at some point i'm just hoping that, you know, some republicans will read cato institute's policy recommendation eighths research and say that's who we are as a party and we should do this. i just think right now there's a tail wagging the free market dog in a way that is unfortunate. >> one of the org united states that i hear -- arguments that i and that youly mentioned is about how -- one of the reasons why we need to have is because a lot of the low-skilled are doing the work that americans are not willing to do. are there any economic studies out there that actually show, for example, just how much food crisis were to go up if we kicked out all of the undocumented immigrants and needed to attract american workers? like how much would our food prices go up? how much would restaurants have to charge because you don't have the busboys and waiters?

etc., etc. how much would all of these sectors that rely on these workers, how much would prices have to go up in them? maybe that would actually show what kind of contribution they're making. >> i don't know that there's been a study done exactly that. there's so many factors you'd have to take into account. one thing people need to keep in mind, i often hear someone say, well, why don't they just pay higher wages and attract more workers? but someone has to understand if you're an employer, you can't just raise wages through the roof. you only pay people what it is still profitable to work at. so in other words, if you had to raise your prices at a restaurant, people not only -- you're not only competing for customers with other restaurants, you're competing the idea of just staying home and not going to a restaurant at all.

and in agriculture, one of the things that we've already seen is some growers have been leasing land in mexico. so unbelievably, there's a way to outsource even agriculture production. so we shouldn't be surprised that when in this case it's really getting around government policies or government regulations, that people who feel it's in their livelihood in a legal way, to try to find a way to still operate their business. and it won't necessarily be the way that's most economically beneficial to the united states. but it will be a way for them, for people to continue their businesses. >> they just figure, well you're paying such low wages americans won't do the job. but if you hire legal american workers, they don't realize how much the wages would have to go

up and drive -- how it would drive the agriculturers out of the country. >> and we don't know the difference. a lot of times, sometimes, when there's been these raids, i think people have been surprised to see that people who are considered illegal immigrants are actually making pretty good wages in some cases. we still see that it's actual will you -- it's not economically beneficial to the united states to have people who have a certain amount of education or training take jobs just so a foreign national doesn't work in those jobs. that's not much of a way to live a life. people should work in the job that's best suited for them based on their skills. and it's really not efficient for the economy to have people with a master's degree, you know, working on a lawn service just because we don't want to have other people working lawn service.

that would be a silly way to try to run the economy. so the best way is obviously for people to work at the skill level that's most beneficial for them to have a fulfilling career. and if other people can fill in the niches at other jobs, you know, that's beneficial to them, too. >> we probably have time for one last question. then i need to wrap it up. >> i have a question for stuart anderson. i'll just get right to the question. you've written about the program that frank mentioned earlier. could you talk a little bit about your finding about what happened to illegal immigration and illegal crossings when we expanded opportunities for legal immigration? we just had the case earlier this week of the truck that was entering mexico from guatemala with the 500 people.

an system. what was the experience with the program when we expanded immigration? >> thanks, dan. that's a great question. frank alluded to it, but what the research really showed is that what happened is early in the 1950's there was illegal entry going on in the united states. and the immigration service decided to have a crackdown. but at the same time, the i.m.f. commissioner at the time, a general swing, went to the growers and said i'm -- we're going to expand the opportunities for people to come in legally through what's called this program, a way for mexican workers to come in and work in agriculture. essentially what happened is we saw a social science experiment that the result of which you almost never see in terms of cause and effect. what happened was that the

illegal entry as measured by apprehensions at the border decreased from 1953 to 1959 by 95%. in other words, you just saw the number on the chart just goes like this. as admissions are going up, the illegal entry was going down. it was getting to the level of apprehension that if we had that today, i mean, i believe it was under 100,000. probably cato wouldn't even be having a forum because it would be almost a non-issue. what that really showed, even though there were problems with the program but that doesn't mean we would not necessarily operate it the same way as they did then. but the basic concept is that if there's a legal way for people to come in and work, they will avail themselves of that opportunity rather than enter illegally. but there were concerns.

there were union complaints. the regulation started to get tightened around 1960. eventually the program was eliminated altogether by 1964. and you saw illegal entry as measured by apprehensions again increased about 1,000% over the next decade. and so we got up to the point, you know, closer to the levels we had. you know, say, five, six years ago. now they've gone down a little bit in terms of the illegal entry levels. but essentially, the bottom line is that illegal -- the people who are trying to come in illegally for the most part are trying to come into work. and they're rational. if there's a legal way to do it, they'll avail themselves of that opportunity. if we don't have a legal way for them to do it, what we've seen for many, many years of

experience, is that they'll try to come in illegally. even then the u.s. spends an awful lot of money and resources and man power in trying to get in the middle of that, of really what are labor market transactions. >> you can find stuart's recent paper and other research of immigration at cato.org. i want to thank both our speakers for coming today. and thank you so much for coming. [captioning performed by [captions copyright national

>> starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president obama holds an oval office meeting with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. then more with a discussion on president obama's speech on thursday where he called for a return to the pre1967 borders. and after that, remarks from the aflcio president on organized labor and independence and politics. saturday on "washington journal," foreign policy staff writer josh rogan will talk about that meeting and the prime minister benjamin netanyahu. he'll also talk about other foreign policy developments. and then ralph benko talks about south carolina becoming the latest state to propose a bill that would make gold and silver

coins a form of legal tender in this state. and after that, joshua better bn discuss where's some states are making their own tuition rules for undocumented students. "washington journal" live tomorrow morning and every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> no one succeeds in life by themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others, and, yes, love others. >> watch 2011 commencement speeches on c-span memorial day weekend. and search more than 800 past commencement adepresses from politician -- addresses from world leaders and more online. you can search, watch, clip and share every event we've covered from 1987 through today. it's washington, your way. >> this weekend on "book tv," the gaithersburg book festival,

live with authors on the gulf oil spill, wall street, the universe, india, and the middle east. plus a panel discussion on the book industry. also former ambassador to yemen on the u.s.'s counterterrorism efforts in that country. and on "after wards," one of the most significant standoffs on the cold war era, the berlin wall. get our schedules e-mailed directly to you. sign up for our "book tv" alert. >> this weekend's "road to the white house" coverage begins tomorrow afternoon with herman cain announcing his intention to run for president on the republican ticket. he'll make that announcement. we'll have live coverage at noon eastern here on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. and on sunday, more "road to the white house" coverage with former utah governor and the former utah governor john

huntsman. we'll have that 4:30 eastern on c-span. if you miss any of it, we'll have it later for you in the c-span video library. earlier today president obama visited c.i.a. headquarters to thank the intelligence community for its work on the osama bin laden operation. he's introduced by c.i.a. director leon panetta and james clapper who said the president's decision to launch the operation the most courageous he had witnessed during his nearly 50-year intelligence career. this is half an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by the director of national intelligence and director of central intelligence agency, leon panetta. [applause]

>> mr. president, director panetta, and members of intelligence community, those who were here and those connected electronically. recently i received an e-mail from a former student of mine at georgetown who lost his wife at the world trade center. he wanted to thank those responsible for the takedown of

osama bin laden. it represented closure for him. and, in a sense, this dramatic event represents a measure of closure as well for the intelligence community. as a historic milestone in a relentless campaign which continues on. those heart felt thanks of my student deservedly go to many. to the men and women in the intelligence community who contributed directly, notably from c.i.a., n.s.a., n.g.a., nctc, and many others from intelligence organization who's contributed indirectly, taken together a magnificent example of team work and intelligence integration. most assuredly thanks must go to the president, our commander in chief -- [cheers and applause]

for making, perhaps, the most i'vegeous decision witnessed in almost 48 years in intelligence. he made this decision based on very compelling but largely circumstantial intelligence. and, sir, we are all grateful to you for your faith and trust in us. we're honored by your visit and by your speaking to the intelligence community. and i think it most appropriate that you do so here, at the heart of american intelligence, in the presence of the stars on the wall. we remember as well across the community those who sacrificed their lives on and since 9/11. it's now my great honor and privilege and pleasure to introduce leon panetta who,

himself, played a crucial role in this operation. [applause] leon, you've been a superb director of c.i.a., a great partner, and a wonderful friend. my thanks to you and the men and women of this magnificent agency. leon? >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, jim, for all of us here at the c.i.a., it is a privilege and a pleasure to have our intelligence community family here with us to have all of our military partners with

us. and i also want to thank the white house staff, particularly those involved in the national security element, to be with us today. we welcome all of you. and i think it's fair to say that we've never had a closer, more effective working relationship both within our community and across the national security sector of our government. we thank all of you, all of you, for the team effort that was involved in the operation to go after bin laden. it would not have happened without your full cooperation. jim clapper deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in bringing the intelligence community together. i want to thank you, jim, for everything you do. [applause]

>> mr. president, on behalf of everyone here at the c.i.a., we are truly honored and very proud to have you here. i can't tell you how much it means to all of us to have you here to mark one of the greatest intelligence operations in our history. and it's one that has so many of our officers working day and night for so many years. throughout that time some of our officers made the ultimate sacrifice. last year we lost seven men and women to a terrorist suicide bomber at host base in afghanistan. are now on this wall behind me. along with those who gave their lives in this fight, their

devotion, their skill, and the inspiration that we take from their sacrifice helped make this day possible. tracking down the most infamous terrorists of our time required the very best trade craft and the very best technology. but it also demanded the very best of our people, the highest level of creativity, dedication, team work, analysis, and just sheer dogged determination. to never give up. when the trail went cold. those are basic american qualities. and they are reflected in our country's independence officers and in our war fighters. a team that really carried out this mission. but it also required one other essential american quality.

the courage to take risks. the kind of risks that you have to take on if you want to succeed. and, mr. president, joining with jim, all of us in the intelligence community deeply thank you for the gutsy decision you made to follow the intelligence, to conduct this operation, and to bring bin laden to justice. [applause] we are grateful to have a commander in chief who is willing to put great trust in our work. and in return as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, we

commit to you that we will continue to do everything in our power to fulfill your mission of defeating al qaeda and their militant allies. we will do whatever it takes to protect this country and to keep it safe. this has been a long and tough fight. and it's not over. but as we have just proven, it's a fight that we're going to win for you, mr. president, and for the american people. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> thank you! thank you very much. thank you all. thank you. thank you so much.

thank you very much, everybody. thank you. well, thank you, leon. and thank you, jim. when i chose leon panetta as director of the c.i.a., i said he was going to be a strong advocate for this agency and would strengthen your capabilities to meet the threats of our time. and when i chose jim clapper as director of national intelligence, i charged him with making sure that our intelligence community works as one integrated team. that's exactly what these two leaders have done along with all of you. so, jim and leon, thank you for your remarkable leadership not just in recent weeks but during the entirety of your tenure. you have done a great job.

this is my third visit here to langley as president. each of these visits has marked another milestone in our mission to protect the american people and keep our country safe. on my first visit just months after taking office, i stood here and i said that this agency and our entire intelligence community is fundamental to america's national security. i said that i believed that your best days were still to come. and i pledged that you would have my full support to carry out your critical work. soon after that visit, i called leon into the oval office. and i directed him to make the killing or capture of osama bin laden the top priority in our war to defeat al qaeda. and he came back here.

and you guys who had already been working so hard on this issue redoubled your efforts. and that was true all across the intelligence community. my second visit, a year later, came under more somber circumstances. we gathered to pay tribute to seven american patriots who gave their lives in this fight at a remote post in afghanistan. as already has been mentioned, their stars now on this wall. our summit would carry on their work to complete this mission. to win this war. today i have returned just to say thank you. on behalf of all americans and people around the world. because you carried on. you stayed focused on your

mission. you honored the memory of your fallen colleagues. and in helping to locate and take down osama bin laden, you made it possible for us to achieve the most significant victory yet in our war to defeat al qaeda. i just met with some of the outstanding leaders and teams from across the community who worked so long and so hard to make that raid a success. and i'm pleased today that we're joined by representatives from all of our intelligence agencies. and the folks who are watching this live back at all of those agencies. because this truly was a team effort. that's not always the case in washington. [laughing] but all of you worked together every single day. this is one of the few times when all of these leaders and organizations have the occasion to appear together publicly. so i thank all of you for

coming. because i think it's so important for the american people to see all of you here today. part of the challenge of intelligence work is by necessity your work has to remain secret. i know that carry a heavy burden. you're often the first ones to get the blame when things go wrong. and you're always the last ones to get the credit when things go right. so when things do go right, and they do more often than the world will ever know, we have to celebrate your success. that's why i came here. i wanted every single one of you to know whether you work at the c.i.a. or across the community, at every step of our effort to take out bin laden, the work you do and the quality of that you provided made the critical difference to

me, to our team on those helicopters, to our nation. after i directed that getting bin laden be the priority you hunkered down even more, building on years of pain staying work -- painstaking work, pulling together in some cases the slenderrist of intelligence streams, running those threads to ground until you found that courier and you tracked him to that compound. and when i was briefed last summer, you had built the strongest intelligence case in terms of where bin laden was since tora bora. in the month that followed, including all of those meetings in the situation room, we did what sound intelligence demands. we pushed for more collection. we pushed for more evidence. we questioned our assumptions. you strengthened your analysis. you didn't bite your tongue and

try to spin the ball. but you gave it to me straight each and every time. and we did something really remarkable in washington. we kept it a secret. [laughing] [applause] kept it a secret. of course, when the time came to actually make the decision, we didn't know for sure that bin laden was there. the evidence was circumstantial and the risks, especially to the lives of our special operation forces, were huge. i knew that the consequences of failure could be enormous. but i made the decision that i did because i had absolute confidence in the skill of our military personnel and i had

confidence in you. i put my bet on you. and now the whole world knows that faith in you was justified. so just as impressive as what you did was how you did it. it was a tribute to your perseverance, your relentless focus and determination over many years. for the fight against al qaeda did not begin on 9/11. among you are veterans who have been pursuing these murderers for many years, even before they attacked our embassies in africa and struck the cole in yemen. among you are young men and women for whom 9/11 was a call to service. this fight has defined your generation. and on this wall are stars honoring all of your colleagues and friends, more than a dozen, who have given their lives in the fight against al qaeda and its violent allies. as the years wore on, others

began to think that this terrorist might never be brought to justice. but you never quit. you never gave up. you pulled together across this agency and across the community. .

watching their back, because we'll review every video, examine every photo, read every one of those millions of pages. we'll pursue every lead. we are going to go wherever it takes us. we're going to finish the job. we're going to defeat al-qaeda. even as we stay focused on this mission, we need to you stay nimble and flexible to meet the

full range of security, from weapons of mass destruction, cyber criminals and narco traffickers. so i'll keep relying on you. for your intelligence, the analysis that comes across my desk every single day. and 300-plus americans are counting on you to stay a step ahead of our adversaries and keep our country safe. i have never been more proud or more confident in you i am today. not just because this extraordinary success, but because it reminds us of who we are as a people and as a nation. you reminded us that when we americans set our mind to something, when we are focused and when we are working together, we're not worried about who's getting the credit, and when we stay to our values,

even if it takes years, there's nothing we cannot do. that's why i still believe in what i said my first visit here two years ago. your greatest days are still to come. if any of you doubt what this means, i wish i could have taken some of you on the trip i made to new york city, where we laid a wreath at ground zero, and i had a chance to meet firefighters who had lost an entire shift, police officers who had lost their comrades. a young woman, 14 years old, who had written to me because her last memory of her father was talking to him on the phone while her mother went beside her right before they watched the

tower go down. and she and other members of families of 9/11 victims talked about what this meant. it meant their suffering had not been forgotten, and that the american community stands with them, that we stand with each other. so most of you will never get headlines for the work that you do. you won't get ticker tape parades, but as you go about your work with incredible diligence and dedication every single day, i hope all of you understand how important it is, how grateful i am, and that you have the thanks of a grateful nation. god bless you. and god bless the united states

of america. [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> thank you, everybody. [applause]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

>> starting at 8:00 eastern, president obama holds an oval office meeting with israeli minister benjamin netanyahu. then more about middle east policy with the discussion on president obama's speech, calling for israel to return to its pre-19-6 pre-1967 borders at to negotiations with palestinians. tomorrow on "washington journal" josh rowingan on president obama's meeting with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and other international developments. then south carolina becoming the latest state to propose a bill then south carolina becoming the latest state to propose a bill that would make gold and silver coins a form of legal tender. after that, joshua bernstein of

the service employees international union discusses why some states are making their own tuition rules for undocumented students. plus, your emails, phone calls, and 2003. "washington journal" live c-span.

