect of that, in particular, as you indicated, operations in the south have gone a considerable way to enhance one of the key issues which we sought to address, that is to improve access to the

polling sites. police report that the operations in the seven districts, in particular, have in close coordination been able to open up a number of areas that would otherwise not have been able to take part in this process. this has allowed them to escape the insurgent threats and also with the officials able to register themselves as voters in the upcoming election, and be able to take part. that is a great news story. that is a direct result of the security operations which have been under way down south. they are also aimed at the insurgent threat so the population can become more normal and feel free from those threats which have existed for some time. the importance spinoff, when we

are very interested to see, is that they are now able to take part in a process that without the operations they would not have been able to be able to take part in. that is a very encouraging thing. >> i have two quick things. are you able to tell us what the number of afghan forces to include the police, how many of them are assigned to polling places and to election security? i heard 47,000 police. does that sound right? how many army? as your forces come across afghans who say they want to vote but i am afraid of the reprisal or anything against me,

what do you tell them? >> i was struck by the response by president cars are to that question -- president karzhar, and his response was it is up to the courageous afghan citizens to move forward in the face of the threat as they always have and take part in shaping the country. i think that is a pretty powerful statement. i think it would take residence with the local communities. i think it is important that you look at it from their perspective. the country has endured hardships that many of us would find hard to relate to or understand. they are wrote a brazilian people. -- they are a resilient people.

we hav [no audio] [no audio] >> we are having technical programs -- we are having technical difficulties with the program you were just watching. we will fix them and return to the program.

[no audio] >> our technical problem has been fixed. going back now to the defense department briefing. you are watching c-span. the security apparatus that is at play here. that is important that is being brought forward. they have done that very successfully. it is a measure of how keen the afghan security forces they are. to before i start my question. -- >> before i start my question. we're still looking for qnumber specifically. what are the isaf's numberg?

s? is there a more specific number on that? then i will get to my real question. >> ok. i would reiterate the size -- we cannot give specific numbers and locations because it might be used by the enemies. they are fully committed to the task that is before them. an>> the afghan national securiy forces realize the importance of election day so they have pushed the number of to 92,000 soldiers throughout afghanistan in order to bring tighter security.

when you add all the numbers, it is just sort of 300,000 troops on the ground to maintain the security of the election day. >> this is the real question. my question. first, could you describe in a little bit more detail how the security will work for the afghans as they go to bill? will they be search? -- call will the security work for the afghans as they go to vote? will there be no movement on the roads almost that all? can you give us a picture so we have some idea, because at the moment it is abstract farrah's?

>> ok, if you were to picture yourself as a member of the afghan community, then they would have already been aware and apprised of the polling center locations. they are spread across the populated groups, populated areas, to ensure that everyone has a quite reasonable and easy access to the polling centers. they will be aware of where the polling center is located. they will move through the checkpoints as they get closer to the actual location. there will be a series of further checkpoints and procedures to reduce or mitigate against the risk of insurgents moving to close proximity of the polling centers, in particular what the security forces are looking for is evidence of

suicide bombers or of course, any hidden or it perhaps weapons they might be carrying with them. and once they have gone through a series of checks, there are particular arrangements in place for female voters, then it will be allowed to move into the polling centers. they will take part in the vote, and then have an approved exit and make their way out. that should be regarded as a series of an ongoing framework. obviously those sorts of incidents which occurred today, tragically, and also on saturday will probably cause a some citizens to have some concerns about moving board in taking part in the election. i think i would like to remind you all that this is a very hardy and brazilian people.

there are quite used to hearing and seeing acts of violence. -- i think i would like to remind you all that this is a very hearty and brazilia resilit people. it is all understood to be part of the effort by debt afghan security partners to is published -- to establish a sense of community confidence. i should also bring your attention to the point that the ministry of defence announced a couple of days ago an initiative which we fully support, and that was the election state initiative. the lead agency for security for the elections stated that there would be no offensive operations

conducted on the day of the elections, other than that which are required to ensure protection of the population as they go about voting. they have been voted the isaf security forces to support them in that regard, and we supported them willingly. we will maintain a low profile, but agile posture in support of the sentiments expressed by the ministry of defence to allow the people to move forward with an increased or enhanced sense of community property. the ball is now in the insurgents court. i think the response is on the part because of his track record. but the opportunity is there for the taliban and other insurgent groups to take up the sentiment expressed in the ministry of

defence statement in supporting initiatives and let the people who take part in the democratic life. we look forward to seeing positive results from the initiative, and we support the government of afghanistan and the ministry of defence and that initiative, and we hope it will bring good results for the people. of course, once the people have taken part in that process, then they will be joined by others who will be competent in the knowledge that they have taken part in the process that they are entitled to, free from intimidation, and moved the country forward in the right direction toward a developing democratic nation. >> last weely, can you give us a picture of where you face the biggest security challenges? and where are they under the most pressure, given the fact that in some of these places they have only recently seen

international troops, literally only for the first time in a matter of weeks and there are still areas where there is no international presence? i guess what i am asking is, can you give us a little bit of picture of where you see the real challenges? a commitment is one thing, actually providing security is another. at what point can you see the election is credible? what port predict what portion of the population can vote and safety -- what portion of the population can vote in safety? >> i think we should be guarded in seeking to further the enemies propaganda techniques.

