? can you tell us anything about that conversation? >> as far as the scrub, i did not talk with him in detail. he was very supportive. he and a stance. we will do the right thing. he had a great talk with the crew. they went out for some time. he met with gaby over at the sethe cc. >> any questions on this side? >> would the wind, looking in hindsight, would the wind have the latest in a way. it got really and gusty at the time of launch. >> at kennedy, of the wind was

appropriate. we thought heading into this that we would havnot had any problems. cerros was raining as well -- saragosa was raining as well. >> any more questions over here? ok, let's come back over here to the front. wait for the microphone, please. is there any knowledge if the congresswoman will stay for the launch? or will she be heading back to houston? >> we do not know.

we have not been told what her plans are. >> do you know if president obama would come back for either of bay -- would come back? with the make room for the shuttle if you had to make plans in the middle of the week -- with the they make room for the shuttle if you had to make plans in the middle of the week? >> there is no firm commitment. >> with the atlas, we will see how they're doing on their process and how we're doing on hours. if we look what we are a go and we needed to days, we can talk with him about that. if they are having problems, that may give us a little room. we need a little extra time to troubleshoot, too. that is a dynamic discussion. yes, we will be having those discussions.

>> i wonder if you have had any more anecdotes about the meeting with congresswoman deferreds for any of the other interactions -- giffords or any ofrred the other interactions. >> his meeting was private with .ettabby there were talking about the mission and what they would do wanted. he was extremely interested. the girl passed broad questions when they were touring atlantis. they were very enthused, especially the first lady and the president. i know he enjoyed his time with the crew. >> a question all the way in the back.

>> i will just shout. >> do not do that. people on the tv cannot hear you. >> can you tell me how the astronauts will be spending the next couple of days and how much access they will have to their families and what you will be doing with them to keep them up to speed? >> i guess i've -- i have not been there before. [laughter] they will have time with their families, obviously, not to their children, but they are old enough to allow them to be in quarantine and visit him. there will be time to just relax and get together with their families again. they will be going over their procedures on a regular basis, making sure they are ready. they will be listening in to

hear how they are doing on the troubleshooting. we're looking for to what the weather will be and what the plan is for flying. mainly, they will be relaxing in crew quarters. there well-prepared. they worked long and hard for this. they're ready to go. this is an opportunity to kick back a little bit and relax. >> james? >> thank you. it sounds like the crew knew, even as they were sitting up, before they walked out, that this issue was in work and a scrub was possible or probable. >> like us, then other should very well, if not better. colonel cabana knows it extremely well. so, yes, they it probably understood this was a significant problem. in order to stay on the timeline, have got lucky, we had to keep them headed toward the pad.

if we needed another hour or two to do with the problem, they would have done that and they would have strapped in. they understood that, too. it was a coincidental thing with the timing of the crew. >> this meeting with the president effectively stretching the crew quarantine rules? >> no, actually. the president had a physical body flight crew surgeon and was cleared to meet with the crew. the crew is in a big room. no one was up close to him, other than the president and the first lady. and the doctor. >> you have to make sure that the family members are ok to be in close quarters. but absolutely. in 20, -- in quarantine, anybody who is with the crew has been cleared. there was nothing unusual or out

of the ordinary. >> could the two lines involved here, do they each have four heaters in them? the switch box, when you get that off, is the problem that takes a couple of days because there needs to be so much testing done or because you need to get to it and get it out of that spot? >> i am not 100% certain of the configuration of the heaters. work to open upf that box and change it out and close it back up and then the retest. so it is a significant deal. >> it looks like there are 12 different leaders on that line,

but not all of them will -- different heaters on that line, but not all of them will cycle of the same time. the rest of them are in the category of may or may not be responding. we will pull out all the detailed data compared to the history and see if it should be cycling to see which pieces have failed and try to find our common root cause. the two heater strings are identical. there's basically a pipe that carries the hydrogen food line. it has a wrap line around it. you run elections the through the wire and it heats up and provides heat. -- you run electricity through the wire and it heats up and provide sea. there are two separate heaters and that run along the same piece of food line. the one string was working and the other was not. >> we will take water to more and then we will wrapup. -- we will take one or two more

and then we will wrapup. >> he said he would promise to his support. can you give us more about the context of that statement and is this new from what you have heard in the past from the president? >> no. i think the president supports our space program and he is very interested in what we're doing. here at the kennedy space center, we get the commercial for a program here supporting that. he is supportive of us building a large rocket vehicle to go beyond our home planet. he just emphasized that he support what we're doing and is proud of what we're doing. >> can you tell us how the weather looks for monday through wednesday launch next week? i know that is a ways off.

>> i am not trying to be flippant, but i do not know and i am not sure that it matters much. the forecasts ro what they are. -- the forecasts are where they are. there is a very decent chance here at kennedy for a good launch year. the wind was dropping off and low clouds. the to our weather was about the same, if the. i know that will improve. we should have decent tower whether next week. but we have not started looking at the long-range forecast yet. by 10 to delete the e-mails for the -- i tend to believe in the mills for that. [laughter] >> did the president have any words of encouragement to the staff here with the shuttle program winding down? what were his comments to you?

>> there were no specific comments. everybody that he ran into, he thanked them for what we are doing. i was not privy to all the president's conversations. there were a few short greetings. he was very positive. he really enjoyed his work. he enjoyed seeing all that he sought and wants us to keep doing good things. >> george, before you wrap up, i forgot to mention something. we talked about the external printer and all the modifications. we went ahead and look at that tank, because we had it loaded. the inspection teams will be going out there now that it is drained. the tank look beautiful pu. i wanted to make sure that we mentioned that we got a good tanking test.

so this tank looks good. [laughter] >> i think the team did an outstanding job, getting us to where we needed to be today. had we had an opportunity to launch -- it is an outstanding team. it was super. i cannot say enough good things about them. these guys did an awesome job and we will get right and fly as soon as we can. >> all right. before we wrap up, we have a one minute video of president obama's visit this afternoon. that will conclude our briefing. thank you.

>> how much of that is [unintelligible] >> we can see the pyramids of egypt. [laughter] thank you so much. [camera shutter snapping]

>> live on saturday, the white house correspondents annual black-tie dinner. our coverage includes highlights of past dinners and your comments from myspace and -- of facebook and twitter. >> british undersecretary of state took questions on tuesday in the british house of commons about the tunnel esc on monday of hundreds of prisoners in afghanistan. the taliban has claimed responsibility. >> what would the repercussions

of the escape have on british soldiers? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am grateful to the hon. and gentleman for raising this serious incident. at 4:00 p.m. -- at 4:00 a.m., 476 prisoners escaped from the national security unit. this prison is under the control of the central prison directorate of the afghan ministry of justice. afghan security forces continue to search for escaped prisoners. the afghan ministry of justice will conduct a joint investigation into the escape. the head is traveling to canada kandahar.

the united kingdom has no involvement with infrastructure, build, or other support for the prison. we continue to support the development of the afghan prison sector. this is a serious offense which underlines the need to build a prison system in afghanistan to minimize the danger and damage to anyone, be they u.k. forces and personnel or anyone else.

>> the valiant professionalism of our soldiers in afghanistan is distinguished in our proud military history. they deserve our gratitude. they also deserve our vigilance to protect them from avoidable risk. this is a disaster. many of those who escaped our -- the government has been accused of being on their faith and reliability and loyalty of the afghan police and army. this is the second major escape from kandahar. three soldiers were murdered by an afghan soldier. this time, the afghan police stood aside as united nations

peacekeepers were lynched. the afghan security services has proved themselves, to a large extent, to be endemic to a corrupt, to be inept, and probably in this case, infiltrated by the taliban. their loyalty is often for sale. when will the government realize that they cannot build an ethical, reliable army and police on rotten, corrupt foundations? will they not concentrate on a political solution in afghanistan and abandon our missed placed -- our misplaced trust on the afghan army and police who are now a live threat to our soldiers? we do not know who to trust. >> i understand and go along

with a certain amount of what the gentleman is saying. but this is a significant event. of course, it is. maya understanding is either three or five -- my understanding is either three or five or uk detainee's that were part of the afghan system. that does not deny that those other two involve were upholding the very standards he was talking about and were let down by the security situation. that is why the investigation needs to find out what happened and everything else. of course, it is clearly of huge and importance in this house that transfer power and responsibility of afghans themselves to be responsible for their own security because there's not another answer to their security.

