party, i think it hurts them again. i don't think it hurts them more than the democrats, i just think we will see a replay of how this played with hispanics couple of years ago. . >> we quickly saw this being claimed and defined, as you call

it, the voices of no in the republican party. let's figure out who they represent. when you are fanning the flames by putting the likes of tom tancredo to talk about sonia sotomayor, a congressman who is no longer congressman from the boonies in colorado who got defeated soundly in the primary in the republican party, and yet he is the one that is put out there in mainstream media. it is his voice that is defining the debate on sonia sotomayor. why? because he will say incendiary things and it will make very entertaining press. it will lead to more press and more stories. in the meantime, you have every republican member of the judiciary committee making very

good points, holding a cordial debate. i would tell you the person who knocked around sonia sotomayor at the most was a newly minted democrat, arlen specter. yet republicans took a beating with hispanics on sotomayor. >> but because most republicans voted against her. >> does anybody remember the things that lindsay gramm said? he chose to make it his last official duty in the senate to cast a vote and get a heart wrenching speech in defense of going back to the old-time when the supreme court nominees were judged on qualifications and intellect, and it was not an intrenched position by both parties. it goes above and beyond the hispanic thing.

it goes above going back to a time that no longer exists and will be hard to go back to. how much press did mel cortines -- martinez speech -- i am saddened we are losing that voice of his. i hope that's at some point we again have another republican senator, because it is important. >> i was surprised at how many republicans voted against sotomayor because i thought it was in their interest to vote for her, partly because she is speaking on the more conservative or moderate choices obama could have made. i think your case would be stronger if more friends had cast a vote for her, but i rented to raise a question with the of -- i wanted to raise a

question with you. when we did our study, we found this fascinating split in the republican party not surprisingly moderate to liberal republicans were in favor of a path to citizenship, comprehensive immigrant reform by about 2 to 1. but self identified it conservative republicans were very badly split. some of that depended on whether you are a cultural conservative or business-oriented conservative, but there is this big difference between talk radio listeners and non-talk radio listeners. if you listen to talk radio you oppose a path to citizenships, it was 54 to 41. if you did i get a lot of

information from talk radio, it was 62 to 34, yes. the other thing we found is that during that debate, conservative media or restriction as to -- restrictionist media gave it more attention than either the mainstream media or liberal outlets like msnbc. i think that went to the enthusiasm issue. the conservatives were mobilized and the other side was not , but there is a genuine division in the republican party on this. it is even deeper than the split that exists among democrats. what is your sense of how the republicans deal with that in the future? >> i think we have to come to an

agreement. there has to be an agreement that is not going to make everybody happy but it will not make everybody unhappy. i really regret that senator kennedy is not going to be there as the container -- not going to be there as he convener. i don't trust chuck schumer's role as the conciliatory convener of all the rolres, but i can be persuaded. i think we will have to come to an agreement and we have to get this off the table. >> is it mccain? you need a republican chuck schumer, in a sense. apologies to chalk -- apologies

to chuck. i agree kennedy's absence has been felt in a lot of different areas, but i do see this is such a difficult issue for republicans. bush kind of make it work for a bit, but even bush at the height of his popularity could not make this work. >> i am not quite clear who is going to lead this in the senate. certainly there are some voices that are becoming leaders in the house. i can tell you that the congressman from south florida has become a leading voice in the house. in the senate, i have a hard time thinking of john mccain and chuck schumer plane in the same sandbox. -- playing in the same sandbox. i think mccain cares a lot about

this issue, that there are others. i think lindsay gramm is a person who gets it. >> it is reported he has been talking about it. >> i would not be surprised to see him taking this on, and he would work very closely with john mccain. it might end of something that ends up on lynsey grandpa's black -- and sevan lynsey gramm's lap. >> this is a policy question because we have talked about the politics. you have to find a sweet spot on the policy. you have to have enforcement that is credible, he need to deal with a 12 million people who are here without status, you need to have something to do with families that are stuck in backlog, and you have to address the issue of how many people do we need to come to this country

to work? let's talk about the legalization and future flow questions. can you imagine agreement on those two issues, and what would it look like? >> go ahead. >> i did not say it would be easy. >> i will negotiate but myself on this. -- i will negotiate with myself on this. at the they brought a legalization program, if a is framed right and designed simply and if people have to earn their permanent residence and work towards citizenship, it will be wildly popular after it passes even though it will be unpopular among the wingnuts and talk radio folks leading up to it.

if it is combined with the enforcement measures that work, i think that democrats have to leave with that and smart republicans will go with it. the tougher issue will be how do you deal with the future flow? it will be a combination of reforms from existing programs in the commission to analyze labor market conditions in different occupational sectors that will make recommendations to congress, but right now congress visits these numbers every 20 years. the labor market moves a lot faster than that, so i think a well-constructed commission is making recommendations -- i would like to go so far to have a fast track authority so you can get decisions made. that will probably be too much for the political market to bear, but you have to revisit this issue is. right now you have an ossified

process and april liberalization of the issues -- and a politization of issues. i think we need to be more realistic about how do you combine the elements of labour market needs and its effect on reducing illegal immigration. i think you can come up with a process that can change dynamically as needed that will result in control and protection for american workers and a reliable source of needed workers. >> what is your reaction to that construct? >> i agree with what frank has said. i think there are some red flag issues that will have to be taken care of at the beginning before the bigger bill is unformatted. for republicans, the temporary worker issue is a red flag.

we just saw jeb bush and the visible republican and visible democrat lead a commission of republicans and democrats, activists and pragmatists, and come up with recommendations and a framework for a plan. they did it in a matter of weeks. under the council of foreign relations, so i do think it will happen but you have to start from a place of wanting to make it happen. the key is not letting this be coopted and taken hostage as a political pawn so it benefits for aid to fail, but starting from the place where it must succeed. -- so it benefits for it to fail. >> during the immigration debate

in 2007, a senator said it is easier to sell assets at a moment when of vulnerable people in the economy, and native workers, are feeling more secure or are seen us do things on their behalf. if we ever got universal health coverage, reducing economic insecurity on the part of a lot of people, there would be more openness or less hostility when the immigration issue comes up. it has been true out our history. in the end, americans are pragmatic about emigration after having vicious fights about it. it tends to be the case that at times of rising prosperity, not surprisingly people are more open to flows of immigrants. when they are feeling economically-pressed they tend to worry more.

unfortunately from frank's point of view, that does not bode well because we are not in a time of the security. i suppose you could not even call it good news but it changes debate. the flow of illegal immigrants has gone down. there may be a reverse flow because of the economic downturn, so all you need to solve this problem is a big economic crash. it has probably reduce global warming emissions, too. [laughter] >> you are right about the connection between economic security and feelings towards immigration, but what it allows the obama administration to do is to frame this about the 12 million who are here. we -- are we going to deport them or make them tax payers to work toward citizenship? if it is framed about what to do about the folks here combined with measures as chuck schumer

points out cannot make sure we do not reproduce the problem and end up with 12 million more, if that argument is persuasive that we will clean up the mess caused by inattention, make sure employers follow long, that argument is made -- make sure employers follow the law. it makes the debate focus on where americans are more pragmatic. they are more ambivalent about the idea of levels going forward increasing and becoming more consolidated around the idea that we will not support them so let's make them tax payers. >> why don't we open it up to the audience to ask some questions? if you would not mike introducing yourself. >> i am a congressional correspondent with the hispanic alicante wrote a book.

-- with the hispanic consol. you see a similar problem in the health care reform bills, that is all about how much government. that seems to be the main thing. some people want government to do more and some want them to do less. also between libertarians and what i like to call democratic nationalists or economic nationalists. that seems to be the split between the two parties, otherwise you cannot explain kennedy and bush on the same page. my question is, you seem to assume that this millennial group will not change. being from the old hippie generation of the 60's from currently, it was amazing to see

the hippies' become the biggest yet these there ever was. -- to become the biggest yuppies there ever was. also, in this very room -- he talked about the biggest issue for latinos. i know this is integration. also, it is interesting i have seen studies that by 2014, the majority of mormons and nevada and utah will be latinos. that is another conservative group along with the baptists. this group will change. you act like the latino or hispanic is a blocked, and it is not now and i cannot see that it will be later on. do you rea think it will not

change? >> do we get more conservative as we get older? >> actually, it depends on the type of issue you look at. that is less true than people think about certain views about the role of government in the economic issues. it tends not to be true about social issues. social issues are quite sticky as people get older. if they start out being a liberal on a social attitude, that tends to stick with them. i actually would not disparage the baby boomers too much. there is not that much evidence they have changed their view is too much. if you look at the early part of the baby boom, this is the second most progressive group in the electorate after the millennial generations. later bloomer is tended to be relatively conservative. -- later bloomers tended to be

relatively conservative. in terms of hispanics, yes, hispanics could become compressed on some of these issues. you might see a situation where there is some conservative of young hispanics, but i don't think he will see that much. compare young hispanics with older hispanics, they are much more progressive on social issues. they lead heavily toward the democrats. that is not to say 40 years from now, things can change. it is just based on the data we have now, based on the cultural issues, based on the set of issues they are most concerned about, the profile tends to make them lean heavily in the progressive direction. therefore, the most reasonable

expectation for the next 10 years is it will continue. >> i am glad you are here. on the latinos, michael berrone, after bush did so well among latinos, he said they might be more like the italians, meaning that they would be more in that led to -- they would be more ambivalent in their politics. they look less like the italians eight years later it then they did before. i agree there is some swing in the latino vote. the latino vote is a lot of different kinds of people. cubans are different from folks in central america. there is a diversity within the latino community, but the republicans -- i think the initiative with -- initiative is with the democrats. i think it is a solid but not

overwhelming majority for democrats. on the millennial, i to do think this new generation is different. i think they are the replacement generation for the new deal or the greatest generation. they have voted democratic in the three consecutive elections. 54% for kerry, 68% for barack obama. for a lot of reasons this is a progressive generation. the fact that they came of age during the bush presidency which was perceived as failing much as the reagan young generation came of age during the carter years. i think that if obama does a reasonable john, not even a spectacular job -- does a reasonable job, their progress

of tilt is pretty strong. i was saying when murray was presenting about the 2020 election, anybody between the ages of 30 and 40 should round for president in 2020, because that could be a great year for progressives. [laughter] >> i did a report on a progressive american on the millennial generation, which is a bubble with interesting data on these issues, so i commend you. >> another question. the gentleman on the end there. >> my name is jeff norman. i am retired but i work as a volunteer for a local democratic party. can any of you explain why prince william county, virginia seems to have become ground zero for the whole nation in

opposition to immigrants? maybe that kind of analysis would also apply to other parts of the country or other groups of people. for people here not from the washington area, it is one of the outer suburbs. i think it is fair to say that housing is a little cheaper. that is in d.c. and the inner suburbs, so you probably have a lot of working-class white people. -- it is a little cheaper than it is in dc. >> there was a brilliant documentary by the way by one group. are they here? fantastic. it was about prince william. they are the experts and you should talk to them, but you have a fast-growing exurb, you

have a lot of latino immigrants to move in to do construction jobs. they are not particularly well- organized and you have a demagogue who wants to lift his profile for state office who sees that blaming newcomers who are not well-organized is good politics, wins a county resolution, that drives many immigrants out of the county. when he tested his ambitions he realized his negative idea was too high, he could not do it. it is kind of the arc, like in california in 1994 with pete wilson. it looked like he was going to run successfully as president and now california is a blue state for generations because of his name. what you are seeing is that arc

in a shorter time frame we're exploiting tensions with a new group of folks who are not well- organized looked like it was going to be a great political strategy and turn out not to be. stewart is in trouble and trying to say let's not talk about it. with the devastation to the county's reputation and the immigrants who have been under siege for many years. >> there was a fight like this out in gaithersburg and the research is interesting. there are two groups in which hostility or mistrust of immigrants is high. one are people who live in areas where there are no immigrants at all, and it comes from a fear of a distant other. but the other is in areas where there has been a large sudden influx of new immigrants, where

people tend to say it is this my place? what is happening to the place i grew up in? it is easy to parody those folks as the xenophobes, but it is like having your community turned over quickly, it is a hard thing to deal with for a lot of people. it happened in earlier generations with other immigrant groups. i think that that is the rapid influx of new immigrants can have the effect of creating an explosive political situation. >> the importance of leadership. i am not talking much changing community quickly, but when some leaders say let's make it work for everyone, and others say it is their fault. that is so explosive on this issue and it has to be called out. there are a number of notorious

folks, and these folks are going to go down on the wrong side of history because they thought the short term political gain was going to be worth it. >> this shows that you might think that there are not many immigrants around at all, then there is a rapid on flux -- there is a rapid influx, but once the hispanic presence gets established and people realize they become more integrated, then people say this is reality. you adapt to a. -- you adapt to it. >> standing immigrant communities tend to be less hostile because there tends to be a history. it changes with time, so there is a level of hostility in places like chicago and new york. >> i think anybody who goes

through -- hill is not from miami and goes through the airport may leave feeling very hostile, but when they leave the airport and start having the cuban food and a taste for the culture, they changed their mind. i do apologize to anyone who has been only limited to the airport. >> the gentleman in the back next to you. >> i wanted to get the panel's view if this year the congressional [unintelligible] proved too short for obama to get immigration passed this year, 2010 would likely be a shorter candidate given that it is an election year and a sense this year. -- it is a census year.

it seems that they will be targeting a lot of immigrants, and democrats in certain districts that will mean a democratic will have any advantage because there will be an influx of undocumented immigrants in those places. because of their presence, they will have an advantage in the electoral college. perhaps there might be another supreme court pick because there are many liberal justices that might be retiring. this might create a much more polarizing environment where if emigration is an issue now, it might become more of one. -- if immigration is not an issue now, it might become more of one. it could mean it had to wait another two years.

