corporations, mom and pop stores. we need to do it all across the board simply because they're the job creators, and they have the capital to bring down our unemployment rate. host: massachusetts. this is eddie calling on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. we know about the corporate tax being the highest in the world while canada is lowering theirs. and canada spends about half as much as we do on medicine. therefore i think we need a doctors and nurses bill of rights. but what is corporate welfare? they're knocking g.e. right now for not paying any taxes. that's sad because what that means is they're writing off their factories. you used to see products made by g.e., your appliances, in the kitchen. you don't see them anymore. and what is corporate welfare with this oil companies? exxon only gets 5% of its product from stateside.

they pay foreign countries their taxes. what is corporate welfare? will you explain that, please? guest: well, let me address his first point because it was a very, very good point this idea of capital flight. money can go anywhere in the world at a moment's notice, just digitally so if canada cuts their corporate tax rate low are the united states, you're going to see a lot of growth in canada as people leave the united states to go to canada or some other country that has a lower tax rate so when you call for higher taxes on corporations, be careful of that very true economic fact. talk about corporate welfare, i agree that giving corporations tax breaks do help, allow them to create jobs, and to deliver the products that a lot of people need. but it distorts the tax code and reyeats all -- creates all sorts of compliance costs and other distortion that we don't need in the market. so the idea is what we've been talking about, simplifying the

tax code and reducing the burdens both on corporations and on individuals. host: sascha, a question by twit err on our top 10 -- your top 10 list that we showed. asked why senator rubio did not make the top 10 list for senators considering, she says, club for growth was a major contributor to his campaign. guest: yeah, i wish i knew. our members believe in free markets. and on the power ranking, it is a free market. you can vote up or down on any member of congress. the power ranking will adjust accordingly. don't know why they did or why other members of congress are not higher up. i think it's a useful tool. i know club members like it. host: so it's a dynamic. guest: yes. host: so if someone had a visibility in certain time of debates, they might tend to go up. guest: that's the hope we have. that if a member of congress does something good or something

bad, club members can log into our website and immediately vote them up or down. host: scott, an independent. good morning. are through? caller: hi. how are you doing? host: good morning. almost lost you. go ahead, please. caller: i've been hearing about cutting taxes since ronald reagan went in. and then bush went in. didn't he cut taxes? and where's all the jobs? and the burden is on companies and rich people? all the jobs are gone. much.thank you very the connection between low taxes and jobs. guest: i think with reagan the fact is quite clear that when he cut taxes in 1981 and then again in 1986, there was a huge, robust economy that resulted in a lot of jobs. he talked about bush, i assume bush the younger. bush the senior raised taxes and, in fact, did not get re-elected largely because of that.

when george w. bush cut taxes, there was immediate job growth. but because of the irresponsibility with monetary reform, which we talked about earlier, and also with the housing crisis and with fannie mae and freddie mac, i think that was largely responsible, not the tax cuts. we can argue about these macrolevel discussions, but i think it would take a lot more time to iron out. host: "adjusting the costs of health care is a big issue, mr. roth. why not have single payer or public option at a minimum?" guest: the problem with single payer is there's no competition. i think everybody, conservative, independent, or liberal, believes in competition at some level. whether it's companies competing. nobody likes a monopoly i think that single payer health care is a monopoly. the best thing to do is to get the government -- the federal government out and perhaps let the 50 states compete. if one state has a better health care system than another state,

then you have the luxury of moving to that state. if the federal government, though, has a health care program that you do not like, you don't have very attractive alternatives. host: an official candidate yesterday when the former governor of new mexico, gary johnson, threw his hat officially into the ring. there's his picture there. there's an article in the "washington times." we have one interview with him, i think, in the c-span video library, if you'd like to see a bit of his positions. and he is now in new hampshire. he's 58 years old. climbed mount everest, avid skier and bicyclists and plans to follow his announcement with some spring skiing in new hampshire near mount washington. he will be spending lots more time in new hampshire the months ahead. do you have any comments on his candidacy? guest: gary johnson i think is extremely underrated. >> think you'll see him go up in the polls as you learn more about him simply because i think

he is this year's ron paul. he vetoed, i believe, more bills than any other governor before him combined. he just believes strongly in government and lower taxes. and that's going to be his message, i believe, on the campaign trail. so i would urge conservatives to look at him and to look at his record and compare it against the field. i think they'll be surprised. host: how tough is the climb when you've been out of office for a long time? guest: i think that is difficult. if he was running for re-election in new mexico as a senator or member of congress, i think he'd have an easier chance. i know that mike huckabee was relatively unknown in 2008. but he made a lot of waves and was able to gain a lot of support going into the primary season. host: are you sensing that governor huckabee will be drawn back into the race? give i don't think --

guest: i don't think so the club for growth played a role in opposing huck huckabee's candiy simply because of his record in arkansas as governor. he supported higher taxes, higher spending, and he opposed free trade agreements. i think -- and this is just on my part i think because of this success with the networks and the money that they're paying him, i think it would be tough for him to pull away. host: maryland, sharon, democrat. caller: thank you, c-span. thank you so much. i'm so happy that you're here. i just have a couple of questions, and i'll try to be brief. i just heard the gentleman speak of having the option or the luxury of moving from on healthtate based care costs. i don't think americans, you know, have the luxury of moving from state to state to get a better rate with health care companies. i wanted to talk about the

proposed cuts. women minus planned parenthood equals insurance companies. where else would these women go for their health needs? seniors minus medicare goes to insurance companies. poor people minus medicare -- i mean medicaid, i'm sorry, same thing. insurance companies. and social security, you know, people minus their social security, you know, end up with corporate america. i don't think insurance companies should be in the for-profit business because for-profit, yeah, you do, you i know, make those decisions. if grand mom is going to be able to get the service and benefits she needs. it's incredible to me. .

the costs are so large that you have people that need these entitlement, but the country as a whole somehow needs these entitlements to keep going. that is an immovable object and an immutable force. -- in movable force. we need to cut costs, but in such a way that grows the economy and provide the same sort of benefits to the people that are entitled to them, but using market forces were you can

get just as good policy otherwise. host: we thank andy roth for being with us this morning to give us a perspective on the economy and the deficit. guest: thanks for having me. >> this began, and american history tv on c-span3, artist mark goodell takes us back to the 19th century white house. pepperdine university professor at larsen looks at the constitutional effects of the election of 1800 between thomas jefferson and john adams. and white house photographers document the life of the president and the presidency. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history, where you can also press the other button and have the schedule emailed to you. elections for the canadian parliament come up on may 2. the nightly news program, the national, looks at the

conservative leader stephen harper and other party leaders. here is tonight's program, about 25 minutes. >> it is a foggy evening here down on the bay. i interviewed stephen harper, the last of our series of party leaders. we start as we always do, with the day's news. . diana slane in toronto. -- here is diana swain in toronto. >> forcing stephen harper off his message, the issue was abortion. >> stephen harper came to this arena to talk about deferred relators, but as he was trying

to pump up a local issue, he was forced to shut down a potential campaign controversy. >> i am not opening this debate. i do not want it open. >> too late. at a weekend convention at is a sketch one pro-life association, a longtime conservative who is running again thanked the petitions against planned parenthood. he told them they were successful. and he said he endeavored to end access to abortion. >> [unintelligible] >> a speech that forced the prime minister to switch from message tractor damage control. but i think our government may feel differently. as long as i am prime minister,

we are not reopening the abortion debate. >> and no decision has been made for funding planned parenthood. >> this is the way the conservative party operates. this is why people talk about a conservative agenda. stuff gets flipped. there are private members' bills and this and that. nothing is clear. >> but this is not the only issue that had the prime minister on the defense. last night it was revealed that the -- jorno told the commissioner that he appeared to be in a conflict of interest. >> y was garson able to stay on for two weeks even after those conditions were raised? >> the conflict of interest rules are enforced. they were enforced in this case and the matter was satisfactorily resolved. >> this is not the first on the

abortion issue has come up during the campaign. it kept him from winning governance in 2004. there is just over a week to go in the campaign. >> carper campaign was also doing damage control around one of harper's chief spokesman. he tried to influence the naming of the head of the import of montreal. yet denied any political interference, but audio tapes identified as condit -- conversations between the people involved have now been posted on you tube. >> ethics and trust, recurring themes in his campaign. the audio tape, says john slayton, is one more sign of trouble in conservative ranks. >> wease colli for an inquiry into what is going on here. >> an inquiry -- we are calling

for an inquiry into what is going on here. >> an inquiry, says stephen harper, is pressure into backing a chairman that was recommended. now, a taped phone conversations add to the controversy. the first one is said to be between 20 accurso and another key player in the industry. they planned to call a conservative senator to get the ball rolling. he wrote -- he was a close friend. >> [speaking french canadian] >> soon after, he met three

members of the board and is said to have pushed for the nomination. later, accurso delivered good news to another partner. >> it went exceptionally well. it was done right then and there. >> but suddenly, the plan went awry. perhaps after the minister of international trade got involved. at the meeting, he called board members and told them the selection of the new chair was up to the board. and the board did, in the end, choose someone else. end of story, except for soutis, left to deal with the fallout of the tapes. >> i have never had an issue. >> some have said he should resign. >> i think he should step out of the campaign and out of the job itself. >> as long as he stays, so will questions about what he said and who told him to say it.

>> we have not really been reporting on poles through this campaign, but two pulls into back -- in quebec have sparked a lot of interest today. why? we will show you. >> today, he has been saying he has momentum. now he may be right, at least in one province. >> and a quebec, where people are turning to democrats in record numbers -- >> two polls are reflecting that for the first time ever there considering npd. >> there's a lot of energy as people are beginning to realize we really do have a choice and we do not have to go back to the same old same old. >> in fact, late in has been working on this for almost a decade alayton has been working

on this for almost a decade. >> i think mr. layton may be the person who makes life difficult for mr. harper, he says. he is certainly feeling the heat, not much of a spark. he is now forced to fight back. michael vick now retief says it is fine for krabakers to look -- quebecers to look. >> the ndp does not have much organization on the ground there. expect them to make this surge of interest in two more seats. >> layton actually spent his day

in ontario, talking about getting more canadians connected. he plans to bring high-speed internet to every region of the country. michael ignatief held a round table with members of the arts community. he said a liberal government would be a supporter of arts and culture and he plans to double the canada council for the arts. -- the budget for the canada council for the arts. and much of the day in newfoundland before heading to nova scotia. >> with part of our election coverage we are doing interviews with each of the national party leaders. each was offered a choice. they could either have us follow them on the campaign trail for a while, do a traditional

interview in the studio, or on the campaign trail. stephen harper chose the latter, and that is why we are here in newfoundland. the interview touched on similar themes as those in our interviews with michael ignatief and jack layton -- trust and what is being called the coalition issue. harper has given very though information on either until now. >> i guess we can agree that trust is a key component of any campaign. the voters have got to decide who to trust to look out for the country. in this campaign, the trust word has been a puzzle because all the leaders do not seem to trust each other. how can a boater make a big decision, given that? >> we are asking -- how can a voter make a decision, given

that? >> we are asking the same thing of anyone. it is not that unusual for that people running against each other to not have the best views of each other. >> there is some pretty heavy duty stuff being said about each other. do you trust in each other's word? >> the key issue for us is the economy and that is what voters are focused on, should be focused on. we have a record there and i think the country needs a strong, stable government to move the economy forward. >> u.f. manchin trust. go, including in this -- you have mentioned everywhere you go, including in this ring, is what you do if you were in the minority. what you not believe then, as they have said this week, that

they have not talked to each other about any post-election scenarios, and if you have the most seats, it would be the prime minister. >> that is not my read of what they said. i think what they said is if the conservatives win the most seats, we will come in and we will feed them -- they can come in and we will feed them and then we will get together. >> with respect, that is not what they said. >> that is, i think, where everything they are saying leads. in this campaign, we brought forward a budget. it was the next phase of our action plan. it was well received by canadians and it reflected a broader range of input. we think it is the direction we need for the country, so we're looking for a mandate. i think we are at a stage where minorities are becoming counterproductive. we have had four elections in several years. the government could get a plan

to move forward. if the people give us a mandate, we will be happy to accept it, wherever it is. >> if they give you a minority mandate -- >> no. >> are you suggesting he would bring in the exact same budget? >> first, in fairness, we are mandated -- a campaign to get a mandate. -- we are campaigning to get a mandate i am seeking to be prime minister for five years. in a minority parliament we recognize that we have to work with others. it is the only way that minority parties actually work. but i'm not willing to say that i'm willing to negotiate away my budget. of course i am not. i think this is also important, you know, we have not heard a

lot of criticism of the specific measures in the budget. i think anyone that looks at what happens will recognize that these parties have made up their mind to defeat the government, regardless of the content of the budget. i think we should focus on this business and take these proposals seriously. >> but it would not have taken much to get the budget through. the blocks made it pretty clear that if there had been hsc compensation for quebec -- >> actually, he did not say that. he said he wanted to see it, but that he probably would have defeated the government anyway. look, there's no mystery here. they should have supported the measures in the budget. how much more arbys can you get? they wanted an election -- how

much more obvious can you get? they wanted an election. i hope we will get a mandate, go back, and start to take these matters seriously. >> its still becomes if you do not have a mandate, and you keep suggesting that is where your way to do. >> i think we will likely have a minority parliament where the other guys will have the majority and they will act on that majority. i think it is important the people of canada understand these are the choices. i do think most canadians would still be very surprised if they elected a conservative minority and had some kind of completely different kind of government. i do not think people know where

such a government with lead. we can point to tax increases and agree on a few other things, reopening the constitution -- >> i appreciate all of that, but they have that right. -- do they have that right? >> that is a debate of constitutional law. my view is that the people of thcanada expect an election. anything else, the public will not buy. but they boarded in ontario when the second place party became the first place party and formed a government. but peter, we shall see. i think we have -- >> peter, we shall see. i think we have a unique system here. -- situation here. instead of the party winning the election, we have a majority

government. >> what of the situation were reversed and mr. ignatief or mr. layton was in first place with the most seats? >> they would form the government. >> they would form the government. to win.nk we're going >> you raised the issue of the hypothetical, and that is one as well. whoever does not gain the confidence of the house, the governor general comes to you -- because that is the way as to happen -- and said company the first place party achieved the confidence of the house. i would like you to try. >> if the other guys win, they get a shot at government. i do not think you challenge that unless you are prepared to go back to the people. >> you would say no to that? government,ay to the no, i would not do that?

