♪ >> president obama holding several town hall meetings in week on his deficit and debt reduction plan. tomorrow it's palo alto, california and the headquarters of facebook. that will be live at 4:45 eastern here on c-span. and on thursday, the president heads to reno, nevada. coming up next, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld talks about his newly published recommend was. the white house announces new initiatives to combat the abuse of prescription drugs.

recently, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld talked about his new book "known and unknown" with a panel of pentagon insiders. the discussion focused on the decision making during the years donald rumsfeld ran the defense department, including the 9/11 attacks and the u.s. strategy for the war on terrorism. panelists including former joint chiefs of staff chairman peter pace and vice president cheney's chief of staff scooter libby. this is a two-hour discussion in washington. >> donald rumsfeld -- "known and unkown: a memoir." i'm ken weinstein, president and c.e.o. of hudson institute and i'm delighted you could be with us here today. i'd like to welcome our viewers on c-span book tv as well as our distinguished panelists.

he has been the recipient of our james h. doolittle award for extraordinary contributions to american national security. it is an honor to welcome you back to hudson. hudson celebrates a half century of forward-looking research. hudson institute was founded in 1961 for the need of a more publicly engaged think tank. they envisioned a think tank that would think creatively about how to achieve a better future and they would draw on the creativity of skoal ars. our research has stood the test of time and a world dramatically trampled by the collapse of the soviet union, the advance of china and the

add vent of add clip within mislimb. the core is ouring withness to examine complegs complex issues from different perspectives. to better understand our future it is essential to get a better understanding of the past, especially the recent past, even though we know that the past will never be perfectly understood and the questions will never be totally settleded. we're proud of hudson's first half century of forging ideas and look toward to hudson's next 50 years. during this anniversary year we're hosting an extensive program of seminars and celebrations. today's event is one of these and we're delighted that you could be a part of these events. today our discussion examines some of the major decisions related to the 9/11 terror attacks and does so through

secretary rumsfeld's remarkable accounts of these events. his book, "known and unknown" is a "new york times" bestseller and is available at the end of the event at the reduced price of $20, forgive us mr. secretary. but it is an actually gripping and fascinating read and i urge all of you to purchase the book, whether you're here or you do so online. now it is my distinct pleasure to turn the event over to douglas fr -- feiss, himself the author of a critically acclaimed memoir available for $10, but this is a paper back. and doug has the honor of an might today's discussion. doug? >> thank you, ken. i would also like to welcome all of you here and in

particular welcome my fellow panelists. to my left is general peter pace, a marine. the former chairman of the joint chief of staff. he retired in 2007 and before becoming chairman, he served for four years as vice chairman of the joint chiefs. he's now a businessman and continues to advise the defense department as a member of the defense policy board and is active in charitable work on behalf of america's wounded warriors. to his left is jamie mcintyre, who was for 16 years, until 2008, cnn's senior pentagon correspondent. he was in the building on september 11, 2001, and he's now a news consultant, blogger, and teaches at the university of maryland. to his left is scooter libby,

who was my colleague here at the hudson institute. he serves as senior vice president. he worked as chief of staff for vice president dick cheney and was a regular attendee of the national security council and principles committee meetings that is is subject of so much of mr. rumsfeld's book. mr. rumsfeld is quite literally the person who needs no introduction. if you want to learn about his extensive background in government, there's no better way to do it than to read his book and i would urge everybody to do that. >> the full priced book. [laughter] >> by the way, i'd like to make the observation that secretary rumsfeld is donating all of his review news from the book to charity.

after the panelists offer some opening thoughts for a few minutes each, i'll ask secretary rumsfeld to respond and get a conversation going among us here on the podium and then we'll take questions from our audience. if you want to pose a question, we've left cards on everybody's chair. please write your question down and pass it forward and we'll get to as many of the questions as we can. i'd like to get the discussion going with a few comments. first, regarding the substance and tone of the book. secretary rumsfeld has written an important book. it's full of revealing stories and historically significant information. it's been selling impressively, as ken pointed out. it's been on the bestseller list of "the new york times" since it came out something like seven weeks ago. the book crickets a number of

-- contradicts a number of popular misconceptions. it deals with a number of matters that were very hot controversy, state department versus defense department disputes over afghanistan and the partnership with the or fan -- afghan northern alliance. the strategy in tora borha. the failures of the multilateral approach in building up afghanistan after the overthrow of the taliban. disagreements about when and how to use nato. regarding iraq, it explains how decision thes were -- decisions were made to go to war, how u.s. troop levels were set, how policy officials used intelligence regarding iraqi weapons of mass destruction. how planning was done for the

post saddam era. how they were undone in the field. the book reveals how secretary rumsfeld was reduck -- reluctant for the pentagon to take on the detainee mission, how he twice offered to resign over the abu ghraib scandal and that he now regrets he did not insist on president bush's accepting his resignation. i'd like to comment on some who say the book is full of finger pointing and blaming. i don't think a fair minded rider would analyze it that way. some critics have attributed to mr. rumsfeld virtually every problem of the bush administration. now he gets accused when he points out some of the original

accusations were ungrounded. second matter, secretary rumsfeld's relations with his generals. the book shows that there were times when the secretary challenged and contradicted his generals and there were times when he deferred to them. when a secretary presses his generals and questions their work, as mr. rumsfeld did when he reviewed version after version of general franks's war plans for afghanistan and iraq, he leaves himself vulnerable to the charge that he is micromanaging and interfering in professional military judgments. but when a secretary defers to his generals in the field, as mr. rumsfeld did for years during the iraq war, before the surge when the war wasn't going well, he leaves himself vulnerable to the charge that he's failing in his chain of command sfonlts.

i'd like to ask secretary rumsfeld on when he decided when to challenge and when to defer? >> do i answer now? >> in time. >> well, the short answer is imperfectly. >> third, the role of a cabinet official. just as there are issues when a secretary of defense should challenge or defer to his generals, there are important questions that the book raises about when a cabinet officer should challenge or defer to a president. and it's clear that mr. rumsfeld viewed the duties of a cabinet official differently from the way colin powell did and i'd like you, mr. secretary, to elaborate on this and how you see the role of a cabinet official in dealing with controversial and difficult issues when he thinks the president may be ill informed or wrong on his judgment. first and last, i'd like to ask

secretary rumsfeld to comment on current affairs. drawing on his experiences as secretary of defense. president obama has launched a u.s.-led military action in libya. he preempted what he feared was going to be a major humanitarian disaster and you as secretary helped develop principles and ideas for u.s. military after 9/11. u.s. freedom of action, hole -- role of the u.n., etc. i'd like you to comment on how you think president obama is handling libya. is he respecting or violating the principles that you helped develop for the bush administration? i hope that's sufficiently provocative for starters and now i'd like general pace to give a few of his comments about the matters dealt with in

the secretary's book. >> thanks very much. it's a great pleasure to be here with you today, first of all, because i have great respect for the folks on this platform with me, number one. and number two, it is absolutely true that in many, many quiet ways, secretary rumsfeld has intended to support the troops and their families and the proceeds from this book is just another example and why i'm proud to be sitting here next to him on this occasion. i won't speak to the book precisely. i'd like to share with you thoughts about things that had i known at the time i would have made different recommendations because i think if we're going to move forward and learn from our mistakes, we need to understand what those mistakes were. in afghanistan, for example, when the war first began in afghanistan, we needed about 20,000 reservists. and after the attacks on 9/11,

we had literally hundreds of thousands of reservists who were volunteering to serve the country. so rather than call up reserve units, we elected to take volunteer. and that made absolute sense at the time. we didn't have iraq in our heads. we had a.f.c. -- afghanistan in our heads and we had about 20,000 in our heads and hundreds of thousands who were volunteering. in retrospect, that recommendation to take volunteers was not a good one. the reason being that when we went intooring we then needed significantly -- into iraq we then needed significantly more reservists. then we determined that those who served already would not serve a second tour until

everybody -- everyone has served a first tour. the result of that was that a unit that was to be deployed might have had 20% or 30% of its folks still deployed. we had to go to other units. over time two units replacing one became four units replacing one, became eight units replacing one. and it all goes back to the original premise that we would take volunteers in afghanistan. i was one of those supportive of that. in retrospect, not a good idea. next in, afghanistan, there was a great deal of discussion amongst the u.s., the afghan government and our nato alleys as to the size -- allies -- coalition allies about what was the proper size for the afghan

army? as i recall the minister of defense was asking us to build an army of about 400,000. collectively all the coalition looked at that and said in a country with an economy that was $6 billion, a g.d.p. of $6 billion, $2 billion of which was drug money, did it make sense to strap them with the responsibility of a 400,000 member army that they could not afford? so collectively, and i agreed, the number was determined was about 70,000 was a good number for them to have as an army they could afford to maintain going forward. well, fast forward to the problems that led to the question for more u.s. troops. and the math is fairly simple. to have 10,000 u.s. troops on active duty, it cost taxpayers

about $1 billion a year. to send 30,000 troops as a surge to afghanistan, you have to have an be -- about $3 billion worth of troops in your inventory. to replace them every other year, you'd have to have $6 billion in your inventory. to replace them again you'd need $9 billion worth of troops in your inventory, and that's before you start to use them, which is going to cost you x billion of dollars a month. it was probably around 2006 when it became obvious that we were going to need more troops. that the math no longer made sense. we went to the secretary and to my knowledge, he went to the president and recommended that we, in fact, change and increase the size of the afghan army. because in the long run, fit

costs us, and i'll make these numbers up -- $2 billion a year to supplement the afghan government so that could have 200,000 troops on their roll, at the end of the day the cost of the u.s. taxpayer for sure would be a whole lot less. but at the same time going back to the situation on the ground and the understanding of the afghan government's ability to fund their own military, 70,000 troops seemed to make sense, even though 400,000 makes a whole lot more sense now. next -- some folks wonder why is it that when we did do the surge in afghanistan, why would you expect a different outcome than we'd had since october of 2001? and to understand that you need to go back to around march of

