like these through our middle east partnership initiative. [applause] tonight is also a singular special honor for me to join with you in remembering three friends of ndi, three people i was lucky enough to call my friends as well. geraldine ferraro, a trail blazing pioneer who lived to the fullest her conviction that women belong at the heart of democracy. chalk manatt, a passion chairman of the democratic national committee, who understood that some things are too important to belong to any one party, and with his counterpart at the rnc , ,fahrenkopf, put together a

bipartisan coalition to found the national endowment of democracy. and of course the indomitable, unforgettable richard holbrooke. richard has many reasons why those of us here tonight applaud and remember him. he died just four days before the desperate act of a tunisian fruit vendor said the arab uprising in motion. and i often wonder what richard would have made of all that had happened since. i am sure he would have had a lot to say and even more that he wanted to do to promote the principles that we all cherish. so these three individuals are very worthy of the award's that you have granted them this evening. and what a year 2011 has been for freedom in the middle east and north africa.

we have seen what may well have been the first arab revolution for democracy, and in yemen people are demanding a transition to democracy that they deserve to see delivered and syrians are refusing to relent until they also can decide their own future. throughout the arab world this year, people have given each other courage. old fears have melted away and men and women have begun making their demands in broad daylight. they have given many of our diplomats coverage, too. and i want to single out someone who is here with us tonight. when our ambassador to syria was mobbed, assault and threatened just for meeting with peaceful protesters, he put his personal safety on the line to let the syrian people know that america stands -- stands with them. he said he was inspired by their

bravery. and as he drove into hama, a city under assault by asad's regime, the people of that city covered his car with flowers. please join me in giving our own warm welcome to ambassador robert ford and his wife and fellow foreign service officer, alison barkley. [applause] thanks to you, robert, and to you, alison, for your dedicated service to our country. now, in tunis, cairo, and a newly free tripoli, i have met people lifted by a sense that their futures actually do belong to them. in my travels across the region, i have heard joy, purpose, and newfound pride.

but i've also heard questions. i've heard skepticism about american motives and commitments, people wondering if, after decades of working with the governments of the region, america doesn't--in our heart of hearts--actually long for the old days. i've heard from activists who think we aren't pushing hard enough for democratic change, and i've heard from government officials who think we're pushing too hard. i've heard from people asking why our policies vary from country to country, and what would happen if elections bring to power parties we don't agree with or people who just don't like us very much. i've heard people asking america to solve all their problems and others wondering

whether we have any role to play at all. and beneath our excitement for the millions who are claiming the rights and freedoms we cherish, many americans are asking the same questions. tonight, i want to ask and answer a few of these tough questions. it's a fitting tribute to people like gerry ferraro and richard holbrooke and chuck manatt. they liked to pose difficult questions and then push us to answer them. and in richard's case, that meant even following me into a ladies' room in pakistan one time. as we live this history day by day, we approach these questions with a large dose of humility, because many of the choices ahead are, honestly, not ours to make. still, it's worth stepping back and doing our best to speak directly to what is on people's

minds. so let me start with one question i hear often: do we really believe that democratic change in the middle east and north africa is in america's interest? that is a totally fair question. after all, transitions are filled with uncertainty. they can be chaotic, unstable, even violent. and, even if they succeed, they are rarely linear, quick, or easy. as we saw in the balkans and again in iraq, rivalries between members of different religions, sects, and tribes can resurface and explode. toppling tyrants does not guarantee that democracy will follow, or that it will last. just ask the iranians who overthrew a dictator 32 years ago only to have their revolution hijacked by the extremists who have oppressed

them ever since. and even where democracy does takes hold, it is a safe bet that some of those elected will not embrace us or agree with our policies. and yet, as president obama said at the state department in may, "it will be the policy of the united states to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy. realbelieve that democratic change in the middle east and north africa is in the national interest of the united states. and here's why. we begin by rejecting the false choice between progress and stability. for years, dictators told their people they had to accept the autocrats they knew to avoid the extremists they feared.

and too often, we accepted that narrative ourselves. now, america did push for reform, but often not hard enough or publicly enough. and today, we recognize that the real choice is between reform and unrest. last january, i told arab leaders that the region's foundations were sinking into the sand. even if we didn't know exactly how or when the breaking point would come, it was clear that the status quo was unsustainable because of changes in demography and technology, high unemployment, endemic corruption and a lack of human rights and fundamental freedoms. after a year of revolutions broadcast on al jazeera into homes from rabat to riyadh, going back to the way things were in december 2010 isn't just undesirable.

it's impossible. the truth is that the greatest single source of instability in today's middle east is not the demand for change. it is the refusal to change. that is certainly true in syria, where a crackdown on small, peaceful protests drove thousands into the streets and thousands more over the borders. it is true in yemen, where president saleh has reneged repeatedly on his promises to transition to democracy and suppressed his people's rights and freedoms. and it is true in egypt. if--over time--the most powerful political force in egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, they will have planted the seeds for future unrest, and egyptians will have missed a historic

opportunity. and so will we, because democracies make for stronger and stabler partners. they trade more, innovate more, and fight less. they help divided societies to air and hopefully resolve their differences. they hold inept leaders accountable at the polls. they channel people's energies away from extremism and toward political and civic engagement. now, democracies do not always agree with us, and in the middle east and north africa they may disagree strongly with some of our policies. but at the end of the day, it is no coincidence that our closest allies--from britain to south korea--are democracies. now, we do work with many different governments to pursue our interests and to keep

americans safe--and certainly not all of them are democracies. but as the fall of hosni mubarak in egypt made clear, the enduring cooperation we seek will be difficult to sustain without democratic legitimacy and public consent. we cannot have one set of policies to advance security in the here-and-now and another to promote democracy in a long run that never quite arrives. so for all these reasons, as i said back in march, opening political systems, societies, and economies is not simply a matter of idealism. it is a strategic necessity. but we are not simply acting in our self-interest. americans believe that the desire for dignity and self- determination is universal--and we do try to act on that belief around the world. americans have fought and died

for these ideals. and when freedom gains ground anywhere, americans are inspired. so the risks posed by transitions will not keep us from pursuing positive change. but they do raise the stakes for getting it right. free, fair, and meaningful elections are essential--but they are not enough if they bring new autocrats to power or disenfranchise minorities. and any democracy that does not include half its population-- its women--is a contradiction in terms. durable democracies depend on strong civil societies, respect for the rule of law, independent institutions, free expression, and a free press. legitimate political parties cannot have a militia wing and a political wing. parties have to accept the results of free and fair elections.

and this is not just in the middle east. in liberia, the leading opposition party is making unsubstantiated charges of fraud and refusing to accept first round voting in which it came in second. and this is already having harmful consequences on the ground. we urge all parties in liberia to accept the will of the people in the next round of voting tomorrow. that is what democracy anywhere requires. and that brings me to my second question. why does america promote democracy one way in some countries and another way in others? well, the answer starts with a very practical point: situations vary dramatically from country to country. it would be foolish to take a one-size-fits-all approach and barrel forward regardless of circumstances on the ground. sometimes, as in libya, we can bring dozens of countries together to protect civilians

and help people liberate their country without a single american life lost. in other cases, to achieve that same goal, we would have to act alone, at a much greater cost, with far greater risks, and perhaps even with troops on the ground. but that's just part of the answer. our choices also reflect other interests in the region with a real impact on americans' lives--including our fight against al-qaida, defense of our allies, and a secure supply of energy. over time, a more democratic middle east and north africa can provide a more sustainable basis for addressing all three of those challenges. but there will be times when not all of our interests align. we work to align them, but that is just reality. as a country with many complex interests, we'll always have to walk and chew gum at the same time.

that is our challenge in a country like bahrain, which has been america's close friend and partner for decades. and yet, president obama and i have been frank, in public and in private, that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of bahrain's citizens and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. meaningful reform and equal treatment for all bahrainis are in bahrain's interest, in the region's interest, and in ours--while endless unrest benefits iran and extremists. the government has recognized the need for dialogue, reconciliation, and concrete reforms. and they have committed to provide access to human rights groups, to allow peaceful protest, and to ensure that those who cross lines in responding to civil unrest are held accountable.

king hamad called for an independent commission of inquiry, which will issue its report soon. and we do intend to hold the bahraini government to these commitments and to encourage the opposition to respond constructively to secure lasting reform. we also have candid conversations with others in the neighborhood, like saudi arabia--a country that is key to stability and peace -- about our view that democratic advancement is not just possible but a necessary part of preparing for the future. fundamentally, there is a right side of history. and we want to be on it. and--without exception--we want our partners in the region to reform so that they are on it as well. now, we don't expect countries to do this overnight, but without reforms, we are convinced their challenges will only grow. so it is in their interest to

begin now. these questions about our interests and consistency merge in a third difficult question: how will america respond if and when democracy brings to power people and parties we disagree with? we hear these questions most often when it comes to islamist religious parties. now, of course, i hasten to add that not all islamists are alike. turkey and iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. there are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations--hindu, christian, jewish, muslim--that respect the rules of democratic politics. the suggestion that faithful muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting,

dangerous, and wrong. they do it in this country every day. now, reasonable people can disagree on a lot, but there are things that all parties, religious and secular, must get right--not just for us to trust them, but most importantly for the people of the region and of the countries themselves to trust them to protect their hard-won rights. parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. in other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.

we applaud ndi for its work to arrive at a model code of conduct for political parties across the political spectrum and around the globe. we need to reinforce these norms and to hold people accountable for following them. in tunisia, an islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. to write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. and as they do, america will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because america respects the right of the tunisian people to choose their own leaders.

and so we move forward with clear convictions. parties and candidates must respect the rules of democracy, to take part in elections, and hold elective office. and no one has the right to use the trappings of democracy to deny the rights and security of others. people throughout the region worry about this prospect, and so do we. nobody wants another iran. nobody wants to see political parties with military wings and militant foreign policies gain influence. when members of any group seek to oppress their fellow citizens or undermine core democratic principles, we will stand on the side of the people who push back to defend their democracy. and that brings me to my next question: what is america's role in the arab spring? these revolutions are not ours. they are not by us, for us, or

against us, but we do have a role. we have the resources, capabilities, and expertise to support those who seek peaceful, meaningful, democratic reform. and with so much that can go wrong, and so much that can go right, support for emerging arab democracies is an investment we cannot afford not to make. now, of course, we have to be smart in how we go about it. for example, as tens of millions of young people enter the job market each year, we recognize that the arab political awakening must also deliver an economic awakening. and we are working to help societies create jobs to ensure that it does. we are promoting trade, investment, regional integration, entrepreneurship, and economic reforms. we are helping societies fight

corruption and replace the old politics of patronage with a new focus on economic empowerment and opportunity. and we are working with congress on debt relief for egypt and loan guarantees for tunisia so that these countries can invest in their own futures. we also have real expertise to offer as a democracy, including the wisdom that ndi has gleaned from decades of working around the globe to support democratic transitions. democracies, after all, aren't born knowing how to run themselves. in a country like libya, qadhafi spent 42 years hollowing out every part of his government not connected to oil or to keeping him in power. under the libyan penal code, simply joining an ngo could be punishable by death. when i traveled last month to libya, the students i met at

tripoli university had all sorts of practical, even technical, questions: how do you form a political party? how do you ensure women's participation in government institutions? what recommendations do you have for citizens in a democracy? these are questions ndi and its kindred organizations, many of whom are represented here tonight, are uniquely qualified to help new democracies answer. ndi has earned a lot of praise for this work, but also a lot of pushback that stretches far beyond the arab world. in part, this resistance comes from misconceptions about what our support for democracy does and does not include. the united states does not fund political candidates or political parties. we do offer training to parties and candidates committed to democracy. we do not try to shift outcomes

or impose an american model. we do support election commissions, as well as nongovernmental election monitors, to ensure free and fair balloting. we help watchdog groups learn their trade. we help groups find the tools to exercise their rights to free expression and assembly, online and off. and of course we support civil society, the lifeblood of democratic politics. but in part, the pushback comes from autocrats around the world wondering if the next tahrir square will be their capital square, and some are cracking down when they should be opening up. groups like ndi are no strangers to pressure, and neither are the brave local groups you partner with. and i want you to know that as the pressure on you increases, our support will not waver. and i want to offer a special

word of thanks for ndi's efforts to empower women across the middle east and beyond. just last week, the world economic forum released a report on the remarkable benefits countries see when they bridge the social, economic, and political gap separating women from men, and helping them get there is a priority for the state department and for me personally. graduates of ndi training programs designed to help women run for office now sit in local councils and parliaments from morocco to kuwait. but we all know a great deal of work lies ahead to help all people, women and men, find justice and opportunity as full participants in new democratic societies. along with our economic and technical help, america will also use our presence, influence, and global leadership to support change. and later this week, i am issuing new policy guidance to our embassies across the region

to structure our efforts. in tunisia, egypt, and libya, we are working to help citizens safeguard the principles of democracy. that means supporting the forces of reconciliation rather than retribution. it means defending freedom of expression when bloggers are arrested for criticizing public officials. it means standing up for tolerance when state-run television fans sectarian tensions. and it means that when unelected authorities say they want to be out of the business of governing, we will look to them to lay out a clear roadmap and urge them to abide by it. where countries are making gradual reforms, we have frank conversations and urge them to move faster. it's good to hold multi-party elections and allow women to take part. it's better when those elections are meaningful and parliaments have real powers to improve people's lives. change needs to be tangible and

real. when autocrats tell us the transition to democracy will take time, we answer, "well, then let's get started. " and those leaders trying to hold back the future at the point of a gun should know their days are numbered. as syrians gather to celebrate a sacred holiday, their government continues to shoot people in the streets. in the week since bashar al- asad said he accepted the terms of an arab league peace plan to protect syrian civilians, he has systematically violated each of its basic requirements. he has not released all detainees. he has not allowed free and unfettered access to journalists or arab league monitors. he has not withdrawn all armed forces from populated areas. and he has certainly not stopped all acts of violence. in fact, the regime has increased violence against civilians in places like the city of homs.