>> history is much more than blocks and soldiers. it's social issues. it's also medicine and science and art and music, and theatre and poetry and ideas, and we shouldn't lump things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> samuel more retires, harriet beecher stowe, thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on "q&a" on the americans who made the greater journey to 19th century to paris at 8:00 on c-span.

>> next today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney. the middle east was a major topic of discussion after a meeting at the white house between president obama and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. yesterday the president called for a palestinian state based on the borders before the 1967 arab-israeli war. this is about 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for waiting. we pushed the briefing back

obviously to allow for the president's meeting with the prime minister of israel to wrap up. i don't have any announcements, but i will begin with questions. >> thank you. i guess coming out of this meeting, what a lot of us are wondering is what was accomplished between obama and netanyahu. there was a lot of talk and rhetoric, but in terms of actual substance it doesn't seem like they made progress. can you paint t point to any coe areas where they made progress today? >> first of all, they met for more than an hour and a half, more than twice the time expected, and i think that's an indication of just how productive and constructive this meeting was. they then, after breaking for a bit, coming back in for the pool spray and the statements, they went into a one-on-one lunch with the two of them, just the two of them in the president's

private dining room off the oval office. i think it was a productive meeting and a lot was accomplished. there's a lot to talk about. dramatic change, you know, in the middle east and north africa. the president's speech yesterday. and all the issues that both the president and the prime minister discussed. and so we feel it was very useful and productive meeting. >> but on the issue of borders, i know the netanyahu said going back to the '67 borders is indefensible. how does that square up with what the president said yesterday? >> i think what the president said yesterday was quite clear. the president said the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually-agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. that is a formulation that's been understood by parties to these negotiations, and by anybody who's been a close observer of these negotiations

in this region for years. he felt it was important to articulate that. the security issue here is recognized by the president, was recognized clearly by the president, in his speech yesterday, and again today in the oval office. he made clear that every state has a right to self-defense. that israel must be be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. he made clear that security provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons and to provide effective border security. i think that -- again, anybody who knows this issue knows this has been an understood starting point for resolving one of the four major issues between these two people, which is territory, for a long time. >> the question is, then, what is happening today on the u.s -- >> you mean did they resolve the

palestinian/israeli negotiations today? no. >> is it any closer on the border issue. >> again, there's nothing that the president said that contradicts the 2004 letter that were exchanged or what prime minister netanyahu said today in the oval office. the president said in his speech that a starting point for resolving the territorial issue is the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps and security for both nations. i think that's -- there's nothing in that statement, in the president's speech yesterday, there's contradicted by what the prime minister said. >> so why is he still mad? >> i'm not sure that he's mad. i think they had an excellent meeting. >> he said it's indefensible. >> first of all, the borders -- it's easy to understand. i shouldn't have to parse words. he said the borders are

indefensible that'. that's an issue of security. >> but the -- >> i think they don't agree on every issue, but they're committed in working together in the days, months ahead, toward peace, a two-state solution, that allows for israel's security, which the united states remains committed to profoundly. i mean, this administration's commitment to israel's security is unshakable. its demonstration of that goes beyond rhetoric. i stood with the prime minister netanyahu and with the vice president when i worked for vice president biden in jerusalem when the prime minister made clear that this administration's commitment to israel's security is as great or great her than any administration in israel's history. and that is -- and the president feels very strongly about that. he also feels strongly that we need to take constructive steps toward peace. yes, jay?

sorry. >> that's all right. secretary geithner's comment, can you tell if the europeans are already floating a candidate? >> i don't think anything on candidates or personnel, and would refer you to whatever statement the secretary of the treasury might have made. >> would that go toward pretty much any imf question? >> if it's about the next head of the imf probably. >> let me switch to another thing, then. will vice president biden be holding talks next week with the deficit team? >> the vice president will be resuming talks next week. i believe we have something on the books for tuesday. and he looks forward to those negotiations continuing. they've been constructive and productive so far. we hope that continues to be the case. >> what's the latest involvement with the gang of six? does the white house view this group as the only group that has

any hope of coming up with a deal that's credible? >> well, look, these are negotiations led by the vice president at the president's request, with designated leaders of congress. any deal has to be a deal between the house, the senate, the democrats, the republicans, and the white house. and the inputs are varied, but we do believe that -- and come from different places. ideas come from different places, including the president's fiscal commission, the so-called simpson-bowles commission, including obviously the president put forth a substantial vision and plan, and there have been many other significant and valuable contributions to the general idea of how we should move this forward, get significant deficit reduction in order to promote economic growth and job creation in this country, and get our fiscal house in order. so i think that, yes, the biden

talks, the vice president's talks, are an important vehicle. we believe that is the vehicle, and will be the vehicle for an agreement. we're optimistic about that. but obviously there have been a lot of important contributions from others not actually in the room. >> officials with the israeli government say that obviously negotiating the borders, starting point off with the '67 lines with swaps, but what they're upset about is that was something that was going to be negotiated at the negotiating table that, they they could exact concessions from the palestinians in exchange for which, and now for the first time it's stated u.s. policy, which it has never been before. it is the u.s. position now that the '67 lines with swaps are the basis for that, not -- not something that would be negotiated between the israelis and palestinians. >> but this is a starting point

for negotiation on one element here, which is territory. the president believes that progress can be made on territory and security, two of the four major issues that need to be resolved for a comprehensive peace. and articulating a position and a truth is not -- is not some radical new departure from where we've been and the parties have been in the negotiation that have gone for many years now. >> but it's significant that's the united states' position now. >> the president believes that it's important to speak truths that have -- that are evident to all the parties as a way of trying to help move these talks forward. >> but it is offering the palestinians at a time that they're reconciling with an organization that the united states government considers to be a terrorist organization, it is offering the palestinians a carrot in exchange for coming to the negotiating table. >> there's no carrot here.

let me make clear, again, what the president said. first of all, this is a starting point, the basis for the eventual borders, 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps. again, that's the product of negotiations -- mutually agreed swaps. all the determinations about security, those determinations are the products of direct negotiations. so this is not an endpoint on the territory issue. this is an important starting point and a recognition of what all sides agree, as you just said, has to be the starting point. secondly, on the question -- i mean, the president could not have been clearer on the fact that palestinian efforts to delegitimize israel will end in failure. symbolic actions to isolate israel at the united nations in september will not create an independent state. and palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if hamas insists, continues to insist, on terror and resecretary-general.

rejection. the president was clear about that yesterday, he's clear about that today. >> netanyahu in his discourse in the oval office seemed to give the president some background information about the refugee issue, and stated that there was as many jewish refugees after 1948 as there were palestinian ones, they were absorbed by israel, the palestinian ones have been absorbed by arab countries, and this is one of the issues that netanyahu was upset about, is that he thought president obama stomach a step back from the official u.s. position in 2004, the letter you referred to from bush to sharon stated that basically the palestinians had taken the right of return off the table, and stated that the palestinians should be absorbed by this new palestinian state. and president obama said it was an issue to be resolved. >> well, everybody who's a part of these negotiations -- and again, observers of these --

this process over many administrations, both here and in israel, and even several leaderships of the palestinian people, know what the four issues that need to be resolved are. territory security, refugees, and jerusalem. thank you. what the president said very clearly yesterday -- appreciate the help. what the president said very clearly yesterday is that he believes we can move forward on territory and security, in order to gain some momentum in this process that's been stalled and which, you know, needs to move forward during this moment of opportunity. >> why back away from the bush position? >> look, he addressed issues of territory and security yesterday. i take issue that he moved in any direction on the issue that you're discussing. what he talked about yesterday was territory and security. >> what seems to have the israelis upset is they perceive that he's pulled back from the

position expressed by george w. bush in 2004 to sharon. as you know, nuances matter, words matter. in 2004, there was an expectation that they would go back to the '67 lines with taking into account the realities on the ground, i believe, which seemed to include the settlements in a way that mutually agreed swaps does not. that and the refugee seemed to be a backing away. >> but look, you can perceive or misinterpret what the president said or you can look at what he said very precisely. okay? there was actually an article by the associated press that wildly mischaracterized what the president said off his speech yesterday. not by you, but the president could not have been clearer. i mean, the formulation of borders of israel and palestine, based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, that's a

formation that everybody understands who knows anything about this process. >> it's not what they thought they had in 2004. >> i do not want to negotiate the particulars here. what the president said is not -- should not and is not considered new in terms of a starting point for the negotiations on the territorial boundaries. it's a position that people have accepted to be tra fo true for g time, all parties. all sides here have accepted it. bill, maybe you haven't followed it that closely, but people who know it and follow this know it to be true. >> well, that's what i'm saying, they don't accept it, because they would like to reaform the language -- reaffirm the language, the letter between president bush and prime minister sharon. the reality is on the ground. >> mutually agreed swaps, you can -- is that not -- i mean, that's pretty clear, we're talking about mutually agreed

swaps to resolve territorial and boundary issues. that is very clear, bill. people understand what that means who know anything about these negotiations. and that's been true for a long time. >> did you anticipate this reaction from the israelis? >> look, again, i think we just heard from the prime minister of israel and the president of the united states, in the oval office, that they had a very constructive and useful conversation, an expression by the president on the fact that they've met seven times, and noted the significance of the relationship, which was symbolized by the prime minister speaking to congress, and the incredible commitment that this administration, this country, has had and continues to have to israel and to israel's security. the fact that, you know, that there's some disagreements, as i think the prime minister said here and there, you know, friends obviously can disagree

on issues, and they should always be able to speak candidly to one another. i think that was the case in the president's speech, the case in the conversation, the long conversation, he had with the prime minister today, and it was the case, and is the case, in the way that the president spoke to all parties in this particular process in his speech yesterday. and also to all peoples and countries in the region in his broader speech, which i remind you was not just about the middle east peace process, but all of the historic change that we see in the region. >> i'm just wondering if there was a candid conversation before the speech where somebody from the u.s. said here's what he's going to lay out, and the israeli side may have said, well, we're going to push back hard if that's what he says. >> we obviously notified and have constant consultations with our partners, including the israelis, and consulted with the israelis prior to the speech. >> libya, war powers act, is

there movement on that from your perspective? will there be consultation with congress? i know we're at the deadline on that. >> as you know, mike, the president has been in consultation with congress on libya from the beginning. the president's actions have been and are consistent with the war powers resolution. we've said from the beginning that we would welcome an expression of support from congress. in this case similar to the one that's been put forward -- bipartisan one future forward by senators mccain and kerry and others. again, we have consulted with congress, we'll continue to consult with congress, and would welcome support. >> is there a feeling, though. that he needs to ask for authorization for a continued operation? >> i would just say that the president has acted in a way that's been consistent with the war powers resolution, and would welcome an expression of support by congress. >> do you have legal justification that you can share with us to sort of -- that you guys have sought on this, just

to make sure that -- >> look, there's been a long debate in this country, which we do not need to replicate here, because the stuff written about the war powers resolution over the years could fill this room and none of it would be concludesy. we believe the president has acted in a way that's consistent with the war powers resolution, and believes consultation with congress in matters like these is vital, and that's why he's consulted so regularly with congress, and would welcome to do so, and would welcome the support from congress of the kind put forward in that resolution that i mentioned. >> does the president need or appreciate the history lesson from prime minister netanyahu? >> the president appreciates the conversation he had with the prime minister, and obviously the prime minister, as the leader of israel and -- not for

the first time -- has a keen sense of his own country's history and was happy to hear what the prime minister had to say. >> going to -- was there a specific conversation had about jerusalem that didn't come up in the -- didn't come up in the press? >> it was a one-on-one conversation. obviously the president -- >> when you say one-on-one no aides from either side? >> correct. for 95 minutes, 96. >> how long was the lunch? >> pretty brief, because the president had to go to langley, except somebody came in and brought them some food, that was one-on-one. again, i think that is indicative of a solid relationship, the fact that they are able to speak very candidly back and forth and work very constructively together. so in terms of the content, you know, obviously the president read out to his advisors the

content of the discussion, but i'm not going to get into details about it. >> there was supposed to be this working lunch and -- is that getting rescheduled? >> we weren't able to do that because it went on so long. >> well, it's friday and -- >> our schedule is packed. the decision was made that it's better to do the one-on-one -- they were having constructive conversations that ran long, and then rather than have a ceremonial lunch with a bunch of people in one room, why not go back and the two of them keep talking. folks from either team who missed out on lunch will go a little hungry this afternoon, but it was for a greater cause. >> can you preview the talking points? >> i don't anything on that for

you, except to say the president would echo the themes from his speech yesterday, in particular the commitment to israel's security that this administration has had, and this country has had, and will have going forward. >> should anything be read into the fact that the president did not bring up the 1967 -- his statement about the 1967 borders in his comments today -- >> no, no. nothing should be read into it, because he did give a long speech yesterday, and spoke quite comprehensively on this issue yesterday so he didn't think he needed to reiterate that for the pool spray. they obviously talked about it in their one-on-one meeting. >> will he reiterate it on sunday? >> i don't want to preview the speech any more than i have. i know you guys always want stuff in advance, but -- >> why wouldn't you? >> i'm not saying he wouldn't. i said he would echo the themes. i'm not even sure we have -- i'm not sure we have that speech in

hand yet, so i don't want to say one or the other what's going to be in the speech before it's given. >> jay, can you just clarify what happened yesterday in terms of being late to the remarks? people were speculating that the president was on the phone with people. what was the reason he was late? >> the president was working on his speech, and actually then -- and then had a couple of items not related to the speech, business he had to take care of, national security-related issues that were not related to the speech at all. >> was he changing the 1967 -- >> nothing to do with reports, a sure you, having seen every draft of this speech, from the first one, that it had nothing to do -- no changes were made to that language during that time that led to the delay. yes? >> can you clarify, they only met one-on-one, there was never any staff in the room? >> staff came in -- obviously staff came in, for those who came in for the pool spray.

the meeting itself was one-on-one. >> for an hour and a half? >> yeah. from 11:29 to 1:05. then they broke, and the president met with his team and the prime minister, i believe, went and met with his team. came back. they had the pool spray, and broke up briefly again and came back and went to lunch. that's when i left. >> in the readout, what did he say about the tone of the private discussion? >> that they were productive and constructive and useful. >> did he mention any -- i mean, can you describe what the conversation was, characterize the conversation? i mean, did the prime minister bring up the 1967 borders? >> they talked about all the issues related to the speech and related to the developments in the region. beyond that, i'm not going to get into specific detail,

because the president moments ago spoke about their meeting, and i'd rather leave it to him. yes? >> one more. can you give us a sense of what's next on this traffic, for the president, members of the administration? >> on the middle east peace process? the president, the administration, wants and encourages both sides to return to direct negotiations. he made clear that palestinians have to answer some very legitimate and serious questions about how they move forward with negotiations, given the reconciliation agreement they had with tha with hamas, and ths something that obviously needs to be resolved, but he wants this process to move forward. he thinks this is an important window. as he said yesterday, there are -- there are -- you know, this doesn't get easier as time goes on. this will not get easier for the palestinians or the israelis.

it is in the interest of both parties to reach an agreement that can create a lasting peace and a two-state solution. john christopher. >> jay, since the president's historic address to part-time on wednesday is characterized as the anchor speech of his trip to europe, can you flush out a little bit what the president wants to accomplish in this address? >> well, i will simply note that the speech will echo what he wants to accomplish in the trip, which is to reaffirm the importance of our relations with our european allies, with -- in particular with the state visit to the u.k., the special relationship with the united kingdom and the british people. talk about the cooperation we have on so many issues, including international economic issues, but also afghanistan, libya, in terms of foreign

policy and so many others, so, you know, we have obviously the visit to ireland, and he wants -- he'll get into that -- you know, that relationship that we have with ireland, and his personal history in ireland, the fact that he has ancestors there, ancestry, then the u.k., then obviously on to france for the g-8. it focuses in part about ways we can work together to enhance economic development in egypt and tunisia, and then on to poland, you know, a very important and close ally in poland. so he's very much looking forward to the trip. i don't have details for you on the -- beyond that on the speech to parliament, although i know he's looking forward to it. >> will the president express his appreciation to them for their involvement and -- >> you can count on that.

