and around the world. as america stands for these principles and stands with our friends and allies, the middle east will transform this moment of turbulence into a more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress. i look forward to your questions and the discussion. [applause] >> have declined, retrenchment, and with a role. really? >> here are some examples the support that characterization. at a minimum, the commander in chief needs to lend more clarity and rhetorical strength to the

values and principles that we support and embrace here and around the world. at the beginning of the green revolution when people were standing, asking where the united states stands and the president stands essentially new on those issues, that is a form of withdrawal, retrenchment. when you have the president of the of the states take the recommendation of the most forward leaning and impact full military leader in afghanistan when he calls for the complement of surge troops to be a round out their maximum level of little while longer, not for 10 years or 20 years' worth of nation building. but the logical and intermediate next step goal of making sure the security forces are trained in volume and quality so that it can reasonably take up more of

the charge and the challenge of security and afghanistan. notwithstanding that recommendation and compared to the political calendar, it strikes me as something that is a sense of with a droll, retrenchment, and decline. the list goes on. we have the president of the united states saying to syria -- is an enabler to terrorism, send an ambassador back to damascus, refuses to address in any moral clarity, all of those things support that statement. >> america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. what is the moral clarity? >> that we and other developed nations to support these principles and more.

human rights. free and fair elections, the free flow of information. the ability for people to express themselves freely and associate freely. those are values and principles that we can speak to a moral clarity because they are our boundaries. when people oppressed them in tyrannical ways, we should speak to that. we have more clarity to do that. >> who have dealt with the tension between the -- >> they are universal values as well. >> the security issues that arise, what do you do about a state? you mentioned radical islam early on. would you do to oppose those that oppose the united states and its interests?

they have become what they believe they should be and pose a threat to the united states. >> which state would you highlight as an example of that? >> you are speaking about a list of principles by which you would govern, and the tension between freedom and security is a perennial one. at what point do you draw the line. >> a cut you meant a state that had a democratic resolved. the categories i put forward was this. there at the doorstep of freedom. we have these long-standing monarchies. they have been somewhat or partially friendly to the invited states, but you can see the handwriting on the law -- on the wall. and maybe a year, 10 years, 20

or 30. there is a continuum to where they are and more shared power with the people. we use the leverage that we have economically, socially, and beyond to move them as constructively as possible to a better place of shared power with the people. live states that are directly threatening to the united states that included syria, iran, and hopefully not yet yemen. the need to be dealt with -- there recognize their great ally that shares the valley. we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we confront in the embrace the challenges and opportunities of the region. these essence of your question is where is the dividing line between democracy and tyranny

have you can't flip a switch overnight and to move his starkly to radical governments to democracy. but you can use what is available to try to pressure them, encourage them, inspire them to move down the continuum towards democracy. it doesn't happen overnight. look at serbia, look at kosovo and bosnia. these are 10, 20, multi decade projects. they take a sustained and persistent commitment in the country. reagan did great work in romania, poland, afghanistan part one. not but always using explicit military intervention, but over time, it changed the country. this starts with a president that is going to lend moral

clarity, strength of vision, strength of values so that the individuals that are dreamers in those countries hear the voices and no aspiration only had to directionally that we stand with them. >> you've made a very him -- very interesting historical linkage early on. i am taking it as three examples of equivalent triumphs. defined the war on terror and what you would do in the next phase of that. >> this is not a known beginning and end to this yet. we are accustomed to a mind-set where people might see a clear beginning and a clear and to the

challenge and the need. it is likely going to be transnational. it is going to be multi year if not multi decade. it will be episodic. the threat will take different forms in different places at different times. it will be asymmetrical and it will be different as we although events of the historic examples that you have cited. we need to ready ourselves for that future. there is only one person that can educate and raise awareness and remind the american people about the importance of this cause and the environment and risks making sure that we remain vigilant. the people that killed 3000 of our citizens of the timber a eleventh 2001 still exists.

their mindset still exists. and as soon as they have the are opportunity to kill not 3000 and but 30 million or 300 million, they will try. this may not be just about an orderly and reasonable and successful drawdown of the troops in afghanistan. this is going to be about having the determination to see this threat, call it by name, identify it wherever it exists and defeat it before it manifest itself in a way that is threatening to the security interests of the united states. that will require persistence, diligence over a long and episodic. of time. does not the direction this president is headed in my view. that is not the direction that a good chunk of even the republican party seems to be headed.

