we want to bring you to the hudson institute with there is a discussion on egypt, the revolution, and the future. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] . .

>> protests soon became a revolt that mubarak and his regime step down immediately became the demand. mohammed elbaradei is being put forward to leave the transitional government. mubarak announced that he would until september. the u.s. was taken off guard.

egypt's government has the peace accord with israel. secretary clinton had recently declared the regime to be stable. u.s. policy has fluctuated over the past few weeks over whether president mubarak should leave the transition or go now. it is beginning to sink in that equal ans now may well may islamic fundamentalist regime. after all, the mosques have been the only place for political organization over all these years of political repression. the current announcement from the obama administration emphasizes the importance of an

orderly transition. meanwhile, as if to underscore the risk to american interests, iran has applauded the revolt, calling it an islamic awakening. the organization of islamic conference has, by contrast, been silent, appealing only to avoid violence. the saudi king has warned of chaos in his statements. i was in saudi arabia last week and witnessed firsthand that there was little enthusiasm among the royals for a muslim brotherhood government. analysts in the united states have advocated for an immediate end to military aid to egypt. they have even conceded that it is fundamentalist but will moderate in power.

to help us analyze from different perspectives the prospects for liberal democracy in egypt, we have four presenters on our panel today. i'm delighted to introduce them. are for speaker is samuel tadros. he is finishing his master's at georgetown university. he's a senior partner in the egyptian union of liberal youth. he previously worked as a consultant at the hudson institute on moderate islamist thinkers in egypt and inter ned at the american enterprise institute and most recently worked with the heritage foundation. our next speaker will be lee smith, a visiting fellow at hudson institute and a senior editor at "the weekly standard." his critically acclaimed 2010 book has just been released in

paperback. next will be paul marshall, my colleague and a senior fellow at the center for religious freedom at hudson. his global survey was published in 2008 and his books on religion and journalism "blind spot" was published by oxford university press in 2009. he is the author and editor of 20 other books on religion and politics. we have co-authored "silenced" which will be published by oxford in november. our final speaker today is douglas feith. he is the author of "the new york times" best selling memoir "war and decisions."

as undersecretary of defense for policy from july 2001 until august 2005, douglas feith helped devise the u.s. government strategy for the war on terrorism and contributed to policy making for the afghanistan and iraq campaigns. in the reagan administration, he worked as a middle east specialist and served as deputy assistant deputy of defense. before we began, would like to ask you to turn off your phones. the presenters will give short talks and then we will turn to question and answers. thank you. >> let me begin speaking today with a very short story from the first day of demonstrations in cairo. a friend of mine close to the

first demonstration on tuesday, the day that is now claim to be the start of the egyptian revolution. there he found an old acquaintance of ours. the man calls himself the liberal democratic activist, very well educated, a member of the egyptian opposition. he finds him there screaming with resolve the voice, "what a disgrace. what a disgrace. six towns are worth $1." my friend was bewildered. he got the reply, "this is an insult to egypt's honor." if egypt was a great country, the egyptian pound would be worth $6 and not the reverse. my friend answers, "a weak currency might be good for exports. actually, it's very hard for the government to maintain

overvalued exchange rates." the activist looks at my friend with bewilderment. it is not that the words were not understood. they were spoken in very clear arab. it is that the idea behind those words were completely alien to him. he had not heard about those concepts before. looking at my friend for a minute, he then looks at him and tells him, "behind me, what a disgrace." egypt has turned from what secretary clinton describes as a very stable country into a country of turmoil. people are glued to their tv screens looking at the events with a sense of admiration and rightly so. young men are seen demonstrating in the streets and bringing down a machine of security that has oppressed them for more than 30 years in a mere four hours.

the prevailing attitude has been one of democracy. they're fighting for their democracy and we should stand with them. what those young men understand by the word democracy is however not exactly what those observers might think. commentators on cnn have mentioned that everyone they meet in the streets of cairo seems to be in love with americans and israel. it has probably been observed. there were probably interviewing people in the streets of tel aviv and not cairo. the prevailing negative of those young men who support democracy, who want freedom, that has been the prevailing thing. to look at the prospects of what is happening today in egypt, this egyptian revolution, would turn into a liberal democracy -- one needs to look at the

seriousness. to build a liberal democracy, the question is not whether people want this or not. there are other questions involved. whether there are institutions in the country that can build a liberal democracy. whether there is a rule of law in the country or not. whether there is an independent judiciary that is able. i would touch upon a couple of those points. first is the issue of the liberal party is in the country. there are three main parties that are described as liberal and democratic. their sense of the words, however, is quite different from that westerners might have of the word. one of the liberal party is has a vice president who could write an article stating very clearly -- are jews human beings or not? the answer is no, they should be exterminated. that is the leading liberal

party. it calls itself liberal. its ideas are hardly what we understand by the idea of liberal. another party stands against any selling of state property. the state property, the state mechanism, the control of the state of the economy, they want to maintain it. how this fits with any understanding of the word is up to the people to decide. the judiciary -- yes, there is a strong independent judiciary in egypt. there's a sense that it has tried to maintain that in the country. the same judiciary voted with over 92% to exclude women judges -- a decision the egyptian government was pushing. are the independents? yes. do they have the values we understand as the words liberal and democratic? hardly?

whether there's a sense of civic, educational culture. whether the egyptian educational system provides any of those ideas that are needed to build a healthy political discourse that allows people to discuss the ideas with alternatives. that is lacking in society. before people get so excited about the idea of the marcy being -- the idea of democracy being built, caution should be there. the institutions that are building these democracies need to be looked at. democracy is not just about people being excited about it. there are other things involved. this is not a marker see that is happening in egypt. what is happening? in my view, the egyptian army is taking power. the egyptian army, which has always been the egyptian regime,

has recently been threatened son.ly by the president's the army never liked him. the reasons are outside of the fact that he did not serve in the army. they are very institutional reasons. dhe attempted to build a party, threaten the army in the sense that suddenly the road to achievement, the road to growth in society was no longer a military uniform, but was a party idea. the other sense in which he was threatening the army was a sense of economics. the egyptian army control is immense. estimates put the size of the egyptian armies control of the army at 40% of the economy. gamal mubarak knew liberals were

creating policies that were threatening the army's control of the economy. looking at will is happening, the army found its golden opportunities. the army was able to put its narrative again to president mubarak. the army's argument was that the policies were hurting the regime. the army needs to be in control again to cool down -- to cool things down. in a sense, this is what is happening in egypt. young men are fighting in the streets, yes, but the real decisions are fought inside the regime, where the army has been able to step by step exclude its competitors and silence the regime. where does this leave us? unfortunately, it leaves us with a very bad prediction. we have an egyptian history. two incidents before something

similar happened. a generation revolted against british occupation. it meant reality a couple of years later and discovered that nothing had changed for them. the results were to say, at least, very problematic. this generation formed the? years after the 1919 revolution. it was the generation that joined fastest organizations in the '30's. the same incident, the same sense of high expectations and very low achievements leading to great disappointments happened after the narrative of a great victory in 1973. brazil in egyptian that egypt did not win in 1973 -- never tell an egyptian that egypt did

not win in 1973. then there was his discovery that things were not getting better. this reaction led to what we have seen in the growth of the violence, radical list islamist organizations. what will happen in the future when this sense that nothing has changed in egypt? the opposition parties will each get 20 feet from parliament. they will each get better favors from the regime. the regime will give some concessions, yes, but will maintain power. what will happen to those young men in the streets? what will happen when they discover that all they have worked for actually resulted in nothing for them? i think that is a question that not only egypt, but the world will have to deal with for some time in the future. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much to nina and the rest of hudson for inviting me along. i want to start off by saying that i essentially agree with samuel's interpretation. i think perhaps the most cynical way to read what has happened over the last few weeks and perhaps the most accurate is that is essentially what we have seen is a preemptive military coup. i i think the military did not plan this, but the military saw what was happening on the streets and understood that they could take advantage of what was happening on the streets. as sam explain clearly, the military does not like gamal mubarak. the military was not happy about this that gamal mubarak might succeed his father. that is not the way the military understands it.

this is a free office of the regime. it is not a mubarak dynasty. the military has always been central in egypt and stay back for quite a long time, certainly before 1952. that's the way i understood it. what we have seen is a preemptive military coup. the notion that it has taken u.s. policymakers by surprise is surprising. the fact that the white house and administration has been frustrated is a little bizarre given that everyone has understood that the succession was extremely delicate. no one knew exactly which way it was going to pan out. we have been quite worried about this for a while. obviously, this was a concern. g speak about of tdou this. the freedom agenda, the bush

administration, among many other things, it anticipated that this was an issue with egypt. authoritarian regimes were a problem and this was one of the upsides of the freedom agenda. to account for these authoritarian regimes in to push for something else. in other words, the notion that egypt was a troublesome place and that the succession is going to be a problem -- this has been known for quite some time. should not have taken the administration by surprise and we should not be blaming the intelligence community for this now. this debate has been on the table for quite some time. one of the things that i want to say, in spite of the fact that i think we can see this as essentially a preemptive military coup, there are some victories here for the protesters, as well. we also want to talk about this. there has been some skepticism over your views of the word "

democratic uprising." i think there are some positive things that have happened. namely, i think it is good that gamal mubarak has been taken off the table. this is an upside for egypt and for u.s. policy. it could be an upside for u.s. policy. i think this is something the people have wanted for quite a while. we have wanted the -- we have wanted mubarak to name a successor and now there's a successor, suleiman. although people may not be happy, i believe this is something we have wanted for quite a while. the other victory, of course is that president hosni mubarak has agreed to step down. he needs to be kept to his word. i do not see the point in trying to force him off the stage right now. i think he needs to be kept to his word and i think what this administration needs to do and

what u.s. policymakers need to do is, it will take serious work, but if they're serious, they need to push omar suleiman or whoever succeeds him in elections in september for the same sort of reforms they wanted. sometimes the bush administration was good at getting this from mubarak. this is not easy. it's not easy to shout for someone to get off the stage from the sidelines. if u.s. policymakers are serious about a democratic egypt, these are the sort of things that will have to be done. sam outlined the liberal trends in egypt are mighty slim. a lot of people have blamed the mubarak regime for crushing liberal trends. there's some truth to that. however, liberal trends have been rare in egypt since about -- certainly since the constitutional era.

