now iranian president ahmadinejad on his country's conflict with the west on the nuclear program. he said iran is enriching uranium but is not producing a nuclear bomb. this is courtesy of press tv, iranian state run television. >> i want to say a few words about the recent issues between us and them. i said that they have opposed

iranian progress since the past. at every juncture, they tried to spread false comments, and they tried to get under our they used this as a pretext. they support such treacherous elements in the region, and at the same time, they are chanting the slogan that they want to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. they seek to resist the resignation process. they want to actually hamper of

the iranian nation from achieving technology. i do not want to just shed light on all the time mentioned. at a particular time, they said you should not have been rich when we started our operation, they tried to yell at us, and they shouted and made use of all instruments of their disposal for a certain time. they said you should shut down your activities, but due to the resistance of the iranian nation and the supreme leader and also due to blessings of the time, our nation and then shoot obtain victory.

-- the nation manage to obtain later, they said they want to cooperate. in geneva, they said they want to cooperate. we welcome it. we said, you have tried to what was the result mahatma why why do not you engage in interaction instead of -- what was the result? why don't you engage in interaction instead? we tried to provide them with an opportunity in order to correct their attitude. everyone should know. you know that based on regulations, in case the member is in need of 20% fuel, all the members are obliged to help.

unconditionally, they can just received the costs. fuel. if the further into debt research -- if it is based on research, all members are obliged to cooperate. in order to give them an opportunity to correct their attitude and actually take them down the correct path, we gave a letter and said for the reactor we are in need of 20% fuel. whoever wants to provide us with the fuel can go ahead. they informed us that two countries are prepared to help -- the united states and russia. we said that is ok.

we have to sit at the table and negotiate. when negotiations started, they said you have to return enriched fuel. the field belongs to ourselves, and based on regulations, you have to give us the fuel and receive the money. they insist for the hundredth time, to show our good will, we can calculate the amount of fuel that must be given, the amount that must be received, and you can to the enrichment. the fuel is here, and as soon as the 20% enrichment is completed, we can engage in the process, but they said no. first, you should give us the

fuel. you take away the fuel, and later we are going to obtain the fuel. see what happens. we are the purchasers, and based on the iaea regulations, they should provide us that unconditionally. it is a tradition that if you want to order a commodity if you are actually the one who set the condition. they acted in opposite way here. it is the hegemonic nature. they insisted first you should give us the fuel. we're going to take the fuel, and later we are going to provide you the fuel, and they started to go on with attitude. the fuel aware of and some wall emperor from manufacturing a nuclear bomb. this is the literature of the

prolongs to the era and the bush era. our response wasn clear. we said, we do not trust you. they started is engaging in propaganda. they issued a resolution, and once they tarnish the prestige of the agency do to their expansionist policies. they are obliged to provide us with the fuel. if they do not want to give us the fuel, they can say they do not want to give us the fuel. why are you claiming you want to hamper iraq from making an atomic bomb? they even said beyond this is

thought through the propaganda by the media, they thought they weakened the iranian nation and now they can impose their views. they said they are going to give more chance to iran to except the imposed wishes of the westerners, and they used the again showed they have no honesty'. they proved our lack of confidence towards them is true, and we have the right to live trusted them. they said they are going to give us the opportunity to set a deadline, and our response was clear. we told them the iranian nation will never give in to bullying

remarks and has no fear. we told them that the fuel for the reactor is aimed of medical purposes, and in fact, it is going to produce medicine for 800,000 people, and it is running out. we do not have much time. we have to obtain the fuel. for this reason, we told them we only have two or three months. if you just provide us with the fuel, that is ok, but if you do not provide us with the fuel, we

are going to produce the fuel ourselves. either give us 20% fuel and receive the money, or give the food of rigid the fuel and received 3.5%. chance. we are aware of what they think, and they thought the iranian nation has been weeken ed. -- weakened. they start acting in a joking manner. they made remarks, then they did not care about the patients. you remember several of the go -- several months ago virus was

mutated to sell a medicine. this was the nature of those who wanted to limit purity in human lives. they did not give us the fuel, and we were forced to produce the fuel ourselves. i want to tell you the day before yesterday the process for producing 20% fuel started, and i want to tell you that -- i want to probably announce that the news by the organization was that the first convoy of the 21st -- of the film was produced.

due to the blessings of god, this process will continue to meet the demands of the country. i want to mention a couple of points. the first is as soon as the production process is started, iran cannot produce the fuel. they started marketing its -- they started repeating their remarks that are of no value anymore, but when they realized it was serious, they started threatening us again. it seems they have forgotten today they are in a weaker position. they are in an illogical and lawless position. they are not in a position to make such remarks, and then

expect the iranian nation to accept what they save. the second region what they've say. -- a except what they -- accept what they say. whoever provides us with the fuel, we're going to purchase. we have no problem. you have a problem with iran becoming a nuclear state, and you should correct your behavior. some say it does not produce medicine, and they are going to sell it to us, and they say, what is the problem with iran producing radial medicine, and you can purchase it from us. and we're going to produce this

medicine, and you can purchase it from us. why shouldn't we purchase it from you. >> boo! >> they speak in such a way as if several hundred kilos of interest cranium -- enriched uranium is taken from iran, but them. we are going to give the fuel to you. we're going to give you your wage, and you will see the ongoing progress of the iranian nation is not plan to be hampered. we are manufacturing several kilos.

we are stockpiling them, and in the near future, we're going to increase threefold our daily production. they should do something in order to create a trust in the iranian nation and other nations. they should listen carefully. if we were in their place, to show our honesty, we would have obtained 20% fuel. that is the regulation enacted by the, and they could have observed the regulation, so a number of nations could realize there is not a bit of honesty among them. the service is this said that

iran with 20% fuel will get closer to manufacturing of a nuclear bomb. i think they are either uninformed, or they pretend to be uninformed or illiterate. of course we have some signals that the people in lower classes of organizations do not give them sufficient organization. we do not believe the president of a country such as the u.s., britain, or the head of germany is so uninformed and illiterate in such a way they would not know all of our fuel is kept under the monitoring of the agency.

agency's monitoring. is it possible to manufacture a nuclear bomb under supervision? if it is possible, announced this so everyone would know. meanwhile, they all know that even right now we have the capability to produce fuel with high enrichment. why do they think that by producing 20% in richmond, why do they think -- 20% and richmond, why do they think that would have been bonilla -- 20% enrichment, why do they think that what happened? we have no enrichment. they should listen carefully that we are not a liar and a

coward like neyou. you know that the activity going on is not the path of manufacturing of bomb. if you do not know, you should hire honest and skilled scientists and experts to explain what is being done. it is not the path for manufacturing of bombed very good all of our activity is transparent -- it is not the path for manufacturing obama. all of our activity is transferred -- mfg. a bomb. all of our activity is

transparent. those worried about the future nuclear bomb. i want to draw your attention to the point that they should know our nation is so courageous that in case it intends to make a nuclear bomb, it will openly announce and make the bomb with no fear. when we say we do not manufacture a bomb, we mean it. we do not believe in it, but if

we want to manufacture it, if you think the nuclear bomb can save you, you can keep it. if you think a nuclear bomb can save you, you can keep it for yourself. you should know you are mistaken. we are open late announcing we oppose your management -- openly announcing we oppose your management. we oppose your policy of imposing your view. we oppose your blood during policies. we oppose york region we oppose your plundering -- we oppose your blundering policies. we have the courage to announce this, and you should have the courage to say you want to

dominate the region, as the iranian nation does not permit you to do so. this is the source of dispute. the whole world should know they and the iranian nation will never allow them to dominate this region. we are spreading unreel remarks and causing distress. you want to cause disputes among nations.

you claim it is a source of threat when there is talk. when there's talk of a rocket, you claim you are in danger. when there's talk of nuclear progress, when our youths become champions, you feel danger. in which direction are you heading towards someone you are opposed to any broad -- heading which direction are you heading towards? today, world nations have become vigilant, and they are aware, and they will not allow you to obtain your hegemonic objective an end and you cannot dominate the world through lives.

the world should know they are facing difficulties in order to cover up their problems and spread it to other parts of the world, they raise different pretexts, and they engage in different games, and they want to cover of the political and cultural fiasco. they should know that they cannot do this. they will suffer a crushing defeat. i am officially announcing the era of a superpower and bullying

has come to an end in the world. the fourth point the whole world knows. i want to reemphasize we seek french chef and cooperation -- friendship and cooperation. we do not welcome confrontation, but they all know the iranian nation will never give in to bullying and will resist.