>> did the president speak with abbas? >> obviously we consulted with the parties, i'm just not sure what individuals. i'm told he did not, but i'm sure there were consultations. >> just wondering if he's going to, at some point, in the near future talk to abbas about -- it was reported in the "new york times" that he was going to, the request to go to the u.n. in september and -- >> i don't have anything for you in terms of possible calls. >> the president was going to say that's not the basis of -- >> we made that clear before. i can get details in terms of our outreach specifically related to the speech, a lot of which was done, you know, i think that morning. but the -- but i can get details specifically on that. but the -- that position is something that we had stated before, that we do not believe

that's -- that that's the path that will achieve a palestinian state. that's only way to do that is through direct negotiations. >> the fact that the republicans would fil filibuster, is that ad move? >> it's a shame. he has a keen intellect, mainstream views, and regret that he was not confirmed, didn't get the simple up-and-down vote that we would have liked, but we made clear that's what we wanted, and we regret it didn't h didn't happe. we'll continue to work on other nominations. it's very important, obviously vital that open slots in our judiciary get filled. that open slots in our -- in this administration get filled. so we work regularly with

congress to make that happen. >> does that mean you have to nominate different kinds of judges or -- >> we work with congress on this. we continue to do that. we believe that goodwin liu was a good nominee, but we continue to work on it. [inaudible] >> the countries he mentioned in the speech have either gone through democratic transformations, tunisia and egypt, or are currently experiencing the kinds of upheaval that have been so historic in the past six months. i think if you note, those are the nations that he talked about in his speech with regard to the -- with regard to the region

and the arab spring. it was a long speech. he spoke directly and in detail about a number of countries that are experiencing either positive transformation or undergoing the kind of crackdown that we're seeing in syria that we abhor and have condemned, and that we've responded to with significant sanctions that we have ratcheted up as we continue to try to put pressure on the syrian regime to cease the violence against its own people. he spoke very clearly about other countries, yemen and bahrain, and on and on. so i think it's pretty calgary what he was doing with that speech. i'm sorry, you wanted a follow on the -- >> on the liu nomination. what happens with him now? are you going to keep pushing up a campaign for him or moving on? >> i think the senate's voted.

i don't know of any plan to to continue to press on that. why don't you check with my office and i'll see if i have anything else on that. keith. >> the operative phrase in the 2004 letter is, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of negotiations will be a final and complete return to the 1967 borders. does president concur with that line? >> the president did not say that israel should withdraw or that its borders should be the 1967 lines. he said the borders should be based on the '67 lines with mutually agreed swaps. >> i'm just asking you -- >> i made clear that there's nothing the president said about the boundaries and the issues of the '67 lines that contradicts that. >> one more line out there. a solution to the palestinian

refugee issue as part of any final agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a palestinian state and the settling of the palestinian refugees there rather than in israel. does president obama agree with that line of the 2004 letter? >> look, the president spoke very clearly and at length about this issue yesterday. he spoke specifically about two of the major four issues that continue to frustrate this process, because they're difficult and they need resolution. i'm not going to characterize his position on issues that he did not discuss yesterday. i would just point you to his speech yesterday. >> well, i mean, i've mentioned two things in that letter -- >> you could ask me seven different things about what his position is. >> why can't you agree with his policy? >> look, he spoke at length about this yesterday, keith. >> i'm confused by the notion that this is totally new to talk about the '67 lines with land

swaps. i know that the president said it, but as far as i knew this was already the position of the administration before. the secretary of state several times used the same language. so is it a new position of the administration or is it old position of the administration, just stated newly by the president? >> well, i think i've been pretty clear that this is a position that's been recognized by all parties to these negotiations for a long time, that any territorial resolution would be based on the '67 lines. that's a position that was understood by all parties for a number of years now, including obviously the united states, this administration, but predating this administration. >> on that question, can you walk us through it a little bit? when doewhen did the president y first start talking about the territories and -- >> in terms of the speech? >> no. just the idea of saying it himself, bringing it open into the open, moving it to a starting point. >> i'm not going to sort of give you a tick tok of internal

negotiations in terms of our policy positions and pronouncements that the president makes. i mean, he made his speech. it was a significant speech. and -- >> well, can you say when he actually decide that he would do so? >> no, i don't know that i can. >> do you know or you just can't say? >> i don't know that i can. >> on the question of the changes in the last half hour, can you characterize -- i mean, it's pretty unusual for a president to deliver a speech late because he's making changes to it. >> well, i've covered a number of presidents. i would say that is not unusual. look, i'm not going to get into the details, because there was a false report about what -- where the edits were coming. they were not on the issue that we've discussed. there were also other issues that had nothing to do with the speech that intervened that made him a little late.

but again, by the standards of presidencies i've covered, this was not terribly late. >> yeah, how frustrated is president that out of a 45-minute speech here in the u.s. which focused pretty much on one phrase, less than 10 seconds, which is 1967 borders, and we're talking not at all about almost 44 minutes and 50 seconds. >> obviously i'm frustrated. no, obviously we had the prime minister visit the white house today, staying at for a number of days at the blair house, evidence of the significance of the relationship. the president made some very important statements about u.s. policy toward a region that's going through historic transformation. i think that speech was heard around the world as well importantly in the region

itself. and he will -- you know, i'm sure he will talk about his position on these issues again in the future. but you are right to note that the speech was about much more than just the middle east peace process. but he did put it within the context of a broader opportunity here, a window of opportunity, because of historic changes we've seen. >> since the president believes that israel should give back any land that it won in battle, why doesn't he believe that we too should give back land that we won in battle with mexico? >> well, sir, i've gone many times over what the president said and he certainly didn't say that. >> would the president accept militarized consistent u.s. troops on the border if there's a border back to the 1967 lines? >> you're talk being a hypothetical way beyond where we are now.

yes, sir? >> th will the u.s. support a candidate from an emerging market, say from india, or is that -- >> i confess that i've spent most of my time this morning on a different issue. i'll let the treasury department statement stand. >> discussing this during the g-8 meeting? >> i imagine that the imf will come up, but what that conversation will look like i can't predict. >> but knowing the president mind day to day, does he have support for an emerging market -- >> you know, you're asking me questions, i'm just not going to answer. >> what ideas does he have about the borders and -- >> it's a crazy

mischaracterization of what we're talk being here. there's nothing that the president said that's inconsistent with what the president said yesterday, that the borders should start from the basis of the '67 lines with mutually agreed swaps. okay? secondly, to prevent the infiltration of weapons and resurgence of terrorism. and i think i've answered the question about where do we go from here? clearly the negotiation have to be between the israelis and palestinians for this to succeed, and that's why we've encouraged the resumption of negotiations. the president made clear that the palestinians need to answer some questions about how they can credibly negotiate with

israel when -- given the reconciliation with hamas, and hamas has yet to renounce terrorism, renounce violence or the right of israel to exist. >> specifically on this issue of answering questions, what exhales the standard that the new palestinian government has to meet to satisfy the president? are we talking about weapons decommissioning? are we talking about leaders being -- resigning or their government dissolving in order for the president to be satisfied that the israelis should in fact engage with this palestinian government? >> you're sort of getting ahead with the process. >> it's the beginning of the process, because it can't happen -- >> we've been clear that it is unacceptable to us, hamas' position, supporting terror, supporting violence, and refusing to recognize israel's right to exist. >> exactly. so does a statement suffice?

a period of no hostilities suffice? what i'm trying to understand is, what do they have to do to prove that in fact -- >> let me step back a little bit. we're again a little ahead of ourselves. while we're still monitoring the developments related to this reconciliation, what it means in terms of palestinian leadership, so it's hard to answer those questions specifically until we see what sort of posture the palestinians are going to take. >> are you saying that the israelis are not properly or fully characterizing the president's position? i didn't hear the prime minister talk about land swaps, just talked about the 1967 borders. by that logic he's reacting to something the president said. >> again, the prime minister said, spoke about the

indefensibility of withdrawing to the '67 borders, was an issue of security, and the president made clear that, first of all -- made clear yesterday, and certainly again today in his conversations -- that what he said was that the borders would be based on the '67 lines, should be based on the '67 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, and that israel's security had to be paramount here, that it had to be able to defend itself by itself, and all the other issues i laid out. so, i mean, your observation is an interesting one, and i think the point i've tried to make, others have tried to make, is there's a lot stipulated about what the president said, and it hasn't included everything the president said yesterday. let me do the last one. let me go all the way back. haven't hit the back row in a while. yes, sir? >> what self people seem to have hit on while the 1967 borders with land swaps is not new criteria for the negotiations, that the transparency with which

a sitting president laid it out for the world to see was new, and the transparency with which he said laid out so many of the negotiating criteria previously is sis sotarik, that's new. what's the strategy for laying this out for the world to see? >> he believes that it will help the process move forward. >> how? >> because i think it's important to speak truth that is everybody understands, and that create a framework around which very tough negotiations can take place on the issue of territory. >> has the closure of the negotiation process and the criteria been part of the reason it hasn't been successful yet? >> look, this has been a process that has -- that proceeded this administration, and has been a challenge to success of

administrations as well as leaders of the parties here. i think that the president's very interested in trying to find a way to move forward. he understands that this is a hard issue, and that's why it's been so hard to resolve. the speech he gave yesterday, the section of the speech on this issue, was all about his desire to try to move the process forward. thanks, guys. >> let me follow up on the question about the war powers act. i don't understand how the u.s. is behaving in a way that's consistent with the war powers act. >> i spoke at length about this when you were out of the room. >> i didn't hear you say anything. it expires today, counsel authorization, notification, 60 days, expires today. how is that consistent? >> the president believes that he's acted and has acted consistent with the war powers resolution. we can have a debate, which could spend the afternoon and there's volumes and volumes written about the application and the issues involving the war powers resolution. i'm not going to do that from

here. the president looks forward to, would welcome support from congress on this issue, and that's all i'm going to say about it. thank you. >> why did the secretary of state that the two-month deadline was coming up?

live saturday at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. this weekend on "book tv" on c-span 2, the book festival live with authors on the gulf oil spill, wall street, the universe, america's largest slave revolt, india and the middle east, plus a panel discussion on the book industry. also former ambassador to yemen on the u.s.' counterterrorism efforts in that country. and on afterwards, frederick kemp on one of the most significant standoffs of the cold war era, the berlin wall. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. sign up for our "book tv" alert.

>> this weekend on c-span 3 from lectures in history, the music of duke ellington. on artifacts, a look at smithsonian's efforts to preserve an exhibit, the jefferson bible. and live sunday from jackson, mississippi, the 50th anniversary sunglass of the freedom anniversary celebrations of the freedom anniversary rides, the goal to integrate southern bus stops. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> history is -- as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers, it's social issues. it's also medicine and theatre and poetry and ideas.

we shouldn't lump things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. samuels morris, harriet beecher stowe, john singer sergeant, thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on "q&a," part one of two weeks with david mccullough on americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. .

seven times during the course of my presidency. i want to indicate that the frequency of these meetings is an indication of the extraordinary bond between our two countries. it is an opportunity for the prime minister to address congress. it is an honor that is reserved for those who have always shown themselves to be a great friend of the united states, and it is indicative of the friendship between our countries. we just finished a prolonged and extremely useful conversation, a wide range of issues.

we discussed the changes that are sweeping the region and what has been happening in places like, syria, and how it affects the united states and israel. as well as the opportunity for prosperity, growth, and development in the arab world. the opportunity that can be seized as a consequence of the arab spring and also acknowledge the there are significant hurdles as well. it will be important for the united states and israel to consult closely as we can see developments unfold. i have outlined for the prime minister some of the issues that i have discussed in my speech yesterday, how important it was for the united states to support political reform, support human

rights and freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and economic development. the country that first started this revolutionary movement that is taking place throughout the middle east and north africa. we also discussed the situation in syria which is a key to israel given the shared border, and i gave more details to the prime minister about the significant steps that we are taking to try to pressure her syria to reform, including the sanctions we have placed directly on the president. we continue to share our deep concerns about iran, not only the threat that it poses to israel, but also the threat that it poses to the region and the

world if it were to develop a nuclear weapon. we updated our strategy to continue to apply pressure both through sanctions and our other diplomatic work. i reiterated my belief cut it is essential. we discussed the hypocrisy of iran suggesting that somehow support democratization in the middle east when, in fact, they first showed the oppressive nature when they responded to the peaceful protests that the place inside iran almost two years ago. finally, we discussed the issue of a prospective peace between israelis and palestinians. i reiterated and we discussed in depth of the principles that i

laid out yesterday, that our ultimate goal has to be a secure israelis say, a jewish state living side by side with a contiguous functioning and effective palestinian state. obviously, there are some differences between us. the precise formulations and language. that will happen between friends. but a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows israel to defend itself against threats. and that israel's security will remain paramount if the u.s.

evaluations of any prospective peace deal. i continue to believe if. i think it is possible for us to shape a deal the allows israel to secure itself, not to be vulnerable, but also allow it to resolve what has obviously been the clear how wrenching issue for both peoples for decades. i also pointed out yesterday but it is very difficult for israel to be expected to negotiate in a serious way with a party that refuses to a knowledge its right to exist. and for that reason, of and the palestinians are going to have to answer some very difficult questions about this agreement that has been made.