way today that its 1952 with the free officers coup. you could also make an argument that the liberal trends were slim even before then. starting in the 1920's, they started to be under attack. most notably, from the muslim brotherhood. i think some of the discussion around the islamist movement in egypt is very strange. the notion that somehow the muslim brotherhood would not come to power in free and fair elections is slightly counterintuitive to say the least. i know that one of the explanations that people give -- the egyptians have seen this happen in tehran and they recognize this is a profound mistake and they do not want to make this a mistake. we do not exactly know that. the other evidence is -- the palestinians voted for hamas. in lebanon, 30% of the christian

community, of all people we hardly expect christians to welcome an islamist regime. nonetheless, it has aligned itself with the leadership and his alliance with hezbollah. again, there are plenty of reasons people opt for islamist trends in their different countries. one of the reasons is that many people like islamist party spirit is a slightly counter intuitive notion. the muslim brotherhood is perhaps the pillar of egyptian cultural and intellectual life over the past century. moreover, is the flower of arab political maturity. this began in egypt. the notion that it is not going to play a central role if not the central role in the future of egyptian politics -- again,

that does not make sense to me. this goes back to -- if we look at it -- i would say it is tied to arab political modernity starting in 1978. the founding of the brotherhood is 1928. what we see happening with the napoleon in egypt, muslim avtivists started to wonder if -- why did it happen that egyptians were overrun so easily? the answer was -- differed intellectuals started to pop up. one said that the reason is because islam had become weekend. this is one of the reasons -- this is the reason why the ran us so easily.u the idea was that is long needed

a renovation. what it needed to do was purged itself of various not islamic excesses' and return itself to the practices of the profit. the earliest companions and successors -- they were known as the righteous forbearers. it goes to the one time mufti of egypt and the chief disciple and the founder of muslim brotherhood in 1928. this is a key intellectual trend in egypt. it is the intellectual trend in egypt at this stage. again, i think this is very important to keep in mind when we talk about whether or not

the brotherhood will play a key role. it certainly will. for u.s. policymakers -- we hear different things coming out of the white house on how much the administration should push to have the brotherhood included in the national dialogue and how much it should play a role in the opposition. this is interesting. this is an important debate. we certainly have to look at this and say -- what right to american policy makers have to intervene in the decisions of another country? what right do we have to trample on other people's natural rights? these are certainly important arguments. the other argument is that it is not the role of the american president to ensure the natural rights of another people. the role of the american president is to protect and preserve american interests. one key american interest in the middle east is to preserve peace

in the eastern manage iranian. -- in the eastern mediterranean. this is also for the sake of our ally, egypt. this peace treaty undergirds the pact in the eastern mediterranean. it is very key. i think that we have to confront the fact of that if there is a muslim brotherhood controlled government in egypt, the peace treaty is going to be endangered. the brotherhood has said as much itself. we need to deal with that. if we are one to talk oneempowering the brotherhood and ensuring their role in the national dialogue, we have to face the consequences. as sam was talking about before, looking at some of the protesters, even without the brotherhood, i think we have to face the fact that we are looking perhaps at a very different egypt. egypt is changing. we need to recognize that the

people on the streets -- none of them remember the 1963 or 1970 wars. catastrophic wars for egypt and certainly not good for israel either. there was an interview in "the wall street journal" with the syrian president. he said -- this is partly facetious because this is an extremely brutal regime. syrians understand that if they take to the streets in the number egyptians do, the security will have no reservations about opening fire on the syrian protesters. something that he said is worth consideration. he said, "we have a little easier -- we have it much easier because we do not have a relationship with israel." the egyptians to have a treaty. whether we like it or not, we are going to have to deal with the fact that the region is not happy with that peace treaty.

egyptians are not happy with that peace treaty. this is certainly something to think about down the road regardless of whether or not -- regardless of how much power the muslim brotherhood gets. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for inviting me on to this panel. in order to avoid undue duplication by the panelists, we have been asked, if possible, to focus on some different aspects from one another. i have been massed particularly to look at the question of what life might be like for egyptians and perhaps others. -- if they muslim brotherhood

unsheathes a large measure power in egypt. what would it mean for political and religious dissidents? muslims whose view of the nature of politics and the nature of islam does differ from that of the muslim brotherhood. what would it mean for egypt's coptic christian minority, the largest non muslim minority in the middle east. what might this mean about the status of women and so forth? the answers to these questions or at least suggested talks on these questions depends on two things. what we think is likely to be the strength of the muslim brotherhood? and what is likely to do, if it has power. this is, of course, -- the strength and the intention of

the muslim brotherhood is perhaps the major subject of debate in the u.s. as it looks at egyptian politics. one of three things -- the question of mubarak, the question of the military, and the question of the brotherhood. the u.s. administration seems to be going back and forth like each of these over the last few weeks as it tries to sort out the relative strength. it is significant that we discussed the brotherhood more of them all the other political opposition groups combined -- the brotherhood more than all the other political opposition groups combine. most commentators would probably have difficulty listing several dozen of the egyptian opposition groups. there's a very good reason for this. the fact that there are several dozen of them -- their very small and they are very disorganized. at the moment, they're not in any position to exercise much power, even if it were handed to them. there is this focus on the

brotherhood as the major actor, other than mubarak and the military within egypt. what does the brotherhood believe? i will give just one quotation and then qualify it. if you go to the brotherhood's web site, you will find many quotations outlining the goal. i could repeat these at length. many of you probably could as well. just one, "our goal is to establish one islamic state of united islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of god and the strengthening of the islamic presence in the world arena. the goal is the establishment of a world islamic state."

you could say many of those quotations as a political platform. you could say, we do not mean these things or they are a long- term goal. amongst the brotherhood statements in the last several weeks, they have said that this is not an islamic uprising. this is a democratic uprising. at the moment, we are the egyptian brotherhood, not the muslim brotherhood. the brotherhood is famously equivocal and contradictory and in what it says about itself. i think, partly because it has -- it is at least tactically quite clever in such matters. also the question of what the brotherhood actually believes or what does it intend -- we should

also bear in mind that what the brotherhood might do and what it intends to do are not the same things. this is true for any political goal. if statements about democracy, and we need to understand what that might mean, or statements about religious freedom. these may well be sincerely meant, but if the party acts in such a way, if it believes the laws it passes, if it believes the versions of islamic what it wants to enforce will lead to such freedom and democracy, it is mistaken. even what the brotherhood might sincerely say about itself might not give us too much indication of what might happen. what i would like to do as a means of investigating possible outcomes of the brotherhood's power is to look at two sources. one is to look at how the chips

religiouspt's minorities view the current situation. i will just give you quotations from three church leaders. i do so not because these church leaders -- they are highly adept at reading how egyptian politics might affect them. they are a minority. they are a persecuted minority. they look at the situation with a very careful and jaundiced eye. one of the leading roman catholic figures in egypt says "though some of the primary opposition leaders in this revolting to be secular reformist, church leaders believe the main engine fueling and organizing the demonstrators is the muslim brotherhood."

coptic christians, as well as the armenian greek orthodox and others now fear a fate similar .o that of iraq's christians the head of the largest church group in egypt, the church of st. mark, usually called the coptic orthodox church, its head said on national television, addressing remarks to mubarak and said to him, "i called the president and i told him we're all with you, all the people are with you." this expression of support for a leader very definitely on the alps is quite striking. shows fear of alternatives to

mubarak. the head of another church in egypt said, "want to be gracious to a man who served egypt for 30 years. he had his mistakes, just as other leaders appear " it is striking that the major spokespeople for religious minorities, while they've been complaining about the situation in egypt for many years, at the moment, they seem to think the present situation, while it could be improved, the changes are more likely to be for the worse than for the better. i take that to be significant. another way of working out what might happen in egypt would be to look at the example from other countries. obviously, this is always dangerous. each country is unique. they are very different.

i think we can learn something. one thing, which has become a washington sport, is to compare and contrast egypt and iraq. let us compare 2011 to 1979. of course, shiite's got in for a charismatic leaders and sunni 's generally do not. there are other examples. egypt has borders with two territories run by offshoots of the muslim brotherhood. one of these is gaza. hamas is an offshoot of the brotherhood. following its electoral victory in dawson, amongst other things, hamas killed off a large number

of its palestinian authority opponents. or, look further south. the national islamic front. sudan is largely a military dictatorship, but its official sponsoring party is still the national islamic front. its previous name was the muslim brotherhood within sudan. it was the first takeover of of a country by islamic group after the iranian revolution in 1983. it already represented in parliament those in the minority party -- they took over the country and declare that sudan would be ruled by sharia. this was in 1983. sudan did all of those things. we're often told it is only the imaginings of what an islamist regime would do. in the first year in one province alone, a kerrey held 52

public imputations, 12 of them taking an arm-- and a leg from opposite sides of the body. also, the broadcasting of public hangings and crucifixion. and engaged in two wars of genocide against the south and also in darfur. currently, southern sudan has voted to succeed. bashir has said he will change the constitution and impose sharia law. sudan is not egypt. i would not expect those things to happen in egypt. it does give an example next door of a muslim brotherhood sponsored regime. that should give us pause. if we look for islamist regimes

with a strong front of political islam, apart from gaza and sudan, you might look to taliban rule in pakistan and if yes stand within the tribal areas or portions -- pakistan and afghanistan within the tribal areas or portions of nigeria. or they a activities in orl- shabab in the areas it controls within somalia. again, i emphasize there's no guarantee the muslim brotherhood would end up exactly like these. these are the examples. and saudi arabia and iran are the only other examples we have of regimes which have sought to implement this sort of program that exists on the egyptian

muslim brotherhood's website. i often say, what is their definition of insanity? repeating the same action and expecting a different result. i would expect egypt to go in that direction, although in a milder form. the eight territories show seven characteristics. most of them do. first, muslim voices other than those of the islamists have been silenced. secondly, religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted. women are subjugated. the society tends to be less free than it was before, not that any of these societies were marvelous before hand. the all suffer widespread violence and most of them have engaged in war.

finally, the regimes have not moderated while in power. i believe this should give us great caution. we fear about what might happen within egypt and outside of it, if the brotherhood has real power. one of our goals should therefore be as much as we can, which is probably not necessarily that much, to ensure that the future power of the muslim brotherhood is limited. it would help if in our conversations about egypt or anywhere else we talked about free and open societies rather than democracies. democracy has many meanings. one of them is you respect rights and freedoms and stuff like that. in many other uses, it just means that one is able to vote

for a government. what we are concerned about is societies which are democratic and free, not democratic and totalitarian. we want to stress freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the importance of societal counterweights in the state, the legitimacy of opposition, a constitutional order of separation of powers, and a right to regime. these are the particular things we are looking for and we need to refer to them as shorthand, but i think free societies rather than democratic societies would be a better shorthand. to the degree we can, we should push for a real transition to such a society. that means giving time for societal forces other than the muslim brotherhood to grow, since they were more successfully repressed by mubarak. i also think that organic change

has usually been more effective in producing lasting freedom. united states is one exception. most of what we call democracy and free society has come from the gradual spreading of power away from a strong executive to the legislature with a strong judiciary. as much as we can, we should encourage such a model with in egypt and i believe that douglas feith will tell us exactly how to do it. thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning. paul has set me up to disappoint you. what i would like to do is not give a policy prescription so give a few of the

kind of considerations that i think either are or should be in the minds of policy makers in the u.s. government. i want to emphasize the importance of balancing conflicting interests. very often in these kinds of discussions, people will focus on a particular aspect of the problem. what policymakers have to do in the government is a look at the range of problems that confront them. they do not have the luxury of picking a favorite topic and focusing only on that. and the national security field, -- in the national security field, it is beneficial to have a strategy, something that reflects careful

consideration of long-term interest and something that sets major national goals. the value of having a strategy is that it does give -- it does bring careful thought to a subject and it allows the government to chart a course or a sustained period of time and not be buffeted by the shifting winds day-to-day. what we have seen in egypt fairly clearly is that the obama administration did not have a strategy to deal with middle eastern political instability and a marketing promotion. -- instability and democracy promotion treated basically run away from the bush administration's democracy promotion policies known as the freedom agenda.