2003 when we went into iraq. at the time, there was very little activity in afghanistan. some but not a lot. and the military assessment was, and i was part of it, that we could go into iraq, but if we needed more troops some place else in the world, we would not be able to do the o-- rotation of forces that we wanted to do. it was certainly discussed amongst all the leadership but at the time it appeared that we could go intooring -- iraq, do what we needed to do there and still have a rotation of forces. as afghanistan started to bubble again, and while iraq was more difficult than we thought it would be. we ended up with a basic decision either leaving the troops who were in place there for as long as it took or

maintaining our all-volunteer force and having rotation of forces. when the decision was made to maintain rotation of forces, then we were in what in military terms is called on economy of force mission in afghanistan. think of germany and japan in world war ii. germany was a primary theater. japan was the economy of force theater until we won in europe so we could shift resources to the pacific. that's what happened in oisk and afghanistan. we gave enough troops -- maintained enough troops in iraq until we were able to shift forces over to afghanistan. so it wasn't until 2008 that we were able to start pushing up the numbers of troops we immediate needed in afghanistan based on the threat that was there. so there is a reason to believe and have expectations that from

2008 forward that you could have different experiences on the ground in afghanistan than we'd had before because be we were able to allocate the right amount of resources to that theater. in iraq, going into iraq, i believed the intelligence, as did everyone i know, that when we crossed the line of departure at kuwait into iraq, that whole divisions, 14,000 to 16,000 troops of iraqi soldiers, would surrender and become part of the liberation forces. makes sense to a western mind. makes sense to somebody who's lived in freedom all his life. makes sense that we liberators would be open -- welcomed with open arms and flag waiving and -- waving and that of course the army would be loyal to their new government.

turns out they did not surrender en masse, nor did they fight. they disintegrated. they went home. which leads to another assumption that proved to be false. in military manning, an assumption that, if it is wrong, your plan fails. there's been a lot of discussion about phase four in iraq and the discussion that there was no planning about phase four. phase four being what do you do after you win, how do you maintain security? it's not that we didn't plan phase four, but one of the basic assumptions was that not only would there be the u.s. troops on the ground and our coalition partners but that fundamentally the 400,000 man iraqi army would be intact, loyal to the new government. they weren't. they had disintegrated. they went home. so the brilliant strategic

surprise that tommy franks accomplished by not having 500,000 troops on the perimeter. not bombing for 45 days. but rather going with 150,000 and bombing at the same time, getting him to baghdad in three weeks -- that brilliant tactical/strategic opportunity on the ground was then followed by a string of troops who were on call but not in country and a lack of iraqi security forces to provide security in more places than we can. lastly, with regard to w.m.d. i don't know anybody at the senior level, certainly in the u.s. military, who did not believe, as i did, that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. at least chemical weapons, which he had already used on

his own people and on his neighbors in iraq. we believed it so firmly that we ensured that our troops were well-trained and properly quipped before we put them into -- equipped before we put them into combat. we fully expected that there was a line somewhere short of baghdad that when we crossed it, saddam would hit us with chemicals. that asuch as was wrong. i was relieved that he did not attack our troops with chemical weapons. like everybody else, over time, i was chagrinned that we found no weapons of mass destruction. but each of these cases -- and i've thought about this a lot. it may or may not give you a comfort. but the good news and bad news is the same. if you gave me the exact same intelligence in each one of

these cases, i'd give you the exact same recommendationles. these were not knee jerk reactions. these were the results of tommy franks coming to d.c. 30, 40,50 times with dick myers, who was chairman, me as vice chairman going to the white house many, many times. these decisions were made after very careful deliberate discussion, dialogue, pushing back and forth. we need to acknowledge where we were wrong, but we also have to remember it in historical context as what we knew at the time. and without pointing fingers at each other, ensure that whatever it was that caused us to have the wrong intelligence, whatever it was that caused us to have the wrong analysis, and we understand that part and learn that lesson and teach it in our schools to the youngsters who were -- who are

coming up now who will be the next chairman, the next vice chairman, will have a better context, a broader context in which to make their own analysis. thanks. >> thank you, [applause] >> ok. thank you. i'm jamie mcintyre. if any of you have kids or watch "sesame street." you known that -- know that song "one of these things is not like the other." i'm feeling like a little bit of an outcast. i did not serve in the bush administration. maybe you saw this comic on sunday's "doonesbury. gary true due -- to you drow did a piece on facebook in which the character in the comic strip is looking at

facebook and realizes it has gotten completely out of hand. in which she's accomplished happy and endearing. and i thought yeah, and i thought then there's roosevelt's book -- -- rumsfeld's book. actually, i really loved this book. as a journalist i'm big on trying to understand what's going on. journalism has famously been called the first rough draft of history and it's invariably wrong and incomplete. as you're there you're always wishing you knew what you don't have access to. you have this illusion that -- a-- illusion that if you could see behind closed doors, see what these guys see all the time that you would have clarity.

and then you read rumsfeld's book and realize that even if you were there you'd still not know what was going on. one of the things the news media doesn't do well is nuance. that's reflected in the title of the book, "known and unknown." secretary rumsfeld explained that concept to us at a pentagon briefing one day so -- and to me it made perfect season. it's sort of self-evident and he explains in the first part of the book, the origin of that. and then i was flabbergasted to notice that over time, various reporters and commentators would portray that as some sort of misstatement or malon propism or something that, don't they get it? this is a very straightforward recitation of the problems that

you face when you have misinformation. so i really applaud the effort in the book. i have to say it's very impressive, the documentation. even though -- and i'll go on a limb here and say it has sort of a pro-rumsfeld slant to it. the other thing i want to say is i also commended because i feel like donald rumsfeld is the dan schneider. >> he is a very wealthy and powerful and owner of the washington redskins. he felt that he was being portrayed unfavorably in the press. his response was to file a suit, lawsuit against a very small publication, which, in my opinion, was ill-advised.

donald rumsfeld has taken the opposite approach. he has put together all the documentation, laid out his case in a very cogent fashion. while we can argue parts of it today, i think it really adds to our understanding of what happened during the time when i was there and trying to figure it out. >> thank you. anybody who has a question and wants to write it down on the card, you can raise it and our colleague, whose hand is up in the back, he will see raising a card and come and retrieve it from you and pass it forward. scooter, please. >> thank you. it is nice to be here. i particularly enjoyed the staff in this opportunity.

it is an unexpected pleasure to be here with the bush 43 groupgon crowd and their gripp ie. [laughter] >> i will get to later for that. >> i say unexpected pleasure because the person who should be here is my former boss, president bush. it was an extraordinary pleasure to watch these two brilliant men working together in difficult times. they remain friends to this day. but that is not to say that there was not a bit of rivalry between them every once in awhile. when i was busy with vice- president cheney, not long ago, -- when i was visiting with vice

president cheney, not long ago, he is working on his own book at this point. i mentioned to one, you know, don's book is still on the best- seller list. it is 815 pages. he got right back to work after that. [laughter] a lot of that -- >> a lot of that 815 is the index. [laughter] pete was talking about some intelligence issues. it was covered in the known and unknown -- there was a passage about the morning's briefing. vice president cheney also took these morning intelligence briefings. except that he took them twice each morning. i believe you took your intelligence briefing only once.

>> yes. >> so he -- so the president would take the intelligence briefing once with the president at 7:00 a.m. and he would also take it at 6:00 a.m., before he met with the president, so he would be well familiar with the content of the meeting, of what was in a briefing before he sat down with the president. i would usually go over to his house before the 6:00 a.m. briefing. this worked fine, except the vice-president did it when he was out of town as well when he was in jackson hole, wyoming, for example, as you might guess, which is two hours behind, the president's briefing was at 5:00 a.m. and the vice president's meeting was at 4:00 a.m. and i went to his house before 4:00 a.m. and again, that is not so bad under normal circumstances, but i do know how many of you have been in wyoming in winter, but it tended to be -40 degrees, windy,

snowy, and one year we had 8 feet of snow in 10 days. so i take my 15-pound briefcase. since the roads were not crowded at 4:00 a.m. with 8 feet of snow, i would march out across the gulf coast -- across the golf course. one of these mornings, i had this brief case, the -40 degrees at 3:00 a.m. on a dark golf course as i am headed at to see my boss. as i am about to clear the last set of trees at the edge of this golf course, about 20 yards from his back door, icily realize that the terror -- i suddenly realize that the terror warning we have been receiving -- we all

had badges telling secret service not to shoot us. but it was dark. i had three layers of clothing over my badge. and i had no light. it was perfectly pitch black. i had no flashlight with me. as they say, you go to work with the back that you have. [laughter] >> good point. >> so there i am with my 15- pound briefcase, which probably looks like a satchel charged in the dark to the secret service. white parka happens to be black. there are no lights, and i am close to the vice-president. first, the secret service guys are really good shots.

second, the shop will light the wick and neighbors. so i will be dead -- the shot will likely wake the neighbors. so i will be dead. so i decide that the only thing to do waiting in the snow with my parka and satchel was to sing loud enough so i do not settle the secret service, but not so neighbors. do nowait the but what do you sing? to only thing that comes mind is a song by the rapper eminem. i finally come up to the secret service agent. it happens my bad luck to be a friend of mine who i had taken two minutes before drinking too many shots of tequila.

i tried to pull my dignity together and i said, " why do not shoot me?" and he said, "you know, do you think a terrorist is stupid enough to be out here on a night like this?" [laughter] so i finally make it into the best president's house. i am covered in snow. i am horse from trying to sing. i am dressed in sweats. there is an icicle hanging from my face. my hands are shaking because i almost got shot. and the vice president takes a look at me and he can say -- he can see that my job satisfaction is sub-optimal. and he said, "you do not know what it was like working for rumsfeld." [laughter] >> i do not believe it. [laughter]

>> there is not a terse story in that book. story ins not a truer that book. there are several interesting subjects in the known and unknown. i was prepared to raise several of them. but i do not think there is time enough for more than one and a third. one of the sub-teams is the importance of strategic thinking. the book describes ronald reagan as "strong, long range, with strategic sense, so successful to -- so essential to successful leadership." 8 strategic thinker looks to three steps ahead. by contrast, the book describes as a dangerous this judgment the