>> foreign policy analyst robin wright joins us tomorrow morning to discuss u.s. relations with iran region with iran, and we will focus on the economy and jobs with marcia blackburn and bruce reed. that's live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. during today's white house briefing, press secretary robert gibbs was asked about the events in iran. this is about five minutes. >> you have warned earlier in the week about a crackdown in around -- iran, and there have

been reports of a crackdown. >> we continue to monitor and try to get the best available information. i understand a lot of media has been basically unplugged. i think the president was very clear that we stand by the universal rights of iranians to express themselves freely and without intimidation of violence. iranians have gone out into the streets to do just that in a peaceful way, and we will continue to monitor it and continued to express our condemnation and dismay for any violence that should happen as a

result of the universal exorcising of those rights. >> have you heard from them? >> i will have to check on that. i saw some e-mails. i do not know of that was based on news reports. >> the head has cautioned the president began speaking. he said the consequences are beyond the imagination of anyone. can you give your reaction to that? >> i think iran has made statements that are far more political than that. they have undergone a series of problems throughout the year.

what ahmadinejad osaid, he says many things that appear to be not true. i would also say if they are serious about the peaceful use of their nuclear program, what they should have done was taken more seriously the offer on the reactor, understanding increase of 3.5 to nearly 20% was what the united states offered some medical patients could have access to these medical isotopes. iran cannot replace and continue to operate at its current pace,

not taking the partners of on a common-sense offer leaves the world to believe iran has other ideas. that is why the actions of around have led the world to be more unified than at virtually any other point in the past many years. our partners are now moving in a court forward to taking the next steps. -- in accord forward to take the next steps for regan -- next steps.

there will be more phases to this, including the united nations. >> the deadline is at the end of 2009. why should they consider any consequences of obeying with the u.s. wants -- >> as you said, the president is working through and with our partners on making that happen. this was not going to happen in times square when the ball hit zero. this was an important time, but our allies are more united than they have ever been. to take actions and consequences based on the statement san and actions of the iranians. >> [inaudible]

>> we believe the chinese will continue to play a constructive role. they work with us constructively on the un resolutions dealing with north korea. we believe and think they believe it is not in their interest to have a worldwide arms race. it is certainly not in their interest economically do have an arms race in the middle east. >> that is not really an answer as to whether or not they are on board. >> we're working with them. this will go through a process of the united nations. >> one does the public process start? >> the process of writing this has already started. >> the question is not whether china will support sanctions but what kind? >> i am not going to get into the back-and-forth.

understand it is everyone's interest. >> on capitol hill, a group of senators led by john mccain is calling for new human-rights sanctions on iran. their bill will target individuals accused of committing human rights violations. this is a half-hour. >> today is a momentous day. it is the 31st anniversary of the islamic republic rigger for most americans it is only government they know, and it is one they would rather forget. the resources of a great and proud nation were stolen by a corrupt ruling elite.

31 years of dignity trampled. they have said enough and demanded better for themselves. they have taken to the streets and the internet, risking a violent reprisal. as i speak, iranians are demonstrating peacefully today for freedom and justice. they are being beaten in the streets, unlawfully detained, tortured, and worse. these iranians must know the free world and america's most cobol favors they're just cause. i have long -- most of all favors they're just cause. i have long believed a young woman dying in front of those of the world was the beginning of the end of the regime.

we must support that effort for freedom and democracy. today, joined by my colleagues, we are introducing legislation to further that cause. basically, the bill has two parts. first, it would require the president to compile a public list of individuals who are complicity in human rights violations, no matter where they occur. i want to stress this will be of public list posted for the world to see. this will impose the full

battery of sanctions under the international emergency economic powers act. that means blocking any property they hold under u.s. jurisdiction, ending their transactions with other entities and this would be the first time the u.s. government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in iran because of their human rights violations. under this bill, iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the goal will reach of the u.s. financial system, and they will send a powerful signal to every bank in the world but they should think twice before doing business with the oppressors of the iranian people. it should now be clear that the ruler of iran have no desire to meet their international response abilities and every desire to use the tools of violence of their disposal and

crush the peaceful aspirations of iran's citizens. faced with this disturbing reality, the united states must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the iranian people and to put the effort at the center of our policy with iran. this is not about picking winners. it is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear and championing the cause of those who seek to secure those values for themselves. the ran human rights sanction act is important for this effort. i encourage my colleagues to move quickly and pass it into law. >> senator mccain is absolutely right. this is a significant day in iran, but i hope we'll will look back on today as a significant turning point within

the u.s. government. this is the first family of this bill is enacted into law that the united states government will apply sanctions on people within a run for abusing the rights of the people of around we have been focused on the application of sanctions to stop the nuclear weapons development program or to stop its support of terrorism. those are external threads that iran represents. now we turn inward, and it is quite appropriate, because the government that so brutally suppresses the rights of its own people, a government applies

to its own people, a government that claims to be the most democratic in the region and then is the country were more journalists are in jail in the world, that government cannot really be trusted in international relations, so i think this is a very significant piece of legislation. i am proud to be a co-sponsor with senator mccain. the abuses of the iranian government against their own people are not just rumors, but in the extraordinary power of modern telecommunications, we see them with our own eyes. we see them today in youtube postings and internet text messages we're getting from people on the streets of iran. as the human rights movement

has grown within the country, the government has increased its suppression or attempt to increase suppression, but i think senator mccain said it right. the day the iranian woman was allowed to bleed to death on the streets of around at the hands of a representative of the iranian government was the beginning of the end of this fanatical, destructive, dangerous regime in tehran. china alleges difficult for people involved in this struggle within iran. i hope this legislation -- i know this is difficult for people involved in this struggle within iran. i hope this sends a message. the fact is this legislation has already won broad

bipartisan support. give we have 10 co-sponsors. republicans, democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, moderates. i think by the time we move this along, we're going to be supported by maybe every senator. i is thessaly want to -- i especially want to thank senator mccain for the leadership he has given this cause. the fact is john been a fighter for freedom and of freedom agenda at the center of our foreign policy throughout his career in public service and with his career in uniform before, so we hope this threatens the abusers in iran, and we hope this legislation says to the protesters your struggle this difficult, but

has been the case for those who fight tyrannies, ultimately, the cause of freedom and justice will prevail, and you, the freedom fighters will prevail. >> one of the things we're learning from iranian dissidents and others is that when sanctions are tied to human rights abuses in iran, they will much more likely succeed, and the reason is there is a bit of a debate about whether sanctions imposed on the autonomy of iran will be effective in supporting our business, which is that the iranian government should stop proceeding towards nuclear development, or will cause the people of iran to have a bad reaction toward the west and towards the united states

specifically, for making life more difficult for them. what we have heard it and learned is that this initiative, which will gain the support of the people and will most likely to enable the sanctions to be effective. that is part of the theory behind this. it is one of the important reasons for this be done. i just want to point out that he said he knew the day would come when ronald reagan declared the soviet union the evil empire, and freedom did come to him and more. the same support can come for those to demonstrate a on this important day. >> one reason the american

people are angry about washington is their perceptive we cannot agree, but today's announcement stands in stark contrast. we have the independence working together, some of the most conservative members and some of the most liberal members, who have chosen to co-sponsor this legislation. it is a timely announcement. that only is this the 31st anniversary of the united nations, but people are being beaten in the streets as we speak, and their president announced they have perhaps taken major steps. it is in the national security interest of the united states to foster the government so the nation can join the united nations as responsible, rather than a menace that is what today's's announcement is all about. our country is at its best one we align ourselves with freedom.

if you're a journalist in iran, you risk being tortured. if you speak out against the regime, you risk being beaten and killed. we have to stand with the people of iran against that kind of tyranny. the final thing i would say is i have been privileged to serve on the intelligence committees. one of the profound questions we face is what is the editor who radical islam and global terrorism? i believe it is for us to step on the side of freedom, the freedom to enjoy the fruits of your own labor, and to the elected government of your own choosing. when we step on the side of freedom, we send a beacon of hope to those across the world and a message that there is a better way than a government that only retains its power by

imprisoning, beating, and killing its own civilians. that is a process we will win. >> [inaudible] can you talk to me about the also do think there's a sense of rallying people around the world? >> i think actions taken yesterday by the end ministration by imposing some sanctions is very helpful. i think the of ministration is now much more interested in the present then perhaps a year ago. it is pretty obvious the iranians are not going to unclench their fists. i would also like to make a couple of additional points.

number one, of the three of us along with other members were in munich over the weekend. the speaker on friday night with the foreign minister of iran. it would have been amusing if it had not been so tragic in consequences for the american people. he basically denied there were in the human rights violations going on. along with his denial that they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. just one additional comment. when we help the people and the workers, what we did was provided among other things primarily a printing press so they could get information out to the people and particularly the workers. what we are trying to do with

this legislation is healthy iranian dissidents and people struggling for freedom get the information about, helping them with the modern means of communications that we have today, which the iranian government is trying to restrain. i hope the and administration will now understand that this unclenching of the office has not worked. it has been over a year's delay, and the iranians have proceeded towards the our acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> [inaudible] is this design? >> i just told some folks downstairs of those of you who have been in the senate for some time know that most of the business was conducted by

unanimous consent for a bipartisan way. a lot of that is under the surface. it is the everyday stuff. it might be regional more than partisan, but we do a lot of business, and what we're seeing is other examples of that, as is this announcement by a bipartisan group, and there're others not represented today who really represent both spectrum's, soy think there has been a lot of emphasis to go so things like the health-care debate. the reality is on a lot of things we do get things done, but there are a lot of high- are differences, and we have an obligation to represent our constituents as best we see it, and there will be some differences did to have bipartisan undertones.

>> [inaudible] >> no, i thought i made it clear that most of what we do is done on a bipartisan basis, that there are occasionally high- profile issues that create a very strong views on both sides in which there become partisan divides, and that is the nature of the senate. it is the nature of the political senate. i think far too much is made of that. >> i want to add briefly, because i know the protesters follow what happens here, and i hope they will take this broad bipartisan sponsorship of this measure as an expression of the deep feeling of the american people, that we stand with the green movement in iran, and we stand against a repressive government.