hamas has been and is an organization that has resorted to terror, that has refused israel's right to exist. it is not a partner for a significant, realistic peace process. as i said yesterday, the palestinians are going to have to explain how they can credibly and rage in serious peace negotiations in the absence of observing the principles that have been put forth recently. overall, i thought this was an extremely constructive discussion and coming out of this discussion, i once again can reaffirm the extraordinarily close relationship between the

united states and israel is sound and will continue. and that together, hopefully we are able to usher in a new period of peace and prosperity in a region that is going through some very profound transformations. mr. prime minister. >> thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank you and the first lady for the gracious hospitality that you have shown me, my wife, and my entire delegation. we have an enduring bond of friendship between our two countries, and i appreciate the opportunity to have this meeting with you after your important speech yesterday. we share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the middle east.

i appreciate the fact that you reaffirm once again now and in our conversation a actual commitment to israel posed a security. we value your efforts to the vance-owen peace process. this is something that we want to have accomplished. israel wants peace. i want peace. we want a piece that will be genuine and that will hold. i think that we both agree that if peace is based on the allusions or crashing on the rocks of middle eastern reality, the only piece that will endure is one that is based on reality, on an unshakable fax. for there to be peace, palestinians will have to

accept some basic realities. the first is that while israel is prepared to make generous compromises, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. these lines are indefensible. they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes over the last 44 years. remember before 1967, israel was 9 miles wide. these were not the boundaries of peace, these are the boundaries of repeated wars because home the attack on israel is so attractive. we can't go back to those indefensible lines. we will have to have a -- i discussed this with the

president. i think we're both aware that we'll have to have certain requirements that was becoming the place in any deal that we make. the second echoes something that the president just said, that israel cannot negotiate with a palestinian government that is backed by hamas. it is a terrorist organization committed to israel's destruction. it has recently fired and anti- tank rocket at a yellow school bus killing a 16-year-old boy. they just attack you for ridding the world of bin laden. they can't negotiate with the government that is backed by al q -- the palestinian version of al qaeda.

he has to decide to keep his pact with moscow or make peace with israel. i can only express to you, i hope he makes the right choice. the third reality is that the refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a palestinian state but not in the borders of israel. the arab attack in 1948 resulted in two refugee problems. palestinian refugee problems in a jewish refugees in roughly the same number. tiny israel absorb the jewish refugees, but how they refuse to absorb the palestinian refugees. they come to us and this aid to israel, except the

grandchildren and great- grandchildren, wiping out israel's future as a jewish state. everybody knows it is not going to happen. it is not going to happen. the refugee problem has to be resolved. they can be resolved and it will be result of the palestinians choose to do so. it is not going to be resolved within the jewish state. the president and i discussed all of these issues, and the think we have differences here and there, but i think there is an overall direction that we wished to work together to pursue a real, genuine peace between israel and the palestinian neighbors. mr. president, you are the

leader of a great people, the american people. i'm the leader of a much smaller people. but they are a great people, too. in know, we've been around for almost 4000 years. with experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. but gone through explosions, massacres, the murder of millions. even at the valley of death, when never lost hope. we never lost our dream of reestablishing his a sovereign state in the land of israel. and now what falls on my shoulders at a time of extraordinary instability, and uncertainty in the middle east, to work with you to fashion the

peace that will ensure israel's security and not jeopardize survival. i picked this responsibility with pride, but with great humility. as a told you in our conversation, we don't have a lot of margin for error. and because, mr. president. history will not give the jewish people another chance. in the coming days and weeks and months, i commit to work with you to seek a peace that will address our security concerns, and seek a genuine recognition that we wish from the palestinian neighbors and give a better future for israel and for the entire region.

i think you for the opportunity to exchange our views and work together for this, an end. >> thank you, guys. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the institute's executive director focuses on the president's remarks that israel would have to return to the pre-1967 borders as the start of negotiations with the palestinians. this is about 90 minutes. >> welcome to the washington institute. thank you for joining us this morning. this is a high profile week for middle east events and developments. the president, of course,

delivering his major address with the king of jordan. they visit on friday with the prime minister of israel. and over the weekend, the president himself addresses a conference of american supporters of israel. there is quite a bit going on as we gather here this morning. we're going to talk about the implications and the mean of the kiev speech yesterday. what did he say specifically, what was new in the speech. how will it be read throughout the middle east and throughout the world. and what does it portend for the direction of american policy in the middle east? it was a major setting, a major speech. the president convened all of

his national security team, convened a broad group of activists and at the state department yesterday, it was a major international stage broadcast around the world with the vote of setting the agenda for the next phase of american policy with the hope of connecting the administration with the wind of change throughout the middle east and changing the tone and tenor as well as the substance of american policy to reflect the seismic change going on in the middle east. the speech had three main sections. in section on political reform. a section on economic development. we'll talk a bit today on each of these. but cutting a a little bit differently.

i will speak after my colleagues on the third leg of the president's speech, what he had to say about the middle east peace process. scott carpenter will speak about the to first legs. political reform and economic development. and my colleague will focus more specifically on one of the most interesting revelations in american policy that we have seen in the last number of days, the evolution of policy toward syria manifest not only just in the speech but in the imposition of sanctions particularly on the president of syria. this was, of course, a wind of change speech connecting washington the vote can't change

going on in the middle east. in the end, it did not seem to turn out that way. one only has to look at the front page of the washington post. obama urges israel to push for peace to see how the president himself seems to has fallen prey to these sorts of distractions that he accused arab leaders of falling prey to for many years. a very powerful early statement, the president said that arab leaders have used the arab-israeli conflict could distract the international community from the hard work of reform. if is regrettable that it seems he was not televised, and jumping to the extent that he did in the detail that he did, and the novelty that he did the

peace process into this major speech on political reform and the wind of change around the middle east and that it would also distract attention from the more dominant theme is that he hopes to address. i first want to bring to the podium my colleague scott carpenter. scott has been an extraordinary colleague of the washington institute, of mine for some years now. he is the founding director of our project. it is our project designed to amplify the voices of mainstream arabs and muslims in the battle against extremism in advance of democracy throughout the middle east. he has done an exemplary job in

meeting this mission. he is being stolen away from us. he will be joining google, which has established its own variation of the project called google ideas, a project to leverage technology for political change in the middle east and beyond. we are proud that his legacy travels far beyond the beltway. and that such an important institution has google is taking him away and giving him a grander stage on which to make important contributions toward political change in the middle east and elsewhere. >> the first policy forum where

i featured speaking on this same issue about urging, recognizing how critical it was to advance political and economic reform as a keeper of american security. it is fitting in some ways i am here to talk about something similar. while i listened to president obama's speech in the back of a taxicab, and could not help but feel gratified. this may be a good reminder for people to turn off yourself funds. it interferes with the recording equipment. i could not help but feel a bit gratified and a bit smug. for a decade, i have labored to make central the key policy prescription, that it should be the policy of the united states to promote reform across the

region and support transitions to democracy. as i and others have been writing about, it is the key antidote and a key means of defeating bin ladenism as an idology. -- ideology. the project is dedicated to convincing the executive branch and and powering -- it is curricle to u.s. national security. the struggle has little to do with us. and struggles are taking place within their societies. we have a vested interest in the outcome. we can influence it, and we need to. fundamentally, what is taking place has much more to do with

internal debates about the future of these societies that in the united states. we saw that reflected in other places throughout these revolutions. much of the intellectual argument that underlays the shift in policy has been laid out, for instance, the reports that the institute has done that i have worked on together with my colleague on an integrated approach. he sat on the tax force -- task force. the fact is, this speech has been a long time coming. it represents a real policy shift for the president but comes into office implementing a policy precisely opposite to the one he now endorses. he mean the elimination of friction points a key part of

rebuilding america oppose the image in the muslim world. he did this markedly with egypt, but with syria as well as a way to improve our image in the world and found it hard to even utter the d word. democracy. he was infamously reticent as the green movement struggled for birth and missing a strategic opportunity in my view. and the belated recognition that it was time for mubarak to go was unintentional. and making the promotion of reform and democracy a top priority. i am gratified that someone who has worked on iraq policy for eight years that the president

is now embracing and endorsing iraq as a policy success, recognizing the however imperfect iraq is, it has embarked on a democratic path that has strengthened and not weaken it. after hearing the speech and getting over my initial self gratification, i noted just how much of a back to the future speech it really is. as many have already noted, it seems to me to be an updated restatement of the bush doctrine. it was delivered as discovering these truths for the first time, but in clearly plays -- pays homage to the president bush was the second inaugural address. this becomes my main critique. in terms of the strategic vision, the speech merely takes us back to a policy point where we were before, but doesn't go

farther. embracing the freedom agenda as his son and articulating what should be a pretty obvious point in was the first applause line, the united states opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. this may have been a very bold statement in 2008, but not in 2011. it is clear that had egyptians and tunisian is not secure their freedom, the president would not have given the speech. it is a post facto speech that is not corrected but not revolutionary. there is the glaring omission of any comment related to saudi arabia. the failure to honestly note how differently the united states and the kingdom are perceiving the region at the moment and the

reactionary role they are playing during the course of events in places like kidneys shut and egypt creates a huge contradiction at the heart of the policy shift that the president proposes to make. in my view, the primary challenge advancing this new policy will be managing saudi conservatism. already relating to the rift developing across the country, the president's apparent nod in this region when he -- it is an example. numerous officials have already stated that the united states saw no iranian hand in supporting or sparking the peaceful protests involved there. in my view, the president needs

to go much farther than he did. the very notion that the president can lead a meaningful transition is risible. and i think an insult to those people struggling for peaceful change there. if they had tobacco, why not? in syria and >> how is it possible in the 21st entry for the united states to not more fully and forcefully made clear its opposition to minority rule? the president could have made this point by saying it is inevitable that such arrangements would be relegated to the dustbin of history and that full transition to democracy that recognizes the rights of minorities -- most

news stories that recount the ongoing repression in bahrain and with a short paragraph noting that the united states fifth fleet is based there, but as of bahrain continues to follow a set of policies that move from soft apartheid to the real thing, i anticipate that linkage will move further up in the press's coverage of this. i think the administration missed an opportunity to get ahead of the curve. there was no mention of monarchies more generally. legitimacy for monarchies of recent flows differently than four republics, but nonetheless it must be continually refreshed. the lesson taught by the successful monarchies of europe and elsewhere is that for them to be -- for them to thrive, they must evolve constitutionally. it must encourage them to go forward and again call on

bahrain not to fully reverse course, as it seems intent on doing. and economic prosperity brought, the president had a number of creative ideas to add to the existing tool box of debt forgiveness, new aid, and enterprise funds. i thought the idea about reorienting the ebrd mandate was particularly good. nonetheless, again, the president did not go as far as he needed to go. why not offer egypt a free trade agreement? he talked about a broad trade partnership initiative which has yet to be detailed, but clearly the best way of stimulating the egyptian economy is to make a free trade agreements opened for egypt's consideration and negotiation. in the bush administration, we

balked only because of the democracy deficit there. that is no longer the case. i believe the qualified industrial zones are no substitute for free trade agreements that will create tens of thousands of jobs, if not more. finally, while i laud have clearly hopes rather than piers animated and drove the president's speech, he stated clearly what we are for and to more limited extent what we are against. he noted the u.s. will oppose any tim by any group to restrict the rights of others and to hold power to coercion, not consent. again, this does not go far enough. the president should make clear that the policy choices that flow from democratic it choices will have an impact for good and for ill upon our relationships with the countries in the relations -- in the region. clarity nowat -- must lik

will save heartburn and heartbreak later. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to turn to enter tabler. he is the institute's next generation fellow. he comes to the institute after eight years living in syria, which gives him a rather unique perspective on the politics, society, and culture in that country. is the author of a new book coming out later this year about the u.s.-syrian relationship. he brings both his on the ground experience and his detached analysis to his discussion of the evolution of u.s. policies in a foreign country. >> thanks to all of you for coming out this morning.

there are some rare moments when you witness a shift in policy and you feel quite a bit of joy for hearing the words. i think scott spoke very eloquently about this. a lot of them did not go far enough, but given what we have followed over the last two years, president obama speech concerning the narrow issue of syria signaled a strategic shift in washington's thinking on that country. the message that the president said they must leave or get out of the way it means that the syrian president is going to have to begin a process of power sharing or face international isolation and a pariah status.

the fact that obama spoke about iranian and -- involvement ties serious regional and domestic policies together. obama was also very specific in public in issuing demands on damascus, something that washington had shied away from over the last two years in pursuing peace talks first, and human rights 3 distant fifth. this is not unusual. this goes back to the regional policy of facilitating a peace treaty between israel and syria in the 1970's. it was originally called constructive engagement and later just referred to as engagement. it basically involved a set of principles that lead to reverse engineering. you have a goal of a peace treaty between israel and syria.

you line up the facts behind it in order to justify the eventual outcome. the way that you do that is that -- in this formula has carried through from the 1970's to the 1990's and has been employed over the last two years -- that you keep this goal, you discuss difficult issues in private, you do not often criticized in public, and most importantly, you never introduce negative incentives. why? because it might dissuade the tyrant not to sign the deal. over the last two years, he did not play the game as well because what he did was to pursue policies which were far worse than his father's, and slowly the evidence built up

alongside the peace process strategy that showed he was not very serious about what he was trying to do. that would be specifically the weapons transfer issue to hezbollah as well as serious behavior 11 on. last but not least, the nuclear issue that will be discussed at the next board of governors meeting coming up in june. why the shift now? during the entire bush administration, despite a lot of talk about human rights and democracy, there were no executive orders or sanctions that were actually designed to protect human rights inside of syria. a major oversight. why the shift now? because the obama administration realized that while the regime in damascus was not a dramatic

tipping point that we saw in cairo, in geneva there was a broad recognition, specifically the protests of april 18, that the regime was unable to accommodate the demands of the protesters, and france and turkey came around to a similar conclusion. essentially, they realized that assad was in a dilemma. to continue to try to put the genie of the protests back in the bottle, or he could reform and try to cut a political deal with the ascending majority population that would help accommodate this and require the

stronger security. the problem is that if he goes down that road, if he decides to reform and truly change, it will undermine the very people he now relies on so much to keep that stopper in the bottle. he is in a real dilemma, and policy-makers have realized that the regime as we know it is crumbling away and disintegrating. along with the president's speech, leading up to the speech of the last two weeks but specifically the day before, a number of sanctions have been issued. most of which involved executive orders and designations of syrian individuals, including the president himself, that are responsible for the human rights crackdown. a quick count of the number of people designated and the entities designated shows that now there are more people that are targeted for these

activities for human rights abuses than four syrians regional behavior, which is a major shift in u.s. policy. suddenly the domestic situation inside of syria matters again, perhaps more than ever before. the fact that you had the vice- president, the prime minister, the interior minister and security chief, means that the entire security apparatus has been made into national pariahs. it is doubtful that these individuals would have assets in the united states, but the effect of sanctions that have been rolled out by the eu and will be rolled out in the coming days, means that our -- those benefiting in repression will not be able to invest their ill- gotten gains abroad. given the terrible track record of reform, and i witnessed this personally, so forgive the frustration in my voice, 11

years of lost opportunities. essentially, to bring back this bad metaphor of the genie in the bottle, what has happened is that he decided that he was able somehow to open up the country and raise people's expectations and to connect them with the internet and open up the country to the outside world, all the while not reforming, and keeping that tyrannical system as it has existed even from his father's time. not only that, even failed to bring about laws that would underpin the very reforms he had launched in the country, including the banking and insurance industries and so on. now the situation for hassad is our control. does it mean he will be able to crack down on the protesters? >> yes, but people continue to come out into the streets.