"post-cold war holiday from strategic thought that characterized much of the 1990's." the book contrasted the strategic thinking of one of our main competitors, china. the book says, "and unlike many western policy makers, the chinese make the practice of thinking several moves ahead while they look to take advantage of current trends." the book notes that the chinese, to this day, led by the writings of a fifth century bc writer, zhu, a long-range thinker. "even to the point of sound business." -- when it comes to being extremely mysterious, do you

think the chinese have a lot to teach vice-president cheney? [laughter] as part of the kind of strategic thinking that we need, the book points to the importance of avoiding mirror imaging. we need to think through how our enemies the problem, not how we see it. and for that intelligence -- and for that come intelligence plays a very important role. a related problem or theme in the book is the problem with intelligence. as another strategic -- another element of strategic thinking, the book says the surprise is inevitable. there is the famous quote. "we need to consider our older but is with imagination." it quotes frederick the great

who asked his generals, "what designs will i be forming if i were the enemy?" \ of course, i should point out that that is mirror imaging, mr. secretary. frankly, i was also disappointed in you letting frederick the great saying that. but then again, that was when he worked for you. [laughter] the question he should have last was who has studied how this enemy things and ask that man with the enemy might plan. next, as the book notes, we tend to treat the and familiar as the improbable. the results can ruin your day. "the period covered by this book is one of great obscurity for those who lived through it. that was the future clouded, but

the president was equally clouded. we broke after interpretations of events, sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier reviews, and hesitated wrong before grasping what now seems obvious. we had more than the usual difficulties discerning the shape of events. that is not don rumsfeld in two dozen 11. in the 1940's, a time the people today think was much less complex and a time when we had a theory of containment, a strategy of containment which leading figures of the time had wildly different rotatiointerprn of. i should also quote this passage to be judged by your readers. "terrorism is a form of warfare and must be treated as such.

simply standing in a defensive position, absorbing blows, is not enough. terrorism must be deterred." that is not donald rumsfeld into the as 11. that is donald rumsfeld in 1984. book "94" fictional fiction also had a veiled threat. -- "1984" also had a veiled threat. in 1979, a time entitled "islam, the militant revival." you note the precision.

your position remains controversial and i hope you have a chance to discuss it. one theme is the importance for clear, strategic thinking and the difficulty that that has posed for america. a second related theme touches on the all too common in perfections of our interagency process -- all-too-common imperfections of our interagency process. both interagency and inter- departmental problems. your observations in this realm are, sadly, as you know, not new. you could well have cited sources even before your era. preeminent cold war historian

yale john steward guess said that kennedy's strategy broke down because it did nothing to prevent the subordination of strategic interest to those of the organization implementing the strategy. large bureaucracies all too often develop their own institutional momentum, making them impervious, either to instructions from above or to feedback from below. samuel huntington wrote of the eisenhower years. we ought not to be surprised that organizations resist innovation. they are supposed to resist it. that same area, dean acheson wrote about the chairman. . -- about the truman period. accustomed to dealing with the future only when it becomes the present, we find it hard to regard future trends as serious

reality. yet failure to achieve this state of mind is certain to approve fatal. henry kissinger wrote, "most farm policies that history has marked highly in whatever country have been originated by leaders who were opposed by the experts." i hope you have a chance to comment, mr. secretary, in the context of a food world. their lives by 1.33 themes that i said i would manage. i have too little time to go on. i want to congratulate you, mr. secretary, on your memoir and on writing a history of the bush administration that i think, in years to come, many will see as the second-best book on the topic. [laughter]

>> well, now, my goodness gracious. i look out there and i see people who were in the administration, many of whom could give the answers to the questions that these folks have posed every well as bad as i. ken, thank you for your hospitality. -- every well as good as i. ken, thank you for your hospitality. i am told that have 10 minutes for 12 minutes to comment. >> only if you want them. >> i was told not to interrupt, to.you all arare allowed the process of the book, i debated whether i should take a year and write a book basically from memory. i had such a rich archive, having lived a third of our country's history that i decided to take four years, digitize a

lot of my papers, and create a web site that now has over 3500 documents on its. -- on it. there must be 10,000 or 20,000 pages of paper put there. so when people see the book, they can see a primary source i quoted, see the end of, and go to the web site for more information on it. rather than rewriting history, we want to write history and try to correct what jamie calls the first draft of history in a way that will be helpful to serious people who were interested in learning and reading the original documents from the website and the approach of people who are actually there as opposed to people who were

talking to people who were there, probably mostly two weeks for three weeks down. so i took four years and have been enjoying completing it and having a chance to answer questions about it. the questions that doug had, it seems to me, are interesting ones. one involved the deferring to generals or not to deferring to generals, as the case may be. i think pete case would be better to answer that than i. but there is a picture of me shining the generals shoes. [laughter] so i hope someone looks at that. there has been a lot of talk about rumsfeld coming into the pentagon and having some. the technology or modernization or transformation or something. it was just not the case.

i was -- and having some idea about the technology modernization or transformation or something. it was just not the case. i was minding my own business. he was talking about bringing the department of defense and to the 21st century and into the information age. that was the blueprint for what he wanted. when he asked me to consider coming into the government again, after being out for 20 years to 25 years, that was what was on his mind. he was interested in having the department of defense to engage in the process of transforming itself to fit the challenges of the 21st century, which he saw as being notably different from the prior period. that was the challenge. that is what we set about to do. once you do that, you begin by saying that you have to engage people and things will have to change in one way or another.

you sit down and work with these people. and change is hard. people in the military are proud. they developed a doctrine that they were talked and believe in and are implementing in many years of their lives. when a president comes in and wants to make adjustments to what is comfortable, what is known, which is reasonably certain, what has been practice, that which has been exercised and the train vendor, that is uncomfortable. -- and they trained under, that is uncomfortable. there were not comfortable with a new president they did not know and they kind of changes that he was urging.

general chase talked about the situation in afghanistan and the people. i should say one other thing about the general's. pete, you should answer this. but i was in meetings, very comfortable with people asking questions. i must say, i do confess that, if the answers were not good, i had trouble hiding it. is that fair? >> that is fair. >> is it an understatement? >> no. it is absolutely true. if you arrived at a meeting with the secretary of defense and had not done your homework, you're not going to have a good day. shame on the generals who did not do their homework.

i will not take much of the secretaries microphone time, but i will tell you that those folks who are out there, the bulk of the generals, etc., each and every one of those was either working on rumor because there were not in the room or they had their buds shoot for good reason because they had not done their homework. >> the afghan army has described accurately that there was concern that there would not be able to afford it, but he is correct when he points out that we could, with a relatively modest amount of money, help them support it at a cost per person. we left for what it costs the united states to do that. one thing that has not been brought up in the connection of both iraq and afghanistan is -- first of all, i did write a paper in march 2001 and is on the website, talking about guidelines for using military force for the united states.

and i sent it to the national security participants and to the president. this is a will before september 11. i said -- i thought it was important to have an understanding about that and i hope people will look at it. somewhere buried in there is a comment that i think we, in the united states, have to have a healthy respect for the things we cannot do and hope for the things we can do. i think we do have a degree of our ability too nation build. they have different histories, different tribal arrangements, different neighbors. and time is varied. it is not possible for the united states, i do not think, to "build nations." i think people build nations and they have to do it themselves. we can help them create an environment that is possible for them to do that.

but it is only realistic to face up to that fact, that ultimately they will have to do it. there is some middle ground obviously between hands-off and hands-off. but the reality is that americans have a tendency -- i mean, if a ditch is to be done and enough people are around, our inclination is to dig and we will dig a duke aide -- and we will dig a good one. we ought to be teaching people to dig ditches. we ought to have some tolerance for ditches to not be as good as we might do it or as fast as we might do it. we have to understand that, it seems to me. the afghanistan situation -- i have had the impression that the discussion about it was, in the current administration, that the

government took their eye off afghanistan. i do not think that is the case. the reality is that we went in with limited forces. general franks plan was -- mass -- general mass -- general frank's plan was essential. they went in and did a superb job. they managed to move the taliban .ut of cobblkabul and the level of violence was fairly modest. it was low. to be sure, the taliban are determined. they want it back and they will get it back. they went into pakistan and they ran silent and deep and prepare themselves and came back over time. aduring 2003 and 2004, 01 people were worried about taking the

offer afghanistan, afghanistan was in good shape. the elected people and set about their business. refugees came back, son million people give back to that country and drove down the street and you could see a lot of economic activity. that is a misrepresentation of history as i thought. in 2005, i asked minister miki to look at it and he did. we began to see a level of violence increase. and we then set about increasing the afghan army and taking a series of steps. in the last analysis, i personally believe that afghanistan will evolve in a way that fits afghanistan and fits

its particular stage of development. it will not be -- the idea that we have a template that works elsewhere is a misunderstanding. we did not even have this template ourselves. think about the bumpy road our country went through. my goodness, we had slaves and to the 1600's. we had a ghastly civil war. women did not vote until the 1900's. we did not arrive in 2011 like this. and those countries will not arrive where they will end up. they will have to work their way through just like we did, like other countries do. it is not a smooth path from authoritarian systems or different systems or drought or so war and 10 years to 12 years of occupation by the soviet union. it is not an easy path from there to where i think they're going. admittedly, it will be bumpy. weapons of mass destruction, that has been handled.

i agree with karl rove. he wrote a book or he said that the biggest mistake they made was the button "bush live, people die." there's no question that the united states men and women who put on chemical protective suits as they were moving north in iraq, they did not do it for the fun of it, because they liked to wear them. they did it because they were concerned. every leader in the area said to get closer. you will face chemical weapons. to not rebut it and to allow it to happen undermined the bush administration. but you can be absolutely certain that every word that the president said he believed, that every word vice-president cheney -- everything that colonel colin

powell said -- he spent a lot of time preparing his words for the united nations. he believed every word that he said. the idea that was the lie is irresponsible. -- that it was a lie is irresponsible. i made a few comments about the press. one of the stories i discuss in the book is a story from my first executive position as the director of office of economic opportunity where an article was written that was just totally inaccurate. so i invited this person and let them see you what was going on and that it was totally inaccurate. he said he was sorry and left

and never uttered another word about it to correct it. and the paper did not. it was a wonderful experience for me because i learned early. there was another myth about general some shacky that has been printed and shown on television thousands of times. god bless jamie. he went out and found the facts and wrote a story that said that it is almost chipped in stone that this happened and it did not. it is totally inaccurate -- shinseki.hould secch scooter brought up something that i think -- and i will wind up with this. if you think about it, world war

i and world war ii had finite endings. the cold war came along and lasted decades. i worried about language, the idea of calling the war on terror a war. it left the impression that it could be won by bullets and it cannot. it left the impression that it was the department of defense's responsibility and not the rest of the government and not the private sector. it is much more like the cold war where there was a competition of ideas between communism and its expansion activities and people who believed in free political institutions and free economic institutions. this, too, is a competition of ideas, this competition that we have with radical islamists. to prevail in overtime -- think

of the cold war. it took administrations of both political parties in our country and it took administrations in our allied country with a persistence over a long, long time. it was an impressive time that -- impressive thing that that was accomplished. i think that the difficulties we face today with radical islamists is of a kind and it will take a long time and that it will not be won with bullets. i have no idea -- in fact, i have another member of on a website. i think it was october 16. it leaked within the press within a week and i only sent it to three people. but i basically said, look, here is our policy. we have to pursue it. it is important that we protect the american people. but i do not know that i have any metrics that i can tell how

we are doing. i do not know if we are capturing or killing terrorists as fast as they're able to recruit them and train them and finance them and organize them and send them out to kill innocent women and men and children. i still do not know if we have at this day any metric for that. people have done a lot of fussing about george w. bush and the structures he put in place, including indefinite detention and military commissions, which has been a long part of our history, guantanamo bay, a prison that has been maligned and the people down there have been criticized. i would submit that it is undoubtedly one of the finest prisons on the face of the year. it is exceedingly well run. i asked a journalist the other day. give me a sense of how many people would probably waterboarded down at guantanamo. and she said, oh, tens.