i wanted to get your opinion on what is the chance of immigration passing in 2010 if it has not been pursued in either chamber this year so far? >> impact of a short time frame in 2010 and census and supreme court nominations. >> oh, man. obviously every major reform becomes more controversial closer to midterms. we probably do have a window of opportunity until may or june. i think that is more than enough time. obviously health care will dominate the fall. the question of whether energy can really happen or not given its prospects in the senate remains to be seen. i am quite confident if we have janet the peloton now being the point person she needs to be --

had janet napolitano being the point person she needs to be. and chuck schumer takes the lead, i think there is good stuff in the house. you may not have to have a long debate in the house, you would have a longer debate in the senate, but i am not worried about the calendar. i am worried about the politics, the sense of unease among democrats. this debate has happened twice in the senate. but in the house they have barely talked about its except for the three sound bites they came up to say that the town hall meeting. they are not used to it. what we have come up with is you are in comfortable with it, lean into it. -- you are uncomfortable with

it, lean into it. it is in their political interest to lean into this issue, find it as a pragmatic solution and find as good for them. -- frame it as a pragmatic solution and frame it as good for them. you will need a good number of democrats on comparable with this issue leaning into a to make this happen. >> i think some of this depends on how poisoned is the congressional atmosphere after health care, which we cannot know yet. >> we are not starting from scratch. we have been debating this in the formulating plans for years , so we know where the minefields are.

if we apply the lessons we have learned, this should not be as hard as it has been in the past. i go back to saying i think a lot at it rests in the hands of the latinos. it was an election issue in latino markets in the hispanic media in the last election. if it stays that way, the latino community has to force this issue no matter what distraction is on the agenda, no matter how many hispanics get appointed. they have to retain their focus and force this issue, because they are that the important -- . that important of constituents. >> i think it is to be continued. thank you all for being here. a round of applause for our panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> more live coverage in an hour on a discussion on the presidential election in afghanistan. one minister says the incumbent has won with 70% of the vote. allegations of fraud continue to mount. the event is hosted by the brookings institution live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. later today, jim brianne holds a town hall meeting to talk about health care. -- jim moran will hold a town

hall meeting. they answer questions from residents of reston, virginia. that starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. now remarks from actor and singer nick jonas. he talked a living with juvenile diabetes. this is one hour. >> welcome to the national press club. my name is donna and i am president of the national press club and a reporter for "usa today." we are committed to a future of journalism by providing programming and journalism education and fostering a free press worldwide. for more information, please visit our web site at

www.press.org. on behalf of our 3000 members worldwide, i would like to welcome our guests and speakers. i would like to also welcomed those of you who are watching on c-span. we are looking forward to today's speech and then i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. hold your applause during the speech so we have time for as many questions as possible. i would like to explain that if you hear applause it may be from the members of the general public and not necessarily from the working press. i would now like to introduce our guests and ask them to stan. production coordinator of abc news. rick dunham, past president of

the national press club. jennifer sergeant, senior editor of and magazine. todd, shall editor for "vanity fair." skipping over the podium, angel, speaker for "bloomberg news." melissa , speakers' committee vice chair and independent journalist. she also organized this lunch, so thank you very much. kevin jonas, manager of the "jonas brothers" and father of our speaker. the congressional correspondent for the "los angeles *." -- "los angeles times."

and a rheumatologist and author of "healing spaces." [applause] >> imagine flocks of advance, swarms of young girls and squeals at sold out concerts'. that is just another day at the office for our guest. he is a young man that catapulted onto the young -- on to the stage as a young man. he is a part of a wildly popular tenn band that has graced not one but to the deal covers of "rolling stone." they have been called the princess of pop. there four albums have sold 8 million copies worldwide. the youngest member joins us

today, breaking away from a world concert tour for its new album, which debuted at number one on the billboard charts. he is chief songwriter and singing sensation, nick jonas. [applause] at age 16, he is the second youngest guest ever to speak from the podium, which has been a forum for presidents and politicians. almost anyone can sell millions of records and a teen idol, right? we have invited neck to discuss one have is other roles, that the international advocate -- we have invited nick to discuss juvenile dvds -- juvenile diabetes. his mother is a singer and his

father is a musician and co- founder of "christ for the nation's music." he started his career at age 6 in broadway musicals and snagging a solo album deal before he and his brothers formed the jonas brothers. he had been dubbed a vocal powerhouse. the band was just taking off when nick was dealt a life- altering blow, landing in the hospital with a blood sugar levels out of control, he was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a medical condition without a cure. he had to learn to manage his disease on the road as they saw astonishing success. last year he was named breakout star of the year, listed in the top-10 richest, star acts.

earlier this month they hosted the teen choice awards were they took home five awards. he is using his global platform as a pop superstar to become a role model for children with diabetes, approving the deceased as nine have to slow anyone down. as celebrity ambassador, he is leading a campaign to inspire kids facing the challenges of counting carbs, testing blood sugar and injecting themselves with insulin. he has even written a song about his diabetes. he and his brothers launched a foundation which has given nearly $500,000 in grants for

diabetes programs worldwide. he testified this summer before a senate committee for more diabetes research funding and met with president obama at the white house. all this and not yet old enough to vote. please help me welcome a singer, songwriter and advocate, mr. nick jonas to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you members of the press club. it is honor to be here before you today. i am grateful for the opportunity. i was diagnosed with diabetes in november 2005. my brothers were the first to noticed i had lost a lot of weight in three weeks. i was thirsty all the time and

my attitude had changed. i am a positive person and that has changed during least a few weeks. it would have been easy to blame this on a hectic schedule, but my family had to get to a doctor. the normal range of a blood sugar is from 70 to 120. my blood sugar was over 700. the doctor said i had type 1 diabetes but i had no idea what that meant. i asked if i was going to die. she looked back at me and said no. this is something he will have to live with for the rest of your life. we went right to the hospital where i would spend the next three days. my stay included a crash course in getting my blood glucose levels in control. in the car that night i thought

to myself what good could come out of this? where could the joy be? how could i turn this into something that could inspire other people? it was not there, it started to rain and lightning strikes and thunder roars, you think where is the good? it just was not there. like something out of a movie and you feel bad for the character but you never think it will be you. that was me that night. as i looked at my desk as he was driving the car, it clicked. -- as i looked at my father as he was driving the car. i realized something good could come out of this. we are on a journey that would take us to places where i cannot even begin to imagine.

this last february we performed with stevie wonder. moments where you have to pinch yourself to begin to feel the reality in it. i knew that was coming sunday, so i said enough is enough. -- i knew that would come some day. i made a commitment that i would not let it slowly down. -- i would not let it slow me down. it has been an incredible journey, but at my young age i know a lot of you are saying he is still a child, but i can assure you that night i was a child with a dream. i was not going to let diabete'' slow me down. to this day it has not. at times when the blood sugar is high and low, it would be a lot easier to say i would just like

to have a day of. but it just does not work like that. when i need these kids that save need telling my story has inspired them, oftentimes i will say that is hard to believe, because when i share my story i am just saying what happened. to think it could encourage someone is an amazing thing. it is crazy to think that this song i wrote is something that helps someone somewhere. i was at 8:00 p.m. in canada as i was shooting a movie -- i was at a piano while shooting a movie. i sat down and the song came so easily. it was like self-therapy.

but last night i met at least 10 kids with diabetes who said that song touched them, and it is hard to believe. i have always had a heart for helping others. i realize i have been given a platform to inspire other people living with diabetes. reaching out is one of the ways i can give back to others. my brothers and i also started a change for the children foundation. last year we raised over $1 million for charities close to our hearts. these funds went to places called pediatric diabetes research and diabetes caps. -- diabetes camps. our goal is to encourage kids living with diabetes, which are

everyday victories for managing your diabetes. we started a web site and each day i accomplished some of my simple wins i would not be able to do without the support of my family and friends. every day i need to monitor my blood sugar, which requires me to test it 10 or 12 times a day. when i am busy on tore my parents can carry around the test strips to make sure i am always ready. -- when i am busy on tour. since my diagnosis i have worn a dog tag to let people know i have diabetes this came to life when i officially launched the program during diabetes awareness month. proceeds from the sale of every

dog tag go to proceeds for my charity. it allows young people to express simple wins through an on-line contest. they will create a video that demonstrates their simple win.. it can be demonstrations of a song lyric, painting or any other form of creativity. so far we have had a monthly winner since april. you have may have seen the hideous emissions today. -- you may have seen the video submissions today. not only through the programs we have launched together but also through the ongoing support of the change for the children foundation. i am grateful for all that they have done to help my brothers and i reached our individual goals.

i want to thank all of you for coming here today. i see many familiar faces that i run across during my efforts to raise diabetes. all of us together will be able to help young people with diabetes still supported and less alone. i would like to invite nancy katz to speak more about our partnership. [applause] >> i want to do this, it looks so cool. good afternoon. i n nancy katz. -- i am nancy katz. i cannot think of a more fitting place to do so then at the club here. people who gather and

disseminate news. we are delighted you could join us today. a couple of years ago we took notice of a young rising star who publicly acknowledged he had diabetes. before we even met, we were expressed -- impressed by his candor. we were struck by the closeness of his family. his mother, his father and his brothers, and how they all embraced his diabetes. we reached out to him about partnering with bear about the -- we announced a partnership in august. today we continue to be amazed by the number of kids whose lives are impacted by diabetes that he has been able to reach with his message. it is clear that when he talks about diabetes people listen.

until there is a cure, the greatest weapon against it is increased awareness. the work that we are doing together enables young people with diabetes to connect with his experience. they told us that he inspires them to achieve their simple wins. harris' small everyday victories that can lead to big differences over time. he has grown into his role as a diabetes ambassador. we could not be more proud of how he has touched some many lives from raising awareness to raising funds for education and research. a key element of the partnership that has proven to be successful fund-raising tool is a gift today. hopefully you will receive one of his dog tags as you walked in. he designed these dog tags similar to the ones you where is.

they are available for a $5 donation with all proceeds going to be changed for the children foundation. since it was introduced last november, it has raised $75,000 and thousands of people are showing their support by wearing them. to launch our partnership, he made an initial donation of $100,000 to the change for the children foundation. in celebration of our commitment to your partnership, i am pleased to present another $100,000 check. [applause] for the change for the children foundation. we are so honored and proud to work with you. [applause]

>> are you done with your speech? >> yes. >> we will go to the many questions you all have for nick. the first come -- the first one comes from a 16-year-old who was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at age 12. you serve as an inspiration to those of us living with juvenile diabetes. how did you make the decision to share this personal struggle with the public? what were some of the things that you had to think about before you went public? >> i think the main thing was making sure i had it under control myself before i talked about it publicly. for the first six months i continued to learn how to manage my diabetes and take care of it to make sure i could feel comfortable speaking in front of people. >> you probably have to go to

the doctor a lot. a lot of kids are scared about going to the doctor. how did you get yourself psyched up and ready to go? >> i have a really great doctor. she has been a great supporter of me and all i am trying to do about raising awareness. when it comes to going to the doctor you just have to do it. i remember times when i would try to pick which figure to do when i had to do it once a year, but that went away the minute i had to do it 12 times a day. she is a great doctor and i am happy to see her. >> are you the only one in your family who has diabetes, or do your grandparents or parents have it as well? >> my grandfather has type 2 diabetes. i am the only one in my family right now.

i hope they don't get it but we will see. it could happen, but if they will i will be there by their side to help them every step of the way. >> it is hard -- is in hard for you to talk about your diabetes? do you feel like you want more privacy sometimes? >> there are times when i do keep things to myself when it comes to my diabetes, but for the most part i try to be as open as possible because i know what it is like to feel alone because when i first found out i did not know anybody that had it. being able to be there, that means the world. i am happy to do it. >> stress is known to worsened diabetes sentence. have you ever experienced this and how you cope with their potentially stressful schedule?

-- how do you cope with your stressful schedule? >> you just have to take it one step at a time. make sure you have the right tools and making sure you take care of it, and everyone around you is watching out for you and making sure they are right there with you. >> can you tell me some of the waste your family supports you and you managing your diabetes? >> one thing i always say is diabetes is not something that affects the individual but the entire family. i feel it is important everyone is educated not only in our family but in our staff around us. they know how to take care of a problem if there is one. it is important to have good people are around you to help you get through it. >> he mentioned you were scared when you found at. what were some of the other motions you went through. -- you mentioned you were scared

when you found out. how you feel when you have to procure figure in many times a day? >> my biggest concern was that i would have to drink diet coke, which was a big shock. that was a bit disappointing, but i got over it. i cannot get enough of it now. it was rough at first. >> what is your favorite food? >> i always have to be very careful when saying this. he was offering cake before. as much as i was -- as much as i wanted to have a piece, i will hold off with the cameras watching. when it comes to food, and a big steak-eater. i am a man in the sense that i a like to that steak, and fruit, too. >> my son is a diabetic and has

the same pump as you. can you have your pdm with you during performances? >> i use e omni-pod. i do wear it when i am on stage but i don't use the meter. we wear tight pants sometimes, i didn't know it was this funny. that is the problem. i handed off to other people while i am on stage. >> how do you know if you have too much or too little sugar? do you feel different? >> i definitely feel the difference in my blood sugar if it is high or low, but making sure i checked regularly is important. i have been good so far on stage. i have not had too many lows, but my mom is usually on me. just making sure you have good people on you -- good people around you to make sure you

manage it well. >> what do you keep for emergencies? >> uh oh. i make sure there is orange juice or apple juice just in case there is a low, but everyone around us has something ready to go just in case there is a problem. we are all prepared and ready for a situation. .