washington needs now to develop a plan designed to bring an end to the regime as we know it now. whether this means power-sharing that leads to majority rule or the full collapse of the regime itself, washington with its western and regional allies should reach out to the opposition now and help them plan the eventuality of syria without assad at its helm. thanks very much. [applause] >> let me put my comments first in context. i am generally quite complementary for the way the administration has handled the changes in the middle east over the last 150 days. i thought the administration handled egypt about as well as any administration would have

handled the reality of an overwhelming surge in change in that country and helped facilitate the transfer to institutions in which we had some confidence. i think the united states should take great pride that the largely transitional -- largely peaceful transition was facilitated by military that has had three decades of a close relationship with the united states. i think that was an important factor. i am complimentary of the evolution of policy toward syria. i believe we have gone down an inexorable path now with the syrians. egypt took 18 days. the syrian story is much more drawn-out, much longer in slow motion, but if you look at the words that were used with president assad last week, they

are almost the same words used with president mubarak five or six days into the egyptian situation. begin the transition or leave. that is exactly -- paraphrasing what the president said, but pretty close from the night of february 1. in syria, i think regrettably it will take the courage up syrians to continue this inexorable clock to tick, but if they are willing to brave themselves to continue the crackdown, i think u.s. policy will end up in syria where it ended up in egypt. i say all this because i am perplexed by the logic, the rationale, as well as the substance of the third leg of the president's speech devoted to the arab-israeli peace process. the president said a lot in the

speech that was not news, but what he said that was news was quite consequential news, in my view. the president did repeat lots of important formulations from previous speeches and statements, expressing his demoted connection to israelis facing terrorist attacks, his opposition to israeli settlement activity, his strong position against palestinian plans to go to the united nations in september or any sort of unilateral action that might try to circumvent the pathway of negotiations. this is powerful rhetoric, not really new, but very important that the president uttered those statements. what was new in the speech was the president's official endorsement of a territory and security first approach to

negotiations, and an articulation of parameters for final resolution of those issues. specifically, what was known as the statement that it is the policy of the united states that the final borders should be negotiated between these two parties, should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, and that he envisions a full phased withdrawal out of the israel defense forces to a point which permits the state of palestine to have borders with the state of jordan, egypt, and israel, meaning a full withdrawal both from the borders and with cn that territory. let me get a little bit more specific cure. there are numerous innovations here in u.s. policy.

the key fact is not that these ideas have not been bouncing around of what by some very smart people. the key fact is not that these are novel ideas. the key fact is that these ideas now have the imprimatur of the president of the united states. we publish what i think is a useful, provocative and constructive study by my colleague outlining where border swaps might make a useful contribution to how israelis and palestinians could address their territorial dispute. in the end, that may be the strategy that israelis and palestinians adopt to resolve their dispute. it is a very different kettle of fish for the president of the united states to say that u.s. policy is now based, and even

envisions and requires mutually agreed swaps as the resolution to this conflict, and that the resolution must begin with the notion that the 1967 borders or the baseline for that solution. that is what the innovation is in the president's speech, that this is now the president's imprimatur on these otherwise interesting but not officially sanctioned ideas. let me repeat the significance of this change. the entire idea of the un security council resolution 242, on which the peace process is based, and is the granddaddy of all peace resolutions, is that a final resolution should repair

the problems in the 1967 boundaries. it should repair the problems in the 1967 boundaries. it was never envisioned by the drafters of that resolution or by any president ever officially sanctioned to date that reparation of those items 67 boundaries would require israel to cede territory from within its own, pre-1967 sovereign territory. it has always been envisioned that fixing the security problems inherent in the 1967 borders would be resolved east of those borders. the president said, and i am not sure whether everybody in the white house fully appreciates

the enormity of the statements, but the president actually said that a resolution of this conflict, of the territorial dispute, requires israel to cede territory inside its pre-1967 boundaries. he cannot envision a resolution of the territorial dispute without israel ceding territory within its 1967 boundaries. that is the import of what was said yesterday. that is a huge statement that those to the essence of the territorial integrity of an ally. the president has historically made a distinction between the strength of the security relationship and the political

relationship. we have been willing to withstand a certain level of discomfort and tension of deepening our ties on the security and strategic relationship. now seems to me there is a distinction within that distinction. between types of security relationships, that is the president is quite committed to the deep and abiding and unshakable security relationship when it comes to the external threats israel faces, iran, al qaeda, a state to state attacks, etc. but there does not seem to be much recognition that a definition of israel's borders affects israel's security. this is what goes to the heart of what the president said

yesterday. taken together, i do not see how one can judge this as anything but a substantial change in u.s. policy. i will add to what the president said about a full withdrawal of the ibf. this would seem to suggest that the president does not agree with the israeli determination of its own security. even president clinton talked about an open-ended presence in at least three zones that the israelis would have in the west bank. not necessarily along the border but early warning stations and other things within the west bank. a full withdrawal the president talked about certainly seems to imply that this is not in his vision. what really makes me scratch my head is the seeming indifference to what is going on in the region. just last week, palestinians on multiple fronts attempted to

reach israel's borders. israel has said it will unilaterally opened a border to people and goods. the president specifically noted he was not going to make any reference to the issue of refugees, as though it was not a security issue. one could have argued at a certain point that it was principally and the motive, psychological issue. the events of the last week _ that this is a real-life issue. it has real life implications. this is not just a psychological issue, it is also a security issue. secondly, the fact that the president himself said the palestinians have walked away from negotiations collapsed this entire initiative in question and raises some important questions. i can only imagine, and i think

we are seeing is already in some of the commentary in the middle east, that the idea of the speech tends to when palestinians back to the negotiating table. this cannot but be viewed as a reward to palestinians, an odd policy for the president to take, given that the president has at least reportedly promised in the past that there will be repercussions to abbas for certain positions that he took, the report which last year that there will be percussion -- repercussions for the un security council resolution, the idea that abbas and other senior officials have said they are willing to go without u.s. assistance to pursue their unity agreement with hamas, essentially a slap in the face

to the united states and to the american effort to promote negotiations, after rejecting the american approach to negotiations, here we have a situation in which the administration will certainly be viewed in the region as taking a major step toward palestinians precisely when they are making a major step away from washington. the hamas-fatah agreements, strange detachment from this new reality in this speech. the president said the reconciliation agreement poses a profound and legitimate questions for israel, but not for america? after all, the palestinian authority is our word. hamas is our sworn enemy. is it not disturbing to us that our partner and our enemy have decided to reach agreement with each other?

there seem to have been a detachment from that new reality. overall, there is a surprising emphasis on the entire peace process in this speech. in cairo, two years ago when the president last gave such a grand speech, the peace process was one of seven teams. now it is one of three things. there were seven killers in cairo, there are three pillars yesterday. -- seven pillars in cairo. there seems to be no rationale as to why today it is more important than it was in cairo. compare the words that we had with cairo. in cairo, the peace process session, the second major source of tension between muslims and the west after differing visions of the other and radical extremism, recent events have undermined that argument.

the arab spring was not about this issue so you cannot make the argument that the peace process today is nearly as important as a source of tension as you could have argued two years ago. what was the basis for making the case as strong as he made yesterday? there was no answer. just an assertion. let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region that relates to the pursuit of peace. no rationale was given as to why it is important today to make this one-third of the speech. the best the president came up with as to why it was important to devote 1200 words to this topic, and for people like me, i note it is 20% more than he devoted to this topic in cairo, was fatigued. "the world looks at a conflict that has grided on and on and on

and sees nothing but stalemate." it seems in my view that fatigue has set in here in washington, because the president offered no mechanism to translate his act -- his ideas into action. no meetings, no summons, no plans for negotiation, no travel. it is as though he put his ideas out in the ether. as the background briefer for his speech put it, "the president seeks to shape an environment in which negotiations can restart when the parties are ready." but no suggestion that we are going to try to make that happen. if i have to harken back to a historical moment in the peace process that resembled this one, it is the 1982 reagan plan on palestinian autonomy, a plan that surprised israel. it was a major innovation in

american policy, a plan that was immediately rejected and relegated to the dustbin of peace process history. it was rejected both because of substance and because the process, a process in which israel found out about the reagan plan only after it had been finalized. yesterday, after swearing allegiance to israel security, a commitment i am absolutely convinced the president believes in with every fiber in his body, he articulated a position about israeli troops and the idea that if israel wants to amend the border east word to amend vulnerabilities from the pre- 1967 lines, it will have to do

that without having pre-cooked this rather substantial change to american policy with the government of israel. i may be wrong on this, but i think the president has inadvertently just poison some good ideas by presenting them now, this way, with the endorsement. a few days ago i wrote that the success of the speech will be judged with whether it reflected some lessons from the past two years. i listed quite a few lessons that should have been learned. on democracy and reform, i do believe the obama administration has learned a lot over the past two years, and we saw a lot of that in the speech. on the peace process, they seem to have learned precious little. thank you. [applause]

>> there you have it. that is our view. i stand by it. we will open the floor to questions. please use the microphone. we will start over here. >> george bush made a statement on may 26th, 2005. why do you think it differs so fundamentally from what obama said yesterday? george bush said changes to the 1949 lines must be mutually agreed to. he did not use the word swap, but can actually, i think that y, iassumed -- contextualis

think that was assumed. it would have to take account of post-1967 demographic realities. is this really so different, what obama did? i agree with most of what you said. certainly, in terms of style and body language, he seemed to be sticking a finger in the eye of israel moments before netanyahu walked into the white house. again, that is important. that may be the major outcome here. but is its terrifically different? >> i believe the answer is yes, or would not have said what i said. i think it is very important that that statement does not say that it is the view of the united states that a resolution to this conflict will require israel to exchange territory

from inside 1967 israel in order to amend and repair territory the on the 1967 borders. what it says is, if the two sides decide, it will have to be mutually agreed. that is not such a great insight, since the entire agreement is based on mutual agreement. this is the president articulating the american vision for how the parties will reach that agreement, and what precisely that agreement will be based upon. it is a very different approach. the traditional american approach is, we provide the context. we set the environment. we reduced the risks and enable the parties to do their business. i know the argument about, this really is not so different, and i am afraid that i disagree. for the president of the united states to put his personal

imprimatur on the specific path to the resolution of this conflict, especially one that requires -- in his view, requires the opening up of 1948 israel, is a new position for the united states. >> over year. >> -- over here. could you use the microphone please? >> you called it a substantial new u.s. policy. lots of us who follow this as you do have seen secretary clinton make the same statement a number of times in her speeches, including at a pac last year and the center for middle east peace speech. this is not a change from secretary clinton opposes beaches in the past, is it? speeches in the

past, is it? >> most of the time, what the secretary says is that we can envision a solution that meets one side's demands for x with the other side's demands for why. it is in that context that she talks about 1967 borders with agreed swaps. the vast number of times that she makes this type of reference, it is we are working for a policy, for an outcome that meets the palestinian demand for the 1967 borders and agreed swaps, and the israeli demand for secure and whenever whenever. there may be exceptions to that, but 90% of the time that is how she phrases it. it is a very different statement, the policy of the united states is a resolution conflict based on this principle. it is no longer how we facilitate with the two parties

-- what the two parties may be trying to achieve. it is now what we believe the only path for the solution of this will be. this gentleman right here. >> isn't the position that president obama articulated regarding the 1967 borders entirely consistent with the reported position negotiated at the end of president clinton's term, basically going back to 1967 borders with agreed upon swaps and the other side is unwilling to consider that. >> it might be. i do not really remember what a he was saying back in 2000. i do know what president clinton

put on the table in 2000 and what was on the table in camp david that summer. again, i have to repeat, this is the first time a sitting president has publicly, formally endorsed this kind of u.s. policy to resolve the territorial dispute. the nature of these questions is exactly what i feared. this issue now dominates and distracts from the important themes that scott and andrew spoke about. so, i would like to take a moment and ask everybody here if they have questions for scott and andrew. let's focus on that for a minute. we have three over here. let's go in order.

>> the word power-sharing -- isn't that an oxymoron when you make that statement? it is either a saud stays in power or he leaves -- bashar al- assad stays in power or he leaves. there is no way for anything else to happen over time. >> in the sense that it is -- i think it is an outside chance. i think because of the way that regime rules -- will it be forced to go in that direction as part of the transition? possibly. i do not think that the fall of that regime is going to look like cairo or tunisia. this is why i said we need to come up with the plan about what it is that we would like to see in syria after bashar al-assad. whether that happens next week,

next month or next year, i think it is going to be a very long process. if, along the way, bashar al- assad tries to cut a deal, well, we will have to see. but my experience of that regime is i do not think anything is going to create the necessity for them to truly loosen their grip on power. president obama is giving him -- ushering him into a way or an avenue toward the kind of change we would all like to see. it is not just the united states. it is also the turks who a believe will be hosting an opposition conference. turkey is the closest country to that regime perhaps other than iran. this shows that there is a consensus among not only allies of the united states, but also

countries like turkey and so on that his regime needs to go away. >> i just want to add very quickly, one quick point on this. i think to the extent that there is a strategy involving, clearly as the president has not moved entirely to the position that bashar al-assad has to go, the implications of the sanctions and the way he is speaking should be clear. but, if they are clear, why not a stated? but that is neither here nor there. to the point i would like to make is, the one hope they would have, and hopefully the turks and others are working behind the scenes on this, is that the community as a whole may not prefer to jump off the cliff that bashar al-assad and his family is leading them toward. so, if they were to get rid of bashar al-assad, then perhaps there could be a means of negotiating a settlement that would lead to a fall on

transition -- full on transition. barring that, i think andrew is right. it is going to be a long, bloody, drawn out conflict. >> trying to get syria to the negotiating table. do you think syria could buy our good will, if you will, by talking about opening up negotiations with israel now? >> yes, this is an interesting question, isn't it? you are saying basically, if he can stuff this genie back in the bottle and really put a clamp down on it and all of a sudden really start talking about peace, would we buy it? i think that what the protests

call into question is his legitimacy. that is not always important for a dictator, is it? but it is indirectly important. there are basic principles on which bashar al-assad rules. obviously, he does not have very much -- or any -- legitimacy based on reform. there are many people in washington that thought he did, many people that carry water for him in washington and said he was a reformer. his legitimacy is based on what? resistance to israel. is the way he consolidated his regime in 2006. the question is, how can a regime that has no legitimacy based on reform, as military deployed throughout the country, and the protesters are still coming out, how is that guy going to sign on the dotted line with israel? he can sign it, but how is he going to implement it? and kick the ryans out at the same time? and distance himself a -- the

at the samet time? and distance himself from hezbollah? >> i did not say sign on the dotted line. i said open himself up -- >> i do not think it is possible for him at the moment. could he do it down the road? perhaps. but nobody is biting. >> just on that point, paid advertisement. i would urge you to look at an essay that the general and i wrote that came out yesterday, which is called "syria, the case for the devil we do not know. ." it is no small issue that the man who served until last

november as the head of israeli intelligence would co-author a peace which debunks the argument against change in syria. so, i would -- i think that, maybe -- i do not want to read too much into it, but i think that may be reflective of a rather substantial shift in strategic thinking, at least among many in the israeli security establishment. >> question for scott. scott, you said that the president's speech yesterday was largely a restatement of the bush doctrine and noted at least tacitly some success in iraq, a war he famously opposed. is the difference that the

change in the least now seems to be coming from the ground up, not from outside, not from washington? do you have a sense that the arab revolt is an aftershock of the bush policies in the middle east, and if so, would you share that view? >> i am not going to ascribe the bush administration or any particular policies that were adopted, or even programs that were adopted, that led inexorably to this. i think it is undeniable, however, that this huge rock that week threw into a very still pond in iraq did have reverberations. i did not ask this question, but when i was into uneasy about one month after the revolution there was -- the revolution there -- i was having dinner with some people, and i asked them, when did you know this was possible? i thought the answer was going

to be when so and so did this in this town, or when this person abandons the president. unsolicited, the person said, when we saw saddam hussein being prosecuted, that is when we knew our president could go. that is not the answer i was looking for. ah,m not going to say, ro rah. but i would also say, when you talk to the activists who were there, they are very grateful for programs like the middle east partnership initiative, for instance. the middle east partnership initiative allows groups like freedom house and the national democratic institute and the international republican institute to build partnerships with people all over the region which we did not have before.