>> [inaudible] what more can and should be done on the front? >> as you know, there is a legislation all of us have been involved in, which imposes a broad set of sanctions as well. financial institutions, refined petroleum, and i do not think there will of qi to comment on this, but i think there is movement. i know senator kerrey has been supportive. this will go to senator dodd's committee, and senator dodd has been very supportive, and i think the demonstration is on

board terry get i think we could see passage of this legislation real soon. >> it happened quickly and unanimously, so some people may have missed it above but about 10 days ago, the senate had this tough iran sanctions bill unanimously, and it is on its way to a conference with the house of a similar bill. i want to mention senator mccain and i rose to introduce this proposal as an amendment to the film. for procedural reasons, senator mccain graciously allowed it to move forward, but i feel optimistic that we have got a real good possibility to have this proposal be adopted by the conference committee as part of of broader iran sanctions bill and that bill will come out pretty soon, and i say ahmadinejad's announcement today they have gone to 20% in richmond really builds the case

for moving with a real sense of urgency to tough economic sanctions against iran based on the nuclear program. >> [inaudible] >> i think you know they have blocked the internet. they have not said google will no longer be allowed in iran. i would be very interested in seeing their replacement. i am sure it will be incredible competition for google. they're taking every measure to shut down the modern ways we use

of communicating with each other. they are aware of what happened on facebook. they are aware of the rallying capability this new means of communication has, so they are trying to take every measure they can. i do not think they are succeeding so far, so our job is to help them to see if we can find ways around their attempts to block this vital means of communication. >> something we talked about returning from a trip to germany is the support the united states government gives. this is a tremendous asset of the cause of liberty because it brought us some real newbies into iran in a way it the

iranian people can appreciate the fact there's a different point of view from that of their government and support that. just to give you an illustration, the day we were returning, we got word from our american representative the seventh people he and his staff had interviewed in different locations around the world to come on board, all iranians, and all of them had been offered a position for the purpose. they were arrested and detained in iran today before. who would try to do everything to help those people. one way we can do that is our

support for radio free europe. >> [inaudible] jobs seem to be a high-profile issue. >> i know he felt very strongly about cooperating with the democratic leadership whenever we can, and it is not always possible. this second stimulus bill is part of that. it contains elements that are important to all the people in the senate, and i do not agree with all of the parts of it. i know some of my colleagues do not agree, but it is an effort to bring together a group of things a consensus can be developed around and to get it passed.

you saw what they put out today as a draft of the legislation, and it would be senator mcconnell's view of that is soon as we return from this break, the senate will take the legislation not, and i have already said it will be adopted. shoveler clearly a big issue. the reason i do not put the and the highest profile as i think we're going to see a series of smaller jobs packages. this is just one of them. it is not the same size and scope of the original stimulus package. [inaudible] it will.

there will also be a unanimous consent agreement that will set of the way forward for the state returns. >> i am concerned about how loyd is paid for. -- about how it is paid for. i withhold judgment until i get a chance to say how much extraneous stuff is added to it, and how much does it increase the deficit? >> [inaudible] >> i will have a look at it.

the fact is this was a ruling by the supreme court. i strongly disagreed with it, but i would certainly have to look at it before i would want to sign on to any provisions, but our own have to look at it. -- i would have to look at it. >> they have some republicans have a double standard. [inaudible] >> the reason we passed the military commissions act of the end of 2006 was to put a stop on it. i must say with some deference,

we have been interrogated a guy and said we got the information we needed and got his miranda rights. -- we never interrogated someone for 50 minutes and then said we got all the information we need and got his miranda rights. no one question the patriotism or even the dedication to fighting the war on terror as mr. brennan has about us, basically saying we are assisting al qaeda. .

. >> in a few moments, a form on national security and foreign policy. in a little less than two hours, members of congress propose a new law to limit campaign spending by corporations.

later, robert to kids is asked about u.s. relations with the iranians. -- robert gibbs is asked by u.s. relations with the i iranians. >> robin wright joins us on "washington journal close quit tomorrow morning to discuss their rations with iran. -- "washington journal" tomorrow morning to discuss our relations with airan. >> his film "hillary the movie" was a court decision on campaign finance. sunday night on c-span. >> now a forum on the obama administration's foreign policy

hosted by the hudson institute in new york. analysts include richard meyer, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is an hour and 45 minutes. let else ca*q debated. this one is for all the marbles. what is it? what are we fighting? who is fighting? how can we win. what his victory. all these things have the metal since 9/11. on 9/11 we knew we were hit. ç>> and one says america is at war. america's military is at war.

i experienced it briefly. there were fou gflgas draped nothing else. we are in the position of trying to define how we reclaim american liberty. one thing we have to do is recognize how we must protect it. i will dig it different. i will introduce each of our speakers individual for a particular reason. our first speaker is someone who has seen on the news many times. he retired? in 2005 after 40 years in the service of the united states air force. joint chiefs of staff from 2001

through 2005. he rose from a young fighter pilots, which i think account for 600 hours. command to become the president's principal adviser on military matters. he is the author of a book that i read and recommend to everyone called "eyes on the horizon. i would like to welcome general richard myers with a q5estion, how we define the enemy correctly? who are we fighting? where is this war? do we have the strategy in place to wñn? ladies and gentlemen< richard b. myers. [a0plauso] >> thank you very muchç. i have to start by saying that i came away with two conclusions. one rj keeping my money buriq" ?e ba!kyard.

a bit to get one of my childrn to go to med schoolç ifñ i want thank youn great panel. security.to talk about national 20 doys after 9/11, i was swón into office. that experience colors my view of what our security threat is. ñthat is to meet the threat that we have from violent extremists. people have these terrorism to create fear. does not without optimism. çthis is a threat to our way of life since the civil war.

let's review the facts. states in 1998. space command. we were slow on the uptake. theh!asic philosophy is what kind of a h, we responded with some missiles. the impact on the adversary was not as intended. harbor. then 9o11. that was the real wake-up call. 3pwe knew al qaeda was the

perpetrator of 9/11. at mixes a one-term presidency so be it. from a military perspective, i thought that was a bold statement.

if you look at the -- where violent extremist want to go they have a vision for the future. their vision used to be laid out on the al qaeda web site. they would turn the " red with their vision and political process would turn country's red. in 100 years, they turn to north america read. we are now of being converted. they are patient. they have the will and resolve to carry out their particular

vision. -- they are pretty early dangers because they use terrorism. terrorism created fear. when you are a free, you cannot think clearly. if you think that to 9/11 and how many of you probably reacted to the infant and 9/11 predict reacted to the defense of 9/11, that affects the way you see it after that. people start to respond in ways that really are not logical. certainly, some do not have a lot of optimism. fear is a very dangerous thing. that is the whole game here with these violent extremists. they use terror as a method to get things done. i think a lot of things that have been done since 9/11 have made it safer for the country. i believe that.

i was a part of a lot of that. i think we are a safer society today than we were before. one of the elements that is missing and has been missing for a long time probably goes back to when the sama -- when osama bin laden declared war on us. we have not come up with a strategy to deal with this global extremism. we have come up a tactical strategies for afghanistan and iraq and maybe yemen to some degree. those are important in their own right. to me, they are more the tactical fight and not the strategic fight. the and not really defines that fight. in the many times i have been in the white house talking about terrorism, i can count on probably one hand the number of times we talked about the over

arcing strategy. hundreds and hundreds of time we would talk about iraq or afghanistan. that was all appropriate. as happens in most bureaucracies, the urgent always displaces the importance. the important part is trying to get a strategy down. the element of a strategy of course are important. there are three punishment of pieces of that. we have to correctly -- fundamental pieces of that. we have to correctly identify the at this area. i spent some time going over some work that i did with four really bright people that i sequestered a couple of months. i said, think about this issue in the broadest terms you can run -- you can.

come back with some ideas. what we decided we were facing is a global insurgency. indeed a quick trip around the globe, there are elements of violent extremism and active terrorism that go on daily. things that hit the news on time more the tactical fight. what is really going on here? that is the globalxd insurgency. i characterized by saying it is primarily a struggle within islam to capture the continuing quest for an islamic researcher do they not say this is about islam on the west. -- researcher. they would say this is about

islam on the west. really, the struggle is within islam. the goal of the global insurgency is to limit american influence is so extreme views can be the basis for governance. in this quest, al qaeda currently the beeleads but that will more overtime. they are not the only organization that has the same views. there are a lot of organizations. there are hundreds. there are probably hundreds of them. this particular enemy is conducting to campaigns -- two panes of persuasion, one inside is on to a certain division, and the other outside to intimidate the west and to distract muslims from their internal struggle and

in hand extremists'global stature. it is my belief that the enemy has no discrete theory of victory, certainly not lightly. we think about victory in a certain way. and they have a cumulative strategy where basically fighting is winning. they can have victories that our humanitarian. they can even be rhetorical. they do not always have to be military. for i think if you doubt an insurgency, a look at what the adversary is trying to do in places like afghanistan or pakistan. you can take it anywhere. we are convenient and up to speed on the issues.