>> because you have to pick your finger so often to check your blood chipper, how does it affect the way you play your instrument? >> because you have to check your blood so often, how does it affect the way you play your instrument? the doctor asked which figure, and that is being so selected because i was a guitar player. after about a minute of tried to figure out which tender, she said just give me your finger. and [applause] she said he will probably have to do with a couple more times. -- [laughter] >> how much of your time to use then checking on your blood and

sugar -- your blood chipper? -- your blood sugar? >> how many times a day? about 10 to 12 times per day. thankfully my a1c came down substantially. >> what are the down side to having diabetes? >> there have been some things that i have had to be cautious about, sports and things like that, making sure i do not go too hard before a show. i am a very competitive person said the ping-pong match is can be very competitive. making sure i keep it under control and know where i am not before i go on stage. >> is it hard to manage your diet and watch what do you

the wall you are on tour? >> in the beginning it was difficult. luckily now we travel with our own catering. they make sure i know what is in the food so i can properly manage it. it goes back to what i said before about making sure that everyone is aware. i am an independent person, but when it comes to diabetes, i still let other people come in. otherwise it could get out of hand. >> what is the best thing about being a rock star? [laughter] >> wow. i think being able to play every night in front of so many people. we have days where there were 10 to 15 people sat shows. those were the moments where we

would say living the dream sarcastically. [laughter] once the crowd got a little bit bigger, last night we played in front 25,000, it is definitely living the dream and a good sense with a smile on her face. i definitely love it. >> what is the toughest thing about being a rock star? >> there are some early mornings and late night sometimes. that can be difficult. i like to sleep. waking up early can be tough, but you know you get to play in front of your fans every night and that is what matters. >> when you were younger and figured that you had diabetes, how did you figure -- how did you put up with the sugary temptations that your friends would snack on? everything comes with hearts on it. [laughter] >> i think at first it was

difficult to see things, but the thing about diabetes is you can pretty much eat whatever you like, he does have to make sure you take the right amount of intellect for -- insulin for its and eating in the right proportions. it was difficult at first to walk through a grocery store and see the candy aisle and know that i should not have that. i did a lot of sugar-free snacks from fans, which is great. he made me feel loved. -- it makes me feel loved. [laughter] >> have you ever miss the show because of diabetes? >> we have never canceled a show. the only time we have had to reschedule something was because of weather. diabetes has never caused us to cancel a show thankfully.

>> ana ask how she can support her cousin who has diabetes. >> one of the main ways that people can support their friends and family who had diabetes -- have diabetes is to be there for them. and no one knows what you're going through in your mind and heart, but they can say i cannot relate with you directly, but i am here for you if you need me. that is the best thing. that is the best thing for me. >> speaking of the song, "a little bit longer," the line if you don't know what you have until it's gone, what are you trying to express here? >> probably the chocolate cake. [laughter]

i think there is a deeper meaning to that. i hope so. the day when i wrote it i was at the piano and it was a tough day in my blood sugar was high and low in wishing it could be normal, like everyone else. the cast is of great from the movie and we had a lot of fun, but i was watching all of them and they were just eating freely and doing what they wanted to, and i thought i have to think about everything that i want to eat. and just wishing that i could be normal and not have it for a day. maybe more than that. i think the song goes on to the fact that you do not know what you have until it is gone, you do not know what it is like to feel so low. that is the moral of the story. >> what you got you into singing and writing songs?

>> i have always had a heart for music from a very young age, i wrote my first song at 86. -- i wrote my first song at age 6. i went in to recorded music and writing and got into that and saw that is where my heart was. we became a group. that was about five years ago now. and it just happens from there. it has been a long and fun journey. we're having a great time. >> how does being on broadway compare with doing a concert? >> being on broadway compared to being a recording artist is much different. it was good training for what i am doing now, and i am so thankful i did it, but very different in a sense where

broadway is every night. you never know how the crowd is going to be, and to have to be ready for anything. >> what is your favorite song from dorsey your cd? >> this was our most recent album, came out in june. there is a song called "black keys. " as a started to write it i saw the concept ships from that into looking at life in seeing that sometimes looking at things black and white is much better than trying to throw color and mess up the perfect picture. it really set out to me as something that meant something to me personally. i sing it every night.

the crowd sings along, and it is amazing thing. >> when you were little did your parents make you practice the piano and it is sometimes make gmac? [laughter] -- did it sometimes make you made? >> i picked up the cuts are first. -- the katar first. -- the guitar first. my dad and other people i met along the way really train me as a musician. >> who is your musical idol and y? >> i am a big fan of johnny cash, elvis costello, and and stevie wonder. and >> what makes some of those

people special to you? >> i have always been intrigued by johnny cash. i like his storytelling. such great music, but the storytelling always stood out to me. when i first picked it up, i started thinking i wanted to write songs like this where i could tell a story in a song. elvis costello is an intellectual character and a musician as well. >> were you listening to your ipod this morning, and if you were, what are you listening to? >> this morning i was watching sports center. the last time i was in my ipod i was listening to at the end added the uk. -- i was listening to eigha band out of the u.k.

>> will there be a camp rock two? tec>> yes, there will be. we leave next week to start shooting. we have like a 12 hour break. it should be good. >> can you give us a preview of of this and what is going to happen? >> i have read the script. it is good. am looking forward to filming it. the cast is great. one of our friends just at the number one album. it is going to be fun. we're looking forward at getting up there and only the sec installment. >> do you think you will get your own action figure doll? [laughter] >> i do not know. i was asked this question before

we started, and i hope so. joe had one. he had an action figure, is more like a barbie. [laughter] that is why i am a bit concerned. as long as they look like a g.i. joe, i am fine. >> it sounds like you have a pretty hard schedule, so what is your favorite parts of touring and the hardest part? >> the best part is playing. i remember the days when there were not many people there. the tough part, i think it is all good. we have a great team and a lot of fun when we're on the road. we are coming towards the end of the u.s. installment of tours, so it is kind of sad but it is fun. we will be busy for a while, but we're having a great time. >> how long does it normally

take you to write a song? >> it depends on what the topic is that i am writing about. it is very personal to me, it comes quickly. a week may be. for the most part, and i were to write a song -- an hour to write a song. >> do you have time to have a social life, and what you do when your time for fun? >> when i have time for fun i am big into sports. we have a softball team when we're on the road. we play a lot of softball as well we definitely have a lot of time to go and watch movies and hang out. we are each other's best friends. we enjoy each other's company. >> do you have a girlfriend? [laughter] >> i am trying to figure out if

you -- i am trying to figure out to ask the question. i do not. [laughter] it is crazy. >> moving on. and what is your favorite book? >> amazing. my favorite book, there's a book that i have is 1000 of the best quotes of all time. it is not like a story, but has a lot of amazing quotes, and i will say them at interviews and people ask if i came up with that. it is a great book and i like a lot. >> why did you give away a guitar friday in charlotte? >> i'd like to give away guitars and i see someone in the audience who i think would like it.

usually they're playing the whole time, air guitar. i need your given the real thing. it is a fun thing to do. a very sweet girl took it. >> mary tyler moore's book a few months ago about the juvenile diabetes research event you attended. what was it like talking to the president and testifying before congress about your diabetes? >> a that was an amazing thing to be a part of, such an honor. i was a little nervous when i spoke, but it was great to see that it went over well. and i have seen a lot of the kids that were there in some of the city's we have led to come and it is great to see them again. and it is great to see them do things in their own community trying to raise awareness and speak at about diabetes and the

importance to fund research and hopefully find a tier one day. -- hopefully find a cure one day. >> when will you come back to washington? >> i am not completely sure when i am coming back next, but definitely like to. this is my second visit in the class couple of months. it is a great place to come to to speak out about important things like this. >> what was your favorite part of visiting the white house? >> i have always had this dream of becoming the president one day, i talk about it a lot. just being there was kind of cool to see the history and to be in the white house is obviously such a an honor. we were able to play an acoustic set for the obama daughters and some of their friends. it was cool. >> you have another 20 or 30

years before you can run for president, but until then, where do you see yourself five years from now? >> 2040 to be exact. [laughter] we sell bumper stickers that says jonas 2040. i see my self making music. we thought about going to college, but obviously our schedule is a bit busy. enjoying the ride we are on, and hopefully doing some more great things with diabetes. >> you have met a lot of famous people. who would you look ridiculous to us like to have dinner with? -- to would you most like to have dinner with? -- who would you most liek to ahv have dinner with?

>> elvis costello is a very intelligent person. i would love to sit down and talk a little bit more. he seems like a great person. >> can you show us your dog tag? >> maybe not. it is under this high. -- this tie. there actually. these are also very special. these have been incredible. i see them at the show and people wearing them. they show me they have supported the cause and that they are diabetic or are there to raise awareness, and that means a lot to me. >> how do you keep going when you are feeling down? >> i think knowing that there

are people out there who have been encouraged or inspired by my story, and if there is a moment where i am frustrated with my struggle with diabetes, and look forward to that moment and know that that is coming. that means the world. >> where do the inspiration for your songs, besides diabetes? >> i tried to pull inspiration from everything around us. relationships, personal things come up whenever it may be, but try to make it real to who we are. >> this comes from karlan -- caroline will has been a day that it for 13 years. -- who has been a diabetic for 13 years. >> my brothers are very sensitive when it comes to diabetes.

they will ask sometimes if i have checked in need to check. there are very good about being sensitive and not been to read. -- and not being too rude. we have a great relationship with each other, and if there is something they sense, i am usually feeling and myself so i will do it myself. >> this question comes from whitney wise men who is your age and is working here as a reporter for the woodrow wilson high school began. a report has suggested that 2.2% of the u.s. population where over 6 million people have undiagnosed diabetes. hundreds of thousands of people die every year from diabetes- related conditions. what do you think would be the best way to reach these people? >> i think there is a lot we can do to raise awareness in our own

circles in life. and then reporters in the room on a larger scare. -- on a larger scale. everyone has a story when it comes to diabetes. i hear them a lot of times when people ask for an autograph, they will say she is a diabetic and she has watched deal and has been encouraged by what you have to say. as far as the undiagnosed kids and people that had diabetes in the world if you can go check it out. if you start to see the symptoms that i talked about, being thursday, losing weight, having a bad attitude, go to the doctor and get it checked out. you never know. i got hit with it after having 13 years of perfect medical history. you never think it is going to come up and it made. always be aware and be ready.

>> you have traveled all over and have met a lot of different people. what are the common misconceptions people have about diabetes? >> some of the misconceptions are that some people think they know what you can and cannot have. like i said before, diabetes is manageable. you are able to eat, for the most part, what you like as long as you take the right amount of insulin in making sure your checking regularly afterwards. >> what advice would you give to someone who has just been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes? >> my first bit of advice would be if you are an independent person like ibm, do not be afraid to rely on other people, your family or doctors. it is important to talk to other people about and let them help deal in your struggle and walk with diabetes. >> too high or low blood sugar

levels affect your singing voice? to go for the most part they do not affected. -- >> for the most part they do not affect it. and i know for the most part and it is all good because i will look at someone and i will say i need a second to take care of this. >> have you ever had a moment on stage where you felt ill because of your diabetes and had to stop singing? >> there have been one or two moments in the four years since i have been diagnosed where i have had to sell seven to stretch their talks said that i can go and check real quick. they're always very good about it -- they have always been very good about it. >> some people may not know that your father is a singer and a

musician. will you sing a few bars together before you leave? [applause] >> i do not know. and i do not think we're warmed up yet, but he is an incredible musician. he is very humble about it, that he can upstate's the three of us any day. >> do you think there will be a cure for diabetes in your lifetime? >> this is a question that have asked a lot of people myself because i am very interested to know. the honest answer is i do not know. i hope one day there will be a cure, and i know we're making advances in technology so that we can manage our diabetes better, but we will see. and i know that there are lots of people that are hopeful about

it and a lot of people who are working hard at cheers and also technology. -- who are working hard at cures and also technology. >> this person says it is cool to have diabetes when you learned jonas but what you say to average people? >> for me i did not have someone to look at and say this person has diabetes also so it is ok. i have heard a lot of people, to me and tell me that the fact that i have stepped up to the platform and spoke about my diabetes has helped them with their friends at the schools and things where they can say she has it too and is doing what he loves. -- he has it too and is doing what he loves.

>> we are almost out of time. before i ask a last question we have a couple of matters to take care of. first of all, let me remind our members and future speakers, on september 17, jim douglas of vermont will be here. on september 18, dennis corti's, president and ceo of the mayo clinic and on september 28, ken burns will join us. for more information go to www.press.org. i would like to present it with the traditional -- nick with the traditional mug. [applause] you and president clinton and

various heads of state have one of the spiri andose. -- ahvhave one of those. how has the struggle of diabetes help to grow as a person? >> it shows me that sometimes things in life do not appear to be the best thing in the world. it can be a situation in your everyday life for you think that you wish it would go one way but it does not quite that way. with diabetes it is that thing. i hope every day that my blood sugar is good before i go one stage, but sometimes it is out of my hands. just always kind to be on top of the end of that i can do what i want to do with my life, i can't live my dream of with diabetes -- i can live my dream with

diabetes. >> we actually have a couple more minutes. about 60 people ask this question. would you ever consider dating a san? -- dating a fan? [applause] [laughter] >> definitely. we always say that we hope the person we date is our biggest fan. my brother kevin is engaged now. he met a normal new jersey girl who he fell in love with. that is a story i would love to have as well. [applause] >> i would like to thank you very much for coming here today. i wanted to remind everyone that there is doing blood testing right outside of the

ballroom. thank you very much. i would also like to think the national press club staff members, the linda cook, and howard brosnan for organizing today's plunge. also thanks to the ncp library for the research. the video archive is provided by national press club broadcast operations center. all events are available for free download on itunes and our website. non-members may purchase transcripts or video tapes by calling the number. for more information about the national press club, please go to our website. thank you very much. we are adjourned. if you could please stay in your seats. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> more live coverage coming up and about 30 minutes. the discussion on the recent presidential election in afghanistan. this as allegations of fraud and misconduct continue to mount in this country. this evening, a virginia congressman jim moran helps -- holds a town hall meeting. the answer questions from residents of reston, virginia. and president barack obama took a brief break from his martha's vineyard vacation to announce the renomination of ben bernanke to be federal reserve chairman. he has to be approved by the senate.