and the willingness to cause a civilian casualties'. there are certainly some areas in the country which will not be able to take part in the process, because of the insurgent action. we have been working hard with the afghan partners to reduce the number and size of those sorts of locations. these are the areas that have been subject to taliban and other insurgent intimidation for some time. i think under the circumstances, they have to open up more polling centers, at and in cooperation with afghan partners, opened up areas particularly in the south where the taliban occupied is a great success story.

there is a -- there was a suicide bomb and a murderous attack causing many injuries and some deaths. that sort of thing is reprehensible by any standards. we need to be guarded by those sorts of actions. we demonstrated the capacity of that in some of the areas in kabul. we're doing everything we can to support afghan partners to present those rigid prevent those sorts of things from happening -- we are doing everything we can to support afghan partners to prevent these things from happening. although he can use the population to hide in disguise himself from easy detection, once he tries to coincide the attacker, the resources that he needs to have in place or

rejects such as a suicide bomber, the appropriate opportunity and the target that he might be seeking to attack directly, if he tries to put those things in place it exposes himself. they know everyone in these areas. if they see groups of people that do not belong there, they are very quickly to identify that as a likely threats. when he gets about activities he will in does expose himself to the sources of observation and intelligence that we have in place with our afghan partners to pick the threat of very early. -- the threat up very early. again, in any military operation

or security operation, the enemy always gets a vote. we always worked hard to determine what sort of actions they might carry out on the ground. we look to try to be proactive and prevent these things from occurring. tragically, despite best efforts, sometimes he is able to carry out those things we have seen in the last couple of days. >> thank you. this is for both of you. i understand you both went to war colleges and to discuss the tactics to have involved, but what i was curious about is how do you weigh where the actual -- you would have been advantageous bought it there was

to be any violence. he would obviously want to keep them away from any roads, i would assume. >> i am sorry, i have missed the question. he was talking about particular and the actions. i just miss of -- i just misunderstood the question. >> the polling sites. the polling sites themselves are picked by the independent election commission. this is their election. it is actually set up and run by the iec industry partners are responsible for the execution of the security. they added to the polling sites used in 2004 to get as many people a chance as possible to

take part in the election. this is afghan decision. @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had issued that list to afghan security forces. we have worked with them to improve the information and the details that they need to know. we have gone out and conducted reconnaissance on the ground to look at exactly where the best location for the polling centers are. we have had to adjust some because of enemy locations and the threat of actions against such locations. some had been merged and some have been moved, but it has been a process led by the afghan protection commission -- election commission, and in the afghan security forces have worked out security plans for support for each location. the other thing that has been at

play here is the number of people that live around those locations. other things we have done to support them is to advise them as to areas where we conduct specific security operations where we could get new security. we work very hard to integrate the efforts of planning insecurity across the board, and as i said, even as the last couple of days, the final number of the polling centers will be determined by the security on the ground. as the iec becomes content with that advice, they will finalize the number and the last detail will be put in place to deliver the materials to the intended polling locations and also to conserve the afghan security

force are arrangements on this front as to where they need to be at. we will be in position to support them in that activity. >> you said you are advisers, but you also have the longest history and reverse knowledge, so how comfortable are they taking your advice, even though you are basically a third party? >> my personal experience is that they have been very willing and keen to take advice and assistance. certainly we have capabilities from the range of true -- contributing nations that they do not have yet, and probably are some time away from

developing, but in terms of advice, it covers a spectrum of planning, short, medium, and long-term planning, coordination of activities on the ground, in particular those related to the security of the election, and also sharing of information and intelligence. i think they are pretty keen to doing their best for the people and they seem to be doing a good job, but also to learn as much as they can. i was very impressed with their desire to talk and then having talked with the issues, settled on a plan and bring it to action very quickly. they are very keen to get about the job once the plan has been decided. we also have partners within every level.