>> yes, because people do not want another election. that is another thing about this discussion. >> that would be a way of preventing one. >> will be into another election before too long. that is why i think we need a majority mandate. this has gone on long enough. we have a good record and we need people to get behind us and let's move the country forward. we have some economic challenges that remained in the world and in this country and i do not think we can continue to move around in circles like this. >> i just want to be clear, because it is a different position than the one that you suggested in a letter that he wrote with mr. layton and mr. duceppe in 2004, suggesting there were other options. >> the option that i was discussing is that we try to influence the government's agenda. we have to get our own mandate. >> why did you choose them and

swear up and down that there is no question of what was on your mind? >> why are they saying this now? they did not say this in 2004. the reason is because they are considering the option of combining with the liberals to form another election. that is why they keep changing their story. that is why i keep saying that's the people want a majority election government. but what can your party do that the other parties cannot do? >> the broadening of the population cannot change. the weekend focus on is the

horizon instead of always worry about the confidence vote in the next few months. that is the kind of thing the country now needs to do. i think we have managed well a series of crises. a lot of them are economic and financial crises. we have managed these as well. but the country could use a longer-term focus. >> in some parts of your speech, you talked about what you accomplished in a minority position. other parts you say, you cannot go on like this. >> we have been the longest serving minority government in canadian history. it has been remarkably productive. as i say, we are on a different matter. we just had a budget. all of the other guys said they

will defeat the budget six minutes after we presented it. if they are that frustrated, vote opposition and get together to form a government even if they do not win. we're getting to the stage where the minority government has played itself out. i am please as a minority. i think we have gotten some things done. i also think this government has said no to a bunch of things that would be bad ideas that a minority government will stumble into if we do not get a longer- term focus. >> i was talking with a couple of people who were involved with the government in the 1990's they they were trying to deal with a deficit not different from the one you are trying to deal with. they made it clear to me that there was no way they could have done what they did in bringing down the deficit and doing fairly major cuts that they did in the minority situation.

is that part of the reason you need a majority? you have to cut seriously? >> it is not a similar situation contrary to what some people have said and contrary to the preamble to your question. the deficit today is half the size it was in the 1990. more poorly than that, the debt level is half of the size. the problem be had in the '90s -- the 1990's is that you had a spiral. you had run out of options in terms of dealing with that. we do not want to get to that situation. we can manage this by moderating the level of spending growth. we will be fine. that is not something that does not require effort. we say we need to increase efficiency. we have done a review of programs and scaled back some

smaller and in effect of programs. if we stay on the track, -- we have done a review of programs and scaled back some ineffective programs. a minority government promising to spend literally in the order of magnitude larger than us in terms of their promises and raising taxes -- we will be back in the world we were in in the 1990's. >> how serious a situation is the inflation factor that was introduced this week? a monthly increase is beyond any of the expectations for this year. how much of the problem is that? things are going up 15% in one month. >> it is worse in a sense that it hits ordinary people in their pocketbooks. that is a concern. we will continue to monitor. we want to keep taxes down for

people. we know there are those cost of living pressures. inflation does not affect our fiscal track -- effect our fiscal track very much. it is predicted to be healthy going forward. we will have to continue working with our partners in the g-20 to keep the economic recovery on track. >> when you say it does not effect your fiscal track, it has an effect on interest rates. >> it will have some. but our debt level is so much lower than it used to be. today, the possibility of a debt payment deficit spiral is not there as long as we continue to eliminate the deficit. the deficit has come down by 1/4 this year. it will come down 1/4 next year.

we do not need to a salary cap as a reduction. the longer the deficit persists, the riskier it becomes. >> why should canadians trust you with their vote on may 2? >> look at our record. look at the direction the country is going. what other country would you want to be living in right now? that is the question where people should put their confidence. the abstract question of trust will politicians -- in a democracy, people do not give unearned trust to people. we have to go out every day and continue to earn their trust, not just during an election. >> on that note, we will let it

go. that is it from newfoundland. what kind of treats to you have for us today? >> i will be talking about the coalition. that is coming up on the national. >> who could have known that the whole point of this election would be what happens after this election. there is more talk about what happens after the voted then why you should vote in the first place. the other parties will still the government from the first place winners. if you vote and majority government, stephen harper will have absolute power. then what will we do? it is circular. the mind reels.

it was one of the most convoluted mommas in the campaign. a candidate was asked if he was considering a coalition. no, he said. he talked about the color of doors. after being remorseless we pressed for an answer, he finally gave one. no coalition here. absolutely. the coalition idea is a spry little creature that refuses to stay still or lie down. this week, it's scampered back. -- it scampered back. how, why, or in what form we could possibly end up in an

arrangement of a coalition? in another interview, the coalition creature made another appearance. the wear of the coalition. stephen harper says he would not touch one even if the offer came from the governor general himself. consistent anyway. from day one, stephen harper has been a one-man town crier on the dangers of a coalition. it could be the west nile virus from the way he talks about it. this has been the strangest election. canadians have been warned about the way they vote by the people who are forcing them to vote in the first place. it's the politicians cannot live with your choice, that is entirely their problem. the electorate chooses. the politicians obey. it works. on this coalition monitoring, it cannot be changed a single bit.

been warned off of your genuine preference might be a this respect for democracy that the politicians are always talking about. for the national, i am rex murphy. >> here are some of the programs featured on c-span this weekend. a talk on american diplomacy. a revisit of the starr vs. clinton case. daughter on her memories of the president and her grandfather. and a discussion of bob dole. for a complete list of this weekend's programs and times, go online at c-span.org.

in his annual address to the russian parliament, vladimir putin spoke to members about the state of the country's economy. the speech lasted several hours and included questions on spending and modernizing weapons programs. here is a 50 minute portion. >> the risks were real and they

could have weakened the country. in 2008, the world crisis started as a purely financial crisis. the problems in financial exchanges led to the structural breakdown of global economies. in many countries, there were fiscal and balances -- there were fiscal imbalances. portugal had to ask the european union for emergency financial assistance. askeder, other countries for assistance. many of our neighbors in europe had to either raise the retirement age or freeze pension benefits and welfare benefits. in france, you perhaps know and heard about it. their retirement age was raised to 65 years.

it equally applies to both males and females. in estonia, they passed a law that would have faced in raising be retirement age to 65 -- phased that would have raised the retirement age to 65. some countries like greece and poland made decisions on freezing pension benefits. the world economy is in recovery. the consequences of the economic crisis lead to social tensions in many countries and entire regions of the world. we see destabilization of entire regions. they have lowered sovereign ratings for the united states. experts are saying that these are electro gambling -- this is

gambling. the lesson for us is that economics and government weakness in the face of the external shocks will affect national sovereignty. let's be frank, in the modern world, if you are weak, there will always be someone who would like to come over or fly over and give you advice on which way to move, which path to choose an which politics to pursue. these are, less -- these are harmless, but behind them is a desire to dictate policy and to interfere in sovereign, internal affairs. in this issue, all parliamentary

factions take a unified position. i am thankful to you for this attitude. we have got to be independent and strong. we have to pursue policies that meet the interests of citizens of your own country. and they will support you in our undertakings. in the ears -- the years, i visited many regions. i visited companies, hospitals, schools. i met with servicemen, teachers, medical practitioners. the situation varies a lot. in 2009 and 2010, we still do not have full recovery. a lot of people encountered a lot of difficulties.

they dealt with layoffs and difficulty doing business. all of us know that this crisis came to us from outside. in the course of combating it, we would never use the excuse that these are external consequences even though they weren't certain factors which could not really influence -- there were certain circumstances we cannot influence. -- we could not influence. russia is a social welfare stuck -- welfare state. we will never break our social commitments and promises we get our citizens. the government would guarantee that. let's take a look at what we have accomplished in this challenging. in the life of russia.

the country went through a series of economic challenges and tests. we had a budget deficit. but we were able to provide 250,000 apartments to service veterans. there was a plan for rehabilitation housing and moving people into new apartments. these plans were made before the crisis. we implemented this plan regardless of the crisis and it affected the lives of 10 million citizens. in 2010, pension benefits were increased. 38 high-tech medical centers were opened. medical programs were continued. when adjusted for inflation all dispersal -- social programs just like we promised at the

beginning of the year. in 2007, we increased 1.5 times the financing of education. starting in 2009, we started economic growth. in 2010, we increased our gdp by 4%. this is the best rate in all g-8 crisis -- the eight countries. it means -- this is the best rate in all g-8 countries. we have heard it forecast that the russian economy will recover in 2013 or 2014. we will do it before that. this is not wishful thinking. this is based on sound economic

analysis. we have to look ahead and concentrate our resources on renovation of our industry and infrastructure. we need to use the potential that each of the russian federation regions past. the government of the russian federation will approve -- will give impetus to qualitative growth and develop russian territories. with the assistance -- with assistance, we have specialized programs for development. this year, we will have the foundation of direct investment in social economic projects in the far east up and running. we have to lower our dependence on exports of raw materials. we have to support entrepreneur ship as a press corruption that

is holding us back and demonizing our society. russia should become a competitive society. this is important for the government, for business, and for society. in 10 years, we have to increase our productivity two times. in some sectors of the county, three or four times. we should raise the share of innovation in our industrial output to 35%. in previous years, we were able to increase productivity 3.2%. our gdp should become one of the five leading economies in the world in gdp per capita. we are trying to get to a level of $35,000 per capita. it will be higher than today's

indicators in such countries like italy and france. they are not standing in one place. we need to stabilize the growth of population and provide access for all citizens to quality health care and education. they need pensions and we need to form a massive middle class. we are finalizing our 2020 strategy. we talk about new reserves for our growth and properly emphasizing priorities. positive growth in its investment -- positive growth is investments in a person and his capabilities. i am convinced that this will be the foundation for a high growth

rate and a technological breakthrough. the country needs decades of sustainable and tranquil growth without fumbling around and going from one extreme to another because of social experience based on liberalism and demagoguery. that will distract us from the steady course. we need to preserve civil and interact nick the court and try to oppose any attempts to bring a split and interactive -- interethnic strife. we need to build a strong

innovative economy. this will bring improvement to the lives of citizens. this is the core idea of our policy. in the beginning of 2010, it was forecast that we would go through a long stagnation or a second wave of crisis. this forecast did not come true. nothing of the sort happened. it is not just because of fate and destiny the market was favorable to us. the prices on our exports like oil, gas, and machinery helped. major world car companies are present in russia.

they are an indispensable part of the russian motor industry. right now, we are putting new demands on local sourcing. this is not a sample dialogue with our partners. in general, they understand our demands. they are making a step forward. we already have a pretty good local production at 60%. we should have a production of 300,000 cars. numbers are important. it makes economic sense to relocate production when you have numbers that high. of our counterparts understand that engines and other parts -- a high level of local sourcing is our principle approach in building investments and

innovation. having machine building and shipbuilding and pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. for example, we get a $1 billion contract to foreign company for pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. we have to be adamant in our desire to have our foreign partners relocate their productions to russia. before 2020, we will spend 140 billion rubles for the organization of our medical equipment industry for making reserves. we are planning on establishing 17 research and development centers for developing new pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. domestic and foreign companies in 2010 along already invested in russia -- alone already

invested more than $40 billion in russia. we set up partnerships with leading manufacturers from europe and southeast asia. we will build new shipyards and specialize in promising drilling platforms. in 2010, russian shipbuilding grew at 8%. our main goal is to have the entire production in the territory of russia starting with research and development to output. mass production of finished goods and products. it is important to have high paid jobs in russia and maintain higher levels of technological production and engineering culture.

the experience of recent years demonstrated that we are capable of successfully modernizing and giving input to the entire sectors of the economy. we worked out an effective and universal model, including targeted support using the finances of development institutions. it is a strategic alliance with foreign partners. we are establishing foreign direct investment into russia and large scale projects. we would find it in the amount of 62 billion rubles. considering the highest priority of these projects as an exception, we would suggest

transferring an additional $10 -- an additional 10 billion rubles to oil. i will address the issue later. we have to be careful. it is an absolute priority to form a new structure in our economy. we suggest transferring 10 billion rubles of oil and gas revenues from this fund. with the investment climate, there have been barriers for investments in our strategic sector to increased flow of capital in russia. we need to get to a level of 60 or $70 billion. in 2010, the influx was at $45 billion. we are planning to modernize and perfect to stimulate high-tech

production on russian territory. we should put prelate -- prior to is right. -- we should put priorities right. we can create our own breakthrough technologies. we need to invest in research and development. the deputies made suggestions in this regard. we will take them into account. the government is planning to support innovation activities of our producers. cole expenditures for research and development -- coal expenditures for research and development. providede roubles'

from the federal government. we believe there will be benefits to creating special economic zones and technological parks. the government has already invested 16 billion rubles in this. there are 24 special economic zones. in the 12 regions, we have technological parks in high-tech industries. these clusters already have 650 resident companies registered. the range is wide. from electrical medicine to consumer electronics.

the planned investment there is about 300 billion rubles. i would like to attract your attention to this. we are focusing on what is going on in moscow. this is going on there out the entire russian territory. particular deals and projects will go toward massive wide range support of domestic companies that are trail blazing and tried to find their place in the corn market. -- trying to find their place in the foreign market. this company will take part in the financial risk and build our capacity. this year, we are working on providing guarantees and insurance of about $1 billion.

we are planning on and using up to $14 billion. . we are using the advantages of integration. 2010 was the year of the birth of the customs union between russia, belarus, and cause expand. we have a unified customs code. businesses appreciate this opportunity. it is an historic event. for the first time in the post- soviet space, we have real, genuine integration. in 2012, within the customs union, we have the unified system of technical standards. it will be an important element of industrial policy.

innovation will push business toward modernizing their production. we will use their world practices, including our partners in europe. from the customs union, we will create an economic space starting january 1, 2012. we will have a unified market with the union and the legislation and the free flow of goods, services, and people. in the future, we will have coordinated economic policy in the key sectors of the economy. it will be genuine integration. it will change economic and geopolitical configuration of eurasia. i will emphasize that the customs union and the heat -- and the unified economic space is a partnership.

i believe this a initiative and our suggestion to the european union neighbors to create harmonize economic space between unions and the pacific will be supported. reaction is generally positive. we are talking about dialogue and an economic partnership and possibly having the zones of free trade there. and more advanced zones of economic integration. we have a continent wide market that is worth three trillion heroes. we would like -- 3 trillion euros. the starting point would be canceling entry visas to europe.

we talk about it a lot. i would like to point your special attention to a situation in our aviation industry. there were a lot of requests from deputies in this regard. in a time of crisis, we renamed done our commitment. -- we renegged on our commitment. we were able to promote all projects that have to do with our aviation, both civil and military. we were able to facilitate our aviation production complex. it was so convoluted. legislation was moving slowly. there were a lot of special interest provisions there. the entire conference can move

forward. we will be reviving production of the largest cargo plane. it is ready for supply. 160 orders have been received. the first airplane will be busy in may. i was pleased to see how the work was progressing. when i came to the far east, i saw people speaking italian on one side and people speaking french and russian. it was a joint team try to strive for the results. this is the first russian aircraft that was designed entirely in the digital formats. this is a positively bent.

