>> i think that is absolutely right. you can categorize medicare options into two categories. one, the the sort of options you are talking about. if we could get rid of infections in hospitals, reduce readmission rates, that would help the whole system, including private insurance. there are, however, other kinds of options, like increasing eligibility age as for medicare, -- ages for medicare, that our means of shifting costs out of the government budget and on to the private sector. >> that is one of the real values of focus on delivery system reform. it is not a zero sum game, in which you are shifting costs on to the government -- out of the government and on to the private sector. because people resist that, you are adding to net health care costs.

as the insurance mechanism developed to try to gain the system and create additional cost for people -- and the system gaming behavior -- it is important to me that you said it. it is discouraging, in a sense, that it is only two pages of all whole volume, when i consider how valuable it is. this is the high water mark in the budget discussion. i know senator conrad and senator gregg are keen on getting this statutory commission going. my single greatest reservations about it is i worry it will be populated with a lot of people who are fiscal-economic, brilliant people, but do not have the specialized sense about how delivery system reform can and must take place. they do not understand the

executive management or the ongoing learning process. it will be overlooked. in the same way that cbo could not release court effectively, because of the nature of the process -- they could not score it effectively. people say, if we could check people of medicare. we could count those savings right away and put them in the bank. it is harder work to do the other thing. there will be a bias in favor of the fiscal-pa. i described them as the bloody civil war surgeons' bucket of tools or jigsaws and knives. in the mark -- a more modern doctors tool kit with modern technologies and non invasive procedures and pharmaceuticals. we can do with the modern way, but there seems to be a huge fire wall. . .

suggests how hard it is. we have got to do our best to learn more, which can be done to some degree through areas of demonstration, experiments, and so forth. >> let me ask for greta to chime in in my remaining minute. >> i read, but i am less discouraged. many people are thinking very seriously about systemic reform

and about budget problems at the same time. one of them as my brookings colleague, mark mcclellan, who live believe you know, he and others -- dr. fisher, people that i've worked on the dartmouth proposals, are definitely in this camp that you describe the people that deeply care about delivery system reform, but care about the economics as well. >> i want to try to populate the fiscal prudence camp with more of those people that understand that and make sure that that is the way that we proceed first on this. as the chairman said yesterday, very correctly, a critically important point he made, you can go after medicare with fiscal live this anytime you like. -- fiscal life's -- knives any

time the like. in a crisis, who knows what people will do. what is death is that it takes time. the ongoing learning process has to take place, using his words. so, every minute, every hour, every day that goes by the we are not deliberately engaged in that this time lost against whenever that moment of reckoning might be, as was said, it could be an abrupt crisis that provokes this. you do not want to waste time between now and then. i would urge us all to be is proactive as possible, including the obama administration, which i hope is not waiting around after the health care bill, which has a lot of important building blocks in it. >> let me just say this, and for those that might be listening,

one of the greatest frustrations i have had in being a participant and, in some ways, a witness to the health-care debate is big chunks of the news media paid almost no attention to the things that the people who are most knowledgeable about health care have told us were the most important things. cbo -- cbo told us that favoring -- phasing out the favorite -- phasing out the favorable tax benefit is one of the most important things than need be done. they also said the one of the most important thing since the needs to be done is a reform of the delivery system. did you see any of the national media spend 30 seconds on that issue? to stop paying for every procedure to look for quality outcomes?

the juicy one story that talked about that? i did not. instead they changed everything that is a side show and a side issue, as to which does not matter at all according to the experts. i tell you, i do not know what is happening is a culture, but when we have a national news media obsessing on michael jackson, obsessing on side issues, giving no basis of information to people to make judgments on things that really matter to our economic future, we have got a very big problem. my plea to the national media is that i know it is a ratings game on television, i get it, but you have got obligations. you are using the public airwaves. you have an obligation to talk

about things that are serious, that really matter to our future. >> mr. chairman, thank you for having this hearing, thank you all for being here. the topic is really how we have a fiscally sustainable budget. let me stay on health care for a moment. doctor, i may not agree with you on the politics of this. cutting medicaid may not be a terribly unpopular thing, i do none note. we are certainly having a hard time extending it to the states, where it will have a major impact on budgets. i know that in maryland -- well, but i guess my point is this. if we are looking at a sustainable budget, one could say the the federal government could cut back on its commitments to pay for part of health care. medicare, medicaid, or other

health-care probe -- programs. in the short arm that would reduce the federal budget deficit. but i would say that would be the wrong thing for us to do from the point of the economy. and it would be the wrong thing for us to do in terms of what is right for the federal government to do. when the economy makes it more expensive for businesses to pay for health care, they will have to compete internationally, and it makes doubling our exports more difficult. small businesses are already having a hard time paying those premiums, and we simply make it harder, it will just cost jobs. many people in maryland are withholding purchases, going to a restaurant, staying away because of concerns over health care bills, because frankly medicare does not cover enough and private insurance is not covering enough, and many people

do not have coverage, or they have major gaps. i am just concerned that if we talk about what we will do with entitlement reform, how we will deal with projected, huge deficits of the national level, i am very concerned about that. i hope that we will listen to senator white house, senator conrad. if we just look at the federal budget and say that we are successful in could reduce our exposure, we have missed the opportunity to remedy real problem that we have in the economy while, at the same time dealing with a sustainable and fiscally responsible budget. i feel the same way as the chairman on coverage issues. i can tell you, to me, i hope that the president can bring

back -- bring together democrats and republicans. health care reform has got to bring down the growth rate of health care costs that is fiscally responsible for the budget and provide affordable coverage for every american. that is what we should a group -- agree on. if you do not do that, to me the problems will be greater in the future. i know that you were referring to medicare, which would be an issue, but if you look at some of the proposal suggested around here, i am concerned that we could get from, this commission or some other group, using, as senator white house said, civil war tools that we should be using modern technology for. >> i thought i was agreeing with senator white house. the most important thing to do

is reform the delivery system, making health care system more efficient and effective for everyone. >> i think it we are all saying the same thing. i think we are. but the chairman started a hearing talking about federal that, and we all agreed it is way too big. we cannot have a sustainable and fiscally responsible federal budget without dealing with the debt. i want to tell people to take a walk, what happened when we had a growing economy? chairman, you and i supported the statutory pay bill, we should ever done that when we had a balanced budget, so that you could not get medicare part b without paying for it. so that we at least had fiscal responsibility. sometimes it is easier if you have a budget surplus, to spend recklessly.

we did not build savings in america. here we are, still in the aftermath of the worst recession in my lifetime. we know that the federal government has a critical role to play in creating jobs in a recession. part of that is fueled by federal spending. we also know that we want consumer confidence, for people to spend, yet we want to look at reducing federal spending and increasing personal spending -- saving. how do we reconcile those differences? any of you. >> let me start quickly.

you have to do two things at once. do what is necessary to get out of the recession and start, by enacting very soon, measures that will bring down spending, the rate of growth of spending. we will not bring down spending, but we must bring down the rate of growth of spending over time, including entitlement programs. you have also got to recognize that bringing debt to a stable place is not going to be possible right away on just the spending side. there will be more revenue. >> basically i agree with that. i do not think that the conflict between the short term and the long run is as severe as people make it out to be. today i think you could talk

about passing reform that would slow down the growth of social security benefits or increase the payroll tax. today you could pass things that would be implemented, starting in 2012, as our report suggests. if you could reduce that uncertainty, i think it would help a considerate -- considerable amount. >> to the health care and stimulus comments, both you and senator white house made very important points at the beginning of the debate, the number one thing that we could do to get this situation under control is slow the growth of health care costs. unfortunately, for me watching this, having to learn more about

health care than i ever needed to, you cannot be a budget expert without learning about health care. i think one of the things that we saw it was discouraging was a watering down of pieces of a health-care bill that would slow the growth. what i would hope that we would see as we go back to visit this again, everyone understands the importance of combining these reforms, going back to reemphasize the pieces that we saw in the report that would help us the most slow growth. the more that we get out over time, the less we have to go to the other pieces of the budget. which is important. the point that senator sessions was making about mistrust about what the parties are doing in terms of standing in their own way, your concern of our republicans looking at democrats, stimulus in the health care, feeling they are trying to push an expansion of

government. meaning that we deal with a budget compromise, taxes go back on the table. when we decided to cut taxes before reforming entitlements in the bush era, we decided to cut taxes before dealing with the budget negotiation, changing the situation. we know that there is a horrible and high level of mistrust that makes compromise difficult. coming back to something that senator conrad keeps bringing up, often we try to convene members of both party -- both parties to bring, but is hard when you get to the statistics that we talked about in these hearings. i think that there are three things that are helpful for members to do together. it is not so important what it is, but we need a fiscal goal lead levels the playing field. second, do not insult different

ideas for helping. whether it be health care reform or budgetary reform, encourage people to come up with all the ideas that they have. no, we should not raise taxes. no, we should not raise social security. we should go to those. every member needs to sit down and see how they would achieve the goal that they think is something that would reassure credit markets. once you get into the nitty gritty of policy, you realize that this is not earmark reform. this is not just waste, fraud, and abuse. these are big, structural changes that we need to talk about. in terms of stimulus, i have someone whose basic stimulus package was perfect but necessary and i was concerned about where the economy was headed. i doubt that focusing on recovery was the right thing to do.

i do not know about the stimulus and jobs package right now. i know that it is motivated by things that are not related, including well targeted in temporary. with a way to make them permanent without offsetting the costs. it may be worth thinking about stimulus measures, if there's something to do, do it, but include an office the billy paid overtime. sure, you want to grow the economy, but we need to figure out a way to bring down the debt once the economy is strong again as well. >> thank you for that response.

that is good advice. much of what you are saying, including the exercise to balance the budget, i thought it would be a fun thing to do during the holiday. i would say -- you know, even if one does not get the balance, in some ways is less important than finding a way to get the debt stabilize, which is the testimony of this group after a lot of work that they have done. perhaps a more appropriate goal by and reaching the balance would be stabilization of the debt and working it down over a long term. frankly, we are at a debt level, i believe, that is too high.

that exercise, even that exercise, is very daunting. i just say to my colleagues, if your status here and listening, please have your member -- or you, a staff member, show your member what it takes. it is not just dealing with earmarks in the nibbling around the edges with domestic spending. this is going to take bold strokes to deal with this challenge. big ideas. this is so -- social security, medicare, revenue,, history will

judge us. were we ought to this challenge? were we true patriots, concerned about the country or our own political place? history will judge. if we come through when the nation really needs us, i believe that we can and i hope that we will. but it will not happen if we simple nibble around the edges. isabella happen unless we find a way to cling together. it goes back and forth in the will of the end as well. personally, we have got to find a way to do this and if you look

at the lines of the trend, it is really sobering. no joking around so, i urge my colleagues to make their best efforts to work together to come up with solutions. i know that we can do it. but it will take all of us. i come from a farm state. one of the most heavily dependent states on agriculture in any state. i am ready to take on farm support and it is time for all

of us to get out every >> thank you for that. we have got to confront the presence only went in for a few years. if of me a few years to understand the complexities ok,

what is not stated is wonder million dollars via the ed with emergency spending that done to the total debt load. i am thinking that the president will have to be done this issue. he cannot tell us that we are poised to save money in health care bill. he cannot tell us if his bill is $107 million or $207 billion. mr. chairman, i had one question.

going to 17 million in three years, tripled, that is filled with that creating jobs, crowding l in driving out borrowers please elucidate on your comment, that is my last question.

>> you summarize my point very well. i do not think the thing get around that, whether the line is bright as 90% of the ratio -- which i find hard to swallow, but certainly the high of the deficit, the more it will impact negatively on the potential to grow >> a good point. i was trapped in my car on tuesday to find out that there was no food at the grocery store and the only thing that gave me no road rage was i got to hear the hearing on c-span.

very interesting when you take the capital of the economy, that is the point. this budget committee needs to be aware of the total that, which affects what we are committed to in the future is important that we do this for

the next generation. the debt levels right now are threatening economic recovery in the short and long-term. i think the stimulus program are a great point. the result of this financial mismanagement. we are not in a situation where we can return to budget balance kristol -- quickly, and our truth could >> we should remember that. >> a of rain by very much

appreciate the effort and energy put into your testimony. the committee has certainly benefited from your expertise and thoughtful consideration of these issues. with that, we will end in adjournment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the latest on the economic stimulus, the economic stimulus

funding signed into law when year ago this month, 33.5, coming up. 107 $9 billion having paid out. abbott." c-span.org -- at c-span.org did you will find links. c-span 2's" book television continues this weekend e-mails and the twitter for the entire schedule online.

>> now, commander of u.s. military operations in the middle east. he talked about counterinsurgency in iraq and afghanistan and the role of diplomacy in development and how history of culture can impact military strategy. he spoke on friday. this event occurred before was announced that u.s. and afghan forces began an offensive in afghanistan. you know the saying that when folks say kind things about you, folks say kind things about you, it is one of those deals >> my father would have enjoyed being there . captain father would have enjoyed it. blige year-old mother would have loved it. ñrand -- my dear old mother woud have believed it and loved it.

i gather that you have not been quite hit so hard with the snow, but you probably know how to handle it better than folksy itself. i appreciate you braving the weather to be here -- then folks in the south. i appreciate you braving the weather to be here today. it gives me the opportunity to congratulate you. i endorsed and that this is not only your 16th anniversary -- i understand that this is not only your 60th anniversary, this is also your anniversary for the

world council across the nation and i want to congratulate you for that, too. [applause] we do a little bit of this. we tried to get out and give folks an opportunity to see who is leading their sons and daughters and explain the great work that are great young men and women in uniform are doing. i had done that a great bit at world forums. we have done so much that, in fact, i said i might be getting enough punches on my loyalty card that i ought to clean a t- shirt one of these days. so somebody actually sent me a t-shirt. i will not say which council. but it is not from philadelphia. [applause] we sort of rushed in here. i will explain in a moment why we are a little bit late. i apologize for that. i have not been able to confirm

that someone is in the audience who is a very special person. there are a lot of very special people here, i know. but i think, in the audience today, i hope is an extraordinary woman who has genuine generosity and a true concern for our troopers which is unmatched. she is the finest platoon mom. she is my platoon mom. over the years, she has adopted thousands of men and women in uniform deployed, first in the balkans, and then in afghanistan and iraq, bringing their days, putting smiles on their faces with care packages, cars, and some of the best cookies on earth. she even packs them so well that they managed to survive the transit to our foreign outposts and bases. in 2008, she was honored in new

jersey for bringing comfort to countless service men and women overseas. i would like to honor her today by asking her to stand and be recognized. my platoon mom and the platoon mom of a lot of other troopers is elaine harmon. i hope yours here. [applause] please stand. [applause] >> the truth is that there are a whole lot of platoon moms out there and a lot of others who really are so supportive of our men and women in uniform. we will show a slight evade realist and ceremony and talk about those great men and women who have their right hand in the

air. people occasionally asking why in the world do they keep doing that, tore after tour -- to work after a tour, sacrifice after sacrifice. the answer is that they do it because they think that they are serving something larger than themselves. they do it for each other. and i do it, -- and they do it because americans support and appreciate deeply the sacrifices that they and their families are making on a daily basis to carry out tough missions in very hard spots against enemies that may be barbaric. they're also learning and adapting. i have tried to practice over the years to never take myself too seriously, but do take your

work seriously. we do that as well. i want to start today by talking about why i am late. i just came from west point. i attended the funeral service for a great young graduate of the military academy. he is the son-in-law of a longtime friend and classmate of mine from west point. he was a great young infantry company commander. he was over there doing what he always wanted to do. he was leading great young paratroopers in a very important mission. they were in a tough spot. he led the way. as they say, he made the ultimate sacrifice. i ask that you join me first,

today, before we go to questions, in a moment of silence for a great american hero, captain dan within -- captain dan whitten. >> thank you very much. >> in general, you may be west point's greatest triple threat. you started at west point and went on to be a cadet. you started today on an important mission at west point. it is a privilege to conduct today's conversation with you.