also, at the operational and that the technical level, we have troops with the appropriate experience to assist them in the considerations of the sorts of issues that may be at play, whether it be strategic or operational levels. we're very careful to ensure that they are seen as the lead agency. after all, this is their country. this is their election. we're not going to be here forever, and we're going to be here for as long as they want us to be here in this regard. we are keen to support them, but we also are careful to make sure they are learning in developing as they go. not just for the election security, but overall it has been successful. they are keen to engage, but

they will know things about their communities and they will be able to interact with them in a way that foreign troops could not do so respectively. it is important they take the lead, and we are in a position to support them. we are learning just as much from them, as they are learning from us. it isn't -- it is an important relationship on both sides of the fence. >> what do you feel about one or two more questions? >> a share. -- sure. >> this is michael carton. you talk about how some regions in the country will have a higher percentage of voters, but just to give us more

perspective, specifically in hellman what do you expect voter turnout to be, just to give us a perspective on the south and east? >> ok. it is difficult to predict exactly on the day and measure the number of people who have the confidence you can come forward -- who will have the confidence to come forward. certainly it stands to reason that those people living in areas that have been subject to the most recent security operations will probably fall in one camp or the other pretty readily. they will either relish the opportunity to take part in normal activities, or they might fear that the presence of

troops to remove the threat of the insurgents is such that maybe they do not feel secure given that there has been a sense of engagement and activities involving troops and aircraft near the vicinity. i think it is important for them to take part in the activities and move out of their communities and take part in this process. i would think we're looking at and reports from our commanders down south wouldndicate that a good percentage are likely to turn out. i know you're looking for a specific figure, but it's hard to lay a finger on it. we will have access for about 85% of the registered voters. given the numbers people have

taken part in registration, it is a pretty good sign that they're going to move up in mid -- and take part in the voting itself. it will be hard to judge from this position, and the threats at each location can be viewed differently. the coordination that is in place is a big step forward to try to reassure them that is safe to come out and vote, but is up to the local population to get out and do the job. we will provide the security as best as we can to the afghan partners, but we are seeking to provide encouragement to the communities. the security is there. it is evident. take part in the electoral process.

and also that you will be safe as you do so. >> thank you. >> i will ask my question. and damian cantwell where are the 10% to 15% that will not be able to participate? what is your biggest security concern for election day, considering the nationally limited capability of the insurgents as outlined at the beginning of the briefing? finally, are you worried that the presence of the afghan national security forces in such numbers could be as much of an intimidating factor to some voters as you will help it be -- as you hope it will be a

reassuring factor? >> those are good questions. what i will say is that those areas that we are not likely to see a strong turnout from the voters probably are in the areas that have been held by the taliban for some time. in that regard, we're probably talking within hellman provinces. some areas east of the country and north and west. the truth is that it is difficult to predict exactly how much it -- how many will turn out on the day. i encouraged by the sense of community confidence that i have seen as we have moved through the country and taken part in some of the election security rehearsals. the report in the local media is pretty encouraging, despite the

insurgents to do otherwise. the biggest threat is in the minds of the people themselves. they have to be convinced that this is their chance to shape their critical future. if you are looking for a sense of where the difficult predict most difficult challenge is, -- if you are looking for a sense of where the most difficult challenge is, it is in the minds of the people. that battle has to be rethought every day -- refought every day. . . the greatest threat is one of seeking the power to get confidence instilled and take part in that process.

in terms of a threat from insurgents, they have demonstrated some tactics were he is quite willing to cause death and injury to his fellow afghan people to pursue his goals. it offers a simple taste of the sort of barbaric alternative that taliban intend, if given a chance, to offer again to the people of afghanistan. the threat itself might be manifest it in its most dangerous form in the tactics we have seen, in suicide bombings and populated areas. we're doing everything we can through a series of his coat checkpoints and physical infrastructure to protect the population, and other activities which are all about encouraging people to take part of this process as part of a larger community. we can bring the range of intelligence gathering and other

activities that our partners cannot necessarily do. we're very keen to make sure that this is integrated throughout the picture. that is where we are at right now. >> security forces could be an intimidating presence rather than a reassuring presence? >> thank you. it is true it could be seen as a intimidating parliament. -- intimidating element. there is no doubt that those operations are all about providing content that may indeed be brought to a question as to have indicated. these are people who are used to seeing military forces and military operations and

probably view those sorts of things in a way that we would struggle to identify with. they're quite used to seeing the nature of violence and war and conflict in this country, regrettably. that have gotten used to see the presence of the unsecured forces. we're working very hard to measure the afghan security forces are those who are the most in the day-to-day visibility of the community groups we're talking about. they should seek some confidence from knowing it is their security agency that are primarily responsible for security in a general sense, but in particular, for election day itself. we are making sure we have our forces ready where appropriate and necessary. the afghan security forces are what the afghans was to retreat on a day-to-day basis and they should be quite comfortable with

those arrangements they see every day. >> thank you again for your time. we're closing in on the one hour mark, so we will close its appearance in the back tyranny closing remarks you would like to make. . the one or more, so we would send it back to you for your closing remarks. >> to keep. i think the government national security forces [unintelligible] security is effective. security is effective. most of the rest has been throughout the country in order to give a chance for the afghans to vote on election day. >> the closing remark i would

like to make is along the lines of a strategy. they're seeking to defeat the insurgents. we are seeking to remove the threat of the insurgents from the population. this afghan election is an opportunity for the next evolution of that tactic. that is, an opportunity for the population to remove themselves from the threat of the afghans -- i should say, of the insurgents. we're doing everything we can to support them in that endeavor and a working hard with the afghan partners is a leap forward in the security arrangements we have in place for the elections and beyond. and as a separate themselves from the insurgent risk, we're doing everything we can within -- to assist them in that goal.