yesterday, as you know, our first superjets let it. our joint civilian aviation fleet is in armenia. it bears the name of our national hero. the anniversary of space flight was celebrated by the entire world. we are still working on our breakthrough project, midrange aircraft with a new engine and new composite wings. we have a third generation of fighters. we are building a new center. it will have a good foundation. it was created in the previous decade in primarily in soviet times. we have a experiments of new

aircraft foundation. we will meet all the demands of russia in the civilian and military aircraft. renovation of aircraft ofinter -- of interaircraft is going forward. they will be able to meet the task of both anti-aircraft and ballistic missiles. they will be able to hit targets in the outer space. there will be new missiles that are technical and strategic.

in 2013, there will be the production of strike missiles and it will be doubled. we have also modernized our civilian missiles. we are planning to start test light and heavy launchers. we will start from the new national civilian launching site and will log into space with passengers and cargo ships. the construction work on the launching site will start this year. this case will be fully independent. we only had one lodging sites. it was really equipped for civilian purposes. there was no -- it was reequip

for civilian purposes. there was not dedicated place for it to land. large scale appropriations for three trillion rubles will be appropriated. this is from the organization of russian forces. we are planning to spend 20 trillion rubles. it is a scary figure. compared to the previous program, this is a threefold increase. it has to do not with our desire to have our military have the budget. the thing is that a lot of weapons systems are now obsolete and need to be replaced. we need to replace them with the new highly technological weapons system. we are making plans to modernize the entire defense

industry because we can make new weapons systems only using new hardware and equipment. in can years, we will spend more than $3 trillion rubles -- more than three trillion rubles. more than 200 trillion rubles will be spent on research and development. the increase in military will cause us to see an increase in militarization. military contracting has to be done rhythmically and appropriately and in a timely fashion. we certainly have issues and problems there. deputies were appropriately pointed out these issues.

we will keep an eye on it and we ask you to do the same. before the crisis in 2007, the military and defense industry output increased 1.5 times. in 2010, it was only 75% of the investment of the defense industry. it was for procurements of equipment. investment in equipment and hardware. we are observing a process of accelerated formation and foundation of a new factory. we now have young people going to companies. we broke this trend of aging. the average age in research and about men and design centers. in the industry, we have 46.5%.

in research and development, 41.5%. not percentage. years of course. next year, we will have targeted recruitment of 50,000 citizens who will be trained in specialties required by the defense industry. starting this year, we will be paying bonuses to accomplished engineers. in the three recent years, 5 million, 350,000 children were born. -- 5.3 million children were born. one of the best-selling indicators is average life expectancy. today, it is 69 years. in 2000 yet that in 2005, it was 65 years. a good increase.

for years. -- four years. who is getting free apartments? please carefully follow the process. it is pretty good growth. at the same time, the results of defenses demonstrate how fragile and unfavorable -- we have many sore point. it is evident to us that economic policy has to be pursued and continued. we will continue pursuing regardless of the difficulties. we will do everything to a force of the demographic trends and support families with children. all aspects are important, creating jobs, flexible tax busty, housing issues, it up and up our health care and education system, big government.

there were tax deductions initiated for people with children. there was assistance with registering for land for families with more than three children. i will have to go back to the address of the president last year. it was focusing on the rejection of the total health and child health and improving the market. this is our common strategy for preserving nations in the russian penetration. between 2011 and 2016, we expect the project to receive 1.5 trillion rubles. what we are hoping for, what we're trying to achieve in 2015 is the increase in life expectancy up to 71 years

compared to 2006. the death rate would be lower. looking at the trends that we have now, it is at treatable result. the main thing is that we keep up -- it is an achievable results. the thing is that we keep up the pace. russia and brought the city is often criticized. it is quite justified. today, we are talking about substantial approved a public -- a substantial improvement in public administration. we are talking about fighting corruption. try to make people responsible and eliminate any conditions for seeking bribery. we need to clean our regulations

and laws. we started procedures from googles and big areas. the new law on licensing has been lowered by half. licenses will have no expiration date. starting in 2012, licensing procedures will be put -- will spare businesses from going door-to-door. and now in the about cert. this is an important aspect. it seems monday, but it is where we have 78% of all government services. now it is only 46%. we will further lower this bar. in many cases, producers will self-declared comprising a -- cell the clear -- self-declare

compliance. i will give a short reference. in the past years, more than 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses were launched. this was serious growth in wake of the crisis. local authorities are supporting entrepreneur shipship. it should be more open. we should have rankings of the effectiveness in the russian federation. despite differences in the budget and crisis measures, we are going to support small business involvement. innovation and technology in the defense industry for entrepreneurs who work in the social sphere.

we will also with financing. we will provide services by the government at the local regional level. we are talking about integrated communications and regional and agency based data banks. from june 2011, all necessary coordination of inquiries will be done by the agencies themselves and will use citizens as messengers. the citizens would prefer a traditional forms of preceding government services in the person. that can be done. the entire procedure should not be too cumbersome. there will be multi functional centers that will be based on

the principle of a single window. we have won a 70 of those. in two years, we will have -- we have 170 of those. in two years, we will have 800 of those. by june of 2012, there will be a schedule for government services. fees will be charged based on the tax code and the charges by the government. additional payments above those schedules will be illegal. the government will suggest a new initiative. we would like citizens to be involved in the governing process.

we would like to arrange for public hearings of all socially significant bills and drafts of laws. this could be done and balding the widest range of experts. recently, i was talking about the deeds of health care. we talk about it everywhere. i realize that people do not know about what is being done. it makes suggestions. i think we should not just laid out the drafts and put them up on the website so that people can look at them, but also have public deliberation of them and use the system of electronic voting so people can describe which is more appropriate and important for them. a lot of leading countries in cooperate more and more the

system of open government. they and about the citizens in the decisionmaking process. we should have acted civil engagement and recommendations and advice given by independent experts. we will lose on speed, but equality will be improved. please allow me to conclude by saying three years ago, here in this chamber, we laid out a new program for the parliament. we had more challenges than anticipated. we had to move forward and by the crisis and protect the citizens from the crisis and the fans every accomplishment in education and health care.

we had to increase potential for growth. i can say that this was a successful-forward. the government will do everything possible to make sure the economy is following the trajectory of positive growth and the well-being of russian families will grow. we are guided by the principal, listen to people. we are not planning to step away from the principal line. support of citizens always helped us. we used it as a support in making important decisions. we will do everything to learn this trust. thank you. for your patience and attention. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. recent political events in our country and in the world proved that the internet played an important role in mobilizing people. we have an opportunity of formal and free communication between the people. users are not afraid to express their ideas. and upcoming parliamentary campaign in russia can lead to a

crackdown on this issue. there is a possibility of blocking access to internet sites. our action is convinced that this is impermissible. we do not want to go back to 1937. we believe these actions will lead to discontent and will destabilize the situation. this is something that bureaucrats are trying to fight against. we would like to hear the principle position of the government in censorship of the internet and would like to hear your personal opinion. >> i do not recall that they had the internet in 1937. it was a joke. what is the difference between the central committee and the secret police? in the central committee, they are clicking and in the secret police, they are clapping.

the internet is just a tool. it is a tool for solving important economic and social problem. it is a tool for communications and self expression. it is a tool for the quality of life and getting information. the main internet resources are not owned by us. they are across the pond. in our own the overseas. they cause concern. there is the potential for using these important resources for purposes that go against the interest of our society and our country. as far as i am concerned, i do not believe there is a need to restrict anything. >> the wave that rolled across

the moslem and arab world. there are other peoples and civil disobedience that affected the world economy. the question is, what does the government do? it is no secret that we had large contracts with these countries. our companies were working there. there was distribution of the financial blow and the migration flows. right-wing parties come to power. they want to restore borders between countries of the european union. what does the government do in order to be least affected by the changes brought by those revolutions that are happening and how we will happen in the

near future? >> the main guarantee to avoid social of people is a social economic policy in the interest of the russian people. with mandatory positive results in our joint work. if people see that we are working and defending their interests, we yield positive results. their living standards are improving. i assure you, there will be no problems that have to do with maintaining civil court in our country. of course, there will always be isolated elements that will be attempting to destabilize things

just like in any healthy body. there are some combo bacteria there. but they are suppressed -- there are some harmful bacteria there. but they are suppressed by the immunity. if the did she starts to deteriorate, there are plans to -- if the dvd stars to deteriorate, there are plans to -- if the immunity starts to deteriorate, there are plans to stabilize it. we have a multi-billion contract in defense and other sectors, transportation and energy. of course, they are now up in the air.

in some areas, we already provided services and the work has been done. it is not paid for. it has been suspended in some parts of the world. we had plans to supply weapons systems. this is a huge problem. our companies produced according to the contract large amounts of weapons systems, but there is nobody to take it. what do we do with this inventory? it was not requested or commissioned by our military. they do not need it. resources were spent. we need to support these companies. we will find ways to do it. it will require additional resources from us, maybe direct support from the budget. it is not pleasant, but it is not terminal. we will solve these issues.

>> now available, c-span's congressional directory. a complete guide to 112th -- the 112th congress. information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online ad c-span.org. >> next, a discussion with three former secretaries of state on the value of diplomacy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] . .

[applause] so we know they will be wise an f and moderate and thoughtful and well behaved as well.

of course, all have made enormous contributions to peace and stability in our world and have continued as statesmen and stateswomen on the public stage doing important work. it's a pleasure also to welcome the members of the aspen institute board of trustees and the members of the cathedral chapter the governing board, all of whom are here tonight, closely attached to their meetings but also coming here as an expression of the values and commitments of each of these institutions. this evening's conversation will in fact explore the role of ideas and the role of value-based leadership at work in our world in the area of diplomacy which is a crit 8:00 time for this world -- critical time for this world and that kind of engagement and it will also involve, an exploration of

the role of religion and public life which has become very much at the center of washington national cathedral's conversations and public dialogues. i would like to extend one special word of thank you for theevepbing, and that's to dr. eric motley, who was vice president of the aspen institute. he seems to be famous before i can explain who he is. eric motley is the vice president of the aspen institute and managing director of the henry crown fellows program who happens also to be a member of the cathedral chapter. and our thanks to eric to being the one who imagined this collaboration and has done so much to make it happen. now, i would like to introduce to you the moderate for the evening, the president and c.e.o. of the aspen institute. walter has had a distinguished career spanning the fields of journalism and public policy,

holding an array of significant positions such as being editor of time magazine, chairman of cnn and a significant leader in an array of nonprofit and government organizations. he is the author of a number of books, biography of albert einstein, one of benjamin franklin and one secretary of state henry kissinger. please help me welcome our guest for the evening. >> [applause] >> thanks very much. thank you. thank you, sam. i really appreciate it. and thank you eric for putting the colonists talked about how we should be as a shining city on a hill. and dean lloyd will is a that comes from the sermon on the mount as well. but the governor gets to plagiarize it a bit. and it's as new as barack obama explaining why we went into

libya. if you look at the real list tradition, one of the clear expressions was john quincy adams, one of the underrated early presidents who said that wherever freedoms' banner is unfurled, that's where america's hearts and prayers shall be. but we don't go abroad looking for monsters to destroy. we well wish freedom around the world, but we defend it only within our borders. on the other hand, barack obama and in his noble prize speech, talked about the duty to protect and the notion that our humanitarian impulses should guide our military engagements as it did in bosnia. so the quer we're addressing tonight, and i'll start with secretary albright is, it's easy to say that our values and our interests always go together. and that if we act upon our values we will be acting on our interests.

but the three of you know better than anybody in the room that foreign policy is difficult. decisions are dill. and sometimes there's a conflict between our values and our interests. how do you think the role of values, democracy, and freedom should play on our foreign policy? >> well, first of all i'm delighted to be in this beautiful cathedral. when i was on the chapter, we voted on that rose window. i have a very basic belief that this is an exceptional country where in fact our values have been a motivating factor and in fact some of the quotes that you have spoken about, america is a very special place. and we have special responsibilities. and i do believe that there are, you can divide national interest in a number of ways. obviously, the easiest is when you have been attacked or your allies have been attacked. and those are vital national interests.

but there are other values and i believe that we need to have american foreign policy has to be value-based, moral, but it cannot be more or less stick, where we go around telling everybody what to do. but i do think it is in our national interest to have a value-based foreign policy and defend countries or protect those that are in harm's way if we are able to do that. >> secretary powell, should we be promoting and using our military to help democracy in places like bahrain or beijing or saudi arabia? >> we have a sponsored military that has the capacity to involve themselves in military intervention or in humanitarian relief operations and we have done that throughout the course of my career in the military. >> hold on a second. is that on? ok. woe.

it reports that it is on now. >> but it is not out of the ordinary for the united states armed forces to participate in such activities and we are a nation of vauls, given to us by our founding fathers reflected in our doocla ration, in our constitution. but at the same time, as you noted, our founding fathers who wrote the constitution did not expect us to go all over the world inserting ourselves militarily or through power, but the expression of our values would help the rest of the world. in my pro fession, they even included in the constitution little distinction between what the navy and the army does. it says that the constitution provides for and maintains a navy, meaning we'll protect our shores. and we raise and support armies.