general, we are honored that you have taken time from your demanding schedule to be with us today. you have been quoted as saying that there are three tasks that strategically must be gotten right. first is to get the big idea right. first is to communicate those communications -- second is to communicate those ideas throughout the organization. third is to properly execute the big idea. you did that will interact, positively reversing several problematic years. now was the commander of our nation's efforts in afghanistan, you are ideally positioned to help us better understand some of the key components in afghanistan of a sustainable u.s. national security strategy. given your unique position in this policy area, i would like to ask how will your strategy

for securing stability in afghanistan differ from your most recent successful work in iraq. given the vast differences between the two countries and the nature of the two world -- the two wars? >> that is a great question. i've probably it ought to shape a little bit where i think we are with -- i've probably ought to shape a little bit where i think we are in afghanistan. we have been at the sale long time. but for the first time, we have the implants in afghanistan right. -- we have the inputs in afghanistan right. we have the organizations necessary to carry out a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign plan.

there is a whole host of different organizations. it took us awhile to do that. then we got the all-star team in charge of those organizations, general mcchrystal and others. we have a fantastic international diplomat. and then there are the three stars, the two stars, and a host of others. we have the right structures and the right people. those people have gone the big ideas right, i think. i think that the counterinsurgency guidance that general mcchrystal published its bond. it reflects the lessons -- that

general mcchrystal published its spot on. -- the general mcchrystal published is spot on. it reflects the lessons of iraq. they enable the implementation of the big ideas. the 30,000 forces ordered by president obama as a result of his policy review, the additional funding for the afghan national security forces, the authorization of 100,000 more of those, additional civilians, and a host of other enablers that are so important to carry out the big ideas and the right team that has the right structures can now embark on. with that right, now it is about producing output.

it is now time to produce results. i think we will begin to see that. having said that, i want you to know upfront that, all the way back in september 2005 when i was on my way home from the second tour in iraq, i was asked by secretary rumsfeld to come home to afghanistan. so we did. a team went over there and took a look and did we give him some recommendations. among the observations i offered was one that did not necessarily elicit widespread applause on the third floor of the pentagon. i mr. secretary, i know that this is a good war, a war that we are winning, but this will be the longest campaign in a long war. but i think that that is clearly the case. it is hardy and it is hard all the time and it will be tougher

before it gets easier. as i said, we have the inputs right. surely we will see the beginnings of the output. that will likely be accompanied by higher levels of violence, just like in iraq when we launched the surge in violence levels went up considerably. it got much tougher before it got easier. over time it did indeed get easier, if you will. and i got better. i think that is where we are. again, if i could come back to your mention of west point, you left one thing out, that is where i met my wife as well. it was a blind date, of all things. to my horror i found in been set up with the daughter of the superintendent. to her for, she found out that now when she knew had ever met me. i guess it turned out ok. we are going on 36 years now and

we have a great young son in ranger school, of all things. imagine having that rock on your backpack. the coldest winter class on record. [laughter] somehow i think he was seated between glenn davis and dr. blanchard. [laughter] >> i will ask the first few questions and we will get to the audience in a moment. in testimony before members of congress last week, directors of the u.s. intelligence agencies said that a new terrorist attack against the united states was "certain" in the next three to six months. can you help us to connect the dots between that assessment and your strategy in iraq and pakistan? >> another great question, let

me start again, to be strategic about it. i will come down on what i think it was the the national intelligence advisor was trying to express. assess that al qaeda that we focus on so considerably -- let us not forget that the reason we are in afghanistan is very clear. we are there to make sure that it will not once again become a sanctuary for transnational extremists, like al qaeda, like it was prior to 9/11. there's no question that the 9/11 attacks were planned in south afghanistan. the initial training was carried out by the al qaeda train cabs that the taliban allowed to be positioned there before -- training -- by the al qaeda training camps that the taliban allowed to be positioned there.

al qaeda has been diminished over the course of the last year. we generally think that there has been considerable pressure on al qaeda senior leadership, a combination of various activities by the pakistanis largely going against a subset of the extremist there, those that are threatening them, not necessarily the ones that are threatening us in afghanistan. but the combination of that and other campaigns in minister tribal areas of western pakistan is to put considerable pressure on the activities there. afghanistan, on the other hand, the level of violence has gone up. when you move over to iraq, al qaeda in iraq has significantly diminished.

they used to be two hundred 20 attacks and a day or more. -- there used to be two hundred 20 -- there used to be 220 attacks a day or more. there has been a reduction of 90% in the violence. there has been considerable progress against al qaeda in iraq. they still can carry out periodic attacks that we do see. sundays, they have some very horrific results. -- some days, they have very horrific results. when the decision -- saudi arabia has had enormous progress over the years. we were really shaken by al

qaeda attacks five years ago. in the other countries in the gulf states, all with the exception of yemen, which we have been seized with for some time, but has only gained prominence as a result of the strikes and the operations carried out in december and the individual who was in yemen for several months and was given a sophisticated explosive device and was taught to use it and went to watch for that and another country and then to the u.k. and then the flight to detroit -- what that showed is the continued capability of al qaeda, with that question. although it is diminished, there is no question that it has capability. there's no question that this is a learning organization. this extremist network -- and it takes a network to take down in network, which is what we have and what we are working on on

the military side together intelligence from counterparts and comrades. but what the and i and others were expressing was that, given -- but what the dni and others were expressing was that there could be an attack of some type in the course of the months or the year would have appeared that has generally been the case for some time, albeit -- or the year, what have you. that was generally -- that has generally been the case for some time. >> i hope i have this right. not a single american was killed in iraq in december of this past year. >> in november, there was killed in action, suicides and

accidents. in december, you are right, there was none. in january, there was when. >> the general has graciously agreed to answer some questions. we requested that you respect to the council's policy and as a question of our guests rather than make a statement. thank you. the first question, tony. >> good afternoon. thank you, general. i am a retired partner with price waterhouse cooper. thank you for being here. there was an article in "time magazine" on secretary gates a couple of weeks ago. it talked in a lotçó about the dynamic of politics and that he was in a unique situation, having worked in the previous

and the current administration. i wondered about you and what was the indication of that circumstance for u.s. professional leader in the military. >> i am a huge admirer of secretary gates. i am among several who was hoping that he would stay on and be invited to stay on and continue to serve. he has done an extraordinary job for our country as the secretary. the truth is that he has been a professional all of his life. he has worked under five presidents, from different parties. was the deputy director at one time of the cia and then the director before retiring. by then, he had also done the other great leadership, such as texas a&m.

but for military individuals, i would like to think that is easier. at the end of the day, he was appointed by a political figure in what is termed a political appointment. we have to be apolitical. we must try hard to do that. when a particular president mentioned your name 80 times, you were in a special position. çóbut that was a fairly unique position. i do try to remind people of something that i had done that was a private act in 2002. i had decided that was going to stop voting. it was something that i did alone. i did not mention it to anybody.

a few years later, i am really glad that i did it because it's that -- because it had established that i did what a truly meant, to be apolitical. but i think the country is best served -- i am not saying that people should not vote in uniform. i had a certain level -- i had reached a certain level where it might have some significance. but senior military leaders provided their best professional military advice. they do not worry about whether that is going to resonate on capitol hill, in the white house, or even in the pentagon. they do have to have the strategic context in mind. you cannot ask for something that is not there. you cannot place on bridges demands on the system. but you should -- you cannot

place outrageous demands on the system. i had told somebody else that's it was their business -- else that it was their business to figure out if capitol hill liked it or not. when a decision is made, your obligation is to carry out the decision and to do so faithfully and completely. that is what i have tried to do. there was a point in the decisionmaking process where it would be useful in afghanistan. i mentioned it to the president could be assured that general mcchrystal and i are going to faithfully -- i mentioned it to the president. be assured that general mcchrystal and bair going to

faithfully follow this through -- and i are going to faithfully follow this through. we are now carrying out the decision that was made by the president. i think that is exactly how it has to be. if we try to anticipate what folks want to hear and shade ribeyes based on that, your head is down the wrong road -- and shade your eyes based on that, your head is down the wrong road. >> what do you believe is the formula for cooperation between these two different disciplines and how can the american people support it? >> i would like to think that what we did in iraq is a pretty good example. it brought diplomats and the military together.

that is one piece of that. is that correct? >> [unintelligible] >> i hope in know that, together with secretary gates, i am one of the biggest chance on capitol hill of increase resources for the state department and for a id -- for aid. the military did not raise its hand and say that we wanted to do nation-building in 2003. we were told in kuwait -- i was a division commander then. we were pretty focused on this big bite we were going to have ended was a pretty significant fight. you look back with retrospect and said, that did not seem all that hard. do not tell that to the troopers that are on the ground doing it. but we were told to just worry about getting to baghdad. so we got to baghdad a little bit faster than folks thought. we looked around for the man and

there was not a whole lot coming up behind us. the hundred and first then goes up to northern iraq and there was nobody there. i called the italian brigade commanders and said, you know, i think i am about to make a strategic decision. we are going to do nation- building. you say, what was a big deal about that? you have to remember the context. some of my commanders did. did we not say that we were not planted to nation-building and there were speeches about that -- that we were not going to do nation-building and there were articles and speeches about that? we weren't technically or we weren't technically or legally, by a national law, obligations to the people and we needed to get on with it. so, we did.

we had extraordinary capabilities. i had after battalions, to thousand engineers alone, with heavy equipment, capability, and contractors. they could do everything. ultimately, over time, they got us money which costs ammunition. in you can keep going from there. the truth is that we would have loved to have had just a substantial number of state department personnel following right in with us, following very quickly behind us. the number of civil affairs, that is a small force, and the number i had was substantial. so, we are the champions of that. there is the reason i spoke with a global mission director conference this year. to get a better respect and

appreciation for what they do. defense development, the three d's, all of them are essential. you cannot accomplish anything that we are trying to do without anything less than the whole of the governments. there is an s on the end because it involves multiple governments. we do not want to do these on our own. .

then who was one to help build this thing out? there was an army of one, a greek woman could we said, we have a whole bunch of -- a great woman. police said, we have a whole bunch of field clinics. we can bring some hospital administrators and give you an infantry platoon and some vehicles, chou and water.

how would this be? of course, it was a big success. so it has to be together. we decided early on that cooperation was not optional between the embassy's and all of the other elements -- between the embassies and all of the other elements. we were good to our word. >> general petraeus, i am sure that i can speak on behalf of millions and millions of americans across the country who want to thank you so much for your incredible service to iraq and to america. i hope you do not mind me putting it plugged in for you there. i have one softball question for you today. we call them snowball's here in philadelphia -- snowballs here

in philadelphia. when you retire, will you write about being the commander in these two fields? can you tell us now in little bit about how your sort of counterinsurgency was originated and how it developed and how you develop it and where it goes from here? thank you so much for being here today. >> again, it is a privilege to be here with you. beyond that, i am the one who feels privileged. the young men and women that they're the ones who take the big ideas that men at my level try to come up with and try to turn them into reality on the ground, outside the wire and under the armor. it is a privilege for guys in a position like mine to be in the army with them thank you for the snowball. i thought it was going to be another snowball, as you might

imagine. i imagine you not asking that would give the answer is no. [laughter] there is a great song by lorrie morgan. thii have thought about writinga book. obviously, i have an academic background. i have done a fair amount of writing could do not tell anyone that i was a speechwriter for a while. -- i have done a fair amount of writing. do not tell anyone that i was a speechwriter for a crow. with respect for the counterinsurgency doctrine that we codified in the field manual back in 2006, i think it was the firsfastest field manual ever produced. a lot of us had spent a fair amount of time on it. my dissertation at princeton,

for example, was on the lessons of vietnam for the u.s. military when it came to advice and the use of force. i had really gone into that and read about the french indochina experience, the french and algeria, the british and oman, malaysia -- you name it. all around the world, these kinds of endeavors have a certain fascination for folks, i think. i saw a bit of it for myself in central america as a young maj. i get to work with the leader of the u.s. southern command. he was general jack galvin. i saw of how the campaign plan, the national campaign plan for all salvador came together and the components of it.

we kept betting this around. back then, they were called lics for low intensity conflicts. we did do some targeted raids and so forth. bosnia was very instructive in the regard as well. it did not seem like there was a lot of connecticut activity. but many of us were involved in the -- was a lot of genetikinetc activity. but many of us were involved in that. it was very instructive on how you pull this together. so you have a genetikinetic and- kinetic. some folks think that petraeus

was exiled 20 came back from his second tour because he was either -- was exiled when he came back from his second tour because he was either too high profile or something else. i was told that i was given [unintelligible] the guidance was simple. shake up the army. i said, i can do that. you just put the insurgent in charge of the institution. the commander their overseas all of the education for the commissioned, warrant, and non- commissioned officers. the doctrine center, that is the big ideas. the education, that is communicating it to your leaders. the practice, you control the scenarios for that.

the lessons learned center, the center for leadership, you name it. we had the [unintelligible] it was a tremendous opportunity. it was never about 1%. i can tell you about that much. -- it was never about one person. i continue that much. -- i can tell you that much. we had enough time to sit down and capture what we have learned, to inform it with the the history we had studied, our previous experiences, and pull it all together and codify it in a field manual that did have a substantial impact in how it

enabled our institutions to be prepared for what we had to do, then in iraq and now in afghanistan. >> we have time for one brief question. >> five years ago, a number of us had [unintelligible] he impressed all of us. [unintelligible] it is hard to recognize the man today. [unintelligible] could you tell us how you see [unintelligible] >> i think that president karzai has demonstrated extraordinary qualities along the way.

first, there's personal courage. i don't know if you have heard the story of how he was brought back into the country and was nearly killed. it is an extraordinary story in the beginning. then it became a unifying feature -- then he became a unifying feature in leader for the country and help to get it going in the right direction. candidly, all of us allowed the insurgency to become a resurgent. the levels of violence began

rising back in 2006. the continued and they have gone up each year a bit more in the cycle of fighting that has defined -- that is defined by the seasons in afghanistan. that has made his job extraordinarily difficult. then you have to overlay on all of this the tribal aspect of afghanistan that you cannot escape. you have to keep the history, the culture, the traditions, and so forth of afghanistan foremost in your mind as you think about why you're not going to try to turn this country into switzerland in the next year or two years. you have to be realistic in your aspirations. that is one of the very good things that came out of the process that president obama oversaw that ultimately resulted in the policy that he announced at west point in december. so you have to have all of that in mind.

again, it is against the backdrop of increasing violence that makes everything so difficult n starts to take on certain aspects -- so difficult and start to take on certain aspects. that starts to create some ethnic issues that make it even more difficult. he is the individual riding this tiger or bucking bronco, of whatever it may be, with all of the baggage that he has to bring along because it is afghanistan, because there is 70% illiteracy, because the country has been at war for 30 plus years, a country ruled by the taliban most recently and a number of white extremist individuals. i think it is only fair to him

that we understand the context in which he is trying to exercise leadership, trying to be the george washington of his country, but in a context and a set of circumstances that makes it very difficult to do its in the way that we would judge, i think, what is right. on the one hand, we have to have on the one hand, we have to have very much what it is but also be cognizant of how that country has run, and be realistic in one's assessments of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and how we then go about achieving it. can i do one last thing then? we have slides. you should know -- please give me credit for not using the

powerpoint slides once in my briefing. it is the inalienable right of all four-star army generals to use powerpoint as part of our first amendment -- first amendment rights. there's an asterisk on that. i think this was the largest reenlistment ceremony in our military history. this was a picture of 1215 soldiers, sailors, chairman, and marines, raising their right hand in the air, reciting the oath of reenlistment. i was privileged to be the reenlistment officer or that ceremony. that was my former headquarters when i was the commander and it was the fourth of july, 2008. we did not set out to have the largest ceremony in history. i am competitive, but we had not set out on it. it kept growing and growing. there we were. again, you say, what in the

world -- my gosh, these individuals were on their second or third tour -- full year tour of combat. by raising their right hand and reciting that both in a combat zone, they knew it would be very likely that they would be asked to come back for yet another combat tour. as i said, they did it for a number of reasons. it was before the economic downturn. it was when pretension and recruiting were a little more challenging. -- retention and recruiting were a little more challenging. there is a fierce desire to not let down your buddies on your right and left in a tough spot on combat. they did it because, deep down, even though they will not beat their chests about it, they do think they are doing something very important. they did it because they have a sense that americans and their fellow citizens back home deeply value what it is that they're

doing and appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. i want to close again by just saying thank you -- families are making. i want to close again i just saying thank you. regardless of what you think of iraq and afghanistan -- remember walking away from boston one time and there was a sign of their of that said "hate the war, love the troops." i told my wife, and 50% is not bad. thank you for that end for all the you do to make sure that our men and women in uniform feel appreciated. thank you very much. [applause] >> a little bit more. just another minute. i am sorry. hold on.

