and for the kind words addressed to the presidency. i now have the honor to invite his excellency, mr. ahmadinejad of the republic of iran. . .

>> iran must except the exchange and the ball is in her on's court. i would like to announce once again that it is an accepted the. we have now from the ball and the court of those who should accept -- [speaking iranian]

[speaking farsi] [speaking farsi]

[speaking farsi] [speaking farsi]

[speaking farsi] >> the state's defining their strategies the use of nuclear bombs as an element of stability and security. this constitutes a gross

mistake. the production and possession of nuclear bombs under any pretext is hazardous and first and foremost to the country of production and stockpiling, which is exposed the most to its hazards. you may recall a perilous and unintentional transfer of a nuclear missile on a bomber from a military base to another base in the united states which became a matter of concern to the health and security of americans and its government. the sole purpose of nuclear- weapons is to annihilate all living beings and destroy the environment and its radiation could affect future generations leaving a negative impact on the environment that remains for centuries.

the nuclear bomb is a -- is against humanity rather than a weapon of defense pretty proliferation of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride. its possession is disgusting and shameful and even more shameful are those threats to use such weapons which, if used, the scale of its destruction is improbable to any crime committed throughout history. those who carried out the first atomic bombardments are among the most hated individuals in human history. the united nations, in particular the security council, have a for the past 60 years been unable to establish sustainable security, let alone

give a sense of security two nations and their international relations. the current international milieu seems far more challenging than previous decades. wars, acts of aggression, and above all, the shadow of threat resulting from the stockpile of nuclear armaments and even worse, unfair policies applied by a select group of expansionist states have obscured the prospect of international security. these days, communities large fleet carry a sense of insecurity as a result nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation have failed to materialize and the international atomic energy agency has been unsuccessful in discharging its mandate. during the past four decades,

some states including the zioist regime, have been equipped with nuclear weapons. despite the efforts to promote nuclear disarmament. what is the cause of the failure to disarm? to enter this question, in fact, one should look into the policies and practices of certain states as well as the efficacy of the npt and the imbalances it curtailed some of which are as follows -- first, is what i label as the dominating influence this. from the perspective of the divine profit and writers and according to all human concepts, the sublime growth and prosperity of man as measured by his morality, piety, modesty, and devotion to other fellow human beings. unfortunately, by relying on a

theory that states' struggle is survival, some states seek their superiority through the power to threaten and suppress others. and so the seeds of hatred, enmity, they promote the arms race in the global arena. their gross mistake it is the assumption that might make it right. second is the misperception that there should even be a policy that allows the production and use of nuclear weapons. the first nuclear bomb was produced by a previous government of the united states. it seemed, apparently, that would provide the united states and its allies the upper hand in world war two. however, it became the main source of encouragement to

others to develop nuclear weapons and brought the world to the brink of a nuclear arms race. the production, stockpiling, and qualitative improvement of nuclear armaments in any given country now serves as a justification for the others to develop their own arsenals, a trend that has sustained over the past 40 years. 3, the misperception that nuclear weapons is a means of deterrence. this misperception which has in fact translated into policy is the main cause of the escalation of arms race. deterrence require having an edge in quality and quantity of weapons which itself fuels the nuclear race. there are, reportedly, more than 20,000 nuclear warheads worldwide. half of which belong to the

united states. the other competing groups continue to develop nuclear weapons under the pretext of the terrace. those trends constitute a violation of obligations under the nuclear proliferation treaty or npt. there is the misperception that it is ok to use nuclear weapons. regrettably, the united states has not only used in nuclear weapons but also continues to threaten the use of such weapons against other countries including my country. i might remind you that a few years back, another country from europe made a similar nuclear threat under a false pretext as well. they consistently threatened middle eastern countries with is this clear -- nuclear arsenal. a fifth issue is what i call the

instrumental exploitation of the security council and the international atomic energy agency or iaea. by enjoying special privileges and the highest global security decision making bodies and in the iaea, and nuclear weapon states widely exploit these platforms against non-nuclear weapon states contrary to the spirit of the npt. this on just practice -- this on just practice, repeated over over has turned into a pattern. so far, none of the non-nuclear weapon states has ever been able to exercise their in a legal right to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy without facing pressure and threats at some level.

this is despite clear provisions of article 6 of the treaty, the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, and the statute of the ieae. not a single report has been issued by the iaea on the nuclear facilities of the united states or is there any plan for disarmament. however, numerous resolutions are adopted against nontechnical weapon states under pressure by the same states which used false pretext with the clear intention of denying other member states there recognized legal rights to develop a full nuclear energy. six is the prevailing sense that it is all right to use double standards. although, the zionist regime

stockpiles numerous warheads and continues to threaten the people and nations of the region with acts of terror and threats of invasion. they enjoy the unconditional support of the united states government and its allies and receives the necessary assistance to develop a nuclear weapons program. the same state imposed various kinds of pressures on other members of the iaea by using false pretext of probable by persons under peaceful nuclear activity. failing to provide even a single credible proof to substantiate their allegations. seven, equating nuclear weapons with nuclear energy. nuclear energy is among the keenest and cheapest shorts of

-- sources of energy. severe climate change environmental pollution caused by fossil fuel has intensified the need to expand the use of nuclear energy. almost 7 million barrels of oil are needed for the continual generation of 1,000 megawatts of electricity annually which by today's crude oil price would cost over $500 million. this would be the cost of -- the cost of generating the same capacity with nuclear energy is about $60 million. generally, the investment needed to construct and utilize a nuclear power plant is far less than half of the cost of a power plant operating with fossil fuels during its life span. moreover, nuclear technology can be effectively and widely applied in the production of

medical isotopes for diagnosis and treatment of life- threatening diseases as well as in the industrial and agricultural sectors and other fields. one of the greatest injustices committed by a nuclear weapon states is equating nuclear arms with nuclear energy. as a matter of fact, these states to seek to monopolize nuclear weapons and nuclear energy because by doing so, they can impose their will on the international community. these acts are against the spirit of the npt and in flagrant violation of its provisions. eight and last is the issue i would like to address which i called the imbalance in the pillars of the npt and the iaea mandate. the npt has the prevention of a

nuclear arms race, disarmament, and non preparation as well as the facilitation of the inalienable alright of member states to use peaceful nuclear energy. very difficult conditions have been put into its mechanisms and regulations to supervise countries seeking the peaceful use of nuclear energy. yet, no effective mechanism has been devised to address the actual threat from nuclear- weapons which should be the most important mission of the iaea. all efforts in this respect have been limited to talks but lacked any bonding force of guarantee or effectiveness. the iaea has been placing every possible plusher on non-nuclear weapon states under the pretext of corporate and risks when it

should have been doing otherwise. this is why those having nuclear bombs continue to enjoy full immunity from the iaea and exclusive rights. mr. president, dear friends, it is no clear that a production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and policy practices by some nuclear weapon states as well as the weakness and imbalance in the npt provision are the main cause of insecurity and serve as an incentive for the development of nuclear weapons. nuclear disarmament, the elimination of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation are regarded as the greatest service to promote sustainable peace and amity. the question is whether it is appropriate to grant an extraordinary authority in the iaea to the nuclear weapon states and entrusted with the critical issue of nuclear

disarmament. it would be naive and a rational to expect a resolution toward this end. this would be because these states consider nuclear weapons as an element of their superiority over others. there is an irony in saying that reads," a knife never cut its own handle." expecting major arms dealers to work for security is a logical -- is an illogical expectation. the government of the united states which is the main suspect in the production, stockpiling, and use and a threat in the use of nuclear weapons insists on assuming the leadership role in reviewing the npt.

the u.s. administration and its recently released posture review has announced it will be there produce nuclear weapons nor will it attacked non-nuclear weapon states with nuclear weapons. the united states has never respected any of its commitments. one may ask how much nations could trust the united states to implement its commitment. what guarantees are there that it would live up to such commitments and what are the tools for independent verification of its guarantees? in previous decades, the united states has had most of its wars and conflicts with those who were once its friends. some members tons of the iaea who are committed members of the npt have been threatened to be the target of a pre-emptive strike. united states government has always tried to divert public attention from its non-

compliance and on lawful actions by bringing into focus some misleading issue carried a of recently raised the issue of nuclear terrorism as part of their efforts to maintain and upgrade their nuclear arsenal on one hand and divert world public opinion from the issue of disarmament and direct them toward phony matters. on the other hand . . armen terrace with a nuclear weapon is only conceivable by those states which possess such weapons and have used them. also, they have a long record of supporting terrorists. the united states has kept silent about a nuclear strike against nuclear weapons states in order to concentrate the propaganda pressure on certain independent nations.

this is why major terrorist networks are supported by the united states and -- intelligence agency and the zionist regime. credible evidence is available in this connection that will be publicized if needed during the forthcoming conference on the global fight against terrorism in tehran. in the npr, it is noted that the united states will not produce nuclear weapons that they will improve been qualitatively. the qualitative improvement of nuclear-weapons is tantamount to the destructive power of such weapons which is a vertical proliferation. in addition, there stated policies are non verifiable because there is no supervision by any independent authoritative body on a nuclear programs of the united states and its

allies. by comparing the washington nuclear security summit with the tehran nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation conference, the efforts of the host of the former in washington were aimed at preserving a monopoly over discussions on nuclear weapons and to preserve the support -- the superiority over other countries while in the last conference in tehran, all the participants sought was a world from nuclear weapons. it was about nuclear energy for all and nuclear-weapons 49. mr. president, distinguished delegates, to realize the main aspiration to disarm the world from nuclear weapons, to engage in non-proliferation and promote peaceful use of nuclear energy, i would like to offering the following proposals, one, review

the npt. the npt should lead. nuclear disarmament must be put at the core of its mandate to transparent, bonding, and effective mechanism supported by solid international guarantees. two, the establishment of an independent international group with full authority from the conference to prepare a set of guidelines to operationalize the provisions of article 6 of the npt including planning and fully supervising nuclear disarmament and presenting proliferation. the group should conduct its work with the effective participation of all independent countries by setting a deadline for complete elimination of all nuclear weapons within a specified time table.

in other words, all these nuclear weapons should be eliminated within that timetable. the introduction of legally binding, comprehensive security guarantees without discrimination or pre-conditions until the achievement of full nuclear disarmament by. a nuclear weapon byfour, the immediate termination of all types of research, development, or improvement of nuclear weapons and their related facilities as well as the introduction of various mechanisms by the above mentioned group. 5, the adoption of a legally binding instrument on

stockpiling, proliferation, maintaining, and use of nuclear weapons. 6, the suspension of membership in the board of governors of the iaea for those states which use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. the political influence of the states has prevented the iaea from performing its mandates, particularly with regard to articles four and six of the treaty and has caused the agency to deviate from conducting its authorized mission. in particular, how could the government of the united states. member of the board of governors while it has not only used nuclear bombs against japan but also used depleted uranium weaponry in iraq. 7, the cessation of all kinds of

nuclear cooperation with non- member states of npt and the adoption of the effective punitive measures against all those states which continue their cooperation with such non- member space. 8, considering any threat to use nuclear weapons or attack against peaceful nuclear facilities as a breach of international peace and security and swift reaction from the united nations through the termination of all cooperation of np membert states with the threatening aggressor. 9, immediate and unconditional implementation of the resolution adopted by the 1995 review conference on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the middle east.

10, dismantling of nuclear weapons stationed in the military bases of the united states and its allies in other countries including germany, italy, japan, and in the netherlands. 11, collective effort to reform the structure of the security council. the current structure of the security council is extremely unfair and inefficient. it mainly serves the interests of the nuclear weapon states. reforming the structure of the council along with reviewing the achievement of the npt are interrelated and essential for the realization of the iaea objectives. mr. president, dear friends, as the representative of a great sense of all laws of nation, one

which has contributed to human culture throughout history and has always been the harold r. of the need to worship god -- heralder of the need to worship god, iran is ready to partaken a materialization of those proposals as well as just plans on disarmament and non corp. and peaceful use of nuclear energy. i pronounced loudly that a nation which has great personalities and create intellectuals and wise personalities, a nation which

has always called for love, compassion, and peace for mankind, a nation, but poem of was great poet is glaring in the united nations which says," of one essence is the human race. boston, has creation put the base." a nation which abolished slavery 2500 years ago. i mean and speak of a great nation of iran. this is not one that needs nuclear bombs. its development and does not regard it as a source of its honor and dignity. the logic and will of the iranian nation is a reflection of the logic and will all

nations, all nations love peace, brotherhood, and mono fee as an and suffer from discrimination and injustice. many of my colleagues, the heads of states and many sympathetic to and justice seeking dignitaries and commentators, in their talks with me, have shared this view that there is a dying need for global disarmament and the expansion of peaceful use of clean, nuclear energy for all by breaking the monopoly in posed in these fields. as was plannecontained in the foregoing proposal. nuclear energy for everyone. nuclear weapons for know when. accordingly, my presence of the essence of my statement here in

this conference is only a representation of their presence and it demands. dear colleagues, now may i say a few words to those who still maintain that the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are sources for power and dignity? they must understand that the era of relying on nuclear bombs has already passed. the production, stockpiling, and the threat to use weapons, in particular nuclear weapons, is for people characterized by a lack of consistent logic and wise behavior. using threats against a strong logic belongs to the past. this is not viable anymore. in the current era, we speak of the age of nations, thoughts,

and cultures, relying on a weapons -- on weapons and international dialogue is a legacy on wise and and a christmas -- anachronistic states. it is clear that the policies have failed and the trains for establishing new empires are vain hopes moving forward and will never come true. rather than continuing with the failed policies of the past, it would be better to join the white and transparent ocean of nations across and beyond borders of independent states carried hand in hand with human wisdom and culture. this would be in everyone's best interests, the future belongs to nations. security and justice would be established by righteous people throughout the world. the power of logic could prevail over the logic of power.

there'll be no room in the future for bullying. and four are bullying the common nation throughout the world based on monotheism and justice has already begun in the international arena. i invite mr. obama, the respectful president of the united states, to join this humane movement if he is still committed to his mode of change. tomorrow would be too late for this. here, i would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation for the efforts of the president of the conference, the distinguished audience and participants, and all those that

strive for the establishment of peace and justice in the world. dear friends and colleagues, true cooperation and solidarity of our hearts and with harmony, our aspiration for establishing a world blessed with justice and peace is indeed achievable. nuclear weapons -- nuclear power for all and nuclear weapons for a non is human in nature. let us hope for a day with the realization of justice and no one will be in. and even if it so happens, let's hope again that no weapons would be found to satisfy this. greetings to justice and liberty. greetings to love and affection. greetings to the followers of the school of compassionate and human beings who are not scared.

i wish you all every success and prosperity. [applause] >> iranian leader mahmoud ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak today at the un conference on nuclear non-proliferation. fine key moments from his past speeches on line at the cspan video library. it it has every programs in 1987. watch what you want, when you want. >> political primary debates are underway in several states and tonight, we will have live coverage of the democratic senate primary debate in kentucky. five candidates are running to replace the retiring senator jim bunning that starts at 8:00 eastern. at 9:00 eastern, a look at but california governor's race and the republican primary to replace arnold schwarzenegger

the california state insurance commissioner is running against the former ebay personnel, meg whitman. the british election is may 6 and speak -- cspan is covering the three main party leaders as they campaigned to be the next prime minister. last week, the conservative party leader david cameron talked to students and visited a renewable energy research lab. you will hear reaction later from southampton university students and interviews with two british journalists. this is about half an hour.

[unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> don't believe what to read in the papers, either. if you look at what the liberals are saying, they say they will get rid of tuition fees. six years. we can't get rid of tuition fees in six years. we will always tell people from lower income backgrounds to go to university. we can't afford it women have as

big budget deficit for the numbers don't add up. you've got to have greater diversity choices. we are arguing for real change in education. i was a late rally in your chair -- in york sure -- yorkshire, it is night that opportunity is so on equal our country.