now, asad may be able to delay change. but he cannot deny his people's legitimate demands indefinitely. he must step down; and until he does, america and the international community will continue to increase pressure on him and his brutal regime. and for all of iran's bluster, there is no country in the middle east where the gulf between rulers and ruled is greater. when iran claims to support democracy abroad, then kills peaceful protestors in the streets of tehran, its hypocrisy is breathtaking and plain to the people of the region. and there is one last question that i'm asked, in one form or another, all the time: what about the rights and aspirations of the palestinians? israelis and palestinians are not immune to the profound changes sweeping the region. and make no mistake, president obama and i believe that the

palestinian people--just like their arab neighbors, just like israelis, just like us--deserve dignity, liberty, and the right to decide their own future. they deserve an independent, democratic palestinian state of their own, alongside a secure jewish democracy next door. and we know from decades in the diplomatic trenches that the only way to get there is through a negotiated peace--a peace we work every day to achieve, despite all the setbacks. of course, we understand that israel faces risks in a changing region--just as it did before the arab spring began. and it will remain an american priority to ensure that all parties honor the peace treaties they have signed and commitments they have made. and we will always help israel defend itself.

we will address threats to regional peace whether they come from dictatorships or democracies. but it would be shortsighted to think either side can simply put peacemaking on hold until the current upheaval is done. >> the truth is the stalemate is one more status quo in the middle east that cannot be sustained. this brings me to my left, and perhaps most important point of all. for all of the hard questions i have asked and tried to answer on behalf of the united states, the most consequential questions of all are those the people and leaders of the region will have to answer for themselves, because ultimately it is up to them to resist the calls of

demagogues, to build coalitions, to keep faith in the system, even when they lose at the polls, and protect the individuals and institutions that ultimately will protect them. every democracy has to guard against those who would hijack its freedom for it noble ends. our founders and every generation since have fought to prevent that from happening here. the founding fathers and mothers of arab revolution must do the same. nobody there's a greater responsibility for what happens -- bears a greater responsibility for what happens next. when bill burns addressed the national endowment for democracy over the summer he recounted the story of an egyptian teenager who told her father that she wanted to spend her life bringing democracy to egypt. good, her father said, because

then you will always have a job. [laughter] >> we should never fall prey to the belief that human beings anywhere are not ready for freedom. in the 1970's, people said latin america and east asia were not ready. the 1980's began proving them wrong. in the 1980's it was african soil where democracy supposedly could not grow, and the 1990's started proving them wrong. until this year some people said arabs do not want democracy. well, starting in 2011, that, too, is being proved wrong. and, it proved that egyptian father right, because we also have a job to do. we have to keep at it, keep asking the tough questions, be honest with ourselves and each other about the answers we

offer, and we can not wavered in our commitments to help the people of the middle east and north africa realize their own god-given potential, and the dreams they risked so much to make real. on this journey they have begun, the united states will be their partner. of the many tools at our disposal, national endowment, ndi and all of the family of organizations that were created three decades ago to help people make this journey successfully will be right there. i heard madeleine say when she introduced me that i defend ndi. well i do, and i also defend iri. i defined those organizations

that we have created, that the american taxpayers pay for who try to do what needs to be done to translate their rhetoric and the calls for democracy into reality, stop-buy-stops. we have to be reminded from time-to-time that it truly is, or at least can seem to be a foreign language. like some of you, i have met with a young people that started these revolutions, and they are still passionate, but, perhaps, not clear about what it takes to translate that passion into reality within a political system. so, there are going to be a lot of bumps along this road, but far better that we travel this path, that we do what we can to make sure that our ideals and

values, our belief and experience with democracy are shared widely and well. it is an exciting time. it is an uncertain time, but it is a good time for the united states of america to be standing for freedom and democracy, and i thank you all for making that journey possible. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have more now about the arab spring. it was the focus of the panel discussion hosted by the national democratic institute yesterday.

not on albright took place -- took part -- madeleine albright took part. the aspen institute president and ceo served as the moderator. >> good evening, and welcome to the ronald reagan building international trade center. my name is john drew. i am president and ceo of this facility, on behalf of the general services administration. i would like to take this opportunity to welcome today's esteemed speakers, secretary all right, mr. isaacson, and members of the diplomatic, business, government and development committees. a lot of our special events and hospitality services -- we pride ourselves on being an active hub for u.s. trade and international policy, national export initiatives, and a form of diverse programming.

in addition, our office of trade promotion works to fulfill the mandates of the trade center by collaborating with an extended network of public and private sector organizations. our partners include government agencies, chambers of commerce, and think tanks that can be in a it rich mixture, such as this evening's program. the goal is to foster international dialogue, generate business opportunities, and educate the public. we have had the great pleasure of working with the national democratic institute, a host of tonight's program. the ndi works with local partners to strengthen political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, and promote citizen participation, openness, and accountability in government.

we would like to thank them for assembling this prestigious panel this evening. we look forward to hearing from the speakers as the offer insight and analysis on the fast-moving changes taking place in the arab world. i have the great pleasure to introduce our first speaker, mr. walter isaacson, the president and ceo of the aspen institute, a nonpartisan educational and policy-focused organization. in addition, mr. isaacson has been chairman and ceo of cnn, managing editor of "time magazine," and the author of many books and biographies, including the newly released biography of the great steve jobs. it is my pleasure to introduce mr. walter isaacson. >> thank you very much, and thank you for having us in your

great facility. we appreciate it. i will introduce the people on stage. you have their biographies. atia lawgali from libya is on my left. sheikh mohammed abu luhoum is from yemen. a pleasure to have you here. dr. amal habib al yusuf is from bahrain. mohammad al abdallah, from syria, welcome. rafat al akhalim, from yemen, thank you for being with us. dr. muneera fakhro from bahrain. and dr. azza kamel, from egypt. before we start, a person who needs no introduction in this building. i will just say madeleine albright embodies the notion of values and democracy in interwoven with ideals and interested in creating great

foreign policy. i would like to offer the former secretary a chance to say a few words. >> thank you all for being here and having us at this wonderful location. i am delighted that we are able to have this particular panel. ndi has been involved in all the countries that now make up the arabs praying for about 15 years. we are very proud of the work we have done. what is most important and i think will come out in the discussion here is that these are home-grown changes that come from the people in the region. this is not an imposed democracy, or anything like that. ndi has responded to the desires of the people to figure

out what organizations work in terms of transition, how to organize political parties, how to train. i am proud of what we have done, but am delighted to be on stage with people that have really been out there, bringing change to the countries where they are from. i have heard through a number -- i have worked through a number of major changes in my life. i am a child of world war ii, and saw the cold war and the end of the cold war. the arab spring is a measure that is equal to the fall of the berlin wall in the amount of change it will bring in our world. i am delighted to be here. i would like to think the state apartment -- think the state department and u.s. aid for standing up for us in a number of places where life is confident it -- is complicated. i thank you very much and look forward to a discussion. >> let me start with you, mr.

atia lawgali . you are the minister of culture in the transitional government in libya. can you talk about what you think is going to happen next? >> an easy question. [laughter] first, i would like to say i am delighted to be here. meeting you and talking to you would have been unthinkable a year ago. actually, it would have been a crime in the previous regime. thanks to ndi, thanks to this wonderful crowd, and thanks to the courageous youth of libya who made my presence here is a possibility. the libyan society has gone through a lot of change in the last few months, where forces -- where new forces were unleashed.

the men and women together have made this revolution possible. what we are witnessing now in libya is a departure from a history of oppression that has lasted for centuries in that area. this revolution was led by people who were not in ideologically inclined, who are regular people like you and me, fighting for quality of life. to answer your question, i would say we are moving toward a democratic society. we are moving toward an election. we are going to have, in eight months, a constitutional assembly where we will write a

constitution and have elections, and hopefully we will have a democratic state. >> what worries you and what excites you about the prospects ahead? >> what excites me a lot -- i think we have a chance to change the history of libya, and probably the history of the region. i think there is great opportunities in libya, where you have the youth that is full of energy, of aspiration, people who want to have the rule of law, want to have a constitutional system. not only that, but also there is a drive to adopt a new value system. i think what we are going to see in libya is a new paradigm. we saw the fall of a model that

had existed for about 70 years in that region, the model that is based on one ruler, no political parties, no freedom of speech, no free press. that model has disappeared now, and i think forever. so a lot of things excite me. what worries me is that the transition is a very short one. we have many tasks to take care of during this time. we have to rebuild our police force, our army. we have to write our constitution. we have to have elections. there are so many tasks ahead of us, and time is short. but i am hopeful, and i am optimistic. >> thank you. scheck mohammad, you helped form the justice and building party.

tell us how you got there and with president saleh's return what that will mean for yemen. >> thank you very much. and i do think -- thank nci. in the arab world, i think this is the greatest moment we have lived in the last 70 years. i do not think we have ever seen a change in the arab world like we are seeing today. you are seeing the masses aroused, and not the military or islamists, but everybody. what you are seeing in yemen, you see the women's side by side with the men, their brothers, giving their lives. they are losing their lives every day. i think yemen is one of the

country's where the per-capita income is between 400, $500 a year. up north, you are talking about $50,000 a year. i think human needs that change. either the leader leaves peacefully or -- you have seen that change in libya. i hope yemen will not reach the stage of angry change. we would like to see a peaceful outcome on human. reconciliation and forgiveness is the method of the change. this is one of the things we are trying to focus. we want to add them to the system and let them feel the change is not focused. everybody will benefit.

we would like to see, like my colleague said, and then the dictators. i think the revolution will put an end to dictators, and at the same time i think, radicals will not have a free movement, as they used to have in the past. i think this is a great time for yemen and the arab world. >> what the ec as the future for democratic elections over the last year? >> right now in yemen, we have the growth council initiative, which has been endorsed by the u.s. and international community. this is a good thing for yemen. what is astonishing about these

initiatives is the peace initiative. the opposition, including us, said we were happy to work with the peace initiative. we were stuck with the president and his group. we have been on and off for the past six months. is he going to sign? is he not going to sign next two weeks ago, we said sun the initiative -- signed the initiative and let us move forward. i think there is a model from the international community to put pressure on the president and let us move forward with a peaceful transfer of power. this is one of the things we will focus at. we would like to see a peaceful transfer of power. if you look at yemen, with a population of about 25 million, we are insisting this will be a peaceful change. this is where we hope it will lead. >> moving to bahrain, which in some places is one of the toughest problems for outsiders to sort through, political

unrest is now going again. what do you see as the likely future for the transition of this movement, and what you see the role of groups like ndi being in such a transition? >> first of all, thank you for giving us an opportunity to talk here and highlight bahrain, which has been a hot topic since this started. the special thing about the rain -- bahrain is that this is a strategic ally of the united states. that might be the first thing you think, for many people. there are giants somehow in the world, along with saudi arabia. the situation is more or less the same as it started in february and march. it is far from normal.

as you said, unrest is still there. the protests are still there on a nightly basis. there are rallies by the opposition on a weekly basis. the 14 february youth are still on the street, demanding for their rights. now, everybody in bahrain are excited and are waiting for the ici report, the commission appointed by the king to investigate the human rights violations that occurred in february and march, and later on. we think it might be the steps where we can talk about how to move forward. we can see no solution for what is happening in bahrain other than a meaningful and genuine

dialogue between the opposition and the government to draw the road map of how to move forward. the opposition made themselves very clear in a document. they made a joint document representing most of the opposition parties in bahrain, and they made their demands very clear. we demand reform of the system and not supporting overthrowing the regime. we are demanding a constitutional monarchy and elected government, parliament, an independent judiciary system, and a police system in the country. it is very clear. we are hoping that after the bici report we can build confidence again and trust between us and the government, and there is only support to

engage in a genuine and meaningful dialogue. to do that, we need international support, especially from our friends and strategic allies, the united states, and use its government to pressure them more to go toward the phone. the september election -- elections >> the valid? >> actually, no. the situation has been the same. there was no change. there was no constitutional reform. the opposition was demanding four a single chamber of

parliament. what you have now is to chambers. one is nominated by the king, with full authorities and regulatory authority. the other chamber is elected, but the problem is that if they want -- it is uneven distribution of the electoral district. it is the same. nothing has been changed. moreover, the human rights violations are going on. the street is angry about the government. we have these issues that made the opposition think they are not very optimistic that they can do any change to the current parliament or the current system. they boycotted the election. so now parliament is not representative of nearly half of the population, if not more. >> moving to syria, you have been a great journalist and now

a blocker -- blogger, using various forms of new media. what role the see the digital media playing in what can happen in syria? >> the digital media made a key role in what is happening in the country. the syrian government from the first week blocked the international media to enter syria to report about what is happening. all the news we got is from youtube videos that citizen journalists have been filming, using their cell phones. there have been a lot of citizens contributing to those specific pages to send as much and as accurate as possible, comprehensively cover in what is happening. without this technology, we would be in big trouble, because the government would be able to block the information. that is why the syrian

government relying on sophistic internet capability to arrest activists. >> what do you see happening in syrian next? >> this is a hard question, because the syrian government has been smart in the way they are cracking down on people. they have been acting similar to gaddafi, but using the arabic language. gaddafi was stupid to say "i am going to kill them all and hang them like crabs." the syrians say, "we are going to do this and that" and use the military to kill people. reform is not happening and the government is not one to take initiatives to reform anything. no one in the revolution feels the revenge of the government is going to be stopped. the price of continuing is less than the price of stopping now. people are willing to go to the

street, protest, and died. if the revolution is stopped, the government will have 40 more years of oppression. the syrian government is very aware of the international community has limited options in syria. it is complicated. there are lots of factors there, and nobody can do a military intervention similar to libya. it has been smart in the way of killing people, but not killing enough people to have the international community act quickly. it is not allowed to commit genocide or crimes against humanity, so it is killing enough people to come down the revolution without bringing international intervention. i think the u.s. ambassador in syria for the great work he has been doing in syria. he has been a witness.