>> the man next to me, ben bernanke, has let the federal reserve through one of the worst crisis that the world has ever faced. he is an expert on the causes of the great depression. i am sure he never imagined that he would be part of the team responsible for preventing another. in creativity that is exactly what he has helped to achieve. that is why i am reappointing him to another term as chairman of the federal reserve. he approached the financial system on the brink of collapse with calm and out of the box thinking that helped put the brakes on economic free fall. almost none of the decisions that he or many of us may have been easy. the actions we have taken to

stabilize our financial system, to repair our credit markets, restructure the auto market have all been steps of necessity, not choice. they face plenty of critics, some of whom argued that we should stay the course or do nothing at all. taken together this bold, persistent experimentation has brought our economy back from the brink. they are steps that are working. i recovery plan has put tax cuts in people's pockets, extended health care to those with foreign the brunt of the recession, and is continuing to save and create jobs that otherwise would have been lost. our auto industry is showing signs of life. business investment is showing signs of stabilizing. our housing market in credit markets have been saved from collapse. as scores of -- of course, we are long way before we did a long way away from completely healthy financial systems.

i will not let up until those americans who are looking for jobs can find them until qualified businesses who need capital to grow can find loans at a rate they can afford, and tell all responsible mortgage holders can stay in their homes. that is why we need ben bernanke to continue the work he is doing. that is why i have said that we cannot go back to an economy based on over-leveraged banks, inflated profits, and backs out credit cards. even as we have taken steps to rescue our financial system and our economy, we must now work to rebuild a new find -- a new foundation for growth and prosperity. part of that foundation has to be a financial regulatory system that ensures we never faced a crisis like this again. we have already seen how lax enforcement and weak regulation can lead to enormous wealth for a few, and enormous pain for

everyone else. that is why even though there is some resistance on wall street for those who would prefer to keep things the way they are, we will pass the reforms necessary to protect consumers, investors, and the entire financial system. we will continue to maintain a strong and independent federal reserve. we will also keep working towards the reform of the health-insurance system whose cost and discriminatory practices are bankrupting our families, businesses and government. we will give our children and our workers the skills and training they need to compete with these jobs in the 21st century. much like the decisions we have made so far, the steps we take to build this new foundation will not be easy. change never is. as ben and i both know, it comes with debate and disagreement and resistance from those who prefer the status quo. that is all right. because that is how democracy is

supposed to work. no matter how difficult the change is, we will pursue it relentlessly because it is absolutely necessary to lift this country up and create an economy with good jobs, brought growth, and a future that our children can count on. that is what we are sure to do. that is what we will continue to do in the months ahead. i want to congratulate them on the work he has done so far. when shaken -- wish him continued success in the work he has before him. thank you. >> i would like to express my gratitude to barack obama for his unwavering support for a strong and independent federal reserve. it has been a particular privilege for me to serve with the extraordinary colleagues throughout the federal reserve system. they have demonstrated remarkable resourcefulness, dedication, and stamina under

trying conditions. through the long nights and weekends and at the time away from their families, they have never lost sight of the critical importance of the work of the federal reserve for the economic well-being of all americans. i am deeply grateful for their efforts. i especially want to think my own family, my wife, annette, and our children. without their support and sacrifice, i could not undertake this task. the federal reserve, like other economic policy makers, has been challenged by the unprecedented events of the past few years. we have been bold, deliberate as circumstances demanded, but our objective remains constant, to restore a more stable financial economic environment to which opportunity can flourish and in which americans hard work in creativity can receive their proper rewards. mr. president, i commit today to you and to the american people that if confirmed by the senate,

i will work to the utmost of my ability with my colleagues at the federal reserve and alongside the congress and administration to help provide a solid foundation for grumman and prosperity in an environment of price stability. thank you, sir. >> thank you. great job. >> shortly after this morning's announcement, we spoke to a reporter. joining us is craig torres. what is this -- what does this renomination mean to the country in financial markets as a whole? >> it means continuity. they have to unwind this to maintain confidence and what better guide than the author of all of those. >> one of the news reports today said that mr. bernanke meshed

well with the obama team. why did president obama say she wanted to keep the fed chairman in his place? >-- why did president obama say he wanted to keep the fed chairman in his place? >> became more on this side of the obama administration. things like recommending banks modified mortgages come even going so far as to said that they should perhaps take a hit on the principle because it would be better to keep people in their homes. after some prodding by congress, he strength in consumer lending rules. i do not think there is any reason for them to be displeased with him on that score, in terms of public policy favoring consumers. >> what about mr. bernanke, what did he say about his appointment to a second term? is this something she wants? to go it was an interesting statement. the first thing he did is there

were three hallmarks. -- >> it was an interesting statement. and he believes in the spring of the staff. the staff is very strong. the second thing he mentioned was independence. and as your listeners might know, there is a challenge to said independence in congress right now. and i think bernanke has a lot of work to do in fund -- in spending that off. -- in fending that off. >> what are lawmakers concerned about? >> the fed did some extraordinary things there was a wall that allow them to glenn to anybody, so they did. they financed a bunch of stodgy assets that were once held by bear stearns to ms. -- to

facilitate the merger. then they use the same statute to go out and support the asset backed securities market and the what congress has said, and a footnote is even some fed officials have said wait a second. this is not monetary policy, you are extending credit to the private sector. you are stepping into are dimming, which is fiscal policy. -- youa r are stepping into our domain, which is fiscal policy. >> the administration has expressed changes. " what they like to do? >> they would like to strip the federal reserve of the broad

rule writing ability for financial products. they were disappointed at how slow they were on that. they want to create a special agency to take care of that. the second thing they would do is make the federal reserve the sole regulator of the largest financial institutions. those might number anywhere from 10 to 30. they would consult with the systemic risk council, but then it would have wide discretion in setting standards for this industry. that is supposed to prevent excessive risk-taking and bubbles in the future. it is sort of a wise-man model. the wise man will prevent this from happening again in the future, as the poorest to a competing models like sheila bair. >> an update from greg taurus. thank you for joining us. -- craig torres.

>> and a few moments an update on afghanistan elections. that discussion coming up at 3:00 eastern live on c-span. british prime minister gordon brown and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu took questions on the release of the lockerbie bomb are. -- bomber. this runs about 20 minutes. >> let me welcome prime minister netanyahu to london. it is a pleasure to work with you on all the issues that affect both of our countries and the future of the world. he is a leader, and we have had good talks today. discussions that are realistic as ever, but more optimistic than before. i reiterated that we in the united kingdom will always

remain predict remain a strong brand of israel and that is released and palestinians will always be able to count on our support for peace. beshear a vision of a secure and confident israel. -- beshear a vision of a secure in, but it is real. -- we share a vision of a secure and confident israel. we also discussed the issue of settlements in east jerusalem. i made clear that the settlement activity was a barrier to a solution. i am increasing company that is a genuine will to make progress. that such activity will result in steps to a normalization from

arab states. president obama has my strong support in his efforts to pursue this agenda, and i know prime minister netanyahu will be reading -- meeting with him tomorrow. we also discussed and will continue to discuss iran. i made it clear to president not to yahoo! that we do not wish to comment on the -- netanyahu that we do not wish to comment. we also shared israel's concern over ambitions to develop a nuclear weapon. you have nothing to fear from a nuclear program, but actions do not make their arguments convincing. i robbed -- iran needs to cooperate.

until then, the international community will continue to view them with suspicion. welcome again. i look forward to working with you on the future as we share anxieties about a run into common desire for peace in the middle east. -- and a common desire for peace and the middle east. >> i am very pleased to be here in great britain today. britain and israel have shared -- are linked by a shared history and a common relationship that is based on shared values and common interests. i just came from the palestine

-- some of the most remarkable and moving studies of jewish history and the holy land were undertaken in the 19th century. the findings there have underlined what i just said. there is a shared heritage and shared history. i think in many ways you know that from your own personal history. we have common boats and common challenges. and i discussed with the prime minister the need to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it is clear that such weapons would pose a great threat to israel to our region, to the world. and i would like to take the opportunity to commend the continued efforts of the british government to address these threats.

there has been a clear voice that comes out of london and from other capitals as well recently. i think that we should expect all responsible members of the international community to show similar results. we also discussed the peace process. i reiterated israel's commitment to peace and outlined what i believe is the winning formula for peace. a demilitarized palestinian state should recognize as a jewish state. we're working hard to advance the peace process that would lead to an actual piece results. we hope to move forward in the weeks and months ahead. we're not waiting. we have already moved. my government has removed 150 checkpoints and roadblocks. 14 remaining checkpoints, 12 of

them are manned 24 hours a day to facilitate movement. i have extended the time of passage on these bridges on the jordan river in order to facilitate movement in and out of the palestinian territories. i chair a committee that seeks to remove and has removed roadblocks to activity in the west bank's. we have moved underground. i have also moved. i have spoken about the need to achieve this balance of a demilitarized palestinian state. i think that this has resonated far and wide. it was not easy to do. this is what we have done in a short amount of time. we have moved.

we expect similar movement from the palestinian authority. certainly based on what we have seen, there has not been that movement. that is an understatement. there has to be that movement. there has to be not merely a partner on the other side, there has to be a courageous one. i think we have shown a certain amount of fortitude and leadership. that is what is required from the palestinian side. they have to say unequivocally, it is over. we're going to make a real peace. it will be a final peace. it will be a piece of will and all claims to further conflict. it will be a peace that will result of the palestinian refugees, and just as jews can come to palestine, palestinians can come to a jewish state. there has to be a jewish state. if we're asked to recognize the palestinian state, it is

absolutely essential that the palestinian leadership says to the palestinian people, you will have to except israel as a nation state of the jewish people. recognition is the pettit apiece. the absence of such clear and forthright expression by the palestinian leadership is what has been holding peace up. where we have moved forward, we intend to move forward. what we expect a palestinian partners to be courageous, partners of peace that move forward. with help of our friends and united states and britain and elsewhere, i think we can achieve progress that may confound the cynics and the world, but there is no substitute for courageous leadership on all sides.

i want to thank -- i want to take this opportunity to thank you. i think you are a championship of decency. i want to express my hope that we continue working together in the time ahead for the people of israel and britain and for the benefits of peace. thank you. >> thank you very much. i have to ask you about the release of the lockerbie bombing. why did you remain silent until now? we have seen an angry response from washington. what is the position of the british government. does the british government think it was the right thing or wrong thing to release this man? >> my first thoughts have been with the families of the victims.

i have to tell you that i was both angry and repulsed by the reception that a convicted bomber guilty of a huge cheer this crime was granted a return to libya. when i met the general over the summer, i made it absolutely clear to him that we had no role in making the decision about his future. because it was a judicial matter, a matter of legislative decided by the scottish parliament, it was a measure in which we could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome. i want to make absolutely clear, however, that whatever decision that was made under passionate grounds, our results to fight terrorism is absolute. our determination to work with other countries to fight and terrorism is total, and we work redid we want to work with countries, even countries like libya, we want to work with

them in the fight against terrorism around the world. >> [inaudible] [speaking a foreign language] >> i think we're trying to two goals. to reactivate the peace process and the second is to enable a normal life for israeli residents. we have people that beat lives, they have children who go to school the classrooms. they need can a garden -- kindg

eergarten. they need to have normal lives. what we're seeking to achieve with the united states and the talks we have conducted is to find a formula that will enable us to enable residents to continue living normal lives. we'll have something to report on this, which is not necessarily what has been reported. you will hear it loud and clear from the. >> we want to do everything we can at the united kingdom to support the peace process. we want in israel where people feel secure. we want it economic state so

that people can see the benefits of prosperity from peaceful coexistence and working together. we want to work with prime minister netanyahu. we want to involve the rest of the arab states and making sure that they support a peace process that works. >> i am from the bbc. mr. netanyahu, whether you continue to build homes for jews, and mr. brown, to you think this got his decision on the lockerbie release has undermined britain's position? >> i have made a clear -- made it clear in my president with barack obama -- and i have made it clear to president obama that

we accept no indentations on our sovereignty. to put a fine point on this coming to reduce -- the settlement issue is outstanding. it has to be one of the issues resolved in the discussion. our position is that to release some is the united capital of the jewish people. we have only been around for 3.5 dozen years. we recognize that there are residents of jerusalem that enjoy all of the equal rights and benefits of the jewish residents. >> i do not think what has happened will undermine our relationships with israel or the united states or other countries that engage with us in the fight against terrorism. i have made it clear that whatever the decision that is made on the judicial basis by the scottish parliament, our determination to fight terrorism

is clear. it is shown in all of the action we have taken since the december 11. it is shown in the support we have given in afghanistan and iraq. it is shown in every action we have taken to protect the british people and those beyond from the threat of terrorism. >> a question for both prime ministers. there is something that needs to be clarified as soon as possible. the iranian problem, according to your intelligence, how much time do you evaluate left until iran reaches the point of no return, and should all measures the full measures? and dq think that inevitably, eventually military action will

have to be taken? -- do you think that in the heavily -- inevitably come eventually military action will have to be taken? >> i am not in the habit of giving any details of intelligence matters, but i do say to you every recognize the threat that is caused by iran. we recognize that if they make the decision to go forward and acquire nuclear weapons, that has profound significance for the rest of the world. we believe they have the choice. they can work with the international community. they can take their rightful place as a peaceful and important partner in the world or they can find themselves ostracized because of their decision to break the treaty and hide from the world what they're doing to build up nuclear weapon power. i hope they will make the right decision. i believe president obama has offered them a way forward for

this, but i also believe we have to leave open every option in our dealing with them. at the same time, if there is no further progress immediately, then i believe will have -- we will have to lookin into steppig up sanctions. . . i think this regime will have

to make a very difficult decision on its future course. it is susceptible to this. what has been revealed in recent events, a dramatic events, of the iranian election is that this regime does not enjoyed the support of the iranian people. it is far weaker than meets the eye. and if the resolve of the responsible members of the international community is strong and firm, then however await the hour, the future can be secured. and this is our preference. i think that the strong group those actions are, and those sanctions are today, the less need there will be for stronger actions tomorrow. >> thank you both. thank you very much. >> and we are alive now the

discussion on the presidential election in afghanistan, just about ready to get under way. one minister of hamid karzai says the incumbent has one was 70% of the vote as allegations of fraud and misconduct continue to mount in the country. it is just getting started here, live at brookings, on c-span. >> we're very glad to of the opportunity to host this session on the prospects for afghanistan's future, assessing the outcome of the afghan presidential election and its implications for future american policy in afghanistan. i do not quite know what all of your doing here in washington this week, but we are very glad to see you. we're very fortunate to have a very experienced panel to lead

our discussion today. i will introduce them quickly, and then we will hear from them some opening presentations. we will have a discussion, and then we will turn to the audience for questions. the leadoff speaker will be michael o'hanlon, director of research and the foreign policy program at the brookings institution. he specializes in u.s. defense strategy, the use of military force, homeland's security, and american national security policy. he has just come back, on monday, from a visit to afghanistan where he participated in the election monitoring with the international republican institute.