>> i believe you. [laughter] >> what would you say? >> i saw him and i was asking about the working class. i asked about comprehensive and grants and student tuition fees. >> what did you make out from that? >> don't believe other people tell you i asked him to tell me something. he was counterbalancing other arguments and said that labor was talking rubbish, as he always does. >> you are not convinced? >>no. >> how will you vote? >> i won't disclose that information. it would not be fair. >> and about tuition fees? >> i think tuition fees are fine.

i thought he would talk about taking the cap off them. i am bright and i could not afford to up the 7000 per year. if i didn't haggle with government bursars', my parents couldn't put me through university. i would not be here. i could not get a degree. labor has made mistakes but there are people like me saving up for opportunities. while the bright people from poor backgrounds going to do? >> are you a member of a party? >>no. >> you are here of your own

volition? >> yes. i thought there was something going on so stopped in. >> thank you. [unintelligible] >> do you think it's fair that students have to pay back their loans and other parts are rich? -- if their parents are rich? >> tell me all about it. >> we have two types of wave energy converted at the moment. >> how does that generate

electricity? >> [unintelligible] >> how does that generate pressure? >> the more that comes in, [unintelligible] the water will go over the top and you will collect water in a pan and this will generate pressure. >> using the energy of the sea to do the desalination? >> yes. [unintelligible] >> you are pushing the water of

and what led down, you can turn it over. >> yes. you're going to generate potential energy and you can store it. >> that's very good. when the wind is not blowing, the wind turbines are not turning but you would have stored energy. >> you can use it in conjunction with wind turbines. >> and it brings a solid performance. >> are you trying to drag me away? >> yes. >> nice to see you. very good. >> hi there.

>> [unintelligible] this breaks down the concrete. >> this is trying to stop the damage that would otherwise be done or work out how much energy or lose it. >> it is important that this knowledge gets out and is expected them ofto get out of. >> what about the green technologies?

>> [unintelligible] >> they will rebuild all this? that's what you heard? anyway, thank you. thank you very much. turbine. $ñ>> there is a wing design. ó'w>> [unintelligible] how many would you have been a marine park? >> [unintelligible]

>> what is the scale? >> it is about 20 meters, 40 meters. >> compared with a similar sized wind turbine on suhore, what is the difference in terms of electricity generated? >> they generate 1.2 megawatts. there is a lot of tension there. >> what will it take to get into a field trial mode? >> you need to get to the bigger

companies to deploy the devices. >> when you have done that, what other problems? >this is a green energy source. >> [unintelligible] we believe this will not harm marine life. >> of course. thank you very much. >> we need to measure the velocity.

>> [unintelligible] this will be an investment in time. >> the new current model exactly how big the blade is. >> the energy is the key. that will give you eight times as much power. [unintelligible] there is a structural bloated and. --load-in. >> how long can you been covering the david cameron campaign? >> since the first day, about

three weeks ago. time teams to blower a little para a. you are not allowed to the usual press package with desperatthis. this is a rather small press operation. newspapers like me, we tagalong afterwards on buses, trains, and taxis. >> about how many events per day does he do? >> he does two or three. he will start with one in london and leave london for somewhere else and then do one after lunch time. they are being presented as being community meetings.

the people at those meetings are normally skewed toward being conservatives. he is meeting members of the public, average people. he has just been confronted by a season that a voter who is a disgruntled about his view on education. he is interacting with the voters. >> do you expect he will be the next prime minister? >> we don't make predictions about the future. yes, he will get a big share of the votes. he will love more votes than anybody else and that will give him the best chance to be prime minister. nothing can be taken f(m[ granted. i am happy to say that he should be the next prime minister. >> what kind of prime minister do you think he will be? >> in an american sons, he fits

on the spectrum -- he will probably be a moderate republican in many ways. he is a strong emphasis on the environment and is reasonably conservative. he will talk about cutting spending and addressing the deficit. in foreign policy, he is not a george bush neo-con. there are some in the party but he is more of a liberal realist. he says you cannot drop democracy from the payload of a bomber. like all conservative party leaders, he will tell you about the most important relationship for britain is with the u.s.

>> can you describe a day in your life on the campaign trail? >> i know where ongoing where i -- when i go to bed the night before. i am lucky if i get to the gym for a while but then i go straight to the station and jump on a train to go to the event. i get home anywhere between 7:00 or 9:00 or midnight. my wife might be a better indicator of these things than me. it's been nice. >> one last thing -- it seems like the events here or the leaders are much smaller than u.s. presidential campaign rallies that we are used to

seeing. can you comment on that? >> that's true. we still don't have a full presidential system. we don't look to our leaders in the semis as the american voters well. ill. when you do two or three of these events today, you cannot fill a stadium two or three times a day. they are usually late notice. they like to control these things. they want to control the covers. our leaders don't have the same rock star appeal as american leaders do. [unintelligible]

>> they are talking about a sustainable energy, wave energy in the seat that is being done at this university and one of the messages from david cameron on this part of the campaign is his green credentials, renewable energy. he has tried to make the conservative party sound more ecologically friendly. there are many people and the party who are interested in that agenda. some people do not believe global warming is happening. david cameron has always said this is a big issue that has to be faced. he is also trying to say that this is something that could appeal to liberal democrats. they might be interested in global warming or other means of renewable energy. >> do the leaders tend to campaign in constituencies where there is a close race going on?

>> they do. it is a mixture. they also want what ever it is to tell a story, as well this is as much about the work that is being done in a noble energy as anything else. yes, the way our system works with the constituency, there are a target seats that the conservatives had. the of 160 target seats. >> what were you focused on in your interview today with david cameron? >> i asked how on earth we are in this situation where you have to seal the deal after 13 years of another government and coming out of a recession. it has gotten worse in the last couple of weeks what is going on. >> what brings you here today?

>> i want to see what the conservative party is all about par. >> are you planning to vote in the election? >> yes, i am. >> or do you know you are voting for yet to? >> no, but i want to watch more of the election debates. >> this is kind of a new thing for you. >> yes, did you watch the debate so far? >> yes, they are really interesting. i like to see what the candidates have planned. >> what issues are of interest or concern to you? >> for me, it is the

environment. >> can you describe to an american what a top-up fee is? >> to go to university, you have to pay up. no one has come out with a plan on that yet. >> i was and the library and i was told that david cameron was here. i want to ask him questions on yop-up fees. >> what is your feeling on student loans? >> i understand the need for student loans. there is a funding gap in higher education. i do not believe that you would have to pay interest on your loans.

>> do you have loans to go out to go to school? >> yes, i will be probably 21,000 pounds in debt after i leave university. david cameron wants to charge me and it outrageous interest rate. >> held for you? >> i am 21. >> have you voted yet in an election? >> this will be my first general election. >> do you know how you are voting yes? >> i will vote for the labor party. >> what is labor's position on top-up fees and student loans? >> i was not amazingly happy about their position. however, they have a commitment to not pay interest on loans i do recognize the need for funding in higher education. >> what other issues matter to you? >> environmental issues are a big concern. education spending in general, obviously, [unintelligible]

i recognize we have a massive deficit. but brock -- probably is the key to spending? . >> do you have an opinion about british foreign policy, in particular relations with the u.s. and the wars in iraq and against an? >> i opposed the war in iraq. i thought was wrong i recognize we have a good relationship with the u.s. but i am not sure how strong a to be any more. i recognize the need for afghanistan. >> how do you feel? . .

it probably would not affect me, but it would affect my little sister. with my parents surviving on disability alone, how can she get an education? >> you face a choice at university. short-term, quick changes that appeal to young people now. or you think i have got a job. i have got to go get a job in a

couple of years' time. because of that i will need a party that is strong on the economy and allow me to prosper and -- i mean, the other party is always seemed very adamant on pushing forward which has never appealed to me. i have always wanted to be as free as i can so that i can prosper. >> is your family political? where did you get your political views? >> quite funny, actually. from a young age i was exposed. my grandmother used to read me the sunday papers. that was always sort of a background influence. i did a politics course at college.

what is politics about? not just what you read in the paper and media groups. i moved forward from that and came to do a politics degree at university. that initial interest in the media and papers amalgamated with my academic politics. >> so, if david cameron and of being the next prime minister what do you hope to see as his goals as prime minister in the next few years in the uk? >> the one thing that we want to see is the state moving back and allowing the people to do their own things on their own. we have had 12 years of the

state tiptoeing into our lives. the highest tax burden ever. but justin contacts. sales taxes are massive -- not just income tax. sales taxes are massive in this country. a lot more efficiency savings from government departments. as we have seen, it makes for efficiency. allowing the people to set up their own school. where the state is failing them to come out and do something about that. private public partnerships, i would like to see a lot more. they have been successful under labor and with a conservative man at the helm we could see vast improvement in public partnerships.

in a way i think that david cameron could give our back to the people. rather than involving government in our everyday affairs. >> coming up later today on c- span to, the senate is going to debate the financial regulations bill. amendments will be offered and the votes are expected by tomorrow. "the los angeles times" calls it one of the biggest lobbying wars in half of a century and goes on to say that spending on lobbying and advertising for the financial regulations bill will rival or exceed the money spent

on health care debate. you can watch the debate all this week on c-span 2. right now on c-span 2, and live conference on restoring stability in political debate with government leaders looking at ways to confront violence stemming from anti-semitism, instability in america, and the israeli-palestinian peace process. that is live right now on c-span 2 with the senate coming in at 2:00. coming up shortly here on c-span the daily white house press conference. while we wait for that to get underway a look at this morning's "washington journal." twitter.com/c-spanwj is how you do that. here is the front page of "the washington post." "the forecast for the gulf coast

is grim." in the center we have a picture so of the oil boom that they are using on the gulf coast. "worsening crisis undermines besio reforms. -- ceo reforms." the front page of "the philadelphia inquirer," "a parallel relief gusher could take three months." "president obama traveled to louisiana on sunday for a firsthand briefing on the gulf of mexico oil spill. officials in washington said that they were putting their hopes into a parallel relief well.

fishing was restricted yesterday for least 10 days. host: thank you for the update this morning. caller: delighted. host: what do you think about the federal response to the gulf oil spill? here is joe from apple valley, california. caller: i think that everyone is blowing everything out of proportion. from one to the next, yelling and screaming at each other. they cannot agree on anything. as far as barack obama, he is doing really good. i do not understand why everyone is on top of him. host: you said that they're blowing it out of proportion, are you talking about the impact of the spill?

caller: no, i am talking about like they did on hurricane katrina. are they jumping on a fast enough? crazy talk. host: kevin, go ahead. caller: at this point my concern is if we're looking at something that makes sense, these processes for the oil spill in the gulf should have already been in the workings. we should have known that these were problems and we should have known that we needed this apparatus ready to deal with this problem. host: you leave more culpability with bp in this case? caller: at this point we know we should have had a shut off valve.

the basically everyone throws out the option saying that there is nothing we can do. host: "the washington post" writes about the response. "a somber forecast about the spill, barring a sudden triumph with a blowout they hope to capture the oil with containment domes, the idea being to lower the huge domes over the preventers and pump the captured oil to a barge. but the domes are still being fabricated in the louisiana. -- and fabricated in the louisiana." jerry, good morning. go ahead. caller: something i have been missing from your guests, if

missing from your guests, if they want to talk we will leave this morning's portion of "washington journal" to get to the white house press briefing live, just getting under way. >> we will do one quick read out before we do q&a. the president spoke at length in this morning with the israeli prime minister. they discussed how best to work together to achieve comprehensive peace in the middle east, particularly by making use of substantive talks and transitioning to direct negotiations as quickly as possible. they also discussed regional challenges and the president affirmed his unshakable commitment to individual security. the call took place just before

noon and lasted 20 minutes. >> on the oil spill, two questions. my understanding is that there is liability beyond cleanup costs. will they be forced to pay other costs? >> i will have to check on the figure of $75 million. i think that there are different provisions for different things. let me take that question and try to find out. >> [inaudible] >> that is our commitment. one of the things that the president spoke with challian allen about yesterday.

setting up a system for compensation claims that is not bogged down. for sure -- fishermen in particular, we understand that they will sell what they catch in order to spend money to go out and do it again. obviously there needs to be a system that provides for that to happen quickly. >> are you generally satisfied with their performance? >> they are responsible but we have oversight. i did this a couple of times yesterday. there are many different things that we are focused on. first and foremost is capping the swell. there were tests over the weekend on the application of subsea dispersal which have thus

far performed well. they are continuing to test that. instead of disbursement on the surface of the water it is the ribs -- release the pressure from the source of the leak. it had positive impact in the first round of testing. the relief well drilling began last evening. which is a more long-term solution. obviously bp is working on a structure to possibly put on top of the well to vacuum up the oil to the service to deal with that. that is one aspect of what we are doing. secondly, as the pollutants rise to the surface we are attempting to contain the spread of the oil on the surface of the water and how it affects both the

environment we are dealing with and the local economy. i would say that all of those things are what we are overseeing. obviously they have the unique equipment for dealing with this at a depth of 5,000 feet under the surface of the ocean. but we are going to continue to make sure that they continue to do that all that they need to do from the perspective of state and local authorities. their meeting this afternoon to get an update on the ongoing process and making sure that they are taking the steps we feel are necessary to respond to an incident of this magnitude.

>> my understanding is that the ceo of the bp is having a meeting today? >> yes, the ceo and the american share. >>-- shchair. >> has there been any reaction on the comments from ahmadinejad? [inaudible] >> i do not believe that the president has spoken to anyone at bp. the secretary convened a meeting with ceo's of the oil companies last week. i believe that we put that least -- that list out. he was at the command center in houston. more is coming, i believe that is the day at 3:00.

i think that the speech that you heard today was predictable in that iran failed to speak about the obligations that it will not live up to. i think, rightly, our delegation and many others left as a series of wild accusations were made during the speech. >> do you think it will have any influence on the movement towards more sanctions? >> i think that it speaks -- those that are involved in the conference and are living up to the obligations would have wanted to hear the iranians discuss living up to their obligations.

then not doing that again shows how further isolated they are from the world community. we continue to make progress on sanctions at a multilateral level, even as we look at ways that we can do so within our own government. continuing to meet with the un security council and making progress moving forward on security council resolutions. >> we hear so many different time frames as to when [unintelligible] will be under control. what is the new best case/worst- case scenario? >> i would direct you to be key in terms of what they might say. look, i think there are a series of processes that, as you say,

it could take a matter of days. i forget the exact term of the structure on top of the valve. probably another week. the original well took 90 days to drill. it could take that long to drill a relief well. >> is that something that the president is comfortable with? >> i do nothing to the president can alter the pace of drilling in the atlantic. i mean the gulf coast. sorry. i used this phrase yesterday that the secretary used, we will do what we have to do, keeping our boot on the front of bp to make sure they're doing all that is necessary while we do all that is humanly possible. >> on the plane ride yesterday,

did the president share any personal reflections about how he is feeling about all of this? >> i talked a bit about this on the trip home. you get a real sense of the photography and geography of what we are dealing with and how -- the president said that you could see from the air the wetlands in the area that have undergone rapid change and not for the good over the past many years. the president said he could see that from the air. speaking with at the paris president and a local fisherman, you get a sense of what is at stake environmentally and

economically. i think that the president reiterated to all of us as he has said over many days, we must do all that we can as aggressively as we can in order to combat this incident. >> when you say keep your boots on the throat of bp it sounds tough. how do you follow up when the liability is [unintelligible] senator melendez has a bill today saying he wanted to expand it from $75 million to $10 billion. you said you wanted to make sure that bp paid more for cleanup. of what kind of system can you set up retroactively? >> the key is the responsible party. the law provides -- if a local

fisherman cannot fish it is an economic loss that bp will have to pay. i am talking about setting up the actual system for the filing of those claims with bp and others in order to get them reimbursed as quickly as possible. >> if they are just responsible for cleanup and containment, you cannot force them. >> absolutely it is a part of the law. economic damages that have occurred are a part of the incident. absolutely. >> there have been reports that president abbas may be coming to the middle -- to the white house in may to restart middle east peace talks. >> i have no announcements on that. >> where is the president in his decision making process? do you anticipate more face-to-

face meetings at this week? where are you? >> two -- too close. [laughter] >> has it been announced this week? >> i was thinking about this as i was going over e-mails for today and tomorrow. i am happy to advise you when the event is. i think that it might be duplicative to announce each day when the event is not going to be. >> have we ruled out this week? >> no. so, i just added a whole week's worth. >> the president has a lot of free time -- well, not free time, but public time on his schedule today. [laughter] >> where did you get that impression that he has a lot of

free time? [laughter] >> is using that time to do interviews with supreme court nominees? >> i am not going to get into the interview process that the president has. i will say that there is a lot on the president's plate. >> does that include the supreme court? >> i anticipate that he is working on the process of the supreme court, without getting into the specifics. >> how involved is he in getting this information? >> yesterday in traveling to the gulf coast, john brennan was with us and he briefed the president on a helicopter ride from here to andrews. he spent about 50 minutes in the conference room of air force

one. the situation in the gulf, john got information throughout the day and passed along to the president. >> is there anything new on claims from overseas that they were responsible for this? does the white house have any reaction to that? >> we are actively participating in the investigation and making sure that local authorities have all the resources necessary to determine who is responsible. we have not made that determination yet. >> the boot of the throat thing, it sounds hostile. is that an accurate relationship between the federal government and bp right now?