which means when we're invaded. so the founding fathers did not expect us to go all around the world but the founding fathers lived 230 years ago. we li today. and our values have set in motion so many things throughout the world with respect to democracy, a belief in human rights. and we have an example to the rest of the world. so as our values have become an example to the rest of the world, they also expect us to use our economic, political, diplomat, and on occasion military power to help them enjoy the benefits of a similar value system. and we have done this in the course of our history. >> do you think we're doing it a little too much now, telling people how to behave? >> you have to be careful because i don't think it is our place nor is it anything that our founding fathers intended or the american people intended for us to go to every single country in the world and impose a democratic system that is

identical to ours. we have to deal with the world as it is. and there are many countries in the world right now that are very successful in bringing their people up out of poverty, they are very successful in providing for health care and other services. >> china. >> but let me get there. >> but in effect, i know that china is not going to get rid of its authoritarian system. they said so. they made it clear. and what they've said to me is that we don't know how to run a country of 1.3 billion people and feed 1.3 billion people with the kind of system that you prefer. your system. so as long as we are not aggressive in what we do with the rest of the world, as long as we are doing the best we can for our people, and they brought 440 million out of poverty, we can tolerate such a system and live with such a system. but at the same time, all of us

have done pointing out to the chinese that political liberalization and human rights are universal valingus, and sooner or later you're going to have to deal with the aspirations of your people and the desire of your people to be freer. in the arab spring that we've been watching now, you cannot keep the rest of the world away from the arab world. you can see it on the internet. that same political force which is at work through the intimation revolution i think will start to modify china as well. >> secretary baker, michael kinsley once defined the gap in washington as when a leader accidentally told the truth. you did that once. >> i did. >> yeah. >> i said that it was important that we maintain secure access to the energy reserves of the persian gulf. i didn't put it in terms of oil but i put it in terms of jobs. and it was important and it

still is important to america's national interests. but to say that you have to make a choice between principles and values on the one hand and national interests on the other is wrong. you do not have to make such a choice. there is sometimes conflict as you pointed out. but america's foreign policy has for the most part always, i think, been formulated and implemented both with respect to its principles and values and the national interest. the question that confronts policy makers is when do you concentrate on one, when do you concentrate on the other? our principles and values are what's made this country great. and they are rightly central to our foreign policy. my own view is that we should always our principles and values and promote them diplomatically, plitcli, and

economically. that we should be very careful militarily when we decide that we're going to go in militarily simply to promote our principles and values. and that generally speaking you need to have a national interest when you decide you are going to commit, particularly when you're going to commit our young men and women to combat. >> do we have a national interest in libya? >> no. but i think libya, frankly, is -- if there was ever an appropriate exception to that formulation i just gave you, libya is probably it because the way we've done it is a very limited exercise. and the president was quite clear when he at least the united nations security council was quite clear in their resolution that we're going in to protect civilians. we also stated someone stated that there was also a regime

change element here, and that's going to introduce some confusion and it's birks the way, also going to put a lot of pressure on the administration to acquiesce in mission creep and because you're not going to get regime if you don't put forces on the ground. so what i say about libya, and i believe this strongly, is if -- that it's an appropriate exception to what i think ought to be the rule, and that is before you commit military forces substantially, you need to have a national interest involved. why do i say that? i say that because i've served this three white houses, and i know that you cannot maintain the policy when the body bags start coming home if you do not have a national interest. we are a democracy and the american people are the final ooshters of what our foreign policy should or should not be. and we've been involved in wars

around the world upon occasion, vietnam comes to mind, maybe korea comes to mind, maybe there are others that come to mind that where the american people abandon the policy. and in our democracy, once the american people abandon the policy, you've lost the policy. >> but isn't it easier to sustain the policy when people believe it comports with our values? >> i think it is. but there are a lot of issues that have been put on the table. i have always thought that it's a false dike -- dichotomy. i'm a pragmatic ideal list but basically i think it's like a helium balloon. you need the helium to get the balloon up and the balance in order to get realism to get it moving. also, i think we have all learned, and i apologize to my

students, there is not always consistency in foreign policy decisions. you do have to look at it case by case, which is why having that underlying value system so that you can assess what's happening in every case i think is very important. and these decisions are very hard to make. i think there are certain oxy morans in this. you cannot impose democracy with the military, which by the way is one of the problems with what iraq did. and it gave democracy a bad name. and i think that what i believe is that americans need to support democracy in countries not impose it. i do think that it is different from the founding fathers because we happen to know what's going on inside every country now. and the role that media is playing in terms of the support of the american people is quite different. i think in many ways what has happened today is obviously information technology has played a huge role in the arab

spring, that is viral in many ways. but the media have played a huge role in america's reaction to it. our press has been out there. anderson cooper is one of the rebels. and i think that it is, it has created a huge desire to do something. and i do think, and i say this with some apologies. americans are the most generous people in the world with the shortest attention span. and the bottom line is, is that we are in this. the libya story is complicated. it's going to get more and more complicated in the middle east. this is a long story. and the media -- i usually get to the media at the end not the first question. but basically they are covering it as if it were a football game, even if there were a basketball game it would be overtime. it's none of that. it is a marethon. and we are going to have to look at this in the long way with the idea that our values

are very important. >> and each country is different and has to be looked at differently, in my view. but madeline is quite right. >> but i think there has been a significant change just in the last 30 years. it's not just the internet. all of us can cite experiences where we had to deal with the most terrible dess pots on the face of the earth before the cold war ended because our interest demanded it. some of the things we did in africa and other parts of the world. some of the dictators we propped up because of our interests and because of a current balance to what the soviet union was doing. but when the berlin wall went down all that went away and i think our values moved to a higher priority. >> did that mean that we don't have an interest in supporting the rulers of saudi arabia as a counter balance to iran because they don't share our values? >> we have an interest in supporting the rulers of saudi arabia because they are not shooting their people in the streets. it's not a humanitarian crisis.

and at the same time, we have to think of two things. not only where we get our energy from, but as my saudi friends will say to me every time i raise this question with them, be careful what you ask for. we have been a successful stable country for as long as you have in different forms. but we're a monarchy. if you had full, free, fair elections tomorrow, you would not like who wins. they would throw you out and us out. and the day after tomorrow, they would announce there's never going to be another election. >> we're not sure yet we're going to like who wins in egypt. and so these are very difficult issues with each country is different. we ought to look at each one in a different way, in my view. and madeline is absolutely right. it ought not to be a choys between ide dealism and realism. that both of them form a basis for our foreign policy decisions and they should.

and the point colin made about the soviet union, even though we're cooperating, or we cooperate with the soviet union in world war ii because nazi germany was the worst alternative. but during the cold war we still promoted our principles and values with the soviet union even though we didn't go to war with them to promote them. and that was a good example of what i'm talking about when i say used diplomacy, diplomat, politically and economically you emphasized your principles and values and you do so militarily when you can in appropriate case like libya. but it's not an appropriate case to do so in bahrain. why? because we have a greater national interest at stake. and you don't sacrifice your national interest. you can still promote your principles and values. it's just not an either or. >> what i find interesting in watching what's going on in

arab spring, and also in iran and also to some extent in china, i believe we're all the same. that you can't say x group of countries is never ready for democracy or doesn't care about human rights. what we're seeing is that they do. and i would say on saudi arabia, we definitely, interesting, the king is somebody who is trying to figure out how to reform a system that in many ways is very fragile, or artsrit rick in some ways. and it needs help and i think it does come in various phases. elections. not always the people you want win here either. and so the bottom line is -- ever you know, you have to be able to deal with it in the longer run with the idea that we are all the same and want to be able to make decisions about our own lives. i think it's so fascinating what is going on in the arab spring is the aspect of it.

i'm chairman of the board of the national democratic institute. we have people on the ground in all these places and it's very interesting to get the reports back in terms of how the opposition people are trying to figure out how to have coalitions, how they are working with civil society, how they are moving the process forward. it's messy. >> but let me then push you on that, which is if you knew through your intelligence that the muslim brotherhood would win the elections in egypt in september, would you be in favor of pushing those elections? >> my personal view is these elections should take a little while. you can't -- the problem is this is not an american story. we can't micromanage what's going on. but the truth is it would be better if the elections were somewhat delayed because the muslim brotherhood is more organized than other groups. but that military group that's there actually wants out and they have moved the proves further and i think it is going to make it harder. and one of the things that's

interesting is trying to figure out how to help them if they're asking for help in terms of trying to create additional political parties and organizations that can compete with those that are already better organized. >> i think we all agree that there is historic trend taking place throughout the world. where people now that they can see what is happening in other parts of the world want the same thing for their children. and they want representative government more and more. but sometimes our values do conflict with our interests and sometimes our interests have to trump our values. and we've all faced situations like this. and i think this historic trend really began in 1975 with the helsinki final act. signed by jerry ford, even though he was widely criticized established the borders of europe, even though they were achieved by domination on the part of the soviet union. but the soviet union signed up for that, i don't think they

realized that they were taking a poison pill. and it said we all support representative government. and the people should choose the kind of government the people should have. and ten years later gorbachev came on and a few years later the iron curtain fell. and it is accelerated by television, the internet, by the information revolution. and it will continue. and i said the last couple weeks ago in abu dhabi this is something of a tsunami. it may take time. don't know when it's going to happen. but i think what we're seeing in arab spring will eventually come to saudi arabia and these other places. it's not going to happen right now. >> there's no doubt about it. it's moving, it's coming. and it could be very, very important and beneficial in terms of presenting us with an alternative to the al qaeda philosophy that the only way to get rid of authoritarian

corrupt governments is through terrorism. so it could very well be extraordinarily important from that standpoint. but you're absolutely right. >> but don't be surprised if some of these results the not serve our i want rests. >> we talked about the duty to protect, which is sort of a new concept. in some ways it arises out of the balkans which you remember quite well since i think half the girls were named madeline after that intervention. i'm going to ask the two of you a one-word question. and i'm going to cower a bit. which is anyurism. do you want to start? >> well, let me just say that this is a story about bosnia. and i was ambassador at the united nations at the time. colin was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. and i've got to describe this a little bit. he would come into the situation room in full uniform

with medals from here to here. having been -- won the gulf war and i was a mere motoral female civilian trying to figure out -- >> give me a break. come on. >> anyway. >> don't pull that card on me. come on. >> so it was interesting to be in new york because there i saw more diplomats than -- from different countries than any other american plote. and people would say why aren't you doing something about bosnia and i would go to our meetings and say we have to do something. and why? and colin is the world's greatest briefer. and -- and the pentagon is really good about all kinds of things. he had a little red pointer and it was totally brilliant and we could do everything. and then he would say, but supposing that sergeant slip

chick stands on a land mine, what are you going to tell his mother? why did he die for this? >> and i said colon, what are you saving this military for? >> and i responded, first i was stunned. and i wrote later in my book that i thought i would have an aneurysm when she said that. and the reason i was disturbed was that, what's the purpose of having this army if you won't use it? we had just invaded panama, we had just done the gulf war, we are still serving in places all over the world. this army was being used. but i have strong views. and the views that i had at that time were also shared by the secretary of defense and most of the national security team. and these views essentially said before you commit that sergeant and before you commit american troops, you have to cut a clear understanding of why they're being commited, for what purpose.

and it can't be we're seeing all this terrible stuff. what do you want them to do and are you prepared to invest in terms of man power and other resources what would be required to achieve the mission that you've set before the troops? and that's where we had our disagreement. and she got even with me in her memoirs. >> but i have to tell. what he said, turf explain patiently to ambassador albright that our soldiers weren't toy soldiers. so after he left we actually used force and we did pretty well in bosnia. and then we all know that writing books takes a while to get published. so i called him up and i said, patiently? and he said yeah. you didn't understand anything. then he wrote me a note. he sent me his book and he signed it with love, admiration, and sibed it patiently, colin. and i send him a note and i

signed it forcefully, madeline. but i do think it's a serious issue here and it has to do with this whole concept of responsibility to protect. i have spent a lot of time thinking about this because this is an evolution at the peace keeping operations at the u.n. and you were talking about the helsinki final act. there has been the genocide convention. and knowing what was going on. people made the argument that we didn't know what was happening during world war ii. we do know what is going on in places. and mel osevitch was ethically cleansing putting people in concentration camps, doing terrible things afpblet the question was whether some amount of american force multilaterally with nato or in some way could in fact end this. and tgs a very big and long discussion, and it is the whole issue of whether as an international community when the leader of a country is not fulfilling his responsibility

in terms of protecting his people, does the international community have a responsibility to protect? and it is a new concept, it is now part of u.n. jargon, and we are watching it in libya. the resolution 1970 is -- 1973 is the one that says that this is about protecting the lives of the civilians. >> are you regretful you didn't apply that in rwanda? >> absolutely. but i also think, and one of the things that -- we all three of us said that the decisions are very, very hard to make. as far as i'm concerned there's nothing worse that people who criticize decisions that they dent don't look at the context in which the decision was made and the information that the people had at the time. it's fine to look back and say x should have --. what happened was at the time that the rwanda issue happened we did not have all the intelligence.

we had just lost troops in somalia, we were in bosnia, the county was turned around in haiti and we didn't know how awful it was. i call it volume canic genocide. it happened after the plane of the hutu president was shot down and there was this explosion. but it was very hard. and i wish -- president clinton had said we wish we made the decision. i think we should have done it but we didn't. >> it's a tough issue though. the duty to protect if indeed that becomes enshrined in u.n. lore or u.n. policy, where do you -- what are the limits? protect to what extent? do we put young americans in the ground on the ivory coast? do we put them on the ground -- what about the people of iran? what about the people of north korea? what about the people in china? where do you take this? how far do you take this and how do you keep the american

people in support of a policy when the casualties start coming home? and one other conversation. i think we ran the only full-scale war that we ever got paid for by the people we were saving and tht first gulf war. but we're broke as a country. we are in bad, bad shape. and so we don't have the economic power today or situation today to go running all around the world protecting every time we divine a need to protect people to go using our military to protect them. we can't do it. we can't do it economically, we can't do it politically. and we certainly can't do it militarily. >> it's a question of becoming a 911 line with call waiting if we don't have rules. >> it isn't all just americans. the point here is that it's a very difficult doctrine. >> and you actually teach it now. >> i teach about the american,

the national security toolbox and the bottom line is there are not a lot of tools in there. >> you've got the big important military is a tool. >> but i'm not saying that the u.s. needs to do this all by itself. i think that interestingly enough, i think what president obama was -- is trying to do in libya is to show that this is the international community. whether there is -- whether what happens is -- i happen to be opposed to a united nations army. but there must be ways that certain groups of countries can have some part of their military degree gate to saving -- where there's genocide and ethnic cleansing, not every -- >> secretary powell, what are the rules where we go in with a duty to protect? how do we draw the line? >> we have the most skilled military imaginable and an army exists to apply the force of the state against the enemy of the state. and the forces that we create

for that purpose also have other thing that is they can do, and they can do it splendidly. they can do peace keeping, humanitarian assistance. you saw in the tsunami of 2005, you saw it again in japan just recently. and these are wonderful young soldiers, sailors and airmen and marines who know how to go and take care of kids, who know how to provide relief supplies to folks. so we can do it all. but we really want to know exactly what political purpose is being served or what humanitarian purpose is being served. and some sense of what it's going to take and some sense of how do we end it. and i don't think it's unreasonable to do that. because this is a volunteer army. the american people said we don't want a draft any more in the early 70s. so it is not the whole country involved. it's a volunteer group of young americans. and before we commit them here, there, everywhere else, you've got to think it through. because as jim said, these are the kids who pay the ultimate

price and their families. and you can't just say my heart is breaking for something that's happening over there and it is our responsibility to go. make sure we have -- make sure that our values are intact, we know whether or not we're doing it and that it really serves some interest of ours or a humanitarian nation. >> that to be reemphasized. i would like to second what you have just said. in the waning days of the first bush administration, we undertook a humanitarian relief effort in somalia and it was a very good one and we saved a lot of lives. but we made it clear going in that this was not to become a nation-building mission or a mission to chase down war lords. then we lost an election. and madeline and them came in and they changed the mission and we got -- >> you -- >> the thing that happened there, you all don't want to go -- i mean, this is endless.