>> of course, the answer is zero. no one was ever waterboarded at guantanamo. not one. in any event, here we are, almost april 2011. we could have a terrorist attack tomorrow. they can attack anytime, anyplace, using any technique and it is not possible to defend against terrorist attacks in every location, day or night, against every possible technique. but we have not had a successful attack in the united states of america for close to two years. that, in my view, is due to president bush and the structure put in place and it is not simply a defense structure. the success, i think, is rooted in the fact that the decision was made that you cannot define

everyone all the time. therefore, you must go out and put pressure on them. everything they do harder and that has been done very well. it is harder for them to raise money. it is harder for them to travel. it is harder for them to talk on the telephone. it is harder for them to do everything that they do. i give us a good grade their. i would give us a low-grade on competing in the competition of ideas. the bush administration was reluctant to talk about islamists because we did not want anyone to believe that we were against the religion or against hundreds of millions of people that are all across the globe who are not radical and are not islamists and are not terrorists. but there is a nervousness about it. people did not want to be accused of being against a religion. so i would give us a relatively

high grade in terms of helping to protect the american people. i give us a relatively low grade in terms of communicating and competing in that set of ideas. unless we do it very well, we will not know how well we're doing and we may not be doing well enough. there was talk about the intra- agency process. i listened to the people talk about its in jamie's business. i suppose, if i were in his business, i would do it, too. but the personalize it. that guy is against that guy or this person is against that person. there is a battle of titans going on. if you go back in recent memory, henry kissinger had a problem with the press.

rodzinski -- george shelf had problems with jeff sheinberg. people have different views. there ought to be different views. that is for the president and then to listen to those views and make a judgment. it seems to me -- i just got off the phone with george shultz. he said he wrote an op ed on this subject that he hopes will be printed soon. the thing i would say is that, at the end of world war ii, we or at an inflection. an enormous number of institutions were fashioned during that critical time.

you ended up with the un and nato and the imf and the world bank. here at home, we ended up with the national security council, the cia, the department of defense, the u.s. i day -- the usia. all of them began at the beginning of world war ii and gone until the end of the century. we are at the end of the cold war and we have not done much to modify. they do not work as well in the information age going forward. one of the recommendations i made on the website at rumsfeld.com -- a group of us in the pentagon talked about this and said, look, back then, a to

still be called a hoover commission. they had people on both political parties and thought about these things in a serious way. then they came out with a set of proposals. we need that today. we need to think through these things, -- we need to think through these things, for its influence in a significant way by subcommittees that are very turf conscious -- the defense department and the cia, they all pop up. they need to bend if they will come for the president so you can begin to pull those threads through a needle head and he can make rational decisions and not have a clash as they come up. there hast of the ways that we can do that. i would like to know what they are. but i do know that the information age is a terribly difficult thing for our

government to manage, to handle. half the people in your do not know what a treat is -- what tha tweet is. it is a much faster moving world today. i think that those thoughts are something that we will have to come to grips with. i know that doug has thought about. i will stop with that. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you very much. the point that general paste made about how many of the assumptions on which the war plans and post-war plans for iraq were based that proved to

be faulty is an important point. the particular point that be highlighted, the thought that we would have iraq yesterday forces available to us to help maintain order after the ouster some, i recall that scooter, ink particular, when we were briefed by the cia on the iraqi police remaining intact and the cia made the argument that iraqi police be viewed by a professional force. if you view leadership, you did not have to change the people around the country. they were well-regarded around the country. i remember scooter making the point that it does not make sense that, in a police state, the police would be viewed as professional and not an instrument of repression.

that was an important factor in cent, planning. the military commands up to get there -- in centcom planning. people raise questions about the way our intelligence community is organized. they have said that there was a major reorganization in the bush administration of the intelligence community after the 9/11 report. several people would like to know what the panel's evaluation is of our intelligence community now versus what it was before 9/11. are we better organized a? we are dealing with some other kinds of questions that the secretary raised at the end, our result-- are we prepared to hane

this? where we stand on intelligence organization, i would ask this of anybody that wants to jump in. >> i would just begin by saying that i think they have a very, very tough job. i was secretary in the 1970's during the cold war. we were looking at the soviet union and we made our intelligence community made judgments that were not accurate in a number of instances. in that case, you were able to look at it year after year after year after year, the same plane, the same people, get the language confidence. for example, you may remember the misjudgment as to the percentage of gdp that the soviet union was paying/span ending. there were convinced that it

was a relatively small number. rand concluded that it was a relatively high percentage, much closer to what they of hitler in germany was spending prior to the beginning of world war ii. it turned out they were both right as to what was being produced. we could see it and look at it and counted. what was different was the size of the economy. the soviet economy was much smaller, so the percentage was much higher. of course, the importance of it was that it showed a sense of purpose and determination. if you're willing to deny your consumers, that is a big deal. of course, in the reagan era, when the cold war was won, if you will, that critical question as to how could the economy of the soviet union survive was not trivial.

it turned out that the agency was wrong. i give them a lot of credit. i think we have a lot of wonderful intelligence people work in their heads off trying to do it right. and i -- and it is very, very hard. we're dealing with closed societies, and governed areas, not just nation states, but with networks. it is an area that we have not -- we had a big dip in intelligence investment during the 1990's. there was a bathtub. and it takes a long time to develop the kind of internal comments in an organization like that that you can get the language skills and develop the knowledge. i think it is very easy to criticize. i think it is important to recognize the difficulty of it. but i do think we have to expect to be surprised and we ought not to be surprised when we will be

surprised. giving the weapons today, vastly different from the 1970's, just enormous, our margin for error is not what it used to be. let there be no doubt. >> i would just like to bring the same question slightly different. one thing i enjoyed about your book was the extent that it challenges and reduce the conventional wisdom about things in the past. one item of conventional wisdom was that the press failed in his job to ask the really difficult questions and come to some extent, the same criticism applies to policy makers who were not adequately questioning the intelligence at the time. i wonder what your opinion is of the press, specifically, and the administration.

was it a matter of -- if you ask the right questions, then your bids typically would get a different answer? or was it simply the case that these things were not know what the time until after the events of the war unfolded? >> before you went to that, can i jump in on the previous question. i think there is a part that needs to be answered. i have been really hesitant to lay a lot of blame at the feet of some very, very dedicated intelligence analysts who have been trying to do their best job. i told you that i had recommendations based on things that turned out not to be true. but i do not fault the intelligence agency for that. first of all, how are intelligence agents were getting input from folks on the ground, iraqi, and from other countries intelligence services. there were doing their best job, synthesizing that for us.

just like those of us in the military who learn from our lessons, so do -- so does the intelligence community. if you are a receiver of intelligence, you need to listen to what you are being told. it is like listening to legal recommendations. whether you listen to a lawyer or an intel officer -- a do nothing to put them both in the same pile -- but if you listen to them, you have the responsibility to apply your own judgment. and we should not excrete our intelligence committee for giving their best judgment. if you want their best judgment, then we have to understand that they will be wrong sometimes. and if we beat them up, they will start going further into their shell because they do not want to be wrong or beat up, number one. no. 2, the carpet was not answered was what about the

internal structure? -- number two, the other question that was not answered was what about the intel structure? he or she has 032 direct anybody in the intel community and has no budget authority. if we believed -- and it is open to debate -- if you want to have somebody with a choker on to the whole process, then give them the authority and give them the budget. if you believe do not want that, fine. right now, i think what we have is an organizational chart that looks like there's somebody in charge of everybody when they are not. thank you. >> i would like to comment on the intel structure.

i used to be in the pharmaceutical business. in research and development, you do not want one single control over r&d. you want people thinking and doing different things and coming up with ideas and the competition of lights -- competition of ideas. the idea is that it would be helpful for the united states of america to have a structure where a single intel person was over every single thing, budget, personnel, in the united states of america, that would be the perfectly terrible idea. the militarily -- the military would and decreed in their own intel capabilities because they cannot function if they do not have access to military intelligence. there are multiple types of intelligence, to be sure. there's strategic intelligence, economic intelligence -- but the department of defense absolutely needs and intelligence mechanism and so does the department of state. i must say -- i know my

relationship with george tenet and john negroponte and our department's relationship at the senior level, even down a layer -- maybe not down way below. but it was superb. i would not have thought of appointing one person to an position if the pentagon without having a long conversation with george tenet. he participated in all those decisions. the same thing with budgets, we sat down and work every budget issue. the idea that the director of national intelligence -- the congress behave like there was a serious problem. we must fix it. then comes the deal and i --

then comes a the dni. there were people who wanted to break the system. people were anxious to have it changed. let's having usable by approach, one person in charge. i think that would be a very bad idea. i think that the dni's that have handled it have been wise and prudent. i congratulate them for it. >> my question was not about the imperfections of intelligence, but and a proper degree of skepticism by the administration and also by the press at the time. >> go to the website and read the parade of horribles that i wrote and sat down with people and staff and talk about all the things that can go bad. one of them was that we may not

find weapons of mass destruction. it was right there, written, sent to the members, to the president. we thought about those things. i was with o'reilly not too long ago when he said, why did not tell us? why did you not tell us what might go wrong? i said, oh, wonderful idea. but still the enemy every conceivable thing we might think we might have a problem with. no. that is not the type of thing you tell the press or talk about publicly. but there is page after page of things that doug and other people in the government thought about and talked about and was circulated and people were worried about. >> do you think the press fell down on its job? >> we do not have time for that. [laughter] no, jamie. >> i do not mean me personally. i did a terrific job.