there is a political process going on that is going on in parallel with the transition process and everything else. for those in the national security force, along with isaf, who were involved in clearing up the taliban and work responsible for clearing them out, i do not think they recognize the description of him -- of them that he gives. much must be given to the training of new supported forces, both police and army. loyalty must be an absolute basic and the training must be rigorous. this is serious. of that, there is no doubt. but the future for afghanistan is indeed as he makes out. it is a political solution. but the military and technical

support that we are providing to the afghans themselves, that must continue despite the setbacks. >> having been involved with several prisons like this around the world, was equant fitted to keep building tunnels from happening. >> i think the basic point is that, people have extended their efforts in detaining people in a secure system, then the responsibility we go to all those who they might be a threat is to make sure that they are in the secure. it is part of the investigation, not only to look back at what they have done to ensure security, but also what might be done to enforce that

and make sure that the secure places are indeed secure in the future. can i express our admiration and support in the troops in detaining them. understandably, we will be concerned with those who risk their lives to capture. we fully recognize these are early days in collecting information. in that context, can the minister give us an early assessment of the seniority, importance gunmen capability of this kid, especially as we approach the start up -- of this escape, especially as we approach the start of the fighting season. what steps are being taken across afghanistan to check on security arrangements at other prisons? given the prius breakout, what

has been done to make the prison more secure and also to vet the start. can he give us an idea of what level of cooperation has been given by the afghan police and the local population? has the minister ask for an assessment on intelligence gathering? did they have any information about an impending escape? what discussions did he have with our nato allies, especially the u.s.? finally, moving closer to home, has he made or will he be making an assessment of the impact of this date on the threat to our own security here in the united kingdom? >> i am grateful for the sentiment and the nature of the

hon. gentleman's questions. we are only barely a day after the event. the answers to these questions lie a little way into the future. in terms of who has escaped, it is crucial that we find that out. record keeping and is not such that we can be supplied with alerts immediately. but it is a matter of a huge concern to find out exactly who has escaped and their positions in the security of the taliban. estimates as to who has been recaptured already very. there are some estimates. but we do not know. again, it is too early to find out. but we need to do that. the investigation for what happened will cover not only what has been changed as a result of the events in the past, but also what might be done in the future to make avert

this. those are absolutely of the top of our agenda. what this incident demonstrates clearly is that the process of working with afghan authorities and that they do take responsibility for their own country, its security, its prison system, and its justice system -- it is absolutely vital that our engagement and others continue. in kandahar, the area concerned, is not in direct response of what we do -- is not in direct responsibility of the united kingdom. of course, it is a huge setback. it demonstrates the need -- why

we continue to need to be engaged as it would to say that there should be no longer an engagement. i'm sure the gentleman can join with me and the rest of the house to say that this work must be continued. the suns need to be learned. ultimately, afghanistan must be responsible for its own security under a proper political process initiated by the afghans themselves. >> this is a heavy blow to our armed forces just as the fighting season begins. by handing over operations to afghan security is critical to our security. although early, what lessons have we learned from this when it comes to our eventual exit strategy? >> i am grateful for my hon. friend understanding the events -- the essential nature of afghanistan being involved in

its own security. what ever security was there is inappropriate and the message to deduct -- to detect what was going on were clearly inadequate. is it is essential the process continues. having said that, the afghan authority securities and the ministry of justice are responsible for their installations elsewhere in afghanistan which have not been subjected to this. therefore, again, to draw from one incident that none of it is working would not be appropriate or correct. that is why some are moving towards transition, as announced by the president over a month ago. >> "in qandahar, afghan security

forces are leading a rising tide of security." first, there should be an absolute ban on that kind of happy talk. is it not time for the united nations to appoint a mediator? >> i do not draw the same necessary link that he does in this incident and the political protests. there are further conferences this year in relation to a peace process which is authorized and supported at the kabul conference earlier this year.

they're put in place by the international community and in charge of president karzai. i recognize the hon. gentleman says. i think it is entirely appropriate that this colleague, as they have done in the past, make statements honestly as they see the circumstances and as they see security situations either improving or not so. i am here to talk about an incident that has set back the process. there are other things to talk about in relation to afghanistan this shows the process moving in a different direction. it is right that colleagues should be able to report on a slick, both -- able to report honestly.

>> instead of the prisoners tunneling out, accomplices tumbled into reach them. what does that indicate about the internal security of a prison whereby, if someone tunnels into that prison, it is possible to go from cell-to- sell, assembling hundreds of people to take advantage of that outside help? >> i am grateful to my hon. friend for such a detailed question. i am sure, however, that he would be surprised to learn that we do not have yet a report to confirm that amounted detail. but it is the sort of report that understandably leads to our great concern of what has happened and need to find out what has been the case and had to make sure the circumstances like this do not arise in the future. >> the minister is right, that

this is a blow, the significance of which but we cannot, at this stage, be certain of. it was the fact that we cannot provide within the timeframe that the government has now said, 2014, 2015, rely on the securities sector loan to provide a stable situation in afghanistan. we must, surely, redouble our efforts on the political front in conjunction with our allies as well. >> the gentleman is entirely correct. ultimately, the future of

afghanistan will be in the house -- in the hands of afghanis themselves. that worker training goes on at pace. i read the report from the foreign affairs committee with great care. the political process is an absolute key and interval part. at the same time, supporting the work being done to ensure the transition to afghan security control is as good as possible. but that work will continue beyond 2015. the house should remember that is the date in which combat troops will be withdrawn. but it is not the date for the united kingdom finishing its commitment to the afghan people and to their future. >> does my right hon. friend agree that the news of 476 dangers taliban fighters escaping from detention risk our

troops in afghanistan? telluric troops on the ground what measures are being taken and give them the confidence of this will not happen again in the future. -- tell our troops on the ground what measures are being taken and give them the confidence that this will not happen again in the future. >> the forces need to be assured. when they have done their job at great cost to themselves, it is at that stage set the system is able to pick them up and make them secure. it would be -- as soon as we have a full report, that information will be transmitted to forces so they know that, if they do their job, somebody else will do theirs.

is not one of the most depressing facts about this that british special forces captured these people who kept them in the first place and they will have to capture them all over again? is it not depressing that, at this stage, we are cutting 650 troops from the royal marines specifically where those troops are likely drawn from? >> may i repeat something i said earlier? i think i said 476 detainees have escaped from the prison. as far as we are where, between three and five of those detainees were captured by united kingdom forces and transferred into the system.

if it is a very small number of the told kohl involved with british security of the total involved with the -- of the total involved with british security forces. >> isn't not proof again that events in afghanistan are controlling us rather than the other way around? we should retract when we can, rather than we must. >> the right hon. gentleman, i understand the point that he makes.

i am very comfortable knowing a great deal more about it. in answer to the particular question, no. whenever the effort made into both the military operations and the political process, it is a messy, complex, difficult process where there will be setbacks and success. the progress can continue without any setbacks whatsoever. it is proper to advance the process on the basis that the work of so many people will

increase and secure -- will increase security. of course, there will be setbacks and difficulties. it is absolutely inevitable. the responsibility is -- the responsibility of the house is to make sure that setbacks -- that lessons are learned in order to improve in the future. >> i have spent the best part of the last five years -- how many secure prison places do they think are in existence in afghanistan? i have not been given a street dancer. >> i do not know.

she must forgive me for that. it is a more flexible picture in what you see as detention in prison places and the like. if the gentle lady has asked excessively, then we should provide an answer for her. >> but was a very sober statement to the house. the indications are that it took eight months to dig the tunnels and 450 prisoners on their hands and knees probably upwards of 12 hours to escape. but nobody saw anything. week in the united kingdom have many governors and prison people with experience and knowledge, so will the minister offer that knowledge to the afghan authorities to ensure that they can improve on what has happened? >> is, indeed. i have already had that discussion with officials.

the inquiry and investigation must be carried out by the afghans as the sovereign power, but we do indeed have greater expertise and all aspects relevant to the escape. it is absolutely clear that it should be made available to the afghan authorities. we will certainly be doing that. >> monday is election day in canada. we will be simulcasting the courage -- the coverage by the canadian broadcast system and help explain the method of the next canadian government. that is live monday night beginning at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> this weekend, on the tv on c- span 2, american history, climate change, and the constitution and collins with larry flint, just a few of the highlights from our live coverage of the los angeles times festival of books. get the entire schedule online at booktv.org.

>> this weekend, catherine mayor on medical science during the civil war and the advancements made on the north and south. former senator and presidential candidate bob dole looks back of his political career during the nixon administration and an examination of the disputed presidential election of 1876 between rutherford b. hayes and senate:. -- and samuel ytolin. >> concerning afghanistan, mr. miliband says the the new coalition has set an end date, but have not come up with the

sound level strategy to achieve that goal. he speaks with richard's, president of the council of foreign relations. this is just over an hour. >> there are some seats appear. we will get started. was that your phone or mine? >> not mine. i cannot think of a better time to us to everyone to turn off all of their electronics. i will walk the walk and not just talk the talk. welcome to the council on foreign relations. i am richard house. today, we have with us david miliband. i will introduce david in a second. let me get a few housekeeping things out of the way. i want to welcome not just you in this room. we also have formulation members all around the world

participating in today's meeting via teleconference. again, turn off all your electronics. this meeting is on the record. anything anyone says can and will be used against you. [laughter] today is an important day, at least for three reasons. one is the presence of our right hon. friend. secondly, the royal wedding, which, even though it did not take place and did not fall under the council of foreign relations, we will not be dwelling on that allows my right hon. friend wishes to discuss the dow or the hair or the tiara at length. [laughter] he was literally 90 years to the day, west 31st street, and "to

afford a continuous conference on foreign relations, to stimulate international fought in the united states, to cooperate with existing international agencies and to coordinate international activities." it was 90 years this afternoon that the council on foreign relations was established. thank you. [applause] it is particularly fitting that we have carla hills year, one of our cochairs. and we have you, our members, here. but the reason why we're all here is to hear from david miliband. david has been a member parliament for 10 years. for three of those years, he was the secretary state for foreign and commonwealth affairs. he is now in the opposition, as

they say. and he is here today to talk about several things. first and foremost, afghanistan. he will talk about a few other things. he and i will go on a little bit and then we will open up to your questions. but me say on a personal note, david and i have known each other for some time. he is a truly intellectual practitioner. he did not just have the potential to make a difference. he did. he brings his intellect and a th.ree of debp he continues to attack sub? with real intellectual energy and tenacity.

this july 1, the president has already announced, going backwater ways, but this would be the beginning of troop reductions in afghanistan. he has not articulated how many troops will be coming out. he has not articulated the pace or the end point. but a lot of the debate in this country has been about our military presence, which is now under 100,000 american troops. that is triple what it was two and half years ago. in public statements that you have been making, you have been saying that that is all relevant and we have to look at the military component. it is just that, a component. you have to look at a larger strategy. you have to look at the strategy as a whole.