he is also the overall convene their of the iraq index ended ue afghanistan index, and coming to you soon, the pakistan index. a prolific author. his latest book is "a war like know whether." -- "a war like no other." also, "hard power." before he came to work things, he was an analyst at the congressional budget office. he is also worked at the institute for defense analysis and has been an adviser to general petraeus, both when he was commander in iraq and now as centcom commander. he will be followed by anthony

cordesman. unfortunately, he will have to run out at 4:00, so i hope you will excuse him. he is also very well known here and across america. he has been part of strategy at csis and in national security analyst for abc news. he has been a director of an assessment project, government transition and steady, principal investigator of the homeland defense project that csis. he is also a prolific author. he is probably a little more prolific, if possible, then michael o'hanlon since he has written 50 books including a four-volume series on the lessons of modern war. he formerly served as national security assistant to senator john mccain and on the senate

armed services committee and is director of intelligence assessments in the office of the secretary of defense. tony and kim, who will introduce in a moment, have both worked in afghanistan recently as part of a team that was sent out there to advise general mccoy is still -- general mcchristal. kimberly kagan is the president of the institute for the study of war. she's a military historian who has toured the u.s. military academy at west point, yale, a georgetown, and at american university. she has conducted six battlefield circulations of iraq since may 2007. she was an adviser to the

commanding general. i think it is now two tours in afghanistan for centcom and for the general. she has participated formally in the joint campaign plan assessment team for the multinational force of iraq and has a host of other advisory roles to the military. she's the author of "the eve of command," and "surged, a military history." finally, we have our very own bruce riedel, senior fellow in the foreign policy program at brookings. bruce riedel has had over 30 years experience in the cia as an analyst but more recently has worked in a senior capacities at the national security council where he has been an middle east

adviser and a south asia adviser to three presidents. bush, clinton, and bush. he has also served in a senior position in the defense department and also as the intelligence adviser to the supreme commander of nato. more recently, he was tapped by president obama in the early days of the administration to schair the strategy review of the strategy towards afghanistan. he is also the author of a recent critically acclaimed book on the search for al qaeda. as you can see, we have a very distinguished panel, deeply experienced in the issue we are going to discuss today. i will call on michael o'hanlon

first to lead us off on the elections. >> thank you for that kind introduction. thank you for being here. i am sure i speak for everyone in wanting to say special to lead to our troops and the civilians and development workers working so hard and risking so much in afghanistan right now. i would also like to thank international republican institute which monitored the elections last week in afghanistan with other organizations. i was lucky to be part of an organization with others who were part of that group. i want to say a few words about the elections and then bring about one or two quick thoughts on broader issues. let me tell you a few words about the elections. this is almost getting to be the sort of topic where you check the web site every six or 12 hours to see what has developed because it is an exciting time right now is we try to see not

only you might be ahead and by how much but how the different forces within afghanistan are, frankly, vying for their proper role in the selection process. with president karzai and his office and the supporters having been quite early to declare overwhelming victory. that would be sufficient that no second round of voting would be required. you need 50% plus one to avoid the need for a runoff. karzai has been out there with his people saying we have 70% of the vote, no need to worry about a runoff. but it is interesting to see the jockeying in the independent election commission now saying that the kenoly budget so far for 10% of the votes, and it is almost neck-and-neck between karzai and the former foreign minister, abdullah abdullah. i have no idea. i have no inside. i apologize for that. i will be up front about that.

let me say what was good about this election from my perspective and what was not so good. there were a lot of both. a lot of good things and a lot of bad things about this election. i think the glasses somewhere around 55% full, just to give you a sense of my bottom line. that is not too precise of a figure, but there is plenty of both to go around. in terms of the good things as i observe them, the mechanics of how election it was conducted, in most of the country anyway, i think the mechanics are pretty good. election workers seemed very well-prepared, very professional. all the voting stations we went into on behalf of iri in kabul and most other parts of the country would like there were being fairly efficiently organized and run. people seem to be on top of their game. iri observers note comparative elections better than i do because this was my first time, but they said the overall

professionalism among the workers was very good. there was also a lot of accolades for the performance of the afghan police and the army who provided security at these sites. of course, we heard a lot of news about violence on the election day and the tragedy today, and our hearts go out to the people of canada are who have suffered today with a truck bombing. -- our hearts go out to the people of canadkandahar. there were several hundred attacks on election day. there were quite modest numbers of overall fatalities. most of these polling stations seemed reasonably well secured by primarily afghan security forces. the big caveat, i was not in southern kandahar or hellman, and none of us were, and there were irregularities that occurred in places like that. there were war-torn parts of the country that were worse. and there may have also been

fraud. there's a hell the disagreement between abdullah abdullah and hamid karzai and others about how much fraud may have occurred. most of us always pretty well organized. the campaign process of the summer, i was not in afghanistan for most of that, but we were lucky to hear from a lot of people who woere. their organized watchdog organizations or private or independent, and they documented the amount of press coverage. state run media favored president karzai. but private media seemed to have done a pretty good job of covering all the candidates more or less in proportion to what their respective standing would seem to warrant. there were live televised presidential debates. there were campaign rallies around the country, including in kandahar where people talked about the abdullah abdullah shoes. , for example, abdullah

abdullah, having the idea that governor should be directly voted for by their province rather than being appointed by the president. we can get into the discussion about the merits of that. for now, the candidates were actually debating the merits of that system during the campaign which is a pretty good, substantive debate for country that is so new democracy. that was one more thing that was pretty good. and now we're seeing the independent election commission and the election complaints commission do their work. and frankly, push back against president karzai and anyone else trying to declare an immediate results when the actual data is not yet in. people have not yet been able to scrutinize all many of the ballots were documented properly and properly stored in the should count towards the outcome. so we are again saying the independent organizations inside afghanistan do a pretty good job. that is all on the good side of the bad side, the state media emphasizing karzai way too much,

and 80% to 90% vicinity in terms of how much coverage they gave them compared to anyone else. there was throughout the campaign. the enthusiasm of the afghan people was not very high because, frankly, they did not see any candid it as being all that stellar. it probably like president karzai and recognize his name and our other was prepared to seize certain virtues to continuity. but they also know that he is not done a great job for their country. there's a certain amount of fragile optimism in afghanistan that we have seen in some international republican institute polls and other service recently, but it is probably quite shallow and fragile. the overall trend line over the past three to four years is declining optimism, declining pro-americanism, declining views towards nato and towards afghan's own government. so the public opinion polls are better right now about all these

things and about the future about nato and about us, but we better take advantage of this last opportunity because i have a feeling it is the last fresh start we can really have in afghanistan. the security environment was obviously quite poor. the police tried to stop these attacks very well, but there were close to 300 of them in a shaded by insurgents on election day alone. turnout was quite mediocre to me. iri did not come up with an official estimate on what we thought would be the turnout figures, but from what i saw and what colleagues told me, i would guess that the national turnout was probably closer to the 30% ballpark than to the 50% ball park that has often been discussed. that is a reflection of the combination of fear and apathy. that cannot be a very healthy thing. that is my our role you on elections. two quick points to finish up.

broader issues that i am sure the other guests will discuss in greater detail. i know the american public's support for this war is declining. people have a lot of questions about whether we should be in afghanistan, whether it is becoming the next vietnam. all these questions are legitimate although i am a a supporter of this mission. but i came back from this trip firmly believing, even though i had not worked with them as much as others, general mcchristal is an outstanding leader, on the the bar with general petraeus in terms of his understanding of these missions, his commitment, his intensity, and his willingness to exhibitionism not close his eyes to it and build a new strategy around the reality. he is fully aware that we're not winning this war right now. so i want to give a personal expression of admiration for him. he is a command of the most commanders -- most americans do not know yet very well.

i hope he spends more time speaking to the american people. he has a war to fight right now. the pentagon has to figure out how much to ask him to come back to talk about the war versus having secretary gates and admiral mullin do the talking. my view is that the general is the right one because he understands better than anyone else. he can answer the tough question that americans are, understandably and prickly, asking. and rolling, this weekend, and this gets to my point about why i think the general is the right person to speak to the public, i am big fan of an ramallah, but i do not totally agree with the message he conveyed this weekend. -- i am a big fan of admiral mullen. if it is truly continuing to worsen after the addition of about 30,000 additional american troops this year, people can rightfully ask why we should keep adding them. i think, frankly, a little more textured, a detailed explanation of what has happened so far and

was still must happen for us to be successful is required. i am sure we will get into that more in the coming speakers in terms of what is going well and what is not, but i would like to register a note of mild dissent from the characterization of the war. i think we are seeing some progress in a limited way and some of the pockets where american and nato forces of beefed up their presence, but there is a long way to go. most of afghanistan is still not nearly secure enough. i will stop there. thank you. >> let me focus on something, if i may, a bit different. i think having watched the counter insurgency for half a century, we often find yourself focusing on the host country and are rarely focusing on ourselves. and mike correctly pointed out the importance of the general

mcchrystal.. i would say the same thing about the ambassador. we do not normally talk about following the money are following the troops when we talk about the way we resource wars. but over the last seven years, we have had almost no coherence in our strategy, in our civil military planning. it took us more than half a decade to begin to seriously resource the war. most of the aid money has gone outside the country and wasted or been corrupt. we found ourselves on seriously beginning to create afghan forces with flows of money in 2006. our troop levels of never approached the troop levels we have had inside iraq. and in the process, we went from a tattered remnant of the taliban to a movement which,

arguably, because no one really knows, our intelligence cannot cover significant parts of the country accurately, but according to u.n. and other matters, we have managed to lose control or see a high risk area in about 40% of the country. and that has been a steady process of deterioration since 2003. general mcchrystal and the ambassador will come back in september or october, and if they're successful, they're going to have to ask for substantially more resources. the article in the "washington post," which is directly quoted the ambassador noted that he needed the budget more than twice at what he is currently given. i think that is a minimal estimate of what it would take to create the civilian side. u.s. troops are going to be needed because no other country is going to provide them.

we're going to find ourselves having to finance a major expansion of the afghan security forces. they may have been able to secure a few polling places with considerable american support for a few days. but the police is so far largely a failure. the army is still emerging of the battalion level. we have not provided any transparent or honest reporting on the growth of the threats. the closest we have our metrics which came out in a department of defense report issued in july. that does not show the expansion of the threads area anywhere in the doctrine. up till january, we were still reporting as this there were only 13 out of 364 districts 3 and by the enemy. that was flatly dishonest.