this desire to run away, to distance themselves to anything associated with president bush, led to the very cold response of the president and his administration to the demonstrators in iran back in june of 2009. i think that became an embarrassment for people even within a the administration. they recognized that even many of their own supporters were unhappy with the president showing no interest in the pro democratic rhetoric and bravery of the iranian demonstrators. interestingly enough, at the very beginning of this egyptian political turmoil -- once again, the administration indulging a

predisposition to reemphasized democracy and announced the words from the secretary of state and the vice president that the egyptian government was stable. then they quickly had to maneuver to try to get on the right side of history and say that they do have some sympathy with the complaints of the demonstrators against the mubarak regime. what we saw was this flipping and flopping and they have done some more flipping and flopping since then. that really reflects that there is no broader conceptual context. there's no strategy that what the administration is doing fits into. officials interested in developing a strategy would have to start by clarifying some

points, i believe, about democracy promotion or the promotion of liberal democratic ideas and u.s. national security policy. i will offer a few thoughts that they might want to consider. one, the u.s. has practical interests in the spread of democratic institutions and the development of democratic institutions. a contrary view, the so-called realist view, which tends to equate the authoritarianism with the stability, is refuted in the streets of cairo now. i think that's one of the important lessons. the view that tends to deprecate the practical importance of democracy is not a view,

according to as much residents with the american people, but it's important for the american people to understand that in their key national security institutions, within the government, the state department and the cia, the so-called realist view is the predominant view. there tends to be a general downplaying of the importance of the practical importance of democracy promotion to the united states. now, promoting democracy has obvious moral and i would say less obvious practical benefits. it can help create a more peaceful and stable world. to illustrate the point, compare your of today to europe at the start of the 20th-century and you can begin to see the benefits, the practical benefits of successful the markers the promotion. it could also help diminish the

ideological appeal of islamism. democracy is not a cure-all for that problem, but it could be important. democracy promotion is not a simple matter of overthrowing authoritarian regimes and quickly organizing elections. i think that all of my colleagues on the panel here have issued very important and intelligence warnings, cautions, about simplistic approaches to democracy promotion. the term "democracy" as paul marshall and others have mentioned, is shorthand for a set of liberal democratic concepts, attitudes, and institutions. concepts such as individual rights, limited government, and

rule of law. attitudes such as compromise, respect for contrary views, and institutions such as multiple power centers, independent judiciary, property rights. when we talk about promoting democracy, many people think that all we're talking about is rushing to organize elections. i think it is extremely important. it's part of the problem with using this kind of shorthand. it's important to understand that sensible people who are talking about promoting democracy are talking about promoting these concepts, attitudes, and institutions and not just looking at the one institution that gets first and foremost attention by most people, which is elections. free and fair elections are an element of democracy. in the absence of the other elements, they are not only insufficient to create democracy, but they can produce

anti-democratic results. democracy is not only about process, but also principles. it is not hypocrisy for supporters of democracy to oppose the use of democratic process is to give power to people who reject democratic principles. nazis, communists, and islamist s have all in various places and various times used democratic means to pursue power even though they reject liberal democracy in principle. this is one of the great challenges for liberal democracies. they have to understand that not every element of liberal democracy is a good thing to rush forward with in societies where the use, for example, of

quickie elections can produce results that are deeply, philosophically hostile to the principles of liberal democracy. the third point i would make is -- as important as democracy promotion is for u.s. national security policy, it does not always trumped every other policy consideration. officials with broad responsibilities are continually forced to make trade-offs among important interests. what then means is that serious policy-making in this area requires arguing against the so- called realist view that democracy promotion is essentially irrelevant to american interests and also fighting against the purests who

argue that anything that is -- that seems to be at odds with the media promotion of democracy and the rushing -- with the immediate promotion of democracy and the rushing towards election is a violation of principle. fourth, an intelligent, sustained effort to promote democratic institutions should heed the philosopher edmund's burke's warnings of trying to promote abstract ideas on foreign cultures. democracy is not a single thing. samuel tadros did a very good job of explaining from the point of view of an egyptian who cares about liberal democracy and would like to promote it -- is entirely favorable the sceptical about how fast one can move on this track in a country like egypt.

he a understands that democracy will not look the same in every country. americans need to understand that. not every country is ready for all the main liberal democratic institutions right away. some institutions that would be deemed undemocratic in one country may be the key to successful liberal self- government in another. for example, to create and secure democracy germany, after world war ii banned the nazi and communist parties. that kind of sweeping ban of political parties would not fly in the united states, but it was deemed important and beneficial and democratic in germany. for people who do see the practical benefit of democracy promotion from the united states, it is important that they developed a sophisticated understanding of the

complexities here and the fact that democracy is not going to look the same and is not going to have all the same institutions in every country. that is not an argument for dismissing the moral or the practical benefits to the united states of trying to encourage the development of liberal democratic institutions. u.s. policymakers are now being forced to consider what our key interests are in egypt. the list is fairly obvious to most everybody. i will not spend a whole lot of time on it. we have an interest in regional peace. we have an interest in the considerations of trade and prosperity for the region. in counter-terrorism, in countering the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the area.

that is of course a reference to regional state to state relations. iran, for example. we have an interest in making sure that we do not wind up of the end of this political upheaval with an egyptian government that wants to pursue its own nuclear weapons program. we have a very strong interest in political reform in egypt and in the broader arab and muslim worlds. the united states has a large stake in this. our strategic interest is to promote the kind of liberal democratic concepts and institutions that i just mentioned, but to do so with caution and common sense and without illusions of the type that samuel tadros warned

against about overnight transformations in the attitudes and principles of millions of people. key is being clear-eyed about the muslim brotherhood, which is a philosophical enemy of liberal democratic ideas. i think paul marshall has done a very good job in his brief presentation in warning about the nature of the muslim brotherhood. remarksthat lee smith's should be taken to heart by everybody in the u.s. government foreign policy establishment as they view the muslim brotherhood. the realist you that it tends to dominate -- view tends to dominate in world affairs. it is a very big mistake. in dealing with the muslim

brotherhood, you're not just talking about a set of practical interest. you're dealing with a group that has -- that formed on the basis ideology and lives to serve that ideology, as practical, flexible, and nimble as they have shown themselves to be in many respects, i think it would be a serious mistake to ignore the essential, ideological nature of the organization, and to just assume that they are -- that they can easily become responsible political actors in a democratic egypt. now, the reason there is so much focus on the muslim brotherhood is that they are one of the two institutions that are,

right now, maneuvering for influence and power in whenever the next stage of egyptian political development is going to be -- whatever the next stage of the egyptian political development is going to be. america's job is to do whatever it can to help manage or influence the political transition in egypt. but, it is important to observe that, in all events, our influence is limited in this kind of affair. it is especially limited, given that we enter into all this turmoil as the united states government without a strategy. i think the fact that we did not, over the last two years, have an administration that was reaching out to multiple players in egypt and cultivating people and institutions and ideas that ould have helped us with

better information, better intelligence, better contacts, more influence -- it has put this in a position where the united states government now is largely a bystander rather than a significant player in developments in egypt. but, in any event, we should be trying, within our limited means, to exercise some influence and that influence, if we have a truly strategic view that takes into account these considerations about promoting liberal-democratic institutions and recognizing with the muslim brotherhood is -- whatever influence we have should be directed towards minimizing the kind of political power that the muslim brotherhood would like to

establish for itself in egypt. and i would just say that, overall, my message is a message of trying to approach this problem with balance and to recognize that what the administration has been doing in recent days has been crisis management, rather than the implementation of a strategy. it would be helpful if they have a strategy. it makes the crisis management, in many ways, easier and more likely to advance the u.s. national interests. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i think our panelists did an excellent job of eliminating -- eliminating some of the issues that our policy makers are thinking about -- illuminating

some of the issues that are policymakers are thinking about and talking about today. i would ask that you identify yourself and your organization and wait for the microphone, since we're taping this for our web site -- website, www.hudson.org. over on this side. >> thank you. i would like to direct this question to douglas feith and whoever else might have some insight into it. i am indira lakshmanan, the diplomatic reporter for lumber news. i want to know what you think about -- for bloomberg news. i want to know what to think about the funding that has been cut in recent years. why did they do this and do you

think this has had an effect on disempowering ngos? >> i think that the cutting of funds by the obama administration for democracy promotion was one aspect of what i referred to in my talk as they're turning away or running away from the bush freedom agenda. interesting point, i think, to realize that the general promotional liberal- democratic ideas and institutions has been a part of american national security policy from democratic and republican administrations for decades. president bush made it a particularly, highly-eliminated part of his -- highly-

illuminated part of his policy, but it was not a radical departure from american foreign policy. what was much more of a radical departure from traditional american foreign policy was what the obama administration did when it came in in cutting democracy-promotion funds and basically showing a lack of interest -- an affirmative lack of interest in democracy in russia or human rights and democratic considerations in russia, in china, in egypt, in saudi arabia, syria, and various other places where it had been an important part of the american agenda. the obama administration, and then, of course, in president obama's cairo speech, he talked about democracy there, but he

gave it so clearly a minor emphasis that it was in real contrast to what had been done by the previous administration. and i think it was largely an effort for obama to position himself as the un-bush. i think it was a very serious mistake. i do think it did harm, as your question suggests, it did harm our ties to various groups and our ability, basically, to have better information and better contacts in egypt during this process -- crisis. >> ok. the gentleman right here. >> [unintelligible] my question is for doug feith. how come the obama administration did not know

about this? [unintelligible] do you think obama will use this egyptian crisis to ask israel to give more concessions? [unintelligible] this is not the first time [unintelligible] punjab is a very important province in pakistan. [inaudible] -- [unintelligible] somehow, these people are inherently less cultural.

i mean, [unintelligible] my question is how obama will use this crisis as leverage against israel because it was very difficult to get concessions to palestinians. now, obama is in a very strong position to do that. >> i think one of the noteworthy features about the political upheaval in egypt is how little it has to do with israel. i do not think that israel is a gigantic factor here. your point about intelligence -- very often, our intelligence can produce some insight about particular facts.