one person was recently in benghazi. the reason he had any connection there at all was related to programs launched under the bush administration in 2006 when we convinced gaddafi that there had to be some sort of -political program. what we argued, and you helped us argue in our report, the task force report, was do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. unfortunately, i think they did throw the baby out with the bath water for a time. inadvertently, it actually, i think, contributed to the final back, whichamel pose a bac's was the deeply flawed elections in egypt, tunisia, and of grain which immediately preceded these

revelations -- bahrain, which immediately preceded these revelations. it allowed the national democratic party to run an election which was particularly egregious. in the past, the muslim brotherhood, for instance, onwon 88 seats in 2005, having no opposition seats whatsoever for anyone in that parliament. this complete arrogance, which i think contributed inadvertently to the -- i think, obviously having a view toward the united states and governments who are authoritarian, and who are our allies on democratic reform, political and economic -- egypt,

we are delighted in the reforms that are taking place there, even as we recognize that there is no trickle-down, expectations are rising, people were feeling a complete lack of ability to shape their lives in any way. these two things need to go hand in hand. i think the president's speech in that respect is a reiteration, a very clear reiteration, of things that president bush said many years ago -- not that he implemented them, in every respect. >> it is an interesting debate. to what extent did the president's outreach, beginning in cairo, set the stage for the past 120 days? there are legitimately differing views on this. some argue that what the president did was diffuse animosity enough for people to focus on their own domestic problems and therefore not have

easyamerican bogyman as the e strongman to attack. there are others who argue that it was mostly irrelevant, and that if anything, the back door benefits scott pointed out -- the reluctance to talk about democracy only fed greater frustration with their entire situation and the explosion we have seen in the last 150 days. i tend to put myself in the second camp. other people believe that the president's engagement was more important in setting the stage. it is an important but still an academic question and i think what we now have is this new approach going forward, and some of the tensions scott pointed to i think are really the key issues. i just want to underscore this

enormous lacuna of saudi arabia and everything it stands for. it did not merit a mention, as far as i remember from the text of the speech. i mentioned, whether in terms of bahrain, radical extremism, the need for a wealthy arab state to support other states in the region, or the need for political change within saudi arabia at all -- it was just -- it is too big to discuss. so, there was a punt. i think that really underscores how difficult this issue is. let's go to the front of the room now. >> i was struck by what i thought was a superficial treatment in the president's speech -- the palestinian side

of the process, in which there remains no consensus, far from it, between hamas and abbas, and given that, the notion that the burden of a new initiative should be on the israeli side is kind of an astonishing leap of faith. to compute that they're either has been or is about to be some kind of epiphany in hamas about israel is a giant leap of faith to say the least. neither you nor scott commented on that. i wonder if you could address it please. >> luck, in telegraphic form, the administration came off as

-- look, in telegraphic form, the administration came off as acting as if the prerequisite was a settlement freeze. this has been american policy for almost two years. then, in november, the administration decided it would no longer demand an israeli settlement freeze for its participation or for its effort to promote negotiations. the result was no real effort to promote negotiations. indeed, from november until today, the american peace envoy, george mitchell, travel to the middle east once. there was no sense that what we needed was palestinian negotiation. it is difficult to understand that the missing ingredient in making all of negotiations possible, since they fell apart

last november, that the missing ingredient was the definition of principles on the territorial resolution of this conflict that the president offered yesterday. that's, that, that is what really has changed. this is the key, missing ingredient. i think that is a misreading of the situation. i think what we have seen over the last six months is a decision by the palestinians to go a different route. to go for an alternative to negotiations, whether it is international is asian of the conflict -- internationalization of the conflict, a peaceful opposition, crossing the borders, whatever you want, an entire range of options, but not pursuing direct negotiations to resolve this conflict. i think it is a mistake.

if the presumption is that what will change this dynamic, what will produce the negotiation that we have not been able to produce is merely the president's definition of how this conflict should be resolved in a territorial dispute, that that was what was missing, i think that is a misreading of the palestinian's fundamental difference in approach to how they are looking at the situation. i agree with you. i think it was a missed opportunity to look at how this has evolved and how palestinian politics is shifting into a regrettable direction despite all of the very positive things that are going on on the ground. this is really the, you know, the -- this -- um, the contradiction here, because we have had enormous on the ground

progress between israelis and palestinians. the longest time in israel's history without terrorism emanating from these territories. the good relationship between security forces. the good relationship between administrators and palestinian authority and the operation of the government of israel. good relationship. there was no effort really to articulate why this was what we should be building upon, rather than an alternative world view. i think it was a missed opportunity. >> we will take a few questions, but we are going to try to wrap up by 1130 am >> i really enjoyed your analysis. i think one of the things that you neglected to -- well, there

are a couple of things you neglected to point out. one is that, i think, after 1967 there had always been a perception of an ally between the united states and israel. i think it might be somewhat reckless at this point to see this huge failing while the palestinians are feeling this huge empowerment. every piece of land that has been seated has become an iranian puppet. there is a good possibility that

if an election was held on the west bank today, because they elected hamas in 2005, because of corruption, which is, again, and powering iran, which is destabilizing most of the region. could you comment on that? >> i read today that the syrians call the american and french ambassadors and gave them a plan for reform, a plan the goes as far as june 14th. i was wondering if you have heard anything about that and if people in washington are taking this seriously? >> we are going to take a punch and then not answer the ones we do not want to answer. [laughter]

>> even though obama said in his speech that the core issues must be negotiated, you just answered the gentleman's question talking about how the palestinians are looking to go to the international arena instead. so, that says, given that he did not offer any ways for the u.s. to have any influence or a way to begin negotiations, in that area, what is our influence? you talked about egypt where we have the clothes security cooperation with the egyptian army, -- close security operation -- cooperation with the egyptian army. you said the people in the arab world did not really listen to president obama as speech. it was too little, too late. even though each country is somewhat different, how do you see the u.s. influence? >> great.

briefly, please. >> you mentioned a mechanism for negotiations. israel is being asked to relinquish territory, degrade their security, for what? for absence of war? and of conflict? of conflict? the big questions can still be left open? >> thank you. >> question for scott. this sort of built on the previous question, on the question of relevance. america is not relevant. we heard in the interior square.

we heard yesterday after -- we heard it in tahrir square. we heard yesterday after the speech. what can be done further? >> right here, very quickly. >> palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves. >> i agree. >> question addressed to scott. we just saw a public opinion poll that [unintelligible] the question is, how do you reconcile the opinion of the people with getting involved? how do you do that without actually hurting those in

organized states? and why? >> in cairo, two days ago, a group of people tried to attack the israeli embassy. my question is, does the united states have a better idea of the level of danger that israel faces right now in the middle east? >> scott, why don't you start and answer the ones that were directed at you? >> ok. about american influence, i think -- look. people are upset with the united states about all sorts of things. someone mentioned too little, too late. what was really curious to me, reading the reaction in the arab world across the region, was how little their reaction to the speech had to do with the comments the president made on the israeli-palestinian peace

process. it was all about it is too little, too late. it does not go far enough. he was a better friend to dictators than he is to the new egypt, this sort of thing. many people commented on the fact that he made no mention of saudi arabia, etc. very few people were talking about the peace process, which again, i think it is ironic. you know, the way my father taught me to fill a hole is one shovel load at a time. i think that the united states and the president's speech is important in the sense that he tried to reorient us and give us an opportunity to try to make amends in some ways by being better partners with a democratic egypt than we were with an autocratic one. there are many things more that the president can do, but i think what was appropriate in the speech was to focus on egypt and tunisia in terms of what we are doing. i think to recognize the weight

of egypt and the potential of tunisia was extremely important. and the way in which he is intending to leverage the europeans and others -- i do wish he would have talked about what the gulf can bring to the table, because i know that there is extreme reluctance on their part to help egypt. your question was about to -- ? the other thing about opinion polls. please, please, please. it depends on the question you are going to ask. if you are going to ask, do you like the united states? how strongly do you like the united states? you're going to, but -- who cares? most people, if you ask them, is it a good thing or a bad thing that the united states is going to give $1 billion in debt relief to egypt, most egyptians will say, yes, we want more, but it is a good thing, we are

excited about it. i think that some of this is -- when you make it very concrete, people are ready to work with the united states. they want to work with the united states. they want to work with an american organization. it is not always about american policy, but what can you do for us here that is more important. >> i think the only question was, if the reports are true, and i am not sure that they are, this is not surprising. the syrians will -- the next step for the syrians is having some sort of national dialogue to come up with a political solution to this in junction with the security solution, the iron fist/a velvet glove. what i can tell you -- there is

an understanding. it is not just in washington, but in europe as well. opening up a couple of banks and some new money changing shops in damascus is not reform. and it is not going to be enough to deal with the situation that is in front of us. there are policy metrics which are now being developed to measure that. and there are a lot of people who have experience -- one of the fortunate things about this situation is that there are many people who work in syria before, who have had to leave the country, and have a deep knowledge about these reforms and about how they go. the track record of the bashar al-assad regime on implementation is terrible. i do not think it is simply passing new laws that is going to be enough. it is going to be after you pass it, do you actually issue executive instructions? do the executive instructions, trick large parts of the syrian constitution? today -- contradict large parts

constitution? contributi at the same time, this is going to be a long process. there are two groups that have to organize themselves. one is the syrian opposition. the other are the lebanese. how are they going to -- both of these groups -- how are they going to get their acts together to be able to capitalize on this situation as the bashar al- assad regime is under the gun and under scrutiny? this is very important for the u.s. to keep its objectives going forward, as well as those two groups. >> let me very quickly answer some of the specific questions that were posed to me. first, contiguity in is really policy towards palestine means two things. one is contiguity within the west bank. the idea that there would not be

of swiss cheese of settlements that would not the west bank and kate and make it impossible for palestinians to move for -- west bank landscape and make impossible for palestinians to move from the territory in the north to a territory in the south. the other is contiguity between the west bank and gaza. in the context of this speech, since the president already said that the 1967 borders would be the basis of negotiation, by inference, the contiguity statement refers to the connection between the west bank and gaza. this adds another layer of the president articulating a position which involves israel to cede control, if not sovereignty, of territory inside pre-1967 israel.

the idea that there is a land bridge between gaza and the west bank is of course not new. it is how you do it and under whose control and whether it is a palestinian land bridge in which the israelis have certain rights of hot pursuit, or an israeli land bridge in which the palestinians have certain rights of transit. that is the basic disagreement here, and the president seemed to suggest the latter -- the former. that is just another arena of impingement on the 1967 boundaries. he quite correctly points out that there is, of course, a problem with security in the territory first, which is that israel makes some enormous concessions in reaching agreements on these two issues, which will then not permit it

to have concessions in the pocket to reach good agreement on refugees in jerusalem. and, along the way, does not give israel the finality of ending this conflict. so, in theory, israel might make agreements on these two issues not have the overall end of the israeli palestinian conflict, and yet have given up some of its major cards in negotiations. there is an argument for this approach because these two issues appeared to many to be more amenable to compromise, but i think it is quite useful to point out that there are some major structural problems with this approach, which is one reason the parties have not endorsed them up until now. we have to assume that they are fairly rational negotiators, and there is some reason why smart people have not engaged in this approach up until now. the larger question about the u.s. influence. it is painful whenever the

united states proposes ideas that are not adopted, because that means american influence and american ability to exert power suffers. so, i only want to see american presidents succeed. i want to see them husband their initiatives when they are going to succeed. wheat for moments when they are going to transform the situation for the week -- wait for moments when they're going to transform the situation for the benefit of american interests. i think the president did a relatively good job of recognizing some of the look and a we were talking about today. i think the peace process has been relatively eroded. i know that sarah asked a very important question and it connects to this. will this project the impression in the region that there is daylight between us and israel on core issues, and how will

ofs affect israel's sense america? i think the president tries to address that with his -- i thought -- very good comments, very strong comments vis-a-vis iran and the bankruptcy of the iranian position, but i do think that if the end result -- and this will be my closing comment -- if the end result of this episode is a public breach between the united states and israel focused on the peace process, a result which i think everybody has to entertain as a distinct possibility, even if it is papered over in the next 48 hours, then it cannot but have an impact on israel's determined posture. and that should not be a surprise. that should just be a direct and simple obligation. so on that, ladies and

gentlemen, thank you for joining us today and i am sure we will be back before long. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> afl-cio president is next on job creation and political issues. then, reaction to president obama's thursday speech on the middle east. after that, oval office remarks by the president and the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. tomorrow on "washington journal," foreign policy staff writer talks about the middle

east and president obama is meeting with benjamin netanyahu. a guest from americans in action discuss his efforts to make gold and silver coins a form of legal tender. and, why the dream act stalled and how states are making their own tuition rules for undocumented students. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> history is, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers. social issues. it is also medicine and science, art and music, theater, poetry, ideas, and we should not lump things into categories. it is all part of the same thing. >> samuel morse, james and more cooper, harriet beecher stowe,

sunday night on q&a, part one of two weeks on the americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. at 8:00 on c-span. >> now, afl-cio president discusses the u.s. labor movement agenda and recent activity in states like wisconsin, ohio and indiana. he also talks about the 2012 elections, federal budget issues, and the state of the u.s. economy. from the national press club in washington, this is about one hour.