>> i think that that is -- i think of the expression largely conveys that while the responsible party, bp, we will do, as the oversight authority in managing the cleanup and spread, we will make sure that the responsible party is doing everything that it can and should do. the president heard yesterday from local officials that were concerned about the plans that bp had when the oil got closer for extra booming and different activities that could be undertaken. the president understands that frustration. in order to move the process

forward, that is the process that has been on going to route and will continue. >> do you think that the president feels he has to keep his boot on their throat? >> the president accurately conveyed in his remarks that we will do everything humanly possible and making sure that he is doing everything humanly possible to make sure he is dealing with this as comprehensively and quickly as he can. >> does the administration feel that bp has done a good job with clean up? >> again, i refer you to what i said. we are going to every day and evaluate what has happened. it is not being done we will make sure that it is. >> there is no endorsement. >> i think that the president will be pleased when there is no more oil leaking on the floor of

the ocean. the president will be pleased when we take a sufficient measure to ensure that the spread is not vast. i will say, this is a process that will take some time. >> [unintelligible] cleanup process. does the federal government have a responsibility? you have taken steps to emphasize [unintelligible] >> again, that is all law mandating based on the incidences' in alaska and in the past -- incidences and in the past -- in alaska and in the

past, which is why i used the secretaries colorful phraseiology. if you talk about the role we are playing and the role that others are playing to make sure. >> would be fair for the federal government to be held responsible if the gulf coast residents find the response lacking? >> the president is doing everything he can. we have been there since the beginning in response to the reports of an explosion. with the coast guard assisting in the recovery. that began in our effort in this. it will not stop for quite some time. >> can you say that the taxpayer, that the american taxpayer will not pay higher

costs? >> the responsible party will pay for this, that was the comment from the president. >> regardless of caps or anything? >> i will>> i know that the revs ongoing, but is there anything that you can point to? of what you were looking at? is there a technological issue? >> i think that the president has charged secretary salazar with 30 days to examine every aspect of what may have gone wrong and contributed to or cause the incident that we are dealing with now in the gulf. his charge is wide open. i believe that where he finds

will determine our next steps as they relate to offshore oil policy. >> when you say that the company is responsible and the government has oversight, does that mean that the government is ultimately in charge of the cleanup? >> ultimately it is bp. >> who is in charge of the cleanup? >> [unintelligible] commander is overseeing to make sure that bp does what is necessary. >> will the government ultimately hand day pass. last week these specific actions were the ones that were taken. this is to elaborat[inaudible]

>> can you elaborate on [unintelligible] >> let me put you in touch with the joint information center for a more technical analysis. the president wants something that is not duplicative or overly bureaucratic. obviously you have got folks that are losing money because they are unable to do what they do for a living. those are people -- if that is how you make your living, losing that money is a very big deal. we want to make sure that that money is made up as quickly as possible. >> does the president have any

plans or does he want to meet with d c e l for president -- the ceo war president of bp? >> -- ceo or president of bp? >> the president is meeting with people today. secretary salazar has been in touch with folks over there throughout. >> at the dinner tonight will the president' be sounding out new people or policies in advance of his speech tomorrow? >> clearly there is a lot on the senate cost docket right now. i think that the president will reiterate his support for

financial regulations, discussing the efforts. we need to put in place an environment for continue hiring. we were hopeful and optimistic. i do not know what we are going to do on that yet. >> there is a minimum fee for financial reform of those tenants. [no audio] [inaudible] >> i would have to have them take a look at the amendment. >> has been key been truthful to the administration members -- the kebp being truthful to the

administration? does the administration at any point believe that they have gotten willfully errand information? >> i would have to ask someone at the department if they felt otherwise. the nature of this process has been to plan for the very worst and making sure that our response flowed from what could be the very worst. that is what has governed actions since the night of the explosion when the coast guard came to the existence of those that had been hurt or missing. >> has something gone awry with the relationship? does the federal government's need to be more forceful to force an intractable partner to

do something they otherwise would not do? >> maybe i am just from a different part of the country. [laughter] hold your feet to the fire, would that be something more understandable? i do not know, it could cause some pain. maybe you guys do not go camping either. [laughter] >> this relationship is being worked out for the first time in real time. >> i do not think of this is the first time. not on this magnitude. i cannot phrase it differently. this is our obligation to make sure that the responsible party

is doing everything within their power to cap the well, respond to the pollution that has come to the top of the water. making sure that we are doing all that is necessary. we have mitigated the spread. economic communities are being dealt with. that is the full range of things being supervised. >> what was the time lapse between the designation of national incident? can you walk us through that? we were told it would have to be looked at in two calendar events. explosion, search and rescue, putting up the fire. than the catastrophic week. you said they had to be measured as two separate instances of

intervention. when the leak became the first top priority after the rescue? >> first and foremost, the coast guard arrived on scene with four vessels over the coast of a period of time. they were assisting in the fire that was ongoing and making sure that all it could be done was being undone to get the folks that were injured off and to look for those that were missing. after that it was pretty clear that there was, for whatever reason, oil in the water. the response, i would have to go

back and look at my notes. there were scores of planes in the air. they were dealing with this. even at that point of designating it a spill of national significance. this response has been ongoing since the report of that explosion so many days ago. >> how would you categorize what happened in times square? >> anyone who has that type of material, i would say that that was intended to terrorize. absolutely. whoever did that would be categorized as a terrorist. we do not know who was responsible, which is what we're looking at now. >> is the administration going

to declare the door closed? will there be formulation from this podium or elsewhere? >> i would say this, the offer is still there. the likelihood that they will take the offer, through their words and actions they do not seem willing to live up to their obligations. if they do fail, we take those last steps. >> one last question. [groaning] [inaudible] >> for quite some time the president has been someone who push for comprehensive immigration reform. regardless of which side of the political argument you are on, it happened in arizona.

we need to understand that this town is acting on something comprehensive. unless we have immigration policies through 50 states, the timing will frankly depend on the willingness of individuals in both parties to step up and meet those obligations. >> how intensively is the president monitoring the greek debt crisis? what does he think of the delay of the europeans? >> let me point to the treasury for response to the latter. the president has gone upgrades online number of occasions. it happened most days, going through washington. >> is he worried that it will affect u.s. recovery? >> we have talked about this

notion. look, we are happy with the steps they said they're going to take and happy with the response. obviously, anything around the world that could cause a disruption in the continuing recovery of the global economy would be keen to see throughout the profile of this. >> two more questions. >> i am ready. >> president frank and roosevelt held 998 press conferences. why has the president not held lacing the white house press conference since last july? >> . just one question. -- >> let me ask you this.

just one question. what did you call the president's taking questions at the nuclear center? >> a select few. >> a select few what? >> a select few reporters. it was not a white house national. >> one more question, then. what do you think that the president would have done differently from taking those eight questions of members of the white house press corps. >> it would be wonderful thing if you loved all reporters. just as he loved these view, allowing us to come in. let them start again. that would be fair. [laughter] [applause] >> listen, you are a happy occupant of the front row today.

i hope that you will take the opportunity to speak with each of these members individually. i hope you did not dodge my second question, but i am trying to figure out, the president answered questions from the white house press corps. how many on selected would have taken? >> if yet won a press conference he would have invited all of us instead of a select few. >> were you at the event? the joy of life for credentials? >> i would be delighted if i thought there was a chance. you work -- >> you were offered

the opportunity but were -- but declined to do so. the hall that we were in was a lot bigger than the east room. can you give me a number? is it a number of thing? instead of eight, maybe nine? >> there are 47 here today. >> so, 47. >> plus eight more. >> making 55. if the president took 55 questions, would that have made you happy? >> john kennedy took 35 questions in his first press conference. i have found this to you while the using -- wildly amusing.

help me out, lester. 55 is probably a lot. 38. you said 10. that could be an early entrants in the number of questions. is there a more specific number? >> 90 reporters usually arrive. >> so, 90 reporters second question. did appear as if i did not answer my second question? we had 90, 35, 55, and 8.

it is not clear whether his i do not believe the president has ever taken 38 questions at once. what is -- >> what is the president's's reaction on the michelle malkin column. she was very tough eye oon enfog the border. >> the times square incident, it is this like christmas day? fois this a near miss it? times square on saturday night,

did they just get lucky and a terrorist incident. if people see suspicious activity they are too quickly alert the authorities. the president spoke with wayne jackson to thank him for his vigilance. those authorities acted quickly. anything from becoming. >> do not question the original owner of this car >> those were

some of the of states. >> people over there in montana, how unusual is that behavior? how high on the radar screen is that kind of behavior bring? >> the end of the gulf i believe

that the best way to get the most updated information is to see what everyone is doing headed to that region. whether it is a large meeting or discussing -- distrust -- distressing news with a bonus. you had referees it --

recommendations from various sources >> there are rewards >> let me get an album where that is without knowing where it would or would not have been.

those assets where moved to support his trip to the gulf. we look forward to going back. >> sheila bear -- it did mean that derivatives came from the dark and calloway -- and found their way onto regulatory

administration. i have not spoken specifically >> in terms of france of a float of >> resources and our of suisun.

when the land was called the epa, obviously fat allen as a result of the declaration of a national nuclear commander -- when did you off [unintelligible] >> those submersibles have been in the water. they have tried to fix the vowels, guaranteeing the

government information to come on top of the leak. we have the interior of homeland security and the epa. >> i can check on that. i do not know off of the top of my head. >> >> i will serve with looking

to in. >> last week we were not prepared to talk about it. >> the secretary ordered looking at all the possible aspects of what could or did go wrong in this instance. reporting back in that 30 days. this is an administration that

is going to take whatever information that we get from that and have that dictate our decisionmaking going forward. it would be premature to get too far ahead of where secretary salazar's investigation is. even as our priority is to plug the leak in the floor of the ocean, deal with the spread of the oil on the surface, making sure that we are doing all that is possible to prevent environmental and economic damage. the investigation is to determine what happened and use that information going forward to dictate any changes in our policy.

i forget the number active wells currently in gulf -- engulfed. this area hit the president's announcement from the outer continental shelf. if your question was to ask how this affects the president's announcement or any drilling that is done in the outer continental shelf, out of respect for the debate -- administration's proposal for offshore drilling. >> thank you for your openness! [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span, our public affairs content is available online, a

on the radio, over the airwaves, and sign up c- span.org. -- sign up at c-span.org. >> i am worried that too many bad private sector decisions are leading new media down the same road as old media. >> tonight, a discussion with michael cox on "the communicators." >> tonight we will have live coverage of the democratic primary debate in kentucky. they are running to replace jim bunting. that starts at 8:00 eastern. >> at 9:00 eastern we have a look at the california governor's race and the republican primary to replace arnold schwarzenegger. steve praisner is running

against the former ebay c l, meg whitman -- ceo, meg whitman. now a debate between the two democratic candidates running mate teeth in the pennsylvania senatorial debate -- may 18 in the pennsylvania senatorial debate. . .

>> the candidates are here, and they are, arlen specter of philadelphia, the united states congressmen, joe sestak. the first question goes to senator arlen specter. what the see as your main challenge in convincing pennsylvania democratic primary voters that your the best candidate to face the republican nominee this fall the? >> the fact that i have voted with the democrats during my tenure in the senate on the really big issues, more than with the republicans, and that i have supported democratic values. that is why president obama, gov. ed rendell, the democratic state committee have all

endorsed me, the state committee with a 77% rating. i have supported a woman's right to choose, opposed war, opposed wiretaps, sat with the democratic values on the big issues. at the outset of this debate there was one item that needs to be cleared up. i want an apology from congressman sestak from a television ad that calls me a liar. i have been in public service for 43 years, including wearing the cloth of the country in the u.s. air force, and nobody has ever called me alive. congressmen sestak relieved of duty because of poor control, the man clement, but what i have said is based on fact. i have challenged him on his

voting record. it is a fact that there are 127 missed votes. when i challenge him on not paying the minimum wage, it is a fact. when he calls me a liar, it is out of bounds. i want an apology. >> before we get to the congressman, would you like to respond to that? >> i want to think arlen specter and his lovely wife joan. the issue that citizens of pennsylvania as a death threat the state, most want to focus on, is regaining trust in their politicians down in washington. to know it is broken and no that career politicians will do anything to keep their job. to will switch their party from being a republican because they cannot beat the republican opponent. the next day after poll is taken, they become a democrat. more than anything, i find the people want to believe again. they want to believe that

they're in a position out of core beliefs and conviction, and that you're willing to be there not just before the election, but for the next six years, after the election is over. been there to fight for the right policies. for far too long, senator arlen specter who has done some decent things, advanced a republican agenda. he voted for the terrible tax cuts under george bush that ripped our economy apart. i believe we need someone bound to change the focus of washington back to working families. those who lost jobs because of misguided policies republicans pursued with his support, and favored wall street. >> senator, you have 90 seconds. >> know that the congressman

does not deal with the issue about calling me a liar. i will not let that drop. when he challenges me on my record, i became the aircraft, returning to my roots. my parents were immigrants who were hit hard by the depression. they were fdr democrats. i was a john kennedy democrat. i wanted to run for the v.a. -- for the d.a. in philadelphia, and told me i could not. when the congressman talks about the tax cuts, the senator and i carved out $215 billion of the bush tax cut for education. that was on the front page of the philadelphia paper the next day. when we talk about the party shift, i supported the stimulus package. this country was about to slide into 1929 depression. i was willing to take a key role in providing the votes to

have the stimulus package. i then provided i60th vote cut off debate to have healthcare reform. those are principles of the democratic party. that is why president obama came to philadelphia to support me. that is why the black clergy has supported me. that is why two newspapers have noted my stand on principles. >> that is your time. you have 90 seconds for battle. >> i have served 29 years in the u.s. military. i loved every moment. when i came back from the war in afghanistan i was assigned as a three-star admiral. the chief at the time said that joe was a courageous in changing the navy. he put me in the cross hairs. to challenge people in the rumsfeld administration that did

not want to be challenged. the false assertions like arlen specter just said are taken against [inaudible] -- they do not say anything about me. they say more about himself. too many career politicians use this new tactics because they cannot run on the record. when are expected was chairman of the veterans committee of the senate he permitted 1 million veterans to be kicked out of the head administration did of the administration, those who made more than $13,000. he voted against the ptsd funding. it was a war that he voted for. i went to congress and got 250,000 of the veterans back in the. we increase the funding for ptsd by $10 billion. i went to washington for the correct policies, not only for