i mean the media in general. >> we have naturally focused in this discussion on the time of the bush administration for obvious reasons. but one of the things in his books that is particularly interesting is the discussion of his career going back to when he was in the navy and his first run before the age of 34 congress and all of his various jobs before he became secretary of defense for the first time in the mid-1970's. one of the job city had was u.s. ambassador to nato. we have had a question, which i think helps tie together your early history and the bush

administration and current affairs and libya and what is going on right now. what is your evaluation of nato and what has become of nato? how has it made the transformation of its original purpose from the cold war alliance to what it became when you were secretary of defense in the bush administration? how you see it now functioning as president obama is calling on it to act in libya? what is your general evaluation of nato? if any of you want to chime in, i know you'll have thoughts on the subject. >> nato is struggling, just like the other institutions i mentioned. they have not quite evolves or have been adapted readjusted to fit the 21st century. if you look down from outer space on earth, there it are a

finite -- there is a finite number of countries that have our values and most of them are in nato. there are many others, obviously, australia, japan, singapore, south korea, and the like. but these countries are important. most problems we face our problems we cannot handle by ourselves. we cannot deal with nuclear proliferation, the drug problem -- any number of things that require coalitions. i am a believer that the coalition of not to determine the mission. but these countries together in a new is potentially very useful. when the united states provide strong leadership and give those countries time to adjust and think about it and determine the extent to which the mayor may not want to participate in the coalition to do something, then

nato has functioned quite well. to the extent that we have been in a hurry and have not provided leadership, there have been problems. i have been struck by all this talk about solutions in regards to libya. if you go back to president bush and general colin powell who put a coalition together over afghanistan, the proliferation coalition had 90 countries. i think that president bush was called the unilateralist. they identified that we needed help and we needed people. but we needed people to agree on the mission. the problem we have seen as recently as the confusion over the mission. imagine if you are sitting in libya and you are an ambassador or a government employee or you are in the army, a colonel or private or in the neighborhood

and your looking for cooperation and they want intelligence and assistance and food and housing and you do not know, even to this day, whether gaddafi will go. imagine. people are like magnetic particles. the point at whatever will happen. what will happen? is it likely to change? where are they planning? they are all over the lot because they do not know what is going to happen. when they get up in the morning, they do not know if you will still be around. it will alter your behavior. the thing that is going on in africa is that the critical element is iran and syria and the damage they are doing in afghanistan, the damage they're

doing in iraq, the potential -- the damage they're doing in lebanon and supporting hezbollah, and the risk of iran with nuclear weapons. the other major factor is egypt and its size and its importance and saudi arabia in the gulf. what we do how we behave is going to alter their behavior. but we do in libya at is going to be taken into accounts in the areas that are critically important. iran and syria. i worry that we're not taking those things into accounts. they are the main feature.

>> is still looking to nato to play a substantial role in libya? what would you offer? >> i will not answer that question, and i will tell you why. you must have absolute trust and that individual. you should not worry if you are the president when his pick your chairman. is a closet republican? is a clause a democrat? -- isoing to write a buck ?oing to write a book tha

the person to answer that question is the joint chiefs of staff. officers who served had a privilege of serving as a senior rank in the u.s. military did damage to the relationship between an elected official and those who served in the u.s. military? i did not need my predecessors helping me. he does not need me helping him and ever comes next monday are up either. i think it is ill-advised for very senior military folks to by

speaking at a turn. i would like to take a second to talk about the nato question. required leadership and capabilities for the u.s. military. nhtsa was an institution whether

it was a coalition of a nato coalition, it is going to be very dependent on the day-to-day leadership. it is just the reality of that institution not an insignificant way.

i meant exactly what i said in the coalition of non-nato countries. the coalition which is in a tote, which has stood -- for many decades, it is a unique institution. >> one of the things about nato, the partnership for peace program has been a terrific thing. countries have been engaged and brought in and begin to develop relationships with nato nations military's. military to military relationships are just critically important. they get engaged an interested

and they begin to understand our values and civilian principles of civilian control and tell the military functions become much more professional. there are other parts of the world's were i would like to see us develop a relationship with singapore, japan, south korea, new zealand. not a formal one, but a closer relationship because those are countries if you are going to deal with a problem like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, you'll have to have a lot of countries engaged. to have some lincolns with nato makes sense. clearly, the united states -- united nations have demonstrated that it can do certain things, but major things like i am talking about really do not fit to in their saddle. >> you just highlighted a topic

that was a major concern of yours when you were secretary. i am glad you raised its. the focus on the united states as a specific power it was something that you talked about a lot. one of the major projects that you launched and that you highlight in your buck and that we have received two or three questions about is the realignment of the american defense posture. this was the first time in history that anybody said we are going to look at its the way it u.s. forces are deployed, postured, ready to operates around the entire world all at

once in a cynical exercise. -- in a single exercise. how much of that -- what is your evaluation looking back on that project? is that going forward? do you think that you actually succeeded in reshaping the defense posture? some of the key element of what you work done were extremely controversial at the time and people were waiting for your departure to try to roll them back, word do you think its stance? >> that is the understatement of the afternoon, i think. when i arrived, i looked around the world and we have forces where they were left over from the cold war. they were in some countries where the countries did not want them. it was not hospitable for our troops. if you have a volunteer force, you better have been in places that are hospitable. second, they were in places

where the countries had developed an ownership interest over them and decided that those forces were for them. our forces were for them. and that we could not use them elsewhere. in some instances, they said, we cannot use the-our parliament approves them. other countries said, if you are going to do anything with any of these forces in afghanistan and iraq, you better move them now before our parliament gets involved. some of the political parties in the coalition. we were spending $236 million a year -- close enough for government work -- in iceland to have our airplanes be sure that soviet bombers were not harassing people in that part of the world's. there was no soviet union, the red not been a soviet team in four years and years -- there

had not been a soviet union for years and years. we did not have to spend $236 million. what were they doing? they were going out using search and rescue for fishermen and iceland. we still have people in the sinai from the middle east war that stood there and looked across the water to see what was happening. i started moving eds and the opposition was just her rented. it took me four years to get them out of iceland. [laughter] add $236 million a year. think of it. do not rock the boat. there were a couple of countries that said look, you cannot use these forces in iraq. they are to protect us. simultaneously, some of them are reducing our military.

you were involved in it, as i recall, extensively, and it was tough and there was a lot of resistance from the state department because it calls ruffles with our allies and friends around the world. did we make progress? you bet we made progress. was it pain free? there was some pain along the way. >> one of aha -- one of the questions that relates to the comments that you made earlier dealing with the war on terrorism, not just as a matter of capture and kill operations, but also as part of a battle of ideas. the question is, how can we think of winning a war of ideas when there are no warriors of

ideas in the u.s. government? it raises the question, it is there an agency in the u.s. government that has the responsibility to deal with the ideological challenges relating to terrorism? have you worked with them? >> to the extent that anyone in the government tries to do it, and they are immediately landed on with both feet. i can remember when i was a congressman in the 1960's and john f. kennedy was president. as a way of promoting america oversee. the movie was played overseas and india and it was a documented film. \ the congress found that what was going on. here is taxpayers' money being used to develop a film that is highly complementary to the kennedys and it is played in india and other places, but is also played in the united states.

the world is the world's. you cannot have something to won audience and not expected to be everybody. its people in congress got very nervous about using taxpayer money for that purpose. general casey, he needed cooperation of the people in iraq. the single most important thing we need is the iraqis to give intelligent. and that is how we will deal with the and -- this problem of the insurgency. we decided that the press in iraq was publishing every bad thing, not any good things that we ever. and some civilians killed or someone is wounded or there is a bomb that hit a civilian location that should not, that is how the public. asked the fact that the military was putting generators in schools, generators and hospital, helping people, none of that was gang of. ed casey decided to hire some people to see that stories could be written and given to the

iraqi newspaper said it would end up in the press. what a terrible thing to. do printing the truth and paying someone to print the truth and put it in a newspaper, it had to stop immediately. congress got highly excited about it and it stopped and it was over and we're right back to square one. it is a very complicated thing using taxpayer money to deal with something that is would -- to do something that deals with information. the reality is that to bill qaeda folks have media committees -- the al qaeda folks have media to. they have committed it -- they have committees on the media. they managed the media and they do a very good job about it and they are serious about. it's a lie goes around the world prayer four times before the truth.

it does not even gets. starting i write about it in a. i write about the mythology of the koran being flushed down a toilet at guantanamo and you ended up with people getting killed. weeks later, to the extent that we had part of our story wrong, we are sorry. the people were dad. it never had. -- it never happens. that is the problem of. we do not do it to paul. -- we do not do it well. i give us a d-. including me. >> one of the people that you had dealings with over your long

career was the founder of the hudson institute. i would be interested if there was in your reflections on him that he would like to share with us as a way of closing. before we close, i would like to thank our catalyst -- our panelists. it is great that hudson has an opportunity to host an event like this. in the words to close? >> i think i put a picture of herman talking to gerald ford and the buck -- in the book. he was a friend of mine when i was in congress. we were involved with the u.s.-

japan relations to get. everywhere he would go, a wonderfully of volcanic intellect would stir the pot and he would go to new york and he would say, the value on this side of the river is this and the value on the other side is backed. do are going to end up increasing the value on the side that is so low and everyone is going to be happy. he starts musing about the possibility that the japanese will have nuclear weapons at some point because it is a bit of an anomaly to have a major country not to have the ability to defend itself. that caused quite a stir, of course. he was with hudson when it was on the hudson. i adored the man. working with him was a delight. he was as stimulating -- i

remember one of his books was called "the year 2000." it is already 2011. when did you write that? in 1960. -- 2967. then it was just to book -- it was fun to be with a person with that wonderful brain. one of my daughters said, what should i do? i said, though work for someone brilliance. what would i do? i said, it does not matter, just be around them. you'll find people sparkling around him and it will be a wonderful thing. the last time i saw him, we were doing a panel at a hotel here in town and had not seen in for some time. he had gotten very heavy and the

remember looking at him and saying to him that he was performing a disservice to the country, and that anyone with the intellect that he had and the contributions she made, to carry around that much weight was not rights. it was not long thereafter that he left desk. quite a man and a good friend. i want to thank him and thank you for your hospitality. i hope that the questions that you were asking came from the audience. >> thank you. thank you, everybody on the panel. [applause] >> can i just say one thing?

the essence of donald rumsfeld was so complex, it really did not lend itself to a bumper sticker. after today, it should say, donald rumsfeld -- he got us out of iceland. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> tonight, white house officials announced new initiatives to combat the abuse of prescription drugs. ted turner and t. boone pickens talk about alternative energy. donald rumsfeld talks about his newly published memoir. tomorrow night, wikileaks founder debates a former british and american officials about the role of government whistle- blowers. it gets underway at 8:00. >> this weekend, in a covert affair, she recounts their career in the oss during world war ii. also this weekend, sara vowell.