let's start there. >> thank you for bringing together such a distinguished audience. i feel passionate about this afghan question. it is because of the blood and treasure that is being expended. i see a double danger, frankly. other parts of the world are more exciting and that afghanistan can become a forgotten war. the complexity and the difficulty of the situation there leads to delay in setting out how we will bring the war to an end. at the moment, we have an end date for the war in afghanistan, but not an endgame. 2014, if you read the small print, is not the day for us to leave. there are questions about the combat role. the bbc headline last november

was "nato and karzai agreed to end the war." in the popular imagination, we have a date for the end of the war. that calms a bit of the public. my view is that we are fighting and institution-building and 8- enabling with one hand tied behind our backs. -- and aide-enabling with one hand tied behind our backs. it is a country of 40,000 villages and valleys. a political sentiment that is internal in all the tribes and regionals is an extremely complicated process.

the military efforts, the development efforts, the civilian efforts will not be sustainable. that is my concern. we can talk about what that should be and how it should be manufactured. >> let's talk a little bit about it. but an packet, as we now say. its, as we know say. there is a need to get greater attention and everyone has his or her details. a second track between india and pakistan. a third track that come in some ways, we create a version of the 6 + 2 mechanism.

and the fourth track, at least in this country, but a direct dialogue between the united states and the taliban. rather than necessarily using the pakistanis as a go-between, we set up a direct set of conversations with them about the future of afghanistan. when you look at these four possibilities, when you think of your north star, to use your metaphor, which is in your consolation? >> the tragedy of the four tracks is that so little is happening on any of them. the tragedy is they're not. i think, in that circumstance, we need to establish a singular focus. i would do that through the appointment of an independent facilitator, a u.n. mediator. i think he or she must come from -- i think this person

should talk to us for a specially you and parties at the consulate. among -- until the west sets out its endgame, i think that every other conflict will be playing all sides towards the middle. but think that is certainly true of the insurgency, but it is also true of the neighbors. we and you need to set out your view of the political and game. and then the other players will begin to take their positions with a degree of credibility and coherence. my former colleague who was the british ambassador in kabul had a brolin method. he said, look, it is a double decker bus. the downstairs seats are populated by all of the tribes of afghanistan. the upstairs seats are populated

by the regional neighbors. in the driving seat is an independent figure. the navigator is american and the fuel is provided by the saudis. [laughter] >> is that a prescription for an accident? >> it is a powerful way of saying that we all need to be on the same bus. while in and of the blade -- we have all been around the playing field long enough to know that on all four tracks there will be a lot of activity and that is fine. but it does need to be brought together. internally, we cannot rely on the high peace council that president karzai has said up to lead this. regionally, we will know that the internal and the regional is the umbilical. it is only when they are staring

each other in the face that we can get to discussion. >> people will be sitting on your negotiation bus. but begin with the taliban. i would suggest that, early on in this and ministration, -- in this administration, in december 2009, there was a statement the united states would now take the fight to the taliban in the south and east of the country. that was the >> is a statement that the president made. many have suggested that you had to take the fight to the taliban not because the central government was incapable of doing it, but because the taliban were making inroads. and taliban and roads in

afghanistan would lead to the recreation of the reestablishment of positions of strength for al qaeda. the idea was that the, if the taliban are allowed to regain territory, they would go back to where they were before 9/11. is there a chance that that working hypostasis that the taliban is working? >> from taliban leaders, afghan taliban, you're talking about -- some afghan taliban have links or surveys with -- links or sympathies with al qaeda. but 60% of the them have no interest in global jihad. the president said explicitly that there should be an

"reconciliation process in every province." >> the president of? " the president of the united states. i believe president obama understood from the beginning the importance of a political lodestar for this campaign. it is not the case that those of us who argue for a political settlement believed it would be fostered, the simple and immediate withdrawal of troops. but they are part of the drive for the political settlement. i do believe that the number of troops, the passion of that debate is in proportion to its importance. the more we are you in our country -- we used to have huge arguments about 1500 more troops. but unless you heard the political goal of a negotiated settlement with simple principles, all tribes in,

taliban out, and all the neighbors in -- i made a speech on this two years ago -- two weeks ago. i have been very skeptical of the claims of the british garment has made for great progress in kandahar. there is technical progress, but the need insurgency reappears elsewhere. the truth is -- i talked with some people who taught to different branches of the taliban. they report a couple of things very important. first, they want to know our position. it is not enough for them to talk to president karzai. they want to know what we think, would you think. suddenly, her several of them want to go home. it is increasingly hot for them over there. the incentives for everett with

al qaeda -- there are incentives for a break with al qaeda. >> but we have to be absolutely clear that we do see a place for conservative passion in the political settlement -- a pashtun in then political settlement. we have to be explicit and clear that the model of governance cannot be a centralized market-controlled.

that is the way i see this. there is a whole allied discussion that we are about to come to. we are one question away from that. >> the secretary of state said that she dropped a number of things, that the taliban accept a constitution for grounds for a dialogue. let's talk one minute about the afghans. you mentioned the prison break up. that is, in some ways, the most recent demoralizing development. the real potential to build not on the short run but on the long run and enduring set of institutions at the national level, the ability to govern, the ability to stand up a

serious national police and army. the question is not whether you can do it today, but a month later or six months later whether you believe there is endurance? whether the nation building is simply a bridge too far given who it is we're working with in afghanistan. >> there are delicate issues year. i attended a the funeral of the last king of afghanistan. no one who attended the funeral could come away without thinking that there is such a thing of a afghan national identity. it was a very moving experience. equally, and do not believe anyone should come to the idea that an afghan security force will ever have a monopoly of

power in afghanistan. afghanistan will be governed by a series of compromises across villages and valid, formal and informal, on the state plan and not on the state plan. that goes with a grain of afghan society. i thought it very important that we come to terms with them. if we define nation building as a centralized for sorry monopoly on violence, we will never come to an end. afghaafghanistan will never be settled. >> on pakistan, the two principal critiques of what we're doing, whether we will succeed, one is what we just talked about, the potential of the afghan partner. at least is bigger the fundamental questions about the pakistani partner. the real question is do we have

a partner in pakistan? at most, is a limited partner. can you succeed in afghanistan doing what we're doing so long as the pakistanis continue to have their own agenda and provide sanctuary for the afghan taliban? >> stability in afghanistan without stability in pakistan is not a stable equation. let's be careful. a country should have its own and jurists. i think there is a significant change in pakistan. it came to include the realization that they are the enemy within, which was an insurgency that threatened the

stability of the state. equally, as well as pakistan being a victim of terrorism, terrorism is exported from pakistan as well. that is what you are alluding to. one of the most chilling things i have heard over the last few months is the idea that america has a choice as to whether or not to sever its links with pakistan. if you think it is difficult, frustrating, or dangerous to be in pakistan at the moment as a partner, tried for killing your own interest in south asia without pakistan as a partner. i believe it is very important that pakistan understands what it is -- what is expected a bit -- its responsibilities -- it is

easy to say that in theory, but it is meaningful in practice. the country needs its international community and its neighbors to stand with it on security, trade, institution building. i think that president obama's outreach to pakistan was a very important step. he is proposing a strategic relationship between the u.s. and pakistan to replace the unbalanced essentially military- only relationship to an individual leader-based relationship. i have criticized the pakistan the government for the way in which it has failed to respond to the significance of the outrage that president obama made. i think it is very important that you continue to engage proactively on the civilian and

military side in pakistan. there will not be stability in south asia unless pakistan is engaged. >> the last question is a first quarter question about afghanistan. for several years leon panetta directed the cia. he has been saying the number of al qaeda is minimal in afghanistan. there are several dozen. under 100. the question becomes not so much the prospects for the strategy of working even if they created a greater diplomatic condition, but the real question is is it worth it? every $6 or $7 of defense money spent, it takes an inordinate

amount of time. there were 10 national security meetings. these were not on china, trade policy, or the debt. this is absorbing a lot of this country's -- this is the most consequential foreign policy decision this administration has made. i suppose the question i keep coming back to is why is it worth it? why this scale of effort? 10,000 troops. 100,000 of ours. 10,000 nato troops. this enormous commitment to a country that history suggest at the end will be a exactly as you describe it -- centralized, a nice word for messy, they will have a degree of violence. [laughter]

that is exactly the point. even if we could, which we cannot, would it be worth it didn't -- given the scale? >> first, the incubator of choice for global aid is the badlands of the afghan-pakistan border. that is what makes this imported. second, when i said earlier that i feel afghanistan has become the forgotten war, it has been a forgotten war before. we are reaping the dreadful dividend now of what happened then. there is a devastating new america foundation report on the kandahar taliban.

in 2002, they were driven out of afghanistan across the pakistan border -- they come back to the country and live privately. it is due to those decisions that the kandahar taliban was recreated. when it becomes a forgotten war, it becomes a very dangerous situation. thirdly, you are absolutely right -- if the united states does not do justice to the seismic events happening in other parts of the world and the economic pressures we faced, we need to bring this to when and where our goals are clear. our goals in afghanistan must be to fully in my view. first, do justice to our security interest, which i think

are real. secondly, vitally for the west's position, do justice to the blood that has it been expended there over the last 10 years. the credibility to which the president played the western role. >> must talk about one or two of those epochal issues. let's start with your country. your country's approach to dealing with fiscal challenges or different than ours. it has been a front loading of efforts to cut public spending quite dramatically. the growth figures that came out the other day were quite modest.

what are the prospects for this sort of growth? >> i am fair and balanced on this. they happen -- taken a bold gamble. this is the biggest squeeze on public spending since the postwar period. it is hitting all aspects of our society including the bbc which is cutting 20% of its funding. it is a big economic gamble.

if you are going to reduce government spending very fast, you have to be very short that investments are going to bounce back. the truth is, we have been frightened by the last year's rhetoric. our economy is very fragile oil. they are taking a big gamble. the specter that has given credibility to this has become greece. my concern is that in seeking to avoid becoming greece, we are going to become japan. i think that the greek scenario for britain is unfounded.

