every time we looked at a lunar rock and we saw this process where they would turn into glass and form the minerals was a fundamental operation in samples. . . .

this suggested a giant impact at that time. take it back to the tertiary, 65 million years ago, and it is responsible for many fossil's. impact might have caused extinction at that boundary, which includes dinosaurs but many other species. we look for a crater that age. no one could find one. they started thinking that the

crater is not preserved anymore. finally they found a crater. by later carbonates 180 million -- 180 kilometers across. define high amounts of iridium and grains upshots courts. grains of shock quartz. we them previous evidence of high impact in the geological past. what we had from all these observations was a revolution in planetary science. going from an oddball process that everyone thought was a geological freak, we now recognize impact is the most fundamental process of all

planetary processes. plants come into being by smaller pieces are assembling themselves in the bigger pieces -- planet s come into being by smaller pieces a cymling themselves into bigger pieces. their telltale physical and chemical signs. knowledge of the signs are allowed us to recognize shock not only in the lunar samples, but in the other geological boundaries where we find extinction of species. there may be many of these extinctions caused by impact and occurred regular times. there's a set to -- a suggestion that may occur on a regular basis. i contend that because we went to the men, a gate as a new perspective of how like a bald

on the earth. -- because we went to the moon, it gave us a new perspective of how life evolved on the earth. what did we get from apollo? we completely change the way we look at how life evolved. that is an amazing results. it is a totally unexpected one, too. what are my conclusions? the early opinions that the s did not value the world -- the moon was wrong. i also contend that we are not only solving the problem we think we are solving. when ever we explored, we brought in our imagination. we did not go looking for a new explanation for the mechanism of evolution and speciation when we went to the moon, but we got

one. we got all lot of insight on different problems because we had a different example. we were looking with a different set of viewpoints. i also think that this shows that the boundaries between disciplines is a man-made an artificial one. chemistry, physics, and biology, and all the sciences, they can be used synergistic lead to get this view. this came about as a true multi disciplinary kind of thing. so there should be one more slide. i want to close by saying something about consensus. you hear a lot about that these days. scientists believe this and there's a consensus on that and so forth. the lesson i take from this is that consensus is not scientific knowledge. consensus is an expression of our state of level of ignorance. it is an agreement among scientists that we have reached

parliament of understanding of the process. collective opinions tend to be wrong. i think scientists should be humble. they should be prepared to a knowledge what they do not know, state what they confer, and at the same time always be careful -- you're never seen that in total. you're always missing a piece. it took us going to the moon to see what we were missing in understanding of life on earth. you will have a different viewpoint, a different feeling for what is actual truth and what is just a wild guess. i think the truth is gradually uncovered, but sometimes we do not get there from the direction we are expecting. thank you very much. [applause] >> that was absolutely

fascinating, as were the other two. this is the most interesting afternoon that i have spent and a long time. we get the politicians, the history, and the science all in one unique passion. now we have a few minutes for questions. if there are a lot, we may go over by a couple of minutes. why don't we start? please identify yourself. [inaudible] -- george mason university [inaudible] i have a question -- is this working? oh, big difference. my question is, there's a fairly recent book that impressed me

cry lately -- quite greatly, which suggested among other things that the apollo mission was -- had many negative aspects. first of all, it was extremely dangerous and it was only the super human coolness of neil armstrong that allowed it to be successful. this already -- this inflamed an already long known access and tendency in the american character already mentioned by in 1835, we are the best, and so forth. and one thing that they did not mention but i have studied myself as that the 1960's were a decade of environmental

degradation, totally ignored by lyndon johnson. he kicked the ball to the senate to deal with it. and the senate -- allied to get the panel's view of how they viewed the social significance of this great event, whose scientists -- who scientific value by a steam. -- i esteem. to into i have to push anything? >> they should be on. >> i am worried about the tv audio. last one of the, the environmentalism or the lack thereof in the 1960's, which seems to be one of the lasting impact of the apollo mission,

the earth rising over the barren lunar landscape. there is a cliche that says, we went to the moon to discover the earth. the lasting impact of that image is one of the more profound impacts of the apollo mission. all other stock. >> there is something about -- these microphones are directional. i think there is something sad about risk and there seems to be a suggestion that they were not worse -- it was not worth the risk. i totally disagree. is that there were risk, and all those associated with the program did everything they could to minimize that but it did exist. we did lose three astronauts and

the process. in a brown backs and then of course, but nevertheless a loss. -- in a ground accidents of course, but nevertheless a loss. what risks are you willing to take to accomplish these very things? what risks are you willing to take to get out of bed in the morning because there is a major risk and that as well. they made those decisions very ly.n minded l the individuals decided that this was something they were willing to do. from nasa management and all the other folks associated with this, they had reached the same conclusions. we see that over and over again. >> i think you are saying that

there were negative aspects to the apollo program. the was part of your original statement. everything we do has a negative aspects. there is good and bad to every policy, every initiative. the interesting thing about apollo from my perspective is that we ended up solving problems but not a problem we thought we would solve. a lot of the apollo scientists asked by the press, what you hope to learn from the moon rocks? we hope to learn the origin of the month. they did not. it would take 20 years for the origin of the moon to emerge in it came out of left field, planetary accretion. nevertheless, we get something out of the samples that was totally unexpected. that is the essence of discovery. that is science at its best. >> a question over here. and if you have a question, please come to the microphone. you can line up.