he went to a lot of places. he went to hama. he spoke with the actors -- victims of torture. the role of the international community in surgery at is limited. i think the approach the maximum of the sanctions that can do with the syrian regime. they are suffering financially. a lot of people are in trouble from the first row of the government. but that is not going to topple the government. as for the peaceful protesters, by chanting and going to protests, that is what is going to topple the government. it is a very scary thing. they are pushing things more and more. the more the international community helps syrians and protect them, the more serious is going to take arms against themselves, and that is scary. the maximum turkey can do is protect the border, to do a safe zone where detectors -- defectors from the army can go.

but the turkish government has been saying that taking people without harming people -- without harming -- arming people is useful -- it is not useful, but that would start a bloodbath. >> homs seems to be the center of the unrest, but we cannot get much information out. >> the protests in and -- the military solution, every time the bomb indiscriminately, killing lots of people. they are attacking hospitals, kidnapping wounded people. people keep protesting. it is amazing how the people of

homs every night protest and dance and sing. homs is famous as the drought -- as the joke capital of syria as well. lots of jokes come from homs. a lot of amazing stories. when the government starts accusing them of being armed, the protesters responded in a funny way. the have okra as a bullet and the part of it and throw it at the tank. but the defectors have been higher than in other areas. >> will you explain to us what the role of yemen is? >> sure. >> what we have been working on

for the past two years is trying to get used to engage in public policy and increase it useful inclusion in yemen. since the revolution started in february, we have been trying to build the capacity of the youth movement and to make the more articulate in their demands -- to make them more particulate in their demands. then we will come up with the appropriate structures to work with youth movements in different parts of the country. also, we are trying to advocate that the spirit in yemen should be one of mass inclusion, particularly as two-thirds of the population in yemen is below the age of 35.

they are a majority, not a minority group. if the coming period does not provide youth with the channels and the forum to be part of the constitutional reform, election laws, then really the revolution did not get away from the old regime, which was a bunch of the lead on both sides -- elites on both sides. we've been advocating for more inclusion in the process. we're doing a lot of training with yout movementh in terms of -- as i mentioned, in albania, being part of the process. >> one of the questions about the arabs spring -- arab spring

whether these are separate movements or there is a cohesion. do you see from the viewpoint of youth that there is a relationship through all these movements? >> we are using and social media such as facebook. there's a lot of communication going on. one of the friday's, for example -- it was arranged by youth. >> and on what social networking platform was arranged? >> facebook mainly. from a practical point of view, there have been a lot of visits from yemen youth, sharing

experiences and all that. there have been a lot of connections, for sure. not necessarily one big cohesive network, but in terms of having the same aspirations and ideas for a better future. >> would it have been harder without facebook? >> yes, it would have been impossible without the new technologies. that makes it much easier. there are a lot of groups out there -- people for youth from syria, yemen, egypt -- all sharing this. >> you were a candidate in the bahrain elections? >> yes. >> and you also have written about the role of gender and women in damascus.

tell us about where you think women have been in this arab spring. >> women have consisted of about half of those demonstrating. in bahrain, many of the leaders were women. >> let's start with bahrain. the plight of women has been particularly interesting there. >> it is part of the arab world, but it is not a revolution, because that segment of society are not participating. mainly, the uprising was shi'a. but it does not mean this is wrong or right. some were minority in member.

some were, you know, pro- government mainly. i have written a paper on the uprising. if anyone needs to have a copy -- >> great. >> second, arab women, the oppressed of the population all over the arab world. and that is why many of them joined. and you will see in bahrain, many women joined the uprising. and the women were shi'a, as i mentioned before. >> in some senses, there is

solidarity among the use of different countries. do you feel that way about women? -- in some senses, there is solidarity among the youth of different countries. >> i do. the youth, the -- they used the facebook, as you mentioned. most of them, they have combined work together. that are working together, men and women. they are two-thirds of the population. >> you, too, have written all lots about women's issues, especially in egypt -- and to

you founded the women's research center in egypt. explain the role you see it playing in egypt. >> there are many women's organizations that have worked and push to advocate their march and starting against violence against women. the government issued some -- after this is a big movement in egypt. there are many feminist organizations working very hard ,o focus in women's rights

culture, not social -- culture, social. also, the government issues the quarter for women. unfortunately, the national party has used this for their interests. after the revolution, you know, not only in egypt this is no difference between educated women were illiterate women -- were illiterate women. and all together.

they want only one thing, to let the regime step down. after a few days, after mubarak stepped down, we found our muslim brothers want women on their own, and also the government did not listen to women and did not choose women to be in the cabinet. only one woman in the cabinet, because putting any woman in the institution committee in the beginning, and they did not involve women as governors and they say that they are afraid

that women and youth are tired when used and women made the revolution. -- youth and women may be a revolution. it should be the revolution. if we forget that, we struggle for many, many years as women activists, as women's organizations, and now we work as a coalition from syria with the human rights organizations, also, to advocate and to try to

go through the next election. it puts women in -- and this is very bad. it is 2% women only. >> i think you've heard the optimistic side of the storied. there is another side -- we should just focus on human for example. one of the things that comes to mind, what will happen to fighting, all these african groups, what will happen to the interest of the region and the international community? again, when we talk about changing yemen, we are not talking about settling scores.

that is why we should be assured -- when you fight at -- when you fight in gaza, you cannot use the same methods. i think a new government in yemen would work seriously, so this is something not to worry about. when it comes to the region, especially saudi arabia, change or revolution in human does not mean it will move over to saudi arabia. -- changer revolution in yemen does not mean it will move over to saudi arabia. we look to the saudis as leaders. this is so -- this is something we hope the u.s. can work with us on. another revolution will succeed.

and very soon. but at what cost? a high cost of loss of life. >> i just want to highlight this issue. the 6:00 a.m. issue. >> yes that's correct it started a popular demand for rights. sunnily both shi'a and worked together. we both share the same dem ands. the first political detainee --

he gave a speech in the disappearance on the same night. afterwards he was found to be arrested and kept incommunicado. and then we have the president of society, the secular society, and he is paying attention, so smart. , but the problem is -- but the problem is we are pushing towards the problem on both sides. >> pushing towards? >> what happened is the media, the newspapers and tv channels propaganda and'a propaganda.n

they do this for other reasons. things like revenge against iran and whatever. on the other side, there is an expression, the violence against shi'a. so we have two extremes in bahrain now. and they have the louder voice now, the prominent voices. it is not through oppression, but through real reform.

that is the first goal. sunni.y shi'a, but also >> what you are saying, too, the reform movement, when successful, has been able to heal the sectarian divide that has been abused by regimes in the past? >> exactly. >> secretary all right? -- albright? >> i have maintain that this is really quite a different issue, but one of the things i find interesting -- the dissidents and be very few people in central and eastern europe wanted a lack of western attention. they saw that as a kind of protection. the question is, to what extent

do you want to have "this is not a western story." is this are harmful in terms of what the international community should be doing is specifically? >> i think it is important specifically if they want the attention. in the media is a very clear example. in syria, the government's isolated and let them in, and there were hoping the people would attack him, and people looked on him with a badge of honor. we really need more and to be in baltimore, to help people and to protect them. -- we really need to be more involved, to help people and to protect them. again, it is the comments from secretary clinton in august,

saying, we do not want to legitimize the revolution. if you watch what does happen in egypt, it is really fascinated -- it is really fascinating. witnessed osama bin laden killed. i remember many danish video came out, and now we witness a solemn bin laden killing with no reaction. -- osama bin laden killing with no reaction. they know who the real enemy is. they are not the west and the western governments. no. the government that is birds -- that is preventing them from practicing their rights.

we have all heard that mubarak is an agent for the west and sa leh. you know what, when the time comes -- the u.s. has some influence to get them to quit and to not to use their army. >> division of the west has been great at some point. people in the middle east are demanding more protection. >> that is a good point. >> yes, you know, the controlled media, all the media in bahrain is controlled. they are attacking the west.

it confirms what iran -- against bahrain and against the gulf. they are looking to our western help, the u.s. and the you e.u. they did a great job in bahrain. that were helping and training people about democracy. that is why ndi was welcomed in bahrain. something else -- i would like to speak about the future.

where are we going? in bahrain, it is not a revolution. is not changing the structure of the government. is enacting reforms. -- it is enacting reforms. that is where we are different. our region is different than the rest. it is difference in a way -- we're not going to topple the system. we just need reforms. and that is why, where are we going? that is the question now. >> i just want to add my

colleague said we do not need any arms, western troops. what is specific about bahrain, would like to see this reflect on our progress. we don't want it to seem the other way around. we would like a french ship to be -- our friendship to be the foundation for more success. >> rather than being penalized for being a strategic ally? >> the tanks cracked down on the revolution -- >> [unintelligible]

>> that goes back to the standards of the u.s. they had a good relationship with mubarak. it is the question of the muslim massacre in been gauzy -- benghazi in 1996. >> i do not speak for anyone but myself. i think it shows the difficulties of being consistent. we're very closely linked with the saudis. our general relationship is with all the rest of you, and there is always the saudi reform hope that could take place through king abdullah. i think the u.s. is in a very tough situation. it does look like we care about one thing and not another.

i do think people are uncomfortable, but it is a pragmatic position. one of the things i always found it hard when i was speaking for the u.s. was when are we idealistic and when are we realistic? i always thought it was a false dichotomy, mainly because i did not know what i was. [laughter] but pragmatically, this is a very difficult problem. what we hope is that the saudis will see the value of reform themselves and will not try to impose their will on bahrain. but that is the hardest question. that is the basis of what you would expect from the u.s. there has been the sense that this is your story. but this is not a western story. and there was the need to support, but not to try to figure out -- i think that is the most difficult question.

and also for syria. people say, why are we doing the same as syria? and i hate to say this. there are enough people in the government to tell you, but consistency is one of the most difficult parts of foriegn policy. >> i would like for us to question where can you carry the american flag, walk around, people will cheer and smile at you? libya. [laughter] benghazi in particular, yes. but all of libya. and there are reasons for that. there is the belief -- if we may

say. and a belief in libya in particular there is a chance to create a model, a model of cooperation. a model that can be successful for democracy and human rights. and let me assure you, libya is not going to be a financial burden on anybody. we need knowledge. we need skilled. -- skill. but the enthusiasm, that desire -- this is a chance that should be graphed, should be taken by everybody. so we all will enhance the cause

of democracy by creating this new model, which might encourage others to follow. >> one of the interesting things to hear you ask -- the questions for to nietzsche -- for tunisia, and the international community always has his question about who is coming next. bay feel like nothing is coming. they want an election. -- they feel like nothing is coming. this question, to my knowledge, the extremists and the military people of syria, i can imagine how they think.

they have never been in power. no one has really tried them or assisted them. they use a very bad example to judge how the islamists would be at governing, like hamas. such people are not in tunsisia. -- tunisia. they want the election. as a point, they are going to hear challenges by the community, by the society. they are going to achieve this at some point, so they become regular political parties.

i think that is what secretary clinton was very smart in saying if they want to change, they want to change a. >> secretary clinton will be giving a major policy address tonight. >> i think that the it is very difficult to say this after nine months or 10 months. the revolution is stable and finished. we have to speak about all of the arab countries. we create a new shape for all of the arab world's.

this is not easy. i think that it is important that the arab people unite together. before, this was between the governments and not between the people. the people should make the revolution and be patient.

