is and this is where their bank accounts are whether in luxembourg or deutsche bank. we have been investigating that for a while and you know, and active freeze by europeans and sanctions by europeans will definitely have an impact, a major impact on the situation. >> we have a lot of situation. everything, no. but we have a clear idea. >> have you published that? >>we have set it over. >> we can work with that later. i think we are showing people what is going on. >> i am ok with that idea. let me turn a new little bit to the subject.

on this issue, as a person known to worry about the muslim brotherhood, i do not know it in syria. that is for a curl reason. what happened was that the regime is there. it is far more effectively than anyone else was ever done. it is more effectively than the magicians. that is not the current issue. the issue on lebanon, he suggested that lebanon is a

bellwether and that signs are promising. -- that signs were promising for syria. searching calculators of interest are also withdrawing their bets from syria. he mentioned yesterday a they have declined to show up for the conference. since he is done to usually be there, that is a promising site. should there be a change in the raceme -- in the regime?

it is important for the communities. what blessings or courses might that bring? many people are concerned about the reaction. this is the threshold. it becomes a matter of existence. there are many concerns that some things might happen or link lebanon to syria.

i think it is too early for this to happen. so far, it is thought necessary. has the law does not want to initiate a war with israel now for the simple reason if they can maintain their support base, as long as there are doing it. they do not want another war. has belote initiates that. only 20% will stay with their. they are very aware of that.

this is very true. many people do not want another one. inside lebanon, and to not think anyone do that. unique in eagle 14 context. there is then for has belong now. when it comes to the point, they might do something dangerous. they really have to push to the extreme. so far i do not see that situation now. something awful happened with hamas. this was an attempt to divert

attention from what is happening in syria. it did not work. israel did not react the way they were expecting. this is another reason why i think it is not going to happen now. we will go now to the good news. i really believe that a change -- of course it will weaken the allies. i think they have not interfered in any way. they are getting a lot of accusations. i think it is a good idea this

is dangerous. he cannot make strong statements unless you are enjoying it. >> it is not because a safer journalism. >> it is not safe. that is fine. a lot are getting second opinions. i think this is a good move. the acquisitions are there. they are all aware that any change will definitely be there. the idea scenario would be for the activists. even if it is not that case i do

not believe the muslim brotherhood with as that. no matter what, it is a better decision for everyone. >> please, identify yourself. i want to go out and say with a lot of what has been described here. the do not need to take my word for it. to any of you believe that it was a tipping point?

there is more willingness to see this. are they finally getting on board? given the sick then again, -- given the significance, it was interesting to see that not only is the media there but it has been relatively quiet. if you can speak to that. >> how we got there a tipping

point? one thing we keep seeing come out is that we do not know how much leverage we have. we feel it is limited. how much is already limiting itself? they are leading from behind. if an american government perceives the international role as leading from behind, it is by definition going to perceive itself as limited in the amount of leverage it can exercise. i do not know how it plays out.

i'm not sure if how much it is responding to domestic criticism. i think they are reporting the sanctions such as opposed to come out. so far, they have not been announced. >> if there was going to be a turning point that will lead to something very powerful, the clearest sign of good to the europeans and say that would be leaving behind. the lethbridge that can be supplied seems to be much more powerfully concentrated.

he is the problem. there is a line on that. that is id. >> everyone gets the idea whether it is the regime itself and when to get the idea that it is quick of hard-liners who are working against the interests. the more the regime gets the picture, this is where the united states is.

the problem is with the way he has been in. this is the use. when you have the clear, you do not need to improve it. there are sanctions.

there is centrality. there is the standard situation. the united nations is there. in my get to have a resolution. they can really do a lot of damage. >> bring the microphone over here. a lot to media outlets channel

this. it is isolated with the party. there are other ways. it is regional. they are taking a different stance. we are saying exactly how we think. from the beginning, this is the sixth week. the main thing on the web site in syria.t allows it there are facebook groups.

most of the view to video as are coming from syria. writing opinions is one thing. then we have another one. when it comes to another well, they do not look like they are in denial. in tv -- mtv is providing more coverage.

this is also in newspapers. they are looking at this coverage. it looks like it is protecting the regime. they are very upset. it is all over facebook. they know they are aware that it will work. it is true. whether we like it or agree with the or not. it is true. it is very popular. they pick up the uprising.

it is huge. for four weeks they had something. they moved to the other side. is very interesting to watch. just a quick note, out 0 house now been accused of smuggling -- our zero has been accused of smuggling hallucinogens. they have a major report of cutdowns pared its it has the albs year s -- major reports. jeezra logo on

them. they have taken an active part in the the movement. this is just to show the kinds of propaganda that they have. when the libyan of people began, there were clear divisions with in europe on how to deal with the intervention. i would be interested in whatever like you can shed in the attitudes in europe right now toward syria. do you see divisions or any

officials that you are a client -- inclined to showed ? what is the situation? even as i am here, i am more engaged in the europeans than i am with them on this issue. there seems to be a lot of interest. they are interested in knowing what they suggest. i think there are a couple. some countries are very sympathetic. the really have been very

critical of the german development. there are important sanctions on the regime. it remains to be seen. another has been soft language coming off the officials. the know there are sanctions. i think the process will move much more quickly. i am hoping that this is the situation. >> thank you. >> going back to the position,

our interest is not in the removal. it is important for the demonstration. they talked about a multilateral sanctions. it is not is unilateral. this is with the question about the position. we also had a vision. it may be how it is. >> what is the observation about all of this? >> nobody actually knows where

these countries stands. we need to look. they are actually more proactive. they are devising the regime. they are looking at health care reform. what about our great ideas? that is it. saudia arabia has also been quiet. they might take a different stance. they do not want to be alone on this.

there is a difference. they are in a very vulnerable position. you were suggesting that if turkey to a vigorous role in might be able to do something. i believe so. >> is more like neutrality, he can still feel a sense of aloofness. there is a possible revolution.

>> we were talking of how they were throwing them out of syria. i interpreted it as if it was a threat. they had reporters. they said you keep it up. >> it was related to how it was handled. they are asking people to join the revolution. they demanded an apology. they were willing to accommodate a little bit.

they were incensed by that attitude. yesterday, there was a statement. it is saying we were ok with the regime that we ran neutral. -- but we were neutral. >> exactly. saudia arabia, i think at this stage they are not weighing options. there are very difficult to get on board. that is perhaps the united states. they might as well end. the rest of the gulf would fall in line.

i think this is the case. we are going to do this. there are instances. they are by the turkish one. there is a lot of opposition. they are also more oppositions. the event was really given a lot of plays. for now, they are hedging their bets. it seems to be under the same

division. i think it'll be long before they realize what will happen. if the reports are there, it could become a chaotic situation. this position would be very important. to me, it seems like they have committed to themselves verbally. for him to backpedal, it will be a defeat. it will impact his own party.

he is on there right now. the statement he is making, he has losses. >> thank you very much. i think we are about out of time. and when it to thank you for this very interesting discussion of these sets is jubilations and invite everyone here to thank our guests. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> he talks about foreign- policy. president obama announces his nominees to head the cia and the pentagon. they talk about military operations in the middle east. >> saturday, the annual black- tie dinner starting with the red carpet arrivals at 6:45. then remarks from president obama. our coverage includes highlights of your comments from facebook and twitter. follow along with our interactive video including social media comment and live high-definition video. -- social media and live high- definition video.

it is easy to find information of your elected officials. you can also hear a video of every house and senate session in the progress of bills appeared to gaelic at the new congressional -- bills. take a look at the new congressional chronicle. >> he outlined his positions in washington today. he accuses the president of failing to promote freedom from around he formed exploratory committee earlier this month and has made numerous performances. this is one hour and 10 minutes. >> welcome. thank you for coming. this helps promote and protect americans' freedom.

he established this program more than four years ago. we have featured more than 20 public events with notable features. the program has provided commentary and analysis on emerging threats, religious freedom, radical islam and other global challenges that america faces. he was the co-founder of the congressional working group on freedom. his complement's include all working on debt relief. was also a leader on u.s. israeli relations. he successfully fought to pass

despite initial opposition by prespresident bush. in 2006, he gave a speech here at the national press club and the gathering storm and the threats that face america. his speech will focus on where we have come since he left the senate in 2007. after the speech, he looks forward to your questions. i would ask that you state your name and organization prior to your ... synched -- since synched -- succint question. >> thank you for your work with us. good afternoon. thank you for coming out. i want to speak today about our country. many americans have invested

their hopes and dreams and this administration, the king forward to a new day of respect and ushering in a new peace in the world. how're we doing? how is the world? are we closer to a more peaceful world that protect human freedom, right, and promote human flourishing? the original title was america and the world. it has become clear that the citizens of the rest of the world look to us, the choices we make, of the concerns we elevate and the values and virtues we as seen. why?