>> a graduate student. great presentations. i ask this question for all the panel members, as someone in a space startup firm and as word that national science foundation's, since the country seems to have stated his desire for pre-eminence in space, can commercialization and science be compatible on the moon? and science from the moon? >> do you want to take that one? >> who wants to take that one? >> let me sort that out a little bit. i will take pieces of it before i try to answer the whole thing. we continue to say we want to be preeminent in space. we do not seem to be willing to pay the price. the fact we are about to retire the space shuttle with no

replacement, to me, is a remarkable commentary on the lack of commitment of this country's leaders to a preeminent space program. rhetorically we talk about it. as kennedy, we do not walk the walk as well as talk the talk. the exploitation and exploration of space is a multi faceted undertaking, and clearly in my mind commercial activities, the people that think that there are profits out ing space are not incompatible with people who want more data about new things to advance understanding of nature, which is science. i do not see the tension between commercial and scientific activities in space.

there probably to an after- hours caring the amount, -- there are probably different actors carrying them now. we put our machines into the space environment. >> anyone else want to speak to that? >> a quick comment. one of the things that you find with the new discoveries of water on the month, water holes, that clearly has commercial possibilities. you are able to make them produce water, there are a lot of useful products that can be made and sold for that. you need science to do that because we do not know what the state of those things are. we do not know what their physical state is, what their constitution is, how difficult it is to get to them. but once you start producing the product, you get a lot of scientist as part of that. it is synergistic. as you develop commercial markets, science will help develop those markets and after

they are developed, the law allow science more access to more knowledge. >> we did not need science to go to the moon. one of the things that enabled kennedy to make this decision was nasa's studies in the 1960 and 1961 that said that there were no scientific or technological breakthroughs required to design systems to carry out the mission. just lots of money and very good engineering. it is just a side comment. science did not enable going to the moon, but going to the money enabled a lot of signs. >> i am going to take anybody who is still lined up at the microphone. if you are already lined up, we will take you. but that will be all the questions. john. >> my question is more about the

policy and politics. i was only peripherally aware of kennedy's proposed joint exploration to the mound with the soviet union. i was wondering -- they were several counterfactual smidgen in that presentation. if the n-1 had not been such a flawed design, and the soviets were and a closer competition with us, the cooperation that eventually took place, that was a one-off thing, and do you imagine that -- to you foresee that is not taking place at all for taking place to a greater degree? " the implications of that be? >> cooperation? >> alternative history of.

first of all, there were technical suggestions to kennedy in 1963 of a way to have the united states and soviet union were together, absent a soviet lunar program. the program -- the soviets would do the robot precursor missions and logistics missions. the united states would develop the human transportation systems and then put a soviet cosmonaut, if not the first, as one of the early crewmembers. without knowledge of that, we did not begin to see the n-1, the soviet big rocket, until early 1964. that was post-kennedy. it was not supposed to be a one- off. little known but true, the united states and the soviet

union academies on may 1, 19707 signed an agreement for follow- on to apollo that included shuttle's docking with the soviet space station and then joint work on a collective space station. exactly what happened, it just happened 15 years later, but the u.s. did not honor the agreement because of the soviet involvement in afghanistan under the carter administration. there's an interesting history of u.s.-soviet collaboration and potential collaboration that is yet to be written. >> but over here. >> [inaudible]

>> let roger. i have some data. >> speech from the data. >> that's no fun. >> that question was about the aftermath of apollo. what happened to the workers? you specifically mention the scientific workers. >> [inaudible] >> one of the things that did happen in the aftermath of apollo is that at nasa and with the organizations that were doing work for nasa, there were cutbacks. we tend to see the dispersal of these engineers and the scientists to other locations. taking with them the knowledge they have gained, the connections they had game, and proliferating there. they were not lost to science

and technology. except in a few rare instances, but they ended up working in other programs in other ways. it is fascinating, and no one has yet done this, but it would be fascinating to trace the dispersal of this knowledge base and these individuals and what they did with that. they bring the base of knowledge with them which plover for rates in other ways. i would suggest that there was of flour and of technological capability in a variety of other places because -- a flowering of technological capability in a variety of other areas because of this dispersal. >> i would not at all disagree with that. nasa's force was reduced by 22% in the four years after the first moon landing, by about a quarter. the same sort of thing could be happening except that the people in congress are much more aware

of the work force issue and are resisting it strongly. i think people did go out and particularly engineering. apollo was about engineering. the people that went to do phd is in science motivated by the image of the apollo, i think they went out into the universe in the research system is in the 1970's and found very productive paths. there were not very many people with ph.d. is driving taxicabs. >> you are looking at one of them. i was basically -- i'll watch the astronauts on the man as a college and high-school student. on anase my life inspiration.