>> in general, there is an old saying in business that there is no such thing as a good company. there are only good people. and when you change the people, you change the company. in many ways, you are a living example of that. a lot of people coming in and out of the army and in and out of the public, -- a lot of people, in and out of the army and in and out of the public, were waiting for you to fail. you have won over a large number of people who, in turn, have ended up helping you. we wish you the best in afghanistan for a similar kind of result. the world affairs council is a non-partisan organization to

bring a part -- to bring about discussion for the world's most important events. i would like to leslie in light dr. raza begari, a generous friend, and to the podium. >> thank you, ed, for welcoming tme here. i know you have said that i have the art of telling a 30-minute speech in two minutes. but i am nervous and it may take longer. thank you, general petraeus, for your remarks.

we know that you are fighting a devious and a -- a devious and emmy -- a devious enemy. we discovered comfort in knowing that you are doing your best to lead the charge, to combat extremism and terrorism, and for more political and economic stability around the world. for that, we thank you and we're proud of you. dunno, in my view, a stable and secure southland -- general, in my view, a stable and secure southeast asia [unintelligible] we recognize the significance of the region. in partnership with the world affairs council, we have

established a foundation, a program designed to engage, exchange, and educate citizens of all ages on the complexities of this volatile part of the world that could potentially put the entire world at risk appeared to end this program, it is my head -- at risk. to end this program, it is my privilege to offer a heartfelt thank you to your longstanding service to the common good enduring during dedication to the core ideals first moralized -- and during -- service to the common good and to your dedication to the core deals first memorialized here it in the city of brotherly love.

proclaim liberty it among all lands and all inhabitants. >> thank you very much. it is very kind of you. [applause] thank you. put your hand on there. thank you very much. the honor is >> his film was the focus of our recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. david bossie, tonight on c- span's "q&a." >> it is the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. see the entire collection on line.

>> iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad spoke thursday at a rally marking the 31st anniversary of the islamic revolution. this tv coverage an english translation is courtesy of press tv, iranian estate run television. he talked at length about the conflict with the west. he announced that the country had produced its first stop of 20% enriched uranium, but said they are not producing a nuclear bomb. this lasts about an hour and 10 minutes.

>> the been hampering the progress of this great nation. -- they have been hampering the progress of this great nation. for two reasons, they have always opposed freedom and prosperity. the first reason is related to

the characteristics of the iranian nation. they note today that the iranian nation, in the course of history -- due to itsñi re- civilization and culture, has managed to influence international equations any time it had the opportunity. they know that we, for centuries, particularly after the aftermath of islam have been the flag bears for stabilization fund -- for civilization and a science and knowledge. many parts of the world are influenced by the civilization of iran and the developments in iran will soon influence them all.

they know well that the iranian nation has the capacity to get engaged in regional and international management's and play a constructive role. the second reason for their opposition is the particular situation of this region. undoubtedly, this region is the most important, the most sensitive, and the most influential region of the world. any power that can control the interactions in this region will be able to influence international and global relations. our region as a three important features. the first feature of this region is that this region is the first

place of all cultures -- the birthplace of all cultures and sustainable civilization. it is the place where the divine profits have been appointed as messengers of god -- divine prophets have been appointed as messengers of god, speaking as to morality. scientist, gnostics, and scholars of the region. one should refer to major mineral and natural energy resources of this region. anyone that can dominate the energy resources of this middle east region has attained of the tools for dominating the whole

world. the dilapidated colonialism of britain managed to dominate major parts of the world -- world war ii, its outcome, and that the victory by the then alliances was due to the chief energy resources -- their domination of the resources of the middle east region. they plundered these resources and use that for the war. they attained victory by doing so. the other feature of the region is the intersection -- up to politically speaking, this

region has -- and geopolitically speaking, we have the potential for influence in this region. when you stand at opal point of this intersection -- focal point of this intersection, you can dominate the relationships. in the course of history, when a power or group or government dominated this region, it has actually dominated the whole world. in the meantime, there were powers and empires that did not play a role in this region. they were rapidly wiped off the political scenes of that time.

the occupation of palestine, the establishment of the regime, and the absolute support by certain western countries and governments supporting the atrocities of that regime, that illegitimate and fake regime. create baseless grounds, spreading lies. they have paid a the way for dominating this region -- paved the way for dominating this region and eventually the whole world. they have imposed this malicious regime on the nations of the region. the people of a run, the influence of the people of iran and the the role of the people of iran in our regional relations and its direction is

quite clear to the hegemony powers. everyone knows that we have the capacity to massively influence all regional relations and interactions. they oppose us because they want to -- they seek to dominate the whole world. in fact, an infinite iran, a free iran -- and advanced and powerful iran is considered an impediment to the objectives. this is the secret behind the opposition with the iranian nations. they want the iranian nation to be back ordered -- backwatered, kept weak, and be under the

domination of atrocious dictators, the defendant to others, and at the same time, eliminate the independence and freedom of iran. the freedom, independence, and prosperity -- grounds will be paved for the progress of the iranian nation and accretion of new movement. in fact, they oppose the freedom, and even the republican nature. it has been emanated from the genuine culture of islam. they oppose such things because they know that, under such conditions, grounds will be paved for the prosperity and

blossoming of the iranian nation. to summarize, one can say that through dominating our region, they want to actually guarantee the domination -- the hegemony over the whole world and hamper the iranian efforts. the nation of iran is a great nation and creates grant your and glory and they opposed the grant your and glory of the -- grandeur and glory of the crimean nation. -- of the iranian nation. regional issues, these are all pretexts and a cover-up for hiding the main objectives of the dominant powers in this region.

all of you have seen their double standard policies and i do not want to repeat them. let's just have a review. seeing the past 31 years of their enmity towards us, what the goals have they achieved and what was the objective attained by the iranian nation? let's take a glance back at the years before the victory of the revolution and the early days of the revolution. we must conduct research and studies in order to become familiar with such concepts. 31 years ago, they were the indisputable powers of this region and the world. in reality, they were -- there were conversions in the world. both blocks were after

dominating the whole world and plundering the humanity of human beings. they were both after creating modern slavery. one was chanting a slogan of supporting belabors -- the laborers, and saw to turn human beings into week laborers of the hegemony system. the other one chanted that slogan of capitalism and liberal list slogans. it was after converting all nations into laborers of major capitalists -- global capitalists -- they even -- in order to accelerate the process of consumption and production in filling the pockets of major world capitalists, they even forced women and children to do

what they wished them to do. they actually wanted to create a modern slavery. and every one of them chanted a particular slogan. both blocks were after trampling upon the real prestige and personality of humans and also tarnishing the divine characteristics. every nation and government had to follow one of those blocks, otherwise it lacked identity. if one wanted to actually get rid of one of these blocks, and -- then you had to resort to the other block. there was no third option left for nations. there were two powers. one was worse than the other. both could be considered the worst.

both largely contributed to the destruction of moral values. each plot had its own slogan in both blocs -- each bloc at its own slogan and both blocs -- speaking of the right path of human prosperity, both blocs had saw to eliminate these values. speaking of honesty, a french jet, purity, faith, brotherhood -- friendship, sarotte, faith, brotherhood -- they try to set aside these values and resorted to seeking power and attached to much importance to wealth. more than -- they actually

targeted and killed more than 120 million individuals in the past years and made many more homeless and injured. they, in fact, created the distinction of glclasses and imposed in security. more than 80% of the people of the world were living in poverty, close to absolute poverty. and only a few people were just fill in their pockets more than before. there was an arms race and it the manufacturer nuclear and biological -- and that they manufactured a nuclear and biological bombs. it posed a threat to the whole world. the lives of the people were trampled upon.

due to the blessings of god and the emergence of the islamic revolution in the resistance of the iranian nation, within a short period of time, that eastern wing of this domineering system that is marxism and the communism system were destroyed and collapsed and it became part of history. due to the blessings of god, it will never revive again. the people are chanting in support of the leadership. due to the blessings of god, the western wing of this inhumane hegemonic system is facing a deadlock. it's theoretical and practical

deadlock in policy, economy, culture, and military might. you can see the ongoing system in the world. they are deadlocked and struggling in a deadlock and a stalemate situation. hopefully, the western wing of the hegemony system -- god willing, in the near future, this inhumane, malicious system will also collapse. [audience chanting] they have claimed that the end of history -- and they announced

that they have reached the climax of human perfection and that there is no superior to their position. in fact, they have reached the end of history of their lives. you see that in the past 31 years, what has the iranian nation done? every year, a major step has been taken for word. a new victory has been achieved. the iranian nation has reached a new climax. i want to remind you of the early days of the revolution. we were a nation that had just got rid of colonialism and a dictatorship. we had just tasted real freedom

and independence. but speak -- but we were fully deprived and oppressed from the military, economic, scientific, and political viewpoints. we did not have a remarkable position. i do not want to remind you of the bitter realities and just remind you of the deprivations that were imposed upon us and the acts of humiliation against the iranian nation. the lack of progress by the iranian nation for 150 years due to the role of colonialism. we were so deprived and oppressed that we were not even able to inform the world people of our views. we were a forgotten nation.

we were a third class nation. they thought the days -- they thought they can actually up route to the iranian nation within a short period of time. -- uproot the iranian nation within a short period of time. they had announced actions to this purpose. both blocs were coordinated. due to the blessings of god, the unity of the iranian nation and the genuine culture of islam and also the bright path of the imam and the governance of the supreme jurist, managed to nullify their plots. from a scientific point of view , the iranian nation has made considerable progress and it has

been the swiftest scientific progress in the world. iran is treading the path of scientific progress. we're getting closer to the climax of scientific progress. our scientists in the field of biotechnology make new progress and discover new medicines. they discover new treatments and come up with new innovations every week. in the field of space technology, once we were humiliated. they said that iranians would have to just make parts, simple parts. but they humiliated us and claims that we could not make progress in the field of space technology, but you see that

today, our science is making progress in the field of space technology. just a few days ago, you see that our scientists just sent a living organisms to space. they may use of advanced equipment. a mouse and several roaches were sent to space and, in fact, the install cameras -- they installed cameras and instruments and it was an accelerating trend -- accelerating the speed to space. they made measurements. the data was just sent back to earth. these are all the measures for

paving the way for the presence of iranian astronauts in space. speaking of that technology, today, we have made progress in that technology. i proudly announced that today, our scientists have acquired the latest -- the laser technology, the fundamentals of laser technology and are going to make progress at manufacturing new equipment in this field and provide the iranian nation with such equipment. [indistinct audience chanting] gaining access to laser technology is going to

revolutionize the technologies in medicine, medical sciences, physics, chemistry, and in other sciences where we are actually having astronomical progress. in the nuclear field, you are aware of the nuclear progress. today, due to the blessings of god, iran is witnessing scientific progress in the field of technology, due to the innovative lots of iranian young people and scientists. everyday you hear news of new progress from the economic -- new progress. from the economic point of view, a deprived and poor nation, a dependent nation, based on their own reports -- the nation has turned into an economic power with the 17th ranking.

with the implementation of the developer of plan and because of subsidies, we will turn into the 12th ranking in view of our economic power. [indistinct audience chanting] major investments have been made. yesterday you witnessed a single case -- it was an investment made and also in many other petrochemical sectors. they have been utilized and put into operation. the whole country has turned into a workshop for investments and in the economic activities

and exuberance going on in the field of construction -- the same is true about the construction sector. 55,000 villages and tens of cities in the country suffered from backwardness and deprivation, but the situation has changed. many areas in georgia -- endured. we have schools, health, communications. we have activities going on in villages that were on the verge of destruction. i do not want to offer figures and statistics that you are all aware of. the westerners plundered the oil and gas resources. today, more than 90% of the population benefits from gas, natural gas, and, in fact, the

people make use of the existing resources. i want to give you news. the villagers, the culture of the country -- i want to proudly announced that in the next few days we're going to have a celebration for the transfer of electricity to all villages that have a population of more than 20 houses. in the fields of culture, sports, and arts, the same is true. we are witnessing the blossoming of cultures, r-texas -- artistic activities, and sports. everyday, you see new progress. you go to the cinema.

listen to music and read literature. the different parts of art and sports and did different cultural sectors -- iran is making progress and blossoming. this is what the westerners are afraid of. from the view of politics and internal -- international relations, everyone knows that, due to the blessings of god, iran is the most important and biggest power in the region and is inspiring all of the regional and independent global nations and governments who know that iran is a unique state. it is the most powerful, but it is competent power, cultural

power, the power of humanity and the power for motivating humans. it is the power for making cumins aware of human conscience -- making humans aware of human conscience. they know well that there are more -- and they are more dependent on us. due to the blessings of god almighty, today, the convoy of iranian nation progress and prosperity is moving forward more swiftly. no power can resist the progress of the iranian nation.