i take sharp issue with both. >> please state your name and affiliation, start here. >> think you for your remarks. i wonder if you can shed some light on your support for the idea, who are the change agents. if he is no longer in power, would be acceptable to washington is the individual in whatever capital may be. or someone that can be something else. how'd you have visibility on a change agent that nobody in the country really has right now. the premise is how to guarantee

something. the answer is that there is ultimately no guarantee in these uncertain situations. when you are navigating into certain situations. you have to make sure that your compass is set to true north. make sure you have a president that annunciated in articulate forcefully and repeatedly what the values and interests really are. what comes after hitler? what can happen after that? he was awful and needed to go. take libya as one example of many. each of these cultures are different with different histories. they have to be done

strategically, but ultimately won at a time. at least a significant chunk are western educated in the seemed to generally desire freedom or democracy. it will be in competition between the former and the latter? yes. assuming that he is going ago to try to maximize the odds of the folks that are favorable to our values prevail? yes. is there an absolute guarantee? it does not work like that. it does not mean that we retreat and ducked under the table. this does not mean that we invade it militarily every country. there are a lot of levers that you can pull that will influence

the course of these countries. can we guarantee the outcome? ho. but once the president of the united states says that he has got to go, you can't let him from his nose at the president of the united states and the free world. leaving him there and definitely is not an option. if someone would argue that we don't have a vital interest before, we have one now. one of his main motivation is going to be retaliation, and guess who is going to be against. letting him linder indefinitely while the president brings his hands about what to do that is not a good idea. he needs to go. >> as you look back, you think your foreign policy approach

would have more in common with george h. w. bush or george w. bush? >> collected believe i would have my own foreign policy, and that it would reflect on the best of the successes of our country. and there are positive examples in both of those administrations from challenges as well obviously. i don't think it is one or the other. a thick there are strong and positive elements in both. these are complex issues and complex parts of the world have lots of nuance. to suggest a doctrine for the region that is cut her is under utilization of our ability, capability, and are thoughtfulness. there are elements of both.

right're not in a primary now, are you? >> just to get away from the middle east for a moment, whatever policy toward north korea be different from what ever the policy is today? [laughter] >> north korea is one of the most concerning challenges that we face in the foreign-policy arena. i think that north korea will most likely best respond to a multifaceted approach, prominent when an important rule ha for china in that discussion. it is not the only lever, but it is a mature and clever. the have control over whether china in search of more influence in that discussion, but we need them to be involved.

we don't advocate, the fur, or 72 cut. you're dealing with a leadership structure that is fragile, uncertain, potentially erratic, her unpredictable. again, when you're facing these difficult situations, we have to give back to articulating what we stand for and what we believe. first of all, articulate it, and second of all, are there ways to influence in. the goal is not poland or afghanistan, but to the extent we have levers, whether the implicit or a necklace to try to change north korea in internally, that is a good option for us. we are going to be helped in the region. we have people that are particularly connected to north

korea. but that the transition in south korea. great success has been made there, a different approach. dallas in just the reagan gave a seat in a good blueprint about how to influence events in such a country they you're worried about. >>-with fox news. when you talk about gadhafi must go, it is easy to say, he has proven to be much more difficult. how would you deal with this with the more specificity of how you would get him to go. and boots on the ground, special operations forces, more of the same? the nisei and hard to do if he

decides he doesn't want to go. >> be consistent and clear about your expectations. egypt we have an 82-year-old that if it is a revolution or heart attack or something, was not long for that position. what was the plan between a 30 + year decatur and chaos. there wasn't one. he thought it was this kid. that wasn't going to work either. as it unfolds in a number of the moment towards the end, we have me,ident biden -- excuse vice president biden say mubark ak wasn't a dictator. the muslim brotherhood is a

largely secular organization. really? don't worry, the situation in egypt is stable. as mentioned in my remarks, no, it wasn't. how was the colorful as we reach out to the people on this tree. helen davis-some event in in egypt, or any of -- in europe. gibbs says mubarak must now go. and we mean yesterday. and then someone goes and whispers to a designee. in the early days, hours, and weeks of this event, we had a very confused and uncoordinated and unclear and hesitant