>> tonight, the author of a "bailout nation," on how greed and corruption hurt the economy. the story of a band of soldiers riding to victory in afghanistan, and two foreign- policy experts on challenges facing the next president. >> how is c-span funded? >> i do not know. government raised? >> it is not public. >> i want to say from a, from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public

service, a private business initiative with no government mandate, no government monday. >> robert novak died after a battle with brain cancer. mr. novak wrote for the "chicago sun-times," and was co-host of cnn's's "crossfire." his wife tells the ap that he died in washington d.c. earlier today. he was 78. we sat down with him in 2007 to discuss his book, "the prince of darkness." >> in his last year of presidency, president clinton decided he would eliminate the

press dinner, and taking his place was al gore. i got a phone call before the dinner wondering if i could help. i got a call from bob from, at the media guy from gore. and yet they wanted me to have a phone interview with him where i would ask all kinds of questions, not with him, but with president bush, and they would have president bush saying general. that was a piece of tape they got from an interview bush had done earlier with a guy in massachusetts who asked if he knew the president of prague, and george bush said general and did not know his name. so they had a bunch of questions, and every answer was

general. they asked if i, the conservative, would be a fall guy and ask the question. i said, what is in it for me? they said that bush would submit to an interview with me on cnn. i said that i needed an assurance from the vice- president. so the vice president called me at my apartment at night and assured me that he thanked me for doing this stuff, which made me out as a patsy, and he would give me the interview, check back with him next week. i checked the week after that, the week after that, and he never would give me the interview, and he said he just did not want to do it. so i thought he was a big phoney before fletcher for doing that. >> another year of the

gridiron. there was a song called "thank heaven for little girls." >> it was a clever song that everyone would have loved, because president clinton was having the monica lewinsky trouble, and everyone would start roaring. but i was sitting next to the president for four hours last time, and i did not want to be embarrassed. >> what was he like? >> to be honest with you, i was not talking to him for four hours. on the other side was the publisher of my newspaper, howard black, who is now in a lot of trouble, but that is another story. they talked mostly about franklin roosevelt, i believe. so the president was talking to

me for just about an hour, and i was not on the top of his hit parade. it was cordial. i was tired of saying that the payroll taxes were too high, and he would say he was interested, but he wasn't. we are both basketball fans and we talked about basketball, and i made a few other comments, but nothing very exciting. >> do you call this a more or an autobiography? >> a memoir. >> speaking of black, he has been on trial for several weeks in chicago, but you tell me a story about wanting him to go with you to the university of illinois, your all modern, to find a chair. tell me about it. >> my grandfather was an immigrant. my father and three brothers

were graduates and i was a graduate and i wanted to find a chair in western civilization and culture so they would be talking about a dead white men in perpetuity, and i found out that a cost 1.2 $5 million. so i went to conrad black and i said let's make this a the "chicago sun-times robert d. novak share in western civilization." and he said it was a great idea. he sent -- he said to send a letter and it would get done. i did not get a reply, there was back and forth, and finally, another guy who is now in jail, the publisher of the "sometimes ," -- "chicago sun-times," and he said, "never in your life." i had to pick up the whole tab

myself. >> you have done several things in your memoir that you do not see. you have told us all throughout how much money you make. why did you decide to say that? >> people are very interested, and i had never told anybody. i made very little money for a long time. i made more money than i thought i would make as a journalist, probably less than people thought i would, but i think that a lot of journalists write memoirs and do not tell you a thing. that is the kind of business we're in. they are very secretive. people are ballet dancers and poets and everything.

so i try to hit a happy medium and tell something about my personal life, including how much money i make. >> $7 million, $8 million. you say that last time at cnn, you made $625,000 from cnn and $1.2 million otherwise. what were you doing at cnn that may do that money? >> i was -- at the end, i had various things. i was an executive producer of capital gains, and i spent an enormous amount of time on that. i was on "crossfire," i had my own program, called "the novak zone," where i jumped out of airplanes and flatboats and

things like that. i was a regular on the politics show, inside politics, anchored by judy woodruff. so they got their money out of me. >> how much does a columnist make -- for instance, i know for years -- how much were you paid for the column? >> when i started, i was paid $12,000 -- $15,000. that was 1963. that was not a lot of money even then. it was ok. we each got 15 grand. >> at the height of the column, what kind of money were they paying you? how is that? how many days a week? >> i write three columns a week.

you cannot be rich being a columnist, but that is much more than most columnists make. they do not make much money, but the money is getting a high salary job in the newspaper business or in television like you are in, things like that. >> how long have you written a column? >> since 190063 -- 1963. it is the second-longest running column in america. >> on page 42 of your book, you have a story about tip o'neill, and he wrote a book called "man of the house of." -- "man of the house." there was a story that you said is the worst lie ever committed in print by a public figure. explain that.