[audience chanting] the people are chanting slogans in support of the president's remarks. we also face certain problems, but we have a faith. we believe that, due to the blessings of god and the hard work of our young people and a great nation of iran, where corn to overcome all of the difficulties with no doubts -- we are bowing to -- goin gto overcome all of the difficulties. there is no chance for victory for others. [audience chanting]

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 very past and at every juncture where they try to spread false comments and tried to go on with their schemes. there were houses are -- warehouses are filled with nuclear weapons. they had equipped certain individuals in this region with nuclear weapons and support such

atrocious elements in this region. at the same time, they are chanting the slogan that they want to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. they seek to resist the iranian nation progress. the monopolize technology and through special projects they want to hamper the aryan nation from achieving -- the iranian nation from achieving new technologies. i do not want to just shed light on the dimensions of the issue again the sense that -- again. they said that we should not have enrichment and nuclear fuel. when we started tour operations, they tried to yell at us and shouted and made use of all these instruments at their disposal.

they said that you should shut down your activities. but due to the resistance of the iranian nation and the supreme leader and also due to the kind blessings of the imam, our nation managed to attain victory. the iranian nation became a nuclear state. later, they said that they want to cooperate. in geneva, they said they want to cooperate. we welcomed it. we said that you have tried to counter the iranian nation. what was the result? why do you not engaged in insurrection instead of confrontation? -- engage in interaction instead

of confrontation? we tried to provide them with an opportunity to correct their attitude. everyone should know -- you know well that based on iaea regulations, in case a member is in need of 20% fuel, all the members are obliged to help unconditionally. they can just received the cost . the other members must provide the fuel, if the efforts are aimed at research, medical purposes, humanitarian purposes. all the members are obliged to cooperate. that is, in order to give them an opportunity to correct their attitude and actually take the right path, we gave a letter to the iaea and said that the

tehran reactors -- we are in need of 20% fuel. whoever wants to provide us with the fuel can go ahead. at the agency -- the agency informed us that one or two countries were prepared to help. the united states and russia. we said that, okay, we have to set up the tape -- set at the table and negotiate. when negotiations started, they said that you have to return your interest fuel. -- enriched fuel. we said this was not obligatory. along to our selves. based on regulations, you have to give us the fuel and receive the money. they insisted. we said, very well. for the hundredth time, in order to show our good will, that is

ok. we can calculate the amount of fuel that must be given and received and you can do the enrichment. the fuel is here. as soon as the 20% in richmond is completed, we can engage in the swap -- 20% enrichment is completed, we can engage in the swap. but they said, and it 3, give us a fuel and later we will obtain it for you. we are the purchasers and based on iaea regulations, they should provide us with that commodity and unconditionally. it is a tradition in the world if you want to order a commodity, you are the one that actually sets the conditions. it is the hegemonic nature. they insist that you should

first give us the fuel -- we're going to take away the fuel, and later we will provide you with the fuel. they started to just go on with the cheap attitude. this said they wanted to take the fuel away and claimed they had wanted to hamper us from manufacturing a nuclear bomb. this is the literature that belongs to the era. our response was quite clear. we told them that we do not trust you. that is based on our historical experiences, based on engaging in propaganda. they issued a result -- the issued a resolution at the agency and harnessed the prestige of the agency, due to

their expansionist policy. based on an iaea regulations, they are obliged to provide us with the fuel. they should just say they do not want to give us a pool. what are you setting conditions and claiming that you want to hamper iran from making an atomic bomb? they even step beyond this. .

>> we told them that the iranian nation will never give in to bullying her remarks and illogical remarks and has no fear. we told them we told them that the fuel for

the reactor is going to produce medicine for 800,000 people. the fuel is running out. we do not have much time. we have obtained the fuel and for this reason we told them we only have two or three months. you just right -- if you just provide us with the fuel, that is okay, but if you do not, we are going to produce the fuel ourselves. either give us 20% fuel and receive the money or get the fuel and receive 3.5% fuel instead and that was the generous proposal, but once again the lost their chance. we are aware of what they think and and they thought the iranian nation has been weakened. we told them if you do not get the fuel, we're going to produce the fuel and they did not

believe and they started acting in a joking manner. they made a few tile remarks and -- a made futile remarks and not care about the patient. you remember several unsuccessful, a virus was mutated in the lab in order to sell madison. this is their nature. this is the nature of those who want to eliminate states of purity in life. they did not give us the fuel and we were forced to produce the fuel ourselves. i want to tell you today that the day before a yesterday, the 20% fuel, the process of producing fuel was started and i want to tell you that due to the blessings of god, i want to

proudly announced the news by the head of the atomic energy organization was that the first convoy of the 20% fuel was produced and provided for the scientists. due to the blessings of god, this process will continue for filling the demands, for meeting the demands of the country. i want to mention a couple of points. as soon as the production process is started, they said iran cannot produce the fuel and started mocking us and started repeating their old remarks that are of no value anymore.

but when they realize the process is a serious one, they started threatening us again. it seems they have forgotten that today they are in a weak position. they are in a position, and ecological and lawless position. there are not in a position to make such remarks and i expect the iranian nation to respect what they say. in the middle of their statements, they announced the u.s. is ready to help us retain a 20% of fuel. very well. we said you can give the fuel and unconditionally. whoever provides us with the fuel, we have to purchase sets. even from the u.s. we don't have a problem. you have a problem with iran becoming a nuclear state and you

should correct your behavior. some of them say we don't produce radio medicine and they say they're going to sell it to us and we say what's the problem with iran producing radio medicine and you can purchase it from us. we are going produce blessed it good get it from us. why should we purchase it from you. medicine and you can purchase it from us. why should we purchase it from you? they speak in such a way as a cell or a hundred kilos of 3.5% of the uranium is taken out of iran then that would be a major task, a major victory for them.

compared to 20% fuel, we are going to give it to you. we are going to give you your wage and you will see the ongoing progress of the iranian nation is not going to be hampered by such activities. we are manufacturing several kilos of such material. we are stockpiling them and in the near future, god willing, we are going to increase threefold our daily production. they should do something in order to create trusts in the iranian nation and other nations. they should listen carefully. if we were in their place in order to show our honesty, we would have obtained the 20% fuel and appreciated the iranian

nation. that is the regulations enacted by them themselves and they could have observed the regulations so and number of nations could realize their it is honesty -- the third point is they launched a ballyhooed. they said iran was 20% fuel will get closer to the manufacturing of a nuclear bomb. i think they are either uninformed or aliterate or they pretend to be uninformed or illiterate. of course, we have some signals that the people in lower classes and organizations do not give them sufficient

information, but we do not believe a president of the country like u.s., britain, or at the head of the government of germany. they are so uninformed and illiterate. in such a way they would not know all of these fuels are kept under the monitoring of the agencies and are used under the agency's monitoring. is it possible to manufacture a nuclear bomb? if it is possible, then announce it so everyone would know. meanwhile, they all know even right now, we have the capability to produce fuel with high enrichment. why do they think by producing a 20% in richmond, why do they

think something has happened? we have the capability to go on with enrichment above 20% and 80%. but since we are in no need of it, we have no enrichment. since -- they should listen carefully that we are not lyres and cowards like you. -- liars and towers like you. -- and how words like you. -- liars and cowards like you. it is not the path of manufacturing a bomb. if you do not know, you should hire on this and skilled

scientists and experts to explain to you what is being done. all of our activities are transparent under the supervision of the agency. the bomb is manufactured by those who have not signed the npt and are not under those provisions. those who are worried about their future and think about deceiving other nations need nuclear bombs. i want to draw your attention to this point. they should know that our nation is so courageous that in case it intends to make a nuclear bomb, it will openly announce and make the bomb and have no fear.

when we say we do not manufacture a bomb, we mean it. we do not manufacture a bomb. we do not believe in it. we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb. but if we want to manufacture, we have the courage to announce it. if you think a 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 making a mistake. wheat are openly announcing that through your management methods, we oppose your management massive in the world and we oppose your bullying policies. we oppose your policy of

imposing your view in we impose you're pondering policies and your method of administering the world that is filled with discrimination, it is inhumane. we have the it -- we have the courage to announce this and you should have the courage to say that you want to dominate the region and the iranian nation does not permit you to do so. this is the source of the dispute. the whole world should know they want to dominate this region and the iranian nation will never allow them to dominate this region.

you are spreading i'm real remarks and you are causing distress. you want to cause disputes among nations when there is talk of the iranian satellite, you from in television interviews and tell us is a threat when there is talk of a satellite carrier rocket, you claim you are in danger. with this metope -- with this medical technology progress, nanotechnology progress, when our youths become champions, you feel danger. in which direction are you heading toward? any progress, you oppose any progress by the iranian nation under different pretext. you should have the courage to tell reality to world nations

and today due to the resistance of the iranian nation, world nations have become vigilant and are aware and that they will not allow you to obtain your hegemonic objectives. the era of hegemony has come to an end. you cannot dominate the world through lies. the whole world should know they are facing difficulties in order to cover up their problems and spread to other parts of the world. the great free text and engage in different games and they want to cover up the political and cultural fiasco. they want to externalize their problems, but they should know they cannot do this and, hopefully, due to the blessings

of god, they will suffer a crushing defeat. i am officially announcing that the era of being a superpower has come to an end in the world. the fourth point, the whole world knows, i want to reemphasize, we seek friendship

and cooperation. we do not welcome confrontation, but they all know the iranian nation will never given to bullying and will resist the whole world. i advise them to return to honesty. to embrace honesty. so that the nation of iran and the region will touched -- will trust them and this is to their benefit. we expect mr. obama to make

changes, to be able to make changes, and we announced we have got to help. we are told he is under pressure, very well. he should act properly, direct in method and act on the basis of justice and respecting other nations in order to gain power and eliminate the pressure, but to eliminate pressure will not eliminate the problem. regretfully, it is rapidly turning into disappointment. we don't want this. but the attitude is. everyone. he is just following bush's

attitude with a new mask. we do not want such remarks to be manifested, to be put into practice. some effort of the analysis that bringing him to the political scene is just aimed at mending the tarnished image of the u.s., but the policies are the same. we do not want such analyses to come true. we want him to manage to succeed, go on and make up and compensate for bush paused in the main measures and leave behind a good record. -- bush's measures and leave behind a good record. we did not want the zionist

culture. we want obama to serve, but he is losing the chance and not acting properly. he is moving in a direction against himself and against the american people. what they have done in iraq and the american administration has supported saddam hussein against us for many years. in the course of an unmanly war, they supported him and later, on the pretext of countering the occupied iraq, they destroyed saddam hussein, they destroyed the political party and they have recently used the political tactic and put the iraqi government and nation under pressure to return the

baathisits to power. why you want to impose your wishes on the nation's. why do you wish to impose your vision on iraq? due to the blessings of god, you will not succeed. in palestine, they have tipped the hands of the criminals i and us open. -- the criminal zionists open. they want to put into practice their witness and that they should know the zionist regime has come to its end and it is shortening its life span. there is the --ñi regime is cloe to its annihilation. it is bringing closer the time of its destruction and annihilation. see what they are doing in

afghanistan and pakistan. they are killing hundreds of people on a daily basis. they established firms on dirt the disguise of security companies and they signed contracts with them and the company plans a bomb and becomes responsible for discovering a bomb and causes skirmishes and conflict and they make them responsible for discovering the bomb. they want to cause disruptions in afghanistan and pakistan. later pacas -- later india and china. they have long term objectives and want to transfer the economic and political difficulties to the heart of asia and they want to compensate for their own failures in this region. they resort to lies and conspiracy. they saw hundreds of millions of dollars to the region and create conflicts and can soon

be it armed in weaponry to sell more. the era of such an act of deception has come to an end. the nation's are asleep and they think nations do not see such realities and they think a nation actually sees the world from the camera they have installed and they think the whole world, they come to the podium and speak a few words and the world nations interpret the developments from their perspective. we want to tell them that we want you to achieve prosperity. you should correct your attitude and as long as you have not lost the chance, you should move in the direction of nations, this is it to your own benefit. if you do not move into such a direction, due to the blessings

of god, in the near future, one will witness york collapse and eternal annihilation and humiliation. if you show honesty, the iranian nation is willing to help you to say the from a deadlock. -- to save you from a deadlock. you can live with others in the right way. i want to address the nation's of the region -- maintain your vigilance. the capitalist system has come to its end. today, the massive turnout of the iranian nation today is an

emphasis on the ending of the capitalist system and thought and is a confirmation of determination of such an inhumane notion of thought. they have come to the end and they want to use, take advantage of other nations to cover up their values and spread crises to regions like yemen and find a way out of the crisis created by themselves, but they are mistaken again. they are making another mistake and as long as they go on with their tyrannical measures, they will further get stuck in the quagmire they're creating.

they do not have the might to counter the iranian nation. they are after creating conflict and tension and other regions and countries. everyone must be vigilant and these are the last days of the life of the capitalist system. in the region, through cooperation, through our cooperation, we can maintain security and contribute to progress. we are not in need of them. this is that right path of tomorrow. at the end, i want to appreciate and pray to god, i want to blessings to the great nation of iran. i want to appreciate the imam

and may god expedite his reappearance. we have always insisted that the iranian nation and region -- >> this day is marking the anniversary of the islamic revolution. -- islamic revolution. it is a good synopsis of what is going on around the world today. i want to have a couple highlights -- dealing with how the west has exerted itself on to the region and in particular on to iran. before that, a quick highlight of iran's civilian nuclear drive and in return process. he touched on that which

ultimately, even though members of the iaea are required to provide the fuel and cooperate with the 20% fuel enrichment based on the fact is used especially for medical purposes, that they are not complying with that. russia and the united states did not comply and ultimately have given iran an answer which iran, if you followed the news this past week, on tuesday, that was the first day of them pursuing enrichment of up to 20%. he talked about the united states at length. basically mention the fact it has created instability in the region. managing the wars in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, and the world should open its eyes to see how the united states is exerting its influence, even of the failures are becoming more evident in the region. he touched upon you as

president, barack obama, that he needs to serve the people and not comply with the zionist regime's ideology exerted on him. he said barack obama should compensate for his predecessor, george bush's in human record. lastly, i want to touch on something that has always been the main focus of the public, the media of the west. he said iran does not believe in going after manufacturing or pursuing nuclear weapons or going after the bomb, he said if he were, he would announce it. however, the west is projecting as fabrication on to the world and people should wake up realize that the world should not be seen through the lens of the united states and the west. >> a bipartisan group of senators, led by john mccain of arizona, called for new human- rights sanctions on iran.

the bill would target specific individuals in the country accused of committing human rights violation. the government of iran executed to political dissidents last month. this is about half an hour. 31 years of losses and -- 31 years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and leave those of -- in leave the hands of -- ha 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed and dignity trampled. in recent months, the world has

watched in awe as hundreds of thousands of iranians have said enough. they have demanded better for themselves. have taken to the streets and to the internet, risking the violent reprisal of their regime without conscience in order to insist on their universal human rights. as i speak, iranians are demonstrating peacefully again 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 up most of all favors their just cause. i have long maintained that the day the young woman named neta bled to death in the streets of tehran in the eyes of millions of people around the world was the beginning of the end of this tyrannical regime. we americans have an obligation to assist morally and material that effort for freedom and

democracy. today, joined by my friend senator lieberman, senator kyl and others, we are introducing legislation to further the cause. the bill has two parts -- it will require the president to compile a public list of individuals in iran who, starting with the presidential election last june, our complicity in human rights violations against iranian citizens and their families, the matter were in the world those abuses occur. -- a matter where in the world those abuses occur. this would be a public list posted for the world his seat on the sites of the treasury department. we will sign week -- we will shine a light on the names of of users and we will make them famous for their crimes. this bill would then banned iranian individuals from receiving u.s. visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the international emergency economic

powers act. that means freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under u.s. jurisdiction, ending all their financial transactions with u.s. banks and other entities, adds, if passed into law, this would be the first time the u.s. government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in iran because human-rights violations. in short, under this bill, iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the global reach of the u.s. financial system and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the iranian people. it should be clear that the rulers of the demand have no desire to meet their international responsibility and every desire to use the tools of violence and oppression at their disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of iran's citizens.