the afghan taliban is trying to discredit and displaced the elected acting government. that is the legitimate government of afghanistan. you see the same sort of thing happening in pakistan where they try to destabilize or give the impression that they cannot handle the issue and therefore may gain legitimacy and gain some power. i think those are some examples of what we are talking about that is one element of the strategy, at identifying the the adversary is. i think that is with al qaeda in the lead. the second fundamental is that any strategy to me, you have to involve all instruments of national power. i can tell you nothing was more frustrating than the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff then

not being able to get all instruments of national power to address this problem with the same sense of urgency that department of defense or military would. it is still a problem today. thereñi are a lot of reasons for this. it is not because people are back. sometimes there are resources issue, both money and manpower. in my last year, as they are frustrated that for instance, at the embassy in afghanistan in 2005 -- when asked, what is the manning of the embassy. they said about 40%. think about that. if all your instruments of national power come to that in the sea, -- to that in the sea, sea-- embassy, you know some things are going to fall through the cracks.

this will play a role. the political and economic, a couple of instruments are not often mentioned. they need to be harnessed to bring to this fight. third, along with identifying the adversaries, we have got to organize to execute the strategy. if i were to ask his audience, who was in charge of our efforts against the global insurgency and afghanistan, who'd you think was in charge? i heard the secretary rooms filled. -- rooms fillumsfeld.

that is good. you can use any of the names but that is the same thing. assume that you can have the president in charge of everything, he was the current -- the point person of the media. to be in charge, if you have to have both responsibility and authority. you have to ask yourself what authority did he have over the national security council. what authority did he have over the state department, over treasury, over homeland security? the answer is, he did not. you may think that he was in charge or vice-president or whomever. the way we organize for national security came out the world war ii. in a way, it has been modified many time.

we are perfectly organized for another world war ii. that is not the kind of at this theory we face today. it is a much different at this area. all these instruments of power need to be harnessed in a way to address that threat. i would propose that we are not perfectly organized for that. i have not been for a while. it is no one administration's fault. it is the way we are organized. that is my part of what i think is a great threat. it is the existential threat to our way of life in terms of national security. listening to the economic panel and folks that were up here before, i have one other comment to make. this is don our fiscal -- is on our fiscal situation. the department of defense budget right now is relatively robust. that is partly due to the fact

we are still balks in iraq -- still involved in iraq and afghanistan. you have to fast forward 10 years. you have to ask yourself, what kind of military budget are we going to have? what kind of military are we going to need? what i worry will happen is what happened in the 1990's. the budget went down considerably. the part of the budget that went down the fastest was the procurements of research and development. we have a lot of operations that we had to do. the and not quite in that limit today. -- we are not quite in that delimit today. we have a pretty robust budget. we have additional funding. at some point, that will go away. are we going to leave ourselves two decades today -- from now

with the kind of military we need? there are all sorts of things of that part of the budget goes for. training is not part of the budget. are we going to leave ourselves with the tools we need three decades from now? i do not know the answer to that. it is something we need to think about. thank you very much. >> thank you. let me add to that. my roommate has a sum. his son is now fleeing a plane that is almost as if flying a plane that is almost as old as i am. -- his son is now flying a plane that is almost as old as i am. the national defence -- america and america's military suffers

from the fallacy of is being the victim of its own success. everyone believes the military can do whatever is required when ever is required. there is another issue not only with intelligent but america's legal system. we have a few experts on that today. one is our next speaker. america is at war. america's legal system sometimes fighters. our next speaker, indium carney is a prosecutor who is responsible for leading the prosecutions of some of the most important to come into the courts.

he is the author of willful blindness. most importantly, he is a native of the bronx. [laughter] [applause] >> i should begin by asking you a question. that is why i wish chosen to speak between two an authentic american heroes. it is a great honor to be here today. it is a particular honor to be here. the topic i was as to talk about was the legal architecture. do we have the right architecture in place to try to

turn back the threat that we are confronted by? i thought that in trying to into that question, i with their out an example. imagine a terrorist regime overseas that trains its operatives commonsense highly trained terrorists to the united states to conduct operations against civilians and infrastructure. to increase the chances of infiltration and success, and they include american citizens in the venture. they come into the united states. they conspire to conduct their terrorist attacks. the president of the united states decides that they are not going into the civilian justice

system. there will designate them as in many combatants. not only so we can hold them under the laws of war, he instantly devised them to be child -- to be tried by military commission. that example is not something that i actually pulled out of the air. that is something that actually happens. in 1942, eight germans came to the united states sent by the nazis. they landed on long island. in florida, they were quickly captured in june of 1942 by the fbi. they were designated by fdr as in many combatants. -- by enemy combatants. they got their trial not in guantanamo bay -- we are not

hung up on the idea that we not only had to give the military commission but we had to look like one -- they were tried in what is now the robert f. kennedy department of justice building. in the middle of that trial, which there was not much delay in those days. it started about four weeks after they were captured, they sought habeas corpus from the united states courts. that is a judicial review. they wanted to challenge the notion that people who were arrested by the civilian authorities in the united states could be treated as enemy prisoners and not brought to the civilian justice system. they wanted being treated as enemy combatants. the president's got wind of that. fdr is the most legendary progressive in american history.

he brought in his attorney general. it was a legendary progressive francis biddle. he told biddle that he should let the supreme court know that he did not care. he had no intention of releasing the prisoners regardless of what the justices thought of the matter. francis biddle pass that piece of information along to the chief justice of the supreme court. somehow, the court found it would in itself unanimously to affirm everything that fdr wanted to do with the enemy combatants. as it happened, they were executed. six of them were executed with about -- about seven weeks after

they were captured. that took place in june of 1942. [applause] the question is, do we have the legal architecture in place? the question becomes, what is different now from 1942? i think the answer to that is that in a half century after saving the world from freedom, we have forgotten to of the essential lessons about that victory. the first one is that there are worse things than work. there is tierney, for example. -- dathan war. there is tyranny for example. the enemy is broader than just the jihadists. we have a much more insidious challenge on our hands.

it is amazing that after all these years after the world trade center bombing, which i still regard as the declaration ofñi war united states, that weo not even understand what jihadists is. the purpose of jihad is not to blow up buildings. the purpose is to establish this. if you can establish a by blowing up buildings, they will blow up buildings. if you can establish a fine legal processes, they are more than happy to take whatever gains they can get about having to blow up buildings. the problem is not just the al qaeda's the one to blow things up. it is the islamist organizations that come behind them and are making their own

long march toward this. it is not a legal challenge that we are facing simply to confront terrorism. the problem is a lot broader. the flip side of tyranny is freedom. freedom is not the natural condition of mankind. i think we would like to think it is. it simply is not. it is something that has to be fought for. if we do not fight for it, we are not rimming to have the system in place that allows us to fight for it, and then we lose it. that is one lesson. i think the other lesson is the premise of the question that we are supposed to be able to fit this war into some kind of legal architecture. the fact is that you do not fit war into a legal architecture. when you fight a war, it is because the united states goes to war and needs to win in order

to preserve our big institutions. your obligations is action to put your legal institution into the endeavor of making war to achieve victory over the enemy. if we get that wrong, we are starting to lose. ñiholmes said in 1918, when it comes to matters involving the life of the state, and judicial processes have to take a backseat to executive processes. that is the system we have. that is the system the framers designed. the understood the united states might not always be here. certainly if we did not defend ourselves. let me compare what happened to the german saboteurs to the recent case of an enemy combatant. he was able to challenge his status as an enemy combatant

because that is the way we do in now. the courts have started to take the ability to review the enemy. congress founded in 2009. no enemy combatants connection go into court and make that challenge. a federal judge in washington said we had to -- that he cannot be considered an enemy combatant. the government said the following. they identified him as a hard- core extremist before 9/11 ever happened. he traveled to afghanistan right after 9/11 using a known al qaeda smuggling route. he contributed money to an al qaeda front that is designated as a terrorist entity under u.s. law. he fled toward bora bora after

the u.s. invasion using the same route as al qaeda and caliban fighters. his name was found in a al qaeda steak house on the roster that said "capture mood hygienmujadi" the judge decided that it was insufficient evidence to conclude that he was an al qaeda fighter. this is not just any judge. we have lots of judges to do we have lots of crazy rulings. the judge made that ruling is calling kalar. you may have heard her name. if you have heard her name, you may know her as the chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance force. in 1970, we to give power that

was an executive national security power for as long as there has been the technology to do witit and returned to power r to a court. now judges have the power to decide the final word on who we conduct surveillance on. the judge that runs the court is the same judge that makes the decision that i just described to you. to compare again to 1942, let me read you something that was written on behalf of the supreme court in 1948. justice robert jackson was an interesting guy. he is sort of a giant in both the political world, having been the attorney general for fdr,

chief prosecutor andñi norbert,i and in the judicial world as the justice of the supreme court. in 1948, he sat on the case which involved the question of how much involvement court ought to have in our national security matters. here is what he said. >"these decisions are wholly confided by our constitution. they are delicate, complex, and involve large element of property. they are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare the advance or in peril. their decisions of its kind for which the judiciary has nearly ignited the aptitude or responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or

inquiry." the framers gave us a constitution and a system for self determining people. the premise of that system was that there was supposed to be an accountability interest. the realism national security decisions are the most important decisions the political community makes. they wanted those decisions to be made by the actors who were responsible to the voters come american people. ñiwhen those people but those decisions wrong, when they struck the wrong balance between liberty and security, we could fire them. we could get rid of them. we weren't born as a legal community. the idea was that we were going to be self determining. we would make the ultimate decision about our security.