you'll find a lot of guys like me in the business now that had that same experience. if you are really inspired and motivated, you'll find something to do that is relevant. what fraction of the moment was apollo? >> i do not know. >> it look like 95% of all excess r&d spending was apollo. >> not nearly as cool thing to say for mr. obama and secretary chu who would use the term

sputnik moment. the spur innovation was the u.s. reaction to uri. eisenhower put a little new money in science and engineering. there was an education act that came out of that. but there was not a big infusion of money. >> [inaudible] >> most of the apollo money went for engineering. even all little bit of a lot of money went a long way back then. >> i'm going to take the privilege of the chair and ask one last question of all the panelists. what does this experience mean for the future, for the mars

program, for anything else we might want to do in space, particularly human space flight? >> let paul starr. >> i don't think that it means much. we heard talks today that showed what an anomaly apollo was, because it arose because of unusual circumstances. my suspicion is that there is a lesson in relation to some future space spectacular. it required extraordinary political circumstances to make it come about. i think we're trying to develop a new paradigm, all more long- range sustained approach where ly anddually incremental lin cumulatively increase our ability to reach into space. i'm not sure paul has that much relevance to it. >> there is a take away, it is

literally one thing. there are a lot of other pieces to it, but i would cite this. apollo was created for a very , demonstrating american scientific and technical prowess to the rest of the world. it succeeded magnificently. any conclusion that does not acknowledge that is really unfair. and also incorrect. it did achieve all those ends. the purposes of sweeping the world, that american scientific and technical capabilities, that a system of government based on democracy and an economic system that is capitalistic, can do these kinds of things. and it did persuade a lot of places in the world. >> i get asked this question a lot. my friends to read the book and

say, i enjoyed this but i did not like your conclusion. my conclusion is that apollo was bad for the space program. it was not sustainable. it created a set of expectations, and model, and an institution created to do all paulo-like things. we have spent the last 40 years trying to find another apollo, a major program to motivate the space program, and kept the organization of nasa constellate under stress constantly trying to do too much with too few resources. idt attempt -- i will be partisan here at the end of the day -- by president obama and nasa leadership a year ago february to set out a new approach which is sustainable, of affordable, to human future

in space. this era of apollo is finally over. let's do something different. let's make a real investment in technology. we are not in a big hurry. we can afford to lose the specific capabilities that we have developed to do apollo and shuttle. we can have them go do something else productive while we get ready for the next round of human space activity. but we are so ingrained with the system created through apollo and the shuttle program's, that making those changes in the political environment has proven very difficult. we find ourselves on april 21, 2011, still not knowing what we are doing. >> a note on which to end.

fabulous presentation. thank you -- that you for joining us. we're done. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> two thirds of the american people depended on the network news, and those three networks

of their primary source of information about the president of the united states. >> go online to the c-span video library research, watch, clip, and share every c-span program for 1987 through today. is washington your way. >> we recently stopped at the nation's capital for a visit to the national cathedral where an artist and sculptor are working together on a sculpture of rosa parks that will soon be unveiled to the public. >> i was not a first. ec the model here in the sketches. i could not remember if this proportion is correct. >> this is at the front

entryway. the gateway door that you see to the left is the human rights porch. the figures that are featured there have some major role in human rights, either in this country or the world. in this case, these are molds, they are blocks of stone at the bottom of a gothic arch. at top of the columns there is a blot, and in the arch begins. it is a classic architectural piece. those blocks of stones had been there since they were put their 100 years ago. only now have they decided watch it go there and who should go there to accept it artistically. in this case they chose mother teresa and rosa parks. >> once this culture is approved by the committee, then it is my job to help him to get it into

the rock. that is where we collaborate, had to get this culture that he did in space, how do integrated into the fabric of the building. >> he's helping me visually i can see this finish side to get the ratio of proportion to work on the side. >> i got to see the head start on it. they had a camera that takes pictures as it goes. i could see it fresh when i got here. but the idea was coming into the progress and to answer questions that the carter may have on issues that we missed or some details to follow on. there could be some pieces on my and that is to tie it -- things

do not quite worked out right. this is a low angle, a different perspective. he has done the basic carbin. he has left a great tight shape. now it is a question of filling in the details. he is asking me for it buys on areas i didn't do, areas that are problematic. for me it is just an effort to help him and his ever of cutting this town. -- his efforts in cutting this stone. she is looking of to our right. i could do that by placing on the left side, from the public view, of view of rosa parks, that same ankle that we see in the photograph. -- that same angle that we

see in the photograph. it made it a challenge for this building and they sit on the front. literally, the carver gave me a three-d, making sure that this would fit into they mask of this town. his job is harder. yes to reproduce i do but out of this limited mass. you won hairdo extend as far or it has to go this far, it is very limiting. all love to come see carvers like this. that is the model that he works from. i always wondered what those dots were. someone like me, it is a point

of reference, it will translate and transferred to the masters down. sean is a better explained. >> is a three-dimensional mapping tool. if i see where i want to mark to become a high market with a pencil -- where i want to mark to be, i market with a pencil. and then it is up to him how many points he needs for the reference. with a portrait, it is a lot. up phase that is recognizable, and you needed to be accurate. if it is something danc fanciful, you might not need

this many points. but i want to be faithful to his style and his work. i do not want to look like my work. i wanted to look like his. the more. so i may, the more accurate will be. -- the more points i make, the more accurate it will be. >> all of these joints, i can see many directions and this slide maker -- the slide mechanism is my depth gauge. i transferred the whole set up once i am satisfied, and they may have a card this already. i am not sure.