it said we hold these truths to be self-evident. all men are created equal and endowed by your creator. when we found is our country, that proposition was not completely novel. it has theological roots in western civilization. no country until america dedicated itself to that proposition. we cast off the doctrine that any man had a right to rule any other man. of people had the right to fulfill their own god-given potential. americans were not born to be servants of the state. the state existed to keep men

free. what does this have to do with form policy? in my opinion, at everything. time to meet whata we set for ourselves. we extended those principles to all americans. lincoln understood the eternal meeting of our founding principles. lincoln said they selected a begin to guide their children and their children children. they knew prosperity to breed tyranny. in held self-evident truth so truth and mercy and all the humane in christian virtues of the not be extinguished from the

land so that no man would be limiting the great principles and which the temple of liberty was being built. this is been our legacy. this has been our mission. it is who we are. for the most part, it is to we have been, at a courageous people who speak the truth, as the justice and practice mercy. people stood against both the harbinger and tierney of oppression. it is limited to the very best principles. america is all about you. it is all about your freedom so you can provide for yourself and serve those who you love, your family, your guide, and your neighbors, not to provide for the government to do it for you. that belongs to each of us

equally. we were all created equal, not involved or tyranny. we are in the eyes of our creator. america is truly a moral enterprise. by establishing ourselves on this basis, we have actively aided those around us who aspire to our ideals. at times, we have had to who their and our spirit we have done this their sacrifice, blood, and might. we have done this by living out our own greed. ony blair recently rodwrote about how our examples impact people all over the world. for those people in the bleak wilderness, america does stand

out. it does shiny pate it may not be but it isn their branland, a house they can see in the distance. they know that how they do it is not how they must live. it defines how we organize our government and how we organize our lives. three marks are rooted in excellent and motivation. there is this language of creative capitalism. it creates opportunity and reward success and tolerates failure. it is not in itself tomorrow.

moral behavior is essential for the operations. it rightly informed our moral behavior. if we can nurture the combination of the untapped entrepreneurial genius of our age with properly formed consciousness, our economy can become the new frontier and freedom and opportunity. it brings me to the second, religious pluralism. it means people but they have the right to pursue their beliefs and not be abused by government or by the majority. staked uniquee staye ground. this has been europe's history. it appears to be islam's future. this is the only grounds upon which we teach the freedom to cry.

we love our neighbors. we are generous with their times. it promotes human flourishing. there is subsidy. there is federalism. they understood that man's nature is inclined toward this. no one should have the opportunity to consolidate power unless the freedom of others get taken away. we know that sometimes the soft power of example is simply not enough. they threatened to blow out all moral life around us. even though our current leadership may have forgotten, there are several world leaders.

they wrote thanks in large part to american generosity. europe was set free. thank you for the continued cooperation between europe and the west. that man is to guarantee peace. this generosity has marked us not only in times of peace but also in times of war. we have done so not for riches or grief, we have done slowed to defend our freedom and to make it safer by helping others be freer. freedom has been our watchword, our anchor, our moral guide.

today we have lost this commission. our president does not believe in it. he asked if he believes in this. people of every culture think that they are exceptional. when he speaks of our greatness as a country, he ties it to our welfare system. when he confronts other countries, which he does only rarely, he points out that we to have problems to apologize for. a present to this not understand the greatness of america in the american experiment cannot comfortably advance. if you cannot lead, to around

the world will follow? americans are worried about our current policy. when a president goes to the u.n. and apologizes for our country, would do not dance our security. we diminish our credibility. it is inconsistent with our values and our history. john kennedy never apologized four dwight eisenhower. nor george bush for bill clinton. they each did so based on the view that our power and our greatness was what was most important not our own domestic political victory. each understood the long term

virtue in value of america both here at home and abroad. with a cause she very dangerous things on the world stage, confusion and doubt. we have freedom fighters all over the world to doubt our time honored commitments. i have focused my time and attention to national security centers. it promotes america's freedom. they talk about the great threats that continue to face our country. we are focused on two countries. that thing has illustrated the failure of the foreign policy

more. it has been at war for 30 years. there is a chance to end that. there is a chance for freedom. i've been a believer for that possibility. i offer the support act. it provided millions of dollars. the employment of their provisions. rather than supporting this, and asking for our help, the president continued his policy of engaging in supporting.

the result is what they were crushed. instead been able to face the leaders, they were grateful. their allies in the region. let's make no mistake about what happened there in 2009. we sided with the evil. our present believes our enemies are legitimately aggrieved and thus we have no standing to intervene. in 2003, i security passage of the act that was used of leverage to get out of lebanon. syria continued to stabilize. it has been rewarded by this president. after years of holding diplomatic revelation, this

administration restored it. they were broadcasting that the regime was committed to reform. spear cracking down even harder. in egypt -- they were cracking down even harder. this leader was not a hard time. it seems by definition that our allies were seen as completed -- comparison with their past sins. at policies have been to consistently turn our backs. it now looks like a power vacuum. if we were going to support the rebel forces, we should have acted swiftly and decisively.

we were immediately enforcing a no-fly zone. because they have advocated our leadership, nato is in a state of disarray. what we are witnessing is other abdications of moral authority that have marked the last several years with dealing with other threats.

it is in the face of petrodollars. it is our long battle with fascism and marxism. with few exceptions, our leaders are working clear to define them. today our leaders have opted for political correctness, referring to our motivated enemies i simply terrorists. terrorism is a tactic and not an ideology. the threat has yet to be adequately explained by our leaders.

they are using terror to describe the military profile. it is more including the nonviolent efforts. ba during this administration, our enemy in ideology does not matter. this demonstration has decoupled what killed them for their behavior. that is why they inexplicably did not mention them. the truth this that they are motivated by the interpretation that is here. to the jihadists, there is one

religious and secular law. all man-made law are in a front to this. the dichotomy was crucial to western civilization that has no equipment for political islam. understand this is crucial to understand why -- to what jihadists stands for. they have a world that opposes them. they impress women and minorities. we view them as equals. they kill christians, jews, and other muslims. millions of such a muslims want

no more to submit to the barbaric wall. -- barbaric laws. they are our allies against this common enemy. we should have no illusions about the extent of this threat. they are extending their tentacles. at the heart of this threat is iran. they are pursuing a nuclear weapon and continuing to fund jihadists organizations like hezbollah and hamas. has this been successful? has this deter the threat? did are willful abandonments allow this and produced a less aggressive enemy? no. absolutely no.

prior to their enrichment from oil, many such countries and not have the technology and resources to project power and funds. our continued reliance on foreign oil one not only continue to cost the jobs, it threatens our national security. the best way to start them is to produce more liquid fuels here in america. as for the other main threat to the world, we see it in many places. there is the soft economic socialism that is turning it into a toothless tiger. there is the hard socialism. then is our own in hemisphere of

latin america. birthday of james monroe. it is a doctrine that said we would make no claims abroad. neither will be tolerate the crashing of sovereignty. kelly honesty say that latin- american is honestly better off? -- can we honestly say that america is better off? we cannot. will democrats are fighting a proxy battle.

these president has chosen domestic politics. they know how to fight this and stand up to chavez. ombia hasi has been there. they have been teaming with iran and russia and supporting drug cartels. we have sat by as they have nationalize investment, shut down free press, and jailed them. our response is as if we ignore it. they came to brazil from pteron

-- pteron -- tehran. there were likely transporting terrorist suspects. the venezuelan government shielded them from interpol. he came to recruit brazilians. so what? to build bridges of understanding? to reciprocate? if you have that, i have another bridge. and we really to our south, we despair. it is not a failed state. it could be. it is more valiant and iraq is today. it runs a real threat to our country. consider the growing presence.

why hasn't the present secure our borders? here is another case of objectives. let me be clear again. to negotiate with harden socialist states or ignored the threat and actions, it is to accommodate the leaders and digressions. i remain an optimist about america's potential. by reclaiming our legacy, i know we can make ourselves more secure and held the rest of the world become more stable and freed. but this is just a plan to reverse our course, restore a greatness and reestablish america. we need to begin by seeing the world the way it truly is.

we need to see evil for what it truly is. we need to see decency for what it is. earlier, the president suggested deep cuts in our military. is the wrong effort at the wrong time. now is the time not only to be increasing our military preparedness, the finishing the tasks it is a nuclear-free space. we should restore our missile defense. what small country will see any

advantage? second, we need to understand that we are in a war. the years to define our clothes are politically incorrect. they know who they are. they tell us who they are. and they use efforts to obscure reality. such behavior causes despair among our allies and confusion here at home. we should begin reversing course by defining what animates them, sharia, and enlisting muslims who agree with us to help defeat them. reinvigorate an apparatus in the middle east to counteract them.

we need to change your information operations abroad, to promote our core values of freedom, equality, democracies, just as we did with the soviet empire in the 1980's. we are in a class of civilizations and we will ultimately win with ideas and ideals, not words of appeasement and certainly not flimsy hollywood culture. we must cease our verbal, moral, and diplomatic equivalent as a diplomatic people. syria does not deserve an ambassador pared its protesters deserve support. israeli housing starts should not be put on a level moral terror attacks.hamas china should be challenged on religious liberty. having supported popular sovereignty abroad, of this and

the previous administration have erred in failing to sufficiently support the conditions of liberty and the institutions necessary for successful democracy. too often we have erred in thinking that liberties first order of business is a vote. elections should be a consummation and not the commencement to the democratic process. we have reaped nightmares. we get that backwards, from 1930's germany to hamas in the gaza strip. we need to recommit to humanitarian aid, specifically in africa. china and islam are competing for the hearts and minds of much of africa and we cannot turn back on our commitments we have made. i helped lead many of those efforts to address third-world debt and global aides.