we had the maturity on british government bonds that is affecting the euro. 90% of british borrowing is domestically. there is a lot of saving going on. we could end up being like japan. that is very dangerous. >> imagine that the 20% cuts in the bbc. what did you single that out? >> i believe that the influence on a country like ours, it has to be about culture. it has to be about our ability to reach out and build coalitions of consensus. but think it is really important. we created the service of the

bbc. that is important diplomacy. it was always an odd situation for us. we funded the service, but have no role in the content. what the current government has done is say the bbc what to pay for its world service out of the budget. i think that is a bad move. >> less talk about the middle east. the last three or four months of focused on tunisia, egypt, and bahrain. over the last couple of days, there's been a tremendous interest in syria.

what is your sense about what more would be wise to do? in syria and iran there are administrations we find objectionable. what more do you think the united states, britain, outsiders should be doing? >> i think that one lesson over the last four months is that what has happened has been homegrown, not externally incubated. be nice about the limits of our influence. my own thoughts about the serious situation is that the internal situation is bad.

the regime's relationship with the country and makes it especially complex. i think that some of the ideas that have been floated will not be decisive. there are struggles within the country. one of the most important things to recognize is how much the country has changed since 1982. the population has mushroomed. its complexity as chains. -- has changed. but as a result, what would that lead us to? >> my take on what is happening in the middle east is that the threshold for legitimate authority has been raised. it has been raised by the ubiquitous of global information and media flows.

in a country like egypt, president mubarak had nothing to fall back on. revolutionary links were very limited. the theological basis of his rule -- they had nothing to fall back on. i in syria, it is a different situation. the regime is struggling with a higher threshold. i think that is sent people -- epochal change. just to put my cards on the table, my own view is that i think for some of the monarchies in the middle east, they stand above the bar because of the nation-building history that gives them strength.

the issue for them, whether they use their of 40 in a helpful way or a useful way. >> libya. tony blair articulated many of the ideas that informed a large piece of international public opinion. clearly there is a gap that has emerged between the goals of ousting of the regime and the means being employed -- employed towards that end. they need to say, look, let's go

back to the un resolution and take the cease-fire. over time we can try to shape of libya in the direction we want. >> i do not think it has been mixed. we are four or five weeks in. there is an incredible risk of a slaughter that has been averted. the challenge is not whether or not the performance has been good. the real challenge is along the still might can continue without the intervention becoming a failure in the eyes of the world. the stalemate is better than a slaughter. i believe the british government has been more right than wrong on this. i would defend the undertaking. speech,eart of tony's

there were three tests. one was that there was a credible threat. i believe there was. secondly, is there a plan that could avert that risk? it has been shown in the libyan case that it has been averted. thirdly, what is the geopolitical -- i think the geopolitics are such that even with a danger of a stalemate, which i think are real, do not outweigh the real damage it would have done to the west.

that is what the last three or four months have been about. if we allow 15,000 people to be slaughtered in benghazi, it would have been defining. the second cardinal rule of politics is getting the means and the ends of lines. yeah situation with the means cannot deliver the ends. it has been said that gaddafi has to go. i think you have to up the pressure, but i would not give to boots on the ground. people in the libya much better than i do speak persuasively of targeting the army and making gaddafi more of a problem for the army. that is the way i would give. >> we do not see eye to eye on this, but this is your meeting, not mine. why do we not open this up and

invite members to ask questions. wait for the microphone. keep your questions sustained. -- succinct. >> thank you very much. i am a retired diplomat. i would like to ask you to put the discussion of britain's role in libya into context of the previous conversation about budget and what kind of anti -- the u.k. has stepped up and taken on this libyan mission. what impact will this happen in your defense budget? in the bigger context, what kind of impact are your budgeting problems going to have on britain's role in the world going forward? >> i think relatively limited in

the short term in terms of the libyan effort. but there is no question that for the government the combination of new actions and defense cuts is a big political problem. now, i think there is a broader issue for europeans. we talked about doing more in our own neighborhood, but we have not put the resources into that. i think it is a big wake-up call. the europeans were offered to lead the mission and has exposed the fragility of the european commitment. if i was going to criticize the

government, which i do not want to do, i would say that there has not been enough precooking of the mission to build unity. it is in sharp contrast to the lack of unity. i think the current government takes a different attitude than the previous one. the need to work on that european relationship building. >> let me question you on something you said was interesting. you describe the administration budget policies. you are a card-carrying atlantisis. are you comfortable with this approach for a more modest u.s. role? are you comfortable with this

different approach? -- mightason that' reading is that europeans need to step up a long way to make a transatlantic partnership work better. the relationship is not delivering enough for the u.s., in my view. we have the real job to make the summit president obama is to attend works something more. we need to put something more on the table in developing the relationship we what between the e.u. and the u.s. the administration states is very strongly that will make sure any efforts will be delivered. but think it is an important commitment and we should hold them to it. effie by my argument that we need to increase the squeeze on gaddafi, we will need more help.

>> there is a microphone right there. >> i am a lawyer. i attended a prior meeting here, a luncheon meeting, in which the discussion was afghanistan. the speaker suggested that there were ongoing negotiations, or negotiations about negotiations. we were confronted with the dance we did not like. the demand that was a stumbling block was the treatment of women by the taliban. the suggestion was that was a major stumbling block to the exit of troops and forces. is that the case and is that the think we should ask our people to be fighting for? >> i think we more or less know what the taliban once.

they want people off of the 1276 list. that is a list of people convicted of terrorist crimes. they walked out of guantanamo. they want foreign troops out of afghanistan. they had a series of technical demands that i would put in confidence-building measures. they want to my great, we want an end to roadside bombs. this is the islamic republic of afghanistan. the constitution spells out equal rights for men and women. my own view is that i do not believe -- i believe the

aspiration is a very important one. i do not believe the aspiration is fulfilled across the country. equally, i do not believe it is going to be fulfilled at the barrel of a gun. the development of afghan society, as the russian towns, is not done by foreign occupation. there is compromise to be made there. one way out is to say that the has to beafghan wheomen heard. you are right. there is a tension between what the constitution sets out and what the reality -- and the reality that exists. >> you are going to have a

htun , conservative pahtus population in afghanistan. >> i am from the atlantic council. i want to ask you about the current developments between hamas and fatwah. how would you deal with that development. is it sufficient to condemn a loss -- condemne hamas as a terrorist organization? >> this is a difficult question to address with the cameras rolling. >> just make believe they are not there. [laughter] >> i think that it would be very important that we react extremely carefully to what we

know. we understand why it has happened. but we keep in mind the strategic natural -- national interest. i think that the agreement that has been announced, although there is a ways to go before it is developed, is born of real frustration at the peace process. i also believe it is born from the fact of hamas. isolation has not been good for them. the pressure is on them. there is a new government with a new dynamic. it is important to understand where this comes from. i believe passionately that you'll never get a palestinian state if you insist on it

doesn't. it has to be a unified negotiation. the chairman of the plo it negotiates for the palestinian territory. when people ask me why do you not talk to hamas, i always say there are several people talking to them and the person we negotiate with is president abbas. this is a test that provides some standards. those countries. signatures on the peace initiative do not formally

recognize israel. they say they recognize israel after the creation of the palestinian state. it is important that they are held to that. hamas has never answered the question of what they did not sign the peace initiative. that is a potentially productive way of getting out of what i think will be a dangerous standoff. >> bruce mcdonald -- the united states institute of peace. i have been supportive of what the united states has done and what nato has done in libya to date, but there is one concern i have all in the back of my mind -- i am shirt that in this process gaddafi must have wondered, "maybe i should not have agreed to and by nuclear weapons program. if i had an active program, i

bet the west might have thought twice before they invaded." i wonder also it may be president assad is a thinking of these things, too. it concerns me there could be some negative collateral damage in terms of the nonproliferation policy. a general was quoted when asked what lesson he derived from the persian gulf war, and he said, "if you're going to battle the united states, make sure you have nuclear weapons." to you have any thoughts about the implications for u.s. nuclear nonproliferation interests and what do you think we should do? >> the u.s. has taken a huge amount of flak in the u.k. a lot of it has been very unfair. your point directs you to why

it is unfair. in the wake of the iraq war, gaddafi was persuaded to denounce his nuclear program. today we would be in a much more difficult situation if he had not. the second half of the equation, which was the engagement of the libyan regime and people only have worked, but it has been brutal. whatever you think about libya, they are passionate about nonproliferation because the administration has been proactive on this.

[unintelligible] >> i am an editor with biking- penguin. you spoke with enormous clarity and originality about our relationship with pakistan, but there was one question that you were asked that i would like to return to and that is the question of is it worth the expense? i felt that i in your answer to that question you waffled a little bit. [laughter] i am not a diplomat, i am ataturk. the suggestion that our lack of

attention from 2002 until 2007 is not fully persuasive. you can suggest that many other things precipitated the rise of an insurgency. i wonder if you could take a little bit longer to answer this particular question. is it worth the exceptional amount of money we are spending in relation to other priorities? what if we had tackled a political solution rather than a military solution? kandahar would not suggest that investing in more military -- it was a diplomatic problem, not a military problem. >> i did not waffle, i just was not clear. [laughter] i think it is hard to make the

case that there are other factors that allowed for the reduction of the taliban in 2005. it was the failure of establishing a political government after 2003. it is hard to make the case that we would be where we are now if we had taken a different approach. remember the neighbors were excluded from the bonn conference. is it worth it? the money could be spent better elsewhere. however, given our goals, with all is not a policy. the west has substantial enough

interest to require -- what are our demands for a political settlement? that is how i would frame it. if you are saying to me -- the debates about surging or not surging without political north star does not get to the main point. we are not buying our way out of trouble with the troops we are putting in there. >> i am from the carlyle group. what is your prognosis for civil society in pakistan?