to and from start to finish, how long? >> all little less than two months. i am not on it all the time. i have other tasks around the building to do. if i was in a workshop during the straight through, it would take about five weeks working straight through. a 40 hour work week. >> you seem happy. >> i do. [laughter] >> the detail work is hard to get sometimes. the hat could take awhile to salt. -- solve. another we can have.

the delicacyto see around the eyes. but that can come not only in profile, you would not see it much, but it seems to be much more delicate. it is looking good, though. >> in his weekly address, president obama talks about his administration's efforts to combat rising gas prices including getting rid of fraud in the oil markets. he is followed by the republican address. he discusses how federal spending is hampering job creation. >> this is the time of year when people get together with family and friends to observe passover and celebrate easter. the chance to get things for our blessings and reaffirm our faith.

all spending time with the people that we love. we all know how important that is. especially in hard times. that is what many people are facing these days. even though the economy is growing again and we have seen business is adding jobs over the past year, many are still looking for work. even if you have not faced a job loss, it is not easy of there. your paycheck is not getting bigger. the cost of everything from college for your kids to gas for your car keeps going up. that is something on a lot of people's minds right now, with gas at $4 a gallon gallon. it is just another burden. when gas prices shoot up like clockwork, uc politicians racing to the cameras, waving three- point plans for getting rid of gas prices. there is no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away. there are few things began to brood safe and responsible production of oil at home which we are doing.

american oil production last year reached its highest level since 2003. my attorney general wants to task force with just one job -- reading out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil market that might affect gas prices, including any illegal i activity by speculators. we will make sure no one is taking advantage of the american people for their own short-term gain. another step that we need to take is to end a $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies we give to the oil and gas companies each year. that is $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they are making record profits and you're paying near-record prices at the pump. it has to stop. instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's. we need to invest in clean, renewable energy. that is the long-term answer that we need. that is the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

we can see that promise already, thanks to an historic agreement we secured with all the major auto companies. we're raising the fuel economy of cars and trucks and american using a hybrid technology and other advances. as a result to me if you buy a new car in the next few years, the better gas mileage will save you about $3,000 at the pump. but we need to do more. we need to harness the potential i've seen that promising start-ups and innovative clean energy companies across america. that is part of the debate that we have right now in washington about the budget. both democrats and republicans believe we need to reduce the deficit. that is where we agree. the question we are debating is how do we do it. i have proposed a balanced approach to cut spending while still investing in things like education and clean energy. they are so critical to creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class. it is a simple idea. we need to live within our means of the same time invest in our future.

that is why i so strongly disagreed with the proposal in congress that cuts our investments in clean energy by 70%. yes, we have to get rid of wasteful spending, and make no mistake -- we're going through every line of the budget scouring for savings. but we can do that without sacrificing our future. we can still invest in the technologies that will create jobs and allow the united states to lead the world in new industries. that is how will not only reduce the deficit but lower our dependence on foreign on all, grow our economy, and leave our children the safer planet. that is what our nation has to be. thank you for listening. at a wonderful easter weekend. >> i am senator my johansson of nebraska. with the debate in washington focused on how best to address our nation's growing debt, it is important to remember the role it played in our critical priority of job creation policymakers tend to talk up the term job creation very broadly.

it is a very popular talking point, but what does it mean to create jobs? the claim is made big new federal policies will create jobs and big paychecks for americans. the idea of government creating jobs misses the point entirely. that is just not how we get our economic engine firing on all cylinders. job creation in this country does not start with government but with our businesses, especially our small businesses. small businesses create between 60% and 80% of new jobs according to the small business administration. our small businesses, winfrey to grow and prosper, need more and more employees to sustain the success and that is economic growth, that is job creation. but that stifled when the federal government spends more than it takes an, throwing a cold, wet blanket on the entire

process. the current record-setting deficit and the $14.7 trillion national debt are impediments to job creation because they have ripple effect right to main street. hard job creators cannot strive in an environment where creditors pulled back because of our government debt, because without credit, small businesses cannot grow. our debt threatens to the value the dollar which will lead to increased costs and interest rates, which has a chilling effect on small business growth. the past two years of running up the debt are a testament to the fact that we cannot spend our way to prosperity. i met a whole lot of business owners and they have never thank the government for creating jobs. they thank me for getting government out of their way said that they can create jobs. a great example of this is the nine-month battle it took in