the part that happened is we worked very hard to change it into a united nations mission, not a u.s. mission. but it got very confused. >> are you worried about mission creep in libya? >> absolutely. but let me just say colin taught me many things but i think is what's really important is when you always ask what is the exit strategy. i used to find that irritating. but the bottom line is you do need to know how something ends. but i have to say there are a number -- i would not be for using american troops everywhere. i would also be pretty careful about for what reason we start a war. we have wars of necessity, k4 i thought afghanistan was. and i have real questions about iraq. so we will different reasons why we think we use our military. >> was iraq a mistake in retro spect? >> i think the jury is still out on that. it could very well turn out ok.

it might turn out not ok. if it doesn't turn out all right it was a mistake. if it turns out ok, that's not a mistake. >> that's where >> -- >> let me tell you what wasn't a mistake. the first iraq war. that was a textbook example of the way you fight a war. you go in with a limit. you have a specific purpose in mission. you get other people to pay for it. you have a clear exit strategy. you do what you said you are going to do. you get the entire national community behind you and get the job done. >> let's take the first gulf war. u.n. support, congressional resolution, which was a close vote. and the mission was limited. kick the iraqi army out of kuwait. that's what we did. people were terrified. and there would be tens of thousands of casualties. tubbed out not to be the case because we put a huge military force in there. and i could say to secretary

cheney, baker and president bush it will succeed. it's guaranteed. it's going to happen. and it did. and the casualties were small. but within days people said well gee if it's so small, why did you go to bag dad? that was not the political mission. and if we had tried that, the coalition we had would have collapsed. it's hard to believe now that we had southeastern divisions and egyptian -- syrian divisions and egyptian, different coalitions. on somalia jim is right, we did not want to go to somalia on the very last months of the president bush's administration but the humanitarian situation with you was so bad that we talked about it and i came in with a plan saying let's do it the right way and send 28,000 troops in there. so we sent a large force in, and within a few weeks we had stabilized the swage and we were feeding the population again. when president clinton's

administration came in, madeline is right, try tried to turn it over to the u.n. but it was a flawed mission from the beginning. somalia has never been a country and certainly isn't ready to be a democracy and now it is all these years later. >> you plays of the way the first war was conducted raises the question about doubts you have. >> everybody says we tried to impose democracy. the first thing we did was get rid 06 a dictator and destroy his capacity to oppress his people. now at that point we made some very serious mistakes. we should have imposed order on the country and my position throughout that period is when you as has been characterized, but when you break it, you own it. and -- >> the potry barn rule. >> the potry barn got very mad. they wrote me letters, i had to apologize.

i never said it. but the point is that you have to be careful. and we're watching it in libya now. when you take out a regime, you become the government. you have the responsibility to the people that you have just liberated. >> so we broke it in iraq the second time around. >> yes. and if the plan had called for the use of a much larger force, my humble opinion, to impose order on the country, which is what the iraqis thought we were going to do. and when we didn't do that the insurgency broke ut out and we didn't respond 230r years. >> secretary rumsfeld said you were wrong in his new memoir. >> it's somewhere between deceptive and delusional. [applause] >> if i could move on. what do you really think about the book? >> i can tell you --

[laughter] >> why are we still in afghanistan? >> because the -- there is still a threat in afghanistan and you can't think of afghanistan separately from pakistan. and the real threat that could reemerge is probably located in pakistan now and you have to deal with both of them. but when we took out the taliban such as it was, a horrendous government, we were perfectly willing to tolerate for years without thinking we had to go take out the taliban, we gave the taliban several days to reflect on all of this after 9/11 and to turn over osama bin laden. and if they had, then we would not have gone in. when they said they wouldn't, we went in. we never succeeded in putting in place a replacement government under president

karzi that could demonstrate the capacity to not only control the country, take care of the people, and at the same time keep the al qaeda folks from coming back or keeping the taliban from coming back. that's what we're trying to do now. it's mixed success at the moment. general petraeus is doing a terrific job. our troops and embassy employees are doing a terrific job. but it is not clear to me that there is a sufficiently solid base within the karzai government to take this all over when we start to pull out. we start to pull out in july and he says we'll be out by 2014. we can't stay there forever. >> i'm a conservative republican. some would say not conservative enough. but i'm a conservative republican nevertheless and i have serious doubts about the mission there. not in terms of support what general petraeus is doing and everything. i was very much in favor of going in initially.

we had been attacked from there and so forth. according to leona, the head of the c.i.a., there are thousands in of al qaeda in afghanistan. our interest in the stable afghanistan isn't any greater than russia, china, and india. why don't we get those countries, and say, hey, look, we all have an interest in a stable afghanistan but we're doing all the work here? and if you don't come in and help us we're not going to stay forever. >> do you think we should get out? >> president obama has said we're going to start drawing down in july. i support that idea. we can't have an open-ended forever commitment there with 125,000 al qaeda and 110,000 -- and as colin said, we don't have a very good partner in the

government of afghanistan. he also said quite correctly the problem is not just afghanistan, it's pakistan as well. so the cobs quens of totally -- consequence of totally picking up and pulling out would be very adverse. but we ought to start having a debate about why we're there and how long we're going to stay. now, let me take advantage of the fact that you've got a wonderful audience here to promo an op ed that i am writing tomorrow morning so it's going to be in tomorrow morning's "washington post" and henry kissinger would tell you he wrote it. but if you look at it, it's very concise and very -- it's very -- you can tell it wasn't written by an academic. so go read it. >> what's it on? >> on the topic we're talking about here tonight. >> and we wrote it over -- >> not on afghanistan. no. it's on values and national

interest. >> i think i fully agree in terms of getting some kind of a better regional solution on afghanistan. i honestly the think that what we had to respond to 9/11 and afghanistan. no question about that. i think that we took our eye off the ball and there should have been more work done in afghanistan earlier. at this stage, i think that there are from reading newspapers there are some negotiations going on with the taliban, some attempt to try to get some structure there. and i fully agree with jim is that what i think there needs to be a regional approach to this. i've been saying that for a long time. there needs to be a group that works on this that has much more interest in it or as much interest as we do. >> we've been talking about national interests in afghanistan. and somewhat surprisingly, given the topic here, many people would say we were there for humanitarian reasons.

there was a time magazine cover of the woman wgs nose cut off, that we're there to help women and whatever it may be from humanitarian horse horrors. is that still a reason to be in afghanistan? >> i think we are really there to stabilize the country. and one way to help stabilize the count vi to perform this kind of activity and demonstrate our values. and how the people can have a better life in if they move in this direction. but not strictly for humanitarian purposes because it serves our interest to make sure that it doesn't become a haven for al qaeda again or the taliban. it may be down to 150 but they have a habit of growing. right now i think it's manageable if we can get the afghan government to start functioning like a real government and not just as a tribal chief. that's the part that is not working. and if it doesn't start to work then i think we're just going to have to pull back and go back to a counter terrorism

strategy where we watch it and if al qaeda starts to reap pear we go after it. i don't think you're going to have a lot of success in getting the neighbors to take this problem from us. >> there was an internal debate within this current administration as to whether we ought to have a counter insurgent strategy or a counter terrorism strategy. the vice president biden was very much in favor of a counter terrorism strategy. i think that would have been the better way to go. use counter terrorism in everywhere in the country except the population centers. do a counter insurgency strategy in the population strategies. >> so a smaller military footprint. >> yeah. and more predators and more counter terrorism in the vast reaches of the country. but try to do counter insurgency in the main cities. but we still have the problem of a partner. we still have the problem with respect to the government of afghanistan.

and we still have the problem that we are on the -- we are pulling the entire arall by ourselves. >> let me get back to the question of values and the role they play. when you teach this, when there's a duty to protect or there's a genocide or a humanitarian reason to go in, what rules do you apply when you say should we do it? should we not do it? i mean, is it what's doable, whether you -- you gave one rule earlier, it's good to have international consensus. >> i think first of all this is a new concept that's very hard to apply. and it's really runs into the issue of sovereignty. no country wants to have some other country come in there and telling it what to do. and we were talking about this earlier. is that let's say that something you know a lot about is new orleans was a mezz. there were people living under bridges and in convention centers and dying et cetera.

supposing somebody had said, well, the united states government isn't taking care of its people properly, the chinese and a french, and they came over and said we're taking care of this. so it's very difficult. and the question is under which circumstances. -- or we wanted to go into burma after the cyclone and their military people didn't want it. so i think it's an uncooked process at the moment. we are watching it evolve. but there is something about watching people being slaughtered or having a leader like gaddafi saying they're all rats and i'm going to kill them without doing something about it. and so i think the rules of the game are trying to be fig yurd out at the moment. clearly if it's ethnic cleansing and genocide, we thought it was worth using our military to do it. but it is very hard. i don't have any specific answers but it is part of the thing the national community is working on. and on the women issue.

a statement that i make readily is how women are treated in a society is an indication of how the rest of society is being treated. women are the prakeet in the coal mine. so whazz going on in afghanistan was not just about women but about the way people are treated there. >> i think madeline is -- has hit the central point. you have to look at each one of these as an individual case. why didn't we go into darfur sf and sudan? people were dying. i declared it a genocide when i was secretary of state. but i also knew that it was such a difficult mission, not something that the united states would be able to do to send in tens upon tens of thousands of soldiers to sit there in the desert and keep it calm. it wasn't going to happen. so each one has to be looked at separately. let me raise the issue of the media which we started to talk about at the beginning. you have to be aware of

something, clause described it this way. beware of the vividness of the transhnt impression. and our media these days race to the sound of the latest crisis and as soon as it stops being a profit center they move to the next crisis. and so cote d'voir a few months ago was the crisis due jur and they were all there and suddenly they went to tunice and they didn't even do a i pit stop they went to egypt and now they're in libya and now they're back to the budget battle here in the united states. >> should we send our military in the budget battle? >> the only place that we might be able to get something done. >> but the fact of the matter is, you have got to be very careful about how you deal with the vividness of the images that come in and flood into our

homes every night. and if the cameras go to away and they manage to solve it by themselves. so beware the vividness and the way it is highlighted in our media. >> we used to talk on the security council of the cnn effect. that is when the security council began to pay attention. >> and that's the problem facing the administration today. and in every white house there's a tendency because white houses are generally run by politicians, there's a tendency to get out in front of the last story. so u you feel like you have to react to what the last story was and sometimes you take action without taking it through. >> but that's -- >> but without knowing what the unintended consequences are sometimes, without having a clear and specific goal. before you have the support of the american people. and all the other problems that you need to sort through before

you decide particularly that you're going to use the military. >> there's something a little more subtle than what you called the cnn effect that you sort of raised, which is what i would call the anderson cooper effect, which is a humanitarian impulse, whether it's the new orleans convention center or benghazi where we have to act on moral impulses because there is a lot more vividness of the pictures of possible slauthers or possible genocide. >> we're compassionate people. and when we see these images they hurt us deeply and we want to see if we can solve it because we're a problem solving people. but you don't see any cameras in the congo. you don't see cameras in other parts of the world where horrible things are happening. so you have to consider all of these. but don't be overwhelmed by the vividness of the moment. and as jim said, increasingly i have seen it in administration after administration in the last 10 or 20 years, they're

chasing the news cycle. and they can't avoid it. because if the white house spokesman doesn't say something about ab issue or if the president doesn't suddenly appear, they get hammered beginning at 5:00 every evening. my solution is go back to the test pattern. bring it back. >> at 11:00. >> we all used to live very happily with walter cron cite from 6:00 to 6:30, then we had a nice evening full of situation comedies. and 11 at night, the test patterns came up, the planes flew up, they played the national anthem and we went to bed. started at 5:00. >> that's all very nice but it's not scoming back and i think we have to figure how to absorb the information and we can't be political. but there has been taken

advantage of it where somebody would say without mentioning names, a political person would say why aren't you doing something about libya? and the minute the president did something, why are you doing something about libya? and so you're damned -- sorry. if you do or you don't. but i think that we have to figure out how to deal with the information. just the way that the people in arab spring have to figure out how to deal with all the -- does the new technology of the internet and social network bend the ark of history towards democracy inevitably? >> yes. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. it does. it's a given. >> but somehow we've got to find a way to not reflexively in a knee-jerk way react to every 24 hour news cycle. that puts a big burden but

they've got to be up to it because one of these times we're going to react, we're going to find ourselves in a humongous war. we're going to have tons of casualties and the american people are going to have a different view about whether we ought to engage in these things. i mean, it's quite unfair to the people that we send over there who put their lives at risk when we haven't really thought it through. we haven't thought through who is it we're supporting. we don't know. we don't know who we're supporting in libya. i said it, i think it's an acceptable exception to my rule that you ought to have a national interest before you use the military. but we don't know who we're supporting there. we don't know what the unintended consequence of this are going to be. what about the rebels commiting atrocities on civilians who happen to be loyal to gadhafi 1234 what are we going to do about that? what about the support of the american people in terms of congress?

we don't have congressional support. i think it was the right thing to do. we are humanitarian impulses tell us it was the right thing to do. but you've got to look at all of these things and have a really clear-eyed view of where it's taking you. >> i think the problem is you don't have the time. i mean, we've all been involved in decision making processes. and part of the problem is the issues are happening at warped speed, too. so when -- i was upset in kosovo where somebody in congress said, well, not enough muslims have been killed yet. and then somebody said similar things about what was going on now. not enough people have died for us to show that we have to do something about it. so there's that problem. the other problem is that our decision making process is fascinating but it's complicated. we've all -- the way that the whole thing is set up, president obama was accused of taking too much time to think over what he was going to do in afghanistan.

so there is that kind of pressure all the time. you don't have the time to answer all these questions. i know when we were all in office you try. i think each of us tried in our own way to get the people do not sit in their offices trying 20 make bad decisions. they're really trying to get all the information that they can and still deal with the time pressure of some lunatic dictator saying he's going to kill everybody. >> but at the same time, and i think the example you just used is an appropoe one. president obama took the time and he did not allow himself to get pushed into it too quickly by the constant media drum beat or the drum beat from some people on capitol hill. and so i think we sort of have to encourage our political leaders to take the time you need to make a sound decision and to sometimes push back against all these forces. >> he not only took the time. he was wise enough to say we're going to do it with substantial

limitation ons our involvementer we're going to protect civilians. it's going to be strictly air. and then we're going to hand it off to nato. let me see if there are any particular questions. it's hard for me to see but feel free to raise your hand. and we might even find a microphone. i think there's a piece of paper waving. there must be a hand connected to it. yes. the microphone is coming up the aisle, i think. . .