>> i am going to pakistan next month. i think that it is very challenging. on the one hand, a civilian government may last its full term in pakistan. they could be succeeded by other civilian governments. secondly, one of the things the press that did was open up the media. that is serious and good. thirdly, desolate and vault in the education -- i am and vault in the education commission that helps build stronger education institutions across pakistan. equally, the problems have been

compounded by acute problems like floods. commodity prices and food prices for rural pakistan eight families have been high. -- pakistani families have been high. my prognosis is that there is a real race against time there. the population will be 300 million by 2015. it is not an option to turn our back on pakistan. we went to islamabad in january 2000. in respect to the mumbai bombings -- i say publicly that

nothing has been done to bring those files to conclusion. i feel very comfortable in speaking very plainly about the responsibilities they have. it is true they are developing global ambitions as well as regional ones. we need to be more interested in rolling out debt and for structure. -- rolling out the fathat infrastructure. it is a country that officially spins 8% -- spends 8% of their

military. >> we have time for one more. yes, ma'am? we have a microphone right here. >> i am from tanzania. i am taking you back to 2007 when you announced your foreign- policy. he said the west needs to consider why the farm policy has upset some many in the muslim world. the you think that is still valid and what if that does it have on afghanistan, iraq, and elsewhere? what kind of policy changes would you look for? >> i am honored that you

researched my speeches in 2007. i was shocked when i became the foreign secretary. new british cabinet member had ever spoken in a british mosque. webecame clear to me that' had a massive job in bringing foreign policy home. we were in some kind of denial. a lot of the simplistic equations that were made were simplistic and not worthy of the people who said them. if you give me just a couple of minutes, my feeling is that we had three problems. one is that i do not think that

we really in our own society have done enough to understand the muslim world. and shiah'snni's work with each other. respect can only be [unintelligible] felt didn't we have a massive job to build respect. i was raised in a -- the question was reform. the muslim world has become something that has lost its main. we should be on the side of those in civil society seeking

to support change. with the baby tribunals for civil society groups, they deserve our support. this is where the palestine issue comes in. the fact that if i go to a mosque and speak after friday prayers, they talk to me about palestine. when i spoke with the university, they talk to me about palestine. when i get to the far-flung parts of pakistan, you get asked about palestine. when people say that the palestinians are recruiting extremists, we are saying it is a solvable problem. that is why i say it is the

biggest diplomatic failure in 40 years. >> if you look al qaeda's agenda, you'll not see any reasonable settlement to the israeli-palestinian situation. their agenda is not the palestinians. what is striking to me is that nothing has been about israel. but does not striking at all. -- that is not striking at all. if you are a fruit seller in tunis or in cairo and you are governed by a corrupt government -- the 7000 year-old

civilization of egypt is sidelined by international affairs. that is what brings you onto the streets to demand revolution. if you want to have -- if you want to build a coalition of consensus of the people, this issue is in the middle of the road and allowing us to do that. it is right to say that the compromises involved in creating a constitution puts allocate out of business. of course not. it is a massive road blocked to secure israel in a more stable middle east. the reconciliation and the great grievances goes along side reform and respect. i say this especially to you because you have eight distinguished role.

do you know that the interventions done by your country and mine have saved lives, but there is never any recognition of that. the palestinian issue is still sifting their front and center of the public imagination across the islamic world. the lady asked about [unintelligible] the real lesson of the last few months, and this is true in the middle east and in afghanistan, and it will be true in other parts of the world -- today when many countries wait for us to decide what we are going to do,

they are no longer with us. history will not stand still according to the arab timetables or others. this is a dynamic situation. we wait for certain dates on our calendar on the grounds that that is when we had the space, the space will be closed by the time we get there. i think that is what happened on this tragedy of the middle eastern situation. it is a tragedy for the palestinians. that is why i feel passionately about that. >> we can go on, but we'll have to have you back to go on. we look forward to having you back to go on. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> now, a state department held hall meeting on combating pate and intolerance among muslims and jews. george washington university hosted this event. this is one hour. >> cannot rosenthal was sworn in as special envoy to monitor and

combat anti-semitism on november 23, 2009. by the work and the experience of her father, a rabbi and holocaust survivor, and her own experience studying to become a rabbi, she has led a life marked by activism and a passion for social justice. before joining the state department, mrs. rosenthal was executive director of the chicago foundation for women. she led one of the largest funds in the world. prior to that, she was executive director of the jewish council for public affairs for five years where she worked on domestic and international policies for the jewish communities in north america. ms. rosenthal also served as midwest regional director of the u.s. department of health and human services during the clinton and administration. our other guest was appointed special representative to muslim communities in june 2009.

her office is responsible for executing secretary clinton's vision for engaging with muslims around the world on a people to people and organizational level. prior to this appointment, she was senior adviser to the assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs. she is responsible for policy oversight. she also worked on issues relating to countering violent islamic extremism. before joining the department of state, she served as the director or the middle east regional initiatives for the national security council, coordinating u.s. policy on muslim world out reache. prior to joining the n.s.c., she was chief of staff for the department of international

development. welcome. >> hello, everyone. it is very quiet here. you're very attentive. we are not going to give you a lecture. this is going to be a fine ave. wheatgrass is very much for being with us. we are looking forward to the questions. we are going to tell you how we met and tell you how the campaign got started. we have very different jobs. you heard our long biographees. thank you for that. the secretary of state has asked us to work on important issues, but in different ways. i had not met hannah when i received a phone call from her office saying she needed to speak to me urgently. i said to come up. she came up and gave me a hug. she said at the time that we

were just hearing about times square -- she said, "i want to be of help to you. i note that what has happened in times square is going to mean that many people are going to look at the religion of islam in a strange way and they are going to hold muslims and accountable for something that has nothing to do with the religion of islam." we went to a conference in cars extent. do not put it on your bucket list. [laughter] we went to a conference that was put on by the organization for security and cooperation in europe, one of the leading regional groups around the globe. what is wonderful about the zero is they have a focus on

human dimensions. they care about human rights and tolerance. by the way, the work tolerance does not mean "we will put up with the." in the diplomatic world, tolerance means "mutual respect ." understand, we were at a tolerance conference. i wrote the official u.s. statement condemning anti- semitism. she wrote the official statement condemning islamaphobia. the night before the conference, we decided to plot the future. when the conference began with a focus on hatred of muslims, i was sitting in the u.s. share. when the call on the united states, i introduced myself.

"i am the special envoy on global anti-semitism and i want to condemn in the strongest word possible all that is going on debt is increasing hatred of muslims." when the next session focused on the subject of anti-semitism, the same thing happened. she spoke as the representative for a muslim communities around the world, condemning in the strongest words possible anti- semitism. the message was strong. there were a lot of statements written and spoken. when you do something different, it may catch attention. and it did. there also was the message that in addition to the profound message we were saying, it mattered who said it. by having unusual suspects speaking, you have a greater impact. that is all we have been operating ever since.

>> what we heard from people at that conference was that it was powerful for the united states delegation to make such a bold move. for those not in government, it does not seem like such a bold move. trust me, in government we do not see these types of things. you cannot stop there. there cannot be a one of converts in pakistan in which the united states makes such a bold statement and then does nothing with it. what did we decide to do? we thought a lot about how we can think about an action- oriented campaign that would do something about a generation that the president and the secretary has talked a lot about -- a generation under the age of 30 world wide, people who want to be active, and people who want to think about the world again a new way. they want to build partnerships of mutual respect and do something that will take hold of

the opportunity to use technology in new ways. we developed the idea of a campaign -- 2011, hours against hate. i see you have a tool kit on your campaign. we decided to launch this virtually said that anyone in the world could take hold of this campaign and they get theirs. hannah and i went back to the o.s.c.e. s but to all the investors -- all the investors. this year, 2011, we are going to seize this initiative so we can create a better place. >> so we thought about having people do something instead of just talk about it. that is really what the campaign is about. it is a global campaign. it is a virtual campaign. it is a campaign of totally -- that is totally accessible.

if you go on the website, you'll see people speaking to our languages. you might understand some of them. it is people saying i am going to place a certain amount of hours. i am a muslim and i will pledge five hours to work in a jewish clinic. people are engaged. we have indices that are taking this and running with it. we have non-governmental organizations. you'll note on the logo, now we're on it does it stay -- does it say united states department of state. if you just -- we want to encourage you to take it and make it your own. the theory of the campaign is to encourage people, young people -- but we will take some of the rest of you as well, myself included -- and let's use ours

to serve and volunteer at an organization with people that do not look like you, do not write like you, and do not live like you. people, particularly young people, get it everywhere we have gone. we have gone up to three countries to do this. we have been to turkey and we have been to spain. we pick those countries because they have histories of pluralism. they have a history of different communities working side by side. what was remarkable to watch was while the older generation said it was about time something like this happened, it was the young people who moved their ideas and their interest to ours. if you get to the facebook web page, use the campaigns for the start of the universities. use the young people taking it and making it their own. why? because these young people do not want to live in a world in

which there is a mutual respect. we have seen enough. h. of our speeches ended with the same paragraph. -- each of our speeches ended up with the same paragraph -- hate is hate. we do not want to look at a future in which we continue this momentum in which a new generation is picking up the baggage of the past. as we look at the demographics -- demographics worldwide, we want to anchor this in a generation that believes in the future and allow them to live up to their potential and do more for themselves. we want to be helpful in that effort. >> using the technology that young people know so well and i am just learning has caught on. while we were traveling, sarah taught me how to tweak. we tweeted and get a program.