>> good afternoon. we are the leading organization for journalists, working to foster a free press worldwide. for more information to us, visit our web site. to donate to our programs, visit our library. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. contains table a guests of our speaker. if you happen to hear applause, i would remind you that members of the general public are present, so that does not necessarily point to a lack of journalistic conductivity. i would like to also welcome c- span and our beating -- journalistic objectivity.

i would also like to welcome c- span and our viewing audience. after our guests speech concludes today, we will have questions and answers for as long as time permits. i would like to introduce some of our guests. please hold your applause until all are introduced. donovan slack is a white house reporter for the boston globe. she is a new member of the press club. thank you for being here today. holly resin krantz -- ro senkrantz is a labor reporter for bloomberg news. we have the co-president of the teaching assistants association, a guest of the speaker. sabrina is a washington correspondent for the cleveland plain dealer. this is the afl-cio executive

vice president and a guest of the speaker today. skipping over the podium, this is the senior business editor at npr, vice chair of our press clubs speakers' committee. thank you for all of your hard work. this is a member of the press club speakers' committee who organized today's event. you will recognize john, president emeritus of the afl- cio. jennifer is a reporter for the fiscal times. x, h is a reporter with plaque and credit is the washington bureau chief for the milwaukee sentinel. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] as you probably know by now, organized labor in america has been under renewed attack this year. well it has not been as

physically violent as seen in our nation's history, it has often been bitter at times. the benefits and collective bargaining rights of unions representing teachers, firefighters, police and civil servants have become a special target. in more than a dozen states, politicians will hurt unions to help reduce budget shortfalls by asking members to pay more for their benefits and give up negotiating rights. but of the sentiment behind all of this anti-union sentiment -- anti-union legislation could hark back to the 2010 election. in april, ohio's governor signed a law stripping state and local government workers of their collective bargaining rights. a similar bill in wisconsin appears headed to that state's supreme court. governors in places like massachusetts and connecticut

want unions to give back to help balance their budgets. their demands might not be driven so much by political philosophy as the skull necessity, but for a union member, that are -- fiscal necessity, but for a union member, that argument may be academic. all this is occurring at a time when unions are struggling to maintain their membership. today, 50 million, or 12% of working americans belong to unions. that happens to be the lowest level in 70 years -- today, 15 12% of workinglict simp americans belong to unions. that happens to be the lowest level in 70 years, compared to 22 million at its height. having actually worked in the coal mines, our guest speaker went to work for the united mine workers, becoming their

youngest president in 1982. he served three terms and brought the mineworkers into the afl-cio. in 1995, he became secretary treasurer of the afl-cio and served in that post until 2009 when he became the fifth president of the 55 unions in the nation's largest labor federation, representing more than 12 million members. please give a warm national press club welcome to him. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. thank you for inviting me to speak here today. thank you to the chef for those wonderful cookies. [laughter]

friend, i guess -- how can we make sense of the spectacle that has been unfolding across the american political landscape? as mark alluded to, politicians in wisconsin and ohio and a dozen other states are trying to take away workers' rights to organize and bargain for a better life. but that is not all. in state after state, politicians are attacking voter rights by imposing id requirements, by shortening early voting period, by blocking young people from voting because they are "too liberal," even levying criminal penalties and fines for breaking arbitrary rules in the voter registration process. all of which so that it will be harder for people to vote, especially the least privileged among us. now, just in wisconsin, listen

to the list of who does not have state-issued voter ids that will be needed to cast ballots under the legislation that governor scott walker will sign next week. 23% of elderly wisconsin residents. 59% of latino women. 55% of african american men overall. 78% of african american men who are between 18-24 years of age. now, budget proposals unveiled in washington and state capitals across the country this year revealed a despicable can this vas of cruelty.an thi in michigan, a state senator believes that foster children should be required to purchase

second-hand clothing with the $79 annual stipend that goes to those close. in north carolina, the legislature things that we should balance the budget on the backs of autistic children. in arizona, the state senate president floats the idea of locking up protesting public employees in desert tent city jails. in new york, a billionaire mayor proposes to fire 5000 teachers rather than tax the bonuses of wall street executives who brought down the american economy. not just mean, but destructive, a willful desire to block the road to the future. how else can you explain governors and states with massive unemployment refusing to allow high-speed rail lines to be built in their state? how else can you explain the

same governors plans to defund higher education, close schools, fire teachers, when we know that without an educated america, we have no future whatsoever? here in washington, the republicans in congress have defunded housing counselors and eight for the poor, and they are blocking worker training and transportation infrastructure. i think the final average of these but it is hidden in the fine print, because in state after state, and here in washington, these so-called fiscal hawks are actually doing almost nothing to cut the deficit. the federal budget embraced by house republicans, for example, cut $4.30 trillion in spending, but gives out $4.2 trillion in

tax cuts that disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. florida is cutting aid for jobless workers and using the money saved to cut already low business taxes. at the end of the day, our governments will be in no better fiscal shape than when we started, but they are being used as a pastor, if you will, to rich, athe already a time when wealth inequality in this country stands at historic levels. think about the message these budgets sand. sacrifices for the week. the powerful and the well- connected, they get tax cuts. so they can become more powerful and more well connected. all of these incredible events

should be understood as part of a single challenge. it is not just a political challenge. it is actually a moral challenge. these advanced signal a new and dangerous phase of a concerted effort to change the very nature of america. to replace the land of liberty and justice for all with a land of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. you see, i personally believe the united states is not a place as much as it is an idea. for working people, the united states of america has offered, from its foundation, a promise that everyone can be a full participant in national life. a promise that we the people make the rules so that hard work is rewarded with economic

security and a fair share of the wealth that we all helped create. now, that promise has always been a work in progress. this year, we commemorate the 150th anniversary of our bloodiest war, anwar that resulted in the extension of the american -- a war that resulted in the extension of the american promise to african-americans, who did so much of the work in creating the united states. we were the first country in the history of the world to embrace the idea that you do not have to own land to vote, that citizens come from -- citizenship comes from where you live, not what you own, or who your parents were. we were the first country to make land available to those who had worked that land, in the homestead act. in the modern era, when giant

corporations dominate our economy, we pioneered the idea that we had a right to a voice on the job, a right made real when we came together to form unions and to bargain collectively. and while boeing and the chamber of commerce may not like it, the law of the land protect working people who exercise that right against any retaliation by their employer. public employees, finally won the same rights. working people remember that these rights were not easily won. the pivotal 1968 memphis sanitation workers' strike began with two men crushed to death in a garbage truck. it ended with dr. martin luther king giving his life to the

cause of public workers' right to organize together. from the beginning of this country, through our efforts and our ideas, working people have made the american dream real. what is that dream? it is the idea that if you work hard and if you played by the rules, you will enjoy economic security and a better future for your children. it is not that a few of us will be rich, but that all of us will be treated fairly. that tree look after each other, and that we all have it -- that we look after each other and we all have a share in the wealth that we helped to create. working people are engaged in a great struggle to defend their dream. green bay, indianapolis, michigan.

columbus, ohio. not in the midwest, new york and los angeles, florida, texas. every corner of our nation. the struggle began after last november's elections brought power across the heartland who had a hidden agenda. an agenda worked out with the american legislative exchange council and other shoddily groups. politicians like john case sick and scott walker campaign, promised to do something about jobs, only to reveal when they took office that their jobs agenda was to make them disappear. the real passion was for eliminating the rights of

working people. destroying their unions were standing in the way of their agenda. in response, working people took to the streets. but on april 4, under the banner of "we are one of" weekend together all across america. we did so again to on may 1 when we stood together with our immigrant brothers and sisters. in science all across the rotunda in wisconsin, we proclaimed that we were there to defend the principle that in america, we looked out after each other. one of the people who was there is here with us today. i would like to introduce him. he is a graduate assistant at the university of wisconsin in

madison and a co-president of the teachers' assistants association with the american federation of teachers. stand up, please alex. [applause] he stood up four teachers and other public workers and madison. even as the build solidarity with workers in the middle east , his family comes from egypt anti -- and he once movement for change all around the world. i want to thank you for your inspiration and everything that you have done so far. un been a wonderful example for all of us. i would also -- you has been a wonderful example for all of us. i would also like to think the democratic senators and wisconsin -- thank the democratic senators in was

content and does democratic senators in indiana who did the same thing. quite frankly, i would like to thank our democratic and republican friends in the ohio legislature that stood up for workers. they deserve a round of applause. alex embodies the fact that we are not a nation of isolated individuals. we are a land of communities, all land of families. our republic, our democracy is an expression of our solidarity. of our common values, and our common life as a nation. in america, firefighters rushed into burning buildings every day, risking their lives to save people that they have never met. social workers care for other people's abused children and

home health workers provide care and companionship for those who need it. every day, you and taipei are social security taxes and medicare and that same money is sent out again to provide comfort and security to other people's parents and grandparents. this is not just a matter of morality, it also makes economic sense. being a community makes more economic sense today than it ever has in the past. will not be enough to beat back the spot walkers --dscott walkers. to invest in our infrastructure, to face the threat of climate change and to reverse the

economic inequality that threatens our future. let me be specific. unemployment stands at 9%. underemployment is that 16%. housing prices are falling. foreclosures remain at historic highs. economic growth is hovering around 2% annually, not enough to put a dent in unemployment, especially as tax cuts expired and cause the recovery act wind down, and state and local governments gear up for more the cuts. instead of having a national conversation, about putting america back to work, to build the future, the debate here in washington is about how fast we can destroy the fabric of our country, about make -- breaking the promises that we made to our parents and grandparents.

understand, the put rise in budget destroys jobs. it -- paul ryan budget destroys jobs. it guts medicare, a tax social security, the one piece of art retirement security system that actually works. now we see speaker john boehner and his colleagues in gauge in a new round of black male. with a ransom note that reads, cut medicare, dismantle the government, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs to fund more tax cuts for the rich or we will cause the unmet -- the united states to default on its debt. why is our national conversation in such a destructive play in? not because we are impoverished. we have never been richer.

the american economy has never produced as much wealth as it produces today. but we feel the warm -- poor. the wealth and the senate -- in society has flowed to a percentage of us. going to the top 10% in the last 20 years. the politicians to pander to the wealthy would rather break promises to our parents and grandparents and deny our children a future than to pay their fair share of taxes. to is as real deficit moral deficit. political choices come down to foster children, forcing them to wear hand me down close while cutting taxes for profitable

corporations. powerful political forces are seeking to silence working people. to drive us out of the national conversation. i can think of no greater proof of the moral decay in our public life than that of wisconsin gov. scott walker would give a martin luther king day speech hailing dr. king at the same time he drafted a bill to take away the collective bargaining rights for sanitation workers in wisconsin. the ultimate goal of those to blame workers for wall street's economic crisis is to unravel the fabric of our common life and pursuit -- in pursuit of power. this environment, working people

and their unions must do more. morgan does protect our right to voice -- more than just protect our rights to a voice in our nation. we must also raise our voice to win a better future for all people, every last one of them. here in america and around the globe. here is what will be doing. we will use that voice to end the scott walker agenda as a viable political strategy by winning recall elections in wisconsin and citizen at the toes of destructive legislation and other states and retake the state out. [applause] then they will spend the summer holding be elected leaders in congress accountable to one measure. are you improving, or are you degrading life for working

families? we are looking hard at how we work in this nation's political arena. we have listened hard, and the workers want is an independent labor movement that builds power of working people in the workplace and in political lives. working people want a labor movement strong enough to help return balance to our economy. fairness to our tax system, security to our families, and moral economic standing to our nation. our role is not to build a political party of the candidate. it is to improve the lives of working families and strengthen our economy, our country. it does not matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside to let it happen. the outcome is the same either way to us. its leaders are not blocking

the wrecking ball advancing working family interest, working people will not support them. this is where our focus will be now, in 2012, and beyond. we will uphold the dignity and restore respect for working people. this season's political battles, teachers and nurses and firefighters have been vilified. decent jobs with economic security has been cast as more than america's workers deserve. low-wage, part-time, temporary, and no benefit work is being sold as the new normal. we know that only a dynamic affected movement of working people working together can reclaim the value of work. our unions must reach out to every working person in america, to those jobs have been

outsourced and downsized, to carwash workers in los angeles, to domestic workers who have few legal rights, to freelancers and young workers who have gigs broaden jobs. together, our pilots and painters, are plumbers and public employees, we will be heard. the stakes are so high for working america and forced us -- and for us. the question becomes, will the country be ruled by greed, by people who would take pensions away from first responders people it would take away the fundamental human right of workers, who would choose tax rates -- tax breaks for the richest among us over a future for all of us?

what would be a country where we tuesday future, where we look out for each other -- where we choose a future where we looked out for each other? if we embrace the idea that we are one national community, our identities are bound up with the promise that all of us have a voice in the workplace and we are all responsible for one another. the fabric of our government, our democratic republic, is about making that responsibility for each other real. this is the message that working people have always brought to our national conversation. it is the message that alex and hundreds of thousands of others who took to the streets of the midwest this spring and we will take to the polling places of the heartland in recall

elections and insistent the veto campaigns in the coming months. it is the message that will continue to shout this year and next year and a year after that until we are heard. the moral character of america is worth fighting for, and that is exactly what working people are going to do in the days and weeks and months ahead. thank you. [applause]

>> we are grateful that we have many of your supporters here in the room, along with the hard- working journalist. part of our job is to take a look at the very skillful prose, and tried to read between the lines, and we are paid to do that. i hope you can understand some of the questions, while we are directing to them -- directing them to you today in the way that we will. we will go right to it. with all of the unprecedented attacks against labor at the state level, it isn't time to redirect all campaign contributions to the battleground states and what will that take? >> wheat are redoing our entire political program and we do things. as you know, we give very little

money to candidates, most of the money is used to educate and mobilize our members. our affiliate unions to give a considerable amount of money to candidates, so we hope to be able to coordinate that spending in a much more effective way to build power for working people. some of them will be targeted towards battleground states. some of them will be targeted towards francis stood up for workers. -- towards france boosted up for workers. we will change the way we function in a way that creates power for workers and brings the america back in the conversation that we're talking about. >> words you doing that all along? if not, why not? >> it is a good question. we have been educating all

along. are we going to spend all the money in the battleground states? we have never done that. we spent monday were we have had friends -- we have spent our money where we had friends. our focus will remain on the battleground states because that is why they're called battleground states. we will take -- we will challenge people love been against us. some will be in battleground states and some will not be in a battle ground states. >> some money during this up to this point asked, does this mean you will be concentrating less in fighting against congressional tax and social security and medicare? you are worried -- they are worried that you might be that kind of ground. >> we will be fighting more strenuously for those kinds of fights. we will fight against any

proposed cuts to social security and medicare regardless of who proposes them. that is point number one. riegle be mobilizing on a year- round basis right now. we will be able to hold people accountable. in the past, we have dismantled our process after the election and then we would have to reenergize when issues came up. we intend now to keep that process in a fact. when friends or foes did a little bit forgetful, we will remind them with an educated and mobilize drank and file. >> -- rank and file. >> has washington made too much of our party as being more fiscally prudent? at the stakes. -- let's look at the state. are other states that have deficit problems?

yes. are there states that are using debt as its problems to create hysteria? most definitely, yes. [applause] there is not much difference here. we do not have a short-term deficit crisis in this country. anybody will tell you that. any other country will tell you that. which we have is a short-term jobs crisis. create jobs and you will lower the deficit. have a real health care program, you will lower the deficit. the deficit has been used in a way to cut, cut and to do and ideologies. he did not care about the budget, and he cares about shrinking government. the best way to give that is to stop any revenue from increasing and make continual cut. that means a different type of america @. they keep telling us that we cannot provide good jobs, we

cannot provide retirement security, we can not -- you have to scale back your definition of the american dream. we totally reject that. this is one of the richest nations on the face of the earth. other countries have figured out a way to do that, it is a matter of priority. the priority should be having everybody have a chance to get ahead. every worker get a fair wage, and everybody had health care, everybody has a retirement security. not just the top one%. the been doing quite well the last couple of years. the rest of america has suffered because of its. ?> in the long term >> it ought to be shared sacrifice.

people at the bottom have already sacrificed. they sacrificed with their jobs, 11 million of us lost their jobs not go been they sacrificed with their homes. and then we sacrificed with our taxes as we paid to bail out wall street. there back to business as usual. nothing has changed for them. they have not had a decrease in salary. now that you've paid -- because of these deficits, let's eliminate social security or medicare and make you pay again. the sacrifice should start at the top and most americans totally agree with us on backed. -- that. that is why they support a surtax on millionaires nonc.