administration. clearly, he was a dictator not long for his position. leakey be in the business before chaos of trying to have a capacity in place or a better way forward for egypt. that took care of itself and terms of the events on the ground. we better be helping out with others that are in the business of trying to build democratic capacity in egypt. will maximize the likelihood that that will actually happen. to this day, and this administration until recently would not utter the words that he needs to go and he needs to kill him. they implied that there was still high and for him to renew himself. the mean that we're going to use military force in syria? not necessarily. are there other things that we

can do to try to effectuate change. this administration is reluctant to do it, doesn't see it, doesn't want to do it. doesn't leave how he has the leadership role in in. and this is not afghanistan, this is a relatively simple place of graphically. i'm not suggesting any boots on the ground, but the united states and its allies would have to go, he would be gone. and the ku said that essentially, you have a certain number of days in the year affairs in order. you can go the easy way or the hard way. ronald reagan tried to kill him in the 80's. he is a terrorist and now he is an indicted war criminal. >> would you have tried to follow the war powers resolution in libya military

action? ' reserve the prerogative and the war powers the close not apply. in the case that it might and out of courtesy, i would have more fully consulted with them because the case could have been presented successfully as a courtesy to congress, not necessarily as a legal obligation. i think he had a couple of leaders over for sandwiches. i think a strong case can be made on the merits that what we did in libya was the correct course. on march 7, they threatened a no-fly zone and he was on the ropes. the rebels had the momentum.

he was openly talking about leaving voluntarily. hadley seized the moment, we could have got him out without much fanfare. the president did for the better part of the month waiting for the united nations, regrouping, regaining momentum and taking back more than half of the country. and give us a more complicated situation than we now have. as it relates to the case that should have been made as a courtesy in a gesture of respect, i would have done that. i did not say that it was required by the war powers act. >> we have a question from penn state. he said iraq was a shining example of the middle east. a number of experts thought that the majority was going to eliminate the minority are

dropping them out of the country or worse. for whom is a rack a shining example? >> for those that like democracy, more open societies, increasing appreciation for democratic institutions and principles. is a racket guaranteed to be a shining example forever? though. is it better than it was in recent years? absolutely. this is on a continuing and got a moment in time. if you look around the middle east with the exception of israel and turkey in you're trying to rank haitians that are next on the progress meter in terms of movement towards the like, you will put iraq moving in the right direction. in light of other challenges are within iraq, we don't know the answer to that.

in this moment of time, it can and has been made in a difficult region with the complex and seemingly insurmountable history. absolutely. >> i want to ask a question that john asked you about states that democratically choose leaders who are opposed to american values in the conundrum. i assume that one of the reasons the obama hesitation -- edit illustration hesitated, they thought it could be more anti- american and anti-israel. do you have a reason to think that that is wrong? or if it is correct, are you saying that the united states should be prepared to pay that strategic prize for the

important moral gain of having a more democratic are you asserting that the elections in egypt were legitimate? >> it is broadly anti-american. for reasons having to deal with israel and other things, a democratic collection -- election will bring to power more that are anti-american than the autocratic regimes. it might be a price the united states has to pay in order to bring about a more democratic and middle east. a if you have reason to think that it is not such a price, or is it is a price worth paying? >> you have to look at this over time. we have monarchies, for

example, there was hoyle tolerated and supported -- and engaged over many years and many decades. the argument for not pressuring them to much for change is that they have accommodated us with respect to our security interests. it has been oversimplified, but i've been that is the essence of what you're describing. the next question is, how much longer in the world of social networking, instant media, is that sustainable? if you believe it is not in the intermediate and long-term sustainable, harley best served to least try to move those countries and down the continuing towards a better future so the transition can be orderly, predictable, unlikely successful that have that erupt

in a cataclysmic moment of revolution who, the debris and political debris for which is uncertain? as what i tried to describe in the remarks, and i hope you combat. the point wasn't to say to the third group marquise that we're going to demand or otherwise require you to quickly switch. what i am trying to say if you think about, even in the realm of monarchies, have current middle eastern monarchies of the way to spain for the uk. over a reasonable time, with our friendship, relationship, leverage, and hopefully increasing the share value, then we move them on a continuum? it begins to convince the people