young people all over the world were calling us. i still do not know how they felt may, but this is how the communication is happening. we need look no further than our television sets to see what that kind of communication has burst forward in the world. we are very excited at this campaign, which provides people around the globe something to do -- we recognize that young people -- we have focused on 30 and younger -- they do not have disposable incomes to write a check to an organization. that has been the model of philanthropy and activity in so many places.

they do not yet have an expertise or the life experiences to help an organization organized, but they have time. every hour matters. we have learned that it is part of our culture in the united states to volunteer at our time. it is not anywhere else that we have been. pretty fundamental questions like how you volunteer? when an individual is trying to find a group of people that are not part of their community, it takes some work. in that work, they're building a relationship. is that not the goal of the state department? to wage peace through relationships? the european union has designated 2011 as the year of volunteerism because they recognize that this is something missing in our culture and this

is the campaign that will help them in showing people how to go about volunteering. >> before we turn the podium that you, we would like to keep you -- i see some of you tweeting out there. we will come back to the podium at the end. heck you very much for being here. [applause] -- thank you very much for being here. [applause] >> we will now show a video from secretary hillary clinton about this campaign. >> since becoming secretary of state, have traveled to nearly every corner in the glow. wherever i go, i make a plan to meet with government officials, but also with citizens,

especially young people. i want to hear their ideas on how to come together and create new foundations of understanding and build hope for a better future. more and more, i see communities and people turning their backs on old boundaries and barriers and finding new ways to bridge all kinds of the bites. that is the idea behind 2011 hours against hate to it is a campaign to promote respect across culture, religion, class, and culture. we are asking people from around the world to volunteer 2011 hours in the year 2011. on behalf of someone who does not look like you, live like you, or pray like you. we think it could be important to learn about another religion, to volunteer in another community, or to reach out to people from another culture and to find out how they live. i urge all of you to join his

campaign, stand up, and speak out against hate. visit our facebook page. 2011 hours against hate. more than dialogue in conversation, it is time for action. so let's join together and season this moment. let's chart a new course for the future. we can only do it if we do it together. >> i would now like to introduce ted stinkstanky. he joined human rights first in 2008 as the director of fighting discrimination program and currently serves as director policy and programs. prior to joining human-rights first, tad work that the u.s. commission for religious freedom from 2000 to 2007 where he served as deputy executive

director for policy as well as acting exhibit director in 2002 and 2007. tad led the commission's efforts to strengthen u.s. foreign policy to dance the rights to freedom of religion and belief. he participated in fact-finding missions in asia, the middle east, and europe and serve on official u.s. delegations to human-rights conferences of the organization for security and cooperation in europe and the united states. welcome, tad. >> thank you. thank you, everyone. and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak a little bit today. i was asked to say a few comments about what this campaign means from a society perspective. one, combating prejudice and

hatred is an extremely important aspect for protecting human rights. hate with prejudice, this is a climate where we find ourselves often where discrimination and violence is occurring. an act of violence can terrorize the community and prevent its members from exercising their rights. in my work at human rights first, there are african students who are afraid to leave their rooms, jews who are free to where they yarmulkes that on the street, a gay and lesbian activist from new donoghue stand publicly for their -- activists who stood upuganda publicly for their rights, knowing that they were

endangering their lives, christians in saudi arabia, hindus and pakistan -- the list goes on and on. my second point is that hatred and bigotry are not confined to any particular country or region or any particular community. it is a global problem and it affects many communities. when i describe what we do in our fighting discrimination program, it is mouthful, combating racism, homophobia, bigotry -- and there's more. when you realize that every group is a minority somewhere, you understand that this indicates all of us.

-- this implicates all of us. what we find time and time again is, while there may be distinct problems, many times the solutions are shared. that brings me to my third point. the strategies to combat hatred need to be inclusive ones. it needs to focus on government because public officials and policemen are part of the problem. it makes the work of protecting human rights, predicting committees, protecting lives all that more difficult. and it requires leadership, public officials to speak out against acts of intolerance and violence. it requires law-enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes of hatred. it requires leadership and

political will to bring police and politicians and communities together to address these problems. but how do you find that leadership and political will? part of it is diplomacy and part of it is what the state department do and others, which is to speak to other governments. and groups like us that continually providing recommendations and, shall we say, encouragements to the department, to do more, to do something different, or to do something better. but there is a key ingredient, a critical ingredient that also has to be part of the strategy. that is really what we're talking about today, my final word. we need to engage people everywhere on this problem. there is no one community that

canada should be left alone to deal with this sort of problem. as was mentioned before, when somebody speaks up, when one community speaks up for another community, that gets attention. when a broader array of people speak up for a community, that gets attention. that gets noticed. people everywhere can both speak up and reach out. the great thing about this campaign is that it combines both. you can speak up online. you can make your pledge known. and you can reach out. you are encouraged to reach out and do something and reach out to a community that is different from yourself. this is another thing that we find in our work. what happens on line is increasingly more and more important.

this also gets noticed. this also can help shape the debate and shape actions by governments and by communities. but people also need to do things together. when communities do things together -- and it does not have to be solve the middle east peace together were solve differences between one religion or another -- or solve differences between one religion or another. there are practical things that just bring people together, different communities together, to actually do something together. that helps build the source of bridges that then can be communicated and hopefully build the political will for governments to address these problems. thank you very much. [applause]

>> hello again. renen oh.s i re i have asked to speak don why a piece study program and academia generally would want to support an initiative like two dozen 11 hours against hate. one of the more important goals of a college education is to teach students so that they will become thoughtful citizens of our communities, our society, and the world. in order to do so, students must not only acquire the intellectual skills to comprehend and analyze our increasingly complex society, but also acquire the leadership skills to initiate and to carry out the changes that will better our lives here and lives abroad.

these two aspects of learning, the book learning, and the service learned, are -- service learned, are combined to discuss what they have learned to the world around them. academia has been rightly criticized in not engaging in this interaction enough. but i think that is changing. students should not only be able to do the learning in the classroom. they can also take their experience from outside the class room and use it to think critically about the text that they encounter in class. students in my ethics and road religions course not only learn about islam from articles and documentary's they encounter in the classroom. they are also able to filter the constant news media about islam and muslims in a thoughtful and

engaged way. initiatives such as these are critical for the cross-cultural relationships that are and will continue to be so necessary in our lives. working with and for people who are different from us toward shared goals is one of the best ways for us to end discrimination that worsens unnecessary conflict in this world. i beseech you, called students the special, to use your experience at the university not only to learn in the classroom and view their activities as separate world, but to try to combine them. there are two students that i would like to introduce to i think are doing this in an exempt shall -- in an exemplary way. danika brown is still embody

senator elected. ike isroni is the incoming director of student union membership. [applause] >> and good afternoon, everyone. ignorance is a state of mind that the lights. we claim to live in these united states. >> we represent the black student union of the george washington university. the stop the hate campaign addresses an issue that has been pervasive throughout american history. based on the idea that we cannot coexist with what is different. an essential tenet of the bsu has been and always will be to

create an environment where differences can be increased. in 2007, the bsu led a campaign called stop the hate. back then, we faced news across university campuses, the incarceration of the genus >> , and rising anti-islamic andtiment -- the gejina 6, rising anti-islamic sentiment. >> today, the bsu has continued that goal of beautification. in addition to holding a nonviolent educational process, we held a form, facilitated by experts to provide education on

the opposing sides. we must always remember our collective common american heritage. in the past and present shows us that campaigns are seasonal, but he does not. it is not about reacting, but proactive engagement of all parties regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual preference. >> the black student union of the george washington university pledges its commitment to the efforts of the stop the hate campaign. >> as dr. martin luther king, jr. once said, we are tied in a single garment of destiny. what ever it affects one directly affects all indirectly. thank you. [applause] >> enough with speeches.

i have been asked to moderate a question and answer session. we have a microphone in the center. i would encourage all of you to get up and fire away with your questions. ask. very happy to las we see here in the united states a number of active as powers plying across the news on a regular basis. could you talk a little bit about for what -- about what that means for your work abroad and how you see what happens in the united states connected to what is happening around the world? >> we are in the state department. we sit at the table of foreign policy. we, of course, carry great deal about what is happening in our country and follow this very closely, with pain, i think.

when we think about what it means to be an american, we have certain values and high ideals that we all worry may be getting frayed when we see acts of hatred and such intolerance happening. it can be against a wide variety of vulnerable groups. it can be as immediate as what happened in detroit or dearborn, mich. plastic and it can be over the years as the examples of the students. it seems that hatred just has a life of its own. i think that we need to be looking at our tolerance education and our messages to make sure we are changing as the world is changing and that we are making sure that we are not just using communication tools that are different. but i think people here messages

differently now. and there so many messages that they can get confused. the good side of the technology is it can reach people and is free. the bad side is hate speech can be used. we do not want to, in any way, say that people do not have the right to say things. people have the right to be stupid and hateful. but it is not good enough to protect their right to speech if we do not condemn it. when you are on a list surf or you are on a tweet and you see bad messages coming through, you have to realize that part of dedicating your time and pledging your time to a two thousand 11 hours against hate or whatever campaign you want to call it that confronts hate, you have to condemn that speech. there was a time that i can remember -- i am old enough -- that, if somebody at a dinner

party or a comet on a stage told the joke at someone else's expense, that person would have been marginalized. they might have lost their jobs for intolerance. and people confronted it. people were uncomfortable. it was unacceptable to tell a kind of jokes or make the campus is being made on campuses, that we see being made by government candidates and leaders, and it is something that needs to be condemned. the work that we do on the ground is overseas. my mandate is to work on a people-to-people level. everything i do is that grass roots. my message is communicated globally. as somebody who is an american and able to listen and i understand, obviously, the there