veterans, but for working families. >> let's see if we can resolve -- there has been controversy. the question goes first to congressman sestak. much has been made about the circumstances under which you left the navy. and senator, there has been talk about the former senator supporting your last reelection, he said in exchange for your supporting president bush's court nomination. were you reassigned or demoted? >> absolutely not. my record is public. the head admiral at the time said that i had been a patriot's patriot in trying to stand up and change the navy. what this means is that a center

who has been there for 30 years has nothing to run on except tactics that are absolutely having nothing to do with working families of pennsylvania. i am very proud of my record, but more than that i have run on record where we have moved money into office. the first movement in 12 years for children who are autistic. i ran for an elder abuse bill. for the first time in 17 years we have had from the house of bill to protect seniors to have been preyed upon. arlen specter has reverted to his old republican tactics. say anything to divert attention from what really matters. the people of pennsylvania are hurting. a negative attack has not created one job. i'm willing to go to washington and do exactly what i did in the nine states -- stand up against

those who believe that politics , negative politics is what you must do to win an election. it is awful. and needs to change. >> and what about the deal? >> there was never a deal. i did not commit my vote. i never would commit my vote under any circumstances. at the time that the senator supported me there were not even any vacancies on the supreme court. i have never used a litmus test. i have voted for nominees who were against roe v. wade, rehnquist and others. my integrity is not blemished and my entire service -- in my entire service. when the congressman knows that the record is public, he knows better than that. he has been authorized -- asked

to authorize the release of his records. in the paper it has this business about people disagreeing with his policies -- it is not true. in the navy was tyrannical -- those are the words of the admiral. he commanded by fear and intimidation. that is not my word, or my statement, that he was relieved of duty and loss t a star becaue of his command climate. those are the facts. he has been asked by tom fitzgerald of "the enquirer" to authorize the release of his records. why don't you do it, congressman? >> arlen specter, on the record, rick santorum said to get his endorsement you agreed to give two votes to whomever it george bush nominated to the supreme court. once again, rove attacks --

anonymous sources. something the republicans did to john kerry, something to max. no, we have to change this. washington is not about what ever you can try to dredge up falsely against someone else. i loved the navy, but i also like standing up as chief of the naval operation asked me to change the navy. i will try to change the career politicians, who will try to keep their job not only by switching a party because of bleak prospects and a primary, but after voting. to literally put on the supreme court, the most conservative supreme court justice clarence thomas, after unfairly taking on anita hill, and then giving two

votes to rick -- no, we have do have a change in washington where career politicians cannot be kept back. we need to have someone who believes you can stand up even when the going is tough. >> sestak says that the center was on the record. he was in front of a republican crowd looking for the presidential nomination, trying to explain why he had the support of me. he has given three different stories on the matter. there was absolutely no deal. when congressman sestak talks about the supreme court justices, it was our inspector who stood up against war, nominated by a republican president. he would have had roe v. wade reversed -- when the nominations

came up i did 12 of them. it is something i have to offer the people of pennsylvania, and america. the kind of questioning that i do and kind of activity in the take. the congressman would not be in a position to do that. when he brings up my war in iraq it was he who ran for office in 2006 and said that he thought we ought to withdraw from iraq by the end of 2007. but when the vote came up he joined in voting for $100 million without any withdrawal at all -- without any date for withdrawal at all. but bear in mind, john wants to clear the business of the navy record. how about it? we release the records? >> we will move on. i want to ask about public service.

you have both been in public service for decades. it described a mistake you made and what you learned from the fed has better prepared you to continue? senator, you get the first crack at it. >> i believe that with regard to the supreme court nominees it has been a mistake to listen to what they say. even though their testimony is under oath. chief justice roberts promised he would not jolt the system, that he would hand down decisions which were modest. he has not done that. he led the way in the reversing 100 years of precedent to allow corporations to engage in political advertising which has the threat of turning our entire system upside-down. he said that he would be deferential to congressional fact-findings.

that would be on the basis as he said that congress his witnesses and can decide the facts. the factual basis is the way we move toward legislation. then when the voting rights came up he did a 180-degree turn. the were indicators and cited his record of his early days when he was in the department of justice of the system of white house counsel about the sort of ideological warfare -- the supreme court has become an ideological battleground. i should have paid more attention to this early indicators. that it ideological battleground will be in vogue when president obama has a nominee. america would be well-off to have arlen specter there. >> congressman sestak, the same question? >> absolutely, i can remember getting to my first ship. i joined up during the vietnam war.

the chief petty officers in back of me. i remember going there thinking i knew the answers. for the first six months i don't think i listened enough to the chief petty officers. those old raleigh guys who put their arms around a young petty officer who said come here, let me to the ropes. after six months i sat down and give me a good father-son talking to. if i had it to do all over again, i would be an enlisted man first. you understand even better from day one with a dislike. i will carry that as i already have in the congress, into the senate. i will never forget the working families. those people are really the engine of our economy. so, when arlen specter voted to deregulate wall street, to let goldman sachs and a.i.g. campbel with the savings -- ando let a.i.g. gamble with the

savings of working families -- i am so for reform. we should never have had a senator who voted to allow tax credits for foreign companies. we should give them otherwise. the proposal is for 50% tax cuts for every job -- >> that is your time. >> i was waiting to hear his mistakes. he went off on another tangent. when he talks about the law with respect to commercial and investment banks, president clinton who signed the law said it was not responsible for the loss. what am i doing? congressman sestak was one of eight democratic senators of about -- congressman, he was one

of eight democratic members of the house to vote against giving the secretary of the treasury authority to give back excess of bonus payments made. on the issue of wall street, i have taken steps having a hearing next tuesday to move toward criminal penalties for the fraud which goldman sachs is alleged to have committed. i do not believe that the sec action is sufficient on looking for fines. when you have to find it is only factored into the cost of doing business. from my experience as district attorney of philadelphia, corrupt politicians, the way to deal with wall street fraud is with jail sentences. that would be adequate punishment for that kind of conduct, and would serve as a deterrent. >> congressman, 90 seconds.

>> for the eight years of the bush administration and even for some years previous to that there has been a belief that the republican agenda, that arlen specter helped to advance, that you could have trickle-down economics, the regulate wall street, and let them gamble with savings of seniors who cannot retire at 65, but work until they're 75 or 80. when he voted for the bush tax cuts and george bush said he was the decisive vote, when the majority went to the top 1% of americans, where 34% of the wealth already is, there was the belief of arlen specter that the wealth with trickle-down. when he advanced the flat tax cut as he did several months ago, he is the only one who has a bill pursued in the senate to be endorsed -- multi-

millionaires in the belief that trickle-down will get a $200,000 tax cut, but the rest of us working americans will have to have a $3,000 tax increase to pay for that. that is why mine proposal is for washington, d.c. change to focus were working families are. to where small businesses get a tax cut for a15%, but those cut in half get reinvigorated. >> that is your time. we will move into question on domestic policy. the first goes to congressman sestak. 186 pennsylvania mayors are urging congress to close a loophole that allows purchases of firearms at gun shows without criminal background checks. i believe you support the effort? >> i believe it because you can

go out and get a gun without anyone seeing that you are law abiding citizen. i also support a plan that arlen specter voted against. why should police go up against the same type of weapons that soldiers due in baghdad? when president clinton passed the assault weapons ban, the death of police officers by assault weapons changed from 16% of murders of police officers down to zero. i believe it is the right of every citizen to have a gun. but there is a better way to keep our streets safe for law- abiding citizens. for those who want to hunt, the recreation, can actually get a

gun. i know that our inspector has 100% support from the nra. i met the other end of the spectrum. i believe we need someone in washington, d.c. who is standing up for families, and violence that most cease. i believe this is one of several measures that needs to be done. >> where are you on closing the gonna show loophole? >> i favor its in light of the increasing crime rate. sestak talks about a 100% voting record, he is wrong on the facts. i have had a lot of experience in criminal law enforcement as district attorney. the way to deal with it is with tough sentences for tough criminals. that's why i introduced and

succeeded in passing the armed career criminal bill. when i was the eighth of philadelphia there were too many prisoners sentences handed out by the philadelphia judges. -- when i was the d.a. when i got to washington on what to bring in the federal government. if you have an individual convicted of three or more violent crimes, that there would be taken into the forecourt where they would have a mandatory sentence of up to 15 years to life. that is why i have supported strong law-enforcement officials to be the u.s. attorneys. the president looks to senator casey to make recommendations. the way to deal effectively with crime is to deal with the career criminalslif. life sentences is the best approach to that issue.

>> i met with the naacp. violence is an issue that concerns them. it is not just loopholes that have existed for too long because washington officials don't have courage to stand up. take women -- 1.5 women of every five on the first year at a campus will have rape and attempted, or actually be raped. i have sponsored a campus safety resolution. my opponent actually voted against the resolution, taking in the violence that happened at columbine. i have an amendment for nclb to require mandatory reporting of violence at schools. they just dismissed the head in philadelphia of the school violence committee. it is why i worked hard on the elder abuse act.

pennsylvania has had an increase of one year of 35%. financial, physical, mental abuse of others. someone in my district was defrauded of $40,000. a senior with alzheimer's paid six different times for a belt buckle. we want to stop young people from going up and growing into a violent pattern. the educational committee needs to work hard on these issues. >> sestak talks about a resolution he introduced. >> i introduced a bill enacted into law. we had a very violent rape/murder in lehigh valley a few years ago. the family came to me. i looked at what was going on and introduced legislation that contained a lot to require that colleges, universities make and practiced the disclosure as to what the crime rate is, and what

they were doing about it on campus. if it were up to the department of education to enforce, it has not been effectively enforced. i pressed them through my position on the appropriations committee to enforce the law. it became law so that when someone is now considering a college campus in america, that campus has an obligation to tell the individual and parents exactly what would happen. i'm still waiting for an answer to the question you posed, and the question i posed. congressman sestak talks about it being on the record, about the reasons for his being relieved of command, but we still have not had his willingness to acquiesce to take a step to clear up once and for all.

will you authorize those records to be released, congressman? >> we will move on. we have a foreign policy question. i'm trying to stick to the format you both agree to. senator, do you oppose the troop expansion into afghanistan when it was announced last december -- the stand by the opposition? >> yes, i am opposed to increasing troops to afghanistan by 30,000 because if al qaeda can organize as well in somalia or yemen, why go to afghanistan where no one has ever been successful? we need to do whatever it takes to fight al qaeda who wants to annihilate us, but to have a loss of limbs and lives that is so expensive -- i don't think that is sensible. after conferring with officials in the department of defense and state i made a trip to afghanistan and talked to karzai.

simply stated, he is not a reliable ally. there are allegations of corruption, dealing in narcotics. he does not have the confidence of the people of afghanistan with vote fraud, and we ought not to be bolstering him. the answer is that we ought to be working on a rapprochement between india and pakistan, so they won't have all the troops on the border. i saw the congressional delegation, the prime minister of india, and urge hid him to release pakistan of those troops. we now find that pakistan is conducting a more aggressive approach. that is better than putting our troops in afghanistan. >> congressman, you supported more troops.

>> yes, i supported president obama in a very difficult decision. i supported it not because of afghanistan, but because of the safe haven in pakistan that several hundred al qaeda leaders have secretary gates said the troop increase is meant to seal the border. as we partner with them to exterminate the al qaeda safe haven -- but this cannot be an open-ended commitment. i voted last june for an exit strategy. i written the president that we need benchmarks to measure success and failure. every warrior knows that. if the success is successful, we exit. if failures are too much, we exit to an alternative strategy. but as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, after we went into iraq, such a tragic war that i opposed but arlen,

specter arlen with no dates to ever no dates-- that afghanistan spiraled downward. i was on the ground there for a short mission as head of a navy unit, then took over and air command. in those two jobs and did track terrorist in yemen and elsewhere. we have one short opportunity right now. if it is not successful against al qaeda, we must exit. >> you have a 90-second rebuttal. >> congressman sestak said in 2006 when he ran for congress that there ought to be a withdrawal from iraq at the end of 2007, then he voted for $100 million without any time and for withdrawal. he has not responded to that. when he talks about a safe haven in the pakistan, that al qaeda

has, he is making my point. my point is that the battle of to be waged in pakistan, and we ought to get the pakistan army to do that. i have been on this area for a long time. back in 1995 i visited the prime minister in india is said to me, you will see bhutto the next day, and i would like to see the sub-continent nuclear-free. then i did speak to her the next day and recommended to president clinton he bring the people in and try to work out of a rapprochement. we have had enormous troop concentrations on the border between pakistan and india. but in a delegation last january i urged the prime minister of india to try to ease the tension. i think that has been done to some extent. then to use the pakistani forces. when he talks about a safe haven

in pakistan, let's remove it and get the paks to do it. >> it is exactly my point. i was on the ground in afghanistan and watched as the taliban and al qaeda flowed into pakistan. now teathey are there. that is why this partnership to seal the borders of the cannot flee. yes. i did put a bill in that said end within one year. our commitment in iraq. because of my military experience and you would take army, to redeploy from there. so, when the bill came up that said we would be out in the four months, there is no way i would ever in danger our troops with my military knowledge. that is what i want to bring to the senate. someone who has been there for 30 years and voted for the

tragic war in iraq, a line from president clinton the limits of military power. how could we have ever gone into that war when it was not a danger to the u.s.? and because we diverted forces were now still have a safe haven for al qaeda. we would have been accomplished by now if someone else had not been supporting the chain and george bush in such a tragic misadventure. probably the most defining vote in our national security during those eight years of the bush administration. >> i want to ask you both about something you have both recently been quoted on. sestak, you have called your own caucus "the most un-democratic place there is" -- and st.