tind a complete schedule a booktv.org. >> the obama administration unveiled new federal requirements aimed at curbing a prescription drug abuse. according to reports from the national drug control policy office, the number of people who unintentionally overdosed on prescription drugs now exceeds the number of people who overdosed during the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's. law enforcement and health officials outlined a government plan at the national press club. this is 45 minutes. >> i am delighted to be here with the commissioner of the food and drug administration,

the drug enforcement administration, the assistant secretary for help at the department of health and human services. as everyone is here, and a special thanks also to karen perry. she is the executive director of the narcotics overdose prevention and education task force. she traveled with us to be with us from south florida. she has a very powerful story and she has been absolutely focused on this effort. seated in the front row, dr. janet woodcock. he is the deputy director of the center for drug evaluation and research. thank you to all the people

here. more importantly, to their staff members who have worked so tirelessly on this particular issue. i want to mention to the head of the cdc -- he could not be with us here today. when we have metz, i can tell you that he is also been absolutely focused and committed to reducing this problem that we're going to talk about for a few minutes. tom is the director of the center for disease control and prevention. he is represented here today by the director of the national center for injury prevention control. let me start by talking about a startling fact. as a longtime police chief who paid attention to what caused harm in my city in seattle, it

was one of the startling to me. i think it is startling to a lot of people in this country. america is in the midst of a public help epic -- epidemic driven by prescription drug abuse. prescription drug abuse is our nation's fastest-growing drug problem. it is an epidemic. that is not a word that i, or the nation's public health community, use lightly. the facts are devastating. and 2007, 28,000 americans or about one in every 19 minutes died from an unintentional drug overdose. it was driven to a large degree by prescription drug abuse. more recent data shows that seven people in florida, for an ohio, and three in kentucky die every day from an intentional -- unintentional drug overdose. put this tragedy in perspective,

the number of people of overdosed on prescription drugs now exceeds the number of people who have died as a result of gunshot wounds. it is a significant problem. the overdoses that we have talked about in the past, crack cocaine and others, are not at the same level of problems that we are seeing a prescription drugs today. today, in 17 states, it is the leading cause of accidental death. it means that it is ahead of car crashes for taking lies. from day one, the obama administration has been focused on this particular problem. we have increased funding for drug prevention for treatment, enforcement programs, by millions of dollars. the d a hosted the first ever

national prescription drugs -- the dea hosted the first ever national prescription drugs take back program. in october, the president signed legislation that will make it easier for the committees to collect dangerous and unneeded or expired drugs. we've set a goal of reducing prescription drug abuse by 15% over the next five years. the severity of the problem help epidemic requires the sustained national effort that will build upon what we have already done. to build upon our response we are releasing the first albert national prescription drug agrees plant. i think many of you have been provided the plant. -- plan. prescription drug abuse is an unbelievably complex drug problem. the plan is a culmination of months of collaboration across the federal government.

acknowledges the people represented here, the department of justice's, veterans affairs, the department of defense, all of these are significant players in dealing with this issue. the plan outlined an unprecedented strategy to save lives and reduce the mammoth burden prescription drug abuse places on our community by focusing on four key areas of action. the first and the most critical part of the action plan requires a significant expansion of efforts to educate health providers. and citizens and the research committee about the scope of this direct. to many americans are still not aware of the abuse of prescription drugs and how dangerous they can be, particularly compared to illegal drugs, which awful -- which often get a lot of attention. we need to raise the awareness by educating parents and help care providers.

-- health care providers. it is a crucial component of this effort. at the action will work in concert with this plan. by pursuing legislation that would amend the controlled substances act to require mandatory education on the sale and the appropriate use of opioids for all prescribed rest of controlled substances. a sick of that part of the plan, we are expanding efforts to monitor busch crofton drugs. to help accomplish this we are calling on every state in this nation to help implement a prescription drug monitoring program and establish the ability to share data between them. these state-based programs are successful in 35 states around the country, and they are saving lives by traffic -- tracking

prescriptions and alerting prescribes to those who may be engaged in doctor shopping. not only will it prevent abuse, but arco also does -- but they are designed to have protections to privacy and are tailored to the needs of the states. third, the plant will make it easier for americans to dispose of unneeded christian drugs. seven out of every 10 people who abuse drugs got them from friends or relatives. the help prevent the diversion, the plan requires federal agencies to conduct more take back programs, distribute information to local organizations, and create rules that will make it lose your for communities to host their own local take back programs to safely dispose of these painkillers. the action plan will shut down

hill mills and will crack down on those who contribute to the suffering of citizens by illegally prescribing and dispensing prescription drugs. although it is a small number of doctors who abuse their prescribing privileges, there -- they are responsible for a tremendous amount of addiction and the deaths. we have a responsibility to do everything we can to bring these criminals to justice. as a result, this action plan increases resources, training, and support for federal agencies and state medical boards to take action against these pain clinics and describes her it the prescription drug abuse epidemic is not a problem that is going to be sought over night. there are common sense steps that we can address it. today's plan does that. i want to thank our partners at hhs, and the other

agencies i mentioned along with others i did not mention for their work, contributions, and all the efforts they put into this plan. i look forward to the progress that we are going to make in the days and weeks and months ahead on the prescription drug abuse problem in this country. koh is gone to speak. thank you all very much. >> thank you for your leadership. you have been an incredible beater for all of us in these critical public health issues, and we are delighted to join you for the release of this plan. i want to thank the leadership and the leadership of mr.

leonhart and from commissioner hamburg and their colleagues. doctor wesley clark, pam hyde not be here today, but she had the pleasure of co-chairing a committee across dhhs the trustees services around substance abuse. i want to acknowledge sarah wattenberg and the deputy assistant secretary and at banks and admiration to karen perry. the error was and she has displayed to turn personal pain into power is extraordinary, and we want to thank you for being here and sharing your story.

you have heard from director kerlikowske about abuse of courage and drugs representing an alarming crisis. i can accept that this crisis is suffocating our society. you have heard several startling facts, and let me add to those facts. we know that the accused of legal drugs now account for 1 million members see department visits a year, matching the number of visits achievable to illegal drugs. we know that nearly one-third of people who use illicit drugs for the first time began by abusing crash corruption and drugs. as the director has noted, seven out of 10 of these people get the drugs from the medicine cabinet. these facts alarm all of us.

the alarm me, as a father, as a physician, and as the assistant secretary for health. as a father of three children, i know all parents try to protect our kids and create safe, healthy environment for them to promote health and healthy choices. we may think that kosher kitchen drugs can be used only for good, but they are beneficial only when used appropriately. as a physician who has spent over 30 years caring for patients, i am also aware decks we physicians and providers have had too little opportunity for education on parker prescribing nd dispensing of opiocd vacation. we try to respond to this challenge as individuals and individual organizations, but this plan gives us an opportunity to provide a broad

partnership to tackle these issues from a public health and a couple -- and a public safety approach. the promise of this plan is that we now have a chance that helps each person enjoy the gift of health, we have a chance to celebrate the health care system and a society that delivers prevention early instead of treatment too late. as you heard from the director, the plan as four dementia -- education, monitoring, disposal, and enforcement, and i am here to pledge of full power of the department of health and human services on or four of these dimensions. with regarding to the education," we are increasing our commitment activities with respect to education for both patients and providers. you will hear from commissioner hamburg how we are supposed to do that.

this is at an activity that involves not just the fda, but the centers for disease control and prevention, how resurfaces services administration, and a national institute for drug abuse. with respect to monitoring, we commit to continue to attract the trent with respect to this epidemics, improve our surveillance, and use that it could help us to target our resources better. we're delighted to advance monitoring with respect to the restriction drug monitoring programs that have been mentioned. with respect to disposal and enforcement, we are pleased to work so closely with the administrator who has done such a wonderful job of leading these efforts to beat. i should mention our national make thees of health lease rights in the understanding of the disease addiction.

as i close, i want to thank everyone here. this plan offers promise for our country, the promise health and hope, and it is with that promise that we are delighted to move forward in partnership with everybody in this room, indeed, thousands across this country. now it is my pleasure to introduce my wonderful colleague, dr. peggy hamburg. >> thank you very much. for all the work that you have done. in helping to shape this initiative and to lead it, and say to all our colleagues and our partners who are here today for your important work and for the months of hard work and collaboration that you have put in to helping to make this

national prescription drug abuse action plan a reality. it is very exciting to be participating to the, and i want to underscore the importance of government coming together in this way, working with stakeholders on the outside to put together an action plan that addresses key issues and lays out steps that we must take working together to make a real and enduring difference in accessing this important problem for our nation. i am delighted to be here to show fda support for the administration costs initiative, and share our new public health efforts in this area. i speak to you as a physician and public health professional about a serious problem of missed cues, abuse, the illegal diversion, and inappropriate andcribing of opiods, outlined the measurements to a

candidate to promote safe use of these potentially addictive and dangerous products for it this action which will support and act with the administration's new plan is part of the safety measure called a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or rems, which will now apply to all long-acting and extended release opioid products. as i think you all can appreciate, opioids are a necessary part of pain management for certain patients, but can bring serious risk when used improperly. for years, at the eight as well as drug manufacturers have taken steps to prevent these tragedies through additional warnings, labeling, educational efforts, special projects, and collaborations, and insuring

communications to professionals and patients. despite these efforts, the rights of misuse and of accidental overdose are still on the rise. now we face an ongoing challenge and a dual responsibility. we must ensure that patients have access to medications they need while also preventing misuse and abuse from the damaging health effects and the defects that extent not just to individuals, but devastate families, communities, and our nation. that is where thatrems grant comes in. we require companies to develop risc management plans to address serious risks of opioids while balancing the benefit profiles of this class of drugs crit companies will be required to develop educational materials for both prescribe first and patients. our focus is to ensure that

health professionals have the knowledge and training to deliver effective pain management and care and that he should understand the risks of opioid products, and we will do this through two key features. medication guides to help patients understand the benefits and risks, and new tools for pressure driver training and patient education. we believe that rigorous education for individual prescribes is critical, supporting a previous, and reducing diversion and abuse. fda supports the administration call for education for open u.s., which would require an amendment to federal law, but we feel would make a significant difference to the problem for us. at its core, this program is about action. today i would like to announce that fda has sent letters to truck sponsors who market long

acting and extended release formulations of prescription .nalgesics, the letters lay out requirements and direct the sponsors to develop and submit rems products. through a single system of all members of this drug class. fda will approve all materials before they can be implemented, and we expect all training will be conducted by a credit it education provider. we are serious about holding sponsors accountable for results. we will conduct a periodic assessments to ensure our program is indeed effective at reducing the tragic consequences of opel will it misuse and abuse, and that we will make a difference in improving public health. i would like to note that fda