is no contradiction between either, i also understand very clearly the values of our constitution and what our constitution has given us and the equal rights under the law. as americans, we can understand that what is taking place -- we have the filter and the know how to understand that, when a preacher that has 50 people in his church says something, it does not reflect all of america. we get that. we are american. but when you go overseas, it is very hard to frame the issues that are happening in our country because they do not have the experience of living in our nation. many people have not read our constitution. many people do not know that the man who did something bad in one part of the country or the woman horribled something or wha does not represent all americans. it makes my job extremely hard. the amount of time that i spent

talking about our country, i am very proud to be an american and i have wonderful things to say about our nation. however, i have to think about and speak about some of the challenges that our nation is going through a record is not about religion or what color skin you have or what color hair you have, who you pray to or what your gender is. it is about what is happening inside and what we are bringing in outside and then reflect to the world what they believe america to be. we are better than that. our nation is stronger than that. we have gone through incredible hardships. the students brought up one of the many challenges that our nation has gone through. it is unbelievably hard to put forward partnerships and dialogue and relationship- building on a wide range of things. yes, i happen to be special representative to communities,

but the department the state also has to deal with being able to explain how what one person is doing and it being carried by the media all day, everyday, as if it is the only thing that is happening in our nation, it is very hard and prevents us from doing the kind of work we have been asked to do. >> i want to add one thing. another thing that we do here in america so well is we know how to build coalitions and partnerships. if people are interested in fighting poverty, you have a representatives of many, many religions and many community groups together. where we travel, people do not do that by instinct. a lot of what we do -- if a community says "i am very concerned -- i mostly travel and

deal with the jewish community. when they ask how we deal with this, i ask them if they have gotten together with the local church. the answer is not because people are not smart -- they go "what a good idea." it is not how the culture things. i think it is the best export we have, our ability to build partnerships and build coalitions of people so that people are speaking out on behalf of people who are voiceless. i just wanted to add that. >> i do not see a long line at the microphone yet. >> it is in the middle of the -- >> yes. >> say who you are, please. >> i am cindy colby. i am with the state department in u.s. information agency.

i have been doing this kind of thing for a while and i have a lot of issues that i work on. there is a very common trend to get people to change their behavior -- this will sound crass, i am sorry. you can stop discrimination because it is the right thing to do. it is. is also economically beneficial to do so. it is economically beneficial to stop using police or army to fight wars. it is economically beneficial to use that money in other ways. it is economically beneficial to listen to the input of all kinds of brains. we finally started listening to women. we need to start listening -- other countries need to be told and there ought to be a message. not only to do this because it is the right thing to do. one of the reasons that america

is strong, even though we have our problems, but it is because we listen to the input from all kinds of people. it makes economic sense to listen to everyone. i wonder if there is a study that either george washington university has done or the summit has done that talks about the economic benefits -- or that somebody has done that talks about the economic benefits. has anyone done that at all? does that make sense? >> yes, it does. actually, there have been some studies done at business schools, which is appropriate, to talk about how quickly management teams that consist of a diversity of perspectives can come up with more creative solutions to problems then groups that tend to be monolithic in their outlook.

so, yes, there have been studies to back up the push to diversify. it is not just that it is nice and we should all hold hands. yes, there is kind of an economic incentive as well. >> yes. i wish that was more publicized. i wish that that was more known rather than just that this is a right thing to do. you can take advantage of what society has to offer if you were a little more peaceful, if you listened to people, and you could take a vintage of the ideas that people have. it is a more positive message rather than such a "this is the right thing to do." it is more than the right thing to do. you can help your society to grow. you can help your economy to grow. >> i think there is nothing wrong in making an argument out of enlightened self-interest. >> that is true.

>> often, when we're making the argument, it is the right thing to do. whenever our background is, the morals and values will fight for -- what ever at our background is, the morals and values by four the right thing to do. it can build political will and it is an argument that has merit. thank you for bringing that up. >> great. >> good afternoon. first, i want to thank you for the opportunity -- the two students who left the meeting. >> they are right behind you. >> thank you. as a former director for the bsu at undergraduate and

graduate institutions, i am glad to see them take the lead for communities to understand the notion of pluralism. to questions -- this is 2011. we are approaching the 10th anniversary of 9/11. a lot of organizations are already planning. we take the perspective of the lowest common denominator of what could happen and how civil society, ngo's, are working together to protect communities, send this message to communities, and organized. you're making a call that is part of the process. but how specifically does the 2011 hours against hate coordinate around that. i know you're looking to civil society and ngo pause to coronate with each other. -- ngo's to coordinate with each other.

i know they take that information and mrs. it back. how can we be of assistance to you? with the right information, their rights are is that you need for that information. >> thank you very much for that. for those of you who do not know him, he has put in a lot of work in building coalitions and doing a lot on capitol hill and working with young people who are interested in issues of pluralism and democracy. i want to thank you for your work. but we say to you also a big thank you for your offer to be of help. i say this to everybody in the audience. we're looking for ideas. we do not know everything. we do not know every group that we need to be out there communicating with. our job is to communicate overseas. we have a very robust relationship with our embassies and we have moved the campaign out overseas. if you go to the facebook page, you will see many of our embassies that have taken it on and really brought it.

there is no state department logo on here because we really wanted to make it a campaign for people by the people for their future. we are a catalyst to get it going. if you have ideas here in the united states, a group that you think we should connect with, that we should engage with to tell the more about this campaign or that you shooting did with -- that is even better -- that would be -- that you should engage with -- that is even better -- that would be terrific. i want to be very clear about something. the way in which our country has amazingly been thinking about this anniversary to honor the victims of 9/11, to spend some time reflecting about the pain and suffering of those families, to think about ways that we can build coalitions worldwide to talk about issues of mutual respect, lots of things are happening organically.

they're not happening because the u.s. government is telling people to do it. i think that is the strongest possible message that they're happening in every state in the nation. there are many ways in which we could hope to see organic organizations and individuals use this campaign as they think about issues of pluralism and mutual respect. but to be absolutely clear with you, there is not some sort of goal setting that we're putting out there to make sure that this is married in with 9/11. it is not just about the 10th anniversary. this is a very important year in many ways. but let's remember very clearly that, while our country was attacked on 9/11, the ideology of al qaeda has affected countries all over the world on different days in different years. that is very important. it is not just about america being a victim of the aq

ideology. it is bali, the u.k., spain. >> we understand that hatred among our generation exists. but had we counteract the hatred that is taught in homes of children -- two children across america. they're so young and impressionable and we all grow up to be the people who generate that conversation. >> you mentioned the home where the children reach their first messages. you go to the schools where people teaching. i remember quizzing my girls for a history tests. we got to the inquisition in spain.

in looking at it, this was all you learned on the inquisitions? the word jew is not even there. since 1942, jews and muslims have not been there because they were kicked out. excuse me. i am telling this to my kids like they will know the difference. [laughter] so i marched into the school and said this was unacceptable. people on the other side want to remove scientific lessons from school books, but to show how i important textbooks are and the training of teachers, we have to make it important. schools are run by local school boards. they're not run by the federal government. it is a way of grass roots are realizing that can make a difference. sometimes, we become paralyzed because it seems so big and so bad. that is kind of what was behind

also 2011 hours against hate. do not be paralyzed. just give an hour. just spend a day looking at textbooks or how our teachers and how our universities are treating the teachers. that becomes important. it becomes fundamental. never mind also have educational television is sending messages to kids. is tolerance something that we value as important as learning the alphabet? or learning algebra? i think it should be. it should come back to being fundamental lessons that kids are taught as children the minute they hit school. it is put up there as a fundamental important value. >> i want to go back to something he said earlier that committees coming together for different things. whether you're picking up trash in the neighborhood or working

with the different groups on a different projects, making those connections in a multitude of ways helps on the issue of diversity anyway. so you're not just approaching summit was different from you and saying that we have a problem -- approaching someone different from you and saying that we have a problem with pluralism. the idea that i want to touch on his lexicon. how we speak about each other. what are the words we are using? what do we allow society to find a sensible? i can speak for every group out there. but i have heard all kinds of interesting phraseology and descriptions used a different ethnicities and races and religions. i think to myself i do not think that would be a nice thing to be called if i were -- you have to be bold. as the secretary just said, stand up and speak out. you cannot let things like that

slide. when somebody uses a term or says something negative, that is the time that to stand up and say, in a nice way, listen, that does not work and this is why. >> i would like to add to that. there have actually been studies that have shown the most important thing that you can do to encounter -- to counter racism in young children, because children pick this up so early, is that you as a parent or some other moral authority in this young person's life is to address it directly. these studies are fascinating. you can have children in diverse school settings. you can have them watch sesame street episodes. but if no adults actually in gauges with the child in conversation to talk about racism and discrimination, then the child continues to harbor these beliefs. again, candid and frank conversation with young people from the early stages is vital.