but the kind of -- the kind of question about which the administration was surprised, which is that this authoritarian regime in egypt was going to have a major -- was going to create major instability when the time came for dealing with some kind of political transition -- you did not have to be in intelligence to see that coming. i mean, anybody -- that's not -- that's a matter of intelligence, but it's the intelligence of ordinary people we are talking about. it's not the intelligence of intelligence agencies. there was a lack of intelligence in the sense that they failed to see something that should have been obvious to everybody. i say "failed to see," perhaps in parts of their brains, the leaders of the u.s. government saw this.

but it was not at the fore of their minds and they were not dealing with it as something that could happen imminently. that is partly the reason they look so shocked when the events occurred. the other point i would make is that, again, since i'm trying to show how important it is to balance interests here -- when people say that some countries or some people are not ready for democracy, sometimes, that is true. and i think we have seen examples of it where people have democratic opportunities and they blow them. and you get an example like the elections in the gaza strip that produced this extreme the anti- democratic result of putting hamas in power.

but, just as a countervailing thought, if you had said to a serious student of germany, let's say, in 1946, that, in 60 germany was years germans, going to be a solid, liberal democracy whose basic attitude toward international of years was -- international affairs was pacifist, they would have said, you do not know anything about chairman history -- german history or culture. it is not going to happen. all of the sensible people would have said that democracy of that kind in germany was inconceivable. likewise japan. as important -- and i do think

valid -- as all the warnings and cautions we have heard from the panel are this morning about the difficulties of moving a society like egypt in the direction of liberal democracy -- as important as that is, i do not think we should be completely closed minded to the idea that -- close-minded to the idea that countries sometimes manage to pull off philosophical see changes that are very beneficial to the people of the country and the world. it is in america's interest to promote those ideas, even when they are long shots. in some cases, they pay off, as in the cases of germany and japan. i mean, they pay off informally for those countries, for the world, and for u.s. interests --

they pay off enormously for those countries, for the world, and for u.s. interests. >> produced the into the microphone -- could you speak into the microphone? >> my question goes to mr. feith and anyone else on the panel. under the current turmoil, do you think the u.s. has a path or way to preserve the peace treaty b? by buying time for the election, do you think the u.s. knows who to speak to to stop the current tide of the muslim brotherhood and their rise to power? >> as i said before, i do not think we know as much as we should know. i think the u.s. government would benefit enormously if the

government of the time to hear the presentations that sam tadros, and paul marshall, and lee smith made this morning about the political scene there. >> i think when sam describing for -- described before -- i agree that one of the interesting things about the protests is that we realize that the arab-israeli crisis is not the key issue. there are lots of other issues as well. however, if we also look at these demonstrations, i think that one of the things that we see is that people are dissatisfied. people are unhappy with the peace treaty. we are talking about giving people a free voice in the governance of their own society. one of the things we're going to find out is that, for better or worse, people do not like this peace treaty with israel. i find it very unfortunate, but i think it is the case.

as we look around the region, that is the way it is. we can blame the regime force during this up -- for stirring this up, and they do a perfectly good job of this, but it is also a popular feeling on the street. one of the things we probably need to come to terms with pretty soon is that a peace treaty may be on shaky ground. i do not think with the military regime. we also need to understand this is what the military plans for. that is the enemy, not libya, not saddam, not the iranians -- israel -- that is the enemy, not libya, not sudan, not the iranians. israel. we're talking about tens of millions of young people who do not remember the catastrophe

that 67 or 73 brought egypt. >> a question right here. >> my name is ron, a retired international development consultant. while i appreciate the need for a maturity or maturation process for civil society so that the institutions of democracy are strong, it seems that there will be an election in september. the scenario there, according to what you have said and what we read, is that the muslim brotherhood is likely to be in power. if that is the case, the u.s., if they follow what they did in gaza to not recognize hamas, will not recognize the muslim brotherhood, which will cross the street to erupt again -- cause the street to erupt again.

we will be in worse trouble. i would like to hear your predictions. what will be the result of the elections in the fall, or do you suspect there will not be? >> i think there will definitely be elections in the fall. how those elections -- of course, we're speaking about presidential elections and not parliamentary. the egyptian government has so far refused to dissolve the egyptian parliament arguing that, to pass those constitutional amendments, you have to have that current parliament. presidential elections will take place. i would doubt that the muslim brotherhood would be able to challenge the military in the presidential elections. the egyptian military is immensely popular. the reasons are various points -- the popularity of the victory

with israel in 1973, the army is viewed as clean. we do not hear about corruption cases. the army is viewed as efficient. if the army puts a young face, perhaps the prime minister been the interesting candidate here -- of course, when i say young face, that is relative. he is 69, i believe. [laughter] layman --an omar's a omar suleiman, the vice president. i think, in that case, he would be able to win the presidential election. the more important question will deal with the parliamentary elections. i think the pressure will be on the regime immediately after the presidential elections to dissolve parliament and call for new elections, since everyone knows what a disgrace of and

elections the last one was -- of an election the last one was. in that case, a victory by the muslim brotherhood is an issue to be concerned with. of course, there are many issues to deal with here. we're not talking about winning egypt as a whole. what would happen in each district? who are the candidates? there are so many different issues to deal with. the concern would be with the parliamentary elections, not the presidential elections where the muslim brotherhood would be unlikely to have a serious candidate to challenge a young, clean face from the military. >> i would like to pose a question to our panelists. the united states has been giving either to $1.5 billion to $2 billion in aid annually to

egypt. is that leverage we can now use, now that mubarak will be out of the way, to bring in some of these democratic bodies and institutions that doug talked about? if so, what would you call priorities -- and achievable priorities in the near term? sam, do you want to start with that? >> i think one of the interesting surprises in the last few days is how little information we have about the egyptian military. i have spoken to various people in the administration -- previous administration. the sense is that mubarak had always kept a wall of separation between the egyptian military and its american contacts. any attempt to deal with the military through open-channel

dialogue with the military leadership was always stopped by mubarak. so, whether the military contact, the aid it reflects any real relationship with the people or not is a question mark. whether it can be used -- definitely. i think everybody has been talking about the aid to egypt in the form of -- about cutting the aid to get the results you want. i think it might be worthwhile to think for a while about whether the aid can be used as a tax, whether more aid might encourage the military to bring reforms. what those records would be -- i would say that it is more important than opening up the

system is allowing the ideas that we've understand as liberal and democratic to be inside the system. the egyptian government has always managed to portray their problem, and rightly so, of choosing between the regime and islamists. how can you create certainty and allow this alternative to grow -- a bringing those ideas inside egyptian society, allowing real civil society to grow. i think those are the areas where the military would be prescient to bring those things. >> paul, would you like to say something? he painted a very dire picture based on the comments of the christian leaders. this is the largest religious minority in the middle east -- the coptic christians in egypt. if they have drawn comparisons with iraq, which is certainly a

chilling thing, as half the christians there have left since 2004. if there is a mass exodus of 10 million people, it will be bad for u.s. interests. what do you see that the united states should be thinking about doing at this point? >> in terms of other countries i mentioned -- again, they are going to be different from egypt. just to emphasize my basic point -- all of the examples are horrible regimes, so we should not expect anything different in egypt. in terms of dealing with religious minorities in egypt, i believe that one of the things the u.s. should push is for religious freedom. this is important because it is a major part of equality before the law.

it is one thing that they have pushed for -- the uniform code forbidding places of worship -- for building places of worship. other features of the demands -- rights are based upon citizenship, rather than religion. these are not so much in protections for particular group, but universalizing the law and having citizenship law. i would make this part of the agenda of the use of u.s. aid. we mentioned cutting back on the democratization programs. i think one thing that the u.s. could certainly use its military aid to leverage is the ability to offer more aid, which goes toward the question of civil society. that includes religious freedom

and other forms of human rights. the growth of independent journalism, of a free press, things of this kind. this week can do -- it would help egyptians and also provide the foundation for the growth of alternative political parties and voices. i would use our aid to leverage more aid and make religious freedom part of that. >> thank you. i think we're out of time. i would ask you all to join me in the thanking our presenters today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

>> yesterday, white house spokesman robert gibbs announced that this was his last week at the podium at the white house before stepping down to make way for j kearney -- jay carney. will have that briefing when it begins here on c-span -- we will have that briefing when it begins here on c-span. the senate has finished its work today, working on the faa bill, passing an amendment that will prevent budget cuts for nasa. that will do it for today for the u.s. senate. they may be back on thursday to

finish work on something the house will work on today. the house comes in at 2:00 eastern and will work on extending certain patriot act provisions and expiring provisions of the andean free trade agreement. that is why the senate is likely to be back on thursday, otherwise, democratic senators are off on their annual retreat. live house coverage coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a house judiciary subcommittee looks at funding for abortion services. that is live at 4:00 p.m. the tea party will hold a town hall meeting with rand paul, mike lee, and orrin hatch, as well as minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann. that is live at 7:00 p.m. also on c-span2. >> mr. president, it is my great honor today to speak on the floor as the united states senator. >> the new class of freshmen senators have been giving their

first speeches on the senate floor. followed their speeches online with c-span. read transcripts of every session. find a full video archive for every member. congressional chronicle -- at c- span.org/congress. >> with the white house briefing coming up at 12:30 eastern, we'll take your discussion from last night on the role of the white house press secretary -- take you to a discussion from last night on the role of the white house press secretary. we will hear from a number of former white house press secretaries. this is one hour, 30 minutes. we will show you as much as we can until the robert gibbs' the briefing begins at 12:30. >> please welcome the president of george washington university. [applause]