>> we had offered him a deal that if he offered us tidbits he would give us a deal to be speaker of the house. he said he kicked us out of his office. it was a lie. we did see him as majority leader and had a good relationship after that. we wrote columns that were probably to praise worthy of him. he appeared in the form would put on twice a year, a political forum on television. every time he would see me, he would cuff me on the head. i did not care for it, but that was a sign of affection. so this was an absolute falsehood. we were doing an interview show, and he got himself in trouble.

i think its soured him on us. but he was known as a wire -- a liar. >> you name a ton of your sources. >> yes. i always thought for a long time i would write a memoir and divulge all of my sources as i go into retirement, but i am never going to retire. what i did was, i named the dead sources, people who had died, and people who could afford it, i named them. i did not name some of the sources. i am not secretive about it, but i come across more resources than you would think. i try to tell you how i got stories and take the mystery out of how a columnist or reporter

getsy exclusives. >> you had something changed between the time you wrote the galley and when the final book came out. i will start on the source by asking you, what is the story? >> in 1972, after george mcgovern ran and run the massachusetts primary by a landslide, we thought he was going for the nomination and democrats were concerned. i quoted a very liberal senator. i did not give his name. he said that when the working people of the country find out that george mcgovern is for abortion and legal marijuana, they will turn sour on him.

hubert humphrey was trying to get the nation -- nomination. he was a triple-8 candidate, amnesty, abortion, and to acid. but they said i had made it up. this came out well after the election. we went to the senator, have lunch with him, he said he was running for reelection and the mcgovern people would kill him before he threw out his name. many years later, i asked if he would let his name be used, i wrote him, and he said, no, it was off the record. this was even though he was off the record. so we referred to him in the galley proofs as senator x, mr.

x. he died between the time that the galleys came out and the book came out. it was thomas eagleton. he was the short-time running mate of george mcgovern. when he said those things, we never dreamed that he would be the choice for vice president until he was kicked off the ticket because he had not been told about some disorder, some nervous disorder he had that had been treated, they kept that secret. remember that story? so it is a shocking story, an ironic that the man who uses triple-a was tom eagleton. >> why do you feel you can reveal the source now that he is dead? >> he was the only person who knew about it. it was something that i think all bets off when a source dies.

a lot of sources are reveal are not dead, but the ones that are, i definitely reveal. >> i wrote a bunch down. >> ken dugerstein was a long time source of mine. he was a high-powered lobbyist and reagan staffer, and he revealed himself in another book as a source for a go- between between me and richard armitage. >> why would he be willing to do that? >> i would never have used his name, but it came out in a book.

>> the next is karl rove. >> he was a confirming source on the cia story. a reporter relies on sources. >> how long has karl rove been a source? >> since he was a young man, a consultant in austin, texas in at the 1970's. >> what is the rule? what are the rules when you have a source? did you name him in columns? >> no, i did not, but everyone knew he was my source. he was a confirming source on the valerie plame story, but that information came out

through him and his lawyer. >> you write a lot about bill kristol, and he said he was a super source but became unstable after a falling out. >> i was a personal friend, and he was a super source. but at the time -- this is a complicated story, but one of the leading new conservatives listed me and pat buchanan and other people as hating america, just ridiculous. in part because i was not in favor of the intervention in iraq. he had grievances against me and wrote this piece, and when i heard that this was running, i

run up bill kristol, and he said he had never heard of the story. i could not believe he did not know about it. he never called me back, and i never had another conversation with him. later, she was the only conservative journalist i know who attacked me for the cia at weak case -- leaked case in which he referred to my actions on c-span as reprehensible. i believe it had nothing to do with the agent -- i believe there was a resentment of my position on israel and u.s. intervention in iraq. >> let's talk about the israel thing. you are jewish but converted to catholicism. what is your position on israel? >> i import preservation but i believe that policy has been dangerous and self-destructive and i have -- my name has appeared in hundreds of columns

critical of israeli policy. most of them were written by evans, but my name appeared on them and i was supportive of them. since he passed away, i still occasionally write on israel. i think it is not an anti-israel position. i was just there this year talking to journalists and people who share my opinion on us taking in more forthcoming position. but many jewish americans are more aggressive and unrelenting , and i have heard bill kristol. i cannot understand why he turned on me, but maybe that is

the reason. i see him at receptions and things and say hello, but we do not really converse. >> i mentioned converting to catholicism. a source was somewhat responsible for that? >> well, i believe it was the holy spirit that guided me. but jeff bell, a supply-side air in new jersey, strong relation reagan and camp and a friend of mine -- heat started to proselytized to catholicism, a long road after i almost died of spinal meningitis. for and the priest -- oh, yes. that was monsignor peter.

he was a republican politician before becoming a priest, and my wife and i moved downtown and started walking to st. patrick's church. and someone saw that our old friend was a priest there, he had become of pasteur, and he was certainly a major factor. he had a late vocation in life. >> what year did to convert? >> i converted in 1960 -- it was 11 years ago -- 1996. >> what year did evans die?