>> children, of course, pick up a lot from their parents by osmosis and other people around them. you can certainly engage them in activities a very early on. yes, please. >> we are actually taking questions live on line. we have one question of twitter. the question is should the u.s. have diplomatic relations with nations to support the killing of minority groups? >> can i say about the person that i read off of it? the logo is not appear, but it is on your tool kit. the person that came up with that level is that wonderful woman right there. she is very talented in many ways. would you like to take that? >> i am very glad that twitter is following it. thank you, whoever you are, however you found us. [laughter] we have diplomatic relations

with 194 countries. none of the more perfect. some of them, their human rights records are horrific. and we do a very good job of documenting that and making it public to our human rights report, to our international religious freedom report, and to statements that our government leaders do here and abroad. there are times when it is more important to engage when countries are doing bad things than before. and there are times when breaking off a relationship is vital because it signals not only does approval by the united states, but by the international community. it is a case-by-case basis. it cannot be answered broad stroke. but i can tell you that we work in a department where there are

entire bureaus debate that very issue all day long of a given the suit to it -- of a given situation in a given country. i work for the bureau of human rights. it is what we do. we said at the public policy table and make the argument that human-rights and, frankly, as was said, hatred is a fundamental abuse of human rights. we sit at the table saying that this should be the first thing we talk about and somebody else says that this is the first thing we should be talking about. so, on a case-by-case basis, it is raised during a relationship. and relationships are very complicated. >> i spoke earlier. a lot of the conversation is centered around what we do,

people's sense of responsibility to serve the community at large. you have an idea of how to create that sense of responsibility in people before they start doing things? >> you give them things to do. [laughter] that is really what is behind 2011 hours against a. it is something very simple. since you guys are on twitter, hobbies, and facebook and your computers all the time anyway, you are amazingly connected, that is what globalization really is. it is a way of saying you will use the things to do normally every day to do something to advance fighting intolerance. motivation is making things easy, simple, and doable. >> in the work that i do, i spend most of my time overseas. at last count, i was in more than 40 countries around the

world. no matter where i am, and urban place or rural place, an affluent country or not, speaking to an audience that is extremely well-educated or not so much, men or women, no matter where i am in the world, and i'm talking to the generation under the age of 30, i hear their voices the desire to do something bigger and bolder than the things around them. they need their voices lifted up. the platforms in which they can speak. and we, as government, must do as much as we can to be beaten beaner and a facilitator and the intellectual partner for the r and -- to be the convene her facilitator and the intellectual partner for these ideas. we must do all that we can to find ways to actually activate their interest and their ideas to build a stronger world.

i am not being pollyanna here. i absolutely believe in this generation. i could not do my job if i did not. and i can tell you, from looking at the audience right now and people who are going like this and the responses that we have gone in our work, especially on this campaign, people are looking for ways to channel their interest in their future. this is one of many ways. on the issue of responsibility, it is the issue of action forward. i think this is our last question. >> ok. >> one of the great things about the internet is that it connects you believe all these things that are already going on. there are any number of things out there for people to connect to. >> i represent south asian americans leading together.

>> give us the website. saalt.org. i feel that i should get your input. i think a lot of the division and this culture of hatred that has been created in the u.s. has become worse in the past few years. a big chunk of that is because what we have allowed our elected representatives to get away with. peter king saying things like there are too many mosques in this country and these kinds of statements have created a complete division within the country. whereas, like, getting the community and getting the youth to talk about creating unity and harmony, i think there's a big need also to get some accountability from our elected officials and tell them to just stop, stop this complete

ridiculous thing that is going on where you can get away with saying the things that you have. if you have any input on how your campaign can address those things -- >> i want to say amen. i totally agree with that. i think holding people accountable who spew hatred is everybody's responsibility. elected officials really listen to their voters and they read their letters to the editor and they monitor the phone calls and e-mails they're getting. it takes a second to let an elected no -- an elected official know that that is unacceptable. and it takes a second to let some senior class now that what they said is unacceptable. and it takes a second to stop yourself if, all of a sudden,

you find yourself thinking in hateful thought. we were born and not hitting. somewhere along the way, we were all taught to hate. -- we were all born not heating. somewhere along the way, we were all taught to hate. we need to take the time and say that this is unacceptable. >> you are seeing this from an american perspective. understand that, publicly elected officials around the world are saying hateful things about other religions and races. you're absolutely correct. if you look at the number of swastikas that are being spray- painted on the sides of the streets, in cemeteries, and what not all across europe, it is appalling. when you see the kinds of wild things said in other parts of the world on gender issues, it is not place of the planet on

these issues. but it is not just ok to say that we see the data point shift and there is an increase. but she said is correct. you have to call out. i want to turn this just slightly. you are seeing organic responses to that kind of negativity by the kind of campaign that you started with others around the world who said that is not enough and they are, in fact, calling on their elected officials because they do not think it is acceptable to do that. >> i just want to add that i have two grown daughters that often ask me does not depress you? you go around the world learning about the hatred of jews [laughter] do not get depressed? i get to do something about it. this global campaign, when we travel to these countries and we meet with young people, it is frankly inspirational. they get it. they want a different world. they're committed to do is

having about it. in five minutes, they will be the majority of population on the globe. as depressing as comments that go unanswered and events that go unanswered maybe, there are actually some people who are pushing back. and they happen to be young and they will take care of me in my old age. [laughter] >> ok. i think we are out of time. i want to thank everyone again. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪

>> sunday, from the los angeles times festival of books, in depths with your questions for tibor machan. he will take your phone calls and e-mails live sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv. >> real estate developer and potential gop rep spoke to a group of republicans in las vegas. he spoke about the obama handling of foreign policy issues, including afghanistan, iraq, china, and libya. his speech comes courtesy of ktmv in las vegas. this contains language that some

viewers may find offensive. >> i was traveling up to new hampshire. i got a call. i was in the helicopter. i was just about to exit the chopper. and what happens? i hear that obama finally give his birth certificate. i got such credit for that because i, was something that no deals have accomplished. it was amazing. they all said, you know, her earlier -- hillary clinton tried to get him to do it. bill clinton tried to get him to do it. john mccain, who is a wonderful guy, tried to get him to do it. nobody could get him to do it. and he did it because we went after him hard. we are tough negotiators, like this country needs.

i just ask one thing. why did he not do it two years or three years ago? why does he have to put this country through turmoil, which is what it is going through right now? i give you an example. obamacare is a disaster. right? i know lots about litigation. i have been lucky in court. on lucky.ttle luckbit we're going through a process right now that is a disgrace. either you have it or you do not have it. why do we have to go to the lower courts? why do we not just go straight to the supreme court? i have friends that are destroying their companies over obamacare. they are preparing for it. but they do not know if it will exist because the court could overrule it very easily, very

quickly, and that is it. now they have spent billions of dollars preparing their company, changing their documents, doing everything that you have to do, years of work, and then the votes could take a vote and lose. then it is over. by the way, that would be a great event. but it would be over. and you say why do not just allow it -- it is going to go there -- why do you not just allow it to go to the supreme court? if you win great. if you lose, great. at least we know what the hell we are doing. i want to thank phil, too. he gave us this room. he is my friend, my pal. we have another very successful building. we have a building right down the road, trump international

hotel and tower. it is the tallest building in las vegas. we got it built and is doing great. you drive down that stretch and what do you see? trump. better believe it. we have had a great time can he has been a great partner and a great friend. more importantly, he has been a great friend and he is a great guy for the state of nevada and for las vegas and i needed. thinking about obama, i said, hey, i will come here and make the speech. i remember a few years ago when things were not so good and obama did a whole big thing on not coming to las vegas. he did not do it once. he did it twice. i have a lot of friends, including steve wynn and others, who were not happy and the banks canceled out and all sorts of people canceled out.

and you look at what you have and, even now, unemployment over 13%. think of it. we have a president saying do not go to las vegas. unemployment, number one in foreclosures in the nation -- not great. i do not want to make you people depressed, but this is what you have. [laughter] your visitors have decreased markedly and the gaming revenue, as you understand, is way down. it has some serious problems. yet, when we have a president -- we have to have a cheerleader. you know, i have seen the best politicians. i have dealt with them all. and they have said, donald, you're running for president. do you have any experience? i have dealt with these fo rikking politicians all my life. [laughter] [applause]

and they are fine. some are good. some are honest. some are crooks. the come in all shapes and sizes. you know. but i think it is good. having the perspective that i have as a businessman -- and i made all the money. i have done well. they criticize me because i contribute to democrats as well. excuse me. when you're in new york, we only have democrats. [laughter] i am a believer of the polls. the polls come out and the republican is scheduled -- if he does really well, he gets 4% of the vote. then he comes to my office and he says i think i could get 5% or 6%. no thank you. who was number one? trump. hey, look, i have never done

this before and who the hell knows what will happen. it is brittle. and i have always heard, from the time i am a young guy, that a really successful person cannot run for high political office. i have heard it a hundred times. you cannot run. even people are saying, no, do not run. please, do not run. thank you, baby. i love you, too. but they are saying do not run. please, do not run. they will go and say, oh, gee, you were not nice to these people from china could i made a lot of money, by the way, with people from china. i made a big chunk on the bank of america building in san francisco. we need somebody. i am not blaming. when china, this year, as an example, will make -- let's call

it profit from a simple word -- will make on this country this year $300 billion and then this say, these cities, zero, but you do not want free trade and this and that, of course i do not want to trade when somebody is taking away 3 billion -- $300 billion. why should we not make it for a change? [applause] and what china has really done is manipulate their currency. they are professionals at manipulation. they are abusing this country like we have never been abused before, except, of course, for opec. i have them as a special category. did you see recently, a couple of days ago, saudi arabia said, let's raise the price. let's cut back production of can you believe it?

au'll be paying $5 and $6 for gallon of gas. and they want to raise the price of oil because we have nobody in washington that sits back and says you will not raise that fucking price. you understand what i mean? [cheers and applause] and it is unbelievable. so we are in libya. you know part of the reason why we are in libya? because the arab league, which is saudi arabia in and a few of the other richest countries in the world -- they have money coming out of their ears. you go to those countries. you see the most incredible airports being built or already

built. uc bridges that make the george washington bridge in new york look like a toy. you see the most unbelievable things and you come home. we are like a third world nation. you land at la guardia. [laughter] it is broken. it is dirty. i do not mind going over pot holes in my car. i do not like doing it on a plane. but you have them. and they would not be there, except for us. we protect them. so nothing. so nothing. so libya -- saudi arabia and the others say, we do not like the adoptee. we do not like him. we would like you to take him out -- we do not like gaddafi. we do not like him. we would like to take him out. so obama says, ok. in no nato -- enough that nato is us. nato is largely us.