"there are times i cannot find out what is going on to get >> i think that jfk said the best -- sometimes the party asks too much. yes, i know i'm not getting the endorsement of the party establishment. an establishment that asked me to sit down. but i honestly believe as i did in the navy, senator, and just like i'm doing right now, that ultimately isit is about democratic principles. he is the junior senator from pennsylvania. there are only two out of 100 junior to him. the democratic caucus denied him seniority. there are no entitlements in washington. we are no longer a nation of kings. accountability and transparency.

as i went around to 67 counties in pennsylvania, it is what they said they want. the career politicians in washington have been there for generations. they are used to making deals to keep their jobs. or listen to a poll, or special interest, to tell them how to vote. we have created zero jobs during the bush administration. there must be someone down there who wants to change washington who focuses on the working family and is willing to lose their job, not change of party. >> senator, you are quoted recently as saying "i probably should not say this, but had thought from time to time that i might have helped the country more if i had stayed a republican." is party of no consequence? >> party is of consequence. the statement was based on my perspective ability to get more

republicans to support health care legislation. i was able to persuade a couple of colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support the stimulus package. but when i found irreconcilable differences after casting the stimulus vote, i returned to the party of my ribs. when congressman sestak condemns democrats for inviting me to be their candidate, he is condemning president obama. this decision was not made by some faceless, nameless caucus -- this is the president of the united states. he is condemning what governor rendell did. when it talks about the 67 counties, i went to all counties and talked about my background, roots, values. i got 77% of the democrats there. when we talk about the state committee endorsement, and

people are urged congressman sestak not to run, but to keep the seat in the house -- now that is a risk for democrats. it weakens the majority in the house. it also risks the seat in the pennsylvania house. so, this man has done a great disservice to the democratic party which got him elected in 2006 -- >> that is your time. >> imagine candidate barack obama, two years in the senate when he elected against the wishes of the party to run for president. thank goodness he did. i want to be obama's strongest allyobama's knockeda yes man. i want to be someone in the senate who stands up when the going is tough. imagine, if he had opposed george bush's policies, we would

not need an economic stimulus bill. but then, just before he voted for the stimulus bill, he pulled out $100 billion from the bill. 100,000 americans do not have a job today from that money. when the going gets tough is one we really want someone -- 2000 votes for george bush, a defining vote, but in against pell grants four times that would help youths to go to college. voting against schip. now that he is a democrat unthinking him for his votes. working families need someone down there willing to use either job. they put up a plan. there is no record except for the republican record for arlen specter. >> that is your time.

senator? >> how can congressman sestak complain about my vote? we would not have had $16 billion to pennsylvania that is paid for unemployment compensation, medicaid, for highway construction. let me tell you about a conversation i had with senator barack obama. it was on the senate floor before the 2008 election. he asked for advice. i could call him barack in those days. he said you and i both have kansas connections. my mother lived in a small town 40 miles east of wichitayo ofu were born and raised in the kansas near wichita. arlen, the political advice to one from you is if a jewish kid from kansas can carry pennsylvania, how can a black

kid from kansas carry pennsylvania? so i gave him the advice. now he is president of the united states. i do not mean to suggest there is any connection between the advice i give him and his becoming president, but that is a true story. you did not give major stories of washington. it was that relationship of barack obama knowing arlen specter that led him to call me. i did not talk to him in the advance. in advance of my becoming a democrat. >> that is your time. i will try to help out the democratic primary voter by asking you both this. senator, on issues that traditionally are important to democratic primary voters, such as jobs, health care, environment, abortion rights, is there any real difference between the two of you? >> yes, there is. there is a great deal of

difference. is what i have done and i'm doing. if you take, take for example, when i served as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on health care, i took the lead with the minority to increase nih funding from $12 up to $30 billion. when the stimulus chemlawn to add $10 billion more. that medical research has made enormous advances towards cures for various diseases. when it comes to the issue of a woman's right to choose, i have been in the forefront of that movement. i have been supporting planned parenthood for efforts to deal with the issues, informing people, saying is the business of women, families, priests.

when it comes to labor, and have been an active force. congressman sestak quotes the percentage she has hired an eye on labour, but the agency endorsed me when i was on the other side of the aisle to get more money for workers' safety and other things. that is because of my experience and seniority. >> that is your time. congressman, the same question on basic issues important to the democratic primary voter. >> this is the major difference. i am a democrat of core beliefs and convictions. i ran against a 20-year incumbent republican who had the same voting record as arlen specter. four out of every five votes for george bush's policy. they said seniority was the did, but it was not.

we need a public servant. because of the savage policies of george bush that arlen specter supported that ripped up our economy. we have handled four times the constituency caseload. we have over 800 mortgages in the foreclosure coming into our office for help. i did serve in the u.s. navy for 30 years, a very honorable service. he served down in washington, d.c. for 30 years advancing the republican agenda. he voted for the largest education cut in the history of america. one-third over seven years. he stopped the clinton health- care plan dead in its tracks. i do appreciate what you have done for nih. but on the key declining issues that impact, working impactthey need someone who was in it

because the state this is what i'm doing for working families as my plan, and will be they're not just before an election, but after. >> that is your time. >> it is interesting that sestak says he is a democratic out of court democratic beliefs. if you look at the record, he was registered independent until spring 2006 when he decided to run for congress. the record also shows he did not vote half the time in the national elections. he is hardly in a position to say he files core democratic beliefs. this is one of many charges he has made with no factual basis at all. when i chaired the subcommittee on education, these attacks. i became chairman in 1996 and the budget was $23 billion. it was increased to $41 billion

by 2010. you look at pell grants that were $2,400, now $4,800. look at the start up a program which the congressman had the idea and came to me as chairman of the subcommittee -- i provided $100 billion per year to take promising middle school students and move them into college. my record s chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on education did a tremendous amount to increase education funding. when you talk about the labor issue, which is a core matter -- >> that is your time. >> i was registered independent for 31 years in the u.s. military because i believe as collin powell did that the

military should be non- political. i also missed some votes in the gulf of mexico. it was voted to be corrected last year where we get our absentee ballots late after the election. let's look of the last 30 years and the pennsylvania. we have had half the job growth of the national average. we actually are the second- oldest state today because the youth has not stood. 1/7 population growth here in philadelphia in the last 30 years we have lost 100,000 jobs. it is the same in pittsburgh. that is why i want to focus on small businesses that create a% of all jobs. in my district, we have already increased federal contracts to small businesses three-fold as

it put together a small consortium. i want to bring the same approach. the majority of people in pennsylvania work in small businesses, not in large corporations. if we want to change washington, we have to change career politicians. >> we are quickly winding down. we have time for one more question. i will give each of you two minutes to answer the last question. in turn to give voters a sense of who you are. to help me i would like you, and without invoking the name of a family member or relative, tell me who in the public life, past or present, there you try to emulate, and why? >> thank you very much. i have a very much admired john f. kennedy, but if i had to choose someone today, it would

have been someone like sam nunn who stood up for his deep belief. it was down in the congress, willing to work hard on the issues for which he believed in. i watched him from the pentagon. although he focused primarily on national-security issues, i was quite taken by how he always did the right thing irregardless of how it might have infected him. i strongly believe that what has really harmed the senate, which actually needs reform, not the u.s. -- because where principle is subordinated to politics, to a political calculation, over what needs to be done to ensure one's job through the next election is most important --we have lacked the kind of leadership down there from emigration to climate change to

where we see challenges and actually go and address those in regardless of what might occur. i saw that with some wonderful leaders in the u.s. navy, from my father for many years who was just laid to rest in the arlington cemetery. but i honestly believe that type of approach has to be regained in the washington. for far too long, and i have only been a three years, and yes, i am running against the democratic establishment, but i admire and respect, but kelly disagree with it -- we're not rendellites, bidenites, the democrats who believe that you stand up for what is right for working families and let the chips fall as they may. >> two minutes. >> i would choose franklin delano roosevelt. he was the hero of the specter

household when i was growing up. but my parents were immigrants and the times were very tough for our family and the wichita, kansas. he pulled us out of the depression. that was in my mind when i voted for the stimulus package to avoid another 1929 depression. president roosevelt took on the tough guys, very much as i took on the tea party gained on the town meetings. a cover every one of pennsylvania's 67 counties almost every year. when i began last august to defend president obama in healthcare plan, i was met with 1000 people into nearby the tea party. one person approached me and said got will stand before you -- i think he got mixed up. i think it will require someone who is that kind of a stand-up guy in the rough and tumble of politics to beat the former

congressman. i beat him in the election six years ago, and can beat him again. a very overarching issue and how you select the democratic nominee is to can be to toumie? it took on the job as president of the club for growth, has a lot of money, and the tea party is an address. where was sestak was in august when i was facing the tea party gang? he had one meeting in a friendly church with a hand-pick crowd. i was out there battling them. that is what it will take to keep the seat in democratic hands. the republicans are out to support president obama. the senator from south carolina said it will be like waterloo. he needs at the seat from pennsylvania in the democratic hands. that is arlen specter. >> and that is your time. we have for closing statements, beginning with senator arlen

specter. >> i ask for your vote on primary election day based upon what i have done, has been doing, and can do in the future. i have talked about my key role of getting stimulus past, and comprehensive health care passed, my senior position on appropriations and experience has enabled me to bring jobs to pennsylvania, more money for medical research. i know this state like the back of my hand. it is a great privilege to be a u.s. senator. i have been it endorsed not only by the democratic party, but by president obama, vice-president joe biden who knows me well from 30 years, tried to persuade me to come back to the party, by gov. ed rendell. i have also been endorsed by "the philadelphia inquirer" and the pittsburgh paper. there is now one other endorsement i'm asking for --

the endorsement that is most important to me. that is your vote. support me on primary election day. do not forget the challenge to be sure navy records, congressman. >> that is your time. >> it is time for change. i held 18 health care summit of the past year and a half, 10 last august. i listened. you can see in every poll that if we democrats have arlen specter of the top of the ticket, this possibility for reelection is less than 33%. what the people most want is no longer career politician who will say anything, no matter how meaningless, or how off-base from pennsylvanians. they want what i have from the navy, where i was told and talk

to be accountable. it was needed in the washington during the bush years. i went down there to help change washington, not just in policies but in the politics where people who are careerists one not only do or say anything, but they hurt the integrity of the system to where people no longer trusted. i want the one endorsement. i would be honored to be a public servant. >> that is your time. that is our debate for this evening. i would like to thank both candidates. thanks to the viewers for watching. let me remind to, there is an election on may 18. it is the democratic primary. if you are a democrat, get out there and vote. the matter where you are, pay attention, and get ready to vote again in the fall. thanks again for watching. good night. >> to go for watching the 2010 pennsylvania democratic debate.

we wish to thank wtxs fox in philadelphia for us in the debate. if you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the campaign offices. for arlen specter is called citizens for specter. or long gone to his website. and for a joke sestak, please call sestak for senate -- or log on to his website. -- fourjoe . -- for joe sestak. >> the political primary debates

are under way in several states. tonight we will have live coverage at the democratic senator primary debate in kentucky. and at 9:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the governor's race in california to replace schwarzenegger. poizner is running against whitman. the u.s. senate is working on financial regulations and a bill to restructure overset. they are offering an immense today with votes beginning tomorrow on many of them. you can see live coverage on c- span2. >> i am worried that new media is starting down the same road as traditional media, too much

consolidation, too many private sector decisions. >> tonight, a discussion of the issues with michael copps. it is on c-span2. >> representatives for more than 100 countries are meeting at the united nations for a conference to review the international treaty on nuclear weapons. the secretary of state hillary clinton is speaking this afternoon. until then, a look at today's comments by president ahmadinejad of iran. >> good morning, ladies and

gentlemen. in the beginning of like to say a word about the statement by the secretary general. he said theiran must accept the few exchange, and that the ball is now in iran's court. i like to tell you and informed him that we accepted that from the start. i like to announce that to us is an accepted deal, therefore, we have not run the ball and the court of those who should accept our proposal, and the mark on cooperation with us. in the name of god, the compassionate, the merciful, of praise be to allah, lord of the universie, and all blessing be on those of the profit mohammed,

and his also. hasten the arrival, and grant him good health and victory and make us followers. mr. president, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, i think the almighty god for granting an opportunity to have a dialogue about one of the key issues of common concern. undoubtedly, this review conference of non-proliferation treaty is one of the most important international meetings. . .

here and thereafter. to them an ideal society is one of global scale based on monotheism, justice, replete with security, affection, and a brother leanness -- brotherli ness led by the noble servant of god and jesus christ, peace be upon him as well as righteous people. may i underline that in the

absence of sustainable security it is impossible to adopt comprehensive measures for the treatment and development of promoting welfare. although a substantial part of national resources are allocated for national security, there is hardly any sign of an improvement in the ability to improve security in the face of perceived threats and that in fact continues. some states choose to part from the teachings of divine profits. the threat of nuclear bombs is cast over the entire world. no one is secure.

some faith's the fine in their strategies nuclear bombs as an element of stability and security. this constitutes a gross mistake. the production and possession of nuclear bombs under any pretext is hazardous and first and foremost to the country of production. stockpiling exposes the most hazards. you may recall the perilous and unintentional transfer of a nuclear missile on a bomber from a military base to another base in the united states, which became a matter of concern to the health and security of americans as well as the american government. the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to annihilate all living beings and to destroy the environment. it's radiation could affect

future generations, leaving a negative impact on the environment that remains for centuries. the nuclear bomb works against humanity rather than as a weapon for defense. the possession of a nuclear bomb is not a source of pride. its possession is disgusting and shameful. even more shameful is the threat to use such weapons, which if used the scale of its destruction is incomparable to any crime permitted throughout history. those who carried out the first atomic bombardments are amongst the most heated individuals in human history. the united nations in particular the security council have for

over the past 60 years been unable to establish sustainable security, let alone give a sense of security to nations and their international relations. the current international venue seems far more challenging than previous decades. wars, acts of aggression, and above all the shadow of threats resulting from the stockpiling of nuclear armament and, even worse, unfair policies from this select group of individuals have obscured the prospect of international security. these days communities largely carry a sense of insecurity as a result. nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation have failed to materialize and the

international atomic energy agency has been unsuccessful in discharging its mandate during the past four decades. some face, -- faiths, including the zionist regime, have been equipped with nuclear arms. despite international efforts to promote disarmament, what is the real cause of failure to disarm? to answer this question, look to the policies and practices of certain states and the efficacy curtailed. some of which are as follows. first is what i label as a domineering influence. from the perspective of the divine profit and the righteous and according to all humane concepts, the prosperity of man is measured by morality, piety,

modesty, and a devotion to other human beings. unfortunately by relying on this theory, states struggle for survival. some states seek superiority through the power to threaten. so, the seeds of hatred and ended t promote arms races in the -- and nitty -- and mitty -- emnity promote arms races. second is the policy of production and use of nuclear weapons. the first nuclear bomb was approved by the previous government of the united states has apparently it would provide the united states and allies the

upper hand in world war ii. however it became the main source of encouragement to others to develop nuclear weapons, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear arms race. the production, stockpiling, and qualitative improvement of nuclear armaments in any given country now serves as a justification to develop their own arsenal. a trend that has sustained over the past 40 years. this misperception that nuclear weapons are a means of deterrence, this perception is something that has translated into policy and it is the main cause of the arms race. deterrence requires having an edge in quality and quantity of weapons.

reportedly there are more than 20,000 nuclear warheads worldwide. half of which belong to the united states. the other competing groups continue to develop nuclear weapons under the pretext of deterrence. those trends constitute a violation of obligations under nuclear proliferations. this misperception that it is ok to use nuclear weapons, regrettably the united states has not only used nuclear weapons, but they also continued to threaten the use of such weapons against other countries, including my country. might i remind you that a few years back another country from europe made a similar nuclear threat under a false pretext as well.

middle eastern countries were consistently threatened with a nuclear arsenal. this is what i call the instrumental exploitation of the security council and the international atomic energy agency. by and during special privileges in the highest global security decision making bodies, certain nuclear weapons states widely exploit these platforms against non-nuclear weapons states contrary to the city of -- spirit of the mpc. this on just practice repeated over and over has turned -- unjust practice repeated over and over has turned into a routine. none of these states have been

able to exercise their inalienable right to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy without facing pressure and threats some level. despite clear provisions of article 6 of the treaty and the statute of the iaea. not a single report has been issued by inspectors on the nuclear weapons facilities of the united states and its allies. nor is there any plan for them to air disarmament. however, numerous resolutions are adopted against non-nuclear weapons states by the same states that use false pretexts with a clear intention of denying other member states there recognized nuclear rights to develop their own energy.

this is the prevailing sense that it is all right to use double standards. although for example they have stockpiled hundreds of nuclear warheads and waged numerous wars in the middle east region, continuing to threaten the people and nations of the region with acts of terror and threats of invasion. they have enjoyed the unconditional support of the united states allies, receiving the necessary assistance to developing nuclear weapons program. this same fate imposes various kinds of pressure on other members of the iaea by using the product -- false pretext of nuclear activity. failing to provide even a single credible proof to substantiate their allegations.

equating nuclear weapons with nuclear energy. nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and cheapest sources of nuclear energy. severe climate change and environmental pollution caused by fossil fuel hasn't testified the need to expand the use of nuclear energy. almost 7 million barrels of oil are needed for the continual generation of 1,000 megawatts of electricity annually, which by today's oil price would cost over $500 million. the thought of generating the same capacity with nuclear energy would cost $60 million. generally the investment needed to construct a nuclear power plant is far less than that operating fossil fuels in this

life span. moreover, nuclear technology can be effectively and widely applied in the production and diagnosis of treatment of life- threatening diseases, as well as in the industrial and agricultural sectors and other fields. one of the greatest injustices committed by nuclear weapons states is equating nuclear arms with nuclear energy. as a matter of fact, these states seek to exclusively monopolize both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. by doing so they can impose their will on the international community. these acts are against the spirit of the mcp can in flagrant violation of its provisions -- and in flagrant violation of its provisions.