i still remain somewhat hopeful and semi-optimistic because i think that the incentive for peace on the part of the palestinian people and the israeli people is so great that ultimately, we will find a way to get their. what has happened in the region in terms of the so-called arab

spraying has struck a certain degree -- arab spring has struck a fever in the hearts of the israelis. we do not know how this will turn out. mubarak was -- worked for 20 years to achieve a peace between arabs and israelis. egypt has a cold peace with israel, but a piece. he said his soldiers to fight alongside americans and the first gulf what we did burst gulf war and he was very cooperative in the war on turk. -- on the war on the terror of. >> i am not sure that we have man debt -- manned up enough to push for peace. we need to encourage the parties

to get to the table, to come up with some progress on this problem that has been out there forever. that is what i mean by it. our diplomacy has failed thus. i am not sure that we have been as hands-on as we ought to be. i am not criticizing administration's. most administrations wait until their second term to engaged. president obama engaged early in his first term and that is quite praiseworthy, in my view. president george h. w. bush engaged in his first term and go maybe you should wait until the second term to get with it, but once president clinton got with it, he really got with it and he came very close. he put some stuff on the table at camp david that will be the

ultimate solution to the problem. >> it is really regrettable because we have a huge national interest in peace between arabs and israelis. we have both that dead and we need to push both. >> -- we have both and we need to push both. >> i will never forget the last day of president clinton's administration. he collapsed at that point. did come as close as were not able to seize the day, so to speak. the burden fell on the palestinian side. we came en -- we came in with a very uneasy view about all of this. i started to engage, but the

president was holding back because of the failures of the past. in my time of the engagement, the frustration levels went up. i could not move the process along. >> do you agree that the administration did not engage in the first term? >> regrets in yet does not do any good one way or another. id did not get any better in a second term because the issues were just not ready to be resolved. nobody has ever got close as president clinton. condi tried very hard in the second term. i finally had to give up. i kept breaking him out of this would say toand i him, you will be out again. listen, you cannot just keep making statements.

i need you to make a statement and then make it happen. you need to talk about no more terrorism and and you have to make it happen. you are in general, a general. he was basically a political leader, he was not a statement. we could not get to anything moving. >> i think what they are saying ultimately, we cannot make decisions for them. we came very close. you cannot force them to do it. we all spend time with arafat. he liked being a victim. >> you took him to your farm. >> i certainly did. >> she kissed him. >> oh, my god. >> i invented the art of diplomatic kissing. you would not do that. [applause]

>> you are absolutely right. >> [inaudible] y libya and not the condo? -- why libya and not the congo? >> anderson cooper. >> the this conflict has gone on for an extended period it and it really is not on page one any more. the u.n. has peacekeepers in there and it is seen as a u.n. issue and " the u.n. peacekeeping operation has exploded in the last 20 years. it has been over and over and we have seen these problems. we did it in el salvador and haiti and it was there and it

did not get the kind of attention and did did not strike, the way with the highest. >> -- the way to libya has. >> this is the democracy aspect or the protest aspect was wire rope. there was the virus effect of not standing up when there is a crazy dictator there . there are other different problems derek. i think people are looking at what happened and there was a mess suit -- and there was a message. >> the crazy dictator was being visited by every president, prime minister, and secretary of state in europe and europe -- in europe. >> gaddafi. >> that is a really good question.

what about the ivory coast? >> you actually had four rules. we only did the doable. you do not try to do things -- " i never tried to do the undoable. but you did not treat away from difficult conditions. up a mission that is difficult, we will not involved with. it is in -- it is important to have a clear understanding of what you are trying to achieve. the libyan mission was fine to begin with. it is not clear to me that there was a slaughter impending, although the president did not want to take that chance. the no-fly zone turned into a no-tank zone and as a practical matter, we have entered this conflict on this side of the belligerents. we did not know who they are or what they are and we do not know what they stand for.

we do not know what we would get to trade >> if the dollar drifted what secretary baker said and started killing -- but we then have to attack the belligerents? >> that is a question. >> do we have a duty to protect in that event? that is the point that i am trying to make about unintended consequences. you really need to think them through. the next thing is arming the rebels. that is the next step. that will come before boats on the grounds. will we do that? i do not know. there will be a lot of pressure to do that, because he said gaddafi must go. even though that is not the un resolution.

i am against mission creep. i do not think it would be a smart thing for us to do. what other countries arm the rebels. >> i really do think -- there was no evidence, you have the man that has already shot thousands of people saying that he is going to shoot everybody. were we going to wait until everybody in the streets of tripoli was dead? i think the president did the right spain. what is very -- i think the president did the right frame it. do you not do nothing because you cannot do everything? >> i think it is an answer. >> that is why it is acceptable exception to what i stated at the beginning of the program. when you are talking about the military, you really need to have some sort of nexus with a national interest if you want to

keep the american people would be. >> the preston described it in terms of libya between egypt and tunisia, countries that have been very important u.s.. maybe it has to do with the oil and the passage to the mediterranean and refugees coming into europe. i can argue this case. there was a reason to do what. is more complicated than it was intended initially. >> the president said he did not want to take the chance. he did not want to wake up the next day and find this slaughter had taken place. the actual evidence were limited. i am not sure that an objective analysis was made of that. he was not going to go in and killed 750,000 people in benghazi. it was not going to happen in tripoli parade that is neither here nor there.

the president made the judgment and it played out while initially. it is not clear to me how this resolves itself. >> he has the advantage of being a foot taller than most people. is that you? >> it was not, but i have requested. you say that perhaps there was not time, but would we be in better shape if there had been an authorization by congress to conduct what is now happening in libya? >> the question and the broader question is why don't get congress to authorize these stains? should there have been a congressional authorization for libya and should we have the power to declare war restored?

>> we had a congressional authorization for the first gulf war. we were a republican administration with a democratic majority in both the house and the senate. they were very much against us doing what we did. was only -- it was only will we got the rest of the world that we were able to get to congress. 52 to 47 in the senate. should you do this in every case? my view is no, the president has the foreign policy power to do what president obama has done. where he has limited its ended is a limited exercise by way of definition. i do not think you have to go, but i would say to you that if you undertake military action

without the support of the american people, the way you get the support of the american people is to get congress to authorize it. if you undertake it, you will be under greater pressure to succeed than you would otherwise be. >> there was a senate resolution that supported a no- fly zone. obviously, it would be better, but it is a matter of time. >> the second gulf war had a resolution that was much stronger than the first gulf war. i think there is something wrong in our system. the war powers act that was put in place 30 years ago really is not working. very often, congress does not want to touch these trade they did not have hands on responsibilities. a recent study was done by warren christopher and jim bakker and the two of them put forth some very solid proposals

as to how we should square the circle of the supports. it has not been followed in a consistent matter for the last 40 years. >> it was not -- are report did not say that the executive had to get the consent of the congress and go but it called for enhanced consultation in every day practice of foreign- policy with the relevant committees on the hill and the president. we presented it to president elect obama in december of 2008. they looked at it and they studied it and as a matter of fact, i think they implemented some of the steps that were in our reports. they have not formally adopted the report. it is a good report and recommended to you.

>> a final thoughts on the role of values, democracy, being at the heart of what we are and do as a nation? >> their right essential to our foreign policy, they will remain so and they should remain so. but this is not an either/or situation. you should not ever feel that you should have to choose between principles and values and the national interest. always, we should support principles and values. we should do so militarily in certain instances and circumstances where we think it is important to do so. i think libya is an appropriate exception. the fact that he was weak and we do have some interest there, although not a major national interest. it is done an either/or situation.

once you put combat troops in a situation, you better have a national interest or you will lose the policy to public opinion. >> i cannot imagine having an american foreign policy that did not have values. look at the other way. at the pearly operated on policy, i did not think he would have the support of the american people. i think each of the issues is very keep -- if i listen to all of us, it is very clear that these are very important -- very hard decisions being made by people love the best interest of america at heart. that is what you do when you have these kinds of jobs. the purpose is to help protect america. the question is, under what circumstances are we better off? when countries are able to exercise their rights democratically, where people are not being slaughtered, where people he -- or human rights work, we're better off not go i

looked at it the other way. >> nobody would disagree with that. we have seen how our values have worked over the last 30 or 40 years at. it helped bring an end to the cold war. our values help destroy the iron curtain. our values helped change central and eastern europe into democracies that all wanted to join nato and the european union. we have seen it in our own hemisphere. we went to countries that are being run by dictators and all kinds, almost all are fully democratic with the exception of cuba them camp -- cuba and. we have seen this movement that has historically come into our direction, the values of democracy and freedom and economic freedom and individual human rights.

or we all agreed that value is our an essential underpinning of american foreign policy and diplomacy. but you not -- but you cannot just take values alone. what the american people ultimately support. the one issue we have not talked about is religion. it is interesting that in recent years religion has played a public discourse more and more of a role in influencing what our diplomacy should be or what our values should be. i guess we have to be very careful here. god is not mentioned in the constitution anywhere. there is only one reference to an almighty and it says in the year of our lord. our founding fathers were very careful about this as well.

nobody ever said better than the lincoln at the second inaugural. we both read the same bible. both paris cannot be entered. up there it is a divide profit of there that makes the ultimate judgment. -- there is a divine profit up there that makes the ultimate judgment. >> you wrote a book called "the mighty and the almighty." i think we all came from a generation of foreign policy people would say, this problem is complicated enough, let's not bring god and religion intuit. but the bottom line is that it happens. but we were at camp david, there was a lot of discussion about what was in the bible. god had given that piece of land, both of them thought, to them, and you have to be

knowledgeable about what role religion is playing in these countries. i think it is a mistake. we have to the separation of church and state, but our diplomats understand more about the religious basis of a variety of problems. i would not have religious people at the negotiating table, but they certainly could help in avoiding some of the problems in the first place. >> a final words? >> tolerance. the best word to end with. >> all of you represent the core of american values. thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, why is it participated in the president clinton addresses can start case. a look at the upcoming canadian elections. russian prime minister speeches -- speaks. tomorrow, on "washington journal, washington times contributor discusses how globalization affects the american economy and manufacturing base. david clark talks about new roles concerning home foreclosures and what they mean for consumers. tom cochran, executive director of the u.s. conference of mayors describes how anti-government sentiment on the internet is fuelling the recall drive against mayors in cities across the country. "washington journal" at 7:00 eastern on c-span. a look at the presidency of bill

clinton and the investigation by independent counsel kenneth starr. from georgetown university, speakers include the former white house special counsel to president clinton, as well as former independent counsel to the whitewater and monica lewinsky investigations. you'll also hear from ken gormley. the event was moderated by political editor in chief and begins with an introduction from georgetown law professor. this is an hour and 35 minutes. >> it is my pleasure to welcome you to the georgetown law center.

when he was the justice department appointed regulatory council. there are a lot of books out on this. in american history, but i think we can be assured there is none exhaustiven ken's treatment. all laws that were involved would write to the index. i think all of us go in because it is extraordinary work. i will buy to introduce to you the moderator of this panel, john harris. john was the reporter who covered many of these events. he is the author of the critically acclaimed book "survivor." he is the founder and editor of political magazine. i cannot think of a better

person to grill are participants about the events. >> ok, thank you. welcome to everyone here. welcome to the people watching on c-span. i hope we will have a lively and robust discussion. we do have to start with a disclosure. all of us up here on this panel were part of the deep fraternity of people and we felt like we run at ground zero. graves zero of an enormous story -- ground zero of an enormous story. we must be a little bit sensitive. we do not want to feel like we're grandpa simpson or something like that. as the book shows, there is

quite a lot of indoor and relevance to some of these controversies that were all consuming at the time in the 1990's and may now seem quite remote given everything that has happened to this country and to this world since then. if you dig a little deeper, there is an enormous amount of topicality of a contemporary relevance. i am hoping that we will get a chance to explore this in a vigorous way to the. -- today. our panelists have very different perspectives. maybe we will find some surprising convergence an agreement after all these years. but i would like to see some vigorous back and forth. as the afternoon continues, we hope to hear from you in the audience with your questions. i would like to introduce several people who are not going to need a lot of introduction.

we will start down that this end, robert fiske is remembered as the first whitewater independent counsel before there was ken starr. he was appointed to his job. your special counsel, right? >> i think the count -- i think the title was the same. >> it was appointed by janet reno to investigate the whitewater controversy, which was a controversy about a land deal in arkansas. his main credential, the key one was that he was the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york.

next is greg craig, former white house counsel. he drafted to leave his job in the state department and come help shepherd his defense in number monica lewinsky affair and the impeachment that followed. he had a critical vantage point of one of the lawyers that represented president clinton. gill davis was the attorney who filed the lawsuit that became clinton v. jones. it marked with the whitewater inquiry in ways that surprised everybody at the time. it eventually became one in the

same case. a very prominent washington attorney and became a lawyer for monica lewinsky. he helped to negotiate her immunity deal that was critical to the case. one of the important prosecutors in the opposite is down here at the end, saw was some burk. he was deputy independent counsel under can start. he was a principal prosecutor in the investigation. one of the lawyers to question president clinton and his grand jury testimony. we were going to have somebody with a critical perspective to offer, the former director of the secret service during the clinton administration, who gave some past and up -- fascinating testimony to our author here for the book. he had a number of revelations.

he is under the weather and could not make it. let's have a round of applause for these panelists. [applause] >> we are all junkies for the story. the burden is on us and on new as the author of this well- received book. if you have been holding back, and now is the time to go and buy that book. i assume that is available on amazon.com. the burden is on us to explain to people why this story matters. i would ask you to start off with some introductory thoughts as to how old did you research the 10-year research?

did it fundamentally changed our understanding of what the showdown, what it was about? how did that change our understanding and what do you think is the long-term effect of that monumental 1990's clash? how has that changed our politics? >> john -- >> d.o. agree with the "washington journal -- do you agree with the washington -- >> that bird was a typo. every once in awhile, that happens. one of the biggest challenges in writing a book like this, because it deals with very recent and very painful political history, was simply to get the people to talk. you can certainly appreciate

that, john. since they are among friends, i will tell you the story of my first meeting with president clinton. i had spent five years just trying to get him to give me 50 minutes to pitch this idea that the was going to cooperate. i finally got a call in september of 2004. he was in pittsburgh for a book signing. he had just signed a thousand pot -- copies of his book. it was just the two of us and a table and president clinton came in famished after signing all of these books and looked around. he was on some kind of diet at the time and he was picking for the chicken salad. he got a big plate of french fries and he said, let steve some fries.