congress to finally repealed the 1099 tax reporting mandate which the president has signed. job creators found themselves saddled with a mountain of costly new paperwork, due to this part of the health care law. repealing it opened the door to hiring by closing the door on new accounting red tape that businesses would have faced. since then, i've heard directly from small business owners, thanking us for removing this stumbling block to birth, for saving them time and money and for getting big government out of the way of small business. thousands of small business owners made their voices heard. their analysis allow us to place the debate in a real-world framework. i wholeheartedly think everyone who supported freeing up our job

creators to create jobs. 1099 repeal was a big victory for our small businesses and our economy. but there is so much more to do. the red tape and bureaucracy continues to pile up from this administration. in the state at the union address in january, the president pledged to eliminate burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. since then, his administration has proposed or enacted more than 250 regulations, amounting to more than $24 billion in regulatory costs, and again, that is just january. $24 billion needed by small businesses across the country to hire new employees and to grow their businesses. it should not be funneled out of the economy or your communities

and rerouted back to washington to the government. washington is simply out of touch with folks on main street trying to do their share to boost our economy. here is talk about job creation all the time, but bear witness to the constant contradictions. if everyone is serious about job creation in addition to to reducing that debt, let's reduce burdensome regulations that serve no purpose other than to insert more government into the lives of citizens. small businesses which had nothing to do with our current financial troubles road in part of the cost. why are they being targeted for a tax hike as they supported solutions to deficit problems? it is time to change the culture in washington. we cannot tie up small businesses in needless red tape

and regulations and then expect them to create jobs and boost the economy. the federal government cannot create jobs. we must help shape an economic environment in -- conducive to job creation. it is hard job to unshackled job creators to enable them to grow to flourish. my republican colleagues and i will continue to push for a scale back government which allows the enterprising americans. to create a prosperous economy that benefits everybody. that means reining in spending, reducing the deficit, eliminating red tape, it is clearly time for government to get out of the way. our small businesses will respond with innovation in job creation. this is mike johanns in nebraska. i hope you and your family and

joy of blessed easter. >> next, a conversation with lawyers involving clinton and ken starr. then remarks by secretary donald rumsfeld. then a forum on the future of news. sunday, a look at how public officials handle ethical issues, from the intent of the founders of the constitution to the use of e-mail by today's politicians and government workers. that begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. jindal available, the congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter dresses, district maps, and committee assignments. if information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> now look at the presidency of

bill clinton and the investigations by independent counsel kenneth starr. from georgetown university law center in washington d.c., speakers include greg craig, former white house counsel to president clinton, as well as former independent counsel to the whitewater and monica lewinsky investigations. you will also hear from ken gormley, author of a new book "the debt of american virtue -- clinton versus start." the event was edited by the political editor in chief, and begins with julie o'sullivan. 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. >> saul didn't tell us he would e 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]

>> next, a conversation with donald trump sold -- called rumsfeld. then, a discussion on the future of news. then a discussion on the future of sudan. tomorrow on washington journal, a roundtable discussion on the news of the week with the was the intent -- with the washington examiner and adam serwer.

also, a discussion on egypt, the state of the economy, and what they hope to gain from their experience in the u.s. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on american history tv, to a series of 14 paintings, which are taken back to the 19th century white house. pepperdine university professor looks at the constitutional effects of the election of 1800 between thomas jefferson and john adams. and white house photographers on what it is like to document the life of a president. for schedules, due to c- span.org/history. >> now, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld talks about his book, "known and unknown -- a more." it focuses on the years he ran the defense department, including the 911 attacks and

the u.s. strategy for the war on terrorism. panelists include peter pace and scooter libby. this discussion is almost two hours. >> secretary rumsfeld has been a friend of the hudson institute for almost four decades. he has been the recipient of our award for extraordinary contributions to american national security. it is an honor to welcome you back.

this year, has been institute celebrates a half century of forward-looking policy research. the hudson institute was founded in 1961 because there is a need for a publicly engaged think tank. they envisioned a organization that would think creatively about how to achieve a better future while avoiding "unthinkable threats." the were joint -- they used the creativity of scholars to create public debate. research has stood the test of time and a world dramatically transformed by the collapse of the soviet union, the rise of china, and the advent of radicalism within islam. we do independent policy research. we examine critical and complex issues from different perspectives. to better understand the future, which is our mission, it is essential to get a better

understanding of the past, especially the recent past. even though we know the past will never be perfectly understood and the questions raised by the study of the past will never be settled. we are proud of our first half century of promoting prosperity and freedom. we look forward to hudson's next 50 years. during this anniversary year we are hosting seminars and programs. today's celebration is one of these. today, our discussion examines some of the major decisions related to the u.s. reaction to the 9/11 terror attacks through the lens of former secretary a rumsfeld. his book, "in known and unknown," is a new york times best seller. it will be available for sale at a reduced price of $20.