of how there is no in an orderly fashion. it decreases the likelihood of a dramatic or catastrophic a moment for which outcome is uncertain. that is what i am trying to describe. keep in mind the failed states and those that have already gone through the revolution. >> you're not trying to send a message to elizabeth ii? [laughter] watch out. you're with us or against us. i knew we'd get kate middleton in here somehow. >> you imply in your remarks, the answer to one of the more follow up questions that secretary clinton and the president were to slow to embrace in support the reform movement in egypt.

what do you make of the argument that we were too quick as a country to abandon our ally of 35 years, and by not having what you just described, the orderly transition to have access opening dramatically and it could and threaten the state of israel. >> his days were numbered any way you cut them. caught in the revolution, elections, or through human life expectancy expands sometime in the next few years. the question wasn't whether he was going to go, the question was what would happen once he went. it happened war suddenly because of the revolution. when you have 32 years' worth of his reign, featuring things

like the 2010 parliamentary elections which are clearly still lend, which are unquestionably stolen by any reasonable and fair minded assessment. the united states of america says nothing and a pretty powerful signal. is that he only thing that led to the problems that mubarak had? no. was it the straw that broke the camel's back or the mass that got thrown into the kindling? -- match that got thrown into the kindling? maybe. it was 32 years worth of the vial of rights, secret police, still elections. if you do that long enough, and eventually, you're going to have a problem. it is inevitable and undeniable.

that same pattern will, for every one of those countries in the region and eventually. thequestion isn't what is outcome, the question is, can we make the outcome more orderly, predictable, stable, secure. more oriented towards the security interests of the united states. i don't accept the premise that one option was to lead him around. he wasn't around anyway you cut it. >> thank you for a thoughtful morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> sees ban launched in new easy to navigate website for politics. with the latest events on the campaign trail, biographical information on the candidates, twitter feet and facebook updates from candidates and political reporters, and links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states. visit us at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> president obama was an eastern iowa yesterday to talk about manufacturing and the economy. he earlier toward a plant specializing in aerospace products. this is a little more than 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. ♪ ♪

>> thank you. you can cut the music. great to see all of you. good to be back in the quad. hello, iowa. hello, iowa. i see a couple old friends here. i want to start by recognizing a few folks who are with us today. first of all, governor branstad is here. congressman bruce braley is here. congressman dave loebsack is here. bobby schilling is here. michael freemire, the mayor of bettendorf, is here.

and jeff grindle, mayor of riverdale, is here. the chairwoman of the national association of manufacturers, mary andringa, is here. the ceo of alcoa, klaus kleinfeld, is here. vice president and general manager of davenport, malcolm murphy, is here. and an old friend of mine who actually drove me around a couple times while i was traveling around iowa, skip mcgill, is here, president of the local usw.

you know, i know you've been seeing a lot of politicians around lately. something tells me that you may see a few more before february is over. but iowa, you and i, we go a long way back. and those of you who are coming over from the illinois side, we go even longer back. so we've got some history together. and together we're going to make some more history for years to come. and that's why i'm so glad to be here at alcoa. all of you are showing the future we can build here in eastern iowa and all across the country. almost every airplane in the world has some kind of alcoa product in it. think about that. every airplane in the world, you guys have something to do with. in fact, it turns out that you're responsible for the wings on air force one. so i want to thank all of you

for getting me here in one piece. it was a pretty smooth ride, thanks to alcoa. now, this company was founded by a college student named charles martin hall 125 years ago. and back then, it produced about 50 pounds of aluminum a day. and it was so hard to sell that folks kept on telling charles that it was pointless even to lock up the plant at night, because nobody wanted the stuff. but when the wright brothers you heard of them, right? the wright brothers when they needed a lightweight material for their plane, they turned to alcoa. and this company hasn't looked back ever since.