and the investment i worked on as the united states senator has paid off. millions of people are alive today due to america-provided antiviral dodrugs. it is one of our best international investments. we must stand by israel and especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. anti-israel elements are working overtime all across the world to take advantage of this opportunity. the danger will grow exponentially if iran succeeds in its procurement of a nuclear weapon. ninth, the tradition of speaking up and out about prisoners of

conscience and dissidents in prison -- never mind american hostages -- from the middle east to asia needs to be restored. when president reagan instituted the policy reminding the world and america that there were -- that they were in jail because of their beliefs, it not only reminded us of our blessings, but the dissidents in sense of hope and the knowledge that somebody cared about them, that a great country was on their side. finally, we need to have a national effort to restore the teaching of american history in our nation's schools. it is our children's worst subject. they simply do not know their own story and, thus, when they are told ours is a history of aggression and immorally, they have no counter narrative to refuted. it is worth remembering that ronald reagan's final wish in his final address was to ask americans to instill in renewed and informed patriotism.

unfortunately, we have ignored this lesson and we are reaping the consequences. this world will soon consider the life and contribution of ronald reagan's partner in reshaping the world, pope john paul ii. he was -- and other polish hero helped bring freedom back to poland. john paul ii warned and said that freedom itself needed to be set free. "the united states is the only superpower. today, they lead the world. nobody has doubts about it, militarily. they also lead economically, but they are getting week. but they do not lead morally and politically anymore. the world has no leadership. the united states has always --

was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. there was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, that one could count on the united states. today, we have lost that hope." but i have not. my sense from traveling the country is neither have the american people. they're bursting of the seems to have a leader who believes in them and in our country again. in his farewell address to the nation, president reagan reminded us of this when he told the story of the uss midway that was patrolling the south china sea in the early-1980's. a sailor saw a tiny boat filled with refugees from indochina. a rescue lodge was sent to them. as the american came into view, one of the refugees smiled and

shouted "hello, american sailors. hello, freedom." that is who we are, free to men, free to women, and free to children. let us not forget that privilege and ignore that legacy. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. you mention the world "reset" in your title. of course, the head of mission has a different meaning for "reset." how do you think the u.s. should behave in this situation? how should be u.s. policy in russia should be? >> i think i laid that out in

the points that i articulated. i think we need to stand up for the principles and that our country represents. and stand by dissidents who seek freedom. we need to do so in countries that are not just run by governments that are friendly to the united states, but also in countries where governments are not necessarily so friendly. we have a good record of doing the first, not such a good record of doing the second. again, i believe that consistency, whether it is russia or china or iran or libya or wherever it is, you can stand for those principles. it does not mean we need to get militarily engaged or other things, but we need to stand up for those principles. >> thank you very much for your

interesting speech. i have to questions. the first one is about american exceptional ism. what is so wrong when others say there nations are exceptional, too? second of all, are we not living in a changing world? we have the emerging powers, like china, brazil, turkey, south africa, others? america is now in the midst of a changing world that will inevitably change america's role in relation to china, the growing debts, the growing dependence. do you really think that america can continue leading the world as it used to or does it have to also change its policies? >> i would say that we have an obligation to speak for what makes america exceptional and

what has in fact changing the world. when america has taken -- the american century, the last century, we site transformation of the world, not just the united states in becoming a global power, but the idea at and ideals that make america exceptional, the concept of people not being servants of the state, but in fact being free. it has infected, in a good way, the world. we now have governments all over the world -- the number of governments that practice principles of at least some level of freedom have dramatically increased over that 100 years. we have won the argument or are winning the argument and we need to continue to make that argument. what you're talking about is our own economic situation and our ability to be able to be a dominant economic and military

power. that is different from having what i believe is the truth about what the human condition should be and what the role of government should be visa vis its people. as i have mentioned clearly, we have a government, a leadership in this country that does not necessarily practice it here in this country as much as we should. it is a domestic an internal issue that will be worked through in the next election and hopefully to a desirable result. it will be a big issue in this election. what is the role of the government of this country? your observation that the changing nature of america as how we relate to our own citizens will have an impact on the world -- i would agree with that. i think that is why you see the aniston america. they do not want to change that.

a president who believes in us as opposed to a president who believes in himself and people in power here in washington. >> this is a pretty comprehensive foreign policy speech. but you did not mention afghanistan. why? what is your sense of the mission there? would you continue the 2014 timetable? are we winning? what is winning? >> the narrative did not bog down on that, but paint more of a larger vision of our overall policy. my belief in afghanistan is that we need to conduct a war. if we need to conduct a war, and

i believe we should, we should conduct a war in a way that we will be successful. we need to work in concert with all the people that you assign to the region and come up with a buy in andhas by i executed. i have concerns that that is not happening. this administration has time limits and conditions on resources that people on the ground are not happy with. there are some other factors at play. the bottom line is a president should not involve the american military unless it has a clear path of victory and pursues that path aggressively. >> [unintelligible] >> i do.

yes. >> defense secretary gates and incoming secretary panetta support significant defense cuts in the u.s. military budget. how concerned are you, senator, about america's ability to deal with china's naval buildup and to ensure american dominance of the seas and secure access through specific chokepoints in the pacific and indian oceans? >> that is a good point. there are many others in the military capability and the importance to our economy. if you look at what the president has suggested with respect to reducing the size of government, he has picked up the one area, which is the only area, that is the sole purview of the federal government. the one exclusive mission that

no state, no group of individuals can do, defend the united states of america is the only area the president believes we should reduce spending. that is a man who has his priorities upside down. i do not say that we cannot find substantial savings in the defense department. i served on the armed services committee. if you look at my record, we found lots of savings. we made lots of defense cuts, most of which, unfortunate, we plowed back into reshaping our military. my argument is that we should, in fact, cut defense in places that need to be reduced. and we need to plow that money back into the areas of importance. but my proposal would be that we maintain the funding of the defense department, not cut it, and that we should improve --

you mentioned one area -- this is not a speech on our defense budget -- but one area that i have grave concerns about is our navy and our ability to be able to control commerce. we see that -- a bunch of somali pirates, imagine if it was a much more systematic problem. if they want to take stronger regional stances, this may be a bigger problem in the future. yes, ma'am. go ahead. >> you said that the president's suggestion to avoid deeper military cuts is the wrong message, the wrong time. are there any defense cuts he would consider putting on the table? what specifically would they be? >> i will not lay out any specific defense cuts today.

i have enough here for riveted to talk about. i promise you, at some point in the future, i will lay out a more comprehensive defense strategy. again, i know a little bit about the budget and served on the committee for a long time. there are things going on already in the military where significant savings are coming about that can be applied broader. we will lay out a clear agenda as we move forward. i have not particularly decided to jump into this presidential thing. you'll have more details. >> you mentioned that sharia law is an existential threat to the united states. this seems to be some confusion among the general public on how to define sharia law. how do you define it? can you point to instances within the united states where it is taking over in a way? >> if you look at an instance where it is taking over, you

have already in the financial sector sharia-compliant finance where funds and people who are doing investments are deferring to people put up by groups, some of which are -- let's put it this way, suspect as the authority as to what the funds can be invested in in a sherry- compliant way. -- in a sharia-compliant way. investment houses are paying in some cases less than-than- credible people to give money to give their blessing for their types of investments. that is a problem. that is a way -- depending on what they are investing in and who they are paying to give their blessing, it could be going to places where it is not in our national security interests. you also have movements in this country to cordon off and

create family courts or other types of laws where muslims are only held accountable to religious law as opposed to the civil laws in this country. that is going on, as we know, it extensively in europe. but it is coming here and is being advocated for in this country. so there are concrete examples of how that is occurring in america today. i would argue, clearly -- i am not making the argument that american is by any way in the lead on this. the bigger problems and the more notable cases are clearly in places where the higher concentration of moslems exist and that is primarily in western europe, not here. >> [unintelligible] >> sure rihanna is a code, a civil code -- sharia is a code,

a civil code of how government should operate, from something as mundane as hygiene practices to religious taxepractices. there is a code by which muslims have to live. yes, sir. >> do you see a connectedness in this administration's policies to the middle east? if you do, what direction do you see them going in? is there a blanket policy or various theaters with various solutions? >> i think i laid out what i see, unfortunately, as an inconsistent policy as the white house said -- leading from behind. i do not know anybody who can

successfully lead from behind. particularly, if you are talking about deploying our military, if you will say to our men and women in uniform that you will go out there and represent and get in the line of fire to defend this country, how dare you stand behind them. you stand in front of them. if it is worth their sacrifice, it is worth you taking at least the political heat to be out in front of them instead of hiding behind them. it is clear to me that this president is trying to hide so he does not take political heat. it is also clear that, as i mentioned, very clearly in the speech that this is a president who believes our policies around the world were wrong and should

be apologized for. anyone who is composite with us in our policies, by their very nature, is suspicious and therefore not to be trusted and not to be supported. if you're an ally of the united states, look at all of our most important and traditional allies. are any of those relationships better today than they were when barack obama took office? any of them. pick one that is better today than it was and look at all of those who have lined up to oppose us. have any of them been confronted? have any of them not had some element of olive branches or alms giving in order to appease their anti-american notion? you have a president who, as i said before, does not believe in

american -- did not believe in american foreign policy. i think the root of that is that i do not believe he believes that america is exceptional and has anything to offer the world. when you believe that, there is no reason to advocate for that. is there anybody else? i will come back to the second question. we will go here and then we will go here and then we will wrap it up. yes, ma'am. >> thank you, senator. i wanted to ask specifically what are your plans as far as aids and hiv prevention in africa. >> as you probably know, as one of the authors that worked with the president on that far -- on the global aids bill, on securing funding, beyond what the administration requested for that.