it did not reflect any of the maps which should the penetration of threat to influence. so we do not have transparency. we do not have integrity. and we have not resources this war. what frightens me most, because they think mike is right, this is our last chance, but there is a very sharp pressure on general mcchrystal and on the ambassador from the white house and the national security council not to ask for specific editions in resources when they come back in september or october. if they do not, it takes six to 12 months to go from an increase in resources to an increase in the employ of action. that, to me, will be far more important than the election. because of what they issue our concepts which are politically correct, something that was forced on the former ambassador

by a different administration, i believe we will lose this war. and i think what i found some of being in afghanistan, was all too familiar of problems not only in iraq but in vietnam. we take the insurgency, and we define it in terms of tactical class's rather than areas of influence. we do not properly measured the networks. we do not properly look at this in net assessment terms. we're our afghan forces active? what do our prt's cover? what do our troops cover? how much of the population is secure? we're fighting the war half a century later that we lost for similar reasons half a century earlier. the level of coordination within

the u.s. embassy, the mission team is extremely poor. while we were out there, people were trying to draft for the first time an integrated civil military plan for actual operations in san afghanistan for the u.s. there was major push back against having that plan developed and implemented. frankly, i do not know how it came out. when you talk to senior officials, you hear again and again about the problems inside the nato effort, not because of nato but because of individual country caveat s&p restrictions. they are considerably -- they are considerably worse were there no measures of the effectiveness, generally no public audits, and no indication of whether it is actually serving the problem of counterinsurgency. we do need to build up much

larger afghan security forces. this is far more difficult than simply putting people through the training cycle. and there is heavy resistance to setting to as the number of mentors, trainers, and partners that are being provided. but in the last report of the department of defense issued, we have less than 40% of the trainers required to deal for the force gold said in the summer of last year. -- for the force goal set in december last year. you cannot double afghan sources with those resources. it is important to note that it can take you three to six months to actually place troops in a new area, and achieve a reasonable level of security, and began what we call clear and

go. regardless of who wins the election, we will not have people capable of governing. karzai is corrupt and lacks capacity. abdullah abdullah has done precisely nothing on a large- scale structure. everywhere we went, we heard about the corruption and lack of capacity in far too many provincial governments who were not elected and not given money. in the situation in districts, it was far worse. if we are to win, we're going to have to create capabilities at the provincial and district level that do not create. but above all, if we're to have a strategy based on a shape, clear, hold, and bold, we need to stop talking about smart power as if we had it. we do not have the civilians in the field. these so-called civilian surged

will not come close to the minimal requirements. at the end of it, 80% of the people doing this civil and asian side of the work will still be in uniform. -- and aide side of the work will still be in uniform. if we cannot define better what it means to do -- to do the civil side of operations, we will continue to alienate the afghan people rather than secure them and give them a future. as yet, we cannot find it anywhere in american military literature, a definition of what holden doubled mean or a single statement by any u.s. official to indicate when the capability, the manpower, or person power, to provide old and bold will be used deployed. we have lost too many wars in too many places of this kind.

to have politically correct rhetoric and delusions. if we're going to deal with afghanistan and pakistan, we need transparency. we need honesty, and we need resources. >> thank you. that was a bit of a downer. [laughter] any light of the end of the tunnel? >> i think there is some light of the end of the tunnel. but first, i would like to pick up where mike left off and discuss the comments that at ramallah and made over the weekend, the situation in afghanistan is serious and deteriorated. -- comment on what admiral mollen said over the weekend. i spent in the field this summer working with and his assessment team -- working with general mcchrystal and his assessment team. i do not speak for the general, so let me give you my personal opinions about the situation in

afghanistan and why it is that we're facing a serious and deteriorating set of circumstances. the first thing that i would like to point out is that we can over-focus on the problems of our own institutions. we are, in fact, fighting an enemy in afghanistan. so before we blame ourselves for all of our failures, we have to understand that whenever a large suicide bomb goes off or a large vehicle bomb goes off, that is an event initiated by a thinking enemy, a person, a group of people who were trying to achieve specific objectives on the ground. and the enemies we face in afghanistan, although diverse, are really quite startling in their shared objectives. first of defeating western powers and the gamut -- in

afghanistan and secondly, of distributing power within afghanistan such that they get a major share regardless of what comes in the future. so we have a competition for political power among enemy groups, and we have an anti- westernism among enemy groups that you have been manifesting that the violence against our forces. but they're also trying to control the population and see to it that the population supports their organization rather than the government organizations. therefore, when we look at with the enemy is doing on the ground, it is more than just these spectacular attacks we see or the ied's that go off and tragically kill american and allied soldiers. rather, what you see on the ground is an enemy that is trying to intimidate the population of afghanistan. for example, in the southern areas of afghanistan, where the

afghan taliban is quite active, we see that the taliban is providing services to the population that, normally, the government would provide. essentially, they are " protecting" the population. they are engaged in extracting taxes are providing justice the records. and they are engaged in a campaign of assassination and intimidation against the population to ensure that the population does not have faith or confidence in the afghan government. so as we look at these groups, their reach, and their experience, i ask think that we see the areas that the control are actually increasing, the level of control they're able to exercise is increasing. particularly in southern afghanistan, the situation is serious and a deteriorating. likewise, in eastern afghanistan where we see groups which have

all sorts of links to terrorist groups within pakistan, including al qaeda, we actually see an enemy that is becoming more cable of conducting a spectacular attacks in the areas immediately around kabul. so we have to understand that we have a cable and adapting that is expanding its reach. in a certain sense, our focus over past years on violence against u.s. forces has prevented us from seeing what these enemy groups are doing against the population itself. now the second thing that this means for us is that we do actually have a counter insurgency fight to fight in afghanistan. it is really the prerequisite to a counter terrorism campaign. it cannot be fought it without a ct campaign. also, we cannot have a ct campaign without that. we have to secure afghanistan such that the government of

afghanistan actually has legitimate institutions that not only compete with the taliban for control or the support of the population but so that they provide the services of the population needs, making, and essentially hurting afghanistan against taliban world. and then the associated groups throw pakistani and the wider middle east that would choose afghanistan as a safe haven and again in the future should government institutions in afghanistan collapse. that said, one could reasonably ask, as mike did, why is it that we have sent 30,000 troops to afghanistan in the past year? we're not yet succeeded. what makes me think, as i do, that the addition of new troops might actually make a difference. i think that the first thing we have to recognize is that we have not been pursuing economic

insurgency strategy on the ground in afghanistan. and the new drugs that went in over the course of the spring, in the court is to president obama's meeting on resources with the then general have not actually been put to use well. they're actually allocated to areas that are sometimes marginal to the fight, to the population, to the government. they're not concentrated densely enough to conduct the kinds of shaping and building operations that have been mentioned. so although we have forces in afghanistan and although we have been conducting a campaign this summer in areas such as helmand province where we have u.s. marines, they have not been doing it right. that is something that i can tell, not only for my visit to afghanistan, but by contrasting what i saw in afghanistan with what is on my six or seven

visits to iraq with general petraeus and a general 0 odierno. our forces are not on the whole securing the population. they're not doing it in the right areas. there in opposition to adequately to perform this task is all the marines are in hell monmadnnd are probably some of e best forces. we do not have counterinsurgency campaign that is larger in afghanistan little on the kind of operational level synergies between provinces that general odierno was able to develop as general petraeus as his number two commander where he was able to figure how to allocate the resources throughout the years that the campaign in baghdad had effects of set of baghdad and it was in concentric rings, driving the enemy further out from the capital. we see none of that going on within afghanistan.

so general mcchrystal needs to reallocate forces within afghanistan to these new priority areas. see to the there conducting counterinsurgency. and in my opinion, he will need more troops in order to obtain the kind of forced densities in the places where we have a challenge by the enemy against the population. that would actually make the population turned against taliban were turned against the network and think about working with our coalition forces if not the government of afghanistan. lastly, i would like to say that one of the things we're missing in afghanistan that we had for a while was a surge of afghan forces that would compare to the surge of iraqi forces we saw in to the thousand seven. we have the institute for the study of war just published in a paper by a man who was a commander in afghanistan. he was able to create about

100,000 bodies on the ground -- in iraq, by this commander of the training command in iraq. we do not have nearly enough forces in afghanistan rain now to turn over to the afghan army or the afghan police. one of the things you need to do is quickly search the worth rate of the afghan army and afghan police so that we have enough troops to partner with our coalition forces, to conduct joint operations, to do planning to the other as we did in iraq, but there is actually something to turn over to. right now, we really do not have that capacity. we're talking about roughly 90,000 afghan national army people, by deliberate design of american policy, limited in capsule that they would not be too expensive. needless to say, a brigade of afghans cost less to the american public and a brigade of u.s. forces.

until those afghan forces come on line and are properly trained, there will be a gap between the countries to defend itself and what is on the ground. also for that reason, i think that general mcchrystal will mean more troops in addition to the civilian resources. my last point, as we have seen bryant -- as these come in, of violence levels will go up. it happened in iraq. we're going into areas where the enemy affectively has control. we debt -- we must not confuse arising in violence with success or failure. we have to interpret the rise in violence and be sensible about whether we think the campaign, overall, is taking those enemy safe havens away or whether we're simply using our forces to ill effect in the theater. that is the thing that will certainly take 12 or 18 months to excess.

i do not know it is more optimistic than tony's view. but we had every opportunity to succeed if we implement the right strategy with the rights resources because we have not done it yet. >> bruce, tell us about how the strategy is doing. >> i am going to bring us back from the area of military strategy to the elections which is why we convene you here today. of course, i face a significant difficulty in that we do not have any results. this has to be the most agonizing election in recent history where we have an election and now, a week later, we cannot tell you what is going on. i think the predictions that we're hearing from president karzai and his supporters of overwhelming victory should be put into the same category that any politician after an election says i have one in an

overwhelming number. if one says i have gotten beaten at the polls, that is to to believe. what i would like to do is talk a little bit about the election in general terms and then thinking about the results based on previous elections and looking at a couple scenarios of mud may happen over the course of the next the first thing to recognize is that this election was a it has been a challenge for both sides of the war. both sides had something to prove. the both sides were severely challenged. for the nato forces and the government of afghanistan, the challenge was to pull off a credible vote to rebuild legitimacy for a government which is largely lost its legitimacy over the course of its five years in office. rebuilding that legitimacy is absolutely critical for any effort to reverse the momentum of the taliban had built since

then. if the government of afghanistan that goes into free fall, something like the south vietnamese governments of the 1960's and then all the troops in the world will not matter. if we do not have a government we can point to with some basis of legitimacy in the country, the best generals, the best strategy. the first part of this, staging an election, was a relatively low bar for nato. we have 100,000 troops there. we have nearly 150,000 afghan army and police, a lot of them not very good. but with that many people to guard the polling places, you should be able to pull off an election bid up the carter challenges to make it credible. with the questions we now have about fraud and turn out, this is still an open-ended question. whether this election will be judged credible but the people who count it the most, the afghans, is right now up in the air. there's also a challenge to the

taliban and associated parts of the insurgency. they set themselves up by saying that they're going to interrupt this election and not let people vote. to a certain extent, they had some success. they were not able to intimidate large numbers of voters in the south, but they did not prevent the election from taking place. the taliban had a second challenge. it is a challenge to the taliban had been facing for 15 years which is to demonstrate that they're not just a posturing movement. what we face in afghanistan today is not a nationwide insurgency. it is nothing like what the soviets faced and the 1980's. we faced an insurgency among the minority of the population. with the taliban had been trying to do for 15 years is to demonstrate that they really are and national forests. i think, again, although we do not have the election outcomes

here, we would probably say the taliban failed to do this, that once again did demonstrated they could read areas, but they're not really a force in the non- protestant areas. when we did turn out from other big cities and places in the north and west, it will be interesting to see what the data tells us. with that point, let me put it to how you should prepare the data. hopefully i will give you insights in how to read election results as it is like durable and a chinese water torture. afghanistan has had two previous elections. 2004 presidential election. that the president cars in power. and it 2005 election which the legislative seats and provincial elections as well. there is more coronation than an election in 2007.

karzai was above 56% -- karzai and won by 56%. he did not really run against an opponent. there were several omens that ran, not to defeat karzai, but to demonstrate their control of their ethnic neighborhood. for example, ramazan bashardost ran to demonstrate his control of the uzbek community. karzai won with a majority support of the poshtuns. at that time, he won virtually the entire west and south of the country and had significant inroads in the north. as he said, this is largely a one-off. i do not think it is a useful comparison. the election we had in 2009, what ever else you may think of it, was at least a real horse race. unless the votes are tallied timbered and we have complete fraud on the scale of or was sought in iraq, we will have a

fairly tight her -- election. the 2005 elections are much more useful to compare dated two as they come in on future date to the tournament in two thousand five is under 50%. the government claimed it was 49%. most observers said it was probably closer to 45 -- some provinces had staggering turnout. one province and the center of the country, famous for the buddhist which were destroyed by the taliban, had a staggering 75% turnout. very few democracies in the world have 75% turnout in any kind of election. there also extreme low ends, and they're all in the poshtun area.

one of the provinces had a turnout of about 21%. kandahar did a little bit better a 25%. helmand surprisingly had a 25% turnout rate. i think we will see a drop. the 2005 election showed us that the poshtun belt in the south was already disaffected. it shows something else that was very interesting. ginger mattered enormously. to put it simply, african women, after voting in 2004, largely stopped voting again. there were exceptions. in 2005, one province actually had more female voters that a male voters, but that was the exception. almost across the country, female voting patterns were 20% lower than mel voting patterns.

when you get into the taliban heartland in the south, it was even more striking. zabul leads. 96 the son of the voters there in 2005 were men. -- 96% of the voters there in 2005 were men. even in kabul, where we had only 33% turnout overall, 70% of the voters were male. so do not be surprised if there's very little female participation in 2009. that is a trend in afghan politics which is well established in the updates back to before the serious deterioration in most of the country. and the the key point to take away from this is this. the poshtun belt in the south has been disinfected from the beginning. we will look at that majority and the southern provinces with the people have never bought

into the legitimacy of what happened at the end of 2001. it may not all support the taliban, but they never bought into the legitimacy of erasing the islamic emirate of afghanistan. what is going to happen next? what are we going to see is the voting comes in? if karzai can claim a victory based on having searched through all the ballots, having fraud investigated on the first round, he almost surly will owe it to the endorsements he died in the days just before the election from several warlords. not only his vice-president but most importantly, another one. if he is going to win somewhere around 65%, it is not hard to do the math. he had 56% in 2004. we will assume he held his base in a good 10% more. where did that come from?

you put them together, and there is your 65%. it is worth more just than a moment to look at. this is a man we know for his brutality, even by afghan standards. that is a pretty high standard. he began his career in the 1980's and the afghan communist army, working with the soviets. he billed the only really loyal militia force but called on behalf of the soviet union. there was fear throughout afghanistan as being more cruel than the soviets in how it dealt with the afghan regime. then he stayed loyal to the communists for good two and a half years. it is the defection from the communists in 1992 that led to the end of the bridge game. it also led to the end of the mujahedin civil war.