it is a gripping and fascinating read. i urge all of you to purchase the book, whether you are doing so here or online. it is my pleasure to turn this over to douglas price, the author of a quickly acclaimed -- critically acclaimed memoir. it is also available for sale for $10. [laughter] doggett as the honor of animating today's -- doug has the honor of animating today's discussion. [applause] >> i would like to welcome all of you here and welcome my fellow panelists. to the left, peter pace, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he retired in 2007.

before becoming chairman, he served for 40 years as vice chairman of the joint chips -- joint chiefs. he continues to advise the defense department on a number of policies. he is active in charitable work on behalf of america's wounded warriors. to his left is jamie mcin tire. he was the senior pentagon correspondent for cnn. he is now eight news consultant and teaches at the university of maryland. to his left is scooter libby, my colleague here at the hudson institute. he served as senior vice president. he worked as chief of staff for

vice president dick cheney and was a regular attendee at the national security council and principals meeting. he was the subject of so much of mr. rumsfeld's book. mr. rumsfeld is a person who needs no introduction. if you want to know about his extensive background in government, there is no better way to do it than to read his book. i would urge everybody to do that. >> the full price book. [laughter]

if you want to pose a question, we left cards on everybody's chair. please write your question down and pass it forward. we will get to as many of the questions as we can. i would like to get the discussion going with a few comments. first, regarding the substance and tone of the book, secretary rumsfeld has written an important book full of revealing stories and is directly significant information. it has been selling impressively. it has been on the bestseller's list of the new york times since it came out seven weeks ago. the book contradicts a number of passes it -- a number of misconceptions about the iraq war and other subjects. it deals with a number of matters that were controversial.

state department vs. defense department over afghanistan and the partnership with the afghan northern alliance. the strategy in world war -- tora bora. the approach to building up afghanistan after the overthrow of the taliban. disagreements about when and how to use nato. regarding iraq, it explains how decisions were made to go to war, help u.s. troop levels were set, health policy officials used intelligence, iraqi weapons of mass destruction, planning, at key elements of the planning were undone in the field. the book devotes quite a bit of attention to detainee matters and health secretary rumsfeld was against taking care of the

detainees. he now regrets he did not insist on president bush's excepting his resignation. i would like to say a quick word about the criticism some commentators have made that the book is full of blame shifting and finger-pointing. i do not think a fair minded reader would characterize the book that way. its tone is analytical. it does not ship cars or incriminatory. -- it is not harsh or incriminatory. he gets accused of blank shifting when he points out the original accusations are unfounded. the second matter -- secretary rumsfeld's relations with his generals. the book shows that there were times when the secretary challenged and contradicted his

generals. there were times when he deferred to them. when a secretary presses his generals and questions their work as mr. rumsfeld did when he reviewed version after version of general frank's were plans for afghanistan and iraq, he leaves himself vulnerable to the charge that he is micromanaging and interfering with professional military judgments. but when the secretary defers to his generals in the field as mr. rumsfeld did during the iraq 4 -- iraq war, he leaves himself vulnerable to the charge he is failing in his chain of command responsibilities. i would like to ask secretary russell to elaborate on when he chose to challenge and choose to defer. >> answer now? >> in time. [laughter] >> the short answer is "

imperfectly." >> third, the role of a cabinet official. just as there are issues when a secretary of defense should defer to his general, there are important questions the book raises about when a cabinet officer should challenge or defer to a president. it is clear that mr. rumsfeld views the duties of the cabinet official differently from the way: paul did. all like to ask you, mr. secretary, to elaborate on how ec the role of the cabinet official on dealing with controversial issues with the president may be ill informed were wrong in his judgment. fourth, at last, i would like to ask secretary rumsfeld to comment on current affairs. there is too much happening in the world to avoid looking at current affairs. president obama has launched a u.s.-led military action in libya. he pre-empted what he feared was

going to be a major humanitarian disaster there. you, secretary rumsfeld, helped develop various ideas and principles for u.s. military action after 9/11 regarding u.s. leadership, a coalition building, definition of the military mission, the action of the un, etc.. i would like you to comment on how you think are the that obama is handling of libya. is the respecting or violating the principles you helped develop? i hope that is sufficiently provocative for starters. now i would like to ask the general to give a few of his comments about the matters dealt with in the secretary's book. >> thank you. it is a great pleasure to be with you today. i have great respect for the folks on this platform with me. it is absolutely true that in

many ways, secretary rumsfeld has continued to support the troops and their families. i am proud to be sitting here next to him on this occasion. i will not speak to the book precisely. i would like to share with you some thoughts about things that had i known at the time, i would have made different recommendations. i think if we are going to move forward and learn from our mistakes, we need to learn what those mistakes were. in afghanistan, for example, when the war first began in afghanistan, we needed about 20,000 reservists. after the attacks on 9/11, we had, literally, hundreds of thousands of reservists who were volunteering to serve the country. rather than call up reserve

units, we elected to take volunteers. that may absolute sense at the time. we did not have iraq on our hands, we had afghanistan on our hands. we had hundreds of thousands who were volunteering. in retrospect, that recommendation to take volunteers was not a good one. the reason being is that when we went into iraq, we needed significantly more reservists. out of fairness, we determined that those who has served already would not serve a second tour until everyone had a first tour. again, it made good sense. but the result of that was a unit that was to be deployed might have had 20% or 30% of their folks already deployed.