receives i will input of a her right ear of leaders, health professionals, patients, and other stakeholders as we designed this program. i would like to thank all those who contributed as well as those of you who will continue to contribute as we proceed with implementation. this is after all a problem that touches all bus in both our professional and our personal lives. i look forward to continuing our work together as we build safer, healthier america. thank you. and administrator leonhart will be our next speaker. >> thank you, and good morning to all. i especially want to thank director kerlikowske for bringing us together, not just this morning with what we have

done to the government, to the justice problems, but also for your continued leadership on the issue. the drug enforcement administration is fully committed to finding solutions to combat the epidemic of richard and drug abuse, for reducing the demand for these drugs to enforcing our nation must struggle loss, taking pressure from drugs out of harm's way when it no longer needed. we are engaged in this fight, and we will continue to lead in the implementation of this national framework that provides guidance and clarity for the road ahead. regulating control as curve and drugs under the controlled substances act is dea's responds ability and his court that are very mission. this includes the registration, monitoring, and enforcement of laws that provide oversight for health care professionals who write and filled positions and for the scheduling, tracking,

and monitoring of controlled substances. when taken properly, many of these medicines are extremely useful and provide great benefits for the patients who they are prescribed for. when abuse, controlled prescription drugs are just as dangerous and just as addictive as street drugs, like methamphetamine or hair when. the more we can do to stop the abuse of prescription drugs, the more effective we will be in reducing deaths, the destruction, and despair that accompanies all drug abuse. dea has made it a priority to reduce doctor shopping, to aggressively shut down kill mills, to investigate those who abuse their responsibilities as medical professionals, and break their pledge to the public to do no harm. as part of this plan, the aid will continue to lead

enforcement operations such as federer surry's operation -- the largest operation against roque operation in florida's history. this is why dea is leading the way in the elimination of eliminating sources of prescription drugs. director kerlikowske mentioned some of the disturbing restriction drug abuse statistics, but is also remember -- and poor and to remember that as much as 40% of all medication " us, which is more than 1.5 billion this is a year. and that more than half of teens lead prescription drugs are easy to get from their current's medicine cabinet. the process for disposal will be streamlined to the secure and responsible trug disposal act

that was signed by the president last year and will be implemented by dea. until then, dea will continue to coordinate take back defenevent. last year, on monday, 121 tons of drugs were collected from more than 4000 locations around the country. on saturday, april 30, we will have another tape back day and invite the public, media, and other partners to visit our website, www.dea.gov, to find a collection location near you. each of us can contribute to this solution to win the fight against christian and drug abuse. it is now my privilege to introduce to the podium karen perry, seconded director of

nope, someone we can all learn from. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you, director, and all the agencies gathered here today, working, collaborating on this much- needed plan. seven years ago, my family suffered a devastating loss of our 21-year-old son through an accidental drug overdose. he was the oldest of four children. he was friendly, compassionate, and had a warm sense of humor. rich raised and left to support his family, to respect himself and others, to be sincere, to work hard, and to give back to the community. when my husband and i drove rich

up to college, we were filled with pride and promise. just three years later, our dreams were shattered. our precious son would be released to us from the medical examiner. we were faced with the unthinkable task of determining how ricky's body would be brought home for burial. we witnessed the horror and heard in our surviving children s' faces. we watched his younger brother's carry rich's cass it to his grave site, while his sister sang "everybody has an angel. rich his drug use in high school. by college, is an addiction had flourished, and to his credit, he came home to us and asked for help. following several months of treatment, which returned to school.

he even made the dean's list. at some point of time during that year, back at school, he relapsed trade on june 27, 2003, i spoke to rich at 11:57 in the morning. our conversation was brief, and at the end, he said to me, "i love you, mom," and i said, "i love you too, rich." weeks after he died, we went to the apartment he shared. horrified to see numerous drug spurred prescriptions in his room. the majority were for oxycontin. rich had been purchasing these

drugs from his roommate. his roommate was healthy, active, and attending college, while three -- while being prescribed these powerful medications. over those deaths is the irreparable at all to what negative results of a person's for church and drug misuse and abuse. to this day, my mind continues to wander back to those last month's richie's . my heart aches at the thought of my son wandering through a town, alone, and finally chairing the last precious hours of his existence with a person who cared not whether he lived or died, but rather who would provide the in come with each purchase that richie made. my heart pounds as i imagine

richie's emotional state on his last day as i know it. his heart, speaking, his mind, distorted, empty, loneliness, shame, self-loathing. this image i have is a very vivid. the image of an active attic is heart wrenching. i held his hand when he was 2 years old across the street. i held his hand when he was 10 when he had his tonsils out. i held his hand when he was 19 for three hours on the steps of the treatment center as we both cried, trying to get him admitted. i was not there to hold his hand on the day that he died. and that breaks my heart.

>> thanks, karen. for all us up here, thank you so much and we will take questions. some of you have media attacks on, so that will make it easier. >> i want to thank you for all of your efforts on this. we know a lot of lives have been lost from unintentional drug overdose. i did not hear it mentioned of a strategy, a very effected evidence-based prevention strategy, that has saved thousands of lives nationwide, 16 states for the last decade, and this is referring to the abuse of the rescue trainings, as well as wrapping up [unintelligible]

4 paramedics and first responders. i wanted to see how much you are considering making more use of these an increase in supply as well as manufacturing, there is a lot of hurdles to that as well. >> i think we might just also deferred the question because there are a lot of things and the specifics that we will be going through to get everybody out here, administration is, and commissioners come they are very familiar with that, and there are a lot of other strategies. >> one comment. what is important about this strategy and its initiative and broader efforts to address the critical problem is there is no one solution involved, " really putting together strategies that address all of the many complexities that drive and asian and drug abuse and damage

the lives of individuals and families as we have just so powerfully heard. the use of the lock zone is critical. it is one component of a broader strategy. >> this is for doctor hamburg. a key element of the strategy is going to require the cooperation of congress. what is your outlook on that do you have somebody that is going to introduce legislation, and what do you think it is one to take to take that path? >> a very poor in question. i may not be the best one to ask, that this is not really within our jurisdiction. this training would be part of the dea licensing of physicians to prescribe this class of medications. i am optimistic. i think it is a notes-brainer in

terms of the importance of adding this additional tool to ensure that physicians who are empowered to prescribe this powerful tribes have the training and hunters getting about her free use and the potential for misuse. i will turn to my colleague, administrator of leonhart, to talk about it more subtly. >> i believe you will see great interest from members of congress. on pressure from drugs, they have been behind us all away, for us passing the ryan hate bill, us to shut down rogue internet sites, which is a major source of bills been diverted. more recent, after the take-back in september, days later they passed the disposal act, which

will allow us to come up with regulation for the safe disposal. so i know we share that they are concerned. education is key, and we believe we will see action on their part. >> one question was -- with two parts. you mentioned there might be or there would be acres church and drug monitoring program for every state. i want to find out whether or not that would be mandatory second, you mentioned gnatcatcher and drug monitoring programs which encourage the to communicate with each other. would that be mandatory as well? >> right now, within federal -- is money to start monitoring programs. there has been money to enhance monitoring programs, and we think the state cancer is by far

the best. the states -- they work closely with their boards of pharmacy and medical boards to make sure it is the right system for them, and that we encourage and recently kentucky and ohio sign a memorandum of agreement to exchange this information at your request of the doctors. the physicians we have spoken with seen this is a patient safety issue. under the legislation and under the money that is within the national institute of justice, these restrictions and requirements that these things be done, but we look at it as a best practice. we think if we can go from 35 states to 50 states and share information, we will be so much further ahead on this issue. next question. >> the fda advisory committee

and voted last sunday against us plan. -- this plan. they said it would not do enough to stem the abuse. are you planning this to go beyond what was planned last summer? >> this is a huge challenge in terms of what is the best approach, and a dynamic process in terms of the need to continue to put forth programs and activities and evaluate their effectiveness. we feel very strongly that what we are moving forward on today is important and will make a difference. the ability to really help, enhance provide education, to make sure that they understand

the issues of the appropriate patient selection, risks of using these products, how to penetrate and monitor treatment using these products, and how to counsel their patients about the risks and benefits and a curb reviews. also, the medication guide for patients that will be in a patient-friendly language and enable them to better understand safe use and also important way, how these activities fit into some of the others who have heard about, safe disposal, been one, -- being one. the and other elements in terms of requiring provider education dea licensure is fundamental because we want to reach health care providers as early as possible as they

develop their prescribing practices to help them understand this issue in the broader context. it is a surprise to many providers as it is to the public to understand that very damaging down sides of the use of these opioid drugs, and you heard is this is the day about -- you heard statistics today associated with misuse. we are very committed to moving forward as we are today, but continuing to elaborate our efforts, working in partnership, and working with the tools and authorities of the fda. >> [unintelligible] >> they will be prepared by the drug companies, but they will be carefully reviewed by the fda

and will be approved by us prior to implementation so that we will keep be attuned to making sure these materials are medically and scientifically that need to be addressed in terms of assuring her pripet comprehensive education. >> other questions? >> we're hearing the statistics that seven of the 10 people who misuse drugs get them from friends or family. that is a very large universe, and it includes people who may have taken one pill from a friend in the last year, presumably the number of people who have a real problem is a sub group and it is very different. do we know anything more about

that sucker who, there are a couple things that trouble everybody up here when it comes to data, and data around the drug abuse and drug treatment. that is when we have to " 2007 statistics. that's why the president's strategy released last may, there is an entire chapter trying to gather more relevant information across the whole spectrum. you do not want policymakers making these recommendations. you do not want congress been in the position of passing laws without more affirmation. we know a couple things. initiation of drug use by youth is occurring now faster from the medicine cabinet and it is from smoking marijuana. that is a significant concern. we know the number of deaths. we know the number of people going into treatment for overdoses and for addition to these. we know the number of people

that, through the systems involving emergency departments, the number of people coming in. all of this as a significant effect on health care issues. that is why there are a number of parts of the new health care law that actually making information more widely available as far as being able to deal with this problem is so helpful. electronic health records, been one particular example. next question. yes, sir. >> is there an overall amount ascribed to implementing this plan? >> here is a good news. i am actually serious. the good news on this. we have looked at and understood that if we come together as a

group and we cool our assets and knowledge and resources, the ability that administrative actions taken, the ability to use local law enforcement in this volunteer way across the country, 4000 places last year, but actually on april 30, you will even see more, all this is done in the spirit of cooperation. there's very little money involved, so we are coming back with a budget sheet that says here's how much if you're going to expect us to do this. frankly, in this austere budget, but, this is what taxpayers -- the american citizenry really expects of us, to be smart, to work together, be strategic. there's almost everything in this plan that can be accomplished and has a long time police chief i am said it all. i am incredibly optimistic that over this next year we are going to make a big dent in this problem.