faced with is disturbing reality, the united states must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the iranian people and put that effort at the center of our policy toward iran. this is not about picking winners in and internal iranian matter. it's about standing up for the universal values we hold dear and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves. the human rights sanctions act is an important start of this effort. i encourage my colleagues to move quickly and pass it into law. >> thank you very much. senator mccain is absolutely right. this is a very significant day in iran, but i hope we will look back at what we're doing today as a significant turning point within the united states government. as senator mccain has said, this

is the first time, if this bill we are introducing today is enacted into law, that the united states government will apply sanctions on people with in iran for abusing the rights of the people of iran. as you know, we have been focused understandably and correctly on the application of sanctions to stop iran past nuclear weapons development program or to stop its support of terrorism. those are external threats iran represents to the region and the world. now we turn inward and it is quite appropriate because 8 government that so brutally suppresses the rights of its own people as the iranian government has, a government that lies to its own people and of the world about what they are doing within iran, a government that claims to be the most democratic in the

region and then is a country where more journalists are in jail than any other country in the world, that government cannot be trusted in international relations. this is a very significant piece of legislation and 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 on the streets of iran. as the human rights movement has

grown within the country, the government, just like every totalitarian regime has increased its suppression or attempt to suppress its own people. senator mccain said it right. the day the iranian woman was allowed to bleed to death on the streets of iran at hands of a representative of the iranian government was the beginning of the end for this fanatical, destructive, repressive, dangerous regime. i know it is difficult for people involved in this troubled with iran, i hope this legislation not only sends a message to their abusers, but sends a message to the protesters, the members of the grain movement. the fact is, this legislation

has won broad bipartisan support. we have an initial group of 10 co-sponsors of the legislation. republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, moderates. by the time we move this along, we will be supported by maybe every sector in the senate of the united states. i especially want to thank senator mccain for the leadership he has given to this cause. the fact is he has been a fighter for freedom and a freedom agenda at the center of our foreign policy throughout his career and public service. his career in uniform before. we hope this threatens the abusers in iran and we hope this legislation says to the protesters that your struggle is difficult, but as has been the

case with those who have fought charity throughout history, all the lovely -- who have fought tyranny throughout history, ultimately the cost of freedom and justice will prevail. you, the freedom fighters of iran will prevail. >> one of the things we're learning from iranian dissidents and others is when sanctions are tied to human rights abuses in iran, they will much more likely succeed. the reason is because there is debate about whether sanctions imposed on the economy of iran which affects all the people of the country will be effectively supporting our position, which is the iranian government should stop proceeding toward a clear development, or will cause the people of iran to have a bad reaction toward the west, specifically for making life more difficult.

what we have heard and what we are learning is, this sanction oriented toward human rights abuses, and will most likely enable sanctions we oppose to be effective, and that is part of the theory behind it. that's one of the important reasons it is being done on this day. i think back to a soviet dissident, when he was in prison in the soviet union. he knew the day would come when he would be free when ronald reagan declared the soviet union the evil empire. freedom did come to him and millions more. that same thing can be done with the support that america can demonstrate through this kind of legislation and our support for those were demonstrating on this very important day. >> one of the reasons the american people are angry about washington these days is the

perception we cannot agree on anything. today's announcement stands in stark contrast trade we have democrats, republicans, and independence working together. some of the most conservative and some of the most liberal members have chosen to co- sponsor this important legislation. it is a very timely announcement. not only is it the 31st anniversary of the iranian nation. people are being beaten in the streets as we speak. there president announced they have taken major steps forward to becoming a nuclear power. it is in the national security interests of america to foster the peaceful evolution of that government so that the nation of iran can join the community of nations as irresponsible country rather than domestic currently is to its own people, its neighbors, and the rest of the world. that is what today's announcement is about. our country is at its strongest and best when we align ourselves with freedom. currently, if you are a

journalist in iran, you risk being imprisoned and tortured. if you speak out against the regime, you risk being beaten and killed. we have to stand in solidarity against that kind of tyranny and despotism. the final thing i would say is i have been privileged to serve on the intelligence committee for the last several years. one of the profound questions we face is what is the antidote to radical islam and global terror? i believe the antidote is stand on the side of freedom in all the manifestations, the freedom to speak your own mind and elect a government of your own choosing. when we stand on the side of freedom, we send a beacon of hope and a message to radicalized islamic youth that there's a better way to a despotism in iraq only maintains its grip on power by beating its own civilians.

at the contrast we will win. >> senator mccain, president obama [inaudible] do you think sanctions will have the effect of rallying people around the government's? >> i believe actions taken yesterday by the administration, imposing some sanctions is helpful. i believe they're much more interested in things and i'm not sure they're going to -- i would like to make a couple of additional points.

we were in munich over the weekend and the speaker on friday night was the foreign minister of iran. it would have been an easing if it had not have been so tragic in its consequences for the american people. their human rights record was seller, along with his denial that there are trying to acquire nuclear-weapons -- that -- just one additional comment. when we help the people of poland and the workers who could -- we provided other things, but primarily a printing press so they could get information out to people of poland and particularly the workers. what we're trying to do with other partners is try to help iranian dissidents and people struggling for freedom and get

the information out, helping them free of the internet and help with the modern means of communications we have today. i hope the administration will understand that this unclenching of this has not worked. there has been over a year's delay and the iranians have proceeded inexorably toward the exit -- toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> [inaudible] >> i just told some folks downstairs that those of you who have been around a set of long time know that most of the business of the senate is conducted through unanimous consent or in a bipartisan way.

a lot of that is on the surface and may be regional more than partisan. but we do a lot of business that way. what you are seeing in the two items you mentioned are other examples of that come as is this announcement today by this bipartisan group and there are others are represented here today really represent both spectrums of both political parties. there has been a lot of emphasis because of a lot of major high- profile issues like health care debate that suggest numbers don't work together. the reality is, on a lot of things, we do work together and get things done. but there are a few very high- profile things on which there are profound differences and on those matters, we have an obligation to represent our constituents as best we see a. therefore, there will be differences that have undertones. i thought i made it clear that

for a long time i would say much if not everything we do is done on a bipartisan, working together basis. but there are high profile issues that create very strong views on both sides and their of become partisan divides and that is the nature of the senate and our political system. far too much is made of it, particularly by members of the media. >> i want to add briefly that i know the protesters, the people in iran follow what happens here. i hope they will take this broad bipartisan sponsorship of this measure as an expression of the broad, deep feeling of the american people. we stand with the grain movement in iran, those fighting for their freedom, and we stand against their oppressive government.

>> [inaudible] >> this legislation imposes a broad set of sanctions, financial institutions, petroleum, refined petroleum, -- pardon me -- i know the senator kerry has been supportive, this bill, i don't quite understand why it seems to go through senator dodd's committee and he has been very supportive. i think the administration is getting on board and i think we could see passage of this legislation fairly soon.

>> it happened quickly and it happened that unanimously, so some people may have missed it. about 10 days ago, the senate passed a broad, tough iran sanctions bill unanimously. it is on its way to a conference with a senator mccain and i rose to introduce this proposal as an amendment to that bill and for procedural reasons, senator mccain agreed to let the main bill go forward but i feel optimistic and i have talked to the chairman about this, we have a good possibility to have this proposal of hours be adopted by the conference committee as part of the broader iran sanctions bill pan will come out -- that bill and that bill come out --

have built will come out to both chambers. amedinejad's announcement today that they have gone to 20% in redmond really builds the case to hear and the united nations for movie with a real sense of urgency to tough economic sanctions against iran based on their nuclear development program. >> [inaudible] >> we know that they have blocked the internet. they have now said it that google will belong or be allowed in iran. i would be interested to see their replacement. the announcement will be forthcoming. i sure it will be incredible competition for google. they are taking every measure to shut down the modern ways we use of communicating with each

other. they are aware of what happened on facebook when neta led to death. they are aware of the rallying capability this means of communication has. they are trying to take every measure they can. i do not think there succeeding so far. our job is to help them technologically as well as morally and other ways to make sure we could find ways around their attempts to block this vital means of communications. >> something we talked about returning from germany is the support the united states government gives to radio free europe and radio liberty. radio farda is a tremendous asset to the cause of liberty because of broadcast real news in to read in a way the iranian people can appreciate the fact there is a different point of view than that of their government.

just to give an illustration, the day we were returning, we got word from our representative, the american representative running radio liberty and radio free europe, that seven people he and his staff had interviewed over the course of four months in different locations around the world to come on board with radio farda, all iranians, and all i been offered a position for that purpose, were arrested and detained in iran that day or the day before. clearly the iranian government is trying to do everything it can to repress the information that has been discussed here, which is why what senator mccain says its own board. everything the u.s. government can do to help those people will help build the case for liberty and enable them to succeed in the ad.

one way to do that is through our support for radio free europe and radio liberty. >> [inaudible] >> not to speak for senator mcconnell, but i know he felt strongly about cooperating with the democratic leadership and the white house whenever we can. it is not always possible, but this second stimulus or jobs bill or whatever you call it is part of that. it contains elements that are important to all people in the senate. i don't agree with some parts. i'm sure my colleagues to agree with other parts i do like, but it's an effort to bring together a group of thing is the large consensus can be developed around and get it passed. you saw what the senators that

out as a draft of legislation. it would be senator mcconnell's view that as soon as we return from this president's day break, the senate will take the legislation up and i have said publicly that i assume it will be adopted. jobs are clearly a very big issue. the reason i do not put that into the highest profile is i think we're going to see a series of smaller jobs stimulation packages and this is just one of them. it's not the same size and scope of the original stimulus package was. >> [inaudible] >> that agreement has not yet been reached. what they said was as part of the agreements that will be necessary to move this

bipartisan legislation for the week after next, there will also be a unanimous consent agreement that will set up the way forward for taking up considering, voting on these estate tax reforms, at a minimum, the ones senator lincoln and i have proposed. >> i am concerned how it is paid for and loading it with extraneous provisions that seems to be that we have gotten into around here. i withhold judgment until i get to see how much extraneous stuff is added on to it and how much does it increase the deficit again. >> [inaudible]

>> i would have to look at it and see what he has in mind. the fact is this was a constitutional ruling by the united states supreme court. i strongly disagreed with that as we know. but i would certainly have for i would want to sign on to any provisions, for example foreign corporations, i would have to look at. >> [inaudible] >> of the reason we passed the military commissions act at the end of 2006 was to put a stop to that. it was wrong in my view of the bush administration to do what he did.

in some deference to the bush administration, whenever interrogated a guy for 50 minutes and said we've got all the information we needed and then give him his miranda rights. second, no one works for the president of the united states questioned 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. that's an insult. that is far beyond any boundary i ever saw in the bush administration. the fact is, this individual should be in a military tribunal. we are working on legislation that indicates once the individual is deemed in need -- in any combat and combination tried only in criminal court and should never be given her and her rights. thank you very much.

>> a discussion now on what options are available to the u.s. and un in dealing with iran from thursday's "washington journal" this is about 45 minutes. continues. host: here is robin wright on the screen. she is with the institute of peace as a foreign policy analyst. she has reported from more than 140 countries for six continents for papers like "the washington post," and others and author of several books on foreign policy and we will focus on iran. guest: always nice to be here. host: we saw interesting video of president ahmadinejad, the anniversary of the islamic

revolution. help us understand the size of the crowds. how did they do that in iran? çguest: on this particular occasion, this was such an important event for both the regime and the opposition. it was a test of will, a test of strength. the regime knew that after eight months of unrest and turmoil in the country that it was particularly important to bring out as many supporters of the regime as possible, and they busted hundreds of thousands of people from not only parts of pteron but other parts of iran to signal that they are in control and that they do still have a lot of support. host: we have been seeing throughout the year the active demonstration of people opposed% to the power structure. "b

whether it was christina's on buildings or posters on the internet, -- graffiti on buildings are posters on the internet, appeals through facebook and twitter, and a call to an armed arms to signal their still very vibrant and resilience. many did get out on the streets, but it's disorganized and very early, the government put out of the religious vigilantes', its own security forces to get people off the streets and break up any gathering that might look like it would turn into an anti- government protest. . here for 45 minutes. a lot of time to get in depth about iran and u.s. policy toward that stake there. let me give you the phone numbers --

also had e-mail and twitter and you can join us that way as well. i want to ask a larger question. and maybe obvious to you because you have been reporting on this for so long -- but why should americans care for iran? guest: it is likely to be one of the two defining issues for the obama at the devastation over the next three years. it is a country that has an important geo-to strategic position. it boarded the old soviet union but it is still close to russia. china and iran possible missions is becoming very important. china isç buying a significant part of iran's oil and this is a relationship that turned around increasingly east would rather than look westward -- then westward. this is a country that has extraordinary influence in the shi'ite world. it is the largest shiite

dominated country in the world and it has its tentacles in iraq where it still has troops. it has close the like -- alliances with groups like hezbollah in lebanon and hamas. çi]i]with many of the extremist groups. it is the top ofq the list of state department state sponsors of terrorism. so, between its vast oil and gas resources to its influence and a part of the world where the u.s. has the political and economic interest, iran will always poor into the denied the state to weather is in power in tehran. host: what do analysts such as yourself see in the green revolution? guest: green movement is in many ways the most vibrant civil disobedience campaigns any world -- anywhere today. it is not just turning out on the streets in days of protest

but also what isw3 happening in the background. that in many ways shows the scope of the green movement, which is the largest position movements since the 1979 revolution. it is also creating a different kind of model of people power for the middle east, for theq islamic world, which is the last block to hold out against the democratic tide that has swept the rest of the world since the 19 seventies. -- the 1970's. whether marking the currency was anti regime slogans on national bank notes, whether it is boycotting goods advertised on state-controlled television as a signal that we don't like you are supporting the regime. there are a vast array of things people are doing in the background to signal their discontent with tehran today. host: we have seen the regime

has reacted with increasing violence. they had some trials, said some dissidents to death. how will this reverberate with the public at large? guest: i think this is where you will find a lot of people who may not have been as engaged in the political process up through the june 12 presidential erection is becoming -- elections being increasingly dissatisfied. it has affected many people beyond who have taken to the streets. there is a sense that the newspaper's been banned, the sense of big brother watching everything that is going on, that this is a state that has become militarized and is today a police state. host: is there consensus in washington about if we should support -- support this movement, and how? calguest: the obama

administration has taken an interesting position. the aftermath of the elections that were disputed over allegations of fraud, they have tried to stand back and not play a role. our focus had been on iran's nuclear program. but in december you began to see a shift as the administration began issuing statements about human rights abuses -- as the government, because of a show trial, because of the clampdown on the streets, the mass arrest, began taking a more outspoken position criticizing the regime. one of the most interesting things to happen this week is a joint statement by the united states and european union calling on iran to comply with international human-rights standards and universal declaration of human rights to which iran is a signatory. host: i have a clip i would like

to pull. a speech yesterday -- president ahmadinejad spoke frequently about iran boss in nuclear ambitions. let us listenç to a little bitf some of his remarks on that and you can help us explain why the country is going with its nuclear ambitions. >> when we say we do not manufacture a bomb, we need it. we do not manufacture a bomb. we do not believe in it. we did not believe in manufacturing a bomb. we have the coverage to announce it. if you think a nuclear bomb can save you, you can keep it. if you think a nuclear bomb can't save it, you can keep it for yourself you should know you are mistaken. you are making a mistake. we are openly announcing that through your management method -- we oppose your management method in the world, we oppose your bullying policy.