they had to go other -- to other units. over time, the two units replacing one became for units replacing one. it goes back to the original premise that we would take volunteer reservists in afghanistan. i was one of the voices that was supportive of that. in retrospect, not a good idea. next, in afghanistan, there is a great deal of discussion amongst the u.s., the afghan government, and our nato allies as to the size of -- coalition allies, not nato allies -- what was the size of the afghan army? as i recall, the minister of defense was asking us to help him build an army of about 400,000. collectively, all of the

coalition look at that and said in a country with an economy that was $6 billion, gdp of $6 billion, $2 billion of which was your money, did it make sense to strap them with the responsibility of 400,000 that they could not afford? collectively, and i would certainly agree, the number that was determined was about 70,000. it was a good number for them to have as an army. they could afford to maintain it going forward. fast forward to the problems that led to the request for more u.s. troops. the math is fairly simple. to have 10,000 u.s. troops on active duty, it cost taxpayers about $1 billion a year. to send 30,000 troops to afghanistan, you had to have about $3 billion. to replace them every other

year, you need to have $6 billion of troops in your inventory. to replace them one year over and two years back, e.t. $9 billion of troops by in your and mentoring. that costs you nx-billion dollars. it became obvious that we would need more troops. the math no longer made sense. we went to the secretary and to my knowledge he went to the president and it recommended that we change it and increase the size of the afghan army. it cost in the long run -- i will make these numbers up -- $2 billion a year to supplement the acronym -- the afghan government. at the end of the date we would have troops doing the work out

of afghanistan and the cost u.s. taxpayers would be less. at the time, going back to the situation on the ground and the understanding of the afghan government's ability to fund their own military, 70,000 troops seem to make sense even though 400,000 makes a lot more sense now. next, some people wonder why is it that when we did do the surge in afghanistan, what would we expect a different outcome that we had had since october 2001? to understand that, you need to go back to march 2003 when we went into iraq. at the time there was very little activity in afghanistan. some, but not a lot. the military assessment was, and

i was part of it, that we could go into iraq, but if we needed more troops someplace else in the world, we would not be able to do the rotation of forces that we wanted to do. it was discussed among all the leadership, by at the time it appeared that we could go into iraq cannot do what we needed to do there, and still have the rotation. we could either leave the troops in place there as long as it took, or maintain out all volunteer force and have a rotational forces. when the decision was made to maintain rotation of forces, then we did an economy of force

mission in afghanistan. think of germany and japan in world war ii. german was a primary theater. japan was the economy of force theater until we won in europe so that which is which resources -- until we get switched resources into the pacific. that is what we did in afghanistan and iraq. we maintain in afghanistan until we could ship forces there. it was not until 2008 that we were able to stop -- start passing up what was there. there is a reason to believe and have expectations that from 2008 forward, that you could have a different experience on the ground in afghanistan them before. we were allocating the right amount of resources been.

i believe going into iraq, believing the intelligence as did everyone i know, that when we cross the line of departure at kuwait into iraq, told divisions, 14,000 troops, iraqi soldiers would surrender. that would become part of the liberation force. it makes sense to it western mine. it makes someone who has lived in freedom hall of his life. that we liberators' would be welcomed with open arms, and that the army would be loyal to their new government. turns out that they did not surrender. nor did they fight. the disintegrated. they went home. which leads to another assumption that proved to be false. in military planning, and

assumption is something that is wrong, your plan fails. it has been a lot of discussion about pahse four in iraq, and no planning, what you do after you win, how you maintain security. it is not that we did not plan pahse four. one of the basic assumptions would not only would there be u.s. troops and our coalition partners on the ground, but iraqi army would be in tact, loyal to the government. they were not. they disintegrated. they went home. so the brilliant strategic surprise that tummy francs accomplished -- tommy franks accomplished by a bombing at the

same time, getting him to baghdad in three weeks, that brilliant tactical opportunity on the ground was then followed by a string of troops who were on call but not in country. and a lack of iraqi security forces to provide security in more places than we could. lastly, with regard to wmd's, i do not know anyone at the senior level, certainly in the military level, who did not believe as i did that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, at least chemical weapons, which she had already used on israel pebble -- which he had already used on his own people. we made sure that our troops were well-trained and properly equipped or we put them into combat and we fully expected

that there was a line someplace short of baghdad where when we crossed it, he would begin using chemicals. that assumption was wrong. i was relieved that he did not attack our troops with chemical weapons. like everybody else, over time, i was at chagrined when we found the weapons of mass destruction. but each of these cases, and i have thought about this a lot, and that may or may not give you comfort, but the good news and the bad news is that you gave me the exact same intelligence, and you gave me the exact same data, in each one of these cases i would be the same recommendation. and these were not knee-jerk reactions. these were the results of tommy franks coming to d.c. and briefing 30, 40, 50 times with

dick myers, going to the white house many times, these decisions made at the -- after discussion and dialogue, pushing back and forth. we need to knowledge where we were wrong, but we also have to remember the historical context is what we knew the time. without pointing figures at each other, we need to ensure that whatever was to have a s -- to cause us to have the wrong intelligence and analysis, and we understand that part and learn that lesson, and teach it in our schools to youngsters coming up now who will be the next chairman and vice chairman, to have a better context for a broader context in which to make decisions. thanks. >> thank you, jamie. ok.