we will take a step and see what happens. we will be very involved with the healing. >> this is a very important question. there are many people who think that the only way to get help is from the west or the u.s. and i don't know if that is the right thing to do. in the case of yemen, what we need is the humanitarian subsistence and that is not

something that is usually highlighted. the humanitarian situation in yemen is deteriorating very fast. a lot of people are lacking the basic food and water and this is increasing every day. what the international community did is cut their funding and the world bank cut their funding. this is making the situation even worse. this is an important aspect. the other aspect are the arms deals. although the u.s. is helping the revolution in general, --

human rights violations, these are 8 basic global -- a basic global right that people cannot be killed. those are the three areas. this is our story and it it is up to us to write it and come up with the solution. >> i will say that it is such a historic shame that right at this moment when there is so much western help and need for engagement economically that western economies both in europe and the u.s., are having to do such fiscal cutbacks. i fear to think what it had been like if we had refused to do the marshall plan because we were

trying to get our fiscal house in order. i don't think that we can do that. this is a time in which humanitarian aid and other forms of aid are very difficult. >> i think that this is a very unique time and we have come a long way. if you look at the u.s. policy and international community policy, and you take iraq and afghanistan and you take the other side, i think it's a direct involvement with the u.s. and the connections with the people is better than only getting connected to individual leaders. the final point is about the islamist. one of the important things

weather in yemen, syria, egypt, they look at the turkish model as an encouraging model. this is something that we would like to see engage in the process. the new middle east would be possible and we would like to see more understanding of civilization. this is a great opportunity and a great time. >> thank you so much. >> i would like to thank everyone because i think this has been a great panel and terms of learning what is going on. i am very encouraged by the fact that you all know that this will take a long time. the hard people is getting people into a governance. i think that this has been

covered wrong as though this was some kind of time frame spectator sport when in fact it is a long process. we need to be prepared to be as helpful as we can. to listen to and know that we are involved in something that will take time. my great admiration for all of you and living this and doing it in very difficult circumstances. your patience and desire for a governance and moving to some kind of system of where the people have the opportunity to have their voices heard is to me testament to the fact that i have believe my entire life which is that we're all the same and we all want to live in a system of government that listens to our voices and we participate in one form or another.

we know that this is a process that takes quite a long time. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you all very much. >> this shows we're doing and why it is and so important. thank you to our panelists for their comments. if we could ask the audience to remain seated until our speakers have a moment to depart their room, we would appreciate it. thank you for joining us. we hope you have a fantastic evening. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> herman cain will be holding a press conference this afternoon at 5:00 eastern to set the record straight regarding sexual harassment allegations. we will have live here on c-span and it is also going to air on c-span radio. several states are holding elections. oregon is holding a primary. kentucky and mississippi are

electing new governors. mississippi will vote on a human life and whether it begins at conception and ohio is voting on whether to block union rights. >> extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the presidential election to lyndon johnson but barry goldwater's ideas galvanized the conservative movement. he is featured this week on the c-span series "the contenders." >> the cbs chief news

correspondent discussed last night what it is like to report form war zone, especially how they are concerned with personal safety. she was a salted last month -- last year. this is part of the series, hosted by a cbs correspondent and hosted by the national press club. >> hello and welcome. we are joined by lara logan is

a foreign affairs correspondent for cbs. after working for a few newspapers in south africa, where she was born, she joined reuters television before freelancing. in 2002, after reporting for cbs radio news, she joined the network itself. her career has skyrocketed. first-come reporting on the war in iraq. in 2006, she was named the chief foreign correspondent for cbs and a regular contributor to "60 minutes." during the egyptian revolution, she was brutally assaulted and beaten while covering the story but she bounced right back and along the way winning many

prizes and the admiration and respect of her colleagues. lara logan, welcome. a pleasure to have you here. tell us about the beginning of the lara logan story. >> the first thing that i understood was the injustice of apartheid. >> this was the official policy of the south african government which separate whites and blacks. >> i remember standing with the grocery store. this was an old black man standing at the counter with a

loaf of bread and everyone kept going past him and kept asking my father, why. when we got to the front, my father would not let us pay for the candy. it was that kind of thing around with that, that there was something wrong. this taught me to stand up for what was wrong. i got a job for a local newspaper i used to go in with a photographer. i asked him to take with me at night -- take me with him at night. really, i knew there was a whole world that the governments were not allowed us to see and ended up on the front lines for a british tv station. no one else was reporting from

the front line. then, all of those articles were written about this. i had just began my journalism career. >> you have been associated with being a war correspondent. how would you defined being a war correspondent? what are the qualities that you need? >> there is something true about people who do this kind of work. if you are motivated by being on television, then you are not their parent to your not there on the edge, the razor's edge of the true side of the war. not just hundreds of people the half gone into baghdad, i am

talking about those who stayed when the city was under attack. we are motivated by the same thing, a passion for and a belief in being an observer to history. one of the most fundamental tenets of any democracy, how can your government do anything in your name if you are not there to witness it and decide where you stand? >> you feel like you are a citizen of united states -- that you were there for the citizens of the united states? >> i spent time with people in the war in and go look, no one cared about that war. reuters would go in once every few months, that would be the only time that we did that. most people don't care about what happened in an goal of but

i care. i did it because i believed it. >> was there ever a role model that you looked up to as a war correspondent? >> there are some many people that i respected but it never wanted to be everyone else, i always wanted to be my own person. i respected what was done by cnn in the first gulf war those that i really respected the most for those in the trenches with me. >> do you mean the reporters or the soldiers? >> side-by-side, the reporters. in the fight against apartheid, it was not like many places, people cared about the story. people were there because they believed that this was wrong.

if we could expose was happy to , it it could change. great journalists from all over the world would come to work. that is to taught me my craft. if you could find a way to get your tape in and out of that town ship and that would risk everything. we would put it in our mattresses and put it -- we would hide it in our mattresses from the secret police. there was something great in what we're doing. >> as the chief foreign affairs correspondent, you have been called upon to cover the stories that not only mean war but some diplomacy or state department gobbledygook. >> that's a good word. >> how do you see yourself?

do you see yourself more comfortable doing the war? >> yes, without question. this requires more. it asks you to figure out who you are and what is truly important. i would give up a toilet and a hot meal and a bed and the day for a story that is real. i cannot stand to dabble in things that aren't real. you argue that the president of this country become a sitting there making a decision about war and peace, are doing something that is a burning issue? >> the question. this just does not burn in me. i cannot stand people that lie

to you all of the time or they hide what they say in so much diplomatic speak to you spend hours trying to work out what the hell they just told you. >> do you think they were straight talker is? >> not always but i have become very adept as sorting out the talking points from what is real. over the years, i have acquired a reputation for have been some depth of knowledge. i have to be quite honest, when you are dealing with those people, they don't really mind when you call them out on it, they kind of expect it. when you call it politician out, they don't appreciate it. >> let's talk about indebted to journalism -- embedded

journalism. you've spoken about the on written rules of embedded journalism. >> i don't think that this applies. >> well, that is a quote from you. i would like you to tell us what you think those rules are? >> those applied to anything. they are rules of integrity. that is what i am talking about. if you are a justice reporter, there is a certain amount of trust that is needed in any of the situations. if a lawyer or priest insists that you could not report on this because you would jeopardize this case. very often, reporters make that judgment. what i meant was that when i spent weeks on and with soldiers, when they are talking

about personal things, i don't think that they think that i will put this in the media. there is a bond of trust that develops over time and there are certain things i understood. i don't mean that you compromise your journalistic integrity. if i give my word that this is the reason i'm here, i need a very compelling reason to change that. i think that your word is your bond. i have to be able to live with myself before anything else. i have never encountered a story that was more potent than my integrity. -- more important than my integrity. >> there is a blocker -- blogger who referred to you as the pentagon's favorite journalist and i don't think he meant it as a compliment.

>> i don't think that he did. he probably meant it after the general mccrystal was relieved after the "rolling stone" article. i have never met him. i had nothing invested in saying what i said but i know when something feels wrong and it felt wrong. i don't believe that was a true report or truly accurate of the situation. i don't think that what was described was presented in the right context. michael hastings said, they just invited me to paris to see these talks and open situation. i think that if general standing a crystal has you at an event which is his wedding anniversary, that is an incredibly personal and varmint

-- that is an incredibly personal in environment. in the article, it makes it seem like it was a big drinking party. i think there was something dishonest about the article. i will say it again and again. i don't care what the blocks say or what "rolling stone" says. if i was on television, i would tell them what they can go do to themselves. >> i think we get the idea. do you think that a journalist should serve their personal ideas with the public? -- share their personal ideas with the public? you said "every journalist worst to change the world -- works to change the world."

and do you give your opinions in news reporting? >> this was in reaction to an internet show and i was asked about my opinion and analysis, i was not reporting. i was there as a guest. when i said that journalists have given their opinion, i was talking about the editorial pages of a newspaper. there was an op ed page where analysis was given. it is a very distinct that those lines remain drawn. i don't think that might job is to stand on the evening news and give my opinion. my job there is to be a true journalist and reporter. when you are asked for your opinion, you should be able to give it and not be vilified for giving it. >> , i'm going to ask you your opinion right now.

you have this reputation for being outspoken, what is your opinion about the quality of american television coverage of the wars in iraq and afghanistan? >> i think it varies wildly. i think it is hard to paint it all with one brush. i don't like hearing academics and analysts who are talking from washington, d.c., for example and have spent very little time on the ground. you have a controlled experience when they go out there. they go out there for a week. if you have not time to taste the third of afghanistan with afghan people or time to believe and that third and i don't mean literally, i don't think that you can have a true understanding. i don't like shows where there is a bunch of academics debating policy because they don't know what they're talking about most of the time. there is a lot of thought to be

said for reporters that spend time on the court -- there is a lot to be said for reporters who spend a lot of time on the ground. i respect it reporters from "the new york times." there are other journalists from other networks. there are cbs people who have spent a lot of time out there and have done great stuff. of course, i am sitting here in washington d.c. because i have been asked to do much more for the network. if i did not have a family, i would be in afghanistan right now. you would need an armored division to dislodge me and i believe that you would see some reporting that you are not seeing right now that does not mean that i have the answer to

everything. i think there is a lack of passion and commitment. i think this idea that war turns people off is nonsense. we have consistently reported on the war and our ratings have not suffered. >> you did say if i watched the news that you watch here in the u.s., i would blow my brains out. it would drive me nuts. >> yes, i stand by that. >> take one step back and talk about comments from the media to comments about policy. the invasion of iraq in 2003, was that a bad idea? >> terrible idea. it was based on lies, first and foremost. we never went into iraq to help the iraqi people, let's be frank about that up front. more than that, it was never set to achieve anything good. if you could argue if you are a

shiite who is now in power, he did not have a decent life under saddam hussein. i am talking about from an american perspective. i mean from the western perspective. the world has been quick to devise the psyche into american and non-american. i think the division is between western and non-western. i don't want to put a religious bent on it. this is people who believe in a way of life that is different from our way of life. this goes back to what i call very dark times. this has been an abject failure. the true depth of the failure of the invasion has never honestly and openly been talked about. >> what do you think is missing? >> we like to pretend that general petraeus came in and saved the day. what he did was that he stop the

bloodletting but not because of the surge. he made an agreement with the sunni that was on the table from the first day. >> he could have made it earlier? >> absolutely, but it was not until there was so much blood on the sunni hands that could not be political -- it cannot be politically supported. surge prevented them from being massacred because they wanted them dead, believe me, every last one of them. it was really them hand-in hand with help chitosan here is the weapon, here is who you want to shut down. in terms of strategy, national security, the invasion of iraq was an abject failure. empowered iran to a degree we have never been honest about, and did nothing for american

interests. many iraqis have benefited. >> let me ask you about afghanistan since you have been so blunt about your views on iraq. i recently, with my daughter, did a book called "haunting legacy." it is about the effect of the vietnam war on policy-making. when we talked to people at the u.s. embassy in kabul, they told us american policy could be defined as good enough if they could come up with a formula that is politically acceptable to the american people. that is good enough. i am wondering if you heard the same kind of thing, and do you feel that good enough at this stage of the war is good enough? >> i think that is an indictment

on the u.s.. i expect nothing more from politicians. it was headed by carl icahn barre. he said about systematically destroying what was left. what is good enough for the afghan people? what is good enough for the american soldier? has anyone been to walter reed? has anyone see the human debris of this war, when it looks like? i was shocked the first time i went there. i'm used to being on the battlefield. and i am used to seeing them leave in the chopper. as long as you hear they will make it, you think it is ok, but it is not even close to ok. for me, i do not think that is a policy that is good enough for anyone. if you do not believe the fight can be won, and everyone has a

different definition -- >> what does it mean in afghanistan? >> go back to your original aim. the afghanistan's were quick to point the they were the ones that toppled the taliban with u.s. help. the original aim was to defeat al qaeda and the taliban, and to ensure they were never able to threaten the national security interests of the united states. that is clearly not the case. when you are avoiding the hypocrisy of not putting the taliban on the terror list because you want to reserve the right to negotiate with them, and they can bring out every academic to sit every insurgence -- insurgency has been one at the negotiating table and not on the battlefield -- tell that to the shore lankans.

if you are going to go to war, you had better go to war, and you had better win. if you're just going to loiter and mess around with one this times political strategy, then you have no right to ask them to fight in your name. the best strategy is lined up the troops, handcuff them, and give them a shot, because that is effectively what you are doing. the low hanging fruit are in afghanistan. the real enemy is across the board in pakistan. there are 1000 things you can do to address that. as long as you are not going after the command and control, and we have the capacity to do that but have not, then you have no business being in the fight. when people say that he is not a

strategic partner and is corrupt, really? 30 or 40 guys will strap on bombs and attack the united states because they are passed off of the government is corrupt? give me a break. >> cut it down to the chase. what do you think is at the heart of the american effort in afghanistan? >> get the hell out. it is costing too much. we do not think the afghans are worth the fight, it is their problem, and we want to get out of here. >> at this point if the u.s. were to work out a way to get out, without having accomplished its original purpose, it sounds like you think it is a waste? >> yes.