the mtp has as its key mandate the prevention of nuclear arms race. the promotion of nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation, as well as the facilitation of the inalienable rights of member states to use peaceful nuclear energy. put into its mechanisms and regulations to supervise countries seeking a peaceful use of nuclear energy, no effective mechanism has been devised to address the actual threat from nuclear weapons, which should be the most important mission of the iaea. only limited to talks that lack any binding guarantee of effectiveness. the iaea has been placing every

possible pressure on non-nuclear weapons states under the pretext of proliferation risks when it should have been doing otherwise. that is why those with nuclear bombs continue to enjoy full immunity from the iaea. dear friends, it is now clear that the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and a policy practices by nuclear weapons states and the imbalance in the provision are the main cause of insecurity. nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear threats and non-proliferation are regarded as the greatest services. the question is, however, whether it is appropriate to

grant extraordinary authority in trusting them with the critical issue of nuclear disarmament. it would be irrational to expect a voluntary initiative towards disarmament and non- proliferation. simply because these states consider nuclear weapons as an element of superiority over others. there is an iranian saying that reads that a knife never cuts its own handle. expecting major arms dealers to work for security is an illogical expectation. the government of the united states, the main suspect in the production of stockpiling and

threatening to use nuclear weapons insists on assuming the leadership role. now, the nuclear administration from the u.s. has announced it will either produce nuclear weapons nor attack nuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons. but the united states has never respected any of its commitments. one may ask, how much could nations possibly trust the united states in its commitment? what guarantees are there that it will live up to these commitments? it to be borne in mind that in previous decades the united states has had most of its wars and conflicts with those that were once its friend. furthermore under the same initiative some of the member states, which are also committed member states, have

threatened -- have been threatened with nuclear strike. attention from the non- compliance and local actions have brought to focus this misleading issue. they have recently raised the issue of nuclear terrorism as a part of their efforts to maintain and upgrade their nuclear arsenal on one hand and divert nuclear public opinion from the issue of disarmament and directing them towards phony matters on the other hand. farming terrorists with nuclear weapons is only conceivable by states that possess such weapons and have used them. and also have a long record of supporting terrorists. the united states has kept silent about a nuclear strike

against nuclear weapons states in order to concentrate propaganda pressure against certain independent nations. this is while -- this is why major terrorist networks are supported by the united states intelligence agencies and regimes. credible evidence is available in this connection that will be publicized, if needed, during the forthcoming conference on the global fight against terrorism in tehran. it is noted that the united states will not develop nuclear weapons, that they will in continue to improve them qualitatively. the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons is tantamount to the destructive power of the weapons with in a vertical for it -- proliferation.

additionally their stated policies cannot be verified that there is no supervision from any authoritative body on the nuclear programs of the united states and its allies. by comparing the washington nuclear security summit with the tehran non-proliferation conference, the efforts of the host of the former was aimed at preserving monopoly over discussions on nuclear weapons, presuming superiority of -- superiority over other countries. prior to this all that was sought was the motive, nuclear energy for all. mr. president, distinguished delegates, to realize this aspiration to disarm the world from nuclear weapons, to engage

in non-proliferation and promote peaceful nuclear energy i would like to honor -- propose this. mtp should lead the nuclear disarmament, which must be put at the core of the man they were transparent findings and effective mechanisms supported by solid international guarantees. the establishment of an independent international group with full authority from the conference to prepare its guidelines for articles including planning and fully supervised nuclear disarmament, as well as preventing proliferation, the group should conduct its work with the effective participation of all

independent countries by setting the line for proliferation within a specified time table. in other words, nuclear weapons should be eliminated within the timetable. the introduction of a legally binding comprehensive security guarantee without discrimination or preconditions until the achievement of full nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapons states. four, the immediate determination of all kinds of research development and improvement of nuclear weapons and related facilities. as well as the introduction of a verification mechanism by the above mentioned group.

five, the adoption of a legally binding instruments on the complete prohibition of production, stockpiling, improvement, and maintenance of nuclear weapons. sixth, the suspension of membership and the board of governors for those states that use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. the presence and political influence of these states has so far prevented the iaea from performing its mandates. particularly with regards to items four and six of the treaty, causing the agency to deviate from its mission. in particular, how could the government of the united states the member of the board of governors when it has not only use that against japan but also

defeated uranium weapons witin iraq. this sensation of nuclear cooperation with non-member states and the adoption of effective punitive measures against all of those states that continued cooperation with such non-member states. 8, considering any threat to use nuclear weapons or attacks against peaceful nuclear facilities as a breach of international security with a swift reaction from the united nations with the threatening aggressor state. nine, immediate and unconditional implementation of the resolution adopted by the

1995 review court on the establishment of a nuclear freedom in the middle east. 10, the dismantling of nuclear weapons stationed in the military bases of the united states and allies in other countries, including germany, italy, japan and the netherlands. 11, a collective effort to reform the structure of the security council. the current structure of the security council is extremely unfair and inefficient, mainly serving the interests of the nuclear weapons states. reforming the structure of the council, along with a review of the achievements are interrelated and essential for the realization of the iaea's objectives. mr. president, dear friends, as

the representative of a great and civilized nation, one that has contributed to human culture throughout history and has always been heralded through the need to worship god, justice, and peace in the world, i would like to announce that the sovereign republic of iran is ready to partake in the realization of those proposals on disarmament and non- proliferation. five announce proudly that a nation which has bred great personality such as [speaking foreign language] and

independence and freedom seeking intellectuals with wise personalities established to humanity a nation that is always good for love, compassion, and peace for mankind. a nation, the poem in the united nations that says that of one essence the human being has thus created the beasts, a nation that abolished slavery 2500 years ago. i speak of the great nation of iran. there is not one that needs nuclear bombs for its development. not regarded as a source of honor and dignity, the logic in

the will of the nation is a reflection of the logic and will of all nations. all nations love peace, brotherhood, and monotheism, suffering from discrimination and injustice. many of my colleagues and heads of states, sympathetic and the justice-seeking dignitaries have spoken to me and shared this view, that there is a dire need for global disarmament and the expansion of peaceful breaking of the monopoly in these fields. as was contained in the foregoing proposals, this is the hard phelps belief of all nations that nuclear energy for everyone, nuclear weapons for

no one. accordingly, my presence and the essence of my statement here in my conference is only a representation of this demand. colleagues, may i say a few words to those that still maintain that the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are sources for power and dignity, they must understand the error of relying upon nuclear bombs has already passed. the production, stockpiling, and threat of using weapons, particularly nuclear weapons, is for people without a specific level of knowledge and wise behavior. using threats against this strong logic belongs to the past

and is not viable anymore. currently we think of nations, fought, and cultures relying on weapons in international dialogue and a legacy of unwise and anachronistic states. it is crystal clear that the policies so far have failed and the dream for establishing new empires are vain at most, moving forward without coming true. rather than continuing with the failed policies of the past it would be better to join the wide and transparent ocean of nations across and beyond borders. independent states carrying hand in hand wisdom and culture in the interests of everyone. security, peace, justice would

be established by a righteous people throughout the world. the power of logic could prevent over the logic of power. there would be no room in the future for bullying and arrogance. the common movement of nations throughout the world for fundamental reform based on monotheism and injustice has already begun in the international arena. i invite mr. obama, the respected president of the united states, to join this humane movement. to see he is still committed to change. since tomorrow would be too late for this. here i would like to acknowledge and express my

appreciation for the efforts of the president of the conference and a distinguished participants and those for the establishment of peace and justice in the world. friends and colleagues, through cooperation and the solidarity of our hearts our aspirations for establishing the world in peace are indeed achievable. nuclear weapons for none is the basis for interaction the monks human beings, as well as human and nature. let us hope for a day in which through the realization of justice, no one will be infuriated. even if it happens, let's hope again that no weapons would be found to be satisfied. reading justice and liberty to love and affection, of the

followers of the school of compassion and human beings that of humans. i wish you all every success and prosperity. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> that was the iranian president earlier today at the un. "de un schools ahmadinejad fortifying resolutions. the united nations' top leadership use the high-level nuclear conference monday to publicly sold iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad for his country's affiant's of u.n. resolutions. the remarks from the secretary geoff -- secretary general

constituted a rebuke and reflected more mounting concerns that their nuclear policy threatens to undermine the conference of the nuclear non- proliferation treaty. we are waiting for remarks from hillary clinton to the un. we expect that to be coming up shortly here on c-span. we will bring that to you live. in the meantime, an update on iraq from today's "to washington journal." . >> "washington journal" continues. >> until 10:00 this morning we will spend some time talking about iraq with rusty barbara, who is the director of -- rusty propebarber, who is the directof -- and votes are still being counted after the parliamentary elections. what is going on?

guest: but very briefly, what has occurred is that no one blog has succeeded in winning a simple majority 300 seat of a 25 member parliament. the two top box, headed by the former prime minister and the state of law, headed by the current prime minister are in a tight race to see who will be the next governor. there are only two seats difference between them. that has resulted in nouri al maliki contesting the initial results of the vote. he won 89 as opposed to the other party, which won 91 seats. he has demanded a recount, initially in baghdad. that is 2.5 million votes that have to be recounted.

all of this has slowed the process towards a dormant formation and increased the debt -- the tensions around it and a lot of the maneuvering has gotten to be much more vitriolic. one of the elements in this process that has been particularly worrisome i >> we will leave this to go live to the u.n.. secretary of state hillary clinton is just beginning her remarks. >> a central mission of our foreign policy lies at the core of the mission. i want to begin by reading a section of the message that president obama has sent to the conference. "for four decades the mtp has been the cornerstone of the efforts for preventing nuclear proliferation. today the regime is under pressure.

it was made a priority of the united states to strengthen each of the pillars of the treaty as we work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and pursue the peace and security of a world without them. today the eyes of the world are upon us. over the coming weeks each of our nations will have the opportunity to show where we stand. we will meet our responsibilities. or will we shirk them? in short, do we seek a 21st century of more nuclear weapons for a world without enthem? at this conference and beyond let us come together in partnership to pursue the peace and security our people deserve." president obama and i know that there are many different

perspectives experienced and represented in this room. we know that there are doubts amongst some about whether nuclear weapons states, including my own country, are prepared for this effort. i am here to tell you as clearly as i can that the united states will do its part. by represent a president and country committed to a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. and to taking the concrete steps necessary that will help us get there. along with my delegation i come to this conference with severe and serious proposals to strengthen the bill will non-for liberation regime. president obama -- non- proliferation regime. president obama and i have a guiding principle of effort.

we recognize the right of all countries in compliance with the treaty to realize the benefits of nuclear energy. we recognize our responsibility to commit the resources that will help to spread those benefits as widely as possible. we also recognize our responsibility as a nuclear weapons state to move towards disarmament. which is exactly what we are doing. as we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain, we are asking all signatories to do the same period to work with us to strengthen global -- proliferation rules and hold accountable those that violate them. as we began this conference, let's remember why we are here. because it is easy to get lost in the jargon and technical disputes. but there is a deeper mission

here. to create a safer world where our children and grandchildren can realize their god-given potential. this meeting comes 40 years after the mtp first entered into force. at that time the world was at a crossroads. president kennedy had warned that by the year 1975 up to 20 countries might have nuclear weapons. he said that nuclear proliferation was inevitable. today we can be grateful that this treaty helped to dispel the darkest predictions of that era and that a nuclear weapon has not been used in those four decades. as we recognize its significance we must also acknowledge that like our predecessors 40 years

ago, we stand also at a crossroads. once again we face the prospect of a new wave of proliferation. once again we hear claims that the spread of nuclear weapons is unavoidable. once again some say that we must learn to live with the fear and instability of a world with more and more nuclear arms states and networks. today the vast majority of states are living up to their obligation. if you out buyers have decided to violate rules and defied the international community. in the past decade ones they said that it would withdraw after they were caught cheating in subsequently announced nuclear tests. another has claimed to be abiding by the treaty while

violating its safeguards, expanding its enrichment program, failing to cooperate, ignoring the injunction of the security council. admits these challenges, once again these nations have the opportunity to pursue a different path. the message from the president last year as a new urgency. rules must be binding. violations must be punished. words must mean something. the world must stand together. at this conference it is time for a strong international response. these review conferences have been held every five years for the last four decades. too often they have fractured a long familiar lines. nuclear weapons states and non-

nuclear weapons states. instead of working together to meet a common challenge, we have a treaties into a predictable position to protect our for sued interests. this time must be different. as one minister said to me, we must think not only out of the box, but out of the block. this morning the president of rairan offer the same wild and false accusations against the united states and others at this conference. but that is not surprising. as you heard this morning iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record by an attempt to convey accountability. ultimately be will all be judged. not for our words, but for our

actions. we will be measured not by our assertiveness, but the faithfulness of of holding our responsibilities. in this regard the onus is on iran, who has so far failed to meet its burden. they are the only country represented in this hall that has been found by the iaea board of governors to be currently in non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations. the only one. it has defied the u.n. security council and iaea, placing the future of the non-proliferation regime in jeopardy. this is why it is facing increasing isolation and pressure from the international community. but they will not succeed in their efforts to divert and

divide. the united states and a great majority of the representatives here come to this conference with a much larger agenda. to strengthen the global -- from the thracian regime that vances the security of all nations. advancing both our rights and responsibilities. now is the time the focus on promoting practical solutions. not pursuing unrealistic agendas. now is the time to build consensus, not to block it. i call on iran to join in with the other delegations represented in the meeting to go ahead and fulfill our international obligations and work towards the goal of a simpler world. the stakes are as high as they were at the dawn of the mtp and we cannot fall into zero divisions. rather than allow a small minority to focus attention on our differences, we must the

knowledge that we are all on this together and set a course for 40 years of progress to stem the tide of proliferation, prevent the use of these weapons, and use nuclear power for the purposes of peace and prosperity. to realize this goal we must commit ourselves to strengthening the pillars of the non-proliferation regime. with respect to those pillars, of this administration, the united states has led through deeds, not simply words. our commitment to the mtp begins with our efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our own arsenal. the president recognized that the greatest potential danger facing the united states come from a terrorist group like al qaeda obtaining a crude nuclear device, not from a global

nuclear war. we know that the threats to the 21st century cannot be address with a massive nuclear stockpile. we are taking a reversible, transparent, verifiable threats to reduce -- verifiable steps to reduce the number of nuclear bevins in our stockpile. the number strategically to avoid by our country will be reduced to levels not seen since the 1950's. this agreement is consistent with the secretary-general's call to pursue disarmament with a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments. our nuclear posture review rules out the development of new u.s. nuclear weapons and new capabilities for existing weapons. it also stated that we would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that

are party to the mtp and in compliance with the obligation. we have made a commitment to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty and we are past ready to start multilateral negotiations on verifiable freeze. today i am announcing that we will submit protocols to the united states senate to ratify our participation in nuclear weapon free zones established in africa and the south pacific. upon ratification parties of those agreements will have a legally binding assurance that the united states will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them and will fully respect the nuclear weapons free status of the zone. we are prepared to consult with the parties of the zone in central and southeast asia in an effort to reach protocols with

it? as well. we support efforts to realize the goal of the weapons of mass destruction free zone in the middle east in accordance with the 1995 middle east resolution. the middle east made present the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the world today. adherence to the mtp is not universal. they have violated their treaty obligations. in spite of these difficulties we want to reaffirm our commitment to the objective of the middle east free of these weapons of mass destruction. we are prepared to support practical measures that will move us towards achieving that objective. president obama has made it clear that the united states will maintain nuclear deterrence for as long as those weapons exist. one that can protect our