when president kennedy challenged america to go to the moon, your engineers produced the alloys that helped get a man on the moon. in afghanistan and iraq, you've helped provide our troops with the armor they need to protect their vehicles from roadside bombs and ieds. and let me tell you, when i go to walter reed or bethesda, and i think about all the lives you guys have saved, it makes me proud of what you do right here. and today, your new aluminum- lithium alloy is making some of the world's most advanced airplanes lighter, and tougher, and more cost-effective than ever. so you know that times change. you've seen times change. alcoa has grown as america has

grown. now, you also know that sometimes change can be tough. sometimes, the old ways of doing things just won't cut it anymore. i was just talking to klaus; he was talking about some sheet metal that you guys produce, that for a while you guys lost market share completely. you got your team together, redesigned it, and now you have 80 percent of the market back. that's adapting to change. [applause] and see, when change happens, you've got a choice. you can either keep on doing what you were doing and hope things work out, or you can make the decision that not only you can meet the challenges of the future, but you can help set the pace. that's true for this company, and it's true for america.

for better or for worse, our generation has seen more than our fair share of economic change. revolutions in technology have changed the way we live and the way we work. a lot of jobs can now be located anywhere there's an internet connection. and companies have become more efficient, so they get by with fewer workers. now, in some ways, these changes have made our lives a lot easier. it makes products cheaper. you can produce them faster. but for a lot of our friends and neighbors, these changes have also caused a whole lot of pain. today, for example, a high school diploma no longer guarantees you a good job. i met a couple of the guys here whose fathers had worked at the plant. now, when the previous

generation came to work at this plant, it didn't matter what kind of education you had, it just mattered whether you were willing to work hard. but these days it's hard to find a job without a high school diploma. and in a lot of cases, it's hard to find a job without a college diploma. over the past 13 years, about a third of our manufacturing jobs have vanished. it's not just that they've gone overseas, it's also that you guys are just better at producing stuff now than you used to be, so you use fewer workers. and meanwhile, a lot of workers have seen their wages not keep up with rising costs. so i spent a lot of time thinking about these issues when i ran for this office in the first place. when i ran for president, before i came to iowa, when i was still a senator in illinois, i kept on thinking about all the folks i would meet in my travels who were feeling that squeeze

of wages flat, costs going up. and then in the closing weeks of the campaign, the bottom fell out of the economy - and the middle class got hammered some more. and i know talking to klaus, alcoa got hit pretty good too. that demanded that we make some tough decisions - decisions that we now know have pulled our economy back from the brink and put us on a better path. we've created more than 2 million new private sector jobs over the last 15 months alone, including almost 250,000 in manufacturing. that's in the last 15 months. and here at this plant, the workers that were laid off during the darkest days of the recession have all been hired back.

and in fact, you guys are telling me that you're thinking about hiring some more folks in the near future. that's worth applauding. [applause] somebody was but for a lot of americans, those numbers don't matter much if they're still out of work, or if they have a job that doesn't pay enough to make the mortgage or pay the bills. so we've got more work to do. and that work is going to take some time. the problems that we developed didn't happen overnight. we're not going to solve them overnight either. but we will solve them. we'll solve them because after all we've been through, we are still the united states of america. we've got the largest economy. we've got the best universities. we've got the most successful companies. we've got the best innovators and entrepreneurs.

we've got the best workers in the world. [applause] together, we've got the capacity not only to get back to where we were, but to get to where we need to be. that's why i ran for president to get us where we need to be. i ran because i believe in an america where working families aren't just treading water but they're moving forward, and where our businesses lead the change on new technologies like clean energy and advanced manufacturing of the sort you're doing right here at this plant. i believe in an america where our government lives within its means while investing in things that will help us grow, like a world-class education system and cutting-edge innovation and the best transportation and communication systems anywhere in the world. that's how we're going to make america the best place to create good, middle-class jobs. that's how we're going to win

the future by doing the smart things right now to help the middle class grow and feel more secure. and a big part of that, a big part of our future has to be a robust and growing manufacturing sector. we've got to make things right here in america. [applause] we've always made things here in america. it's in our blood. this plant has been in operation for 60 years. and what you've learned is that if you want to beat the competition, then you've got to innovate. you've got to invest in new skills, you've got to invest in new processes, you've got to invest in new products. i was just learning that some of the equipment right behind us -- this was a huge investment.

how much did you guys $90 million. think about that. that's what made you guys competitive, having the best workers but also having the best equipment. you had to up your game. and that's what we've got to do as a country as a whole. i want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the proud stamp that says "made in america." that's what i want. [applause] that's why two years ago, we stood by the auto industry and kept some of our nation's largest automakers from being sold for parts. and today, for the first time in years, the big three automakers are adding jobs and turning a profit and putting steel workers to work.