>> we are delighted to have on our campus the faces of four former press secretaries. am especially pleased that -- i am especially pleased that this is an extension of dana perino's teaching role at the graduate school of management. we also are joined by senior managers -- a senior correspondent from cnn who is teaching at our school. making and shipping the news is part of a conversation series -- shaping the news is part of a

conversation series hosted by frank sesno, who now serves as director of george washington's school of media and public affairs. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming frank sesno. [applause] >> thank you very much. what a great crowd and what a great pleasure to be here with you. i think you're going to hear a conversation this evening that you are going to long remember. i want to double the president and the university for making this conversation -- thank the president and the university for making this conversation possible, as well as the dean of the college of arts and sciences. i also want to thank the students and faculty. also, award recognition to the graduate school of political management -- a word of

recognition to the graduate school of political management to have been great partners in the residence and intellectual pursuit. periodically, with these conversations, we meet with people in this remarkably public sphere of life to discuss with them the direction of the country, the role the media plays in connecting the citizens with those who govern, and the way we now communicate as a society. in the past, our guests have included hillary clinton, robert gates, walter mondale, and the late tony snow. we examined this remarkable intersection of media, political communication, and public affairs, because that is what we do. study, teach, and explore political communication --the connection between the government and the governing and the role that media plays in

making that happening. tonight is an ideal place for this conversation, for all of us to explore this strange intersection. i am happy to say that it is also being broadcast live on c- span. it will air multiple times on sirius and xm radio. will be heard on the pto -- it will be heard on the potus program as well. i am also happy to have on the program cnn's senior white house correspondent ed henry. i have watched him with a close eye. i know little bit of what he goes through every day with his obstacle course of a job. every day, he reports to work at the white house. it is not a bad address. he is with us here at the semester -- at the university

this semester, along with one of the former press secretaries who is not able to be with us this evening. had surgery just a few days ago. his leg was broken, his femur. he has just gone home and i am happy to say he started his physical therapy. he sends his regards. it took a broken leg to keep him away. we know we are doing something right. i have asked ed to get us started with a very few brief remarks on just what is at stake every day when he goes to work at a place called the "briefing room" in the white house. please welcome ed henry. [applause] >> is, everybody. it is great to be here -- thank you, everybody. it is great to be here.

we just did a tribute to ronald reagan on his 100th birthday. when i was growing up, i did not really know much about ronald reagan himself. what i learned, i learned through the journalists covering him, people like frank sesno. they set the standard of keeping politicians honest. the care that they took to the craft of journalism is what inspired me to become a white house correspondent myself. i was always impressed with their work, especially frank. tells me he is only about 40- years-old. that means he was covering ronald reagan when he was 15. he was a prodigy. i got invited to a farewell party for robert gibbs qd mills said the nation's highest paid kindergarten teacher is filing -- for robert gibbs. the e-mail said, "the nation's

highest paid kindergarten teacher is finally" retiring. we have some special guests coming out who we have sparred with at that most public of podiums. ari fleischer threatened to turn this around and have the former press secretaries asked me questions, something i did not want to do. this ain't kindergarten. this is serious business. when cnn reassign me to capitol hill, i admit i was scared. this is a serious beat -- the big beat. capitol hill is big as well, but this has a narrower scope. for the first time, i went out on the north lawn and covered a crises in north korea. i know that we are dissected here and abroad. dozens of countries are watching these reports on tv and on their

iphone, there android -- their androids, you name it. there is more pressure to get the story first and to get the story right and to be fair. the pressure that we have as journalists -- just multiply that when you talk about the press secretaries. the whole world is watching and their words can come back to haunt them. we have seen lies and coverups that can literally change history. this everyking on day and every hour. the work we have to do to make sure that we get our words right -- you have to multiply that. their words can topple a government or move a market. i have a great amount of respect for the people coming up here. i have a story to pass a law from when i was covering the bush white house.

it is when tony snow was the white house press secretary. we miss him. we have lessons that can teach us how to carry ourselves. he and i got off on the wrong foot a little bit. he had just come from fox news over to the bush white house. i was with cnn. there was already that. i was pressing him on the war in iraq. he reached the boiling point. he finally snapped at me and said, "zip it." this sort of came out of nowhere and surprise me. i bumped into him a few days later in close, talking to each other. his assistants saw us and thought we were so close that we were about to come to blows. he said, pretty soon, i am going to have to buy you guys some boxing gloves. tony said, this is not personal.

ed has a job to do. i have a job to do. that is sending for us all to remember when we get into these tough things that happen -- something for us all to remember when we get into these tough things that happen. needs to be a healthy dose of respect -- there needs to be a healthy dose of respect on both sides. without further ado, let me bring back frank. >> then you very much -- thank you very much. our participants have given voice to some of the great events in history, from black hat down -- black, down to the war in iraq. their job is a complicated and may be impossible -- maybe impossible one. to represent a president, to communicate with a skeptical

world, to manage the media -- to think about that for a minute -- manage the media, to tell the truth, or at the very least not to lie, and to do it for radio, television, bloggers, local news, foreign news. when dee dee myers step to the podium, -- stepped to the podium, there were about 50 websites. when she left, there were over 200,000. my, how times have changed. it has been only three years since we have had something called twitter. tonight, we'll explore the role of the white house press secretary -- the people who have seen, experienced unarticulated, and, in some cases, shaped --

seen, experienced, articulated, and, in some cases, shaped history. i will share one story with you and you will hear many more. after 9/11 -- within days of 9/11, i was a bureau chief at cnn and ari fleischer was the press secretary. initiated a pool called to all of the press -- he initiated a pool call. he said, we're in a different time now. the world has changed. what you say in broadcast will be seen in afghanistan at the same moment that it is seen in albany. he had some special instructions which we will maybe talk about in a bit. fundamentally, he was asking us not to report on the whereabouts of the president or the cabinet.

it was a sobering moment. we know the world changed again. we know the world continues to change in the remarkable and sometimes unpredictable ways. without further ado, let me start by bringing out to you the man who was the press secretary to bill clinton at a rather compelling time in his presidency. [laughter] michael mccurry, press secretary from 1994 to 1998. [applause] i hope, many of you know from your experience in class, you know her. apparently, she is a twitter phenom. when she tweets, the world listens. so, dana perino. [applause] >> wow. >> there i go.

ari fleischer was press secretary at a remarkable time in our history -- 9/11, the war in iraq. he joins us from new york. he is very deeply ensconced in sports and sports consulting. ari fleischer. [applause] finally, as i mentioned, when she became the first female white house press secretary, dee dee myers took the job -- i am having trouble with these monitors -- at a very important and very sensitive time. [laughter] >> we are good at these photo op things. >> we're off to a good start. you have my back. ladies and gentlemen, dee dee myers. [applause]

i am going to sit down and try to be safe here. well, how many watched the super bowl last night? [applause] how many green bay fans do we have? how many steelers fans do we have? i will not put you on the spot. we learned to not take sides on questions like this. >> packers fan. >> so, before the game, barack obama sits down with, of all people, bill reilly -- bill o'reilly of fox news. good idea? >> great idea. >> millions of people, 14 minutes live -- no editing. everybody in america is in a good mood. bill knew that.

i thought that president obama's answered wonderfully. he was not likeable person that he remembered from the 2008 campaign -- that likeable person that you remember from the 2008 campaign. >> i have people say it was not the most dignified. >> this takes us to the next topic. we have our real-time prices in the world right now, which we're watching closely -- real-time crisis in the world right now, which we're watching closely. we're talking about egypt and the unfolding crisis in egypt. the white house and the president had called for a transition and they have said it should be now. there has been some confusion over what "now" really means. you know what the policy is as communicated -- do you know what the policy is as communicated? >> not really.

i understand it has evolved. i think one of the problems yesterday was really having two different spokespeople from the administration speaking on the same topic at the same time. not necessarily a problem, but if you're in the crisis, you should be on the same -- it should be out of the same mouth. >> one of the greatest examples of the complexity -- if you're a white house press secretary or a state department spokesperson, you are speaking to multiple audiences simultaneously and you sometimes have nuanced messages you are delivering. ambassador frank wisner as a message he is delivering to his -friend to- has a -- has a message he is delivering to his friend hosni mubarak and that may not be the same message that he wants to send to the global audience. >> wisner comes out and says

mubarak has to be there till september. meanwhile, we have people -- the secretary of state and president saying that the transition needs to begin now. >> as mike indicated, this is the reality when something is so hot and sensitive. you are hearing in intense focus on all the subtleties of it -- an intense focus on all of the subtleties of this. don't tell anybody this, but i think barack obama is handling this quite well. >> we will not tell anybody. [laughter] >> you want to steadily and slowly -- you want to slowly say goodbye to mubarak and steadily pushed for reform. if you wait for the police and military to settle it, it gets really messy. he is trying to walk a

tightrope. >> i am going to let you watch a little bit of the tiger that robert gibbs has been walking lately -- the tightrope that robert gibbs has been walking lately. courtesy of cnn, cnncut this -- cnn, which cut this tape for us. let's take a look at this. >> how do you define "now"? >> now means yesterday. when we said now, we meant yesterday. now started yesterday. the time for a transition has come. that time is now. it is unseasonably warm, but it is not september. [laughter]

>> bring back memories? >> the meaning of the word is [inaudible] [applause] you know, i think egypt -- there are probably a bunch of things we wish we could do over and expand more articulately -- explain more articulately. it is hard when events are breaking and you're trying to walk a fine line, sending the right message to the right audiences, parse the situation as best you can. sometimes, you step too far over the line. >> usually, you have your best thoughts at 1:00 a.m. >> it is that what happens when you go out there and you think, oh, my god, i did not expect that question. >> not in my office. the worst thing that could

happen was for me to be surprised at the podium. >> you were never surprised? >> i can remember just a few times. one thing that has changed is that, because of the 24/7 new cycle, reporters were constantly asking us questions all day long. by the time you got to the briefing room at noon, they had been asking questions since 4:00 a.m. you could tell where robert gibbs was looking. that is where ed henry sits. you know where they are trending. you also know what they need to get on television. >> he was trying to defuse the moment and dodge the question is either with humor or simply by repeating his answer over and over. >> it is a good example of something important. these briefings are the raw ingredients of news coverage of the white house today are not news in and of themselves. that was an idiot who allowed the tv cameras to go in there.

that would be me. [laughter] when you are trying to nuance and tease out a calibration of what a statement that the president has made means, it is not supposed to be carried live on national television. it is supposed to be what reporters used to test and go to other sources and then form the composite, which is the story they present to the american people. it was a bad idea when monica lewinsky came along. [laughter] >> i remember those days. i want to come back to that crisis. this is the serious business of your job. sending messages from the white house podium -- ari, i know you were there 9/11, you were there when the war started and took place. what role did you have in

sending messages, and were you conscious that you were the messenger? >> well, on september 12, that was the first time that george bush used the word "war" publicly. he had used it in private with staff. when he addressed the nation, he spoke more of reassurance and hope. the next day, he deliberately chose the word "war." for me, that changed everything. all of a sudden, you are not only a press secretary talking about war, but things are starting to move. it is very dramatic -- america's seriousness of purpose after 9/11. in iraq, it was my job to make a statement to saddam early -- saddam has 48 hours to leave. >> you essentially delivered the timeline.