you do not have to go in there. if you have their phone numbers, you do not need to go across the border. >> what do you do? >> you take them off the same way you took out a al-awlaki, and all the others killed that way. used car did not just them, but the network -- you target not just them, but then not work, and you send a message that putting american bodies in arlington cemetery is not an acceptable form of foreign policy. >> [laughter] [applause] >> ok. let's take a brief moment for station identification to tell that -- audiences that this is "the kalb report." i am talking to lara logan. let me raise what is probably difficult subject for you.

early on in the egyptian revolution in tahrir square, you were sexually assaulted, beaten, and for a time you could not doing your job. you're not back full time. i'm wondering if that experience has effected you as a journalist. i have a comment you made in an interview. "i have a fear now in me that i have never had before. i do not want to let it stop me, but it is going to be difficult ." explain that. >> i think all of us have with us this idea that it is not going to beat me. then, one day, it is you. you cannot lie to yourself anymore is the best way to describe it. i am afraid of things i was not afraid of before. i have lived with afghan soldiers on their front line for

three months, with no one with a, just two afghans who did not even speak english. what i do that again? a think the thing that is most difficult is the it reminds you of the price that the people who love have to pay for what you do. if it was just me, i would have gone back to libya. i would be testing myself. it is not just me. when you come that close to dying, and that does not really even describe it, because i have said i was in the process of dying. hilos already half-dead before it stopped, -- i was already half-dead, before it stopped. i looked at my children, and my husband, and i think "how could i do that to them?" i believe in the work as much as i ever have, but i am conscious of how selfish that decision is

and the price that the people i love pay, and that makes you afraid. i do not know the been afraid enables you to do the things that i have done. i mean, i just went back to afghanistan, so it is not like i'm chained to the desk. >> of course. i was a little puzzled. a couple of days before you went back and faced that awful experience, i believe you were on "the charlie rose" program, and you told him they you and your crew were targeted, you said. >> that is when i was arrested the week before. >> right. my point is feeling that you were targeted, having been arrested, you still went back. what is it about lara logan that can face something that is butous, let's slow down,

you went back anyway? >> and journalists are anarchists set heart. we do not like to be told what to do. by a producer looks like he works for the state department. he drives us all crazy because we could be in the desert and he looks like he just rolled out of washington. we were sitting in this intelligence facility in egypt, and i was on a trip because i had been sick. i started vomiting before the interrogation began. i do not think they're used to having people and starting out the interrogation with that behavior. a bench with a stuck -- eventually they stopped me in my arm, and left me in a filthy

room. when i woke up my producer and cameraman was with me. my cameraman wanted to get out of there, but my producer said screw these guys. who are they to tell me what to do? but that is the kind of feeling. you do not want to be stupid, but that is a major story. we're talking about one of the most fundamental shifts in the strategic map of the world that we have ever seen in our lifetime. so, there is part of you as a journalist the things she needs to be there to witness added. my husband and i talked about it. i did not make the decision on my own. i had to say that if u.s. me not to go, i will not, and heat -- if you asked me not to go, i will not, and he did not. >> you have spoken openly about that experience and i'd do not

want to be labor the point. i have a larger question in mind, and it is more than lara logan. women reporters have suffered many different forms of sexual violence, yet they do not want to talk about it. why do they not want to talk about it? >> the media is a big boys club just to start. women are always conscious of that. that frames the environment in which you are working women are good for flawed as anchors, and fill a row, but it is -- fill a role, but it has taken a long time to be looked at on the same plane. >> many young women are now covering the wars. >> now, but not 10 years ago, not when i was starting out, coming up through the ranks. if you did, you were expected to

be kind of manly. you were not allowed to wear makeup and the feminine mystique and be feminine. i did not know how to be that. -- feminine. i was told repeatedly that i would never make it. i thought about cutting my hair. i think it is not just hard for women to speak about it. it is harder for women to speak about it because it is not just women that are raped in horrible prisons around the world. it is men, too. i have had men write to me since egypt happened. i think women live with a degree of sexual harassment not just in your work, but your personal life. a lot of it thinks it comes with the territory of being a woman.

if i came out of the afghan war and hold you -- and told that the guys i had been living with stopped to take a photograph, and one of them grabbed my breast, and a haunted this guy down and brought him to my feet and put a gun to his head and said yes, that would overshadow everything i ever did. that is all anyone would have talked about. i did not hide it. the first time there were headlines, that is not what i want to be remembered for. there are a lot of things you take with the territory. i do not wine about every race i took, how close it was, or -- brisk i took, how close i was, or how hot it was. compared to an bola and

mozambique, the afghan war was fairly luxurious. >> so, you are not saying it is more difficult for women to cover a war, are you? >> no, i think there are certain risks that women face, but when "the new york times" team were arrested in libya there were things i happened to the men that were never talked about of a sexual nature. >> in preparing for this interview i read a lot about you and a lot of things you have said and have had said about you, and i come away with the impression that people seem more fascinated by your personal life. what kind of person is lara logan, then your professional accomplishments, which is so obvious. why'd you think that is the case? >> i think a photograph of me can sell in a newspaper,

apparently. i have been told that. i do not have a good dancer. one thing i will say is i had no idea until each it happened but there were so many colleagues interested in the work that i do and respected it. you get so used to covering your back in this business and waiting for the next knife that you forget about that aspect. as my mother-in-law said, people did not say nice things about you until you are dead. she said you are kind of lucky. >> you said something a minute ago. do you think the industry is loaded up with people who go for your back, who want to do you harm? do you live in that environment? >> not more so than a lot of journalists. i think that is part of the agency. there was a book about fighting

and bringing out the best in journalist. i am not unique. >> let's talk about foreign reporting for a few minutes. i have the impression lately that in terms of foreign reporting on networks that aside from reporters who are living somewhere and covering the environment, big shot journalists will fly in, do a couple of interviews, spend a week, then go back home. i am wondering since your career is very much indeed ascending stage, they you will find yourself almost inevitably where against your best instance you will want to stay somewhere, and they will say you need to be back friday because sunday you are going on the air. what do you think about the inevitability of lara logan

moving into a time when she is going to have to do what producers tell her to do because she is a big shot now, and she will be on television and draw many more eyes to the network? how will you deal with that, lara logan? >> sometimes i might give in, and other times i will it is people off. i am more inclined to come back and see my baby. it would not be the first time i disappeared. when i was living in baghdad, we will get discounts and press releases. i saw how many soldiers were dying. contrary to what the bush white house wanted you to believe, it is not a journalist or not willing to go out, but you could not at the time. i called up one of my producers and said did not ask any

questions. i told "60 minutes" that i was going for cds news, and cbs news that i was going for "60 minutes." [laughter] >> every journalist knows. we are adept at disappearing when we need to. there is something uncomfortable about the reality that really bothers me. i think so much of your truly good reporting comes from your gut, and if you have not had time on the ground, if time to grow that innate sense of what something is -- i know afghan people because i spent so much time with them. when someone tells me something in washington that does not sit, i know it does not fit. i do not need to report to anyone else.

i do not want to become one of those people that as they say, parachutes in, and parachutes out. i think there are ways around that, not a perfect way because nothing can substitute for the years i spent in baghdad or afghanistan, but it is one of those things i will have to deal with as it comes. when i go to afghanistan i do not go for three days. i just spent two and a half weeks there. that is nothing compared to the years i have spent, but it is not three days. hopefully, i will find a way around that. >> i keep wondering how that is going to happen, and i do not see that. >> i am not driven by my hours and minutes on the air. if you do a story he wanted to be out there, and people paying attention, but if it means i do

a few less pieces a year, or i am not as famous as i could be, i do not care. >> "60 minutes" does not bother you? >> "60 minutes is" is run by journalists. jeff understands. he knows what is important. if i say i have to spend three weeks in afghanistan because it is important, he says make it work. he does not say we will make it work for you. he says make it work. then, god help you, you had better make it work or you're not willing to have a job. >> how do you prepare for a story for "60 minutes?" >> it depends. spent my that i've

academic career crash in four tests to prepare for "60 minutes." i have a good short-term memory because i made my academic career through remembering everything i ever studied. i will use the same thing. i will do a 3, four, five-hour interview and never looked at a piece of paper. the medal of honor interview did not have a single written question. i never thought about it until my producers said not bad. we do a lot of research. we try not to rely on just what is out there. you read everything that moves, but you try to go beyond that to the people who are experts in their field, and you really have to master an extraordinary amount of detail. he'll have to know much more than ever comes out in the story. it is tough.

if i did three pieces in three days and i had to be a medical expert, one day, and an economic and imf experts. >> you are the one that kept talking about not wanting to be an instant expert. you want to soak up everything. >> i do want to soak it up, but i think there is a difference between when you really teamers yourself in the level of detail you need, -- immersed herself in the level of detail you need, that is different than popping up as an instant expert. you are reading a wire and have no idea if it is correct or not. >> when you run out of wars to cover, what will you be doing? >> i just found a profile with arrowsmith him be in colombia. -- in colombia.

i have been shooting a story on polo. "60 minutes" is a magazine program. it is about the richness of life. it is not just about war. i always smiled to myself. i always get this condescending thing like she can do something other than war. of course i can't. what do you think? i have never been to a museum? if you can sit down and interview a president, and street kids, and sleep on the streets of an goal of with the street kids, you can do those things. you just have to give them yourself. people want to know what you are made of. that is what "60 minutes." is. mike wallace, ed bradley, why do people want to watch them? they did not want to hide.

i am still trying to walk in those shoes. >> i understand, and they are big shoes. you are also the foreign affairs correspondent for cbs, so you seem to be spending most of your time doing "60 minutes" pieces. >> yes. >> when do you find yourself having time to do something for the evening news? >> sometimes i will have a meeting with a good contact or source and find something critical and pass that along and that leads to something. >> what i am getting at is it is not a day-to-day sense of responsibility? >> no, because fortunately scott kelley understands what it takes. my boss understands that. people think it is easy. every one of these pieces is like giving birth to triplets.

it really is. sometimes that is pleasant in comparison. you rewrite everything 1 billion times. you fight each other, you hate each other, you love each other, you go without sleep. i remember when i was 8.5 months pregnant and a young 22-year- old producer walked in and said i would complain about how tired i am, but she is pregnant. [laughter] >> that is what everyone is right. you are a real team. it is tough, but it is rewarding. >> you mentioned reading books, and i do not want to put you on the spot, but what kind of books to you enjoy reading? are you a mystery reader, or a history reader? >> most of my life is occupied by reading things that will help me do a better job. i am reading a book now, "every

patient tells a story per call it is about a fascinating medical story i am working on. it is about undiagnosed diseases and what it is like. one of the people i interviewed for this took my breath away. she's a beautiful woman who told me that for the last 26 years of her life she has been tortured by her muscles and no one can give her an answer. most of the time i'm reading for my work. peter thompson has written a book that is fascinating. "forever war" -- usually, it is books like that. i do not like trashy novels because i feel like i do not have the time to spend on them, but i read another book from a journalist all about his mother who was a holocaust survivor and

how he discovered his mother's test. >> you do not do much fiction? >> no. i love fiction. >> you do not have the time. >> i do not have the time, but there is nothing greater than being transported by a novel. that is one of the greatest pleasures of my life. i was inspired by faulkner. my dream as a young girl was to write a book like that that you could read over and over again and never have the same understanding twice. the shortest chapter written in literary history was a call my mother was a fish pickup -- "my mother was a fish." that is how this child related the concept of death. that book was written through the eyes of somebody else for every chapter.

i had to read the first 40 pages about 16 times before i knew where i was and i thought "how great to write a novel like that." that is something i still want to do. >> can you imagine being finished with working on television? >> yes, i can. >> what sort of life do you see yourself leading then? >> hopefully my husband and i do not hate each other by them and we have a lot to share. for me, i have always had a restless soul, and i do not pretend to know the meaning of life or have any grand ideas about the universe or the world of television and where it is going. i just now when my husband and i had children and have a family the cease shifting of the time. it was the first time i had that peace in me. that is much more important to me than television. as long as i can do work that

means something to me, whether it is written, or in television, that is all i care about. you have to feel like you did something that meant something. otherwise, what is the point? >> is that something you feel every day, once a week, when some month? what would satisfy you? what ratio? >> i think i feel that every day? >> that you have learned something new in the course of the day, helps someone, disappointed people -- what is it that brings you forward? >> what really brings before is that i'm always trying to do better. the thing about journalism is that i could work and i frequently get from 7:00 a.m. in the morning until two o'clock, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning and day after day, i did not do it

for the promotion, for the company, but not any one for -- i did not do it for anyone but myself. the greatest experience is when they ask you to experience everything about life and then try to communicate something that means something. it is the same with my children. if i can get to the end of the day and feel like i was the best mom i could be and do everything that was expected of me, i do not care if i am staggering into bed at 11:00. i know my son has gone to bed with that feeling of absolute love, and those moments we had before he closed his eyes, there is nothing to compare with that. >> that is marvelous. there are many young journalists in the audience, and we have just a couple of minutes left. i'm wondering, what kind of advice would you give them? they face a journalism of

enormous uncertainty right now. it seems to be finding a way forward rather difficult because of technological pressures, money pressures. what would you tell them? >> i would say that i have to believe the one thing that will indoor about journalism is that people demand to know the truth. whenever people think about the profession, at the end of the day our society functions on the flow of information, so if you believe in that, the first amendment, what you are doing, i would not worry too much about where it is going to find your niche, and give everything you have. did not expect someone to do it for you. you have to be prepared to do everything. i did sound, camera work, drove cars, i did everything. that is why i have the certainty. i know what i believe in.