i saw that, first and foremost, as a national security issue. it states that are dysfunctional, we have seen in the past, particularly in that area of the world which borders and includes a large islamic population is a breeding ground for these failed states -- these field states are breeding grounds for terrorists. obviously, when you're population is being decimated by a disease, it is hard to be a successful economic enterprise as a state. i believe that it was in our security interest to do. as i mentioned before, given the enormity of our budget, it is a relatively small amount of money. i think it has been a great investment, not just in keeping these states from becoming terrorist havens and states that

sponsor terrorists, but promoting the very ideals i talked about in the speech about to america is. that, as we seem -- as we have seen in other areas of the world, that has long term value for our country with the people in that region and build relationships that can be to our benefit from a national security perspective for a very long time. >> you disparaging you spoke about worries about the offense being cut too much. -- you spoke about worries about defense being cut too much. are there any particular areas that you worry have already been

cut too much? >> i believe we should deploy a missile defense system. first and foremost, we should be pursuing that. there are some real threats to our country that nobody talks about that i believe are serious -- electromagnetic pulses and the ability for a rogue nation to do something that can be debilitating to our country. if you do not have the ability to respond to that, it will be devastating for the future of our country. there is no reason not to pursue it. there's no reason not to protect us from such an obvious and consequential threat. that is just one missile threat. there are certainly other types of missile threats. that is my opinion, the most consequential. i will come back to you. i want to make sure i get to everybody.

yes, sir. >> in 2006, on the campaign trail, you said that the united states was engaged in a war against islamo-fascism largely perpetrated by iran. short of direct military action, how do you intend to stand up against this islamic fascism and for democracy around the world. -- world? i think a related out here. but you want to speak specifically about the run, we need to look at covert activities to engage the pro- democracy elements in countries where we have a tremendous strategic interests. i think iran is one of those countries. i think we overly identify iran for what it is. the fact that we have been timid in identifying these murderous

thugs, theocrats in iran for two sure,half years is, i am having a depressing effect on those in iran who would normally think they could count on us. it is certainly well known that, when you do polling in the middle east, countries in which the united states is friendly to the government does not to be very fearful to the united states in the arab world, the parisian world. whereas countries where we are truthful about the nature of the authoritarian regimes of which these people have to live under, we tend to be very popular. they tend to like americans. we have thrown that way in iran. we had strong support in the streets, not publicly, of

course, because you cannot say that publicly in iran. but privately, we had strong support in iran in the streets. we have forfeited that by turning our backs on their strive for democracy and their strive for freedom. go ahead, either one of the. >> [unintelligible] north korea poses? bilateral negotiations, we will obviously not do that. what you suggest we can do? -- what do you suggest we can do? >> i think we should continue to isolate north korea. we have been put in a compromise position because of our own economic spending binge of being in a position to leverage the chinese more now than we have

been able to in the past. clearly, it seems clear that it is in china's interest to have north korea as a buffer and as a point of attention and destruction in the region. we have to get to a point where that is no longer to their advantage. cleaning up our house here would help and renewing and restoring our alliances in the region and showing that we will be good friends to our allies in the region will also help in that regard. yes, go ahead, sir. >> if you were in charge tomorrow, what would you do with libya and syria? i want to know what you do directly. >> first, i have to have -- i do not have the information necessarily to make those kinds

of judgments in a way that i feel comfortable answering that question. i would have to have a lot more intel than is available publicly as to what is happening in libya, the nature of the rebels and the conditions on the ground. we have created a no-win situation as far as i can see in libya. if we continue on with this approach, we will be on a standoff for a long, long time. we will have a constant problem with respect to the supply of oil, especially with the perception of markets with respect to the supply of oil. and in that conflict would be a positive thing. the question is for the people that we are dealing with? are these folks that would result in something better than what we have in place in gaddafi? the same situation in syria -- i

know they say that the devil we know and the devil that we do not know. who are the people in the streets? who are they tied to? i find it harder to believe that assad -- that there's anybody out there in the streets that is much worse than assad with its relationship with iran and hezbollah. but i know there's a sense of some folks. i have to better understand that to the ultimate decision and go forward. but, clearly, i would make the argument -- i said this in my speech. i did not say we should get involved. i was not convinced that we really did have a strategic interest there, given the situation of gaddafi. again, maybe if more information -- i would have been more comfortable making that

decision. in the case of syria, i think we have a country that has sponsored terrorism, terrorists that have caused casualties to america and certainly have done great harm not just in their own country, but to lebanon and to israel. replacing assad with a better group of folks, if that is possible, is certainly in the national security of our country and something that we should be involved in. i am not comfortable to say at this point that that is something we should do. >> [unintelligible] and advocated it as a form of leadership. he talked about leading cattle from behind and impairing the most able of front. only if there is more danger,

would you take different. but to the united states might risk losing power militarily and economically by being based in three wars. >> i think you heard my answer that we do not always have to lead the jury but we should lead. just the answer that i gave should give the indication that -- if it is not in the national security interests of our country to get involved in another country, then we should not do it. we should not get involved as the president got involved. a humanitarian reason is not sufficient reason. it is not sufficient reason to get involved in another country using military force. you get involved only if there is a national security interest. >> should be taken economic interests into consideration, too? >> there are also to things you can do to provide leadership.

you can try and leadership from behind as opposed to having the military force out in front of it. i would not permit that way. there are other ways that you can impact -- i would not term it that way. there are other ways that can impact besides military action. i will give you a chance. even though there other questions, you have been patient. that counts for me. >> you offered a 10-point plan. one of them is that we must stand by israel. the environment for israel is getting tougher and that is also due to the change in government in its neighborhood. experts say that, regardless of what kind of government you will have, democratic or open, there will -- they will be more critical when it comes to israel. some people in your party and in the democratic party say that it was a mistake to support the democratic movement and to drop

the more autocratic government like mubarak and others. what is your take? >> i think i said that in my talk. we were quick to act with the rebels in egypt. with an ally of the united states and we refuse to side with the rebels in iran who is a sworn enemy of the united states, i find that inexplicable. if we will side with rebellion, then we better have a very good understanding of who the rebels are. that is why i call for better intelligence in the region. i think i made comments at the time that we should be standing by our allies before all this happened and be pushing for, as

i mentioned in the speech, free them. freedom, as i also said in a speech, does not mean democracy right away. it may not mean democracy for a long, long time if you do not have the conditions present in the country for a democracy that will end up with freedom. the object is freedom, not democracy. and that is what we have to be very clear about. we need -- sometimes we need to move our friends slowly, and just like our policy with china. it is one a try to influence the chinese to open, to become more politically free, religiously free, culturally free. we do not seem to have any real issues with that, but we should be doing that with our allies in the region and supporting them as they do that. but we did not. we decided that we would not --

that the president would reject involvement in other countries because, again, who are we to say that we're better than anybody else? and now we are living with the consequences of folks of people who are tired of living with what we never would have lived with. yes, ma'am. anybody else? one more question? is that it? ok, we will take one more. go ahead. of course, she would be the farthest away from the microphone. >> thank you very much. i have a question about japan. as you know, one of the important allies, japan, is facing the largest catastrophe ever after world war ii, like the largest earthquake and the nuclear power plant crisis which is still going on. would you please comment on that? is there anything you do if

you're in power, something different from the obama administration? one more question. what kind of impact do you see to the u.s. economy because of the decline in the japanese economy due to the earthquake? >> on the last question, i am not an economist. there have been a lot of economic reports on what the gdp would be here and what the global gdp is. i will let the economists figure that out. i do not know. i will not comment specifically on the obama administration. i must admit that i am not 100% up-to-date on all the things they have done. what i would do is -- japan is one of our best and closest allies and we should be working as closely with them as their best friends and neighbors that they are to help them through this difficult time. that is what my policy would be, to try to be as helpful as possible to them through this difficult time and that they're

getting japan back on its feet. it is not only to the benefit of japan, but to the benefit of the region, to our country, and the world. we should be all hands on deck to help in that regard. >> [unintelligible] nuclear crisis in japan? >> again -- i know that this is going on. both the public sector and the private sector have deployed resources to japan to help in that period that has come off the front page. i am not particularly current on all things are going on. again, we should deploy all the resources necessary to be helpful and make sure that we can contain a problem. thank you all very much. we appreciate you coming out today. [applause]

>> former senator santorum will be in new hampshire tomorrow with several other potential republican presidential candidates, including mitt romney and michele bachman. they will be participating in a formal hosted by the americans for prosperity foundation. you can watch it live on c-span and c-span.org beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, president obama announced his nominees to head the cia and the pentagon. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen talks about military operations in the middle east. and a look at protests against syria's government with the leader of the opposition movement. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2011] >> to mark, we will talk with reporters tim reid and paul krawzak.a and we will be at the national air and space museum to preview the final launch of space shuttle endeavor. stuart hall and germy kenny will be our guests. >> this weekend, panel on science, american history, climate change, and the constitution and collins with larry flint. just a few of the highlights from our coverage of the los angeles times festival of books. if the entire schedule at boo ktv.org.