>> i think he died about -- i am bad at remembering those years. >> how long had he been retired? >> about five years. he retired in -- he retired from the column after 30 years, so that would have been 1993. i think he died in 1998. >> the other thing you tell us is about your four cancers. why do you tell us that, and what are they? >> i try to tell my life story in the book. some journalists just tell you stories they have written. i had prostate cancer, lung cancer, a cancer on one kidney, and i currently have a growth on

the other kidney. we are watching and waiting, but we have not removed it. >> you tell the story about the kidney operation, when you went to california. how did that happen? >> a very good doctor at johns hopkins had a regimen, and it looks like it was going to be very painful, all long process. i would go to a biopsy, they would remove most of my long -- lung. bob mccandless, a lobbyist in town and a friend of mine, had been represented, and one of the

doctors was the head of the john wayne institute in santa monica, one of the great doctors. he said to get that guy. i called him up and he said he could take it out. i flew out to california. he said, i can take this out and have you back in new york in a week. i told people, but i did not make a fuss about it. >> what impact have these cancers had on your work? >> i think that they slow you down considerably. you are having all of the surgeries. i have broken both hips, i have had meningitis. is a merkel i am a life. i think there is some purpose for me -- it is a miracle that i am all life. -- alive.

i am amazed that i survived all that. i broke one hip broking out of a basketball game at the university of maryland, and for the other, i came out of the shower after the first debate of bush versus carey at the university of miami, 2004. it was not that i was so upset about bush doing a lousy, but i was trying to catch a plane, and i slipped and broke my hip. be careful and do not slip, because it is really painful. >> you named bill moyers as the best lbj source. he was 25 years old at the time. >> that is right.

he was trying to deal with the press. always great sources in the kennedy white house, because he was close to kennedy, and kennedy -- i mean, johnson had pierre salinger. we had some success with bill moyers. he was very critical of me in years to come. he thinks i have moved far to the right, and i think he has moved far to the left. >> wilbur mills. >> he was the chairman of the ways and means committee. the smartest member of congress -- he was brilliant. he had strong ideas on tax policy, believing in tax cutting, but only in terms of cutting tax advantages. so he got at crosswords with

john f. kennedy, who wanted to cut taxes without taking out loopholes. >> you say you never criticize sources in your column? >> i try not to. you do not get total protection, but that is the way it works. >> the biggest scoop ever -- the former secretary of defense, layered? you call him your best source? >> yes, he was wonderful. we would go up to his little office in the house of representatives. he was most powerful republican.

he would say, we have a shooter -- a whiskey before dinner. everybody drank in those days. he would tell us what was going on in the house. i got a scoop, and he was being named secretary of defense, a total surprise. everyone thought that scoop jackson, the democrat, would be named secretary of defense. it was a huge scoops, and landed on the front pages. it got on the sunday night, put it out, and monday morning most papers could not get their own story so they used our column on page one. >> why would bob ellsworth, a congressman, a republican from kansas, why would he slip this to you? >> i asked him if i could use his name as a source for this book, i did ask sources, and he

said sure. i asked him why he gave it to me, and he said it was because he liked me and wanted to help me out. he was helpful to me. reporters have to get people that are fond of them and want to help them out. >> three or four reasons why someone would leak information? >> one is to ingratiate itself to a person so he gets good press. one is to do damage to the story, to somebody in the story, or with mr. ellsworth, just doing me a favor. >> you tell us about your drinking problem. i can remember this scenario around lunchtime, you would have a couple of whiskey's and water

and then wine or beer, and you would go back home and have more. by the time the day was over, maybe as many as eight drinks. are you an alcoholic? >> i really thought that -- on an easy day, a drinks. i was covering a story or a dinner or reception, i had more than that. but i did not think i was an alcoholic because i did not drink in the morning, i did not miss appointments, i never missed a column, i did not feel bad when i was cut off. i had a drinking problem. whether i was an alcoholic or not, i do not know. that would have cost great trouble for me, except for the fact that in 1982 i almost died of meningitis and could not drink after that. it just would not go down. i could not get scotched any

more. maybe that was the lord help me out. >> do you drink at all now? >> i drink a little bit. sometimes i -- i found out recently, that if i have a few drinks, it is a few drinks too many. i cannot really drink at all now, so i will have maybe two or three drinks a week and never more than one in the night. >> the kit you punched in the face? >> [laughter] at the republican convention in 1964 in san francisco, the column was only one year old and newsweek was doing a tough job. the hottest reporting team since the alsop brothers broke up.