was that intentional? how was that decision made? >> president bush had returned from the summit. what we were hoping was that saddam would leave the country. it did not appear that he would. it was the last last-ditch hope -- the last-ditch hope to say he had 48 hours. when i said, saddam has 40 at -- 48 hours to leave, otherwise there will be consequences, reporters literally jumped out of their seats. >> did you push back and grow those who said, ari, we want you to go out -- and grill those who said, ari, we wanted to go out and say this? >> for six months, i was getting ready. >> dee dee, what signals did you

send deliberately from the podium? >> boy, you caught me -- i did not have to send any 2 saddam hussein -- to saddam hussein. i was thinking about the first year when president clinton was putting together his budget. one thing we were doing -- the country was coming out of a recession. we were trying to send signals to the financial market that the president was going to take the balancing of the budget seriously. we tried to send the markets a message so that we could push congress for the to see the response. that is one example of a less militaristic situation. it was successful. we were able to use this positive feedback we were getting from the markets and the people driving the market that this was a strategy that would work. >> when you go out there and

send this as -- signal like that, you have multiple audiences. who do you talk to and how do you calibrate your message to reach those audiences? it is true that the world is listening. >> when you are the press secretary, you can look out into the briefing room, which is a lot smaller than it looks on t v. in some ways, you can get caught up in answering questions to the 20 people that are assembled there. you forget that people overseas are listening. there were two places i was recognized more than anywhere else. it was south korea and israel. i think that was because, at the time, the north koreans were quite aggressive in their form of diplomacy, i guess, and the south koreans would watch every day, because they wanted to know if america was still with them.

that was the same with israel, in particular during the 2000 -- 2007-2008 timeframe, when we're trying to get president of boston and -- president abbas and mullah omar to come to the table. that is the one piece of advice i gave to robert gibbs. don't forget that people all around the world are watching. they want to know where the leader of the free world stands on these issues. >> you also have experience of the state department. a totally different dynamic. >> i told president clinton went on that, of the two great job he gave me, that was the far more interesting and challenging job -- to be at the podium at the state department, because it was harder work. part of the reason is is a much more substantive press corps.

they do not go up for a lot of the silly stuff that happens at the white house sometimes. that is one of the problems you have -- if you have to rise up and express righteous indignation from the white house putting on a matter of critical foreign policy substance, after you have just been engaged in some kind of political sparring back and forth about what the republicans or democrats are doing, it is jarring for the american public because they do not know which half you are wearing. are you the political pugilist, or are you the official spokesman on behalf of the united states government? we have developed conflict in this role for the press secretary that needs to be resolved. i think probably all of us agree that we were better off when we brought other people in. .

>> i have been concerned too many of the plig actors who work being in critical matters of state. and that's not the role. >> the briefing in the modern era since the cameras came in andp being covered live, it's a tv show. it's not the relationship between a spokesman. and they fire away the questions. i did the same thing in reverse and i give the answers. it's a tv show. the real work is done 20 times a day when reporters come in and close the door and talk one on one. >> if you tell me it's a tv show that the american public may not be served because if you think the reporters are posturing and you are posturing, what happens to the information that is supposed to be coming from that podium. >> they get their news from a tremendous amount of direction

and white house briefing is just one. >> i agree with that 100%. we are in the 21st century now and using a 19th century form at to educate the press corps. doing a briefing for the press corps and all the news funneled through the white house is an isolated way for the american public to get its information. we have to re-invent public information within government and i think marginalize the role of the press secretary. >> marching -- marginalize the role. >> every day the press secretary is defending the president. what you don't see and what my colleagues, defending the press through the president and to the senior staff and that is never seen unless you are trying to make sure the press corps can

get into a meeting. that happens a lot. but one of the most important roles of the press secretary in my opinion was to protect the role of the press, to remember that they had a job to do. i think ed said tony snow once said on the record about them and others have said that, and it's an important role to remind everybody that while they might drive you crazy, it is their role and -- >> give us an example of when you have gone in and pounded on the desk on the oval office, mr. president, you have to think about the press. >> the big issue is access and won't be satisfied unless there is oval office cam and have 24/7. the press secretary has to fight for that. on september 13, 2001, the president was going to call mayor giuliani to announce he

was coming to new york and that was the famous bull horn moment. and normally that would be a private phone call. i said let the press in. >> what was your motivation for that? >> it would be good for the country seeing the president talk to the two leaders. >> was it to show the commander in chief in a strong force? >> of course. >> he got emotional. he feels like i do. >> a reporter asked him a question, mr. president, how do you personally feel about what's going on? how are you getting through this? and for the first time, everything was business, but for the first time, with the cameras rolling, an emotional man got asked an emotional question and said i'm a caring kind of guy, but my job is to care for the people who are the victims and not worry about myself and he

was about to lose it. >> i don't take anything away from that, but there are those who would say and justifiably to bring the cameras into a moment like that is stage craft. >> and reporters who asked questions, he took questions after that phone call. would i bring a press into the oval office where there is a strife and my answer is no, i'm not going to let the cameras in. >> let me ask you another one. we sole ised questions online from those who are attending and others who are interested and voted upon and i will take the questions. this one is from aaron and asked when is it ok to lie or knowingly withhold important information on behalf of the president and the white house? >> never. we can never lie. >> those are two very different

questions. [laughter] >> sometimes the art is telling the truth slowly. [laughter] >> i listen to you doing a lot of that. >> we had -- all of us had situations where we know things are going to happen and can't talk about them because sometimes you might put someone's life in jeopardy and there are other times when the political and diplomatic protocols don't allow you to acknowledge something publicly at that moment. but you can never consciously lie because then that destroys the credibility, the trust that is elemental about serving the president and serving the press corps. dana made a very good point, that you are caught in this weird position and the geography for those who watched "the west wing," the real rest wing, the

back door of the office that all four of us had, you walk out of it and 25 feet away you are with the oval office yelling at you telling you how bad the press is and you are literally in between these actors. and you have to try to keep both happy and very, very tricky thing to do because you will not make your colleagues in the white house happy and can never make the press corps happy because they were moaning about something and it is a formula for having to establish a way in which people get your cues of what you are trying to say. >> mike, do you feel you lied on behalf of the president? >> no during the monica lewinsky business? >> i said this is the statement i have. i was very conscious since i

didn't know what the whole truth was and i never went beyond the statement that was approved by lawyers and handed to it and i said i'm not going to parse this statement because i prided myself on being on top of the information, having the good brief and giving it to the american people. it was a matter that was being investigated by a very determined and aggressive prosecutor. the president had some privileges, very few of them which remained even after executive privilege and attorney-client privilege that we couldn't put in jeopardy. so we didn't pollute the environment by saying, hey, what's the deal with you and this chick? [laughter] >> i would have a subpoena on my back. >> you were asked any number of times to define things. what does it mean when he said,

blah, blah, blah. >> timing, other reports that were out there. they came to you in one form or another and you ducked or talked around. the white house line was this was a political line that the special prosecutor was pursuing and that certainly was the implication and the president was repeatedly denying these things were happening and you had to be his spokesman and repeat that denial. >> i repeated the statement he had issued on behalf of it and said, that's been asked and answered and the president is doing the job he got elected to do. and the good news for the american people is they agreed. they said the press needs to turn the off button here, because they are pursuing this thing. >> and the prosecutors as well. >> how tough did it get for you? that line when you know something is happening, whether legislatively or a scandal or

international event where you have more information than you want to pass on and you are asked that question publicly or privately by a reporter? >> you learn to deal with that over time, not only do you have to give accurate information but set up your answers so they don't trap you down the line. and i actually got trapped by one of my answers and you have heard this story, but when president clinton first came to the white house, after a few months we were there, president h.w. bush went to kuwait to celebrate the second anniversary and while there, there was an assassination attempt on his life. f.b.i. began to investigate and i wanted to give guidance prepared by the national security council and set up guidance on this kind of thing and f.b.i. is investigating and they'll make a decision on how to proceed. i would get asked the question, what's going on with the f.b.i.

investigation and i would give the guidance almost exactly that way. one friday, i was going through my briefing with the deputy for national security in my office and we wept through that question and he said nothing's changed, same guidance and i got asked the question which was random. the president had received information the day before. he had decided that the information that iraq was responsible for the assassination attempt on saddam hussein and the united states would retaliate. and so i had a ticking clock. and i didn't know it until the following day and i realized, i have given bad guidance -- any way, i realized in hindsight what i should have said when the president receives information from the f.b.i., he'll make a decision and until then, i have

nothing more to say, but i didn't. and so i think it's an example of how you have to think three, four, five moves ahead because information -- not only what is happening today but what is happening in the future. and i learned to do that much better and it is a painful experience. >> i would add one thing, something that people don't realize is that in many ways, a press secretary acts like a reporter as well. so i don't know the answers to everything. i get a question and i don't know. i will call someone at the national security council that i trust and ask the chief of staff to make sure i get the same answer and if there is not the same answer, you know they have to talk. >> no one tells you what to say. >> no one tells you what to say or everyone tells you. >> exactly. it's up to the press secretary to do go be a reporter.

>> was that a big mistake? >> if you put it together, it would be horrible. >> funny you mention that. [laughter] >> this is why it is a burnout job, you have the president on one hand, don't tell me you don't know the answer, go get it. and other times you aren't going to. after 9/11, a lot of it was security breesks and whether or not united states moved special forces on the ground in afghanistan before the first bullet was fired? yes, we have. we have pre-deployed our troops. >> you have plenty of americans. >> there was a report we captured a bad guy, one of the terrorists we had been looking for. and press secretaries regularly

are confirming things on background. reporters write the truth. reporters came into my office and said is it true we captured this guy in yemen. i said i can't help you. wait a minute, it's been reported. just tell me yes or no so we know if we can write it or not. i said i can't help you. they get angry. press secretary job is to help. just steer me straight or wrong. and the reason, when we did capture him, we didn't want anybody to know, because we wanted his cell phone to ring again, get another email and chase it back up the line. if i had acknowledged anything about him, the line could have gone cold. so this is where you are dealing -- doing what you think is right to represent your boss but the press never thinks it's right. >> i'll give you an example of a

mistake that i made that wasn't necessarily substantive. it was tone. and as we know, there are a lot of pressures on the press secretary but a lot of pressures on everybody. i remember one time in particular embarrassing a reporter for asking a question that had already been asked and it was a question they were behind by about four, five hours with the news and i embarrassed them by -- on national television and it was really unfair and the easiest thing to do when you are the press secretary is be sarcastic and be funny and most important thing is to swallow that and save the funny moments with your deputies and to just give the american people and the reporters in the room the information that they're seeking. i did call and apologize to the reporter but doesn't take back the fact i did it. >> tone and substance.

very sensitive from the white house. i'm reminded in your story of a situation we encountered at cnn. after 9/11, we put together guidance and it was as a result partly of the conversation that we talked about you and i had, but we understood we could end up being used as a vehicle for nepharious means. osama bin laden, when he touched his left hand, is that a signal? where do we get guidance on that? we said we were going to be sensitive to issues that might imperil issues of national security. we'll try to tune it in and we took lots of calls from people. there was a time when we first deployed u.s. troops to uzbekistan uzbekistan for the staging? >> several places. >> we were approached and asked not to report that because it

might jeopardize security. we chose not to report that. then what happens? it leaked some other place. a pakistani news organization puts it up, goes online and another network reported on it in the united states. so, a, what is your guidance to news organizations today and how can you say i'm not going to address that when it's going out to these other means? >> that's a great question and this is why this took place. my standard, when the president called me in and says were you the source of this. you can't lie to the press and can't. can't lie to the president. if i say to you on background, yeah, frank, go with it. and you you with go it and president calls me, are you the source of this? >> you would say no, i'm not the source of it. >> you confirmed it.