we went over and we sat and talked and spend an hour and he agreed to cooperate and agreed to sit down for some interviews. i was ecstatic and i went back and i was dancing around my desk. today's letter, and my research assistants said, did you hear about president clinton? he is having quadruple heart bypass surgery. i said, the french fries, i've killed president clinton. it was nothing short of a miracle when i got a call from his lawyer about a week after he was released to begin returning to activities to go have our first interview session it was a remarkable project from beginning to end. but you never know when a project like this is going to implode and you are shut off. i intentionally approached as my first interview wee ken starr.

and there was a reason for that. because that book came out right as the monica lewinsky incident was exploding in the media, i became a talking head and all the special prosecutor stopped. there was not a lot of us around to talk about it. i was writing cop ads for "the new york times." most of what i wrote a would be viewed as pro-clinton. i did not think it was an impeachable offense. -- offense. but i never criticized test star personally. i have great respect for him. i did not reveal him as a right- wing conspiracy or with horns

coming out of his head. if carol massar -- ken starr -- i want to write this neutral account that would stand up 100 years from now. you cannot do that if you cannot talk to one side. i was ready to scrap the project if he did not agree. fortunately, he did. this was right as he was leaving the office of independent counsel. he was extremely cooperative in wide-ranging interviews, as were his deputies. i also spent a lot of time in arkansas. i drove around hot springs with

one of bill clinton's mother's best friend to see where he had grown up. i talk to lost -- i talked to a lot of advisers who had known the clintons since the earliest political days. but i also went to texas to interview people who had grown up with ken starr. what was so interesting to me is how much these two men had in common, which you would normally not think. it was they were two sides of the same coin parade they were born within a month of each other within a couple of hundred miles from each other. i saw the house where he grew up. he lived in a little house that had been an army barracks that was dragged out and planted in a cow pasture that is where his

father made his living. these were to self-made man u.n. risen to the very pinnacle of their respective professions and very young ages that is why this was so tragic when you see the collision and the train wreck. i always say, you could not has made this story up in your wildest imagination if you had set out to write the craziest piece of fiction. i said to some of the folks during his television interviews, i will not name the tv stations, they were concerned about how thick the book was. some of the harry potter books are longer than this. i really do give a lot of credit to both president clinton and ken starr. this was a very painful subject for both of them. they both knew that someone had to write this story.

they did understand -- i made it very clear that this would not be an account or a bad the other side are treated the other side as evil incarnate. and yet they still cooperated. it was only because of their willingness to cooperate and the trust of so many people, friends, family, people here on this stage, who did sit down and share their recollections of this very difficult periods in our history that i was able to tell this incredible story and preserve it for history. in many ways, i just let them tell the story, which made it even more interesting for me. it is a special honor for me to be here for this particular gathering, and i appreciate the professor for putting this together because this is the first time this group or a group

like it has gone to gather to talk about these events. i really do believe it is meaningful. >> get a quick summary of your title. >> when i am talking about the death of american virtue, i am talking about a notion of public virtue. the real concerns here is that both sides lost their way and both sides forgot how important it is to exercise restraint when you were trying to exercise power responsibly, and that was the point of the overwrought title. >> i am fascinated by what if questions. critical moments in the plots. if the ball and just bounced a little differently, how would

history have unfolded? i did these events never come into light, never been investigation -- investigated. other scenarios for president clinton would have been forced from office. that is among the things i will pursue. you were the subject of a lot of what if questions. bill clinton believes that if you had stayed in your position as the first white water prosecutor, this would of baalbeck and wrapped up -- this would have all been wrapped up in a fair way. some people take it back further than that. even you should not has been appointed. the initial facts in whitewater never justified the appointment of a special counsel.

it was president clinton himself who called for an independent counsel, saying that this was needed in order to get to the bottom of the controversy. he believed that it would be a way of getting this off the national agenda as a way of removing the destruction of whitewater. that turned out to be a miscalculation on his part. let me ask you, should whitewater ever have been investigated in the first place? >> you have to go back to what was going on in 1993. there were public allegations about impropriety in connection to loans. more important, but there were

public allegations by a municipal judge in little rock the claimed that when he was president of a company called capital management, president clinton came to him and asked him to take out a loan for capital management from the small business administration representing but capital management needed the money to run its business when the money was going to be used by president and mrs. clinton to help pay back their loan. if that was true, that would have been a federal crime, a false statement to a government agency. most civil felt there was a factual basis for janet reno to ask for -- to appoint an independent counsel. while the initial the cry for the appointment of an

independent counsel came from republican senators, there were also several democratic senators who enjoyed and the request that there be an independent counsel. president clinton asked for the appointment of an independent counsel. the original point was very justified. >> people this think that ken starr was an irresponsible prosecutor, or lost his sense of proportion, if a professional prosecutor like robert fiske was in there, this would never have been pursued. the more think of this case from a controversy about real-estate and political influence to investigation of what president clinton did or did not do and

whether he testified truthfully about monica lewinsky. would you have stopped this case from morphing from a real- estate case to a sex case? >> that is an easy question. >> we started in january of 1994 . by august, we had a team of experienced federal prosecutors. we were moving at full speed and ready to proceed with every indictment that subsequently came down later. i do feel that when i was replaced, there was predicted

slowed things that -- it slows things down. ken wanted to bring in his own people and it's time for them to become familiar with what it's been going on. we had been able to move very expeditiously making decisions and i think we would have moved the investigation faster if we would have been able to finish its. whether we would have been finished with it completely by the time monica lewinsky came up, i cannot say. we would have moved more quickly. i n not an imposition -- i am not in a position to answer the second question. i did not burst speculated what i would or would not have done. i've tried to point out in support of ken starr, that there was some misperception --

misconception that the investigation was about the president having sex with somebody. the basis was there was an obstruction of justice element of it that was similar to an obstruction of justice issue that he was already looking at at the time. i believe that is the way he testified it. i have never tried to put myself in that position because it is very difficult to do that unless you were there at the time. >> i was hoping the 151st time would be the charm. u.s. said, -- you had said, in the critical months of this controversy, what has happened

by that time? president clinton has given the grand jury testimony. he went on to the public and gave a speech that was briefly contract. the main thrust of the speech was defiant and angry and that caused a political backlash. the there was a very fragile moment there. you could envision the circumstances were that fragile moment would have forced president clinton to leave office by resignation. you were a few votes away from a serious democratic backlash. >> i did traded a statement that i had in my conversations 34 days after i started working or the lawyers had been on talk

shows and had not done well. tom daschle had written a letter to the president, saying, get rid of the lawyers. i talked to kent conrad and said, you are about three days away from getting a delegation of senate democrats asking him to resign. >> ok. did you agree or disagree? >> when i arrived at the white house in september, things were not jolly. you identified to us as members of a fraternity that were close to ground zero. >> i was using that in a gender neutral way. a corps of people who had been living this and arguing about ince. the years sens

tell us about what you saw when you arrived at the white house. >> there were two worth eight -- there were two or three things i recall. many of the people on the senior staff had recently bought their grand jury transcripts to review and correct. when i went around to introduce myself and talk to them, they were giving me readings from their testimony. there was also a feeling of betrayal by the president to the members of the senior staff, so there was not a great attitude toward the future. >> they personally felt they had been misled? >> that is correct. >> by the time the admitted to

it, the country had long since body was true. >> i did not put them on a polygraph. i think there was sadness in the white house. >> the case of clinton vs. jones had not gone as far as it did. in the summer of 1997, you and the president lawyer had worked out a deal to settle at the paula jones case for the full amount. along with a statement by president clinton that she had done nothing wrong in the hotel in little rock or the alleged sexual advance was taken place.

dealnd bennett's cut the and the president agreed to it. at the last moment, the deal falls apart. explain what happens. >> it would has been a good victory for her and the restoration of what she said was in her interest and that was her reputation that she wanted to enjoy. there would have been more money for her, frankly, than what was eventually on the table. the lawyers did cut our fees way down to persuade her. she was influenced by her

husband, who wanted to play the tough guy, and a woman in california the became a spokesperson for her and influence ter that maybe she should make more money out of this. as far as my colleague and dieie thought that once a litigant's gives up, and pays the amount of money on the table and more than that, something that we could not have received without an agreement, and that is a statement by the president that redeemed reputation. once there was on the tape -- once that was on the table, there was nothing further to fight about and so we return from the case.

there were trying very hard to persuade her -- >> did you ever get paid? >> yes. ultimately, there was might put on the table by -- during the course of the succeeding lawyers. frankly, i think the judge was perturbed a bet that the case had not settled. she made eight comments -- she made a comment that there was a reasonable attorney's fees available or should be if there was money on the table. we did get a fairly sizable amount of that. the other lawyers that we should get about $25,000. we did not think that was appropriate so we maneuvered to get a larger fee, and we did. but i always regretted that she did not take that settlements.

you ask what the consequences were, we would never have heard of monica lewinsky. we would never have seen and impeachments. i did not know whether politically what what happens with respect to the politics of it, but i do think that if you look at a biblical analogy. clinton begat paula jones. jones begat monica lewinsky. monica lewinsky begat im impeachments. it is not provable, but every place that he went, he said, i will restore dignity to the office of the presidency. as close of an election that

was, it made the difference. there were other things that made some differences also, but that was the underlying. fame he never had to say anything more. i do not think people were very anxious to see the people leave office. frankly, i was not too terribly anxious to have that happen. it was either about sex or perjury. there was another middle ground that nobody took, and that was proportionality. should the president has been mph and found guilty? that is an interesting question that nobody debated. i think our politics would have been different. the impeachment would not have occurred. it would have been more helpful

to have had a decision that says something about to we are as a people in that we all worship our political freedoms. equal justice before the law, that paula jones was not below the law, and president clinton was not above it. with the interest of all been considered. it would have been better had she taken that deal at the time. >> bill clinton believes that her case was about politics from start to finish. what have you concluded about that? were the people who were pushing her not to take the settlement

offer, with a motivated by politics or something else? >> at the time, there was money at issue. at the beginning of the case, and for some time, the delays in getting this case over with changed her view. it changed mine, too. i thought she was entitled to get some remuneration. initially, she did not want to bring this case. this was 1991, she told her friends and family about what happened, and they said, you need to say something. she said, discussed is my ultimate boss, police guarding the door, i will lose my job, i

may lose my boyfriend's, nobody will believe me because it is hemmed and me. -- him and me. the only thing she did was registered to vote and she voted for the republican candidate in that state'. a lot of people said, why did she delayed? >> it is clear. she did not want to bring a suit when it was put in her face and when she had to say yes or no, she got her back up >> if i could jump in. i interviewed robert, the editor of the spectator magazine. he said it was a mistake that the ever published it in the

article that said a woman had gone up to this hotel room. they have a policy against using names. if that had not been there, none of this would have happened. >> it was not the first warrior. her first lawyer was a family friend. there is an exclusion -- an expression of this person that manages it. somebody is on all five sunday shows in one day. it qualifies as the fur. he was the first person ever to do it. it is so much easier these days. he is the first person who ever did it.

the general consensus is that he did not necessarily serve her interest law by allowing this to become such a public spectacle. some people wonder if he did it intentionally or not. he did manage to keeper in the game long been a weapon is not an agreement. it perhaps later for making a premature deal. what if he had been contacted on the very first day? >> let me say something. he is the finest trial lawyers that i have ever known. i do not mean to pump you up any higher than you should be. there is no one that comes close. >> you are getting in legal trouble. what would have been different?

what would you have done? you came in several months later, right? >> we came in. we read the co-counsel assisted by a lady. we came in after some time. the family was getting concerned that the case was not per pressing to a point where they were comfortable. what would i have done the first day? i think we would not have given any interviews to everybody. we were told that the counsel's office had decided that monaco was in double -- wasn't -- that monica l. was in jeopardy.

we heard that. we both fell there was to be a child. we would have somebody named bill clinton saying that he did not have sex with that woman. that is a pretty good witness. we negotiated a disposition by gaper total community. that is what she is wanted -- that is what she wanted. >> was there a scenario where they said to have at it? but we did not use those words with ken starr. i do not know if you were there. >> i was. >> you were.

he said he would prosecute like one of his associates. we simply cannot plead guilty to anything. we left. we said the same thing. >> i do not remember that meeting. >> i remember you came in and said we were man enough. you were. >> we had nothing to do what transpired. we came in the case. >> what if you had been able to strike a deal right at the beginning in january? how would that have been different? do you think he would actually

would have done that? >> i was persuaded that their people on the staff that wanted her prosecuted. the probably blow. >> it is a question that has been talked but many times. the consensuses is that we are by entering the statement. it was not significantly different. there is a historical thing. it is standard operating procedure. when someone wants to enter into

a guilty plea, there is a proper section. ginsberg did not understand the significance of that. he wanted to strike an agreement of some kind without bringing her in for an in person proper. before i came to the office, hubbell had been allowed to strike a deal without the offer. i have to say i was one of the ones that insisted that no deal could be stuck with out a proper. if we had done that, i think there is a much better chance that president obama would not

be able to survive. he was able to get by. with respect to the second question, i do not believe that ken starr would have prosecuted monica. by that time, the decision making was that it would not do that. grex it brings us to something that he hit in the book. it removes a up to the nitty gritty. the allow people to take a much more zealous approach. that is at odds with the difficult democratic pork trail

-- portrayal. give us a picture of how he that critical of the senate? career as a prosecutor. he kind of experience of wanted a u.s. attorney's office. i do not accept the characterization of specially remove. i want to rely upon the advice of senior prosecutors who have been around for a long time. i have no doubt that it jackie

bennett had said to him camera have this woman come in? here is what she has told us. i do not think we should go any further with it. we should tell them about it. maybe we can have someone else look at it. i do not have any doubt that he would go about it. >> why not? this had nothing to do with the initial matter. why not use discretion? >> you are asking me? >> yes. >> we did not do it that way. we are investigating a lot more

than just the guarantee we were investigating a number of other things, some of which we have been asked to do -- we were but gave at and obstruction of this. we found out he was getting $700,000 from friends of the white house. there is no suggestion whatsoever that he was engaged in any effort to silence it. he was instrumental in getting employment in getting some of those contracts including from

the company. if you recall, the story turned out to be accurate about monica lewinsky. for they ever get a job? -- more than ever getting a job that we were concerned in general about the obstruction of justice. this is something that is very similar to this. it is close enough somehow do investigate. it was almost immediately cooperated. >> did you believe that bill clinton was a fundamentally dishonest or corrupt man? what do you think now? he was there for a full decade.

what was your basic take on this man? he tried to understand there is one aspect. . i do not think i am the person to ask about what they are not any politician is fundamentally corrupt. i'm not the person you want to ask. but sworn to driven by a real fundamental in the heat of the mon moment -- in the heat of the moment? >> loven " my favorite part. -- let me quote my favorite part. i want to say this in a friendly break. this has been a very thinly sessions so far. i want to be accurate.

it was very difficult. it was very difficult to investigate the clintons' if you were a prosecutor for very long and not have an animus. it is not because they were evil are guilty. the way that the respondent to the investigation, they remember that can star -- every prosecutor should be questioned about the method. i thought he was being given to a personal vilification. it depends on what time you are talking about. it is very hard not to have one

to somebody who you believe has hired private investigators. i do not know that answers your question. we would be looking for any reason to give him. if you are saying was there one, yes. >> let me say this. what you have is a politician he lied about a sex scandal. i do not think that makes them corrupt. i do not think he was a corrupt person. he did what most politicians do. it is something that i have been interested in from the time that i was representing paula jones. it is just before the grand jury was in battle.

i think it may say something about can start. i admire him greatly. abed i think he was a great person for clinton to have under these circumstances. he kept his thoughts to himself. he did not go to the microphone and talk about how bad it was anything else. there is always -- it is always nice to know the answer. why did not your office hold the address until after the grand jury testified. but -- until they testify? >> if memory serves me correctly, the -- i am trying to remember. i think there is almost

immediately a week. it may have been from the bureau. and maybe getting confused with the fingerprint on some predict in a broader sense, let me say i do not know the answer to that question. the fact that can star made it that clear -- this is something we forget about. he worked with and made it clear to the white house what those results were. they knew because the second one was taken. if the results of the first one had not been significant, he made it clear to the white house that the president should not lie about the relationship. the question is a good one. a prosecutor would say i cannot

believe you do something like that. why not keep it secret? >> the fact that he did not says a lot about him. >> that maybe get a good time for your into debt. he speaks to that. >> i was granted say, i think that is what because it to finally end. i think when the address was delivered to the fbi, they immediately went to the white house. they to dna from the president. that is important. who knew what was on the address until they did the dna? then they establish a relationship. that is why it was important that they do that right away. they would not know what the deal would show.