>> [unintelligible] manufacturers have developed a training for clinicians. that is going to be required of the drug companies keep develop that, but that participation will be voluntary. >> mandatory. >> you are not talking about a law that you're going to try that, you're saying now it is mandatory? >> note is going to be mandatory. we have worked for a closely with a number of people to be prepared to put into place that will make this mandatory. this is the right thing to do. it has to be mandatory. >> right now, has lost and some are their estimates as to how many clinicians workers

dissipate? >> every dea clinician would be required if this was enacted. this is the right thing to do for physicians, the pharmaceutical industry, and the right thing to do for the american public. >> write in the back. >> thank you. for the hispanic community, what is the severity of this problem, and what part of this plan is designed to help minorities? >> there is data that has been gathered on the growing abuse issue, particularly in the latino community, and we a few months ago did a press release on that. i can provide you with some of those details, but we would not be talking about a national plan and an educational plan if we were not understand and

reflective of the diversity of this country. it would make no sense for us to put that together and not make sure that we were making this widely understood, widely available, to all of the different diverse populations that exist in the united states. thank you. that you all very much. -- thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] aacp benjamincaacn

jealous. a look at the pentagon budget. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 eastern on cnn. >> "in depth," may 1, tibor machan. he will take your calls, emails, and suites. new eastern, on c-span. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. new and returning house and senate members. information about the white

house, supreme court justices and governors. order online. cnn founder ted turner and t. boone pickens spoke about energy policy at the national press club today. they talked about their renewable and alternative energy initiatives, including solar and wind investments. mr. pickens talk about his plan t ando change the truck fleet to natural gas. this is about an hour. >> my main concern is survival of the human race. >> of that, i don't put it as number 1. i say the existence and danger

of nuclear weapons is the greatest danger that we face and a top priority is to get rid of them as quickly as possible. i am not talking about nuclear power. that is a home other issue. i'm talking about the weapons like the one we dropped on hiroshima that killed 250,000 people in one day and later at nagasaki. we could get rid of those weapons. the security council of the un voted last year unanimously to get rid of them. we need implementations. we are lacking in that at the current time. it is complicated but it is real simple. get rid of all of them. that is the only way it will work. it will not work for us to have 2000 a clear weapons and iraq to have two. that will not work. we have to all get rid of them at the same time.

the second tremendous challenge that we face is the growth in human population numbers. there are just too many people in the world right now, 7 billion, 1 billion of us already live in under and deprivation. if we add, as is predicted, another 1 billion over the next 10 years and it goesp to 9 billion over the next 10 years after that, we will have 3 billion people that are starving. we just really have to get serious about family planning and it needs to be voluntary, in my opinion. if we cannot restrain our numbers voluntarily, maybe we don't deserve to be here if we ha to have laws and penalties for having children. i don't think that would be good the third challenge that we face that is overwhelming is the environment, the whole issue of

the environment, not just the energy policy which is the most important thing right now under the environmental heading. the oceans are collapsing from over-fishing. the range land all over the angered and dang end farming in an unsustainable way. we have to straighten out our care of the environment and cutting back on the growth in human numbers is the most important thing we can do. the more of us there are, the more pressure is put on the environment. next but very important is clean, renewable energy. i think we need to move very quicklyboone will talk about natural gas. i described as a bridge fuel,

particularly, i feel that the fracking situation, we have to feel better about that and make sure it is not to environmentally damaging. clean, renewable energy, i foresee 20 years from now, a world where there is no more fossil fuel being used. it served us well for several hundred years, since the industrial revolution but it is time to move on to clean, renewable energy. for economic reasons, too. in the end, it will be the least expensive because it is sically free. as part of claim renewable energy, we need a modern grid. we need a modern energy system and that is clean renewals. bles.

we will have a world without pollution. that will be pretty amazing. our kids will not be getting as ma and it will be quiet. it will be a nice world and i hope i live long enough to see it. i hope you do, too. if we're not going to do it, we will not live very long anyway. we will either do it or we will diverted is present all. [laughter] thank you very much. >> i want to talk about energy security for america. we have gone 40 years in this country and we have had no energy plan, zero. we are the largest country in e world, the only country in the world without an energy plan. we have used more fuel than any

other country in the world. today, there is 88 million barrels of oil produced everywhere in the world and we are using 21 million of it. the oilmost 25% of all used every day and we have 4% of the population. if you look at that, we are using 25% with 4% of the population, we could be the cause of $100 oil. we are way out of balance with the rest of the world. we have no energy plan. 40 years, no plan. why? because we had cheap oil. that was it. neither party, republican or democrat, had an energy plan. somebody said that is an obvious bipartisan effort to not do anything. [laughter] and maybe so. nobody had time to tackle it. we are now at a critical point.

if we go forward 10 years like we have operated for the last 40 years, in 10 years from now, you will pay $400 per barrel for the oil and we will be importing 75% of o oil. today, we are importing 66% at $100 of oil tenures will be all it takes to get to that point because oil is a finite resource and it is running out. when we look at the fourth quarter is year, you will be able to check whether i know what i'm talking about, in the fourth quarter of this year, demand is projected for 90 million barrels per i don't think the world can produce that. if they can't, the only way you can kill the man does with price. price will go up. it will kill demand. we will go forward with demand that will be in balance with

supply. do we have resources in america to take care of it ourselves? absolutely. you've got the green ables, wind and solar they do not replace transportation fuel. 70% of all the oil used everhere in the world goes to transportation fuel. you have to get something that will stand up with oil to reducehe importance of oil. we are paying $1,500 million per day for imported oil two-thirds of our trade deficit is not sustainable. nobody ever speak to that. if you go back over the president's from nin ford, nixon said in 1970 that the end of the decade we will not seek -- import any oil. at that point, we imported 24%. at the end of the decade, we

imported 28%. he never spoke to the question again. you have one right after the other. they all say the same thing, he let me and we will be energy independent. nobody ever says you told us, like obama, in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. that was very clear. bob schieffer and i had lunch and i told him to ask how long we will import oil from the enemy. >> he did not know whether he could get away with that. they did ask about imported oil and obama said the same thing. in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. we are now three years into

that. . i have never seen anyby say that you said in 10 years, how are we doing on your plan to cover oil from the mideast? nobody ever asked him the question it does not happen. i am in a place where i am talking to people in the press. one of you please, ask the president -- [applause] ok, can get it fixed? we can. we have lots of natural gas. that is 700 billions of barrels of oil equivalent. that is three times what the saudis have. we do not have one politician that has said that we may not be as bad off as we think we are on energy. we have plenty of energy here. we can take care of ourselves. can happen. it can be fixed. natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, abundant, it is ours, why not?

we will use dirty, importedil from opec and now they are talking about exporting our natural gas. ok, we will send alean, cheap, stuck out and take a dirty from the enemy. we are starting to border on not looking very smart. [laughter] stupid is about where we are. we have resources that can solve the problem and we still do not have any movement. is this president's fault? it is the last 10 president's fault? not one had ever done anything. this president is starting to talk about natural gas. he even used my name in his last energy speech. he said this legendary oil man is working in this field. my wife should cancel the president -- my wife shook hands with the president and he

said to her that your husband is working hard for the energy problem that the united states faces. we are in communication, sort of. he never calls me but -- [laughter] i am always available. you have heard my problem. it is a security issue with us. ted is a little bit brighter green and i am. i am green. the epa must allow the test -- if you gavme a saliva test, i would pass. my primary focus is on the energy security for america. i am all-american. i will take anything here in america. c takeoal, anything american and -- i will take coal, anything american in place of middle east oil. [applause] >> ted, did you have a an immediate response? >> we don't agree about

everytng. we agree mostly. >> why don't you tell us what you don't agree on. ? >> well, i am a little greener and a little cleaner. [laughter] >> that's right [laughter] >> i don't think we should export coal. we should capita and let it sit there it whinnied hydrocarbons for plastics anyway. our children will ask why we burned up all are hydrocarbons. it will be valuable to build things than to burn. the sun is setng their free every day going to waste. solar works like a charm and the technology is already here and so is the winds technology. we spend more on research and

start implementing wind and solar andeothermal, we will develop a better technology like we have in computers and it will be even more efficient. >> on the cost of kilowatt-hour is, the most expensive is solar, $6,300 per kilowatt hour. second, because we have changed how we c inoal, it has moved up to 5300. then you drop to 2400 for went. then you drop to 1500 for natural gas. we are capitalists. we are trying to find the cheapest deal that we can make the most money off of it. that is what capitalism is. there's nothing wrong with that. if you are going to look at it

on cost, i tried to build the web -- biggest win farm ever built. the wind is priced of the margin. the price is natural gas perwind gets a natural gas price. natural gas at the time was $8. today, it is $4. $6 i have to have to finance that wind farm. i may deal with general electric four years ago. i bought the turbines and ty are starting to be delivered in my -- and my garage is not big in [laughter] to take 500 turbines. i will build a wind farm in ontario, canada and minnesota. it will not be in the panhandle of texas where i wanted. i did not get the transmission

there. they promised transmission and they never delivered. i would like to leave you with this point -- one mcf of natural gas is $4 and is equal to. the only thing that will move an 18-wheeler will be either diesel or natural gas. a battery will not move an 18- wheeler. what are the options? that's it. the only one we have that will replace foreign oil to move the 18-wheeler inatural gas. one mcf of natural gas for $4 = $7 apiece -- of diesel. 7 gallons of diesel is $30. the cleaner, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper compared to the forum, dirty diesel, you are talking about the cost would be 25% very you have to do some

compression and there are other factors. if you had in 18 deaths wheeler today and you bought a natural gas one instead of going diesel, your fuel would be $1.50 cheaper. that is overpowering. if it is so cheap, why doesn't it work without h passingr 1380? because i want direction. i want this president to say this is where we are going. this is what we will do. we will get on our own resources and this is the way it will work. we'll take the 8,000,018- wheelers -- we will take the 8 million 18-wheeler's. $5 million is a lot of money. we've got 8 million vehicles. they would go $60,000 for a tax credit becau