we have done what we have done since the 1970's when you take national-security decision in the move them out of the realm of politics and into the judiciary, what you have done is taken the decisions that made by a sole determiningçó political community and moved them from the one to have control over to the politically insulated judicial branch which you cannot get rid of it they get it wrong. because of their responsibilities, they are hard wired to increase due process rights. çóñrthey have to be. their role in the system is to do justice to the parties that are before them. they are not given a national security responsibility. how do we solve this? what do we do? we got probably talk about that

for the rest of the day. let me begin with one thought. that is that as fdr knew in 1942 when we actually faced another existential threat to the united states, this system does not change unless there is an executive branch -- until there is an executive branch that will face down the courts. i may sound revolutionary. i do not think it should. the next -- the question and answer period talked about why haven't we had more debate about whether the health-care bill is constitutional? it seems to me the answer to that is another measure of how far we have traveled from the 1940's until now. it used to be understood that it was the responsibility of every

branch of government to interpret the constitution. it was not thought that the executive branch or the legislative branch will let it roll and see how much they could get away with. the fact is that when congress does something that violate the law, president did not enforce it. judges have no trouble saying that it is unconstitutional. when presidents go outside their authority, if they get reined in by the legislature and the courts. the courts are no different. there are a part of the government. occasionally, they add flawlessly. when they do, it is the obligation of political branches to say "no." probably worth remembering these

words. i will and with this. government to ride it from the consent of the government. a form of government becomes destructive and it becomes our duty to alter its. those of the words withdrawn from the declaration of independence. it is not any different today. until we face down this whole notion that we can take our own decisions that go to the core of our self-defense, to the core of what ever we are able to discern -- core of whether we are able to conserve ourself, we are headed in that direction. thank you. [applause] the but a little while a agolittlendy semi world -- >> a

little while ago, n.d. said my role was to make him look calm. when the things we are facing in congress is in that it is not that they pass things better unconstitutional. they do not care if they do. they do not think first. they do not analyze first. they do not consult constitutional lawyers. i only got a b plus in law school. they are saying that 49 states are going to be paying for nebraska's medicaid, i do not think you can get there from here. there is a little thing, the protection clause. going on from here, there are some neat things we could talk about in the legal framework. a flea, we will get to them in the questions. our next speaker is an american

hero. allen west has been there and done that. someone asked him where he was when saddam was captured. he was there in saddam pose those home town. -- in saddam's home town. he is now a congressional candidates. he could speak today. we did not want to have elected officials on the panels. allen did not want to stay out to the fight when he left the army. he went back to a canister and for two years serving there, helping reduce to afghanistan for two years, serving there, helping the forces. -- he went back to afghanistan in for two years served there,

helping the forces. we have learned about the rules of engagement in the air force holding fire to burbank killing civilians. are we sacrificing american lives unnecessarily in that process? what do you think should be the rules of engagement in afghanistan? >> thank you so much. thank you for having me. one thing i want to let everyone know, when you look at this panel, you have to contrasting personas. he had the opportunity to see what happens when you take the flight test and pass it. you also have an example of when you fail it, you get in the other lines which is for folks to jump out of airplanes. with that being said, it gives you an understanding of my level of intellect. one of the things we have to

understand, we have to clearly recognize the 21st century battle. the 20% to battlefield is totally different from what i grew up with a starting as a gun lieutenant. they taught you about soviet then you went out to the national training center. you fought against the set formations. my first tour of duty was in its early. iñr did tors and patrols against the czech border. when i went to desert storm in 1991, we thought an army of pretty much applied those rules. how was in the first infantry division. we brought them to their knees in five or six days. when i went back to a rack -- iraq, it was a different type of enemy and battlefield. we have nowçó become faced withn

enemy that took office uniforms and more to themselves with in the pocket. that made it different for us being on the battlefield. when i went back again as a military adviser for 2.5 years in canada are, -- can the car -- khandar, we saw the whole thing about state have broken down. now we are dealing with non uniform leaders on the battlefield. we are dealing with illegal enemy combatants. we have rules of engagement right now that provides them in initiative against our soldiers. the media some examples of things i have been involved in. when you get into a firefight, you have maybe about five seconds. after five seconds, people will start to lose their lives. if you have rules that are out there right now better saying you cannot engage until the enemy shows some type of hostile intent --we had a fire fight not

too long ago. we've lost about 16 or 20 of our soldiers. it took approximately one hour to get reenforcing aircraft to come in because they continually ask them, can you verify that there will not be any collateral damage to civilians? when you are a commander of a company in a fire fight, you do not have time to stick your head up and look and see if there are civilians out there. not only that, they watched the enemy assembled themselves in the local village models. they were not allowed to engage. when i was in afghanistan, we had a fire fight. we put a lot of heard on the taliban forces. what they did to retrieve their dead and wounded from the battlefield, they went into a local battlefield and the got

children. the brought the children up and held them up close to them. that is how they retreat to their dead. when the canadian forces came down and started an operation in 2006, the taliban went into houses with women and children. we continue to see that. one thing we saw recently [unintelligible] when the enemy knows what the rules that you applied yourself, he uses that as a gap by which he exploits you predict who have read the book by the navy seal of an " marks of h.l.." -- "marks of a trail?" their mission had been compromised. instead of following the normal

protocol,w7r they decided to let those afghans go further still. they went to the local taliban. all of a sudden, you had 100 come down on the seal team. they were able to get a reenforcing team. that helicopter was shot down. because they were more afraid of being prosecuted by our own legal system, we lost 19 of our most highly trained specialists that day in afghanistan. what must we do with our rules of engagement? you have to know your enemy. no yourself. know the terrain. -- know yourself. know the to rain. we called it a war on terror. a nation does not go to war with

tactics. now collett in operation. there were times when i went overseas that was not war. if we are want to have the proper rules of engagement, we have to understand who is on the battlefield. we have to understand that we are fighting against totalitarianism. it the key thing we must do, there has to be a bottom line. who best knows what is going on in the ground than the people who were on the ground? when we started to have this top driven rule, we were putting our young men and women in a very bad situation. if you are out in the middle of the night on the road in afghanistan or iraq, you have a shovel, will barrow,. wheelbarrow -- i do not think you are out there planting fruit. our young men and women have to

ask for clearance. look at any of these apache dentate. you will hear the pilots calling back and asking to engage when they have eyes on the party in the know what is happening. the same thing happened in 2005. he had what was believed to be a convoy with osama bin laden going down a road out of kabul. because of the delay in getting clearance, he got into pakistan. we have got to get this user- friendly to men and women on the battlefield. political correctness cannot dictate rules of engagement. [applause] what i just talked about was this tactical level. we also must realize something. you are sitting in part to the battlefield rainout in the united states of america.

i was stationed in fort hood texas. what happened out there was near and dear to my heart. we lived there. we knew what they went there. you know about the four gentlemen who have plastic explosives. we know about a young man who somehow got is smollett passport. he came back and shut two u.s. soldiers. we had an illegal immigrant in dallas. we have a north carolina terrorists that was broken up. all of these things are happening right here. not to mention the christmas present that we almost get from the nigerian terrorist. we have got to understand that right here and right now we need to develop the right type of rules of a engagement to do with this in any on this battlefield.

giving constitutional rights to illegal enemy combatants is not part of our american liberties. that is not a proper thing. [applause] last week in west palm beach, florida, i'd opportunity to hear it eric holder speak. i took an airsickness bag in case my stomach was going to give. one thing he said was that we are a nation that is at war. he came back around and started justify bringing the alleged bomber here. he said that if we close guantanamo bay, we talk away the numbers 1 terrorist recruiting tool. the guys that were shooting at me could care less about what you do with guantanamo bay. we must understand that. we must have this in the

country. where is the somali pirates? he is waiting to be tried to go to the system. think about the man who does plan not guilty to the christmas terrorist attempt. this gentleman should be sent to guantanamo bay. they have to be understood. they are illegal in the combatants. that is part of the domestic rule of engagement that we need to understand how do we take our the ecosystem and apply it to this new 21st century battlefield? i want to talk to you about something else. there is a political battle that is going on as well. the set piece is conservative

versus progressive liberals. there is also an underlying aspect to that. it is called a car. ñi-- acorn. it is the new transfer party. all of these people who are seeking to undermine the political process that we have here -- we saw what happens when the party went to be brought up. the electro basis of the night state of america is under attack. it is part of our liberty. how are we going to do with it. how are we going to do with the back there right now you have this thing called universal voter registration that is floating around? how will you do with the fact that the senses was taking out of the commerce department and brought into the control of the white house chief of staff rahm

emanuel? this is about changing the electoral base of this country. the rules that apply to our political system are being changed. we had talked about the violations. how do we engage them? how do we make sur is a republic is here for the next 200 years? ñithat is truly what we are up against. we are up against an enemy within and without. one of the things you have to realize is that the enemy that is with in is using your constitutional liberties. anyone times some is that the moscow -- moscow on friday and are preaching to overthrow your governments, that is not freedom of religion. that is not freedom of speech. that is its mission.