so they are writing this story, and i was covering the platform committee, and they came up to me and said i had misquoted them or he was supposed to be off the record, some racist remarks he had made to me at the republican convention a few weeks earlier, also in san francisco. he started calling me slimy and other epithets, and i had been out drinking the night before and had a short temper, so i slapped him. he was a much younger fellow than me. everybody grab us, so he never got to hit me back. i told roy to keep it quiet.

after we've regaled everybody, at the party was herb caen, from the "san francisco chronicle," and he wrote about it. so i beg to ben bradlee, the bureau chief, not to use the story, saying it was out of character. maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. but he was not having it, so they wrote the story, saying, "i am the greatest pork chop a takeoff on mohammed ali -- "i am the greatest," a takeoff on muhammad ali. we were referred to as the odd couple. he was an upper-class wasp.

he grew up with the governors, he went to boarding school, and he was in the georgetown social circuit, and i came from a jewish immigrant family. i did not ever travel in his social circles. so socially, we came from quite different worlds. >> you cite some oral history that you saw for the first time in 2004-2006, when you were writing the book, of things you did not know about evans when you were working together. part of it was the relationship he had with the kennedys. >> it was his relationship with bobby kennedy. the meetings he had that i did not know about, things kennedy had told him. by never told me about it.

he told me the oral history when he was interviewed about it in the 1970's. >> what was your reaction? >> i was surprised. i loved him and he was long gone by then, so you cannot get mad at someone like that, but i was surprised. but it was interesting, he had a close relationship with bobby. he told me he was too close to him. he told me that he would never get that close to a politician again. >> what is the story about a column, when you wrote something and he was very upset and worried that bobby would get mad? >> bobby was on a collision course with lyndon johnson.

she was a senator from new york and he broke with him on the vietnam war, came out with a call for a coalition government, and we were really hawkish. i wrote a column, he made some changes, but it was a tough column on bobbie. and before it even ram, he told me he had second thoughts about it for some reason and suggested that we had to have simple bylines. i said it was impossible, and said that it might be the end of the column. what i did not know is that all this time, he was in communication with bobby, talking to him.

i did not know that his friendship was more important. >> you also tell us a lot about the people you were working on with crossfire and john mclaughlin. how would you like to express your feelings about john mclaughlin? >> i grew to loathed john mclaughlin. i was president when the group was getting started. the whole idea of the group is an amazing thing. no experience at all in television, very little in journalism. he was a movie reviewer for a jesuit publication, and he had been a priest, as you know.

so i was there at the beginning, and as he grew and the fate of the program grew, in hot tours and dominance over everything, our relationship deteriorated. he would not talk to me, and i decided i had to leave. i left after several years to start with cnn. >> you talked about going to a city where you would get paid $2,500 to be on a panel, he would get $10,000. >> sometimes he would be picked up by an limo and we would be picked up with a van. until i finally broke with him, i did not want to completely break, so i said, i could use

the $2,500. >> what was capital gang about? >> pat buchanan started it, and he was with mark shields and al hunt, and i had selected him. everyone got along really well, and pat left to become more and reagan's communications director -- sorry, he left to run for president.

finally, he was eased out. they never really attacked each other in private, but there were in paris in conversations on the air. >> -- there were conversations on the air. then she was replaced by kate o'brien. >> was she your godmother? >> yes. >> you also say that kate disappointed you when it came over to you with david frum. >> yes, she did not stand by me. i thought he had slandered me, and he said that i was becoming unpatriotic, hoping america

loses the war -- that was of vital thing to do. >> do you have a relationship with him today? >> no. >> with all these different personalities, how do you get along on a daily basis? >> how do i live with myself? [laughter] >> no, not at all. >> i think that -- i do not want to sound like a holy joke, but i think having faith is more important than these disagreements. i think trying to do a good job -- i work hard on my column and to this day try to write things that people will not read elsewhere and get accurate inspiration. i think that these are all part of a life in washington that i hope people find interesting and that they could not imagine this really exists.