they're responsible for the destruction of kabul in the 1990's. there was someone he fought in the than alliant and then fought with them back and forth. he switched sides so many times in the civil war that you literally had to use a pencil to keep track of what side he was on because you had to raise it virtually every day. from a stronghold in the northern and uzbek territories, he was able to basically be one of the critical warlords in fighting the taliban, although from time-to-time, he also aligned himself with the taliban. he had been ousted from the north by the taliban and returned with operation enduring freedom in 2001. he was weaselly ousted again from afghanistan on karzai's instructions because of an interjection he had with another warlord in the is bulgaria's.

he came back in august and a request and endorsed the karzai government. the point here is if karzai has returned to office now because of this supporter, then hopes for anti-corruption, good governance and of the rest, are going to be rather bleak in the new second round of the karzai administration. on the either hand, if we go to the sick and hound, run off, then all bets are off. i do not think anybody really knows notice again round is going to look like. there's several scenarios and intricate links between them. one scenario you'll hear a lot of is if this will be a back room deal. that karzai and abdullah abdullah, if they go to a second round, they will sometimes come to an average man and will share power. i am is the vehicle of this. it is certainly possible. politicians making deals, it

happens everywhere. but it did this point, if abdullah abdullah it's to the second round, the desire to see if he can actually win the whole thing is going to be overwhelming. there will be a lot of other deals going on. if he can and doors karzai in the first round, he can also not endorse him in the second round. there are a lot of other afghan politicians and the warlords in the same business. it will all be looking for promises and what job they will get in the next demonstration. the third week, the taliban and al qaeda are going to make a higher priority than ever do to do something of a singularly failed to do in the run-up of this election which is assassinate one of the candidates. had the taliban assassinated in the of the 40-some odd candidates, the excellent -- election would have automatically been postponed. if there were successful in going after either karzai or abdullah abdullah, abdullah abdullah with early holding back up into the air. finally, we may have a disputed

outcome. the odds certainly favor, it the first round is full of fraud, allegations for fraud in the second round. there is a fifth possibility which should offer us some measure of hope. which is, if there is this a good round, it provides almost immediately credibility and legitimacy to the process. more democracy is better than less the marcy. having a second round in which there is a real run of between two individuals, we will send a message to afghans and voting counts, just as it does in any electoral process. this will be as significant boost for the pri ability -- of the credibility of whoever wins in the second run. it will provide the basis for nato's opportunity for its last chance. both of the speakers said this. this really is a last chance. we have had three chances to

get it right in afghanistan. we have blown the previous two in the 1990's and after 2001. you only get three chances in baseball, and in afghanistan, i do not think you can expect a fourth chance either. finally, the outcome of these elections and how they are managed and whether they are credible or legitimate, it matters a lot inside afghanistan. it matters enormously in pakistan. if these elections are seen in pakistan as having been a fraud, lacking credibility, and producing an illegitimate afghan government, the conclusion, but did nearly pakistanis in the army, they will decide it is the base for the american and nato operations in afghanistan is gone, and that will reinforce the deeply held belief that we're going to cut and run and afghan sometime in the next two

or three years, and all they need to do is wait this out and there teleconference will be a will to take over, at least half of the country. >> thank you to all four of you for the excellent presentation. tony, i know you have to go in a moment. at one question. the "new york times," on the weekend, do the comparison between obama's dilemma now and president lbj in vietnam back in the 1960's. i wonder whether you think it is appropriate from your experience in analyzing all of these wars? and what you do if you're president obama about it, if it is the right amount? >> first, i hate historical comparisons in vince in counterinsurgency because they're always chosen in ways

the bread became the most of the time, in counterinsurgency, it disappears quickly. it is only big bed cases secrete the debates. they're all different enough so that when you do this, it is the sort of thing you might do in an op-ed piece. more seriously, however, the real issue for the president is going to be very simple. how on earth and you have national security adviser who talks to a reporter for the "washington post" in the presence of a military officer in the field and says, do not ask for more troops because the president might ask embarrassing questions afterwards? we do have, i think we have all agreed, probably one more chance.

the real issue here is can the embassadors and general mercurous -- and general mcchrystal come back to washington and ask for resources they think will actually make the difference and the authority because it is not just troops in the money. it is the ability to force coronation, to put pressure, to get these effectively used. if they come back and not allowed to do this, and my guess of this moment is that is the white house policy, the president has failed before this strategic review begins. just to make it clear, i absolutely agree with what was said about the threats and the need for more troops. it is not just civilian resources. the question, frankly in october would be, is this administration and this president going to be you more

honest about afghanistan than president bush and his national security adviser? >> thank you. i am very grateful for you to be able to turn up today. thank you very much. [applause] >> mike, you're on the ground just last week. as you told us, you are a supporter of this war. it is clear they use the poor more troops as well. but what did you see on the ground? is there anything you saw that lead you to reassess some of your assumptions about the way the fight this war and win this war? >> thank you. i think when you spend time at military command, and i had far less time than our colleagues,

and i should make it nod to jeremy shapiro and jason campbell. i am honored to be associated with them. you can look this up online and track the war and the magic's the president obama has said he will use in the coming months to assess the strategy. .

>> the first thing i would like to do is take the first part of his question and talk about how the new forces were added to the resources already existing in afghanistan.

it is important to remember that we had to have forces doing the right thing in the right place. otherwise, they are not maximizing the effect in the country. for example, some of the new forces that went into a afghanistan or many of the new forces that went into afghanistan when into home province, which is an important area for the taliban. it is perhaps an area that they use it to transit back and forth through pakistan and the interior. it is also where they make the most money from the narcotics trade, not necessarily by selling narcotics, but by taxing the narcotics trade in a variety of ways.

sadly, i think the marines were put in a place that hais less important than in other places. they were put in an area near the halman river. it was away from the control centers of the taliban in the area. the question is why? why did they go there? civilians in the united states should be asking questions about how military commanders distribute their forces. that is one of the things that we do on the website. the previous command had an idea that bordere introductionintradn

was as important. if only those elements flowing from pakistan to afghanistan could be stopped, then it would be possible to secure afghanistan better. although it may be the case that, if you could stop those accelerants to violence coming from pakistan, it could have an impact on afghanistan, we cannot stop it through intradiction. the kinds of technical expertise and funding that comes from out of the country is but a fraction of what actually exists inside. therefore,. intradiction -- therefore, the intradiction strategy was misguided.

likewise, general mcewan has -- general mckeernan has been [unintelligible] the amount of force we are using in that area is disproportionate to the importance of the area. that is the answer to your question. the general came and brotherly to change where tripler going this summer and what they were doing. we are only now seeing the reorientation of the marines and some of the forces in other areas. that is the answer to your first

question the second question was about government and the government in afghanistan. i wholeheartedly agree. we must create illegitimate government in afghanistan. they are critical components to the long-term success of the state. we have not really succeeded in doing that so far. any counterinsurgency operation, they must have a government focus leading the insurgents. as we saw in iraq, sometimes, coalition forces need to fill in when the indigenous government is not ready to perform all of the functions of building the state. again, what we're talking about or what we should be talking about is the gap. if we do not focus on that or

if, somehow, the government is not recognized as legitimate for the reasons, then we do have a problem, a very majors strategic problem in afghanistan. >> bruce, the plan that you have developed, you shared the overall strategy review. how has reality impacted on your sense of the possibilities of the strategy direction? >> i do not see anything in what we have heard today or what we have seen in the last six months that is substantially different than what i saw during the time of the strategic review in february and march. to put it shortly and concisely,

president obama inherited a disaster, a war that has been under resourced horribly for at least six years of the last seven years and one that has suffered as a consequence. trying to turn it around overnight is an illusion. it is not one to be turned around overnight the optimistic hope -- and i think we have heard this from both kim and mike and tony -- is that, with sufficient forces, whenever general the kristol thinks that means, -- what everett general -- whatever the general mc chrystal thinks that means, this

situation has deteriorated so far that they really only two questions now. can it be stabilized with any amount of resources or is it just too little too late? we are not. the answer to that question in any serious way for a least 12 months. >> now we will go to you, the audience, for questions. we have 20 minutes. please, i need you to keep your questions short. i also needed to identify yourselves. just wait for the microphones, please. >> thank you. given the rather grim picture you have painted, if we make it even a little worse, how do you

view the ability of the united states to sustain the effort given the overall environment in which we are living with the federal budget deficit approaching $1 trillion and the projections that are being made? given what it is going to take to sustain a counterinsurgency each strategy for the long haul, which is going to be years even in a conservative, optimistic scenario, and given conflicting claims on exhaustive federal finances, do you think there is, politically, the staying power to do whatever it takes, assuming that your advice is that the resources are going to be requested and allocated? be you think that we have the staying power to see this thing through? thank you.

> thank you, martin edward joseph. if i could some of this excellent presentation, it comes to time and resources. the key overriding question that everyone would agree on in making the case for that time that the press was just referring to was necessary, other resources, is this question. does it matter? how much does it matter? of the speakers, bruce alluded to one of the key factors, which is pakistan and the fear of a vacuum that would deter the pakistanis from going to al

qaeda and the taliban. the question of what does it matter seems to be at the court making that case. many people say it is not worth it or we can deal with the al qaeda threat in other ways without this time and resources. i would appreciate the views of the panel on that. thank you very much. >> one last question before ago. yes, please. >> my question is very simple. do you think the strategy, which is supported right now, is the right one? it seems to me that, without

enough innovation in strategy, you cannot reap the reward. one second, 10 seconds apart. >> we have the question. >> it was the same problem with general schwarz in springtime. it was maybe five months from now. he admits of that, without a smart strategy, you cannot fight asymmetric war. >> all right. thank you. >> verse is better at that question that than i? >> i will take what does it

matter? the first time we got 9/11 and the al qaeda base. the second time, we get the message we are in now. without a nato base in afghanistan, there will be no drawn attacks on al qaeda in the tribal areas. unless we are in there, what pressure we have on al qaeda today, which is entirely from drone attacks is gone. their new safe haven, pakistan will be under even less threat then it is now. the jihad is somism of al qaedad

resonate throughout the islamic world. the moderates in the islamic world who would say, no, we have to be moderates, we have to engage, would find themselves facing a real example. no, we just have to kill them and we will drive them out. is it sustainable? >> i was hoping you'd ask me that one. we will leave can the strategy question. >> first of all, the president declared that he chose bruce rondell for strategy review. the idea that the democratic congress would pull up the rug from the president of their own party [unintelligible]

that is unthinkable. we will hear complaints from congress and legitimate questions. but we will not see them to nine the president money -- we will not see them and deny the president's money -- will let see them deniey the president money. secondly, i would simply say that the many problems you have mentioned are obviously serious. but when you talk about the many problems of the health-care debate, as we're hearing quite a bit about now, the question is not this year or next year or the next year. it is really more about the next 15 years. our deficit now is a ridiculous and that the cost of the afghanistan war is almost a rounding error.

it is $100 billion. even if we add troops, we're not going to be substantially increasing a $1.70 trillion deficit. this war will take a while. but, in a couple of years, we will know whether we are making progress or not. in five years, we will be able to potentially downsize if we are making progress. this is a counter intuitive point. president obama is doing better now on national security issues in terms of maintaining a broad public support. ironically, he has the ability to pull the country together when he is clear and emphatic about what he wants to do to secure -- to help our security. he has done better on these issues with the republican party

than on the core democratic issues that he is focused on now. for all of those reasons, if they explain the strategy and it sounds convincing, then i think it is sustainable for the couple of years we need to see if it is workable. >> largely, i think it is the right strategy. we really have to evaluate the strategy on the basis of whether or not it has the potential to succeed in securing the interests of the united states. we can ask this as a partisan question and as a national question for us. aid is undoubtedly critical to the interest of the united states the that -- it's is undoubtedly critical to the interests of the united states is that afghanistan be a stable state. it should no longer serve as a place where the great nuclear

powers surrounding it can conduct conflict with one another. it gives us as a nation been advantage vis-a-vis the regional and insurgent groups based in pakistan that are trying to destabilize the entire region of southeast asia. i do believe that we can win in afghanistan without winning in pakistan. i think we have a huge amount that we can do within afghanistan that would give us greater leverage within pakistan against enemies such as al qaeda were such as a pakistani taliban. we need to pursue aggressively it a counterinsurgency campaign with in afghanistan designed to create illegitimate government

within afghanistan, remove the enemy i's safe havens, allow the population to support the government, and create an environment where the u.s. has an enduring relationship with pakistan, with iran, and with the other countries in the region. so it is the right strategy. in some respects, it is the only strategy. we need to make it succeed. >> we have time for three more questions if you keep the questions short period will go to the front and then the back. >> how much does the deterioration impact afghanistan? >> it did not understand that could cracks how much will the

-- i did not understand that. >> how much will the conflict in iran over the election's impact afghanistan? >> [unintelligible] >> we have another one? yes, please. >> i am leaving in two weeks for afghanistan as a cultural adviser in the southeastern part of the country. my question involves the a. -- the aid. it is said that the u.s. military is providing a large portion of the aid. does it have the ability to sustain that? >> i think it is less what happens inside iran and more what happens between iran and

the united states and iran and the west. if this situation in which iran and the united states continually deteriorates or because of their own politics come to the conclusion that the united states is trying to overthrow the regime or subvert the -- or subvert what it wants, one of the ways for the iranians to fight back is in afghanistan. they have significant influence in the western part of the country and in the central region which is portia. if it stirs up trouble in both parts of the country -- which is shia. it stirs up trouble in both parts of the country, that will introduce a new front. as we have discussed, we have enough friends in afghanistan that we are dealing with now and we do not need another one paren.