>> you would rather live with bad information out there that comes from another source? >> i would rather make sure that journalists working to keep the american public informed move towards the truth and move towards the truth in a way that's not going to jeopardize people's lives or harm our security. if someone is getting ready to write something that is flat out wrong, you have some obligation to warn them against that. that gets back to your fundamental question, can press secretaries lie? no, never. the only press secretary that did that is jody powell who denied that the rescue mission was under way to get the hostages out of iran, long, long

time ago and that was the test case and never been challenged since because no one has flat out lied to the press corps. when you get killed, if someone doesn't bring you into the loop on something. dana is right, we have to be reporters ourselves, bust down the sources and get the information. it's hard work to stay on top of all of that. >> what's the day in the life of a press secretary. you get up at 3:00. >> i don't think you ever slept. >> i think it has changed a lot. all of us, you don't sleep as much as you would like to. you have the papers read before the meetings. >> phone calls in the middle of the night? >> sometimes. i was in the pre-internet era. there were five web sites when i left the white house. >> you are looking pretty good for 100 years old.

[laughter] >> as press secretaries, even when you're on the hill, you know something is going to be in the paper the next day, when the alarm goes off, you find the story and look at it and read it, either happy or sad. and now, there's no element of surprise anymore. and in fact, like a "washington post" reporter wouldn't know they have been beaten on a story by the "new york times" until 5:00. now that happens at 7:00 p.m., 8:00 p.m., 900 p.m. >> there would be something coming out in the paper. "new york times." i would wait. 9:55, 10:00. and the phone would start to ring. no blackberry and would say what's the story in the "new york times." i got to match it. that was a big deal cram it into

the paper just in time for their 11:00 deadline. >> so this question, ari, this question just to show we live in the 21st century, if you had to sum up the job of white house press secretary in one tweet, 140 characters or less, what would you say? >> easy, joyful, relaxed, lots of sleep. [laughter] >> the best job i ever had, most intellectually stimulated job i ever had and one of the hardest jobs i ever had. >> one of the things we study in political communication and throughout our school is framing an issue and how agendas for issues get set. and i would like to ask you all, from your perspectives, who set the agenda? could you set the agenda from the podium? is it reporters who would set

the agenda, all of the above, could you control it, did you try? >> all of the above. i think the press secretary rarely sets the agenda though. the president certainly can. but events outside of the white house all together whether it's egypt or markets crashing -- >> the president can make a speech 100 times but doesn't set the agenda. >> that is rare. >> that is the president setting the agenda. ari didn't say the 48 hours on his own. >> this is the strug of politics, communication and dem. people in power try to set the agenda. >> what worked best? >> any time the president makes hard news. he sets the agenda because then the press has something to cover. easiest breesks, there was one big story going on, because i

knew 60 minutes would be on a nasty topic. on a slow day, 15, 20 random questions. >> is it going to be a kitchen simping day because you were going to get everything. that was a lot harder. >> you tried to set an agenda and use the language to move away from what is being called suicide bombings. talk about that. >> during the second day, every day lives were being taken, palestinian suicide bombers are were taking lives in israel and reaching unparalleled portions. if this is called suicide why are these other people getting killed. i asked the national security

advisor and i didn't bring the president in it and i called them homicide bombers because it seemed to be a more accurate description of what was going on . >> how did that work? >> it caught people's attention and worked well. a lot of people still use that phrase. >> do you think it worked well? >> i think changing the words is a way in which you can use that job to do things. there are rare opportunities to use the podium to actually -- is fl a danger in going too far? >> yes. the greatest danger society wd that job is the american people don't trust the sources of information they have. they lost faith in the media. we know their faith in the established media has declined to all time lows and see people who do this political speak and

don't have trust for that and looking for someone that can help them sort out what really matters in their lives. and that's the hardest part of this job as i said before is reconciling the political work you have to do to be an advocate for the president's point of view and just convey simple factual information to the american public that the american public needs to hear. those roles are so much in conflict. >> how do you all think barack obama's messaging and his present press secretary have done at capturing that message? [whistling] >> what a surprise. >> your assessment. >> the reason that president obama's party lost 63 seats in november, biggest losses since 1938 was not a message problem but a substance problem. he overreached his mandate and had a huge ma date in 2008.

and he enacted policies that the overwhelming of majority of americans disagreed with so you have a corrective election. it was substance about health care reform, cap and trade and various policies. >> what do you make of that? >> no, not entirely. i think some of it -- i think that the process of making legislation as compared to sausage making. it's ugly and president clinton had -- had some of the same problems. if you want to accomplish anything in washington, one of the ways to do it is legislatively. you have to do it legislatively and president obama came in said i want to reform health care and after the fin hall crisis, i want to reform the financial crisis, those are big things and the republican have adopted the strategy of just say no and the

process got messy. could the president have done a better process, healed people accountable, sure? there are things you could do better. he had a lot of political capital and took it out and spent it to do two big things. >> went into debt with it. >> willing to do that. and he has made, who would have thought two months after the mid-terms he would be in the political shape he is in now. >> ronald reagan was a great communicator is barack obama a great communicator? >> i think he gives a good speech but i don't think that's the same thing as understanding your audience and being able to deliver on that. >> mike's shaking his head yes. >> the ability of the president to use that bully pulpit to help move a country in a direction is so different today than it was in ronald reagan's time because

of the difference in the media, technology, the way in which we reach people. some fundamental level, people want an emotional attachment to their president and know that the president feels what they feel and know that the president united states understands what their lives are about and he is acquiring that effectively. >> when you look -- sometimes it was not prevalent in the first two years and price paid for some of that. and on robert gibbs who -- is instrumently important and was during the first two leers to the president i think it is nearly impossible to be a decisionmaker and a key policy maker on behalf of the president and at the same time do the job we have to do, because you almost have to be a fly on the wall watching all of these actors play out their roles to then watch the president make

the decision and report faithfully. >> robert gibbs is an adviser. >> if you are a participate in the process and this is what stephanopoulos ran into in the clinton years. if you are a participant in the process your colleagues know you have a point of view and they'll say he is doing a lousy job with the briefing and he argued a different point of view. i consciously never tried to give the president my opinion on something when there were a lot of other cabinet officials and others around. i would give him a point of view in private but not as part of the policy making process. >> i totally agree with that for a number of reasons. you don't have time. and i think it's difficult to return all the phone calls. you have to be a hand holder to be a press secretary. you have to spend some time doing that. >> don't be an adviser.

>> you can't be an adviser. the other thing is you can't alienate any of the constituencies. it is beyond the credibility you might have with him. you have to go back to those people that you were on the other side of an important fight and you aren't going to be reliable and report. you have to be an honest broker inside. >> i wanted everyone to come spin me. >> when i was press secretary, i had access to all the meetings, more meetings than i could manage. and play that fly on the wall role. sometimes i was asked that opinion. what i would give was not necessarily my personal opinion in a group like that, but i did have a sense for i'm just going to tell you, if you go down that road, this is what's going to happen, doesn't mean we can't

manage it. we made a decision from a press perspective, and are you crazy? >> like what? well, i go back to the state children's health insurance program. president bush vetoed that legislation twice, not because he was against health insurance for children, his point was he wanted the money to go to the poorest children first. so we're crazy we aren't going to veto it once but twice. >> how about an example from you all, when you go to the president and say, mr. president, warning, warning, you said something that was wrong, when did you all do that?

>> you have the president who wants you to do that. >> his dad had been vice president, dad ran for president and run for governor and then president. there isn't a reporter he hadn't tangled with and had the highest tolerance for bad news than any principal i have ever dealt with. >> clinton did, too. >> lot of bad news in your presidency. >> he didn't have high tolerance. he would take it in and blow up and release it. [laughter] >> president bush had done a press conference and he was in the briefing room and after he left, i followed him and went into the oval office and he said

, was that saddam hussein good? >> world war ii comment probably going to get a lot of press. i was saying if you want to avoid world war iii. he said i don't think that's going to be the headlines. 3:00 in the afternoon, ring, ring, president bush was in the residence and he called me and told me i was right. >> you have one? >> mine was somewhat similar. it was mid-year 2003, war in iraq was basically winding down but the attacks were a-- going up and the president was asked about it and he said if anybody tries to attack america's military, my message is bring it

on. and walked back to the oval and i said think about how bring it on to a mother who -- of a child who is fighting in iraq. and he got indignant saying i have so much faith, if anyone wants to fight us, bring it on. he was sending a message to our military about how much faith he had in our military. and i said mr. president, it didn't come out that way. he didn't yield, he got the message and never repeated it. >> question from -- one of my colleagues, a professor -- i love this question, why do the democratic white house press operations seem to have more trouble controlling the party's message compared with

republicans? [laughter] >> they watch the immigration and social security dates of our administration. >> if you scratch any professional democrat or people who work in the party, they came up in the 1960's and 1970's. they were labor organizers, environmentalists, femnist folk. they worked in movement politics and believed the press was on their side, they were in the business of speaking truth to power. and republicans never had that in mind. so they started from a view point that was more corporate, more fueled in public relations, if you go back to the structure of the modern white house communications apparatus goes all the way back to nixon and the way it was first set up in those years and it was more about mass communications. i think republicans were more

adept at the skills of communication, advertising, public relations from the beginning and democrats thought -- >> that is plausible. there is one other aspect. bush had the advantage of watching the mistakes made in his father's administration and lot of powerful individuals who fought against each other and regularly leaking against each other. you go into a meeting in the oval office and you knew it would be the front page of the "washington post." the son made a decision that the people he hired would be team players. so i can't tell you how many times i was in the oval office and karen and carl would clash. and it never leaked. never gave it out. and my point is, press liked his father's. white house in disarray.