i know who i am. i did not get that from the three letters of a corporation. there is no greater honor than working for "60 minutes," but it does not define my work. it does not make me who i am. i will be why am with or without whenever job is i have. i think the important. do not take yourself too seriously. the moment i start thinking i am as important as "60 minutes" -- come on. the worst journalists are the ones to think they matter more than a story. i have no illusions about my place in the world whatsoever. for me, and achievement is if it is a woman in the middle of the bush and i have told their case story, and nobody watches it, what have i changed and effected, but there is a record of history that now exists. do not take no for an answer.

do not listen to people that say you have to do it this way or that way. you can only do it on your own merits. the harder you work and the more you understand about what you are doing, people cannot take that away from you. they cannot just say she got here because of her looks, they cannot make me insecure because i know no one did me any favors. i do not have any aversion to slug in my guts out even now. we all do it. we would not make air if we didn't do that for every story. people told me i did not have the right color skin to be hired so i went to television because they needed more people there. my boss could not write a sentence, so i wrote it for him.

i worked for nothing. i work for what they were prepared to pay for me. i interviewed for jobs i had done for two years. i ate humble pie. i never did it for anyone but myself. one of the presidents of cds told me once the biggest problem you will face is staying true to yourself, and i smiled because i thought that is not going to be my hardest problem. by hardest problem will be keeping my mouth shut. [laughter] >> being who i am will be the easy part because i do not know of any other way to be because i know who i am and i am prepared to stand up for that. my mother said you have to choose the hard road every single time. >> why? >> i could never just shut up and say yes, i will drive carefully. i would say no, i am going to

put my foot down and head for the first wall. of course i will drive carefully. why would you ask me such a thing? for me it was an injustice to think she could think i could do anything other than drive carefully because that is what was expected of me. i try to do what is expected of me, and the right thing, and that is not always popular. there were a lot of people dead did not like what i said about coverage of the iraq war -- what i said -- there were a lot of people that did not like what i said about the coverage of the iraq war or stanley mcchrystal. the work is what matters. if you want to be on television, is that is your aim, to not be a journalist. that is not the right job for you. you are never going to be the journalist that you think you want to be. >> lara logan, i am really sorry that our time is up, but it is.

i want to thank our wonderful audience for sitting here and enjoy in the. of course, i want to thank lara logan for sharing your thoughts and experiences, and keeping alive the flame of a free, vigorous press as being the best guarantor of a free, vigorous society. our time is up. i am mark n -- i am marvin kalb. as that fellow used to say, good night, and good luck. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we do have to do will microphones. when there, and won their -- two microphones. one there, and one there. you can get to the microphone and asked a question. i am going to insist that it is

a question and not a speech, and i will probably cut you off if it is a speech. why don't we start right here. >> my name is jeff jacobsen. i'm from the george washington university. you offered some pointed criticisms of our role in iraq and afghanistan. i am curious about how you feel about our involvement in libya? >> libya is interesting. the only reason we went after gaddafi is because everyone hates him and we now we could get away with it: -- away with it. the real question is what are we doing about syria? we have a different relationship with syria. syria is kind of a little brother to egypt in terms of our friends on the war of -- on its hair. of course there was a degree of hypocrisy. not surprising.

i think the real tragedy of the middle east is that so many people are dying in syria and so little has been done about it. if i did not have my situation, i guess that is what i would be trying to become a on the border in lebanon, trying to find ways come in roads to the society. -- ways, it roads to that society. that would be the story i was pushing every day if i were doing daily news. >> could you a imagine the u.s. involving itself militarily in syria? >> because of the relationship with iran, is different. i don't think they have shown indication that they want to do that, but can you rule anything out? no, you cannot rule adopted >>

yes, please -- out. >> yes, please. >> i am a producer in the city and a neighbor of lara logan. january, 2007 was pretty heavy for you. a lot of you might not know the story. could you talk about what you learned from hyper street? >> what i learned was really quite interesting. hyper street was an area where al qaeda had been buried intrenched. there were campaigns to clean-up hyper street, and all that really was was the iraqi government making a deal to attack elsewhere so the violence would appear to go down and they would have appeared to clean up. none of those deals ever held. then, in january, 2007,>> there

was a major push to go back to hyper street. the iraqi unit stationed there systematically raped, tortured, and murdered the people there to punish them for having al qaeda in their midst. in return, al qaeda slaughtered as many iraqis as they wanted to. we heard it the day in and day out. an iraqi physician who was a very lovely man and his family that were prisoners in the middle of the fighting in the midst of the fighting begging for help. i was trying to get the treaty to help them. actually, i found out from a friend of the u.s. ambassador who was a friend of the iraqi president. when i bumped into the ambassador, i asked him if he

would help me with this family. once he publicly gave his word, he would be screwed. [laughter] we ended up going down hyper street with an iraqi unit. i had absolutely no idea because i had never met them and i had never been there. i knew there was a family that was eating dog food. they were living in the shower and with their children and everything. it was an interesting situation to be in, so i did everything i could and use of the leverage that i had. how they are arrested them -- they arrested them, that family. -- rescued them and i am still in contact with them. you're probably referring to the report that i did that had a graphic images showing both sides of the violence. people were talking to me about the rape and torture and

everything that was going on. i have mentioned access video. cbs and didn't want to hear the report so i e-mail everyone i knew and said -- i e-mail the web people that were desperate for anything. they said that they would put it on and then i asked everyone to look at the report. whenever they felt about it, let cbs know. it was used by the left wing media first, how much they hated cbs. then the right wing decided they hated me, too. i was used as a political football for i don't know however the left was trying to skew the war. it had nothing to do with either of that. resent being used as a political football, but it was a decision by the editor that thought that the images were too

graphic. i felt that they should be seen, but that is my job as a reporter. i am not the editor and i am never going to be. the big picture is not my strength, i am a reporter on the ground fighting for my story purine cbs had been -- but for my story. cbs had been extremely good for me. there is no evil man sitting there saying that we are going to go in this direction or another. it is a place of real journalism and that was one of the battles that did not go my way. i am never going to send a mass email again, i think. [laughter] georgelindsay from washington university. thank you for being here

tonight. as an embedded journalist and someone who tries to constantly -- how difficult is it to not get a emotionally invested in a story or a person you're covering? >> i get emotionally invested in every sense. it doesn't matter if you are and that it or not embedded -- embedded or not embedded. i think it is important to be emotionally invested. we were doing a story on 20 or 30 children separated from their parents and i came out of the building and crying. he said, you think that is bad, you will never make it in this business if you will be crying all the time. i thought, beep beep you. that is the person that i am. how do you cope with it? you cope by confronting it, not

denying it. i owe them honesty, integrity. that is a huge responsibility. i am not here to wave the flag on your behalf. i have a responsibility to you, but i have a responsibility to do iraqi people, their government, the u.s. government. i think it is important to be invested. how does try to hide that. i don't try to hold back. sometimes the only thing you have to get someone of yourself - -is your -- is yourself. you give them respect and understanding. people think that i am a big talker and not a big listener. that is one of the biggest

mistake you can make. i am a better listener, actually. when i sit down, you have everything that i have. you have all of me. you owe people that. i will stay removed to be the objective third party. nonsense. how can you not be moved by somebody that some of furred -- suffered something incredible? >> thank you. yes, please. >> edward from sunshine press. thank you for or presence in your example. you spoke about the experts and academics that spoke to someone in the white house, and can you tell us as listeners and viewers about how to identify phony experts?

it used to be that the good looking blondes were easy to spot. you and leslie stall came along. how do we spot these folks that don't know anything and are ripping reports? >> not every expert is phony. bruce reidell is one of the best voices on afghanistan. he has incredible experience and he is somebody that i turn to. there are some people that are -- some people that know a lot and have decades of experience. if you are a conscientious person that is always reading, you have to pay attention to the name and the institute. do they sit on the left or right?

what is their motivation? how do you evaluate someone's motivation? how will they be saying that? if you don't have firsthand experience, it is very hard to know when someone is slipping into academia. they often know about something that you have no idea about. i don't have an easy answer for you. journalists have the time are lazy, we go back to the same people over and over again. you see a guy on cnn the noise the crap out of view, there is probably a good -- that annnoys the -- annoys the crap out of you, there is probably a good reason. if you are paying attention, you remember that. take it with a grain of salt

half the time. a lot of these institutions are very clearly aligned with a different administrations and things like that. you have to be aware. it is tough. it is not an easy thing. >> you describe the graphic images that you saw in iraq? in the case of gaddafi or the death of bin laden, and you think the public should see the individual pictures as graphic as they are? do you think that is important? >> yes and no. it is laughable that people say that they don't see the body and it didn't happen. i know that this administration made the decision because they were afraid it would inspire lone wolf attacks. those ont he fen -- the fence, and those motivated to open up with a machine gun in times square.

that is a decision made out of weakness and fear. i am not really sure that it is the strongest base for which you make a decision like that. does the world need to see a picture of his body? i find it incredible that when his wife was 14 years old when he married her and no one is calling him a pedophile. that is really the most abhorrent thing to have come out of this? it gives the conspiracy theorists and the ammunition they want. what does it say? do we really need to see it? there is an argument. and do you need to dance on his grave? that is was seeing the body means, right? i am not really sure. he the you have a right to see his body? does it serve a purpose? what is the greater purpose i

am serving? and by making a name for myself by being the only person that has the story? that is a consideration that comes into your work that is important so i don't really have a good answer for you. i did not need to see his body. >> our last question, please. >> jonathan hellman, presently with cnn. this country has been here since the earliest days, i think it was edward r. murrow that brought to us live. we have seen everything happened so fast that it is instantaneous. with the internet and all of these different technologies, you can see how it assists what you do. at the found to be a hindrance in anyway?

does it become harder for people to connect with your story when there is so much information brought to them at any given point? >> cnn doesn't play to my strength, being an instant expert. i've followed the northern island, i knew what happened there. it is a minefield. you call someone a name and it means something on the other side of the border. i did not feel -- i think there is a huge downside to the technology. at the same time, there is something great -- they have changed national security

policy, they have changed the strategic relationships. the power of this is undeniable. you can't go backwards. this event is sponsored by the ethics and standards committee. where were they for twitter, facebook? they don't exist. that is egregious. you can start a blog and put any rumor you like out there. people think that the mainstream media is controlled and regulated, and that has not been my experience of it. i know without a doubt that there are standards and ethics that they try to live up to. this idea that special interest is served in the mainstream media, and the worst part is that they've put themselves out there as the true guardians of

free speech. we are the ones that will give you the truth, not the evil, lying bastard in the media. there is underlying technology, a fascinating place they have made the word. -- world. in can't put the genie back the bottle. you have to live with it. there is a downside to the 24- hour news cycle. there is a blurring of opinion that just give people what they want to hear and don't worry about reporting real journalism. the part of it is depressing to me. i don't listen to it and i don't read it and i will shut it out. >> lara, you are a very special

reporter, it has been a pleasure having you. i will let you go only if you promise to return. >> i promise. >> it's a deal. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight. i have a wonderful holiday season. >> republican presidential candidate herman cain will be holding a press conference this afternoon at 5:00 p.m. eastern to set the record straight regarding sexual harassment allegations. live coverage here on c-span, c- span radio, and c-span.org. also, several states are holding elections today, mainly

state races and issues. oregon is holding a primary to replace a former congressman, ohio and mississippi are -- kentucky and mississippi are electing new governors. >> i want you all to know, those of you that wanted you to run so badly and that are terribly disappointed, that i am doing the right thing. >> i think 1984 fines as in the strongest position to establish a constructive relationship with the soviet union. >> with every program since 1977, we are a source for public affairs. download and listen to audio for every available program. take c-span with you.

listen to what you want, when you want, where you want. republican presidential candidate rick santorum said today he does not have faith in the members and the work of the super committee. he made the remarks at the union leaders editorial news board meeting. he also talked about sexual harassment allegations against herman cain, and his economic proposals. this is about an hour. >> it is good to be with you. >> welcome to new hampshire. this is the third time in the cycle the c-span folks have come in to take the interviews so that it reaches a wider audience. forget they are there. we do. they live here. >> did. >> john, you know from the campaign trail and drew, our

editorial director. i usually say i will let the other guys ask the questions. i did not have time to research that much. you are known for your strong stand on social issues, which i imagine you have been speaking out about on the campaign trail. timing been everything, this cycle, it seems to be all about the economy and jobs. >> yes. >> so, how does a guy who draws upon socially conservative voters address that battle? >> well, i think i am known for my social conservative stance because i'm one of the few politicians that is willing to actually believe in an area where most people follow.