[applause] we also told those companies, though, that they'd have to make some changes to compete, so we brought people together and set the first new fuel-mileage standards in more than 30 years. and that means fewer trips to the pump and less harmful pollution. and this plant has something to do with it, because i was just seeing some doors and some hoods made right here more lightweight, more efficient, saves on fuel economy. and that means your business is improved as well. everybody wins. that's also why i announced last week a new partnership between our top engineering schools, our most innovative manufacturers, and the federal government to get american products from the drawing board to the factory floor to the marketplace as quickly as possible. and today, i'm proud to announce that alcoa is joining that partnership.

[applause] the idea is to create jobs now, and to make sure america stays on the cutting edge of manufacturing for years to come. now, we also know that strengthening our manufacturing sector requires workers getting the skills and training they need. today, there are more than four job-seekers for every job opening in america. every one job, there are four folks looking for work. but when it comes to the high- tech fields, the opposite is true: businesses say they're having trouble finding enough skilled workers to fill the openings that they have. and so three weeks ago, we announced new commitments from businesses and universities to make it possible for 500,000 community college students half a million students -- to earn industry-accepted credentials for manufacturing jobs that companies across the

country are looking to fill. so basically what happens is the companies, they'll say to the community colleges, here's what we need. the community colleges will design a training program that certifies that if you get through that training program, and you're working hard, you are prepared and equipped to get that job. and so we're also making it easier for workers to get retrained and move up into better positions. now, these steps won't help solve every problem that we face. no matter what you may hear, there's no silver bullet to reverse a decade of economic challenges. we've had problems for 10 years now. it's not going to reverse overnight. but these steps will help us move forward. they'll help us grow our economy today, and they'll guarantee a better future for our children. i know these are difficult times.

and many of you probably have friends who are looking for work, or family members who are looking for work or are just getting by. and when that happens, sometimes it's tempting to turn cynical and to be doubtful about the future, and to start thinking maybe our best days are behind us. but that's not the america that i know. that's not the america i see here in the quads and in communities all across the country today. i see an america where people don't give up, where people don't quit. i see companies like alcoa where reinvention is a part of life. whatever the future may bring, i know you want to be a part of it. and that spirit has always been at the heart of our american story. you know, as i was walking in, your team talked about i guess a saying around alcoa, it says, "nobody is perfect, but a team

can be perfect. individuallyof us are perfect, but as a team, america can perfect ourselves. but we got to start working like a team. instead of having the kind of squabbling we see in washington all the time, everybody has got to start thinking together the way engineers and workers and the business side of alcoa thinks together. what's our market? what's the product we want to produce? how can we make it better? how can we make the plant safer? how can we cut costs? how can we retrain our workers? problem- solving all the time, that's what's made you successful. that's what will make america successful by adapting and innovating, but also thinking like a team, instead of turning on each other. and i promise you, if we continue to adapt and we

continue to innovate, and we work together to compete around the world, america will come back stronger than before. we will lead the way forward. and we will make the next century another great american century. so thank you very much, alcoa, for leading the way. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> a couple of live event to tell you about today on our companion network c-span 3. 10:30 a.m. eastern, a hearing on the impact of supreme court rulings on corporate behavior. business is before the senate judiciary committee are scheduled to include betty dukes, the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of more than a million

female employees of walmart. the court recently decided the employees did not have enough income and to pursue a national class action. later in the afternoon, at 3:30 p.m. eastern, the federal reserve board of governors meets to discuss debit card fee regulations. the senate recently voted not to delay fee caps as required in the dodd-frank regulation law. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls. live on "washington journal." 10:00 eastern, a hearing on data security and privacy. john brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security, talks about counterterrorism strategy is live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. that will be live at 2:30 p.m. eastern with a hearing on diplomatic security. and in about 45in