country and allies. but we will continue to seek further reductions in we will pursue concrete steps to improve the transparency of our nuclear arsenal. beginning today the united states will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number that we have dismantled since 1991. for those that doubt that the united states will do its part on disarmament, this is our record, these are our commitments, sending a clear and unmistakable signal. we are also committed to bolstering another signal. access to civilian nuclear energy. we on the foot of the support the rights of states in compliance with the treaty to access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. the high-end projection for new nuclear capacity has nearly doubled since the last review

conference five years ago. the united states wants to help to expand the ability of all states to utilize fees from of your energy over the past decade. we have provided over $200 million in supporting the technical cooperation fund of the iaea. it has held 100 countries develop or expand peaceful use of nuclear energy. today the president has asked me to announce that the united states will make an additional commitment over the next five years for a new peaceful usage initiative. we hope that other partners will match this contribution with an additional $50 million. we will use these resources to improve health care, nutrition, manage water resources, improve food security, and help countries develop the infrastructure for safe and

secure nuclear power. we are pleased that the director general of the iaea has made expanding use of civil nuclear energy for humanitarian purposes. the united states is also strengthening bilateral technical cooperation arrangements with more than 40 states in the least, north africa, and southeast asia. but this treaty is weekend when a state flouts the rules and develops illicit nuclear weapons capabilities. as we pursue progress on these pillars we must recommit the nation. when leaders of the iaea ask for more resources and authority to carry out their mission of of verifying compliance with non- proliferation obligations, we must respond. when they call on states to ratify additional protocol is to make sure that the parties are meeting their treaty

obligations, we must act. improving the ability of the iaea to protect safeguard violations is not enough. potential violators must know that they will pay a high price if they break the rule. that is certainly not the case today. the record of the international community to enforce compliance is unacceptable. so, we need to consider automatic penalties for the violation of safeguard agreements, like suspending technical cooperation projects until compliance is restored. we must use all of the possible financial and legal tools to disrupt illicit proliferation networks. meaning tight controls on shipments and enhanced restrictions on transfers of sensitive technology. we should also find ways to dissuade states from utilizing

treaties with gold provisions. i am now proposing a limit on the rights of states to withdraw, but we cannot stand by when a state with a committed treaty violations as the they will pull out in an attempt to escape penalties. parties to the mtv have investigated decades into the global -- from the thracian regime. that network will be rendered meaningless if nations are continued to be allowed to break the rules with impunity. our work at this conference must provide a foundation for future actions, including strengthening of safeguards, a cuff treaty at the conference of disarmament, and toughening enforcement against proliferation at the un security council. the last 40 years have proved

that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. we believe that it can be stopped. but it will take all of this year recognizing common dangers and finding common ground. rolling up our sleeves and getting created. taking practical steps together in the next month. many skeptics out there said that when countries gather at the united nations, nothing happens but many words are used. it is up to us in the conference to prove them wrong. 40 years from now our successors will mark the 80th anniversary of the non-proliferation treaty. the men and women that gather on that occasion in the new building, once it is finally completed, will not remember the words that we speak today unless they are matched by actions. our children and our

grandchildren will live with the consequences of what we decide this month. whether or not the world is less secure depends on the path that we take. there is no greater reason than that to find a way to act the gather and decisively. thank you very much. [applause] >> again, headlines from "the washington post." "the when scolds ahmadinejad for the final resolutions." coming up later today, a conference on anti-defamation. you can watch that live at 6:00 eastern on c-span 3. also on c-span.org.

now we will bring you back to this morning's "washington journal." the program's director of the u.s. institute of peace was a guest giving an update on iraq. " communicators'" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. >> until 10:00 this morning we will spend some time talking about iraq with rusty barbara, who is the director of -- rusty propebarber, who is the directof -- and votes are still being counted after the parliamentary elections. what is going on? guest: but very briefly, what has occurred is that no one blog has succeeded in winning a simple majority 300 seat of a 25

member parliament. the two top box, headed by the former prime minister and the state of law, headed by the current prime minister are in a tight race to see who will be the next governor. there are only two seats difference between them. that has resulted in nouri al maliki contesting the initial results of the vote. he won 89 as opposed to the other party, which won 91 seats. he has demanded a recount, initially in baghdad. that is 2.5 million votes that have to be recounted. all of this has slowed the process towards a dormant formation and increased the debt -- the tensions around it and a lot of the maneuvering has gotten to be much more

vitriolic. one of the elements in this process that has been particularly worrisome is the justice accountability commission, which as you may recall, was set up originally to disqualify or remove baathist from government and positions of power. host: end of the baathist are from a body, which is not transparent, it is very murky and is headed by a former u.s. ally in iraq, they have disqualified a number of candidates after the election. i think that one of the things that is particularly worrisome to everyone is the ad hoc nature of following the rules of the game in this post-election process. host: if the u.s. had their druthers, who would they rather work with?

guest: i think that the united states would prefer to see a grand coalition of all the major parties. . point would prefer to see a grand coalition of all the major parties. it would include iraqiya, it maliki's party, the islamic supreme council of iraq, the kurds, and others. they would rather see a coalition government to be sure that the arabs and the kurds are all represented. it will be nearly impossible to govern without that kind of agreement among all of them to participate. host: we will take your calls on an update on iraq -- u.s. policy in iraq. the numbers are on the screen. the numbers are on the screen. what is the next important and it will moment for u.s. forces in iraq? the net guest: to major

deadline -- guest: the next major deadline -- actually, the end of this week forces have to begin the serious withdrawal, moving toward the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by august. the remaining number to be drawn down by 2011. the question now, of course, is will u.s. -- the u.s. be able to withdraw on time? it has made clear it plans to withdraw those 50,000 troops by august. host: no matter where they stand or who is in charge of this? guest: that is the position and they're determined to withdraw now. if the decision were to completely disintegrate, the iraqi security forces are unable to maintain security, or if the security forces were to in the worst-case scenario side with

one block or another, that might actually require them to consider the timetable for withdrawal. they very much want the parties to reach some kind of a sudden -- consensus. host: is the general -- what is the general state of security there? guest: it is still volatile. al qaeda suffered two major losses in their leadership in iraq with those who were killed a couple of weeks ago in the air strikes in northern iraq. and there's this possession -- a perception of a cut as this multi headed hydra and every time one had is blocked off and another bros. that has been true, but by and large, -- another one rose. that has been true, but by and large, it has been able to conduct these attacks, but it no

longer has a support base in iraq. host: in your piece earlier in the year you wrote about what the iraqis are looking for in the u.s. has that changed in the last couple of months? guest: by and large, most iraqis

do what the united states to withdraw on schedule. -- and you want the united states to withdraw on schedule. but there are concerns about whether iraqi security forces will be able to maintain security once the u.s. withdraws. interestingly enough, iraqi leaders are not going to be public and indicating a desire for american forces to remain or extend their stay, but in private they will indicate their concerns. for example, in the north between the central government and the kurdish forces, who are face to face with the american troops as buffers between them, that is a situation that could erupt in the event of friction around the length of government formation, or their simple proximity. there are strong concerns about that. we have heard some concern -- reports over the weekend, the

foreign minister indicating that perhaps it might not be, at a bad idea of the u.s. were to extend beyond the august deadline -- it might not be a bad idea if the u.s. were to extend beyond the deadline, but that has not been -- there has not been any indication that will be the way this plays out. host: we have a call from san francisco. good morning to brag on the democrats line. and -- greg on the democrats line. caller: i think every tv station in america should give the public to watch a great program called "no end in sight" and how the american government encourage the looting of iraq. we just allow voting to go on and the destruction to go on, destroying all of the -- allowed the polluting to go on and the destruction to go on, destroying

all of the infrastructure. the program is called "no end in sight." it is about how this government of ours was so criminal and negligent in their invasion and occupation of iraq. it is incredible. the second thing i would like to bring off for c-span, you have just now in this seat that mr. barber was sitting in, that should be disinfected and burned, you had an international war criminals sitting at your table. and you let him go out the side door. it seems to me like we have this truck in new york city where they are going to hunt this guy down to the end of the earth and you have an international war criminal in their five minutes ago and he walks out the side door. host: we welcome the views from all sides, as we welcome yours. do you have any response? guest: in response to the looting, i do not think that was a matter of intent on the

administration at the time, but it was certainly the outcome of poor planning that resulted in the destruction and death of an enormous amount of iraqi artifacts. that much is true. there are some 10,000 archeological sites around iraq. many of them are unfortunately still being looted. there is not sufficient oversight over them. that definitely is a tragedy. and something that hopefully international legal bodies are working to try to get some of those artifacts from a large number of them, returned to the iraqis where they belong. host: of next, robert from lancaster, south carolina. caller: yes, sir, what is saying to me is since this country is a she, we have a bunch of other mayors going to other countries and they are more concerned with

going into other countries instead of taking care of this one and when they come back they are broke, like a deadbeat father. when he comes home he does not have any money and they don't know how to take care of the family. we need someone to focus more and i tell people more about this country, sweep around our own doorstep. host: when the u.s. leaves iraq, what will the presence look like in june/july, 2011? guest: that is a good question. essentially, what has to have it is a handoff between the u.s. military and the sibley inside of the equation. there is a great deal of concern -- the civilian side of the equation. there's a great deal of concern about whether there is enough on the civilian side to continue to support iraq's consolidation of its democracy. right now we have some 10 provision reconstruction teams,

which are the platform spread around the country in various provinces designed to help with budgeting and help with local government leaders to continue to consolidate their authority and spend their budgets. most of those are destined to be closed and there will be three or four remaining in addition to the u.s. embassy in baghdad, remaining what they will call "in during presences -- "enduring presence is." it is not clear how they will be able to move around. it is very expensive for an hour. there's a lot of effort on the part of the state department to figure of that question and figure out how they will posture themselves with the u.s. military withdraws. there is a great deal of concern when u.s. troops pulled out as to whether or not the international presence will be

robust enough to support this process and to support the effort to try to extend the government. host: one of your report on provision reconstruction team, this one from december, 2008 from one of your trip reports, are these available on the website come on usip.org? guest: yes. host: columbus, ohio on the democrats line. caller: i did listen to the news back in 2007 and why did i not hear a lot of talk about iraq and the bush companies -- they have an oil company in iraq. it is a fact and no one is talking about it. host: president bush has an oil interest? caller: the family has an oil

company in iraq. guest: i have a note knowledge of such a thing as a bush will company in iraq. host: paul wolfowitz mentioned one -- when iraq's oil production comes back of to see -- but to speed, it will be second only to saudi arabia. guest: of course, you know the a iraq -- the infrastructure in iraq has been severely damaged the time it will take to bring the oil of to raise significant capacity, it is under $2 billion -- 2 billion barrels -- 2 million barrels per day. if it is anywhere near where it should be, it will be a herculean effort. there are companies engaged in

contracts with the iraqi government, even without hydrocarbons law in place. clearly, they have made the determination of getting in oil business in iraq is not in their long-term interest. host: in terms of infrastructure, will those costs be borne by the oil companies or the government? guest: it will primarily be the companies. but there is an enormous amount of work to do to be able to get that oil out of there. and most of it is based in the south, but there is a good amount of oil that is under the ground in the -- in the north. it will require an agreement between the central authorities in baghdad and the kurdish regional government. there will have to be some sort of an accord for them to be able to develop it for export.

host: next up on democrats line. caller: i have a couple of questions. one question is, is and co and british petroleum affiliated -- are amoco and british petroleum affiliated? host: our focus is on iraq. is there anything there? caller:amoco was there and now we have petroleum taking it over. guest: as far as british petroleum, i think they are involved in iraq and they have entered into an agreement with a chinese state oil company to be able to develop oil projects in southern iraq. that is under way, but in terms of connections to the other oil

company, you would have to ask an expert. host: here is mary in ohio. caller: 1 vote earlier mentioned the documentary "no end in sight. -- one fellow earlier mentioned the documentary, "no end in sight." people should watch us. i have a friend -- should watch that. i have a friend who has had for years on the ground in iraq. she said in talking to the iraqi people, they do believe that there were many mistakes prior to the invasion. we know that iraq did not have al qaeda. the we know that the office of special plans, these folks were

in that office cherry picking and disseminating false intelligence. i understand more than ever before. i am 58. i understand white people in that region hate us. we invaded the country based on false intelligence. can you tell me why we cannot count the dead and injured in iraq? many of us call ourselves a religious, or christian, and we do not even count their dead. people should be outraged. host: 50 lead on to the a question from one of our our twitter users, how many civilians were killed in iraq since our invasion? guest: i am not familiar with the estimates. i have heard of to 100,000, and others were more than that. i do not know if an exact number is unknown. obviously, there have been a tremendous amount of casualties in iraq, both for u.s. and

coalition forces, but more particularly for the iraqis. i do not know many iraqis who have not had a relative that has either been kidnapped or killed. certainly, there is violence in their neighborhoods. and the trauma that has been left over from that is very profound. it has a lot of iraqis, including our staff, our wonderful iraqiya yusaf who work in a bad debt, it has them -- iraqi staff who worked in baghdad, it has been concerned that there could be some slide back in the direction of sectarian violence. host: she said the iraqis hate us. you have been there a number of times. what is your impression outside of your office and the people you work with their backs guest: it depends on who you talk to -- and people you work with there?

guest: it depends on your doctor. many feel that the united states went in there without a clearer idea on how it was going to stabilize and secure. -- it depends on who you talked to. many feel that the united states went in there without a clearer idea on how was going to stabilize and secure. it is a question of what conditions they fully withdraw under, but they need to withdraw. andrew -- what forces are arrayed to fill a vacuum after that. host: let's go to our republican line. is this paul in leavenworth, kan.? caller: yes, sir. i was in baghdad in 2007. i have three questions for you. oh, forget. -- i forget. [laughter]

the first is, -- yes, three questions. the role of the soderquist is one. and the second is, kidnapping was a big business and lots of people were kidnapped. and finally, the military -- as i remember, the iraqis absolutely love it to a man of and now all of those people -- loewathe to a man the private military contractors. guest: the contractors are by and large a much more constrained situation. we hear about the contractors to be moved around the city of iraq freely, that has been reduced.