>> president obama announced changes to his national security team today. he named cia director leon panetta to be defense secretary and general david petraeus to head up the cia. from the east room of the white house, this is a half-hour. >> everyone, have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. i want to begin by saying in a few words about the devastating storms that have ripped through the southeastern united states. the loss of life has been heartbreaking, especially in alabama. in a matter of hours, these deadly tornadoes, some of the worst we have seen in decades, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors, even entire communities are affected. others are injured and others are missing. in many places, the damage to homes and businesses is nothing

short of catastrophic. we can control when or where a terrible storm may strike. but we can control how we respond to it. i want every american who has been affected by this disaster to know that the federal government will do everything we can to help you recover and we will stand with you as you rebuild. i have already spoken with the governors of alabama, virginia, mississippi, tennessee, and georgia. i have let them know that we're ready to help them in any possible way. i declared a state of emergency in alabama so that we can make all necessary resources available to that state. i have dispatched federal emergency management agency to alabama to personally work with state and local officials. i will travel myself to alabama tomorrow to meet with those leading the response efforts as well as the families who are reeling from this disaster. i also want to commend all the men and women who have been

working around the clock the last few days to save the lives of their friends and neighbors. and to begin the long work of rebuilding these communities. these police officers, firefighters, emt's, and other emergency responders are heroes. they have the thank you of a grateful nation. we pray for their success and we stand with every american affected by this disaster in the days and weeks to come. as we meet our obligation to these americans, we are mindful of our obligation to the safety of all americans. that is why we're here today. as commander in chief, i have no greater responsibility than the security of the american people. and the well-being of our courageous men and women in uniform and their families. over the past two years, my administration has done whatever it takes to meet these responsibilities. we have been relentless against

al qaeda and its affiliates, preventing terrorist attacks and saving lives. we brought nearly 100,000 troops out of iraq in an orderly way. we ended our combat mission. and we refocused on afghanistan where we are breaking the taliban's momentum and training afghan forces. from europe to asia, we have strengthened old alliances, forged new partnerships, and restored american leadership in the world. still, we confront urgent challenges. in iraq, we're working to bring the rest of our troops home as iraqis secure their democracy. in afghanistan, we are moving into a new phase, transferring responsibility for security to afghan forces, starting to reduce american forces this summer, and building a long-term partnership with the afghan people. people across the middle east and africa did -- an

effort the seek to determine their own destiny. here at home, as we make our hard decisions that are needed to reduce america's debt, we cannot compromise our ability to defend our nation or our interests around the world. these are some pressing challenges that we must meet in the total days ahead. today, i am proud to announce key members of my national security team who, along with vice president biden and secretary clinton, will help us meet them. i work closely with most of the individuals on this stage. all of them have my complete confidence. they are leaders of enormous integrity and talent, who have devoted their lives to keeping our nation strong and secure. i am personally very grateful to each of them for accepting these new assignments. given the pivotal time we are in, i felt it was critical that we have this team in place so

that we can stay focused on our missions, maintain our momentum, and keep our nation secure. when i took office, bob gates had served under seven presidents. he carried a clock accounted down the days, hours, and minutes until he could return to washington state with his wife becky. [laughter] i was able to convince him to stay for one more year. rather, i was able to convince him to talk to becky about staying one more year. he is now one of the longest- serving defense secretaries in american history. as a grateful nation, we can agree that bob has more than earned the right to return to private life, which he has decided to do at the end of june. i will have more to say about secretary gates's service in the

days to to come -- in the days to come. because he challenged conventional thinking, our troops have the live-saving equipment that we need. he is -- they're better prepared for today's wars. because he courageously cut spending, we will save hundreds of billions of dollars that can be invested in the 21st century military that our troops deserve. i am confident that bob gates will be remembered as one of the finest defense secretaries in american history. i will always be grateful for his service. i am equally confident that reform agenda will be carried out by another great public servant of our time. leon panetta. leon appreciates the struggle and sacrifice is -- and sacrifices of our troops and our military families because he has

served himself. just as leon earned the trust and respect of our intelligence professionals at the cia by listening to them and fighting fiercely on their behalf, i know he will do the same for the armed forces and their families. the patriotism and extraordinary management skills that have define his four decades of service is exactly what we need in our next secretary of defense. leon knows how to leave, which is why he is felt with high esteem not only in this city, but around the world. he understands that, even as we begin the transition in afghanistan, we must remain unwavering in our fight against al qaeda. as a former omb director, he will make sure that we will make tough budget decisions, maintain our military organs,

and keep our military the very best in the world. leon, i know that you have been looking forward to returning home to sylvia in your beautiful monterey. i thank you for taking on another assignment for our country. i hope you do not have a clock. [laughter] i am also very pleased that his work at the cia will be carried on by one of our leading strategic thinkers and one of the finest military officers of our time, and general david petraeus. this is the second time in a year that i have asked general petraeus to take on a demanding assignment. i know this one carries a special sacrifice for him and his wife holly. after nearly four years in uniform, including leading americans and coalition forces in some the most challenging missions since 9/11, general petraeus will retire from the army that he loves to become the cia director. effective -- that will be

effective early september pending congressional confirmation. he knows that intelligence must be timely, accurate, and acted upon quickly. he understands that staying a step ahead of nimble adversaries include sharing and coordinating information, including with jim clapper. even as they confront a full range of friends, davids extraordinary knowledge allows into lead the effort to defeat al qaeda. just as the general petraeus change the way we fight wars in the 21st century, i am no -- i have no doubt that he will be able to lead our professionals in the fight. in this year of transition. i'm i am nominating a superb

commander, lieutenant general john allen, to succeed general petraeus as commander of the international security assistance forces. isaf. he helped turn the tide in the prosince, deputy commander of central command, respected in the region, and has been deeply involved in planning and executing our strategy in afghanistan. as the troops continue to sacrifice for our constitute as we tragically saw yesterday, general allen is the right commander for this vital mission. as coalition forces transfer responsibility to afghans, we're redoubling efforts to promote political and economic progress in afghanistan as well. our tireless ambassador helped us increase our civilia presence, and never before have the civilians and troops worked together so closely and so

successfully. i personally relied on karl's advice on this mission. after two years in one of the world's most challenging post, ambassador eikenberry's time is coming to a close today. i want to thank karl and his wife for outstanding service. to build on karl's great work, i'm grateful one of our nation's most respected dip my mats, ryan crocker is returning to afghanistan. is is a five-time ambassador. ryan is no stranger to tough aassignments. few americans know this region and its challenges better than ambassador crocker. he was the first enjoy to afghanistan after the fall of the taliban. he reopened our embraced embassy there. as a former ambassador to pakistan, he realizes the strategy has to succeed on both

sides of the border. as ambassador to iraq, his remarkable partnership with general personnel announcements dreys pro-- general petraeus created a political fort in a long term partnership between the two countries. this is exactly what is needed now in afghanistan where ambassador works with our new special representative to afghanistan and pakistan, mark grossman, and i want to thank ryan and his wife christine, a decorated foreign officer herself, f agreeing to serve our nation once more. so, leon panetta, the defense department, david petraeus at the cia, ambassador crocker and general john allen in afghanistan. these are the leaders that i've chosen to help guide us through the difficult days ahead. i will look to them and my entire national security team for council, continuity, and the effort this time demands, and

the people on the front lines, the brave troops, outstanding intelligence personnel, our dedicated diplomats will look to them for the leadership that success requires. i urge our friends in the senate to confirm the individuals as swiftly as possible so they can assume their duties and help me meet the urgent challenges we confront as a nation. we are a nation still at war, and joined by the leaders alongside me today, i will continue to do everything in my power as commander in chief to keep our nation strong and the americaneople safe. with that, i'd like to invite each of the leaders to say a few words. i'll actually start with bob gates. >>hank you, mr. president, for your kind words. want to thank president bush for first asking me to take this position, and you, mr. president, for inviting me to stay on and on and on.