if you would find that my positions are pretty much in line with everybody else. none of the folks out there have taken a leadership roles in advancing life, marriage and family. i have been very active on those fronts. that is the reason i am known for that. very few politicians enter into that field. it is a hot-button area. i tend not to let politics of fact -- a fact -- effect my positions on the issues. i go out and i am passionate. i lead on economic issues, entitlement reform. there is nobody that has been out there -- he was representing

a pretty strong conservative state. i was representing a state that had the second highest per capita population of seniors in the country. i was out there as a conservative in the pennsylvania, conservative on all issues across the board. been vocal on issues like social security reform, welfare reform, health care, medicare, medicaid, food stamps. i was also a strong leader on the issue of taxes. i have never voted for a tax increase. i was one of the folks to help support the tax cuts we were able to get past. ed.pass >> you were strong on the other

issues as well. you mentioned judge grad -- judd gregg. he has come out and endorsed mitt romney. it's quite a number of unnamed republicans are not lining up with anybody. what does it say about them? what does it say about you? >> i feel very good about that. as you know, a lot of candidates have had their moment in the the sun. have had their opportunity to shine. we have not been one of those candidates yet. when people say, we looked out the field, i think most people have looked at the folks that have risen to the top and they could not get excited about that. i feel like our moment is coming. i feel very good about that. i call myself the field of

dreams candidate. if you build it, they will come. boots onting a lot of the ground and the first few states. we're spending a lot of time. one of the website that monitor the number of visits, we have been in iowa more than anybody else. i and campaigning in both places and i am not far behind. i am right in there with them as far as the number of times i have been to new hampshire. we are organizing, we're doing the things that are necessary. we will be there. i am confident, if you read between the lines, they are not endorsing now. i think they are waiting for him with the conservative

alternative to mitt romney is going to be. i will follow it up with a strong performance in new hampshire. you will see a lot of conservatives say, we were waiting to see if he could do it. i hear this all the time -- we really like you. you are not doing well in the national poll and you are not breaking out. all these people -- you are letting the national press formed this election. as you know, and you have told me from the first time i walked into the door, new hampshire voters are going to vote for who they believe is the best candidate. that the same thing that is going on in iowa. that is why i feel very confident, when things settle out and people began to focus, we will do well. last night, i was in rochester.

there were probably 80 to 90 people at that event. i spoke for 15 or 20 minutes and took questions for about an hour. when that meeting was over, 90% of the people in that room signed up to help us out. it is useless 70 to 80% of the folks. when i do a town hall meeting, i get people were willing to help out. the folks who are paying attention and looking for the real conservative, when they get a chance to see the real conservative, when they get a thence to kick the tires, a activists who are paying attention are a pretty good indicator of where the rest of the community is going to follow. >> what -- how are you going to

take -- [inaudible] what does it mean in the real- world? >> way back when, i wrote a book. back in 2004-2005. i am not on a book stotour. i am actually running for president. in 2005, to win the spot -- in response to a another book that "it takesn, i rwrote a family." i wrote an argument -- i do not

just mean legislative or regulations or executive orders. it is a broad policy discussion as to how we need to move this country in terms of being more supportive of the family, of marriage, of traditional values, of shaping children. i have a whole section of the book on education. how we have to focus on our society, on raising adults who are good citizens, who are moral, more decent -- who are decent. i have a whole section on our culture. and how we as a culture has gone awry and how it affects the political discourse and the family. when i was the united states senator, i was very involved in trying to shape the culture. the president of the united states can be involved in shaping the culture. by talking about things and putting forth ideas and having a

national discussion on things that are important to the country. the president is more than just a commander in chief and someone who vetoes bills. they are a leader in the broadest sense of the word. i have a lot of policy prescriptions and what we can do in the the tax code, support marriage, support a family, promote fatherhood, have an education system that allows parents to send their children to the schools where they can inculcate virtue and spirituality. how many people in this room are only concerned about, when it comes to raising your children, are only concerned about their academic accomplishments? i have yet to get a. raise their hand. that is all no child left behind measures. the public-school system is focused on academic

accomplishment and it is a small part of the formation of a child. when parents say we want an educational system where our children to have -- to inculcate values that are consistent with the values we want to as a family. our educational establishment says no. you are going to learn our the value system. that is a crime, in my opinion. the federal government should not be forcing their values, and it is a secular values system. they have driven morality out of the public schools and focused on a very narrow mission. we have seen the consequences of it with our children. the president of the united states should not change that in the sense that we should mandate

that from the federal government. we should have a president who leads the effort around this country working with people at the local level, working with churches, working with parents to design education system that is focused on the customer of the education establishment. powys the customer? i always ask this question. -- who is the customer? are always ask this question. the customer is the person who pays for it and the person who is responsibility is to educate children. the responsibility to educate children lies with the parents. the government is there to help the parent educate their children. it is not to replace the parents or do their job for them. in gauging parents and fundamentally changing the way the educational -- and aging parents and fundamentally changing the way the educational system -- engaging parents and

fundamentally changing the way the educational system works. when i talk about faith, family, and freedom, those are the things i am talking about. there are things we can do. there are things we can do in government. the reason why government is getting bigger is because we have got problems at the foundational level of our country that have not been addressed. >> you seem to be allove over te lot on this education business. he said public education is too narrowly focused. -- you said public education is too narrowly focused. that should be broadened. the news said the public education system is teaching -- and then use that the public education system is teaching secular values.

they should instead be teaching the values of america. and then you said that they only spend half the time, the public education system should not be teaching the values. it is the parents should not be teaching of values. >> maybe i was not clear. the educational system should be teaching the value consistent with the parents' values structure. what i am talking about is obviously parents should have the ability to be able to send their children to the education forum that is consistent with their values. >> now we are getting on to school vouchers. >> you can call it school vouchers. i call it having the education system work with the paris to design an education curriculum that best meets the needs of that child. it is customized education.

it may be a voucher to go to a christian school or a catholic school. or two of cyber-education. >> or a muslim school? >> if it is dig -- if it is a -- if it is consistent with that, yes. that is fine. obviously, depending on what that muslim school is teaching, it is teaching insurrection to the federal government come about is a different story. if it is teaching the tenets of the faith, that is america. we allow for freedom of religion in this country. yes, those are things that are important. when you say that i said the public system -- the public school is teaching secular values.

god is sanitized from almost everything. that is not teaching western civilization and. that is not teaching who we are as a people. it is teaching a perverted view of who we are as a country and a civilization. by not teaching, you teach. there is no neutrality. there is either one world view or a very different world view. by having its narrow, you teach secular values. that is my point. >> i did not mean to interrupt. >> i am just wondering, this is a live and let live state. we are one of the few that has gay marriage, marriage equality. in october, there was a poll of

likely primary voters. 39% support repeal. could you explain to me how you were going to impose your view that the traditional family is the right way to go on people who really do not feel that way and feel that families can be of different shapes and sizes? the raising of a child may have nothing to do with the gender of the parents. >> that is the beautiful thing about america. the ability for people to come into the public square and back their claims as to what is best for society. i am not trying to oppose my views on anybody. that is what -- that is exactly what the public square it is

about. you bring that into the public square. i reject the whole idea -- you hear this from the left all the time. you were trying to impose a short reality -- your morality. that is exactly how the republic is supposed to work. because you have a poll that says right now, the way that question was asked, this is how the question -- this is how the public is. every time, -- once you start having the debate and people start seeing the consequences of what this is going to mean for society over the long term, which it will mean for what your children will be taught in school, the impact on your churches and the ability to practice your faith, what will do to the institution of

marriage, there are far reaching consequences to changing a very basic institution of society that has been in place for a good reason. we as a society -- society has said that the best thing for children is to have a biological mother and father and a healthy relationship raising that child. i do not think there are very many americans that would think -- if that is the ideal, why would we have laws that say that is not the ideal? why should we have laws that say we should give children less than that and that should be sufficient? that is not what is best for society. why are we setting up a loss cannot best? >> one might argue that the new hampshire legislature, even though they did not campaign on their views two years ago on the new hampshire

electorate. >> after he said he would not do it. >> he is out now. the super committee, six weeks. if you were on it, what would you be doing? what do you want them to do? >> i disagreed with the whole super committee concept. i thought it was putting a gun to your head and delegating what is the proper role of congress to a committee that, frankly, it was not hopeful that we would see any kind of plan. >> who are the republicans on it? >> i know the senate republicans. >> you do not have faith in them? >> it is more about the other side. >> the democrats. >> that is a pretty strong ideological group there.

our site is the same way. we have some pretty tough and strong conservatives on our side. it is not a group that i saw as one that could come together with what i think is reasonable. looking at the situation, looking at the problems that face this country, it is a spending problem. it is a revenue problem, too. but the revenue problem is not tax rates, it is economic growth. we have lower tax collections right now. historically low tax collections. the objective should be to see how we can grow the economy and reduce spending. it seems to me that the democrats have gone in with the idea that is about how we can raise taxes and cut spending, and forget about the growing the economy. that is the problem that we have. in putting the committee together, to try to accomplish that, it is fine, but the fall back is a huge cut in national

security spending. you should never play politics with national security. that is the killer about this committee. it does -- it could do substantial harm to the national security posture of our country. that is why i am not optimistic. the democrats see this as a big problem. they see this as something that is more reasonable for them to be able to live with than republicans. >> what was your problem with secretary of defense gates? have you change anything since then? >> he was an advocate -- i voted against him because of its position on iraq. as you may recall, i was pretty much at war with the administration back in 2006, having offered a bill called the iran freedom support act. it would put a very tough

sanctions on iran and the nuclear program. and how the fund to try to find a pro-democracy movement in iran. the bush administration opposed to me. when i introduced it, i could not get a single co-sponsor. within 18 months, i was able to get 60 co-sponsors. the administration was still insisting that we negotiate with iran. bob gates was one of those people who was a big advocate of that. we needed to engage iran and not confront iran. there was even a feeling that iran did not really have acted nuclear program, -- really have an active nuclear program. israel is telling me that that was not the case. i was in a big conflict with the administration in the spring of 2006. the announced that they would engage iran.

condoleezza rice told me, we would appreciate it if you would not comment out and hammer us on this. i offered up a piece of legislation in june. the administration -- joe biden blocked the vote on the senate for a week. condoleezza rice wrote a letter saying the administration opposed it. we lost by three votes on the floor. later that year, he put gates up. i voted against him. in the meantime, right before the election, we passed that bill. it passed unanimously on the president signed it. -- and the president signed it. i think i was vindicated in the end. yes, i saw it -- yet, i assault after the election, i saw

someone going in there who had a record of being as weak on iran as anybody and i wanted to send a message that that was a mistake. >> his record subsequently -- >> i think he did a better job than i thought he was going to do. use all the policy in iran continue in both administrations. -- you assault the policy in iran continue in both administrations -- you saw the policy in iran continue in both administrations. the bush administration spent money in this country on exports -- ex-pat groups. he had no nexus to any kind of real force there that we could have been helpful to on a variety of different ways. as a result, they ended up with the rank and dying. >> we are further down the

track to a nuclear iran. what would you be doing? >> if you look at all the candidates in this race, no one has a track record like i do on this issue. i have been talking about it and working on the issue of iran for seven years now. after i left the senate and joined a think tank -- the real reason i joined was because of my concern for iran. on "meet the press," there was a debate and we were right in the middle of the iraq war. russert asked me what the greatest threat was and i said iran. i was running for reelection. the war was very unpopular. here i am talking about another threat to and the people of pennsylvania said, we do not want anything to do with this.

it hurt me badly to go out and talk about these things, but i felt this was a serious threat. this was a game changer for america in the region. it has proven to be the case. now we have a country can iran -- in iran that is developing nuclear weapons. i remind everybody. they have been holding holocaust the nine conferences for years. -- holocaust-denying conferences for years. you now have a country that has convinced the majority of muslims in the region that the holocaust did not occur. they believe the holocaust did not occur. part of the reason is because of what iran and other countries have done to deny the very foundation for the state of israel. you have a country that has denied the foundation of the existence of the state of israel, has said repeatedly that they believed it is part of the

muslim world, ahmadinejad has said in many different ways that israel should not occupy that land. it is their obligation to remove israel. he has referred to it in different ways. we have a very clear message from this country. we have all the foundational support for why they feel that way. and now you have a nuclear weapon being developed. it will do one of two things. it will provide them a nuclear shield. they will be protected from being attacked because they have a nuclear shield. or they will use the nuclear power themselves. that would be the worst case. >> to " your body -- to quote

your buddy ron paul, the chinese have nuclear weapons. >> there is a difference. your enemy believes the only thing in this world is this world. if your enemy believes that -- ahmadinejad has given many speeches talking about the number one virtue of the republic of iran. the you know what it is? -- do you know what it is? dying for the cause. it is a cold germ -- is a culture and religion and a government that is focusing on the next world, not this one. if you read their theology, there are some rather troubling things about what they believe will happen when and if they

have this armageddon type exchange with the state of israel. the assumption is the united states would be involved in that. you have a very different government. you have a very different entity. to suggest -- this is some of the simplistic ways that some thinkers look at this. it worked here, it will have to work here. they are fundamentally different groups of people, different cultures. these people are crazy -- i can believe what they are saying about the 72 virgins. they cannot believe any of this stuff. well, just because you cannot believe it, does not mean they cannot believe it. >> having called the followers of ron paul simplistic, i am gathering you are not attracting those voters. >> i know you follow politics very closely.

i do not think anyone would accuse me of trying to carve out niches of people. you would be surprised. i have a lot of ron paul folks who like camelot of the economic issues. -- who like him on the economic issues. they are more isolationist. they have some real concerns about his view on iran. even his supporters are concerned about this country that is not going to affect us. >> [inaudible] do you see any alternative to military confrontation? what happens after you take the oath in january? >> there is a report coming out and the next day or two.