we oppose your policy of imposing your views. we oppose your blundering policies. we oppose your method of administering the morals that is filled with discrimination, in a humane --ç inhumane. we have the courage to announce it and you should have the courage to say that you want to dominate the region and the iranian nation does not permit you to do so. host: that is obviously the voice of the translator over the address from president of ahmadinejad. what did you hear there. guest: iran is talking a lot in the last week about its nuclear program and the fact it has moved from enriching uranium at a low level to a higher level. this of course has led to a lot of concern in the outside world about what iran's long-term intentions are and whether it may what denies its nuclear

program. i think one of the things it is really important to understand is what they have done so far is moved from enriching uranium for the peaceful nuclear energy, which is about 4%, to 20%, which they will use for a medical research reactor degree at -- create isotopes. enriched uranium for weapons needs to be at 90%, so there is a still significant way to go. but the fact is they have crossed the threshold of going from low enriched uranium to hire. of course, that lead to wider concern. ahmadinejad tried to say -- we said before, we don't intend to develop the weapon and the outside world should hear what we are saying, if we wanted a bomb we would tell you out right. it but the problem is, the iranians light for 18 years about a weapons program that they had -- lied for 18 years

about a weapons program that they had that was uncovered in 2003. because they still have not answered all of the questions from that program to the international community, there are suspicions that they may be hiding something else. of course, there was a recent revelation last fall about a secret reactor they were building in a religious holy city that surprised the international community -- the united states revealed its intelligence. çthat led to further suspicions about what iran really wants to do long term. host: when he speaks, for whom does he speak? guest: a very important question. iran's regime is very fractured in the same way the body politic has many different sides to it. the regime is not speaking just with one voice. there are those who are conservative who are not -- particularly those in

parliament, who are not happy with ahmadinejad, who believe he goes too far, that he is too provocative with iran's own people or the international community. . ñri]çç caller: good morning, t(i ççóhç questions concerning the ç--  questions concerning the ç--  am sorry, ñrlet me çñrget radio

down. i wanted to talk about the fact that -- we remember the head of the green party in iran is a former prime minister or something like that. i have grown to be very wary of people who love, from the former dictatorship -- of people who have come from the former dictatorship regime. it happens in many countries in the world. also, i feel very much for the people of iran. they are completely powerless.

most of the time, if you get power, you still have to make some many compromises. finally, it makes it so hard for the ordinary man to make changes. host: first of all, he's weary of qreformed reformers. guest: among the elite ççin p today there are many fractions. there are more in the green movement, you have those in the defeated presidential candidate and a former prime minister, one who was an early revolutionary and father of the nuclear program. and you have those who never voted for anyone in this power and opposed to the islamic republic. you have a huge spectrum of

people who don't line the status quo. some want to overhaul the system and some want to reform it. if the green movement makes inroads, i suspect you will over ther)visions. host: do okyou agree with okher çar powerfulless? çar that people have taken the power in their own hands. for eight months they have taken to the streets, w3and in the çrun up çto this i]çanni çñ -i( aççççmyçç don't use weapons. we are a peaceful movement, çç thpy say.çóçç|çz7çoks-ññrç limit, ççthey ñofáxdcall çon nurses çwho are supporters t(to take first ai .i] çxdçççt(çç

vh)e is xd÷a ççlot ççqqof planning, their leadership is not their leadership has not been very effective. it did not mobilize people in the street and did not have a strategy. you may begin to see people looking for alternative leaders. alternative leaders. host: next we have michael on thev: republican line. caller: good morning, i just came back from that region about a week ago. and i noticed certain political dimensions of that region. and how connected they are, çç with zvçxdççqçkhr saudia ar holy sites and mecca, and you

have millions of people coming from all of the world. and w3iran accounts for a who attend çomeha each year. and now they are suspending services for okçthat region. i noticed something boil w3çq boiling in that area. specifically with the çyouth, surrounding areas when the çóñr egypt, and egypt won. the youth were balling xlçin ç streets, çand this mywas in s arabia çç they were in the street and a

glaring their and horns and bouncing on the kurds. -- and bouncing on the cars. people were just going bananas over there. callerhost: do you have a quest? >caller: can she give me a time frame for when she sees that regime crushing or falling? will it be within five years or 10 years? it is definitely going to fall. thank you. host: can you tell us what takes you to that part of the world? are you in the military? >caller: know.

i am an independent observer. host: can you travel there easily? caller: i do not have any problems. guest: he may be muslim. he was there for the current -- for the pilgrimage. iran has, in the middle east, when of the yen this populations in the world appeared before the 1979 revolution, the clerics called on iranian women to breed an islamic generation. and they did. their population went from 34 million to 62 million. one of the interesting byproduct of that is the regime realization that they could not house, close, and employ those extraordinary numbers.

so they employ a family-planning program. everything is free. there are vasectomy clinics in downtown tehran. they talk to their congregants and flopcks about limiting the number of their children. now those kids born after the revolution are coming of age. they are, in many ways, the leaders on the streets. they are young people and women. the interesting thing that happened after the revolution were the number of traditional families who trusted an islamic

system to educate their kids. so they started sending their girls either to school or to school beyond elementary school. today you find women who are architects and lawyers. an iranian woman won the nobel peace prize. they have won at, and at other -- they have won at cannes and other festivals in the world. host: it appears that the rtc -- the irgc has decided to limit women. he ok international guards, the ççp years çof first term ççxdof ç president ahmadinejad brought w3

the revolution guardsçó çççt(ç they have large construction companies that have taken huge government contracts. they are major players. revolutionary guards are -- former revolutionary guards have become governors of provinces. they are an entity that respect the militarization of the state as well as the role of the hard- line faction in the regime today. president ahmadinejad is a former revolutionary guard.

guest: it's clear the regime is among ñrthe women's movement to achieve their goals. trying to change laws on family that has to do with divorce and alimony and custody issues. but by and large the women's movement remains in iran and defiant against the repression. host: we have daryl calling. caller: good morning, c-span and robin. my question is if you were to do a public poll to the iranian people on obama in iran. how do the iranian people feel about obama? guest: i think there is some division, there have been some public polls, but the question

is how reliable they are. they have had to be taken by telephone and some iranians are reluctant. in the take-over of ovzthe u.s. embassy, instead of death to israel, they are saying death to no one. and there was another cry, saying obama you are with us, or you are with them. and ?;okthem being the governm. the obama g#administration has tried over the past year to engage ñrthe iranians because o its nuclear program. to get them to the table and w3 talk of the çissues qthat cnna dispute for many years. and that çeffort has been so z but the appeal was to recognize s

important, not because qñrz÷ço nuclear program çbut the human rights' issues.ç host: of the issue is if they can buy it technology and use it. they have bought the technology from other countries. this is one of the things -- iran is still at a stage that it is unable to put together three different components, the material, the fuel cycle, the missile, and the warhead that mary's the other two. it has not been able to combine all three aspects. that is where i think the focus has been over the last several years. host: we have a guest on the

democrats' line. caller: i have no problem with the iranians wanted to become a nuclear power. she has not said anything about the numerous lies israel has told about all the nuclear weapons they have stockpiled. why is it that our policy is so hypocritical when it comes to israel? if iran was bombing palestine, we would be bombing iran right now. they are dropping white phosphorus on the palestinians. they lied about their nuclear weapons. they do not do anything that the americans tell them to do. obama told netanyahu to stop the settlements. he has not done anything. as an american citizen, i am sick and tired of supporting israel. i am sick and tired of sending my money to them.

you want to do a program on israel and on the lives they have told over the years about their -- all the lies they have told over the years and about their nuclear weapons. host: thank you. guest: israel has never talked about their nuclear program. but it is widely known that they have one. the iranians keep calling for a nuclear-free middle east. that is a common call throughout the region. that is in part aimed at israel's program. if none of them can have a nuclear weapon, they do not want israel to have one, too. the tensions between the united states and the of sun world is that you do not just have iran in the west. you have israel. if iran should develop a nuclear weapon, it feels that it would be vulnerable to any future

attacks. they had not invaded any of the country for 200 years. they have been a regular victim of invasion, most recently by saddam hussein and what was the most bloody middle eastern conflicts. but there is speculation that, if there is some diplomatic alternative or resolution to this nuclear question, that israel may take unilateral military action. connection and change the balance power in çthe region a affect çoil prices and potentially get the green movement supporters to rally around the regime. host: we have doug, qrepublican line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have two questions 'pr(jus.qo3ó i was ó73ççñrcurious fáçabo'k

relationship with russia./t]ç it seems to me that russia is somewhat playing with fire, in many ways çççbacking okw i was curious about your observations on that. when we talk about the rise of the degeneration in iran, are the republican guards able to coopted lot of those people to undercut this unrest in the country? >guest: that is a very interesting question. because we are so isolated -- a lot of people are so isolated from iran could i have been going there since 1973. but we tend to have stereotypes and throw all kinds of people in one basket. the revolutionary guard is very

diverse. all young men have to do national service in iran. many of to do it because they have better training programs because it has credentials that may give you access or entry to a university or a better job. also, they get off the third -- they get off at 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon. then they can take on a second job. the government found in 1997, when the first reformist president was elected, was that 84% of the revolutionary guard voted for the reform it. we should not automatically assume that the rank-and-file in the revolutionary guard are necessarily hard-liners who support the regime. many of them are just doing national service. the issue with russia, that has clearly been a very important dynamic in trying to get iran to

the diplomatic table. russia and china are two of the five prominent members of the security power. to get a resolution that will pressure iran will require russian and chinese percent. the united states could not get either country to sign onto anything tougher. russia has a longstanding relationship with iran. it has been supplying building the nuclear reactor. it is the lead open -- it is still not open. russia, over the last few months, has taken a rougher -- a tougher position.

russia is not excited about new sanctions because it will affect its economy. glad çabout sanctions because the effect to çtheir economy b they are happy of ahmadinejad and the nuclear reactor. host: we have paul speaking of invading iraq. did the iranians feel they were next on the list and needed nuclear weapons to defend themselves? did that espionage affect that nuclear program? guest: i think the original interest in a nuclear program that may extend beyond energy really has its roots in the

iran/iraq war. when iraq çwas working on a nucleyxdçweapon, and çisrael bombed their secret site. and %9%9mwere concerned they needed to have a nuclear weapon to balance or nu+l+p) program or capability to balance off the iraqis. that's q$ñwhere the origin of t program was. it's clear in 2003, between 2001-03, there was greater interest in iran in dealing with the united states. in trying to get beyond what president ikamiti called the wall of distrust. there were repeated overtures. the problem with iran for 31 years is that united states and iran have never been on the same page at the same time. we have been interested in

better t(relationships with the when they are unwilling to take steps to us. and vice versa. that's a tragedy over the past years, when we couldn't get beyond the tensions of the take over of cát embassy. the majority like americans and want better relations. host: next question from chris. caller: hello, i have admired mrs. wright's work for a long time. i am an avid follower of iran since çv:my u!cousin was a rid with the shamira. you mentioned they have an education system for the girls,

what is their education like since their youth is the future of iran, what are çthey being taught and how are ççthey thinking? guest: one interesting thing about iran's attitude to the taliban, they thought this was qñthat was backwards, because at the top of the list they banned education for girlsç iran's education system has gone through ççup's and down' since the revolution. immediately aftermath they had a revolution and they wanted to provide the curriculum. there are many maths and sciences taught in the schools, particularly at the universities. what is interesting, iran has won the award from the united nations for closing the gender gap between girls and boys. and has the highest increases

anywhere in the developing world of closing the gender gap and bringing girls into the çç education system. host: next caller, we have john. caller: thank you, and thank you everyone for c-span. i find it -- host: i think john is moving on. we have mike on the republican line. caller: good morning, i am a vietnam veteran and not opposed to war. i feel that the united states is going to enter into world war iii once iran's installations are attacked by either israel or the united states. and the politicians and the media in this country for most part are prostitutes for the state of israel. and obama has done everything he could to destroy this

country in every way, shape and form. and especially militarily we have weakened our military. and we are right for attack. and since the soviet union, although that's not politically correct, but i still consider it the enemy of the united states, and red china, they have treaties with iran. and in a great position to attack the united states. they will probably accuse the united states of condeering the middle east oil reserves which in reality and what they want and use that to attack the united states. and we will have this one world government established after the dust settles because the united states will be hit the strongest. host: what did you think of the theory? guest: i disagree with it on many levels. but the question is what does

this tension between united states and iran eventually lead to? of course çthe military option is left on the table. no one wants to see another war. not only because çwe are stretched already in çóç afghanistan and iraq. iran çwould be different with afghanistan and iraq. we are talking about a population that is three times larger than iraq, and with an infrastructure and iran has the most powerful military outside of israel in the middle east. this is something that i think everyone @

this is far more targeted at revolution, guard, people associated with nuclear program. and they are calling for sanctions seen as human rights' abusers. host: the financial times has a headline of targeting the u.s. guard, and one writer ask about sanctions and how are they on trading? guest: these are not effective but having iran deal with laborers. and one is the port of dubai. and sanctions are a very difficult instrument. that's the reality. i lived in southern africa and

15 years of civil war and you know, incredible international sanctions. and rodeeshia did not crumble until south africa joined the ban and prevented the fruit from getting to railroad trains for export to the world. and that's moment that the rodeeshians recognized that the economy would collapse, and they didn't have oil and iran does. and that's a valid commodity that will continue to make it a player.ç but sanctions can make life more difficult for the regime. the most interesting thing that has happened is something unusual, the banking sanctions that's imposed on iran. not through çthe internationalç community çthrough the united

nations.xd but going through financial organizations and çsaying okth iranian çbanks don't comply ç financial law.çñr and since the 9/11 çattacks an financial overhaul to track terrorist funds. every bank has to know where v: 1ñlo(ñjust the last transaction but t(all the koway back. to prevent laundering. and through new international banking w3regulations, the treasury department has managed toç çççcommit i]çmajor band the world, including china, not to do"çbusiness with iran. and this has made it more difficult for iran to çget lin of credit card to çw3fáç they have had to find smaller boutique banks were there it is a higher fee.

there have been mechanisms to limit them. host: is there anything critical in a few weeks ahead for our viewers to watch for? guest: for the public protest, but for their civil disobedience. they looked at martin luther king and gondi and others as models -- and the ghandi and others as models. host: that he so much for being here this morning. >> tomorrow, author and presidential historian douglas brinkley compares the current presidential administration to past presidents and their administrations.

then james alan fox examines the recent crime rates nationwide, especially in cities. >> barbara mayor base is the largest u.s. military -- by roobagrahm air base is the largt u.s. military in thbase in the e east. >> with this conflict, most of the afghanistan doctors fled the country. that resulted in the collapse of afghanistan's health care structure. there is the u.s.-run trauma hospital in kabul.

>> we have all of the specialist that you would want for trauma, ophthalmologists, trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, the specialties that you will not find a new world spin -- will not find anywhere else. they can get definitive care. you care for both afghan and american troops and allied troops. we take care of them end border police and enemy forces when they are captured. >> so when someone needs a certain kind of care, they can get to you. >> yes. everyone that we care for gets the same standard of care. >> [unintelligible]

>> in a given month, we see 3000 people to 4000 people. we would be equivalent to the busiest trauma center in the united states. >> right now, we are in the emergency trauma bays. -- emergency trauma base. the center right here is that for the most wounded. in emergency 13, [unintelligible] they are very organized. >> saw the helicopter lands right outside and they bring the patients in here. >> correct. >> describe your most memorable mission. >> we had just got back from a medivac mission and heard that

there was an by e.d. an ied -- an ied event. we flew out there and it was a completely different experience for me. when we got out there, the mrap was totally destroyed. ucd patients laid out on the ground in their structures -- you see the patients laid out on the ground in their stretchers. your vigilant on the lookout and you're looking at everyone who is standing around, waiting for one of them to make a wrong move, to see if they're going to come after you. you wonder which will do in that situation. we came here, landed, pick up

the patients, and brought them back in. their clothes were torn apart and the pain that they were in was a big shock. we feel good that we could respond to it. the destruction that took place there, there injuries were very minimal compared to it. >> so they made it? >> yes. they were sent to germany for their medical care. >> what is the work they like? are there pekes and downtimes? >> it depends. it depends on what is going on on the outside. sundays are like this, where there is not too much going on board -- some days are like this, where there is not too much going on.

other days, it is all the long, one trauma after another. there are some regular workers that come in here with chest pain and stomach pain and that kind of thing. >> how long is your typical shift? >> usually about 13 hours a day. >> how long are your deployment for? >> 6 months. >> is it hard keeping your focus and your excitement for a deployment that long? >> know. sometimes there are ups and downs. -- no. sometimes there are ups and downs. >> do you have any specific training to come to this facility? >> some people do. new people get to the trauma and training. we go to all -- we go to baltimore for the trauma training.