[laughter] i also thk my wife, becky, for 44 years of extraordinary patience, but especially the last four and a half years o patience. every single day i've been secretary, our military has been engaged in two major wars and multiple other missions. it's been the greatest honor of my life to serve and to lead our men and women in uniform and our defense civilians. they are the best america has to offer. i will continue to give my all to them and to the psident right through june 30th because obviously there is much left to do. my highest priority from my first day in office has been to do everything i could for our uniformed men and women in harm's way, to help them accomplish their mission, to come homeafely, and if wounded, to get them the best possible care from battlefield to ho front. i've done my best to care for

them as though they were my own sons and daughters. i will miss them deeply. there will be other occasions to spea over the next two months, so for now i'll congratulate leon panetta and thank him. [laughter] leon i believe is the best possible choice to succeed me, and i also congratulate general david petraeus, ambassador crocker, and general allen i thank you too, mr. president, for the opportuny to serve and work with you. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank you and the vice president and your entire national security team for the trust and confidence that you placed in me. i especially want to thank my good friend bob gates, the guy with the big smile next to me. [laughter] he's a public servant without

equal, whose tenure as secretary of defense will go down as one of the most consequential and important examples of leadership in the history of the american government. since he, too, was a former cia director, i'm hopeful that that experience can serve me as well as it served bob as secretary. speaking of the cia, i also want to deeply thank the good men and women of the cia for all they do without recognition or credit to safe gourd this nation and protect it. they welcomed me to their ranks, and it has been the highest honor of my professional career to be able to lead them.

to be able to lead them. .. and in my 40 years of public life, they have been tolerant beyond measure and very loving and because of that, i love them all very much. i spent 40 years in public service. and it began when i served in the army as an intelligence officer in the 1960's. i was proud to wear the uniform of my country and my respect and

admiration for our nation's armed forces has only grown in the decades since. this is a time of historic change, both at home and abroad. as the son of immigrants, i was raised to believe that we cannot be free unless we are secure. today, we are a nation at war. and job won will be to ensure that we remain the strongest military power in the world to protect that security that is so important to this country. yet, this is also a time for hard choices. it's about ensuring that we are

able to prevail in the conflicts in which we are now engaged but it's also about being able to be strong and disciplined in applying our nation's limbed resources in defending america. none of this will be easy, but i'm confident, mr. president, that you can be assured that i will give you, the nation's commander in chief, my best and most candid advice about these issues and i will be a faithful advocate for the brave men and women at the department of defense who put their lives on the line every day to ensure that we achieve that great american dream of giving our children a better life and a

more secure america. thank you. their service to our country is of vital importance, indeed, it is all the more vital as it is all the more unherald. if confirmed i will do my utmost

to serve, represent and lead those great intelligence professionals as well as to work closely with the intelligence community leaders as mr. opinion etta has done. as i return to afghanistan tomorrow i will do it with guarded optimism with the mission and the military team that the president will nominate to lead that effort. i can think of general allen and ambassador crock that troopers and their civilian colleagues have achieved. during the flight back to afghanistan, i will reflect on the extraordinary leadership that secretary gates has provided over the past 4 1/2 years at the helm of the depept of defense. all in uniform are deeply

grateful to him but none can be more grateful to him than i am. again, mr. president, thank you very much for the opportunity if confirmed to continue to serve our nation. i understand well the demands of this mission and mr. president, if confirmed by the senate i will dedicate my full measure to

the successful accomplishment to the tasks and the objectives now set before us. mr. president, thank you for your confidence. >> mr. president, i'm deeply honored to have your confidence that of the vice president, that of the secretary of state and national security adviser for this important mission. the challenges are formidable and the stakes are high. 9/11 came to us out of afghanistan. our enemy must never again have that opportunity. i thought i found a permanent home as dean of the bush school in texas as secretary of defense had done before me.

but the bush school is a school of public service and mr. president, i'm very proud to answer this call to serve. overnine years ago, i had the privilege of reopening our embassy in kabul after the fall of the taliban. if confirmed i look forward to build on the progress that has been achieved in recent months working with the courageous men and women at our embassy, with our military, with our nato allies and united nations and especially with the people of afghanistan. i also look foffered to rejoining my old battle but buddy general petraeus and i'm delighted to carry forward with another good friend and colleague from iraq, general allen. thank you, mr. president.

>> i cannot think of a group of individuals better suited to lead our national security during this difficult time. while i'm up mere i think it is important to knowledge the work that my vice president, secretary of state and national security adviser have done as well. this is going to be an outstanding team and i'm grateful of the service they have provided and i'm confident they will do everything to en sure america's safety not only today but tomorrow. let me thank their teams, some of them who will be shuffling their own lives, whether it's see cia or in afghanistan or all of "v" done outstanding work and i'm grateful and once again let me thank the families of the individuals here, all of them make extraordinary sacrifices.

michelle can attest to that and we know that none of us could be successful were it not for your extraordinary support. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> live saturday, the white house correspond dents annual black tie dinner and red carpet arrival at 6:45 and later remarks from president obama and seth myers and highlights of past dibr dinners live on c-span and at c-span.org, follow along

with video clips and live video. >> c-span's comprehensive resource on congress has new features to make it easy to find information about your elected officials, full list of members, committee harings and the progress of bills and votes. look at the congressional con call at c-span.org. congratlation go to you all the winners of the student cam. view the winning viewers. and if you would like an early start, the theme is the u.s. constitution. select any portion and create a video of why it is important to you and look on on our web site.

>> admiral mike mullen talked about military leadership and developments in the middle east, northern africa and asia.

>> admiral mumen has served our country for 4 years ever since graduating from the naval academy in 1968 and fighting in the vietnam war. he has been chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for the 3 1/2 years and chief of naval operations and served as the very top of our nation's military leadership under two presidents democrat and republican alike, which says something about how they view him as being atraight shooter and very talented man. it is also a period, a decade of continuing war, endless war and so he has had the job of running those wars. the world is not a very peaceful place. today, the embeers are hot in

middle east, north korea and iran and keeping an eye on china as well and not to mention the continuing threat of stateless terrorism or the invisible threat of cyber attack. and he is concerned with the health of the institutions he leads, the forces stressed by continual deployment and the nation's fiscal problems that are putting pressure on many facets of our defense establishment. these are some of the topics we'll address with admiral mullen and thank you for being here. >> thanks. good to be back. >> before we get to the hot news of the day, today's headlines and yesterday's headlines in recognition that you are about five months i think it is from the end of your terrific military career, i thought i would start with this question.

in your long service and in your tenure as c.n.o. and joint chiefs of staff chairman, what have you seen the u.s. military's accomplishments and strengths and what has particularly concerned you about the military, its operation and reputation in the country and world? >> from its accomplishments. i guess i would put at the top of the list having started to go into iraq in 2004 and assuming the job in c.n.o. in 2005 and 2006 where the navy was putting thousands of sailors ashore and coming in as chairman just as we initiated the surge and remembering very well -- actually as if it were yesterday, how bad things were

then. and i was in iraq last week. and it's night and day. it is truly been an exroorled shift change and the creation of an opportunity for 26 million people that just didn't exist a few years ago and that came at a great price obviously. and that is a reflection, i think of our military's ability to adapt and change from the classic conventional force to i call it the desk counterinsurgency force in the world. but it's a reflection of the extraordinary young men and women who serve, 2.2 million men and women, active guard and reserve who serve in a joint way many of us could not imagine just a few years ago. and i'm very proud of them.

they could not have succeeded without the extraordinary matchless support of their families over the course of this decade. families are obviously critical and always have been critical. from my perspective what has happened in the last decade they have become integral because of the repeated deployments and because of the lack of time at home, the stressors that they are under as well as those who are actually deploying. some believe even more because of the worry every single day when you have your husband or your wife in the fight. so probably the single biggest area that i am most proud of and just privileged to serve for

every day are those young men and women who make a difference. >> and on the other side of the coin, while you have perhaps started to answer this question, what has concerned you about the military and the status of the military? i know you have talked about the isolation of the military, if that's the right word, only 1% of families who are actively participating in the military, but there may be other things as well. >> two immediate thoughts. i have spoken consistently about the needs for the military to staya political, in what is increasingly a politicized world, not just in the united states and that has to do with the 24/7 news cycle and flow of

information, but the need to ensure that we are absolutely neutral and we serve the civilian leadership and we need to be very mindful of that in how we speak about it and how we engage, whether you are active or whether you are retired. so that is something that i think we have to constantly keep out in front of us to make sure we aren't coming off track. i have been in too many countries where that is not the case. it is a fundamental principle for us as a country and we need to make sure that that is very clearly and cleanly sustained. and secondly is what you mentioned. i do worry about the contact we have with the american people, the connection we have with the american people. we are less than 1% of the population and come from fewer and fewer places in the country

and i worry about the things that we don't do anymore. through brac, we have moved out of neighborhoods throughout the country so we aren't in the churches, coaching the teams, living the neighborhoods. so the relationship or the understanding is created by what's in the media and i don't expect that is going to change in terms of physical size. we have to recognize that as a challenge. the reason i'm so concerned about that is america's military must tay connected to the american people. and if we wake up and find out we are disconnected, that is a very bad outcome for the country. we all have to work on that. that is what military leadership must do and also in it being a two-way street, connecting with

leaders and people of the american country. the guard and reserves who liven throughout the country and who serve out of communities, local communities and i think we can do a better job connecting their there to ensure that that very important connection between the american people and our military is healthy. >> there teams, one more question on that, there seems to be at least here in washington a great deal of support for, in particular wounded warriors and people who are coming back from having served and getting out out of the service, is that something that is on the surface -- does it go deeper? do you think that that sentiment