>> before the grand jury met, that could be. >> he has an antidote in debt. they have told you something relating to the sequence for that. >> here is the director of the secret service and fought fiercely to per bent agents from having to testify. he thought the set a dangerous precedent. in the middle of all of this happening, he told me -- and i did check out this information back he was pulled aside by a high-level fbi officials when the blue dress was being tested before president clinton was about to testify on the grand jury. he said there is no dna on it.

it is possibly a set up. >> this was an attempted said that to get him to bring that back to president clinton to have and then live on the testimony. that would be the end of things. that is what he perceived. >> you said you check it out. did you ever find any verification? >> i did. i did not -- i did cooperate a discussion with a high-level fbi officials. >> did you know what the content was? >> that would be amazing to me at that was accurate. >> the footnotes are worth reading. i believe the person filing said "no comment." >> let's get down to the table. do you have something you a bite to weigh in on? by i have no comment to make.

after reading your and ship all crack --, i've got a the by site the present -- the president lost his way. if you are talking about abuse of power, the comparison is not even close. we came that close to a white ring true. the case was heavily political. they organize it. they conducted research in order to get that credibility. the year to take the settlement demonstrated. it is more than trying to get compensation.

the replacement was all politics. it is a partisan independent counsel. it is conducted in the house of representatives. it is all politics. it is described in great detail. the procedures were fair. everyone had an opportunity to present the case. i know the house prosecutors would disagree with my analysis. there have been an obstruction of justice. they did not get 51 votes. of all the institutions as saved

it from a grotesque miscarriage of justice, that was under way for many months. >> there is a little bit every battle on that. i am a conservative republican. this is a case and not a cause for me. when we entered the case, this is going to be a case on the court. in order to do a good job, we need something we did not have, an army of investigators. there is not any right when it

-- when you are that control anything we did. you could do it. he could disclose the depositions. this was not the case at all. does good for the group to bring down the presidency. >> i just pointed out the preposition. there may be three questions. the rest is all about monica lewinsky. >> this is another group of lawyers. this is not something that was a

cause for us. we had a client. we did what we could for the client. the client did not agree with us about it. what they did, i doubt that the a cause for that. i do not think we can all close. he lied to congress. he lied to his cabinet. he waited a long time. it is then remarked here.

had it taken her statement, i think he would have been out of office. the term that he had plenty of time to get people's attention. i do not think there is any reason to think that the president himself is the one that dug his own. >> he is it fair minded man. these are different views the we have heard. >> after august 5, i was just a spectator. betterer buy any position. >> i was not anything but a spectator until september 1998. i will say that this is where

the piece of this comes in. the eight played a hand in all of this. you have all the pieces coming together like a perfect storm. some people were trying to use that to bludgeon the president even before he came into office. there were people trying to do that. you had them pointing their figures at the clintons and saying they were participating in clinical wrongdoing. then you had the tragic suicide of vince foster followed by allegations by paula jones. people started connecting dots. you have this whole feeling of conspiracy. then you had a modicum of the wind to matter.

he cannot have written this story about president clinton's participation. they are granting this in the paula jones case. these gentlemen are on television saying they will go through the issue of other women. there is an element of recklessness that he did not have all these issues coming together. you cannot have produced this at the end of it. where there is some folks that wanted to have a regime change? i have no doubt about that at all. when we spiral into this, i do think that it was all out war there by both sides. that was not healthy for the country. crack and want to get a question

to invite people to come up. -- >> i want to get a question to a black people to come up. it does strike me as one of the aspects of this whole story that has continuing real. i'm talking about the culture of suspicion and permanent warfare that does seem to evade our politics. you said that the facts seem an ampere guess -- seem on ambiguous. there is a fool industry behind the notion that the facts are different than that. you are part of an official proceeding. many people do not want to believe that.

the story never ann's. we do not have a common body of truth, things that everybody believes. >> here is your take on that. >> we are nearing the end of it. it was important to move quickly on this. there is an issue as to whether he had committed suicide. people alleged she had been murdered because he knew too much. it was related to this. it would issue eight reports.

our office must have received 500. they are all identical. this is a system. we have not issued any reports. there is nothing for anyone to judge whether we are right or wrong. this is a preconceived view. it concluded it was a suicide it would be a huge cover-up. one of the principal allegations was that this was not a suicide. he is murdered. we retained the investigation.

the chief examiner from seattle book aren't forces. -- was from the armed forces. they voted that this was a suicide. this is what we do all the time. is this a suicide? is this a homicide? on a scale of one to 100, this is like a 99 in terms of how easy it is to conclude that it was a suicide. impossible he said. i have dealt with a lot of experts in my career as a lawyer. i've never heard anybody that

categoric -- be that categoric. it is very simple. they found him in a position in the park. he was wearing a white shirt. it was spotless. as soon as they pick them up, all the blood that ran down to his legs ran up to his chest. by the time they took him, his shirt was soaked with blood. there is no way he could have been murdered someone else. we felt this was a no-brainer. we cannot understand why they are people questioning in it. ken starr looked into this.

he came to the same conclusion. it did not make any difference to the people that bought this is a some sort of a wet dream -- sir -- sort of a white ring conspiracy. >> why did they not announced when the president was cleared that he had been cleared until the impeachment had been done. no one had announced this. >> this had been announced. was maybe three or four other matters that were open. that understanding is that we announced this.

we have been criticized for taking too long on the investigation. we are in a public prosecutor. there are things that we might have done differently. i do not know the particulars of it. there is no evil intent are anything. and the people thought we took too long on the white house files. >> i cannot speak to it. it strikes me as something reason people can disagree. >> i am not aware of that. >> any recent graduate. i was about 12 and this is going on.

-- 12 when this was going on. >> you probably read in your bedroom at night. >> did you interview newt gingrich about his affair that was occurring at the same time he is trying to do this? have any few determined what the definition is? >> i did seek to interview newt gingrich. he declined to be interviewed. most people to cooperate. there were a few who did not for various reasons. there is certainly a number of people who were directly involved. he was one of the lawyers in the impeachment trial. he pushed the impeachment at various stages.

the most obvious one was robert livingston who ended up presiding after he was out it. he did cooperate with me. >> thank you. >> i with like to ask about the star report -- starr report. alice busch troubled by his riding an indictment of the present to be a -- i was much trouble by his right cheek and indictment of the president to be. it did not support a report. every previous independent counsel had it referring to a list of things that congress should read.

it is not an even-handed treatment. i talked to him about my objections. it is fundamentally troubling when you have the executive branch making the case for the house pate it didn't think the house would have gotten as far as that have. i'm wondering what your take on that. >> >> that is a great question. >> he did not get over that. >> does not just the fact that it is written as an indictment. this page after page of nearly a pornographic detail.

wasn't the intent to shop sensibility that clinton would be forced to resign? is not a legal act but a political act. blacks not on our part. i cannot speak for the people of the house. the three different questions are the comments. resigned over that? amazingly not. he was in full agreement. he resigned because he did not believe that they should have gone when he was asked phorcys

been a -- when he was asked or subpoenaed. it was mystifying to me. i think the first issue would have made much more sense. my recollection is when the report was sent over it was made very clear. the congress to think about whether or not to release it. i can only tell you my view. i did not expected to in the form of which it was released. i am sure i believe things that

happening. there were conspiratorial. i think this is a valid criticism. people have made the criticism that when he did that he just said here was the testimony. i think your comment was that they may have not connected the dots. perhaps there was a feeling. i was not involved in the decision. certainly i felt like if you sent it over congress would not get it. i am not as concerns about the

separation of power issues as you are. if you believe that was valid, i do not see anything inherently wrong. there is nothing inherently wrong with the document. i think the more troubling thing with the independent counsel statute. this is something almost nobody has written about. q is running the grand jury. >> fish and not have been able to do it. >> we had to take in order for it. we got it.

>> i got a question. what has happened to monica lewinsky? >> we are not in constant touch. she did leave the country. they studied at the london school of economics. she apparently led a very quiet life. she is back and forth between california where her father is in new york where her mother lived. she is riding very well. i am not as in touch with her as can is. >> i tried to respect her

privacy. he has clearly moved on. we talked up until the time the book was ready to come out. she was very forthcoming. anyone who has read it knows that i was surprised myself by how much sympathy i ended up having for monica lewinsky after this. this was the most horrible experience in her life and your family's life. they do not understand the story. i do not want to go into all the details. i found her to be extremely smart. she certainly commanded this during the effort to get her to testify during the impeachment trial. she is very smart.

she was burned by many people. she is one of the few people who openly said to me how much he regretted the part she played and what ended up being april tragedy. >> their rohm & hoss at the end of our time. at a question about a lot of things. if you look at the way the public receives can start ken s --tarr's decision, it is more widely accepted. they are pointing in the independent counsel. it is they are trying to create more public confidence and what they would conclude.

someone mentions the prosecutors. there are plans to arrange the other ones. it is a minute after he was appointed. there is a lot of that. they are using that on both sides. >> and the key notice celebrities out. bill clinton always had it on. the statute of limitations is over. >> right behind her is senator

mark warner. no matter what, you are always the governor. he could still be a governor. there is no higher position. in any event, i have some final thoughts. i would like to ask everyone briefly. i think one of the forces that you put aside as part of the defense. he said that impeachment was a travesty because it would change the balance of power and we can future presence.

the raises the larger question of whether this monumental battle has not have lasting consequences. have we changed things in fundamental ways? ask people to give their take on a very quickly. >> i think one of the things is the increasing better polarization of the debate. it is a country -- problem they have in the country today. we go back 20 years and things got done. there are different views. people try to make something happen. now it is so much more. they stand on this principle.

this certainly not responsible. it is reflected in what has been going on ever since. >> i think the statute or inspired. i think it is pretty much held before the republic. i also agree that the intensity that began in the early days of the clinton administration in terms of political combat, which was unusual in that era has continued. the stakes have gotten higher. i think the bush verses and gore of litigations did not help. have been other things that have

contributed. in my lifetime there is always been partisan debate in disputes with the ability to work out common resolutions. that was not possible during the clinton impeachment. you had to have votes. >> of the talk about the consequences of this. it seems to me that clinton should not have been convicted of the impeachment. it is in place. we are lucky to be in a country we can have this go on. as bitter as the fight was in not have it. i do not think we came close enough.

i think the processes worked. on the proportionality, this was an issue that had to be dealt with. it was dealt with. he had a $90,000 content citation. she also submitted his behavior to the arkansas bar. this is a serious impact s -- a series. he had to confess to the special counsel we can push it under the

rug. she tried to subvert her bright -- her rights to his testimony and the grand jury saying the same thing. the confessed to what he said. they have survived it. i think we will do it again. we ought to be proud of the fact that our process is over 200 years.

neither one ended in a conviction. it is a serious remedy. they have been enacted by all the people. his sense -- behavior was risky by all. we should have a commander in chief and their president who has the respect and confidence in dealing with people here and around the world. i think we learned some lessons on this. i think it worked. >> i agree. i think it worked. i think the failure to continue this was a good thing.

>> ditto. your book is a consensus here. it is a terrific job of importing. i do think this whole episode shows what happens in this country is not at its best. the scene in the book with the title comes from is where all of this pandemonium has broken out. they are tumbling into an impeachment trial on both sides. they are fighting to the death. you are put here. this is in 1998. he put prices on values we did not want to drink.

for fighting passed all reason his casualty's will be counted for years to come. there are times men of the year. it is a profoundly negative way. this did mark the popularization of this angry divide in our country that we see today. certainly he had other instances of the country fighting. this is the first time with the public was dragged into the fray. if you go into supermarkets and see people pointing their fingers and saying decide was evil and decide was evil. it is the beginning of the bread state, please state.

here is the scary part. one thing that was so chilling to find dow -- it turned out were at the time we refe fighting over this, they are trying to determine which women had had affairs with then governor clinton 20 years earlier. there was an undisclosed attempt to assassinate president clinton in the philippines. they received intelligence of a possible bomb. they diverted the motorcade and found a bomb under a bridge big enough to blow up the whole

presidential entourage. they determined that the bomb had been planted there by a little monetarist name osama bin laden -- a little known terrorist named osama bin laden. all the sort of obsessed with paula jones and monica lewinsky. people inside and outside our country were plotting our attack. for me the only hero and this whole book was the american public who did get the picture very early, long before president clinton committed for his affair. they knew this was wrong. they knew the punishment did not fit the crime. let's go back to the business of governing the country. i continue to believe it is important to look in the mirror. everyone is taking ownership of this.

if you do not realize that restraint is important here, we do not know that sometimes prosecutors a president can and should not do things and that he must realize that restraint is an indispensable piece of what we call american virtue. that is what we need to come back on a wider scale. this is why i spent nine years on this book. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] cable satellite corp. 2011]