how do we develop the right type of rules engagement in this country to protect our constitution and our liberties and the future of this republic. i am proud to see this reclaim the american liberals. returning to understand that it is under attack. this campaign is our strategy to go forward. you are on the battlefield. it is about the future of the liberties. you have to get off the sidelines. we have to have the right type of rules of the engagement thank you very much. god bless you. [applause] >> before we get your questions,

we have last and least our speaker. we talked for the past hour about the war against islamic extremism. i would pose to you the definition here. the enemy is not al qaeda as the president said, is a nation that sponsors terrorism. they are the ones without him terrorism cannot threaten us. without defeating, we cannot possibly win this war. another thing we have got going is the fact that the world of a lot moving parts. just because we are entirely focused at this time on the middle east, it does not mean there are a lot of other things we can ignore. the world has a lot of moving parts. gordon chang has lived in china and hong kong for almost two decades. he is counsel to the american

law firm. his writings have appeared in the "new york times" and "wall street journal." is also a columnist at forbes.com that talk of little bit about nuclear power for ration. it seems to be a little bit of an issue -- nuclear proliferation. it seems to be a little bit of the issue these days. china said the not support further sanctions against iraq. iran seems to be coming very close to achieving nuclear weapons. why is it in china's interest to have it run -- iran achieve that goal? [applause] >> china did announce that it

would not support another round of sanctions on iraq ann. this means the p5 + 1 must continue talking about the efforts to enrich iranian. i think we need to put this into context. up until now, but in talking about the military and jihadists. we need to shift our focus to the actors in the international system that can really hurt the united states. . .

>> if further enriched to 90% purity, it would be sufficient for the core of one nuclear weapon. according to obama's opposed over big -- proposed deal, iran would take about three-quarters of it and ship it to russia and france. there would further enrich the uranium and turn it into fuel rods which would then be sent to iran. they say it then made it 20% and they say it then made it 20% and reached for medical research. 3 çon october 1, they acceptee

deal. two days later,çaçqççññrç td states,q% europe and the international atomic energy ÷çççxd thene endçç of december to accept te deal. ççw3qfáw3inçxd november, itt the u.s. was confident that china would take the same position onçw3çç iran then -d the other greatçç powers. asçxdxdçq usual,ççw3ç oba'a adviser was wrong aboutt(ççt(g and said no sanctions. they took sanctions off the table. iran has not been negotiating with the added states in good faith until now and the chinese have just taken away one more reason for them to talk to us. he should have known that china

would not back sanctions. and the middle of october, when shed8i]çt(=ñ[;çxdkookçç iranians more means to resist international power. ó[kççi]çchinaç has become fe supporter. beijing's is sayingç -- beijing is a sanction buster. çthere are manyç reasons the'e doing this. china wants to secure access to iran cleaner-burning gas. iran cleanerant to compete witha çw3forç influence in(isan. i]okthey wanted toç defend ther ofç course, they want to suppot the mullahcç because they did nt want to see the theocracy collapse because that gives hope

to the chinese people that they may be able to get rid of their own dictators. these are reasons why china is supporting iran. we needsto see what china is ?;really doing. çyççi]çt(they are trying toe america's and went and will in the world. they are first and foremost making us look ineffectual because they feel threatened by who we are and the values we stand for @ídoççów3wsçw3çi]çd feels theyç mustç change the n and democratic international system that we lead. what are they doing? they are supporting every nuclear roadç(aod fundamentally altering the structure of the international system. çget theirç support by itselfs not sufficient to explain what i call the iran paradox.

we, the united states, the strongest nation not just at this moment but in all of history, iran on the other hand is an unstable state that is corrupt, it has a stumbling economy and it is headed by an increasingly divided government. despite this obviousokç dispar, despite everything else, the mullahs are winning.ç unbelievably, they are paying no penalty for doing so. why are the are radiance succeeding against us? our principal problem is that we have our priorities wrong. we are trying to stop the atomic movement but we are supporting this critical cooled to a longer-term objectivesçó;t least something that we think should be a longer-term objective. that is integrating china into the international system. çit would be great if china wee

irresponsibleç power and one dy i'm sure it will be. it is not one today and in today's washington, the obama xdadministration is forgetting e critical fact -- xdççñrqbefora helps us on the great issues of the day, before they can play a constructive role in the world, they must do more than just begin a fundamental shift in foreign policy. they must complete the process of both shedding their self- interest -- self-image as an outsider and ending the traditional rolefáw3 of an advey of the existing global order. such a change occurs when a rising power develops but only after internal perceptions have shifted over time and the problem is that today, china is not quite ready to play its role as a responsible great power. incredibly, the u.s. is giving

beijing the incentive to become even less responsible. we should not be surprised by beijing's aggressive nature because we are the author of many of our problems with them. howçq didi] we contribute to tç çwe forgot every lesson that we learned during the cold for about defending our values and opposing totalitarianism dictators. çwestern analysts predicted tht with the soviet union gone, we would and -- we would enter aw3 çharmonious era. history had already ended. because it had ended,t( becausee had reached that point in the evolution of humani] societyt(e engage the chinese with trade and with generous foreign policies.ç we give china a seat at the top table because we believed that

by handing them a leading role çóçççf(áááqátjju)(sq ççów3as we know, the chinese d. our remedy for the failureok of engagement in the past has been to promote more engagement in the future. as we continue unsuccessful policies, weçok create perverse incentives. the chinese engaged in unfriendly behavior so we reported them. they were -- the continued irresponsibility and week reported them more. xdwhy would they ever change? areç misguidedi]t( policies cod cause problems. çóbeijing knows they got all rit -- awayçok with bad conduct inç çpast things they can dow3 sotf the future. prior administrations, beginning withi] those headed by george h] w.mçç bushw3i]xd hasi] been regard to the chinese but the

bad approach and driven it to its logical conclusion.i] okin november,ç china is an essential player of the global issues that are at the center of our agenda. a global economic recovery, climate change, north korea, iran, non-proliferation issues, afghanistan, pakistan, arms control. on none of these issues can we succeed without china's corp. that is what -- china's cooperation. >> that was what the administration said. çwhen beijing strategists herei say this, they naturally think of they have a toehold over american foreign policy. them having a veto over us may

seem preposterous but that is not the way the chinese see it. the chinese think we are on a terminal decline and they can do what they want. they are wrong. i]unfortunately, theç obama administration had said that human rights are not important ini] our dialogue with china and the presidentñr refusing to see the dalai lama reinforces this american weakness. the chinese are coming off of their success of helping north korea gets the bomb. the administration of george w. bush wanted to make china part of the solution and it agreed to accept leadership efforts to disarm north korea. beijing sponsored the six party talks which began in 2003. ñrçqçthe chinese were able tog out the proceedings and give kim

t(jong-il the ability to develop andç test long-range nuclearç missiles. we allowed the chinese to give him the one thing that he needed the most to make himself a real threat to the international community. that is time. the chinese now believe that they have succeeded with regard to north korea and they are imploring -- employing the same tactics with iran and washington continues to let the chinese lead us by the nose. we witnessed washington giving china the right to determine american policies. we saw that this month. at the same time, china ruled out the possibility of sanctions against iran. hillary clinton said that insisting there was a december deadline for iran, she turned around and said that there is no deadline after all.

it was humiliating and it opened the door to muchç more talkingo mullahs at a time when iran is about one year away from developing their first nuclear device. china is showing the iranians and the rest of the world that the u.s. cannot accomplish foreign policy objectives. washington is allowing two rogues to stabilize their regions. having demonstrated that we are ineffectual, who is going toçó follow us onç any foreign poliy matter? i was asked this morning to say what is the significance of washington being unable to thwart nuclear ambitions of iran and north korea. this is the answer. nobody is calling to listen to us any more. throughout history, when

dominique nations have failed to lead, they have faltered soon afterwards. no country can lead the international system if it is ineffective. there is something else we should know. çtpçan international system tht cannot protect a vitalçxd intet against weakest members cannot last. çlet me leave you with one thoughti]. north korea is not justçó about korea. iran is not just about iran. north korea and iran areç abou! our ability toçó lead and ensure stability in the international system. as we all know at thisi]ç critl period of time, the stakes could not be higher. the onlyxd international securiy system that works is the u.s. alliance system. so writes greg sheridan.

it is ironicçç that it takes n australian journalist to see what american presidents cannot. sense for us toç engage our t(average -- ourw3 adversaries t unfortunately,ç those approachs have not worked. w3at this precarious time, it w3çi]taibáh)dtt american leadership. çwe are the ultimatet( and sometimesçç only guarantorokçe international system. others understand this. it isç(tzme for washington to o so, as well. [applause] çç>> thank you. as we go to questions, letç me i]ççmake a couple of quick po. are you safer now than you were one year ago? we are approaching the anniversary of barack obama's çinauguration. heç hast(ç taken three actiont

have made you less safe. these arew3ççfáç not thingse neglected and went adrift. these are things the president hadw3 -- has affirmatively gone. he has banned çççt(certain interrogation methods. we know that george tenet, the former cia director said that those enhanced techniques produced more valuable information then the cia,xokaçd the fda --ç and the fbi combin. we are closing guantanamo bay. there is no reason other than a political reason. there is no reasonç to compel s to do so. we are to win so at considerable risk. that risk is best illustrated by the third point.