-- and at the next day or two. -- in the next day or two particular the country in central america was saying that things about america that iran is in about israel, the united states is an illegitimate country we have no right to be here and that we are a terrorist nation and we oppress our people and it is our vision that america be wiped off the face of the map. and that country starts to develop a nuclear weapon. do you think the united states will sit in silence and said, that is okay? you cannot talk to these people. there is no negotiating with these radicals. we have to stop them from getting the capabilities. do we need to do more sanctions? yes. it looks like we're beyond the point or sanctions can have an impact. if all this turns out to be the

case, israel has an obligation to protect their country and their existence -- and their citizens. they made it pretty clear that a nuclear iran is an impossibility. a nuclear iran and the survival of the state of israel are two things that will be compatible. they will have to act. the question is whether we will work with them or stand on the sidelines or actively oppose them. it is not just our allies in the region, it is to the entire middle east and to the world at large. the idea that iran with a nuclear weapon would not lead to a saudi arabia with a nuclear weapon or a turkey with a nuclear weapon.

>> you would commit u.s. troops to board? >> i do not think we are talking about u.s. troops. onre talking about strikes their nuclear facility. we certainly have firepower into the gulf. israel has the firepower to carry out that mission. >> back on the economy, that is what most people think the election is going to be about. we are dealing now with multinational companies that have plants overseas as well as plant here. they not only go to where it is cheapest to produce the goods, and not get taxed on them, but also they do not have any particular allegiance to the united states of america and the fundamental goals you have been talking about. how do you get the economy back

to anywhere but it was before when you have such low labor costs overseas and absolute ignorance of environmental laws and regulations? i do not think they have all shot in china -- osha in china. >> when you look at our largest trading partners, there is a 20% differential and cost. between what those nine trading partners have versus the united states. if you say, how can we eliminate that 20%? labor becomes the only variable in cost. if it is a high labor intensive manufacturing process, america is not going to compete. in china, they are moving jobs

to other places that have cheapest labor costs. we may keep some of those jobs because there are locally owned and people are willing to web lower profit margins, -- are willing to have lower profit margins. we have to focus on the non-high labor intensive businesses. most manufacturing is not high labor intensive. the way to do that is not to have a tariff war. that we go out and compete. we eliminate about 20% cost differential by regulations. i put together my 0-0-0 plan. there is a good marketing guy out there. we zero out the corporate tax

for processors. it is a 35% tax. you're talking 17%. that is a pretty big chunk out of the 20%. you of eliminating the corporate tax for manufacturers and processors. i 0 out every regulation the obama administration has put in place. repeal some of them completely, we write others in a way that works with the business community to make sure they -- we can comply with epa and the other regulatory bodies. zero out the repatriation tax that is in place right now. if you invest that money and

plant the company he -- the equipment here in america. we provide extra incentive to bring that back. zero out every subsidy for energy in america. treat every energy business like every other business. eliminate -- there are two tax credits for oil and gas. get rid of those. there is wind, solar, hydro -- get rid of them all. there is no subsidy for nuclear. pahse those out over a five--- phase those out over a 5- year period.

let the marketplace work. open up the drilling in south dakota and alaska and other places. build pipelines. have a regulatory environment that is conducive. if you do those four things, you will wipe out that 20% differential. one of the big advantages we have, you hear this from a lot of manufacturers, its intellectual property rights. you can protect your investors by not having your technology stolen. that is one of the big problems that they have. they also have all sorts of issues with respect to transportation. there is a reason for america to have hope. we can get a lot of those jobs back.

not just to have "made in america" stamped on things. >> what should we be doing about the cyber warfare that is being conducted in china? >> i worked on that issue. i put some remarks in a place -- earmarks in place for cyber security. this was back in the 1990's, when it was just a new threats. i happen to have a university in my hometown of pittsburgh, carnegie-mellon, the number one cyber the security university. they have a center there that the cyber security. i have worked on this for a long time. it is a very serious threat to our country and one that we are

simply not as prepared for. it is something -- what we found is that the government role is of theand encourage yr private sector. we provide the kind of cutting edge technology. it is just like apple, if you will. the cutting edge stuff is not going to come out of the government. this is such a dynamic marketplace and you have so many smart people to come up with these innovations. we need to be in a place for we can foster that activity and try to harness it. that is the system that we created out there. i just want to make sure that it is funded and the private sector has that ability to operate in that environment. >> is there no offensive action to be taken against china? >> in responding, you could make

the argument that -- it is hard to trace the as things. to be able to respond -- it is hard to trace these things. you have to be careful about how actively you engage in that activity. the principal thing is to have defensive capability, have an offensive capability if necessary, to be able to respond in kind. i am. public -- i am very public that we should develop an offensive capability and let the chinese know that we're working on that. it is just like mutually assured destruction. attacking the united states would have a retaliatory feature as opposed to just a shield against a cyber attack.

>> i did not know you were down there. >> you talked a little bit about policy in the ninth circuit. what what they read santorum administration encourage -- what would direct santorum administration encourage? >> i am not for term limits for judges and justices. that takes a constitutional amendment. i am not a huge fan of a constitutional amendment, as it is necessary to prevent something that would be catastrophic to our country. i do not think it is that type of issue. the answer to your question is, it a santorum administration

would focus on trying to reestablish the founders' intent that every branch of government has to -- passed a right to say what is constitutional. there is nothing in the constitution that says the judiciary is the supreme branch of government. that is where we are with activist judges to a pentagon decisions and handcuffed both the congress and the president's from doing anything differently. it is not in the constitution. there was a practice that was in place and it was overly suggested something called judicial restraint. they would not impose their values on the constitution.

they should construe their opinions to decide the case among the peoples branches of government have that constitutional debate or discussion in the public square. that has changed. one place it has changed is in the ninth circuit. they have overturned close to 90%. they have countless others that the court did not have time to hear. they're very bad decisions. if you look at the -- if you look at our founders, what is the most important branch of government? the obvious answer is the one they put to first. that is the congress. if you look at -- is a pretty long section of the constitution.

the second most important branch, the executive branch, smaller, more defined powers. the third is a very small section, establishes one court. it doesn't give them a whole lot of power. that branch of the government to lord of the other two is a corruption of the constitution and is damaging to our republic. what i am trying to do is send a message that we will do things differently. we're going to confront the courts when we think they are wrong. the supreme court struck down a bill but i was a principal author of. we were never able to get it passed. it struck down a similar bill from nebraska. when president bush came to

office, i went to work with the house judiciary committee. the folks want to push back, as i did. we've been able to draft a bill that laid out the bill that nebraska was. what we did was let out an argument and the first two sections of the bill what the supreme court was wrong. we will pass this bill, tell the courts they are wrong. we have an opportunity, just like you, to say what is constitutional and what is not. we're going to pass this bill and see what happens. they reversed the decision. i think it is important for congress and the president, when the supreme court gets in iran, the other branches of government cannot sit on the sidelines and wait for another court case and hopefully that they change their mind. wait for us to put a new justice on the court. we have an obligation to push back on the court and tell them

that we have an obligation under the constitution to do what we think is constitutional. >> [inaudible] a president who does not quite agree. the court having its opinion. if john marshall is wrong and the supreme court does not ultimately decide, you'll have four different opinions. >> there's a difference between deciding and imposing their values and legislating or executing from the bench. i have no problem with the court -- if the court's practice judicial restraint and says, we believe that this provision is wrong. i know a lot of cases, but the one i know the base is the whole issue on gay marriage.

the united states supreme court, prior to that decision, the court could find it unconstitutional under an equal protection grounds. it applied the sodomy statutes differently depending on who you were. they could have said, this is don king's constitutional -- this is unconstitutional. if you did that, i would have no problem. at the time, i said i would not have voted for that statute. but they -- they did do that and they said while we are here, we think it is unconstitutional -- and then they went on and said -- if the statute is unconstitutional, did not go on and say, while we're here, we will change the law. that is not what john marshall intended. that is not what thomas and

jefferson signed off on. that is legislating from the bench. it is imposing your values on the rest of the country. the country should have an opportunity to fight back. and we do not. we have taken judicial supremacy to the extreme. ultimately, it is going to be decided in the courts, i agree with that. we need to keep pushing and we are not. we need to do that. we need to establish the court is not the final say when it comes to when they exceed their authority. and they have, repeatedly. >> did you win your case for the world wrestling federation on the matter of steroid use? >> i want to correct the record. it has nothing to do with steroid use. >> what does it have to do it? i am trying to give our readers

to understand the background. you were a lawyer and one of your clients was the world's wrestler. >> i was practicing law in pittsburgh and one of our clients was the world wrestling foundation because we defended a guy who beat up a flight attendant. we ended of representing the client. the clients was looking to change the statute of pennsylvania. they worked with us as a law firm. do you have anybody there? they said, we have this guy who had gone to law school in harrisburg and worked in the state senate. maybe he would be willing to do it. i was not lobbying to do anything. they said, can you do this? i said, okay, it might be fine. when i was a kid, i used to watch all that stuff.

i thought it would be cool to meet all these guys. i thought it would be a fun thing to do. i took on that responsibility. the case was that pennsylvania regulated rustling like a boxing match. you had referees that had to pay the state. you had to keep timekeepers and all of these people who were going to be there to collect the tickets. it was a throwback from wind whenling -- from and rustlin wrestling was the sport. now it is entertainment. it is like telling children

there is no santa claus. i cannot believe these people do not think that. >> you mean it is not true? >> i did not mean -- we would bring them back and introduce them to the wrestlers and show them what went on. these officials were just sitting around playing cards, not doing anything. they were getting in the way because they would say, we have to do things this way or that way. this is a show. it is certainly athletic. this is dangerous stuff. but it is not a competitive sport. that is what we did. we deregulated it from the standpoint of having officials that monitored. it had nothing to do with steroids. >> one more sports question. penn state, your alma mater. should joe go?

>> some friends of mine have read the indictment. i have just read the press reports and i am sick to my stomach. i am not sure i can read the indictment. i am just sickened by it. i do not know jerry sandusky, but i certainly know of him. i certainly knew him after he left. this was a guy who was a great philanthropist, someone who helped children, was seen as one of the solid citizens of the state. and i am sure it would not have entered anybody's mind. when someone says, jerry is messing around with somebody in the shower. it can be that. i am sure he is just horsing around.

i am sure josiah bed and thought, i will report it and have somebody -- i am sure joe said and thought, i would reported and have somebody investigated. i am sure he is as stunned as everybody else. he is not indicted and they did not implicate him in any way. clearly, the people do have the responsibility and show assign the responsibility of finding out what happens did a horrible thing. i am sure they are being indicted because they lied about it. the fact that they lets down this program and allowed something like this to happen, i do not know joe's role. all i can say is that heads have rolled and probably more heads should roll. i know him personally.

there is no better guy out there. i think it is tragic that given the one incident, given his relationship with this guy, given the fact that he was not told the details, according to what i read, to say that his career has been sullied, that is an overreaction. i hope it is an overreaction. i do not know all the details. from what i know, it is an overreaction. this program -- the legacy has been changed. that is a devastating blow to all of us. >> i assume whoever wins the nomination -- does that go for herman cain as well? >> i do not know -- i just do

not know enough about what is going on to be able to make a value judgment. i think it will have to play out for a while and we will make that determination. i do not know harman that well. -- i do not know herman cain that well. he is a great marketer and a dynamic speaker and a charismatic figure. i hope that his side of the story is exactly what happened. it is hard and these kinds of situations to find out what is the truth. he would like to think -- you would like to think that he is telling the truth and these things are baseless. >> we need to wrap it up. >> i think we are good. i think we have covered it. i will look up your program on taxes. we have not gone to tax policy at all. i know you are not a fan of the

9-9-9 plan. >> no, i am not. >> [inaudible] >> people said, we need a flat tax. even a flat tax, they tried to make progressive. they create all these exemptions for lower income people. you have to have simplification. the plan had but four were has a five exemptions and exclusions of the personal rate -- the plan i put forward has five exemptions and exclusions of the personal rate. get rid of everything else. it would make it a simpler tax system and the irs becomes a smaller organization. i am not opposed to fundamental tax reform. doing that in a time of economic recession and huge budget deficits, you do not know what

you were going to get. the idea that we will have a tax plan that may result in a trillion dollars is not something that i am excited about. you have to have something that is -- you have a pretty idea at -- you have a pretty good idea that will jump-start the economy. the idea of having some brands newfangled idea, just because it sounds good, you can say we're getting rid of the irs, let's have that debate when i am running for reelection. right now, this economy is sick. we need to do something to get the economy well. the tax code should be used to do that. for example, wiping out -- what is the housing thing? the mortgage interest-rate, you wipe that out, what is going to happen to housing prices in

america? they are going to go down. now you are going to drop housing prices, pick a number. now we have folks -- it was 20% of mortgages in this country are under water. who knows? why would we do that? not that i am a huge fan of the home interest deduction, it is good cause for us to ratchet it down and only apply it to certain homes and certain amount of money. and we million dollars. did -- and we talked it adds a million dollars. to do that now, it makes no sense. -- and we talked it out $8 million. to do that now, it makes no sense. for example, i am not an opponent of the fair tax. i think it is an interesting concept.

that is an interesting theory and it makes a lot of sense. to go through that debate right now, and had a two-year debate on the fair tax, which need to do something now. we need to pass something now to get this economy going. having a debate on fundamental tax form -- 9-9-9 gets you popular. i am running for president so i can put a plant together that will actually work for america. not to have fenty slogans that will when you voters. -- not to have fancy slogans voters.l when you vin you i am the candidate who is like the guy at the dance -- all the girls may pass by and see another guide that is better another guide that is better looking