many have their forces deployed in the western part of the country. the italians were deployed in iraq and feel that they were on the front line with iran. they trying to make a deal that they will live and let live there. that deal falls apart, the italians will have a difficult situation. >> you worked with the ellis on this part of the world. -- you worked with the allies on this part of the world. we're starting to realize realities. for a few years we complain that the allies were not helping much in afghanistan and that they certainly should and could. that remains true. but some of them are doing quite a bit. the canadians, the french, the dutch, the danes, and others.

the norwegians are in a dangerous part of the country now. i think we need to acknowledge that contribution. it would be nice if there were more. i do think there will be. nato sources will realistically focus where we will need american forces. we know that there's only so much that we can get in the way of additional allied support. at some level, we are not getting as much help as we would like. >> would you like to mention the question about civilian resources? >> i certainly would. first, thank you for serving in afghanistan and i wish you the best of luck in your travels. i think that you have a very interesting time. seeing some of the differences

between civilian organizations do and what the military organizations and duke in a counterinsurgency fight, the first thing -- and white -- and what the military relations do any counterinsurgency fight, the first thing is that it is essential to provide the kinds of economic support to a community that will help when in the community away from the surgeons and toward the government. that is whether you -- away from the insurgents and towards the government. that is whether you are providing jobs or have a marketplace in an area that has not been able to sustain the market in some time. those are the types of activities that the military forces can be involved in and do very well. they have an impact quite

quickly on who is fighting against u.s. coalition and afghan forces. quite frankly, so far, a lot of the economic support that we have provided in afghanistan has not been focused on counterinsurgencies. it has been focused on long-term development and is not having an immediate impact. we have to think about how to use the military resources in order to create the immediate conditions for defeating the insurgency whereby the long term public that is handled by the civilian organizations and the ngo's in afghanistan can have an opportunity to succeed. if there is an insurgency in afghanistan, we have seen that the development projects cannot turn off the insurgents.

it is not possible to build a dam and [unintelligible] we have to take these projects while creating the conditions for afghanistan to have a sustainable economy or the next 15 years or 20 years or 50 years. you will see both sides of it out in the field. good luck. >> time has come to close. i will have a close that question. the question is about the afghanistan elections. who is going to win? [laughter] this is for all three of you. we will have been one word answer. [laughter] >> karzai. >> i do not know. >> i could not predict the outcome of the democratic primary of the state i live in. i do not think that my

prediction for someplace on the other side of the world is worth anything. >> please join me in thanking our panelists for a very interesting time. [applause]

>> later today, jamar and hold the town hall meeting to talk about -- jim moran will hold a town hall meeting to talk about health care. we will take your phone calls after the event. that starts here it's 7:00 p.m. live on c-span. later, there will be a town hall meeting with senator [unintelligible] peggy brooks' burke jim [unintelligible] wangari maathai will also talk about her new book. that is on c-span 2.

>> earlier official results from afghanistan show karzai in a dead heat against his rival. ian kelly spoke with reporters for close to 40 minutes. >> welcome to the state department. let me say a few words and talk about the latest announcement of the afghan independent electoral commission. you have seen that there have been preliminary results released today by the itc. they represent the polling

stations in 18 provinces. it accounts for approximately 10% of all the polling places. we want to emphasize that this is the beginning of a lengthy process. we have to wait for the results to be released. we call on all parties to refrain from speculation. the national results are announced. we expect that an announcement will be available or the results will be available around the middle of september. i think the time frame i heard is between september 17 and september 23. those results have to be certified by the iec. of course, the iec has to go

through all of the complaints that it has received about the process. we congratulate afghanistan for this -- for another milestone in this very important development in afghanistan's history. of course, we stand ready as always to support them in this process. with that, i will take your questions. >> where will khaddafi stay when he comes to the u.s.? >> can you talk a little bit about the new allegations from dr abdullah about corruption with a number of ballots being stamped and that kind of thing? >> i have not seen the allegations. i would say that there is an

excepted process for dealing with these allegations -- an accepted process for dealing with these allegations. we would urge all parties to adhere to the process for the electoral commission to evaluate these allegations of fraud. we take all allegations of fraud very seriously and the afghan authority will take all allegations of fraud seriously. >> are you concerned about these allegations being made? >> as we said, many times, we want to see this process play a note. an important part of that process -- we want to see this process play out. an important part of the process

is an investigation by the electoral commission to investigate these politicians of fraud. we want all parties to refrain from speculation on the outcome until do it -- until the legitimacy of the process is drawn-out. >> the khaddafi question. >> if president karzai will be back, did you think you will work with him? -- do you think you will work with him? >> welcome back, first of all. we do not have any favorites in this election. while this process is playing out, we're going to remain

impartial. >> there are so many claims and fraud allegations. to think there will be a question mark? >> -- do you think there will be a question mark? >> there is an excellent afghan process in place. let us let it play out. >> do you have little concern because a large majority of the people have no participated in the election? >> i would not say a vast majority. we do not have the definitive figures so i will reserve comment on that. >> allegations of fraud and the kind of thing. the you have anything on that? >> i think i have answered that

question, matt. >> is, you have. khaddafi. >> -- yes, you have. khaddafi. >> i think you have seen reports of concerns by members of the community in the new york. , the families of the victims -- members of the community in the new york area, the families of the victims. we have settle long -- we have said all along that we thought that it is highly objectionable for the libyan government to receive mr. brahe the way they did -- mr. al magrahi the way

they did. to the concern of the committee that might be affected by any travel arrangements made for the libyan delegation, we are talking to the appropriate authorities, both on the local level in the new york. -- in the new york area. we are involved in discussions, but, as i said before, we are also talking to the libyans about the concerns that we have

and the wrong sensibilities or sensitivities of the families who live in that area. to wrap this up, no decision has been made. >> senator line bird is asking that khaddafi be limited in his ability to travel to the un headquarters district. if you look at a map, there's not any place to stay there. there is a park where he could pitch his tent, but there are no hotels in that area. is that a feasible request, to limit travel from 42nd street to 48 street and from there to there? has that ever been done before? >> as far as the legal levers

that we have, we do have this restriction on certain diplomats based in new york of a 25-mile radius. >> he is asking for something much more strict. >> i am not sure of our legal possibilities. that is something that we are discussing right now. >> all right. >> with a second. what we are -- wait a second. what we are hoping for is that we deny it to this point. we are looking for an agreement with the libyan government on it. >> whose suggestion was it? >> [unintelligible] >> after central park was turned down -- >> again, i am not sure if it

was turned down or whether -- >> and did the libyans offer up an alternative? >> i do not know the answer to that question. i know that they owned property. >> would he be able to pitch his tent in central park? >> no. >> he wants a special place for it his tent? >> i cannot confirm that. >> you talked about the sensitivities of the people in the new york area. i believe that the people who have been most vocal have been the representatives, including the mayor of inglewood and senator lottenburg. have you seen other members of congress were people from new york state objecting to his presence?

is adjusting new jersey thing? -- is it just a new jersey thing? >> i am not aware of that. >> you say you're looking -- you say you're talking to local officials and, i presume, to the libyans to what end? >> we are listening to their concerns. >> what is the objective? is the objective to find a place for him to stay that will not offend the local communities? >> we are discussing the levers that we have. we want to be able to come to some [unintelligible] >> where exactly these days? >> yes. >> can you explain, legally, what you can do with any country when it comes to the u.n.

security council meeting. you grant visas, i presume. >> yes. >> what are the legal ramifications for a giving the vises and restricting them? -- the visas and restricting them? >> we are obligated under an agreement that we have with the un and that, under this agreement, we are generally obligated to facilitate travel to foreign nationals to and from u.n. headquarters in new york. if you want more specifics than that, i will have to take the question. >> in other words, you are obligated, but there is -- but is there an exception? >> there is an exception.

you have exhausted my knowledge. >> at what level are these conversations going on? >> we have a number of ways to talk bilaterally. the libyans have an embassy here and we have an embassy there. >> basically, it is the libyan [unintelligible] >> 8 is an appropriate level here in the united states. -- its is inappropriate level here in the unit states. -- it is an appropriate level here in the united states. >> [unintelligible] >> the agreement has the intention of facilitating the says -- facilitating thevisas.

>> i would like you to elaborate on what the state department's rule would be and why the united states thinks that diplomatic assurances will work when the have not worked in the past in protecting terrorists from human rights abuse. >> you saw the announcement of the department of justice. as i understand it, the state department role falls under this topic, under the topic of transfers. there are three parts. the first part is that the role of the state department to evaluate assurances that we get from foreign governments ensure that the transferee will not be abused once they are transferred to the country. this is a practice that the department has had for some time. it has been in our role to

obtain diplomatic assurances. as i understand it, there are two new aspects. there is one brand new aspect and one new improvement on the process as it stands. the improvement on the process, the task force calls on the state department to establish a kind of monitoring mechanism that allows us to be able to make sure, after the prisoner has been transferred, and that he or she is not being abused. the details of this will have to be worked out. this is something that perhaps

an embassy could do, perhaps a third party could do, but this is one of the tasks that fall under the state department. the third part, which is new, is that the task force calls for an annual joint report to from the inspectors general from the state's, the department of homeland security, and the department of defense to report on how the system is working. that is the bare bones description of where the state department fau andlls in. the details still have to be worked out. >> will it involve actually

visiting and confidentially speaking to those detained? >> it could. as i said, we have to work this out. >> but if it does not, i cannot see how you can insure that they are not being abused. >> that is a fair comment. we want to make sure that the mechanism works and that it receives real, credible assurances that they are not being abused. i would not exclude that we would get some kind of agreement from the receiving country that the officers or other monitors go in and verify that they are not being abused. >> if they are afraid that their souls are above, they may be afraid to say that they being mistreated. >> i agree.

>> how is that going to protect people who -- >> it is an accountability mechanism, which any inspector general report would be. we will see how it works out. it is to ensure that we have a mechanism in place where we can improve in performance. >> there is no monitoring mechanism at all right now? you just took the syrians at their word? >> no. >> so what is new again? >> as i said, this is not new. that is an improvement. >> how is that an improvement? >> its regularize it -- it

regularizes -- >> so it really isn't much of anything. >> we will see what it does. >> when do you hope to have this all the fine? >> i would hope very soon. the department of justice has the lead on this. it was announced just yesterday. the quick answer is that i am not sure. >> can you tell us a little bit more about how the u.s. and the state department have obtained assurances in the past? >> i think there will take the question coul. i am generally aware of how we get diplomatic assurances.

>> [unintelligible] can you tell us if there will be someone back here in the states to oversee it? >> that is one of the details that we will have to work out. >> [unintelligible] >> i imagine that they would be at least classified. >> not to exhaust your knowledge of the libyan situation, but when a country comes to the unga, who provides security? who provides security for them in the united states, for heads of state? >> that is a good question. >> the secret service. >> for foreign leaders, it is diplomatic security. >> is there a requirement that

they notify you where they are going to stay? i presume they have to say that we are going to be on 48 street so that you can protect them. >> absolutely. not only that, in order for us to provide security, they have to provide us their movements as well. >> so is there a time frame? >> for when they will notify us of their itinerary? >> yes. >> i do not know if there is a hard and fast timeline for informing is, but i assume that it will be within the next few weeks. if you're getting to when the decisions will be made -- >> have they officially said that we want to stay in new jersey, to you, to the state department? >> i cannot answer that question. personally, i do not know. >> is that not kind of a basic

fact that you should know? >> will let me see if it is a basic fact. -- well, let me see if it is a basic fact. >> can you find out if any of the restrictions have ever been imposed on anyone else before? >> i will. >> thank you. >> i have a general question on libya. to you think the large scale of corruption has played a role somewhere at a higher level? >> sorry? >> [unintelligible] >> i am going to refer you to the governance of scotland on that. >> you said that the monitoring mechanism could be done by third parties, right?

>> like i said, this all has to be worked out. i am not ruling out that it could be done by a third party. i know that this is a very labour-intensive thing, particularly in a large country with a lot of travel involved. that is why i am not excluding that. >> you mentioned it as a possibility. i have to questions about that. there are allegations that contractors may have been involved in the abuse of detainees in the past. i wonder, since the whole purpose of this system seems to be to try to prevent abuses and to ensure that there is accountability, how a third party, a non-u.s. government party could do that monitoring.

>> i am not going to prejudge it. that may not be the case. i am just saying that we still have to look at how we actually structure this mechanism. of course, we will closely consult interagency and notify congress exactly on how we plan to go forward. we know there's a lot of concern about this issue and about the issue of the track record of certain countries and receiving prisoner transfers. like i said, i do not want to prejudge it. >> the south korean news agency

reported that they have invited them to visit next month. can you confirm that? have you informed the australians about that? are they planning to visit the region anytime soon? >> i think it is no secret that the north korean government would like to have a bilateral dialogue with us. it is all -- it is also clear that we would welcome talks with north korea, but only in the context of multi-lateral talks. what we are concentrating on rhino is consulting with our core party partners -- what we

are concentrating on right now is consulting with our corporate partners and reaching their goals, which is getting north korea to return to the six-party talks with the deal to mental -- with the ultimate goal of securing the korean peninsula. goldberg has been out in the region. he has been consulting with our core party contacts. other u.s. officials will travel well there as soon as we get through this summer time. i expect that senator bob stallworth will get out there. he just returned from south korea. he was a member of the official delegation to the state funeral.

ambassador cameras out of the office, as many people are at this time of the year -- ambassador kim is out of the office, as many people are at this time of the year. >> [unintelligible] >> we are fully aware that the north koreans would like to have bilateral talks. but there also fully aware of what eric position is, that we will not have bilateral talks until -- of what our position is, that we will not have bilateral talks until they return to the table. >> but that does not address the question. have you received such an invitation? >> we were aware by the press reports that they would like to have the embassadors