>> i am jamie mcintyre. many of you have kids are watched sesame street, one of these things is not like the other? [laughter] i am feeling like the odd man out here. i did not actually serve in the bush administration, although i am sure the some of my critics in the pentagon might have accused me of that. maybe you saw this comic on sundaycomicdoonesbury, he always has an ability to get to the zeitgeist of what is going on in the culture. he did a piece on facebook in which the character is reflecting on his face but payton realizing it is completely out of hand. she refers as good as an over- care rated version of my life in which i am an accomplice, attractive, and happy, and even my faults are enduring. and then i thought, there's room

for more. even faults are enduring in this book. i love this book, because as a journalist, i'm big on trying to understand what is going on. journalism is famous as a rough draft of history. it isn't terribly wrong and incomplete. as you are trying to consult that, you wish you knew what you do not have access to. you have this illusion that you were -- if you could simply get behind the closed doors and hear the secretary and witness the stuff firsthand, that these guys see all the time, then you have clarity and then you read a book like secretary rumsfeld's, and you realize you still would not know what was going on. [laughter] it is not always that clear. what the news media does not do well is that it does not new nuance. that is reflected in the title of the book "known and unknown."

secretary rumsfeld explained that concept at pentagon briefing to me. it made sense. it not only made sense, it is self evident. there things that we know, the we do not know, and things that we know we do not know. explains the origin of that. and then i was flabbergasted to notice that over time, various reporters and commoners would portray that as some sort of, i don't know, misstatement or malapropisms are something where -- do they not get it? this is a straightforward representation of making decisions when you had incomplete information. i really applaud the effort and it is a very impressive documentation. even though it seems to have a pro-rumsfeld slant. [laughter]

we can debate that later. >> why don't you just give him the puck? -- hook? >> i also commended because i feel like donald rumsfeld is the anti-dan schneider. >> he is a very wealthy and powerful and owner of the washington redskins. he felt that he was being portrayed unfavorably in the press. his response was to file a suit, lawsuit against a very small publication, which, in my opinion, was ill-advised.

donald rumsfeld has taken the opposite approach. he has put together all the documentation, laid out his case in a very cogent fashion. while we can argue parts of it today, i think it really adds to our understanding of what happened during the time when i was there and trying to figure it out. >> thank you. anybody who has a question and wants to write it down on the card, you can raise it and our colleague, whose hand is up in the back, he will see raising a card and come and retrieve it from you and pass it forward. scooter, please. >> thank you. it is nice to be here. i particularly enjoyed the staff in this opportunity. it seems a rare opportunity. doug showed too much enthusiasm, my cell. >> there is a tomorrow. >> it is an unexpected pleasure to be here with the bush 43 pentagon crowd and their groupie.

[laughter] >> i will get to later for that. >> i say unexpected pleasure because the person who should be here is my former boss, president bush. -- vice-president cheney. as many of you know, secretary rumsfeld gave vice-president cheney his first job. it was an extraordinary pleasure to watch these two brilliant men working together in difficult times. they remain friends to this day. but that is not to say that there was not a bit of rivalry between them every once in awhile. when i was busy with vice- president cheney, not long ago, -- when i was visiting with vice president cheney, not long ago, he is working on his own book at this point. i mentioned to one, you know, don's book is still on the best-seller list. it is 815 pages. he got right back to work after

that. [laughter] a lot of that -- >> a lot of that 815 is the index. [laughter] >> pete was talking about some intelligence issues. it was covered in the known and unknown -- there was a passage about the morning's briefing. vice president cheney also took these morning intelligence briefings. except that he took them twice each morning. i believe you took your intelligence briefing only once. >> yes. >> so he -- so the president -- the vice-president would take the intelligence briefing once with the president at 7:00 a.m. and he would also take it at 6:00 a.m., before he met with the president, so he would be

well familiar with the content of the meeting, of what was in a briefing before he sat down with the president. i would usually go over to his house before the 6:00 a.m. briefing. this worked fine, except the vice-president did it when he was out of town as well when he was in jackson hole, wyoming, for example, as you might guess, which is two hours behind, the president's briefing was at 5:00 a.m. and the vice president's meeting was at 4:00 a.m. and i went to his house before 4:00 a.m. and again, that is not so bad under normal circumstances, but i do know how many of you have been in wyoming in winter, but it tended to be -40 degrees, windy, snowy, and one year we had 8 feet of snow in 10 days.