>> you were secrettive and tight-lipped. >> congratulations. >> that's where we have the clashes of priorities. when i covered the reagan white house and bush white house, some of it was disarray, some of it was leaked and people had agendas and others wanted to put information out. >> the information that drove george bush crazy, people fighting foyer their own turf. >> and no matter how much discipline, you don't stop turf balls. >> they were seldom ever leaked in the bush administration and i'm proud of that. >> there is a myth that the republicans didn't have message problems. if you look at the social security debate of 2005 and immigration debate of 2007 and today, that is a -- that is not a cohesive message. >> that's not a good message? >> i'm thinking the democrats

having a problem is not accurate. >> ari said obama said there wasn't a question of message or policy. >> it could be, but that's debatable. but when you take on these issues, education, immigration, social security, energy, whatever it might be, it's not necessarily -- you aren't going to have a big cohesive message. >> lightning round time. i want to go some questions here. this one is from tim and dee dee. with regard to the television series "west wing" and c.j. of press secretary modeled after you and you consulted on the show, how relate particular was the depiction of your position? >> one of the funny things about that, aaron -- the creator of "west wing" written the script for "american president."

i was in l.a. and asked me if i would read his pilot and consult on the show and i said sure. all my friends started calling me saying, come on. hollywood never gets washington right and the show is going to be a disaster. can't be done and first show came on and my friends said, that's not what happens in washington. they don't talk about national security stuff while walking through the west lobby and two weeks later, i got a story idea for you. [laughter] >> i think it was -- it felt like the clinton white house and it was written during the clinton years. >> disarray. >> no. in some ways the culture was right and we had people walking fast through the halls. sometimes it does, but events move fast and it was the way to depict the constant motion of events. one thing that least realistic

is five people made decisions in "west wing" wherein real life it is five million people. i think just when you think you have the answer to one question, another issue comes crashing. the gravity of what people face every day and sometimes it's the little things or big things that either ruin the day or knock you off your course, they are realistic. but the characters, people related to. there is a sense of idealism and we would look at not only our white house but other white houses and say these are people trying to make america ca better place. >> what do you think are the most salient changes in the media environment and how would you deal with this as the primary white house house voice? >> we had different jobs and i

actually think that reporter-wise, you have lost a lot of that senior level talent both in print and broadcast media and it's a shame because that historical perspective was good. i remember being able to go into ap and ask one for advice and say this is coming down in a couple of hours and i'm thinking of having the president do this. is that the -- >> you asking the ap for advice? >> but i say that it's actually there is a more cooperative relationship than you think. i don't think d.c. is as partisan as it's made out to be and i think on the technology side of things, at first i resisted the social media. i just said i can -- >> how many followers do you

have? >> i don't know. not enough. 28,000. i think it's 30,000. but i think -- >> how many followers do you have? >> i don't know. i signed up for a twitter account and have so and so wants to follow you on twitter. i'm not leaving anywhere. >> i'll follow you. >> here is a serious question and an important one from another colleague. 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions around the world, high resolution remote sensing satellites generating enormous data. more satellite news networks and increasingly transparent world. how does this change what a white house press secretary and a government can do to settle national and international priorities? is the nature of governance

itself changing because of of glolve information technology? >> ask mubarak. >> i think one of the challenges we are going through right now is how do we slow down the transfer of information so people can actually get information and use it -- get coherent information and use it effectively to make decisions whether they are writing a story, articulating policy and what has happened, all the competition in the news business, frank and you know this is based on speed. how many times does cnn say breaking news on something or other every 30 seconds. and we have got to slow that down so that people get -- >> that's not going to happen. >> we have talked about that. >> it can. when the white house goes out and consciously says you are going to report a lot of things or making you look ugly if you

don't stop and get things right. one of the things that's eroded the confidence of the american people and the press is all this misinformation that gets out there when there is a crisis when something bads happens. i mean, we had a congresswoman from arizona who was dead for two hours because of what was being reported in the heat of the moment and slowing down, be substantive that both sides have to get it. >> how is this changing the nature of governance? >> changing the press more than the governance. reporters have got to respond to it. it is immediate, get it fast, get it right, not necessarily in that order. >> it doesn't change the nature of governance when you have bloggers? >> it changes the press more than government officials because the white house, you still have a higher obligation to get it right and figure it

out even if you are three hours after the event. on veterans day 2001, there was a plane crash on long island. two months after september 11. the governor and mayor shut the bridges and tunnels. i wasn't going to breathe. i was coming in at 7:15 and very late to get to the white house and i heard it in my car radio and i stayed down with the president and didn't come up until noon until i was comfortable. that five hours was an eternity. they were furious. i made some enemies in the press that day because i wouldn't breathe until i was ready to. i slowed it down. the has has to go live. live from new york with the debris on the field, is it terrorism, yes or know? >> trying to correct something is worst. >> the consequences of us

getting it wrong is that we lose a job, we lose credibility, we aren't effective in serving the president. the consequence of you getting it wrong, you do a correction. >> i know for fact -- little tougher than that sometimes. but i also know for a fact it does change the decision making function and the role the people are playing when you have pictures coming into the white house and decision makers can be seeing what is happening in a hostage situation. i know for a fact when the russian coup attempt took place and the white house was watching that and deciding whether yeltsin was in charge are on the generals were in charge and when you attach that, that has got to change the way you make decisions. >> not governance but the speed. >> that's part of it. look how difficult it is for the white house to sustain a narrative.

part of it the president is going to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs and egypt below zero up. the president wants to sell his health care message and has 15 seconds to get -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> robert gibbs about to join their ranks this is his last week. and making way for jay carney. live coverage here on c-span. >> did we miss any news? can do -- you can do that as a senior cbs official? >> put the transcript out. >> i have one quick scheduling announcement. tomorrow afternoon at 12:30, the president will host speaker boehner, majority leader cantor and ma majority whip mccarthy

for lunch here at the white house. i don't know that they have set out many plates, but i know the president is looking to a productive lunch. [inaudible conversation] >> i will share that. >> anything on the agenda that you can tell us about? >> i think that the president looks forward to discussing all issues foreign and domestic. obviously without a doubt there will be a heavy discussion on the economy and end on spending. and i think the president will have a chance to talk with them many of the things he outlined in the state of the union and i have no doubt that they have their cares and concerns as well. >> will he be giving out any guidance of what will be in the budget? >> no. we will save it for them and for

you on monday. >> a few questions on egypt. is the president concerned that if mubarak steps down ahead of september that that could undermine reform in egypt or chances for free and fair elections? >> if he steps down -- >> sooner than september. >> who leads egypt and who leads egypt when i is a determination that can only be made by the people of egypt. what we have talked about throughout this process and what i talked about extensively yesterday was not about personalities but about a genuine and real process that leads us to those free and fair elections. a process that takes place without delay and produces immediate and irreversible results. progress for the people in egypt. i think there is a series of

things they have to do along the way. the dialogue has to be real in order to produce that real change. i think first and foremost is we have talked about throughout this the government has got to stop arresting protestors and journalists, harassment, beatings, detentions of reporters of activists, those involved in civil society. we would call on all of those prisoners as we have to be released immediately. we believe there has to be a process -- within this process that results in free and fair elections that the emergency law be lifted as we have talked about many times. that specific constitutional changes are made and that we

take concrete steps as i have said to free and fair elections. i think the rhetoric we see coming out now that simply says that somehow what you see on tv has been drummed up by foreigners is at great odds with what we know is actually happening on the ground. so i think that the process of who leads egypt will be determined by egyptians. but what we need to see now is continued progress by the egyptian government to make these important real changes to demonstrate progress for the people. >> state department is saying that the chances of changes being able to get out there would be better if mubarak was not in power. >> i want to be clear.

i speak for the president of the united states of america. we are not here to determine who leads egypt and when they leave egypt. and that is a problem that only egyptians can solve. as i said yesterday, this isn't going to be an easy road. there will be bumps along the way. but it is important that the process that the government undergoes through negotiations with those that seek the representation that they deserve, that it be done in a way that's broadly inclusive. we're not here to determine who leads egypt. we are -- and i think the president was quite, quite clear. the people of egypt aren't going back. they have moved forward and have continued to move forward and need to see progress from their government.

>> has vice president biden spoken to the vice president today? >> i do believe they have -- i don't know when they spoke precisely. i will try to determine that. but one of the messages that vice president biden and a whole host of government officials have delivered at all levels of the egyptian government are many of the things i outlined, stopping the beatings and harrisments and detentions and release of those that have been held ordained, release of political prisoners, lifting the emergency law, con recruit constitutional changes that need to take place and free and fair elections. the notion somehow of what we're seeing is drummed by foreigners is -- there is absolutely no evidence that that's the case. >> egyptian vice president has said there is a timetable for mu

barack to leave power and is it -- mubarak to leave power. >> i think less important is what we think and more important is what the people of egypt think. certainly reports that those that are out protesting today exceed what we have seen in the past several days. that is as good an answer to the vice president of egypt about the progress of the people in egypt see and feel. it has to be tangible, it has to be real, it has to be immediate and irreversible. you know, yesterday, i think the vice president of egypt made particularly unhelpful comments about egypt not being ready for democracy, about not seeing a lift of the emergency law and i don't think that in any way

squares with what those seeking greater opportunity and freedom think is a timetable for progress. but again, i think that's going to be determined by the egyptian people, whether or not the government is taking those concrete steps can't be decided by us or do by-by-play on each and every step they take. that is going to be determined by the reaction in cairo and throughout script by the people. >> you have a stake in that process going smoothly. >> we have a stake in stability of egypt, in regional stability. that has been acornstone of what we have seen over the past three decades. as i said on friday and i think you heard the president say, the threat of instability and you see this again today with the

swelling crowds, the threat in stability is in not making that progress and not letting the people of egypt see that the steps that are being taken along that process are real, it's something that they can feel and it's something that will end in -- will end in free and fair elections based on a discussion that is had with a broad range of egyptian society. >> one other topic briefly. on the proposal for aid to states, are you concerned that critics -- jobless aid to states that are proposed in the budget, are you concerned that critics may call this a bailout to the states? >> in many ways it prevents in the future from having exactly to do that. obviously, some states have

experienced even greater economic downturns than we have on average at a national level. it's put pressure on the unemployment insurance funds. the president's proposal does two things that are most important. it prevents increases in the federal tax that goes to the unemployment insurance fund and that's tremendously important given where we are economically, but it prevents and prevents future state bailouts because in the future, states are going to have to rationalize what they offer and how they pay for it. we are giving help to some states who have had to borrow and not been able to pay back which would legally result in an

increase in the federal share that -- that has gotten through a tax on businesses, which we don't think makes any sense right now. in states that are overdrawn on this ensure that we don't place an extra burden on them. let's give them some time in an economic downturn to have what they need to effectively meet the needs of those that are unemployed and give them an understanding that in the future, as i said, they are going to have to rationalize what is offered and how they come up with the funds to pay for what is ultimately offered. >> the protestors, according to accounts of reporters on the ground in egypt, feel the need to keep protesting because they feel even if the dribs and drabs of reform announcements keep

coming from the egyptian government, they feel if they stop protesting, opposition leaders will be targeted and egyptian government will clamp down. does the administration agree with that? >> as i said a minute ago, i don't think there is a lot of utility in our play by-play of this. the people that are expressing their desire for greater opportunity and freedom are going to continue to express that desire until the government takes the very concrete steps that i outlined a minute ago to address those concerns. and if they don't, then those protests will, i assume, continue. again, i do think it is important -- and i said this at the very beginning, which is we