we are now bringing terrorists into new york and detroit for civilian trial. çit will be a media circus. it will possibly endanger the city itself because they will become magnets for terrorist attacks. where you sit -- are you say for the the work this day last year? i submit the answer is no. we will follow standard rules. you can ask anybody the question and everybody will jump in with their opinions. >> ççççw3çthis hasçç beed privilege to listen to this panel. there is so muchw3 vision and experience. i have one question which applies to the panel. would you consider culture asça national priority? it seems that our civilization,

our media, our parts, our education system has not been çdoing a good job with what you are referring to as a realignment of priorities. i think it is aç fast and deep subjectç as it might apply to çxdmilitaryçç confidenceççd strategic planning. çç7mm>>t(xd ç;çlet me see is right. i may need some more definition. + another word or two. ç>> itç was referred to asçqe we knew who wew3 were and who or tou;ç were, as written which credits the bravery of american soldiers as

something thatç might strike us funded now but was very true then. and he was talking about hollywood films. ñrhe wasçw3qt( talking about pr culture. çi would include all of the fie arts, the educational system, it's defined courage and focus on virtue. focused on the good and true and beautiful. today our culture is self- destructive and anti-american. çyou might call it a jihad of our own intellectual elite. [applause] ç>> itç is striking when you throughxd theç 1950's. çt(itç was a different time. many people think it was quite. ç-- quaint.

çthe danger of would talk about is that your military is a relatively smallç part of the numbers of this country. we are 2.4 million men and women active dutyçsas opposed to 320 million. t(thatç ratio is only going tot smaller as the country grows. you have to think about is the military going to becomeç something that isç not wellç understood byç the rest of america? that is a real danger. i think some of the initiatives that people have undertaken trying to get into school curriculums of what the u.s. military has meant to this country.

i am thinking about the honor society as one of them. there are others, as well. that is really important. there is a divergence of cultures. the military seems to be sticking out as having values different from the rest of society. the larger that the gap gets, the more danger we are in. >> i take that comment and i think about when chris matthews made the comment after president obama spoke at west point when he said thatw3 the president wet into the end of the's camp. that should be very disturbing because you are standing before the young men and women who will go out and fight for our freedoms and liberties and to have somebody in the media say he was in the camp of the enemy, that is the type of chasm that

is being created between american culture and the men and women who are charged to defend it. there aretwo classes of people that are needed to sustain the society, those who teacht( it ad those who defend it. if we continue to put down the military, this culture will fall. i go back to something that was talked about, the paradoxical trinity. the will of the people, the government, and the military. all three of those wills have to come together. the overarching theme is talking about what was brought out -- brought up earlier, weç are losing accountability. when that starts to happen, everybody is a victim. nobody is empowered and everybody feels entitled. those are the cultural problems we have to overcome. i think 2010 is an important

year for that. >> one thing i would add. i've learned from reading a book about theçó spontaneous duy to defend the state and contribute. u!we haveç lost that. young people to not feel the duty or obligation to serve. they did not feel as invested in our culture and our ways of life. that is a big danger. >> this question is directed to the panel and i am honored to have to of the most courageous attorneys fighting for our freedoms. i applaud them. [applause]

[inaudible] >> we will raise a glass to you at lunch. you should take some pride in being booted in that sense. >> i was illegally fired. [applause] andrew mccarthy's recitation of what happened with the responsibilities of the three branches of government ensure to balancing and the issue of deciding who has the authority on security issues, he cited the fdr decision toçó let the supree court know he would ignoreç th. lincoln did the sameç thing whn

he ignored the supreme court order to release a southern sympathizer. we have seen and the recent administration and supreme court the holding it unconstitutional of various a bush administration decisions in the security area without any real hope for the future as i see yet of how thatmy is cooling to change so the executive authorityq is in ken --ó[k is an reinstated on security issues. i wonder if you would comment on how we are going to turn that slippery slope around so that security is again the responsibility of the executive authority. >> thank you. i cannot think you do it through discourse. part of what has changed so critically and so deadly for the country is this self perception of the court. t(ñrçduringwmqç the second we

court thought of itself as one of three branches of our command. that meant that if our country went to war, we all went to war, including the entire government. the judiciary considering itself part of it. the judiciary is there is essentially as a bulwark for americans to protect ourselves from the government. with the course has become at this point -- what the courts have become at this point is something above and outside the constitution and a forum for all of the world to make their case against the u.s. and that was not the idea. i did not think you are going to talk them out of that. you cannot ignore them. it would require a very strong president who was willing to do that like fdr. he did that and felt confident

doing that because the reason hamilton thought the course with the least dangerous branch because they cannot enforce their own orders. i do not want to say they are a debating society. i practiced before courts. i have abundant respect for courts. their goal was never supposed to be the national security of u.s. and it was never supposed to be a number of things that they have now intruded upon. until the other two branches say no, we're not going to honor the rulings that get made in places where the constitution and the framers did not assign responsibility to the court, we continue could -- we continue to go down the cycle. you cannot rely on the courts to turn it around. >> i would like to ask you a question about the joint chiefs

of staff. some will recall that our hero in congress proposed a declaration in order to preserve the provisions from the constitution that only congress could declare war. a former head of the congressional judicial committee told congress that the position was an anachronism and need not be enforced. it raises the question as who would have standing to oppose the executive. was there any concern that the joint chiefs of staff to require a declaration of war before sending our men into harm's way and if not, why not? çtc>do you c8)jz[÷=ççzç thn inappropriate thing for the joint chiefs to do? >> w3w3ççqçóçwho would stande

american peopleçt( if themyç s constitution? ççtheç folks at west point ne that they are indoctrinated as to be supportive of0t2gçok çç>> let me take a different approach. what would be important for the joint chiefs of staff would be that0d you havm uhe support ofe american people. we haveç learned time after tie that it the american people are not behind your efforts,ç we wl çbe a nation at war without thr support. çit didokw3(nnt come up as an . if it had, i think it is an appropriate thingñr. we had enough time in front of

congress that if wew3 were so çinclined, we could have said what we needed to say. weç were nevera xdçwhenever feltok inhibited. çit did notç become a particur issue. as time went on and conflict became less popular,çççç. it was exacerbated by the vitriolic debates in 2004. that would get us off track a little bit. xd>> do you want to add anythin? >> it has never been the law of the u.s. that you cannot be at war unless there was a declaration of war. the declaration of war was a legal designation that defined a number of things that you can do once a lot of war is a vote and

to countries that are deemed to be in total war against each other. if you had to have a declaration of war in orderxd to do that, we would not be able to defend ourselves. we have sweeping military force which is every much as part a declaration of war as we could have. >> i think that isç why -- >> right. congress could end the war tomorrow if the wanted to. >> let me add one thing on that point. as a former military lawyer, the military's obligation is to follow orders unless they believed those orders are illegal. the american military is not going to go out and intentionally kill civilians but if the president says go, unless there is the reason to believe it is illegal, you go. >> i want to thank you for reminding usç that we have a

clear and present dangeri] and that we are at war. çit is not just our government and military. ças far as the culture, being n the business,çi] i want to ass3 you that the peopleç inw3çq0ç] theatricalçi] business are allt okç>> really? >> we have añrçt(çç groupç m involved withç in los angeles d new york and we are growing in tremendous stride. ççóokfáweç have and least 150.

writersç, directors, producers thatç are on that side. e are growing here n last night çççnot just the obviousç bun anf.!q we do about it and how we are makingçó statementsç of çdisrespect and nonsupport of israelç whichçç to me is outrageous, absolutely outrageousççç that we wouldt that up andçç go to foreign they should beç doingt(ç on b ççthis is a subject matter ths my question. ñrçqçççççi]i]çóççthe rey

and people to take on iran. we have afghanistan, iraq, what have you. iran is obviously a clear and present danger. to leave it up took israeli] and hope to show weakness toward supporting them it's horrible. do we have enoughçç military, financially support of the military, and a very bad subject that nobody wants tofá addressiu the draft. i know the military does not want a draft because they have the kind of soldier that they love right now who is it volunteer who has been trained.