>> why did john lindsay call you the prince of darkness? >> we were both young reporters covering the senate. i was for the "wall street journal," and he was for the "washington post." we waited for the speech is to be finished. we could not leave the senate until they were done in those days. we would have long talks about philosophy and western civilization, and i was really gloomy as a young man about prospects for the west. i was not going into any religious faith and deeply pessimistic, and he referred to me as the prince of darkness. >> define your politics today. what do you believe? >> i believe the low taxes, limited government, limited

economic government, limited power of the government, individual economic freedoms, strong national defense, prudent and cautious in world affairs, internationalist and global in trade. >> at three places in the book, you insert and name, and i want to find out who it is. i am still not clear. it was part of an as propound poem -- bertrand. who was he? >> he was a nobleman in the middle ages who really caused hell. he burst tassels, committed mayhem against foreign noblemen, carried off megan's. dante, in the inferno, said that

because in life you have been strife, in death he was damaged to stand at the gates of purgatory with his severed head in his hand. i looked him up in dante. i always felt that that was a good model for a journalist. to be a stirrer up of strife. i hope, as i say at the end of the book, i hope i do not end up in purgatory with my severed head in my arms. >> what will be the news about this book when they write about it? >> i think the offer of the triple-a, amnesty, abortion, an acid -- i think that is going

to be in the news. but the broader news is that things that i am critical of. i am critical of lyndon johnson, jimmy carter, nixon, jeane kirkpatrick. i think some of the things i wrote about in the columns come out and the book. >> he say that john negroponte and al haig were all services -- sources. in what way? did you know you were being used? >> i did have some contact with john negroponte. i never got -- >> you say you do not remember criticizing henry kissinger. >> no, i criticized him a lot. we had a lot of tension. but i was highly critical of

henry. and all of that criticism of henry was for vietnam, primarily. but we had to bargain these things out on how it would come out of the column. >> are you going to be criticized by the journalism committee? >> journalists are not supposed to tell these things. >> you talk about your partner, tom britain, about his wife and her relationship with robert mcnamara. what was the same -- saying?

>> he was let go without notice. >> but we are in a different business now. you are in a commercial business. how did they treat you? >> they fired me after my argument with james carville. but i was ready to quit. i did not want to work for them, and they did not want to, so they let me go. but really, i did not have any programs left. the programs i had, "crossfire,"

"inside politics," they were all cancelled, so i was making a lot of money and doing very little i knew my days were numbered there before james carville. >> what age were you when you jump from an airplane? why did you do? >> 72, 73, something like that. "the novak his own -- zone" was a program where i would interview someone every week and i would do things that were supernumerary. i drove of boat up the river to the naval academy. i wanted to interview the army parachute jumping team, and they sent back a letter saying we could do the interview, but why would mr. novak like to jump?

i was scared to death. so i told my wife i would good. i did not tell my doctor, with all of the illnesses i had. >> he said that david stockton could have been the best high- level source. who was he? >> he was the budget director in the first year of the reagan administration, a brilliant guy.

he wrote an article for the "united monthly" quoting david stockman on the record. he talked about how stalin had turned against marxism, and it was an incredible stab in the back for reagan. he believed that stockman had not intended to do that. >> why do you think he would have written that there were meetings? >> i do not know. the three never had lunch. i went over my records. they never have lunch together.

i had been told that he was being pushed for, and he had already been just about perfect. i wrote a column about it. i was not in the business for him. >> i have purposely not talked about the cia a fair for two reasons. we can talk about it later, and you will be asked about by others. but you said that on july 1, 2003, he drove to the studios in far northwest washington to appear on "meet the press" for the 236th time. what was your approach about the affair? >> there had been so much written about it that was untrue and exaggerated. i just thought i would give my role on it in detail, putting everything out in the open. that is what i did in the first

chapter. i tell what happened that week, in the aftermath. it took me three years to write the book and a year to cut the book. it is a thick book, as you can see, over 600 pages. so i just wrote everything, and i have never done that with any other book, layover, but i wanted to put it down. and the former editor of the digest, they had cut my material. >> is there another book after this? >> i do not think so. it does not fit together as a

book. somebody might want to put the pieces together, but i am content with this. i met her in hillsboro, texas, with hurt working for lyndon johnson. she really does hate politics. she ought to be a saint. she really does not like politics at all. and she started off as a democrat and is a registered republican now. >> you mentioned you work for gregory publishing. and the other one, she worked for you. >> yes, she worked for the vice- president, for jack kemp, alan keyes, dan quayle, and then for

me for three years and started having babies. >> who do you want to read this book, and what is the message? >> i would like to have people who are interested in politics and government, who watch me on television, to show what real washington is like, what moved me. the market for this book is people interested in politics and what is happening on the inside and how journalism works. >> you said on page 130 -- 93

-- they are about john sears. >> he was a young age to be -- -- he was involved in the reagan administration. this was in 1971, when we were working on a book about nixon. >> he can be a tough guy, as long as he does not have to see the other guy. in personal relationships -- >> this is about nixon. >> in personal relationships, he has a good bit of cowardice, because he cannot make small talk.

why did we just read this for the first time? >> he had given it to me for use in the nixon book that we published in 1971, and it never fit in. going through my papers, i thought that was interesting to put in the book. >> you call yourself selfish, and your wife self-sacrificing. >> yes, that has been the case our whole life. the specific was that we were on a reporting trip in 1964 in south america, and we should have gone home immediately,