>> is this job different depending on where your deployed to? >> it depends on the war. last year, i was here 14 months ago and the mission was pretty much the same, maybe a little bit more trauma this time durin. but in the past, i had been in iraq where it was strictly trauma, no humanitarian work. >> our work load is heavy. but it is pretty variable. depending on what is going on in the aor, if there are battles going on, we will get more casualties, obviously. other times, we are completely full with the locals. in times of need, when we get

inundated with patients, we will double our capacity within a matter of hours. typically, we worked 13 hours a day's end we get the eighth day off. -- we work 13-hour days and we get the eighth day of. >> would be typically do on your day off? >> rigo does much as you can. this can be pretty exhausted -- recoup as much as you can. this can be pretty exhausting. >> there is a lavishly equipped tent outside of the hospital where wounded troops come in, see the care they need, and, when they are fairly healthy and stable, they are put into that

tend to await a flight. -- into that tent to await a flight. >> our staff is responsible for launching missions with patients on them and recovery missions. we provided 24-hour nursing care for the patients. we make sure they have their preparations for flight. we have medication, food, diet, their luggage. they are clinically ready to fly. we identified the need [unintelligible] it helps lessen the burden of the hospital. instead of the hospital holding the amount of patience that they normally do, they can stay down here. >> our mission is to take the wounded warrior from operating

bases or posts to bagram, get fixed up, and then taken to germany so that they can hopefully go back to see their families in the states. >> [unintelligible] >> we set up like a mini-hosp ital. >> when is the toughest part of the job? >> seeing these young kids hurt. >> how you cope with that stress? >> threw into it -- crew integrity. we do a lot with the crew. it is my family away from my home and regular family been >> -- regular family. >> do you build up a rapport with the patient? >> definitely. they are great guys. they are like brothers.

you sit there and the conversations could be anything. they start talking to you. sometimes they tell you what happened. sometimes they tell you how they got blown up. sometimes they tell you about their families. they're just awesome guys. you can talk to them for hours. >> you had one particularly memorable mission. >> it was our second flight. we were diverted from our usual mission to go down to take patients from here to can are -- to kandahar in afghanistan. 20 minutes out, over the wire, our c-130 caught on fire. so we use the art checklists. my crew it absolutely did a great job. we set everyone up to do an emergency landing, which we went to kandajar for.

we took the patients as carefully as possible off of the aircraft. we were told that the aircraft was smoking on the way down as we landed in the aircraft. there was not time to think. my crew actually did everything right on the checklist. we get the patients in safely. we had two patients that we literally had to walk off. my crew members went back on the aircraft to get them off. they did a great job saving those guys back there. >> the rules are that you were only supposed to treat afghan civilians if they were injured in combat. so if u.s. troops accidentally hurt them or the taliban hurt them, then they are eligible for

free u.s. medical care. but the doctors are kind of flexible because it is the right thing to do. if you can make it to ba gram and your heart, they will do what they can. there was a 6-year-old girl back in march. her house was hit by what looked like a white phosphorus incendiary. it was probably a new shell. the taliban probably does not have what phosphorus. u.s.-nato uses this stuff all the time. someone accidently hit her holes -- her house with this. it destroyed her house and killed her family and she was burned over half of her body. her father brought her to bagram. i am not sure if he brought her

the first time. she may have been medically evacuated. she is no cure for care and she is getting skin grafts and the -- she is now here for care and she's getting skin grafts and reconstructive surgeries. this is a delicate thing. her future in afghanistan is pretty bleak. afghan women, for the most part, have one thing that their society lets them do, unless you are a couple resident in your educated and you have -- unless you're a couplkabul resident if you're educated and you have a good job. that is to get married. but she does not have that option. i can arrange free legal services for her family to get her out of the country and get

her refugee status so she can leave and get care and settle somewhere. but it is almost impossible to make that happen because her father, her family has to handle that process, the paperwork, handling the communication. it is not easy. her father is a lyric. -- her father is a literate. he does not have a cellphone, much less the mill. -- much less e-mail. you can get an interpreter and try to explain this to him, but it is almost impossible. this little girl is going to get excellent care as long as she is able to go to bagram. but that is only as long as the u.s. and nato are there. when they leave, what will happen?

>> the research that is most critically needed are generic copy of physicians who can go to the committees and give a basic health care and teach basic health care in the communities. -- go to the communities and give basic health care and teach basic health care in the communities. it is an honor to serve here. >> david acks visited the base last year. to find more, go to c-span.org. c-span 2 book tv weekend continues.

this coming way, but tv will be live in prime time starting monday night. for the entire schedule go to booktv.org. >> bankers from various countries will discuss the global economy. they talk about the upcoming g- 20 summit which is set for june in toronto. this lasts about an hour. >> i think that we can say that,

after the global meltdown in our economic system in 2008, we are at a crucial turning point. there have been intense discussions about that in the last year. but i think we arrive at this point with more questions than answers. george soros said two years ago that we need a global sheriff. i think that is one of the question for us. do we need some sort of global regulation? in january 2010, i think we are at a crucial point. we have to ask ourselves if the global meltdown was an indication of market capitalism failing as at that time? are there battle -- are there better models emerging with a stronger government control? with the high velocity of funds flow to date and 24-hour

markets, do we need a global regulatory body that can bring people together on short notice or set a framework for the long term? the fourth question for our panel is what is the impact shift for what has been a uniform world had of new york and london to a multi-polar world? finally, are we at risk of putting out excessive regulations that would lead to lack of investment, lack of innovation, lack of creativity that might result in unemployment staying at the very high levels they are at today? with that introduction, i would like to ask each of our panel ist to comment. then we will move into the debate for discussion. i would like to ask the audience to join in at a certain point with whatever questions you may

have. then, i would like to start with you. you talk about cohesive capitalism. what is the root cause, as you see it, of the problems we got into? we have to know the root cause before we can come up with solutions. .

>> we have not seen more of a backlash on what is happening. i think we run the risk of that backlash unless we listen. cabalism is great. capitalism is each and every individual the opportunity to develop themselves to their maximum, to create value for themselves and their environment. but if you add all these individual capitalistic persons and put them into an organization, it is simply not enough to challenge them to increase their earnings per share. you have to challenge them to contribute to society in which they operate that is cohesive society. you have to contribute more than just adding up the numbers. we have delegated the negatives of this crisis that we have to

the next generation. we have shamelessly borrowed from our grandchildren. i am a grandfather. i have to look them in the eye and say we have shamelessly borrowed from you. we have not invested it, we have consumed it. in addition to that, if you look today to employment, which protect those in jobs, so we protect the 50 years and older because they are organized labor. we have youth unemployment. in the middle east, over 40%. so this is the picture we are in. >>, i would like to turn to u.s. -- i would like to turn to you next. you know how to run a

confederation. what are the implications of how we look at the financial world. >> to comments on your question. how has the global capitalism affected working people in the last 18 months? it has cost them 34 million jobs. it has put 150 more people bridget 150 million more people into extreme poverty, and ruined a lot of people's lives. but over two decades, not two years, what the models do is create a very lucrative returns to some people. it is basically exacerbating policies in our society thatñr e have beençó signaling for two decades, not two years. in the absence of the crisis of the last two years, it should have been añi source of concern.

let me return to what ben has just said. i thought he was going to say something i was going to agree strongly with, but he did not. we do not just have a financial crisis, i agree. we have an energy crisis, i agree. we have a leadership crisis. we have a subprime leadership problem. i thought he was going to say we have a social, unemployment, and a job crisis, but he did not say it. and that is what we have today. we have a job crisis, and it does reflect in the backlash and a crisis of confidence. the question is, however were going to react to that crisis of confidence? i think there has been a major sea change in the last year. people want to see a major change in the basics of capitalism.

they want to see regulation. nobody ever wants anything in excess of, but they want to see things that work and that make a difference. they want to see the building of consensus around desired ñiñroutcomes. that would be helpful debate. ñiand then designing of machiney to bring those out comes about. ñiwhat they do not want to see s a sort of burgeoning nostalgia for getting back to where we were three years ago. those of us who were here in 12 months ago -- here in davos. i am not hearing that language

here. what we are hearing out is, we are pulling out of the worst. survival is not only the issue, and the fact that -- the back to business as usual is being developed as an option. that has been put aside or else the backlash and crisis of confidence will only deepen. ñi>> have we gone too far in focusing on free market capitalism? are there other systems that need to be thought through? >> let me start by asking a very simple question. from what i am hearing, i don't think we are deciding whether it is capitalism versus another system. it is what kind of capitalist system we would like. having grown up in a region where 300 million people are disadvantaged because states relied on central planning an inefficient means of ascribing

resources to projects or to endeavors, i cannot but be very strongly in favor of a capitalist model. however, we have certainly seen a crisis of regulation that has put us in these dire straits. fundamentally, it revolves around the accurate pricing of risk, and without the accurate pricing of risk, a lot of people made mistakes that they should not have. >> how we protect ourselves from this in the future? >> we must recognize that for nearly 40% of the world's gdp, it is either energy or financial.

we fundamentally need to sit down and decide very important issues. do we need a global regulator? do we need a global regulatory framework? do we need better national regulation? how do we handle state power versus global responsibility? fundamentally, if we are to return to the level of the individual and the worker, how we empower people who are affected by natural upturns and downturns in a capitalist system and to rise above and succeed and maybe reinvent themselves in ways that they had not thought possible? i would turn to education and training as being a fundamental thing that is hardly discussed. we do not talk about how we give people new skills in a very significant manner.

if you lose your job, you are expected to find another one. are there enough programs to help retrain these people? or putting enough resources into the programs? at the end of the day, i must come out in defense of capitalism. it has consistently driven standards of living and productivity, which is key in all of these issues. unfettered capitalism without any ethical or prudent controls becomes one that invariably leads to ruin. >> jacob, maybe you can pick up on that. how do we look at the system? do we need some systemic

framework and where should we go to deal with some of the systemic risk we have seen out there? >> if you allow me to take a broader approach and at least take all i asking the question, what have we learned from the global problems we have seen over the last two years that would suggest changes in the system of market capitalism as we know it now? there are a few things i have learned. market failure of the financial markets has led to unprecedented coordinated political intervention, which i think is great and should be applauded. the recession has cost many jobs, and ultimately we see politicians under severe pressure to address all the issues of income, inequality, pay gap, and so on.

for all of us that listened to the president yesterday, we can conclude that politics matters right now. market capitalism is generally under threat for various reasons. the basic market capitalistic system is losing popularity. there are fingers being pointed at the system that allows such excesses that have been responsible for the crisis. on a more economic level, state capitalism meant government intervention and i think this is hugely important to have replaced pure market capitalism. major banks are now owned and governed by state. what are some of the reflections on what happened? the first question is, should we redesign market capitalism? i will ask myself if we define

market capitalism as free-trade , open markets, transparency, the rule of law, and property rights, then obviously we should not change. however, if we mean that we should reach -- refrain from some of the excess is, of course we should address that, but without changing the system. i think that is key. that leads me to my second point, the question of trust. we in business have a clear issue with trust. i believe that business has to learn to communicate a lot more and a lot better. i think we should not fool ourselves. i think we have to do a much better job and we have to be seen it as socially responsible participants in society. i believe that generally speaking, business is.

my third point comes from a çm!=1i perspective, which i read in the paper this morning was expected to come for me today. a represent a long-term business model. we have been in business for 150 years with a velocity that happens to be fashionable today, which is long term -- with a philosophy did happens to be fashionable today, which is long termism. on bonuses, i very much agree that they are more a symbol of the crisis rather than its core course. i agree that some of the sums are hard to justify, but in the overall scheme of things, i think it should be a side issue in the debate.

i agree wholeheartedly with the g-20 principles, and as a shareholder, i have never had an interest to pay anyone more than necessary. >> we need to deal with systemic risk, but i believe we will pay a price on economic growth. just to conclude and give a sense of perspective, this year we all focus on market capitalism. let me try to be slightly boldin predict that next year, we will be focusing on state capitalism and its impact on business and business practices. thank you very much.

>> are next panelist is dr. tony tan. the asian financial institutions, asian banks did not seem to be affected as deeply as western institutions. is there reason for that? is there anything we can learn from the asian experience over the last 18 months? >> i would like to look at this issue of market capitalism in light of the events in 2008- 2009. we went through a very difficult time, the worst recession the world has experienced since the second world war.

i believe we could easily have gone into another great depression. but fortunately that was done, so we did not suffer the worst consequences. the point was that this great recession did not affect all parts of the world equally. the impact can be observed in the united states and in europe. asia, by and large, although it also had an impact, was not affected as much. economic growth did slow down. unemployment rose in some countries, but not to the same extent as in europe and in america. more important, asian banks remained healthy throughout this

crisis and emerged from the recession in 2008-2009 in a stronger position, able to expand their market share of world banking business. so i think one obvious example is china. despite everything, their growth did not go down to zero. it dropped down to 8.9%, but that is manageable. that is due to the stimulus the chinese government put into the economy. in light of these events, it must be expected that asian governments, central banks and regulators must ask themselves whether the type of anglo-saxon market capitalism that has been

the norm for the last 30 or 40 years, free-market deregulation, allowing companies to regulate themselves, minimal state intervention -- is this the best model going ahead? one must expect them to say that in some of the model where the state plays a greater role seems to have weathered the crisis much better. they will probably continue to play a bigger role in the coming years. therefore, i think that it will be the case that asian governments, china, southeast asia, would have to reexamine some of the tenants of market capitalism -- tenets of market

capitalism that they had previously automatically accepted as being best practices. this is a great challenge for asian banks because you are questioning of first principles , something which they have not had to do for the last 40 years. i did not mean that asian governments will completely reject all the practices which western governments and all the advocates of policies which have been the case for the last 20 years, but i do believe that they will reexamine all these practices again in they will not automatically accept that what is advocated by western governments, central banks, western companies automatically is the best way forward.

how this will change and how they will advance their own economic interests, i believe will have profound impact on world economic growth in the coming years. thank you. >> thank you very much. let me just pick up on that for the rest of our panelists. in this world of high velocity of money, high liquidity, and high leverage, can we depend upon the goodwill of national governments to operate, or do we need some form of either global regulator or some framework for global regulation? let's open that up to the four of you. >> i think over time i would like to see a global regulator, because otherwise we will see arbitrage in the system. if we can find the correct way of dealing with it and if we can

develop in that direction, i think it would serve us all well. >> i would like to say that there is also ordered tranche -- also arbitrage within countries and within systems that need to be looked at. we need to be thinking of what works. which models were? in order to do that, the g-20 needs to sit down and have a very serious discussion about their own experience and see where we go from there. >> the think the g-20 is capable of bringing together some form of regulatory framework? >> absolutely.