exists across the country? >> it goes much deeper than here. i have traveled extensively over the last year and-a-half to meet with local leaders in big cities and in small rural areas. about a month ago i was in boise, idaho for example and american people support our men and women in uniform and their families and local leadership that i meet with, they are passionate with connecting with our veterans as they return home and their families. and i have tried to work to be able to better make that connection the way i describe it here in washington, our yellow pages in the pentagon is still four inches thick and those of us who work in the pentagon don't understand it. if i work in rural america rkts how do i connect with someone in

the pentagon or the v.a. to try to get that idea across the goal line to help and support our young men and women? and theyr by and large -- most of your young and men and women are not going to stay it in the military and make it a career, they are returning at a robust g.i. bill, and tens of thousands of them are going to school and i call them they are wired to serve. they are in their mid-20's and seen difficult times clearly but they offer great potential for our country and with a little investment custom miesed locally which i think it must be and i don't think the d.o.d. or v.a. can do it, the three of us, d.o.d. and v.a. and communities throughout the country, working

together can focus on employment, health and education and with small investment there, they will take off and provide decades of service. they -- i find while some of them and particularly wounded, their lives may have changed, but their dreams haven't changed. they want to go to school, start a family, put their kids delueskiles, two incomes and own a piece of the rock. i have tried to connect with community leaders in ways to be able to create the knowledge of those who are coming home, who they are and where they're going and what the opportunities are with those who have given so much. part of the -- part of this focus has been on families of the fallen, those who paid the ultimate price and sometimes we have to be more active in

pursuing them in terms of support because their lifeline has been their military member. the services are focused on that. and in every community, they all want to say thanks and make a difference in their lives so they can literally put food on the table and take off in the next chapter of service where ever it might be. >> at the same time, you have also expressed concern about homelessness. you referred to what happened after vietnam in that regard. and we have the new effort by michelle obama and stan mcchrystal to support military families. what is the emphasis of that? >> many of the issues -- the

military leadership and our spouses have been working on have actually now been raised to the level of the president and the first lady and the vice president and dr. biden and dr. biden and mrs. obama have come together in this initiative called joining forces and it really is to support our military families and one of the things they do, they just give this great voice and back to this connection piece. i'm encouraged by that. and it's focused on the needs of our families and raising the awareness and the opportunity to reach out to them. they are a wonderfully military independent group and won't ask for help and it's heart of what allows them to be as long as they are and yet there are -- we live in a time that has been

particularly stressful, 10th year of war, multiple deployments. my wife deborah sees spouses who have post-traumatic stress symptoms, kids, children, who are exhibiting the same kind of thing. and again it's back to this connection. so i do applaud the effort. there has been a lot of work that's gone into it. and i'm thankful that the president and mrs. obama and vice president and dr. biden have taken this on. it really is a big deal. >> let's turn to the top of the news. leon opinion etta will succeed secretary gates and general petraeus will be c.i.a. director and i understand that your policy is not to comment on nominations before they are made by the president. by hiptthetically, are there tea

leaves to be read in the appoint ment of the military man to head the c.a. -- c.i.a. >> i really can't comment on it. i have worked very closely with leon opinion eto as well as -- opinion etta as well as general petraeus and great admiration for both men who are wonderful public servants and their service in their administration has been extraordinary.

>> i won't ask my second question on that. let's turn to the budget, the budget and what they importanttend you said the greatest threat to america's national security is america's debt and you have said that the flush years of pentagon budgets including the offbudgeting of the wars has destroyed budgetary discipline in the pentagon. budgets already tight. personnel reductions have been taken with senior officer positions owe bottle issued. i know that you are concerned and many military leaders are concerned about the claim of personnel in resources in the defense department and health benefits cost associated with that. how do you view the budget going

forward? what are the key challenges if you do see a period of declining defense budgets? >> i do see that. and the reason i talk about the debt as the single biggest threat to our national security is -- it's basically not very complex math. i think the worst situation that we are in as a country fiscally, the likelihood of the resources made available for national security requirements continue to go down is very high. this is the third time i have been through this. we did this in the 1970's and 1990's. and if you look at the data going back to the 1930's, our defense budget goes up and down and it does so on a fairly regular basis.

certainly, this is not unexpected from my point of view. and i have been in the pentagon most of the last decade with the increasing defense budget, which is almost doubled, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades or prioritize or do the analysis and hasn't forced us to limit ourselves and get to a point in a very turbulent world of what we are going to do and not going to do. so i see that on the horizon and we need to be paying attention to that. i have said the defense needs to be on the table and i'm comfortable with that. that said, i'm required to articulate our national security requirements and certainly advise the president and others, but particularly the president about how we best can achieve them with the force that we

have. and we find ourselves at a particularly difficult time for, let's say more thanization of our air force. we are running out of life in those assets that we bought in the 1980's under the reagan administration, at a time when i don't have to tell you or this audience, where our national security requirements continue to challenge us. if we had been sitting here a few months ago, i would not have put japan libya at the top of the list of countries i would be spending the majority of my time on for the time that i have. and that is the unpredictability. and the loss of lives in japan. while there was focus in libya, we had 20,000 troops and 18 or 19 ships in support of that

humanitarian assistance for weeks at a time. so the demands i think will continue. we have to be pretty measured about what we are going to do and not going to do. i have been in a hollow military before and i won't lead a hollow military. i know what one is and what it can and can't do and i think it would be particularly dangerous in the world we are living in now to hollow out. however we get to our future, it must be hole. and you talked about cuts in personnel and that's out in the 15, 16 time frame, maybe 14 right now. when i was the head of the navy, it was 60% to 70% of my budget every year and that is active reserve as well as civilians,

the personnel costs were that percentage of my budget. and i have said it this way, i need every single person i need but don't need one more. and oftentimes that becomes the -- almost too easy to say let's do away with force structure because there is a lot of money there. but we must evaluate there against our overall requirements. i talked about the health care explosion that we have had in our costs, 51 billion this year, $64 billion in 201. that's not sustainable. so we all have to sharpen our pencils and make sure every dollar is being spent well and we need to be good stewards of the resources that the american taxpayer gives us and we really

-- we are going to have to do the hard work to get that right. we have to come through that cycle and we will and come through in a strong action. >> so do you see the ratio changing, the 60 to 70% in payroll and associated costs are going to claim a lesser share of the budget going forward as you see it? >> i don't know the answer to that. we need to have that in front of us and recognize that investment as secretary gates and i have focused on the future and how we talked about that is in terms of if we get it right to our people, we will be ok. if we retain in our military right now this most combat-experienced force in our history, if we retain the junior

officers who have been through this. if we retain the right young n.c.o.'s in our services, we will be just fine. and if we don't, no matter what the budget as we come out of these wars and i believe we will over the next decade or so, then we are going to struggle. we need to focus on the leadership aspect of it, retention aspect of it but should not be blind to the cost and investment that it takes to make sure we get it right for the overall defense resource account. >> let's talk for a minute and i think an interesting question is the relative importance of the uniform services and whether or not the army's role in that relative scale will go down somewhat. secretary gates has said that in his opinion and i'm quoting here, any future defense secretary who advises the

president to again send a big american land army into army, middle east or africa should have their head kpped. so how about the army, a. and b, what will be the most important roles be for the navy and air force. why don't we start with the army. i love our army and one of the great joyce and part of the reason i have been privileged to literally do that is it gives me the funt to grow in every single job and this job gives me the opportunity and i don't think i have learned any more single subject. i knew about the marine corpts because of the navy and marine corps relationship, but i have

learned a lot more about our ground forces and they have been a heroic force. and the marine corps and the army and i have watched the army change and go through this counterinsurgency -- develop this capabilities in wries that many of us could not have anticipated. what i do worry about when we get in this environment there are saws that people pull off the shelf. we went through it in the 190's. and as we move forward here, we recognize we are living in a different world be than the last time we went through this or the time before that. that's why the holeness of this, the comprehensiveness of this challenge in terms of how do we adjust is really important. and i think a catastrophic adjustment, a massive change in

the world we are living in right now would not be very prudent at all. and i certainly secretary gates' point. but my expectation is, most of the senior leaders in the military think we live in this time of quote, unquote, persistent conflict and don't know where we are going to be used or when but we need to be ready. all four services and they are wonderfully unique and joint in ways that we hadn't, as i said before i am gipped a few years ago and we need the talent and need the capabilities of all four services. i think the future is very healthy for all four services. there is a tremendously important role for our navy and air force along with our ground forces. it's been that combination over our history that has served us

exreppings neal well. and one of those old clauses is let's divide the pie up and you have to do it difficult. and when we see these pressures, we need to lead as the president has laid out and as secretary gates and i talked about, we need to lead with a strategic view, a strategy before we start taking out the meat ax to reduce the budget and how to meet that number and then after that, wheel what -- well, what are we going to do with it and dangerous way to do it. >> you talked about the need for a strategy. do we have one now? >> the framework against which

we review our national security requirements is the q. d.r. given the enintensity of the fiscal crisis, we need to reassess that and not throw it out but look at it as an jsh adjust it and given that adjustment, this is where we ought to go. let's engage on a tour of the horizon of the world's hot spots. and let's start with libya how