>> but try to move things along. military readiness -- >> [applause] in the interest of moving things along, let me say that military readiness isw3ok important and i think your question is longer than that. what are you prepared to do? we may be ready for a lot of things but i did not think we are prepared to do anything. >> there were a lot of questions in there. let me take the red in this issue. in some respect.! been more ready than we are today. we have a combat-tested and hardened force. recruiting and retention are actually pretty good. but it has some fragility to it

because we have been at war for so long. that has impacted families and military members as they discuss their future options. we are losing some good officers, particularly in the army. that will hurt us going forward. we have the equipment currently. the issue is what is the will of the people? when you look at iran, it is a very complex problem. it e in decades that there is a willingness on the people of iran to sit there is enough of the ayatollahv:s. we know there are brutal and they try to suppress that. we will see where that goes. whetherç or not military

çintervention will be requireds an interesting thing. if it is military, my guess is it would be those forces currently engaged like a naval and air which means we have some capability. it will be up to the current military and senior political leadership as to what they want to do. let me mention something about the draft. and most of my statements to date, i said i did not favor a draft. i would favor a trapped if we find our military going in such a different direction than our society. the military does not reflect society. then you have to think about the equalizer. i cannot think to produce better soldiers but it produces other consequences. that is what i believe the guard is outt( thereçów3çó and ç have day jobs plus military jobs and they keep us connected in

ways that the active duty does not. that is a general comment. >> çthis is not ant( issue of military readiness. this is an issue of political will because for 7.5 years, we have confronted a threat that is existential to the international systps we are at one of those times when we have not demonstrated political will for a numberç of reasons, some good, some bad. we have a period where it is necessary to stop the mçullahs is not considered practical. if you look at recent history, you look at what is necessary is not practical. you have uncertainty and turbulence. we are at a point when the international system is breaking down because we are not willing to enforce it. also because the world is becoming more complex and for a number of other reasons. that means that in the next 50

years, we could see a different system. all that we know about geo politics could become obsolete. we are giving at the best moment of history but it could be followed by the worst. >> thank you. >> my question is for the colonel. i picked up on a comment you made. it refers to what was being talked about with a nazis being caught in florida. the status of the illegal enemy combatants. this lies in the heart of the way we treat terrorists and their affiliates when we capture them. the bottom line is that my understanding of the geneva conventions would be that they do not apply to such people. that is something that i did not think has ever been fully and properly explained. the business as treating them as

criminals lies with the military catching them, would you explain to the people how we actually could legally under international law deal with these when we catch them? [applause] >> you remind meç of what i lie being around the british army so much. you are absolutely right. it comes to and -- educating people about it. çthey are not protected under e geneva convention. it comes back to the benevolence we have in western society of what we seek to provide. we have to be very careful about when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide. that is where we are. if we continue to go out and say the sky shot a syringe into his underwear but we are going to

read him his rights and have him go to the court system, it is pavlovian. if you reward bad behavior, you are going to get bad behavior. we are being studied. çthese are not isolated event. a good commander looks for indicators and warnings. he connects the dots. we have to do this with this enemy and realize that they did not deserve to have their day in court. they deserve to be taken off the battlefield and in some circumstances if they could be locally triedçççt( by a miliy tribunal, i think that is one thing which the doing with military jag officers and try them andt( expedite whatever decision. be careful about what is the went to happen and afghanistan. we turn to that person over to the afghans, and corruption is rampant. i cannot tell you how many times

somebody got paid off and the person that you detained was right back out on the street. we have to take the enemy off the battlefield. as long as they want to fight us, they stay locked up. that is what we have to believe but the courts with the big system, we can do all of that. it takes a commander in chief that is willing to do it. >> thank you for calling on me. i was wondering, i am a candidate for a ph.d. at and why you which is a -- at nyu. i am combating constantly because it is more liberal. could you clarify, based on the discussion, the distinction

between senatorç mccain's taken closing down guantanamo bay and our current president. that would help me out a lot. okçt(ççi was wondering if yod clarify that. >> let me go real fast. i did not think there is a lot of distance between them. responsible personally for changing the law on torture to make it so unconstitutionally vague that we did not know what it is any more. i thinkç that mr. mccann has a lot to answer for. d theç position of mccain and obama is that guantanamo bay causes terrorism. we hear that is real causes

terrorism. gitmo crosses terrorism. in diet soft drinks. >> what causes it is successful attacks and ideologies. to the extent that what we are aiming our fence-sitter's to hopeçççó they do not jump in h the bad guys, what makes a difference is we stop them from attacking. if anybody thinks, i convictedça civilian prison having a nice trial. jjutxd gut offended that he isç an americn prison, just because he is not and gitmo, that is a justice of completely being divorced from the reality of who we'reç dealg with. >> thank you.

>> i am a former marine and i have a blog. [applause] myq question is for the warrior. we were talking aboutç how to identify the enemy.q bombing incident, her question çwas why did they want to do this? a warped version of islam that is motivating them. her question again is why?ç qwhat do you say to people who will jump through a mental hopes to make us the bad guy. her conclusion isq that they are fightingt( it for to be isolate( and sovereign, not at war against us. >> t(w3qçi would say take the .

[laughter] you have to increase their understanding of what is going on. w3xd>> how you explain how she s wrong. >> hopefully there are other voices out there that are rational that can explain it in waysç that are more correct. >> let me say this but to have to study and understand who you are up against. you must realize this is not a religion you're fighting against. you are fighting against a political construct. çyou're fighting against something that has been doing ççóçççt(you want to ask then

qi]fleet why they'reúgpghting a muslim fleet in 1571? w3ççççççxdççmççyou ne understandok their precepts and3 read theç suraç and then you n i]really understand that this is not a perversion. they are doing exactly what this book says. q[applause] ççxdçfkçt(qó]çi amñr goinç okçthis, we have said this all through this morning so far. until you get principled leadership and the u.s. that is willing to sayomçt( that, we wil continue to chase our tails. we willç never clearly defined

with this enemy is and understand their goals and objectives which is on anyw3 xdjihadist website. çççmçççwe need toçqi] sec and western civilization. [applause] >> following the near fatal christmas day incident over detroit, the wall street journal reported that there were 540,000 people on the confirmed or suspected terrorist list kept by çthe national counter-terrorism center but only 1% were on the no fly ççlistç ofç those whd boarding a plane. did you shed some light on why we should sit nextkçw3 to is suspected terrorists andç not know what? >> ñrone thing.

if you read the white house report that came out one week ago lastçok tuesday, in termsf what led up to that attack, if you read it, there is a paragraph that shows there is an enormous bias against putting somebody on the no fly list. in my book, it should be easy to put somebody on their and hard to get off. [applause] >> why shouldn't they all be on there? >> we are operating under a philosophy that every organism on planet earth is an american waiting to happen born with a full panoply of american constitutional rights. that is the way thatok the peopç who are making the loss think. notwithstanding that we are now in a security environment or the war is notok just asymmetric but

we are dealing with illegal aliens combatants so that your suspicion levels should be higher and the fourth amendment should allow you to do more even if you assume the fourth amendment applies because it only prevents you from doing unreasonable searches. you would think we would be up here. unfortunately, with political correctness, we are down here. i did not think there is any other explanations. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am getting the help. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] çw3 >> and a few moments, membef

congress proposed a new law to limit campaign spending by corporations and unions. in about 20 minutes, the president of iran says his country is enriching uranium but is not building a nuclear bomb. after that, robert gibbs is asked about u.s. relations with iran. later, a group of senators led by john mccain proposes sanctions against iran because of human-rights violations. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c- span. the coast guard, that speaks of the national press club at 1:00. later, a senate banking subcommittee hearing on financial regulations. that is at 2:30. businesses include a number of the board of governors. tune in to book to the 43 day

president's day weekend beginning saturday. authors include henry paulson talking with warren buffett on the 2008 economic collapse. w3gary wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of thet( u.s. and the world. books on american presidents. president obamat( and ronald reagan. chuck schumer says he will introduce a bill about political campaigns spending unlimited amounts of money. he is joined by chris van hollen for 20 minutes.

ç>> welcome to the dry and non- odorous recording studio. i want to thank my friend chris van hollen. it was touch and go whether he could be here are not. maryland was plowed. we are here together and i want to thank him for his partnership and his very hard work and in valuable contributions to this legislation. as you know, last month, the supreme court shattered nearly 100 years of u.s. law designed to curb the influence of corporations in our election process. today, we are beginning to pick up the pieces. truth beç told,t( we have been bracing for an unfavorable

decision ever since the court decided to rehear the citizens united case earlier this fall. then8 court rulings surpassed or worst fears. with the stroke of the pen, the court decided to overrule a decade-w3long banç on expendits and silenced the voice of millions ofi] americans. at a time when americans areç o worried about special interest ñrhaving too much influence in washington, the court çinexplicably open the floodgas to much greater special interest influence that we have ever seen before. the decision was corrosive to democracy, hard to understand and frankly, if you love the way this country has been built up as a democratic nation, itç was infuriating. most wrongheaded decisions and

the most political decision certainly since bush vs. gore and it will go down and say very not proud moment. the americançç peopleq apparey agree. according to a bipartisan poll, americans oppose the decision by a two-one margin. 65% disagreed and 27% agreed. it is rare that a supreme court decision has so many people taking a position so soon. the american peoplei] feel that special interest should not be encouraged. the majority of republican voters rejected the court ruling but aqç 51% thought it s improper. to say thew3 least, the high court is at odds with public opinion. it is also at odds with the

constitution which livers strenuously to keep people equal. çwe're not going to let this decision go unchallenged. today, we are announcing the framework for comprehensive legislation we tend to introduce in our respective chambers the week after recess. unlike most bills that are introduced, this one has a deadline for action. if we did not act quickly, the court ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections. our goal is to advance the legislation quickly. otherwise, the court will predetermine the winners of next year's election. it will not be republicans or

detection. these requirements were not banned political activity but the level of transparency will at the very least big corporations realize everything they do is indignation of political add this -- advocacy is public. that will make them think twice about sending sums to elections. the effect should not be underestimated. in the realm of disclosure, our bill would require corporations to disclose their expenditures on the web site within 24 hours. second, in