host: and that is because the iraqi government said so? guest: yeah, the whole blackwater scandal cast a pall over what was already -- the presence of these foreign contractors was already very contentious for iraqis. i traveled in 2007 as well and i travel around iraq with some of the private to your companies and some of the move with caution and deliberation and moved slowly through the villages. others, in the case of blackwater, for example, moved with high-speed and very dangerously. and there was the feeling that these people could operate with impunity. their ability to move and conduct their business has definitely been reduced. as a result, you have seen a large increase in the number of iraqi security companies doing their own work. host: next up is killer, texas,

phyllis, democratic collar -- keller, texas, phyllis, democratic caller. caller: i was wondering if you could tell us more about the role of our crude tullibee in the governing of iraq -- chalabi in the governing of iraq. guest:chalabi, as the color correcting noted, was a u.s. ally early on in the war and who the u.s. picked to be iraqi prime minister. he is a man with nine lives and seems to be able to have the uncanny ability to keep his political life very much alive. he was a contestant in the last election and did not do too badly. he is currently the head of the

justice and accountability commission that i mentioned earlier is in charge of determining disqualification for those with baathist connections. he is a man who is very controversial. i think the u.s. was badly burned by his assertions of weapons of mass destruction in iraq. he continues to be a powerful source in iraq. -- powerful force in iraq. and there was an article that i read where she was believed to hold a not into the amount of support with the pouor shiites n the country. if he has managed to stay involved and relevant, and will continue to be no matter what the outcome of this election process is. host: the "washington post"

wrote that a american officials in recent days have expressed concern about the rent in the fall of the march 7 parliamentary election. how reticent or u.s. officials dot to actually come out and make more prominent pronouncement about the election, or do they want to stay in the background? guest: this is a very tricky issue for the u.s. the embassy and the u.s. government have tried to keep somewhat of a distance in this process, and the spot -- publicly. i think they are very much very behind-the-scenes. but there are calls in certain quarters with in iraq for them to play much stronger role. if this considered -- if this situation continues to be highly contentious, depending on the recount of the vote that starts

today and is expected to last two or three weeks, depending on if the outcome of that is accepted by various blocks -- and that is not at all a certainty -- we may see them playing in a stronger role along with the eu and the united nations to try to come to some sort of political agreement and power-sharing deal for the government to deal with iraq's long-term problems. host: about 15 more minutes with rusty barber. when is the next time you're headed to iraq? guest: it is uncertain at this point. i will be scheduled not to have back immediately and stepping down from my role in three years. my intention is to stay with usip, but i will take a little

bit of a break in iraq. but i will stay closely involved with how things turn out in for five months. host: here is oshkosh, tim, good morning. caller: have you read the transcript that talks about the jewish neocons? host: i'm going to cut you off. when you -- you can call in and talk about any topic, but when you start chastising people based on their religion or race, we will move on. indiana, go ahead. caller: i understand that the united states spends 49% of all of the global dollars on the military. does the u.s. institute do any kind of lobbying to reduce that amount? guest: no, in terms of the

amount of money that is used for foreign operations, is that the question? host: are you still there? i think she has left us. guest: the u.s. institute's mandate is to create a process to resolve conflicts around the world. it is not concerned with what the u.s. budget is. it is concerned with issues that could metastasize into violence around the world. we have two missions that are longer -- our longer-term presence is one in iraq and afghanistan, but we are involved in nigeria, sudan, and various other conflicts around the world. host: and how are you funded? guest: we are funded directly by the u.s. congress. my program for afghanistan and the sudan are funded by the congress through the state department, which then turned around and work with us in terms

of the united -- the types of problems that we initiate to resolve conflicts. host: john on the democrats line. caller: i am a long time c-span watcher and i remember watching before the iraq war when wolf of its -- when wolfowitz was testifying before the congressional committee and and he said we would pay for this war by iraqi oil revenues. obviously, that has not come to fruition. also, last night i was watching c-span and a gentleman on the news wrote a book called "the taliban" and he mentions one of the tragedies is that we invaded iraq and left afghanistan where we could have captured al qaeda,

where we could have put a good government in there, and now we are paying for that. i agree with the previous callers that wolfowitz is nothing but a war criminal. host: the caller was talking about a month rashid, and the rich can see that online or in our video library. if you have any comments? guest: certainly not on paul wolfowitz. i think is important to have diversity, especially -- including as it concerns the decisions that were made. the u.s. has had as much as 50,000 troops in iraq -- 150,000 troops in iraq. we have an enormous civilian ever to go along with the military in iraq. there is no question is very hard for us to be able to fight

two wars at the same time. in terms of pay, that has caught -- cost us dearly. but we are now drawing down in iraq and i suspect it will proceed as the administration indicated it will. whether exactly on time is another question, and in terms of paying for this war, there's no question that the idea was that it would be paid for out of iraq's will money. that was certainly premature. iraq owes $20 billion to kuwait in war reparations. it is very concerned about getting bad debt reduced. until then, there is no real opportunity to pay for america's war dead in iraq by its oil exports -- ward debwar debt in q

might well experts -- exports anytime soon. caller: i wonder if there will be an investigation into why -- i know -- why we went into iraq. i know it could be very contentious. host: the u.k. has done that. they held the show caught commission. did you see any of that and have you learned anything at the end of that? guest: certainly, the debate over whether we should have gone in, how we went in, and alternately how we got out of iraq will certainly have an ongoing debate. there may be a call for congressional hearings one day, much as they have done in britain. i certainly do not have an opinion and my institute, it is not our responsibility to call for any kind of a congressionally mandated commission on that. host: the obama administration

came in and they were briefed by u.s. officials. guest: part of what we do is to inform policy makers on an ongoing basis. we have provided input where it has been deemed helpful. u.s. business entities do not take a particular position on policy. all we tried to our -- is to offer a options -- all we tried to do is to offer up options. host: here is hollywood, fla., edie on the republican line. caller: i have a question for your guests. in 1998, i believe bill clinton decided to bomb iraq. there must have been a reason for that. the fallout would be, in 2002, hillary clinton responded to the ladies in pink and claimed that saddam hussein was a threat.

it if they're going to investigate -- if they are going to investigate republicans, they need to go back and investigate the clinton administration. guest: i think what the caller is referring to is the attack that was launched by the clinton administration in retaliation for the plot against george bush, if i remember correctly, in which a missile was sent into baghdad and hit the intelligence headquarters. i do not remember exactly the year that was put -- that was done. but as far as investigating the clinton administration for those, i was retaliation for what was perceived as a specific threat to a former american president. beyond that, i -- i cannot comment on the situation. host: obviously, saddam hussein is no longer a threat. but is he still a presence? guest: he will always be a presence. he is a critical part of a contentious part of iraqi

history. the iraqi baath party actually had a public event. there is a broadcast right now that people euphemistically referred to as the saddam channel. host: is it blocked? guest: i do not believe it is blocked. host: what is on index -- on it? guest: there are some pictures and other laudatory statements about him. he will always bring over -- rain over their history --. caller: does the u.s. compensates the terms of a civilian casualties and damage

is caused in iraq? and if they do, how is that paid for? guest: yes, they are compensated in some cases. when the determination is made that people have suffered a loss of a relative or their property has been destroyed. those are the set on a case by case basis. -- those are decided on a case by case basis. that decision gets made and it comes out of the military budget. host: va on the democrats line. caller: i wonder if you have heard a and people in kabul coming down with amtrak's poisoning the plea? -- anthrax poisoning in kabul?

guest: i have not heard anything to that effect. host: how does the iraq government evolve once they get parliament decided, what do they want to see happen? guest: the most important thing is that the votes are verified and accepted by the parties. most people believe that they will reach some sort of a chord among the various blocks and religious and ethnic participants. the important thing then will be to nominate a prime minister. they will need to nominate a president, and of course, the vice presidents, of which there are two. the first step is for the nomination of the speaker of the parliament. traditionally, these roles have been divided up along ethnic and sectarian lines. you have had a shiite as the

president and the occurred as the vice-president and a sunni as the speaker of the parliament. that system, -- and a kurd as the vice-president and a city as the speaker of the parliament. that system has almost had the effect of institutionalizing the divisions that are so contentious for the iraqis as they stabilize and build the country. host: this is a call from california on the republican line. caller: i want to say that in 1998 it was aipac at first defended the war for iraq. host: you call this program with regularity from different states and under different names. we would appreciate it if you would call using your real name and your real estate. you would be welcome to call then.

i want to ask about the role of iran in iraq, the presence of forces in terms of terrorist explosions and dance like that. is that still happening in iraq? guest: i think there is the perception that there are still irani and elements operating in iraq. there are urging with less frequency and intensity than they have in that -- they are operating with less frequency and intensity than they have in the past. i think there' -- they actually view what is happening in iraq with a degree of suspicion and trepidation. is -- certainly, iran wants a degree of stability in iraq. we have seen a lot of political parties shoveling out to tehran -- shovelinshuttling out th teh

looking for assistance and support. in terms of actual weapons, groups that they're supporting in iraq, my sense is that they are definitely still present, but not as active as they were in the past. what i was there in 2007 and 2008, there was a great deal of effort to try to deal with what were called special groups that were targeting and assassinating iraqi leaders at the provincial level and in some cases, national. those groups are probably still present, but not active. host: let's see if we can get one more quick call in before the house session. richard, your our last call from connecticut, and -- you are our last call from connecticut, go ahead. caller: saddam hussein was not a good person, but did he do anything good for iraq?

host: anything good from saddam? guest: if the iraqis talk about anything good that he did, it was basically to have -- i mean, he managed through authoritarian measures and a state propaganda system that was very pro -- brutal, he managed to keep the country's relatively secure, and so for the horrendous war that was fought between iran and iraq in the '80s. i will say this, to the extent that they see positive results, it was effect of so much instability after he was toppled. he at least manage to keep the country internally relatively cohesive power on and so forth. there is the feeling that the u.s. funded a lot of that and opened pandora's

clacks the summit is spending the week on financial regulations and a bill to restructure the overset industry. there are votes on some amendments starting tomorrow. you can see live coverage on c- span 2. political primary debates are underway in several states. tonight, we will have live coverage in kentucky. five candidates are running to replace jim benning. that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. after that debate, at 9:00 p.m., there is a look at the california governor's race. california state insurance commissioner steve poizner and is running against made woodmen.

>> i am worried that new media and is running down the road of traditional media, too many bad decisions. >> tonight, issues before the federal communications commission. the british election is on thursday, may 6. c-span is covering the leaders, issues, and process. we asked two british journalists about last year and the impact of the election. >> we look at the amount of money that's or claimed -- the amount of money that was claimed for the second home. some worry abusing that, getting populous money in.

we had a record number of retirees. among the reasons that liberal democrats are getting that is exactly that factor. marshall effectively [unintelligible] >> people often ask me that. do you feel that you have damage to democracy or improve it? i feel the scandal has invigorated the british pop less about politics, not politics as usual. unfortunately, that still is on offer here. we do not get a candidate like

an obama sort of candidate. it is not possible for extended it to come up the ranks in britain. instead, there really is only one outsider in the british party political citizesystem. he is getting most of the anti- politics alone. people do not like the way things are done and is being shifted towards this spurious candidate. it is a frustration that people feel, that they want them more receptive, and more egalitarian government. but the british bureaucracy, the whole system is so incredibly ancient and has not adapted to people's modern-day expectations. there is a sense that, whoever gets into power in the next election, has to radically reform parliament and the whole constitutional system of this country.

>> you can watch this interview another british election events on our website, c-span.org. go to "featured links" and click on the british elections page. >> our public affairs content is available on television, radio, an online. you can also connect with us on atwitter, facebook, and youtube. you can sign up for our e-mail alerts. >> tonight, we will have live coverage of the senate debate in kentucky. evangelical leader james dobson rescinded a previous endorsement in the race saying that he had made an embarrassing mistake. he had endorsed secretary of state trade recent in the senate race based on what he termed

misleading information. he says, "i now know that paul is avidly pro life. he believes that life begins at inception." watched tonight, c-span's 8:00 p.m. eastern then there is the california republican race to replace arnold schwarzenegger. steve poizner areas running against former ebay co meg -- ceo meg wigman. >> for a contemporary perspective on print, there is the c-span book "abraham lincoln," mel on c-span and your favorite book seller.

>> among the speakers, we have roger cohen and wall street journal's read stevens. -- brett stevens. >> i want to welcome yours on c-span. if you get to the ajc.org website, you can participate and pose questions to our debaters.

and our debate today is on how to deal with iran and that regime to request for nuclear energy. we will devote the next hour and a half to the question of how that priority, the u.s. priority, can be translated into tangible results. our speakers are roger cohen and brett stevens. we will begin with opening statements. >> thank you, jason. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. n. mex bosnia look like child's play. -- iran makes bosnia look like child's play. it has lasted 31 years, casting

a shadow over the world. to decide policy, we need to know something about the country concerned. what is iran? it is a young society, two- thirds of the people under 35 years old. more than 4 million kids are in college and more than half of those are women. they are thirsting for contact with the outside world. they are living in an islamic republic, which is shia, not sunni like al qaeda, since 1979. they are not dreaming like those guys in the caves of some resurrected cavalcade. they want to create pluralism and that is something they have wanted since 1905. in many respects, iran is very secular. what is its psychology?

it is marked by the iran-iraq war. 1 million were dead. that was their first world war, where young ministers formed a u.s.-backed saddam hussein who then guest tens of thousands of iranians with chemical weapons. -- who then gassed tens of thousands of iranians with chemical weapons. it is attracted to the united states and is yearning for every elusive normalization. this is a place that has [unintelligible] what they really want our [unintelligible] in many respects, the united states and iran are on natural enemies.

-- are a natural enemies -- are unnatural any means. -- are unnatural enemies. this regime is intimately of brutal. but it has allowed periods of liberalization. it is not the monolithic totalitarian state that saddam hussein's iraq was, let alone nazi germany. i lived in germany for several years. we should be very careful, out of respect for the dead, in

making analogies. the regime was described as of a mess ionic elliptical cult -- a messianic apocalyptic wial cult. as you can see coming its nature it is in dispute. for a long time, this islamic republic has pursued an ominous, but still ambiguous, nuclear program. they have combined that with protest holocaust beloeil and zionist -- protest holocaust --d that with holocaust denials.

i think there are few general principles that are quickly outline before concluding. first, isolation, the hard- liners thrive on it. iran came to the brink within months of obama of's outreach -- obama's outreach. sanctions, iran has been living with them for decades. in general, it is patient and inoculated against them. we are dealing with a body that has a heavy dose of inoculation. rationing out -- ratcheting up sanctions, we heard a lot of words like "crushing," "crippling," and "devastating." preservation, the supreme leader is archetypal of the

preservation business. he is in the preservation business. building a weapon and represents caution thrown to the wind. it puts the islamic republic at immediate risk. we should recall this in assessing how real the threat that iran poses is. history -- we know how iran reacts when it is attacked. saddam hussein attacked iran in 1980. so we want to save the revolution and lock it in for another 30 years and locked in the hard-liners running it through another attack. the volatility, the iran of today is not the iran and june 12. society and the regime are moving in different directions. a lot of young people who were reluctantly acquiescent are now firmly in opposition.

there's a lot to be said for patience and private probing. they have called for another big day of protests and want to bring in a labor movement on the first anniversary of the election on june 12. finally, inspection, it often gets for go 10gotten that it is still a member of the non- proliferation treaty. if iran is really going to rush for a weapon, they have to reverse engineer thousands of the centrifuges presumably under the inspection of the iaea. that would not be allowed to happen. i think we have to bear that in mind.

given all this, i think president obama has been about right. he has been right to pursue out reach end to intimate that iran could pursue a limited, monitored, civilian and peaceful nuclear program if it comes clean with the international community and if it honors its international commitments. he has been right to have made clear that the military option is a terrible option, a near- unthinkable one. if he cooperated with iran, write the president has been to be skeptical of draconian sanctions discussed on the hill and looked instead to the security council with china and russia to vote measures. he has been right to beef up

gulf defenses as deterrents, right to keep a strong focus on israel-palestine peace that would defang iran's rhetoric. he has been right to ratchet down the war of words with iran and believes that and an iranian reconciliation could be a breakthrough as momentous for the world as the knicks and 1952 -- as the knicks and 1952 visit to china. -- as the nixon visits to china [applause] >> thank you very much, roger. brett stevens.

>> good many thank you to the american jewish committee for giving me the honor of inviting me to the stage. thank you also to roger for sharing it with me. roger and i are here because we agree about one thing and probably only one thing. [laughter] iran is indeed the single greatest foreign-policy challenge that the obama administration will face in the next three or seven years. on other points, we do not see eye to eye. for instance, when roger wrote last year on his first trip to iran that the iranians were looking for reform but were in no mood for an appeal, i disagreed with him then. i think that the facts, as they played up over the next few months, did not bear roger out

could and when -- roger out. and when he said that it would be a genuine contrascontest, i e with that, too. all iranian elections are shams, roger. all of them. would you, an american citizen and,n [unintelligible] why do except that kind of regime on behalf of the iranians? finally, when roger3]idk?'ffio5 brought about a so-called grand bargain, some of us had some doubts given iran's broken record of deception and

hostility. in fact, that is precisely whathappened. -- what happened. we have seen how it has played out since then in terms of the success of the outreach by president obama. roger, your record of prediction is not a good one. i am glad you're a columnist bid if you were in a hedge fund, you would be john paulson in reverse. [laughter] this gets to the most basic differences between us, between roger and i. the difference is this. broadly speaking, at the strategic and ideological level, i take the reins at their word. it seems, that you do not -- it seems that you do not.