>> one short term problem that is lending is the debt ceiling. we have already bumped up against that. the secretary of the treasury, who was also a democrat, has said, let's deal with this before it is a crisis that financial markets present to us when we cannot see it coming. we have seen that happen in europe, south america, around the world in years past. that does not mean that you need to be in sympathy with the republicans, but how serious of a problem is that? what should members of both parties be willing to give up to attack the issues that around not? >> look, increasing the debt ceiling is a ministerial offering. the republicans are going to try to say, in order for us to increase the debt ceiling, you

have to make these draconian cuts. get rid of medicare, raise the age of social security, take away headstart for 200,000 kids, but grade school and secondary schools by 25%, take 8 million student loans away from 8 million people and we will not do anything unless you do that. it is the credibility of the united states. it is not about the debt ceiling. but there were serious about the deficit, but would not have proposed a budget that proposed $4.30 trillion out of it. over 10 years, their budget is going to reduce the deficit by $100 billion, $10 billion a year. my ninth set that does not get it. that is not going to help us. they ought to look at the problem and be realistic about it. raising the debt ceiling is

something that we have obligated ourselves to do it. you went home and you bought the house and a car and one day, our debt is up to $50,000 and if it goes up to $51,000, i am not paying. [laughter] they take your car and take your house because you do not pay. our standing in the world it's very tarnished. the dollar has been the currency for the rest of the world and i think that people should honor that. honor their commitments. if you want to talk about the deficit, did not come to us with a deficit that has $4.30 billion cut so that we can give to about it -- $2 billion back to the rich. >> unions have threatened to

pull support from democrats many times before when they do not seem to be pursuing labor's agenda. they always come back because they realize the alternatives is worse. is there something different this time? >> ask blanche lincoln. [laughter] we will not apply a litmus test. people got support workers, we will be with them. candid if i did not support workers, we will not be with them. it covers the whole broad issue, not once saying. you can be a friend and make a mistake. we will forgive you for that mistake. the difference is this, we will not spend precious resources helping candidates who do not stand up and help us.

we will focus on those people to help us. but a lot more resources to spend on protecting our friends. >> people want to know how far you are willing to go. you mentioned the need for independence before. this manifest itself in support of third parties. >> was there a question? >> are you willing to work beyond the two parties? >> here is what we're looking at doing. we're looking at training workers and recruiting workers to be candidate. in primaries, we have a real choice. we will give that a world. -- whirl. if they were supporting working people, we would look at all third-party candidate. we decide which one is the best for our members. we would support the one that is

the best for our workers. >> do you need to look to alternative solutions outside the traditional structure? is the current structure getting the job done? >> how much time do we have left? [laughter] that is a lot of conversation. if you want to look -- that is a logger conversation. the system is broken. the supreme court helped break it even more with citizens united. the system needs to be changed so that average ordinary americans can have a stronger voice in congress. it needs to be changed, the campaign finance laws the to be changed. i would be for an overhaul. they believe that money equals free-speech, that is what their decision said. it means that before all other sites around the table and said, day and said, you know george, you have

$500,000, so you get $500,000 of free speech. alexander, you only have $100, so you only have $100 of free speech. i don't believe that conversation took place. we need to take on the system and change it, make it more rational silicon have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. [applause] >> back to your speech, someone asked, what is your game plan to spread the spirit of the wisconsin protests? >> we are out there every day educating and immobilizing. we have cross pollinated wisconsin people with ohio people, missouri, tennessee, indiana. it is not just union people.

it is working people in general. small business people are out there supporting us. they think these people are going to far in trying to pay back their original owners by destroying the rights of workers. we are taking that message everywhere. we are seeing it take effect and we are doing something right because guys like scott walker have fallen like a big rock in a small pond. they think he is going too far. >> someone says, i did not hear the word obama in the prepared remarks. doesn't the president warned that leaves the honorable mention? >> i was talking about people that are off on the wrong course. so of course i would not mention him. having the president has done a good job. this scale has been limited

either because he was too low on things or because the republicans have prevented henhouse. if you look at the framework that he has tried to lay out for getting the economy back on track, it has been the right framework. that is to create jobs and rebuild the infrastructure. that is to give aid to state and local government so that you can get money back into the hands of small business through loans that these big banks are not giving out. having that as a step in the right direction. and think the scale hasn't been there. he has made some mistakes, too, but we can get to that. >> we have time. >> i think he made a strategic blunder whenever he confused his stimulus jobs agenda and allowed deficits is our walking on top of him.

he confused everything. no one understood the importance of the stimulus package. that was a strategic blunder. putting the colombian free trade agreement of will be a strategic blunder because i think it is morally wrong to reward a country that assassinated 51 trade unionists last year. [applause] and assassinated a labor leader and a t-shirt just the other day, day before yesterday. we're going to reward them. it will be an agreement that allows for a country that is not in compliance of standards, they will be getting a free trade agreement with us and that is insane. we will fight that. >> if you had to give them a traditional letter grade, what might it be? >> there were a lot of subjects.

most of my grades were the same many subjects, it didn't much matter. it all depends on what you're doing. if you're looking at in force in health and safety laws, he gets an a. enforcing trade laws, he gets an a. negotiating trade deals, he will not get on the honor roll for that one. for direction, a. for execution, he doesn't make the honor roll. there are some variables beyond his control. you have a determined opposition that says no to any taxes. leo fight a little harder to create jobs in this country and i think you will see him over the next several months making jobs the centerpiece of what he tries to accomplish. >> he would make the dean's list.

>> it is finals week. we will see. [laughter] [applause] >> very good. >> something in the news on the health and safety front, an independent report commissioned found that the mine explosion that killed 25 men last year resulted in the failures of the owner and rejected the company's assertion that the sudden death buildup was to blame for the deadly as cold disaster. >> it is no surprise of all. you have an explosion in online. either the laws were not adequate to protect those miners or the laws were not complied with. have a record of not complying with the laws and allowing things that happen. when you start creating and shortcuts, it will inevitably catch up with you. they paid the price and quite frankly, they are still paying the price.

every male in my family died from black lung disease. we knew about black lung and we could have prevented it. it was an occupational disease in the '20s. we have coal companies in 1969 standing in front of a podium saying that we have proof positive that it is good for you. i offered the company through their air conditioning unit but they were not interested in that. miners get killed every day, workers get killed every single day. they also contract pieces of occupational diseases every day. that doesn't make the headlines. it makes the headlines when we kill a bunch of them and they are trapped and we are trying to get them. they die in ones and twos every single day. the disabled every single day.

whether your a construction worker that is highly dangerous, whether you work in different occupations around the country, how they get killed every day. and until we have the secretary of labor, the last eight years was like killing fields out there. at least we have a secretary of labor enforcing the laws and saying he should not have to sacrifice either your life or your health to make a living in this country at this point in time. i might add one other thing. the legacy of operating a facility whether it is a mine, factory, school, hospital, or anything that is unsafe, any single bit of the literature will tell you that the safest facilities are the most productive facilities. there is no reason to do it, and yet it happens every day.

workers guy with impunity. thousands and thousands and thousands a year. by the way, we dwarfs what happened that night 11 -- 9/11. that should not have been in this country. the first job as chairman of the health and safety committee. i took that job seriously because i wanted every minor to go home at the end of his chest with all of their fingers and all of their eyes and their legs and their ears. a real ought to be outraged by what happens when workers get killed and slaughtered in this country. [applause] >> you're here at the national press club. the newspaper guild is calling the huffington post and they are

saying that they will get more than $300 million to the sale to aol, while unpaid writers will not share that weatlh -- wealth. i might follow up with the news business. >> i think we could make you guys a lot better. i stand with the workers in that issue. the workers are entitled to a decent rate of pay and they ought to be negotiating a fair contract that gives them a decent rate of pay to that the entity that becomes productive can make money and those workers can have a decent standard of living. >> what we have lots of corporate business and own the media other than specialty magazines. why are there no labor backed unions or news organizations doing investigative reporting?

>> first of all, it comes down to resources. in order to do the news media whether it is print media, radio, what ever it is, it takes a lot of resources. at the time, we don't have the resources to be able to spread them around. let's assume that we own the network. the labor network. what would be the first shot you guys took us and would be the first shot at most conservatives do? you can't listen to those guys, that is labor. an independent press is a good thing. an independent press that as a watchdog on those out there with responsibility homeworkers, at the federal level, state level, or anywhere else is a good thing. hack journalism is not a good thing. the fact that you guys can't do

the kind of investigative stuff that you used to do is a tragedy for the country. and networks like fox are really entertainment. they are not actually networks because their perspective is so slanted towards things. i will say that about every one of the journalists -- i won't say that about every one of the journalists. but by and large, the network and the programming is awful slanted away from working people and that is a tragedy. >> we are up against time and there is a final question i want to get to, but in a week we will have the executive director of the nfl players association. that is part of the afl cio. americans seem to have a primary thought, they want their football. will this be resolved by the fall?

how do you see this playing out? >> we hope that it is resolved by the fall. let's start off with the base of all this. the football players didn't ask for a single fan. they did not ask for a single increase. they have asked to maintain what they had. the owners on the other hand as for a couple billion dollars in give backs. one of their proposals and to have the players pay for the practice facility. to have the players pay for their travel to and from games. that is a $9 billion industry. guess what? it isn't just the players and the owners that people think about. there are 200,000 workers out there that will get hurt because of this lockout. remember what a lockout is. the employers in saying no, you

can't come to work. it is not the players saying they won't come, they want to come. how about who will get hurt, is the guy that sells the hot dogs, a groundskeeper, the small business person at the stadium next to them. it will be the bus driver. it'll be the taxicab driver, and the cities are going to get hurt because of all this. the problem with this is, the owners haven't cut the deal among themselves yet. they can't negotiate. they don't know what to negotiate for because they have not cut their deal. we ought to be putting pressure on them to say to get your butts in a room somewhere, figure out your deal and come back and let's negotiate this thing. while it is a wonderful sport and i happened to love football. i love the with all my heart.

it is not just the players and owners, it is all of the other people that will get hurt in this process because the owners can't come up with their own deal on how to split their revenue. >> will continue that conversation in a week. and we certainly welcome the n.f.l. commissioner, the representative for the owners to come in and speak at this venue as well. before we ask the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i like to remind you all about the upcoming luncheon speakers we have. to reply to some comments made earlier this year by the head of npr. and murray smith will be here on may 22. the oscar-nominated actor will announce the formation of a new foundation dedicated to raising funds for charity supporting the military. as is our tradition, if i can find it, of like to present you

with our traditional mug. >> thank you. >> absolutely. and i would like to ask the last question. you're a native of pennsylvania, whose huge steelers fan, i am told. these days, that doesn't take a lot of investment, but your hanging in there. given that you are a leader in the political arena, so to speak. would you rather have lunch with the manning brothers or the coke brothers. [laughter] >> it depends on where the lunch was going to be. i would probably rather have lunch with the manning brothers. the others, me talking to them will not do a lot. hamas think about that for a second. i like to have lunch with them

as a matter of fact. i want them to explain to me what they think and i like to indicate in some mild fashion what i think and see where we went from there. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker today? [applause] i would like to thank the national press club staff including the library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

here.nks for being thank you.

>> we could have done another round. [unintelligible conversations]

>> next, reaction to president obama's speech thursday on the middle east. after that, oval office comments by the president and the prime minister of israel, and a discussion on the u.s. policy in the middle east.

tomorrow, a former godfather pizza c o is expected to announce his candidacy for the republican presidential nomination in atlanta georgia. of the white house coverage continues sunday with a former utah governor and former u.s. ambassador to china making remarks at a meet and greet and franklin, new hampshire. live coverage begins here on c- span. the contention of the events on our web site. and if you want to watch them again later on, they will be in the video library. now, more discussion on the president goes the middle east speech on thursday and u.s. policy in that region. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. host: a discussion of the middle east in light of the

president's speech yesterday. two guests will guide us along the way. professor akbar ahmed, chair of islamic studies. we're also ined by aaron david miller, a public policy scholar at the woodrow wilson center and also a former middle east negotiator from 1988 to 2003. both of you gentlemen, thank you very much. now that we have heard the speech, what are the policy implications going forward for the president? if we can start, one of the things he focused on was a cl for democracy. in certain areas of the middle east, we heard the call as far as policy. what does it mean, mr. ambassador? guest: there were some comments from president obama's reactions. they were somewhat unambiguous, somewhat lacking in direction. there were statements, but there seemed to be some lack of clarity.

yesterday, he cleared the air. he emphatically laid down the marker that this is where we stand. this is where we stand. we will support democracy and human rights. we will support every kind of desperation of the people of the middle east. he took the range of countries into a purview. he talked about egypt and tunisia, who began the uprisings. he talked about syria. he was harsh on syria. it was interesting. he did not mention a key ally of the united states. he talked about bahrain. the same time, i thought this was a vision of a statement. he's looking at the global landscape. now, policy has t be filled in. you still have the nuts and bolts of foreign policy to be implemented. host: mr. miller, as far as vision is concerned, what does mean as he goes forward?

what kind of things will have to be done, especially with the meeting today at the white house? guest: presidential speeches purrsucceed in persuading. i'm not sure this one did that. presidential speeches are designed to explain. the president believes himself to bit transformed the political figure. he presided over a transforming a set of events in the middle east. when the 3:00 a.m. proverbial phone call came in the middle of the night, the president respond pretty well to his first foreign policy crisis. he feels prett good about it and he felt the need to associate himself with the broader vision. the problem, first, these are words that need toe translated into policy. two, they have to be translated in a way that's frankly not possible with a measure of consistency and predictability. we confront the ara strength, tunisia and egypt, where the president has done pretty well.

these are hopeful situations. also, what i call the error of winter, syria, bahrain. we have not said anything anythingbahrain -- a thing about bahrain. yemen is the same. there's a gap here. we do not say these things because we have specific interests in bahrain. in yemen and even in syria, where the gap where how we behave on libya is amazing. gaddafi tilsit people with impunity and we said in a tub. -- gaddafi kills people and we send in nato. host: as far as the democracy or the themes he laid out, all the papers this morning, elements

you found when president bush made a similar type of speech during his administration. is that a fair assessment? yes, in thatest: sense, both presidents could take some credit for associating with these american virtues and values and seeing them in the arab world. i would say that giving a final assessment is premature. we are in the middle of a massive transformation taking place in the middle east. we're not really sure how this thing's going to end. i hope and pray that the aspirations for democracy and human rights will find their logical outcome, reached their conclusion. the battle is on. in libya, there's a stalemate. cherings goingdu on. the fact that the president of

the ited states is quite strongly and clearly on the side of democracy and human rights does mean a lot. i agree that there was some cynicism and indifference to the speech. at the same time, it has encouraged people to feel that america is on the side of democracy and human rights in the arab world. host: m miller, when you see the president talk about egypt and debt forgiveness -- what does that dos far as the idea of democracy building and other places in the region, as well? guest: we have a comparative advantage. we can make a difference. economic assistance is very important. the problem is the $2 billion is not real money. we're talking about loan guarantees and debt forgiveness. it is important, but we have austerity problems here.

as important as egypt is, you'll not find congress wanting to inease in real time, real dollars, american assistance. one final point he made is that it is a paradox. obama has become, in many respects, george w. bush. double down in afghastan. now with the freedom agenda, he has operated within the parameters set by his predecessor. i think it reflects the cruel and unforgiving nature of the world. guest: in the moslem world, a lot of people do not see obama and bush as democrats and republicans. they really see an american president. a lot of people of great expectations of an american president. they associate america with these great values, the founding fathers, the founding methodology. -- the founding mixology. in that sense, the muslim world in that sense, the muslim world