>> and anticipating crises that may come? that is a bigger question. >> capitalism has always been an imperfect science. the goal and the task must be to make it less imperfect. the reasons for this economic crisis are different from the ones that preceded in the past. in my country, when we pursued the anglo-saxon model, our economic growth and jumped from 3% to over 8%, and we did not suffer from the effects of the global financial meltdown, largely because our banks had not moved into many of those very complex instruments. so again, there are good solutions. there are right ways of doing things. the trip must be not to allow to be as big as it was in the last

cycle. >> there are two interesting things here. when we talk about regulation and whether we should have more or less regulation, perhaps we should talk not of desired regulation but of desired outcomes. there are two things we need to realize. first of all, we live in a globalized environment. there is no way that you can turn at bat. to put passports on everything or every aspect of our economic life, i am not so sure is a great help. the second thing is, we are all so interdependent. we were very much in a vertical reality in which you could have a sector that was totally not linked to the other sector or

geography that was totally not linked. we are all linked now. whether we like it not, we live in an interdependent global environment. the choices we make will be choices that will drive behavior. we bring it on the system level, but the reality is, it is not the system, it is the behavior that's driven by the system. >> i am happy to join the consensus on the need for global regulation. everybody has spoken in favor of that. the question is, how do we get there? >> how do we get where? >> where we are today is, we do not have it. we have the beginnings of some opportunities to build. is the g-20 sufficiently strong

foundation to build a framework? i think that needs to be explored and we need to come to some determinations on that. the anglo-saxon model is not universal. others have fared much better. asia went through its crisis in 1996, and some things were learned there and some things were done there. sweden went through its crisis in 1991 and 1992 and some important lessons that might have been learned from that experience by and large were not. one of the desired outcomes from a labor perspective is that we need to have the financial economy better serve the real economy. of course we need to evolve the catastrophe of the last couple of years and the excess is that brought about. we also believe there has been a

rather alarming decoupling of the role of the financial sector to the needs of the productive economy. we need to glue those things together, and one thing is something that jacob referred to at the beginning. we need to get out of the short- termism. something has to give brown the type of thinking. so those are some of the desired outcomes. how we get away from that? how do we get to a longer-term, perspective?nvestmenw32j >> as i said, we have been practicing this for a while, and

we are not the only ones. they are not many others around. i did not have a direct answer to the question. if you look at my own country, the socialistic evening tabloid will once a month run a list of the best performing funds. what's the rational behavior from a savior? that is to move to the best one. we really have a significant issue on our hands if we desire to move towards more long-term ism. >> the assumption there was that historical performance is the best predictor of future performance, which is not necessarily backing up. >> the reality is we will be

judged on our performance per quarter. that will not go away. but is about leadership and how you deal with that. you can give in or stand above it. it is about leadership. it is the definition of success. no regulation in the world can attach the issue on the definition of success. why would i do things has nothing to do just with what regulators tell me. has to do with the value propositions you make. we say to young people, whether you are studying economics, science, engineering, go to investment banking. what was the story we told the young people? we told them the only thing that

really matters is next quarter. i think it is about as looking in the mirror, not asking regulators to help us, and redefine the definition of success. >> are you prepared to take your shareholders on that are demanding short-term -- >> i don't have to take them on. this is not either-or. i this and have added all little bit to the task that i think i need to do. i will make decisions. some will be to the benefitñi of the corporation because theyñi e somewhat longer term. if i cannot defend it, they should get somebouñ else. jacob was up 100% right when he talked about transparency. >> dr. 10, -- dr. tan, let me

come back to you. what is your perspective on this question? >> the organization i represent invests throughout the world. we have studied trends in various countries. essentially, we have to try and discern what the world is and how the world will develop. in this instance, it would seem to us that the world will be a very different place after the events of 2008 and 2009. it will accentuate and accelerate the process that has been going on for the last 20 years, moving from eight

unipolar -- moving from a unipolar world, with the united states setting the rules on the economic field, basically determined by the group of seven developed countries. after what happened in 2008- 2009, i believe we will move to a more multipolar world. power, influence, welker will be more distributed throughout the world. desists this symbolized by the g-20 going to assume a more prominent role in determining how economic rules are set in world trade and world finance. what type of world as this mean? one must expect that in such a situation, it will be difficult

to arrive at any consensus on what to do. therefore, economic growth throughout the world will slowdown. we will not experience the type of economic growth which the world experienced in the 1980's and 1990's. there will be difficulties, possibly come up with more protectionism measures. generally, from the investment point of view, we must expect to have lower returns. it is not a very optimistic prospect, but i think it is our duty not to see the world as what we would like to be, but

the world is developing in the context of what will happen. there will possibly be more geopolitical conflicts, because most of the countries in the world still have to depend on the united states doing the heavy lifting, particularly with regard to taking measures to resolve conflicts in hot spots around the world. the u.s. is still the single largest, strongest military power in the world with the ability to project its forces on an unprecedented scale. to sustain this military capability it increasingly has to rely on some of its strategic rivals continuing to provide

finance for the purchase of treasury bonds. when you have a situation like that when countries are developing, it is not a stable situation, and i think the world will be possibly a more uncomfortable place in the years ahead. >> thank you. a sobering point of view. i would like to come back to ben's opening statement. you were really challenging to whom does capitalism sir. i think in the u.s. it has been almost an order of belief, the freeman school of economics said that you are there to serve your shareholders. we are now getting into an area where really questioning are we

really there to serve society and server customers, and in turn, serving our shareholders, or is capitalism really there to serve its shareholders? >> i think capitalism without social responsibility creates unsustainable situation is that lead to either an economic collapse or social disorder. >> i echo that view, and in my book, it is clear. if you cannot deal with the difference stakeholders, your employees, your clients, whort shareholders or society at large, you are going to take a very significant risk. it is self-serving, in a certain sense. if you deal with them well, you'll be well respected and have a good chance of being out

there and being competitive if you have the right products, and the rest is up to you. if you have a problem with your different stakeholders, one of them can destroy your business quite easily. look at the shell disaster or 90's problems, just for to the most well-known examples in that context. they both learned and changed and went into a better future, but they almost ruined their business as a consequence. >> has complexity ever reduced in a free system? i ask the question because i think we have to learn to live with the fact that these new ideas may be around for a while in one form or another. on the other hand, regulation is

well and good that determines what kind of instruments can come into play and how they are managed, but what have we put in place to help make the problem less severe? we have passed on the problem to future generations by extending massive amounts of government spending. the results of it ending are yet to be discovered. is there something in president obama pose a plan that has just been tabled? i would be curious what the panel's view is on that. >> one of the things davos is very famous for is that we have the capability to bring together

not just one segment of society, but everybody. that seemed to have a global redesign initiative is about how we are going to make decisions? if the view is that we go into uncertainty and that we go to a world that is basically more unpleasant than we have seen before and we have to rely on that, what we need most is not just concepts, but there is a concept of how we are going to make decisions. in the end of world war two, it was a shift of power to the new reality. since then it is silent about what type of mechanisms we have. i think a global redesign is something we have to have in order to deal with the uncertainties that you have brought forward. you have brought forward a truckload of uncertainties that are really do not like.

>> let me ask the last question and then we will turn it over to the audience. there has been a tremendous crisis of confidence in leadership. every poll says people did not trust our leaders anymore and there is huge outrage against bankers. part of that is also a tremendous frustration. people do not have jobs. had a week restore confidence in people that will have to run organizations that create a cohesive capitalism and successful capitalism? >> i think it relates to the comments that have just been made. i think everyone on the panel has said that capitalism really does have to demonstrate responsibilities beyond

shareholders, and i absolutely agree with that. i think the problem we have had, and again, it is not simply over the last two years, is that capitalism has not distributed its benefits in any way that i think the majority of the population would regard as fair or acceptable. what has happened to the ceo remuneration compared to medium pay, schoolteacher's? united states worker pay has flat line. >> it declined in real terms in the last decade. >> and then it has gone down. there is no buy into that type of model. you can argue that it is just the populist banging on about excesses. it really is a side issue.

he can argue about the type of irrational or irresponsible behavior that bonus based compensation produces. that is not my point. the banking community is deciding is appropriate and reasonable to award it sells these types of bonuses. we are representing people who are bargaining away but they struggled for a long time to get. we are dealing with responsible individuals who are actually accepting pay cuts. they are working with employers to keep the enterprise going, to keep jobs in place, to keep communities afloat. look at the bonus culture through their eyes. you have to fix something. the question is, how do you actually get to make capitalism overcome the crisis it finds itself in, the crisis of

confidence. you have to have a sentiment that both sides of industry and the financial community can work together to some type of mutual benefit. we'll have the right now, because the benefits are so unfairly distributed. i think that is the hope we have to get over, it brings in many elements of the conversation that we are having. >> let me open it up to the audience now for any questions you may have. there is question right here. >> do you want to redesign capitalism or redesign financial

capitalism and leave industrial capitalism in tact? >> i think market capitalism in its basic sense is sound and good, butñi there are excesses, and we have to deal with the excesses. today we talked about banks, and we talk about the compensation system within the banks. in some cultures, you also have an issue about industrial compensation. other than that, i think the basic notion of market capitalism, it works as long as it is applied correctly. from time to time, we will have issues, and yes, we will have to deal with them. no system is perfect. >> maybe it is about maintenance. it is important that what we do is recalibrate the definition of

success. you don't need to change the system, because -- i think it would be arrogant of us to say that now the capitalist system is also going to be at the garbage level. that would be totally unfair and unrealistic. >> forget what g-20 can do as a regulatory body. why don't we look at market mechanisms that make the system more stable? so the obama idea of taxing based on levels of debt. that would be very market specific. you could quickly identify where there was over exposure and there would be a way of paying back governments for their increase in risk. that is one model. is there a way to trade

securities in a manner that accurately gauge is what people perceive the risk to be? is there a way of containing certain securities within certain classes of shares that could be traded by owners? let's not just think of this general philosophical argument of is capitalism good or bad. we all agree capitalism is good. the question is, how do we makeó it more accurately reflect the pictureçó that is actually going on? that is where we fell down in the past. >> on a practical level, how will the global regulation be design? is the mechanism beyond the g- 20? how will the national legislative process picked this

up in different countries at different paces and make sure that this particular design of global regulation actually gets implemented? who will police this? what entity will actually ensure that these different patchwork of regulations that are coming in, how would you try and police this entire activity throughout its lifetime to actually get a practical solution in the end? >> that is a good question. do we need a global regulator like the world trade organization? who is going to reach agreement? is it the g-20? >> isn't this one of those great moments where you can fall back on the notion that we are here to think very freely, and so we brought forward a few ideas

about global regulation, but do we have answers to the exact practicalities? of course we do not. on one hand, all the questions that were asked are extremely relevant, and you have to find solutions to them. but is that enough for not at least embarking on the road and testing it? is this something that could be achieved? there are a lot of good things that could come out of it if you are successful. >> we had precisely this conversation before came out. i agree with this sentiment that you are making. we do not know the answers to those questions. the point is, you identify the need, you identify the type of

outcome you are aiming for, and then you start to construct. i don't know if again, the g-20, if the work being done in financial stability war can actually set us on the right path. i think you have to take these things forward and take them forward quite quickly with a sense of purpose, with a sense of political commitment and a certain degree of expediency. the fear is that the task looks so big that you either do not start, or you tried to set yourself for ambitions that take an eternity is to produce results, and in the meantime, things happen. >> it is just like after 9/11. we need to do something to

coordinate and do something with the new institution. then two years later we discover when there's another guy who wants to bomb a plane, that actually what happened was we have a new institution on top of other institutions, and the so-called coordination did not happen. maybe the question to the g-20 is a question we should ask ourselves as well. is it up to the g-20, or is it up to us to provide the type of discussion platform and passion are rounded to come forward with suggestions made by ourselves? we have been extraordinarily passive, and then we look to those who react and say this is all wrong. maybe it is something we need to do in a much more active basis. >> so maybe the global redesigned can actually bring people together to actually come

forward with some of those into a framework. >> what we ask? let's write a letter and see. >> i have a slightly different point of view. i am a professor at a business school, very capitalist oriented. russ ackoff wrote that the purpose of business is actually to improve theñi lives of their employees. if capitalists would take a rate ofñrñi return commensurate with their provision of capital and consider that most of the risk is actually borne by employees, who spent a large amount of their lives getting ready to do specialist task which may actually one day go way, and therefore they would be jobless,çó while capital can be

moved from one task to another quickly, we should consider the possibility that the role of business is actually not to maximize the return to shareholders, but to try to improve the life of employees. >> we know that productivity is what drives rising living standards. surely governments, corporations, and individuals want to have a better life for the people, so that they can continue to grow, develop, and invest in new technology, new products, new instruments that make things better than where they were before. if we assume that we can only hold public companies responsible or bankers responsible, but we forget that capitalism also means the small

business owner and the sole proprietor and the inventor and the doctor, and all the people we live and interact with, then we are doing capitalism a great disservice. we must be committed to the system. we must make it more responsive and we must fine-tune it. that is the bottom line. >> i think we have seen your suggestion in action. it is called general motors. that was an organization that had as its main goal, to get and keep happy employees. ñiçó>> in my former company, wed a goal of improving lives of the patients we serve, and we found that it did very well on behalf of the employees and shareholders. >> at this meeting in davos, the

topic has been very much about regulation, however transform regulation, what new regulations are needed to improve the financial system and market capitalism. i think all of these require serious study. ñithese are very difficult questions. i am always wary of the sentiment that one has to do something, and perhaps one principle which regulators and those who advocate changes should keep in mind is the first principle of medicine, that you should do no harm. >> thank you. >> what is that we are

experiencing? we are experiencing a cycle, and sometimes in cycles, the regulator and governments will come into play. that is just the nature of the beast. i think this will change. i believe that the pendulum will swing back and we will be back in a more normal fashion. i am very much looking forward to next year's discussion on state capitalism. >> i agree wholeheartedly with that comment. >> i think the message from the panel is that those who are interested in making capitalism work as the best option available, those who are interested in maintaining an open, global economic system -- i would join in both of those views. they have an interest in acting expedition this -- acting expeditiously to make the type

of major changes in mind sets, the type of political initiatives that are now required to ensure that capitalism and globalization can endure. it does not live by going backwards, looking over your shoulder and saying how quickly can we get back there? cyclical type of evolution we have been talking about. >> i wonder what most people will have thought, listening to this discussion. i wonder whether most people will have said this is interesting for a bunch of men, middle-aged men sitting in a podium in davos. i think it is the reality of my world that will drive the discussions next year more than stateñi capitalism or what other phrase we have.

i am afraid that we need to do something. doing nothing is not an option if we have 42% in youth unemployment. it's not to protect those who have. it is to create opportunities for those who do not have. >> i think that is a good place to conclude our panel. i think that is a good summary that we have seen and i think we have agreed that we have seen -- we have had a lot more agreement here that i thought we would coming from such diverse perspectives, in spite of the fact we are all min. ñrbut i think we've seen the market capitalism has done enormous good for the world and brought many people at of poverty. we operate in a global labor market and a global financial market, and we need ways of pulling people together. we do not want to go too far in constricting activities to the

point where we have dampened growth or that we stop investment. we need investment in order to provide good standards of living for people around the world, and it is only through the capitalistic forces that we are going to have the investment required to do that. when we look at the long-term versus short-term, i think we have agreed that there is going to be a lot of short-term trading and lots of short-term activities going on, but there needs to be a long-term set of goals here. that gets to the heart of the question of the matter, to whom does market capitalism serve? my own conclusion is to say that there -- it must serve all the players in the system. if it only serves the losses, if it only serves the shareholder, it cannot work. has to serve everyone in the system. it has to serve -- corporations

are chartered by societies and they only have a reason for existence and we are seeing in the united states of pulling back of some of those charters. we are moving to a situation where capitalism -- capitalists are realizing around the world that we need to have ways to work together so we can serve all the players in the system, and in thatñi way we serve society's in making a strong market capitalism system. i want to thank our panelists for coming today, and thank the audience for your participation. ñi[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national >> his film was the focus of a recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. documentary producer and head of citizens united,