do you think this nato deal has gone. >> i was once the fleet commander down in norfolk and naples, italy where i commanded all forces in the south, forces that were assigned to the nature oofer mission in iraq in 2004 when nato took that on as well as the forces in the balkans. we have done in about 18 days what it took us 18 months to do in bosnia in terms of standing up the command, committing to a mission and execution. and i think that speaks volumes about nato's aguilty in these times, certainly compared to

where it used to be. i'm impressed how nato has grabbed this mission and executed it and executes it literally today. and yes, 28 countries are not participating on the combat side, but the majority of countries are participating one way or another and it's not all about combat or military capability. there is humanitarian assistance, the kind of support we need in the maritime environment. so i have been very, very pleased with how nato has both stood up to this and executed it. a few years ago, when i first came into this job both secretary gates and i were fairly frequently beat up by critics saying can't you get more nato forces involved. nato has stood up to that in

ways i couldn't imagine and just like this mission. nato is in a much better place everyone a few years ago. more adaptive, more capable and more flexible. there are things that we will learn from this libya campaign that i think not just individual countries, but nato as an alliance will have to adjust having studied those lessons and that's for the future. jore all i'm very pleased. >> you have not yet concluded that this may be a new model where the united states is willing to seize leadership in military campaigns to the allies? >> i think the assertion in the question is it's black and white. and just because we have done it

once in terms of -- which is something we have asked other countries to lead more aggressively in previous times and they haven't, so to say this is it for the future, i think almost across-the-board whether nato or the united states, we just can't be that certain. it's working now. they are leading well. we are in very strong support. the mission is executing well. i fundamentally believe we prevented a massive humanitarian disaster that gaddafi would have wreaked on his citizens in benghazi and that's the mission to protect the libian people. and nato has been effective and combination of us going in early and them taking over and leading has worked very well. >> various people including

retired general have called for more involvement and military advisers in preparation for u.n. peacekeeping force of some sort and i'm wondering what you think about that and also whether you think that we are following the weinberger doctrine which says you don't go unless you know how you're going to get out. >> long-term, the strategy and this is the political strategy as gaddafi is going to be out and needs to be out, along with his family. clearly, the initial limited mission on the part of what we participate in and participate today is to ensure as best we possibly can the protection of the libian people. there are many, many ideas on what we should be doing, what

nature shoo should be doing and how to do this. being on the inside, as every single operation is, extraordinarily complex. it is not -- when asked about, well when does it end and how does it end, those are unknowns right now. there is an extraordinary amount of political pressure that has been brought to bear, financial pressure brought to bear and that will continue to be -- both not just exist but ratch it et up. the arab league has pitched in against a fellow arab in a strong way. georgia -- gaddafi's days are numbed. if you ask me how many, i don't know the answer to that. i think the political pressure will continue be emfa side and

focused in a way that sees him leave as soon as possible. with that said, he is a survivor and it isn't going to be -- there's no easy solution that is staring us in the face here. >> let's move on to, i'm grouping these countries in the interest of time, tunisia, egypt and yemen, talk about that for a minute and particularly with regard to succession issues. we have had strong ties to egypt and yemen, but we don't know what kind of regimes are going to emerge from all this turmoil and al qaeda is a powerful force in yemen. so my question is, is our own security, the united states' security compromised by the turmoil in these countries?

>> i don't see that right now. and we have had a 30-year relationship with egypt. and very strong relationship and quite frankly i have been incredibly impressed with how the military lip in egypt continues to handle this crisis and what is a constant in all three of those countries is this -- this is about the people in those countries. those are internal issues. we have military-to-military relationship with yemen and hasn't been that long and we have worked hard to train them. in that regard, it's vastly different in both strength, depth and breadth. and at the same time rkts it is

internal and will he involve there as well. there is the most viral strain of al qaeda that lives there now and the most dangerous strain of al qaeda that lives there and that we all must be mindful of that in yemen as well. and then just briefly in tuesday neice yeah, that is another -- tunisia, that is another, that is driven from the inside and not that the national security requirements of the u.s. aren't -- we clearly need to keep an eye on if it moves to -- and the al qaeda threat in yemen is one that is of most concern, although that was a very high concern before recent events in yemen. so we'll continue to stay focused on that. >> let me see. let's turn to another grouping

of countries, saudi arabia and bahrain. some experts say suppression of protests there will lead to further revolt, including possibly even in saudi arabia, which has been a long time key al-- ally out there. and are we concerned about that and what are the implications of what is happening in bahrain with the fifth fleet which is headquartered there and do we have contingency plans for the fifth fleet if things turn bad in bahrain. >> i traveled there a few weeks ago at the height of the bahrain crisis and a couple of things struck me, first of all how closely their gulf council had come together, all of the countries and the message to me

is that bahrain is a red line very specifically. secondly there was a belief that iran was behind this. and i just don't agree with that. all the information and intelligence i have seen is iran had nothing to do with what happened in bahrain. like the other countries, it was an internal issue and i do worry about the extent of the crackdown in terms of potentially opening the door to iran. and i have now seen and this doesn't surprise me at all, iran trying to take advantage of the situation, not just there, but in other countries as well, which is no surprise. the -- we all continue to be extremely concerned about iran. i want to reassure everyone that

we haven't taken our eye off that ball. that iran still continues to try to destabilize. they continue from my perspective to develop the capability that gets them the nuclear weapons. and that they're still the leading sponsor of trim from a state perspective of any country in the world. they more active now in iraq and one of the things i have been concerned about is the relationship between the instability in bahrain and how that's impacted our capabilities or what is going on in iraq as iraq is going through transition. so it's an area of great focus and great concern and i don't see anything right now that would jeopardize our presence in

bahrain, our fifth fleet has been there for a long time and u.s. navy has been in bahrain since the late 1940's. we have a long-standing relationship there and it continues to be a very strong relationship. certainly, it's important that we never get to a point that it never gets to a point in bahrain where that fleet, that capability, which is so important in providing the kind of security that -- and support given iran's threats, none of us would ever want to see that be jeopardize and i don't see that right now. >> you recently returned a few days ago from a trip to iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. and let's spend a few minutes on the issues there. iraq, there has been something

with an uprising there but i believe your focus on your visit to iraq was on a pointed question, do they want us there, does the iraqi government want us there. 47,000 troops there now. and i believe that there is only something like a three-week window where the -- in which the maliki government must actually tell us that he wants us there or else we are going to have a train moving out of that country and we will be gone? >> we have 47,000 troops there. the current policy is that we will be completely out of there by the end of december. i wouldn't limit it to or constrain it to three weeks. what i said while i was out there, we have weeks, not months to address this issue, if the

iraqi government wants to address it. and so the general and the ambassador and others, they are working on this extremely hard. and in -- and will continue to do that, there are great opportunities with respect to the future of iraq. the challenges that are there now are principally political and the demonstrations there have certainly not turned into the kind of demonstrations that have existed in other countries. the security environment is good, that doesn't mean we don't have the challenges or that the iraqi government doesn't have challenges because there is still a level of violence but lowest since 2003. i'm comfortable with the development and leadership of the iraqi security forces. they tell me that they will have some gaps should we leave 31

december and intelligence in aviation, you know in logistics, maintenance and support. so we are aware of that and we'll have to see what the political leadership in iraq does. >> and are you not concerned that the governance structures and civilian governance structures have not kept pace with the advances in security forces and so the people of iraq aren't seeing real results in terms of their own daily lives and own economic and social lives? >> the iraq government has some challenges there, although i think -- and they have improved and will continue to improve. they have -- they are rich in resources and i think economically and fiscally, in the next few years, will be in

pretty good shape. from a security stand point, the security forces have performed exceptionally well. so in many ways it's up to the politicians to get this organized. the ministries have really improved over the course of the last few years. so they are in much better shape in delivering goods and services than they used to be, but they still have significant challenges. >> i'm going to -- we only have two more countries but i'm going to ask you if you would like to ask questions in about five minutes here, if you would, please come toll one of these two microphones. pakistan, i believe there is tension in our relationship with the pakistan leadership. i believe that when you travel there just recently, you delivered a pointed message

about the pakistan intelligence service, i.s.i.'s facilitation of the network of terrorists, which are dedicated to -- who are dedicated to killing our people. what is the status of our relationship with pakistan? and could it deteriorate to a point where those key supply routes that supply our troops in afghanistan with the needed equipment could be compromised? >> i mean theoretically, it could deinvolve, threaten those lines of communication where we bring an awful lot of supplies and support for the efforts in afghanistan. that said, our relationship is one we continually work on. and right now, it was strained and strained because of the raymond davis case.

he was the individual that was taken by the pakistanis after a very serious incident where he shot two individuals who threatend him and we worked our way through that. but in working our way through that, it did strain the relationship, so that's what i -- this is a routine trip for me and i go there every three months but it wasn't routine in their nature because of the relationship that had been so badly strained as a result of the davis case. and so it's something i have invested a lot of my time in because it's important we stay connected. extraordinarily complex country and it's an extraordinarily complex region. i have talked about our engagement in that part of the world and can't pick one country or the other, it's afghanistan and pakistan and have