the gaza strip. this is not something that people want happening. but again, i want to warn all of us on the aleutian been made between al qaeda and the sudanese generally. why can't the administration -- and the sunnis generally. why can't the administration make the distinction? can the intelligence community still not distinguish her the good guys are and the bad guys are generally? i think they have an idea now. the president has made it a preference of his policy to identify the good guys in syria, if they said that, and then say, who are we going to back and who are going to arm? i submit that the intelligence community would come up with a pretty good idea of who we should be backing and who we should be our main. the fact that we are not our main these people is not that we cannot find them.

it is not that we cannot tell the difference between al qaeda and the regular sunnis. it is that we do not want to. the greatest setback for iran in the last 20 years, the fall of the shop. president mccain pretty much o said the same thing. and he also talked about hezbollah. hezbollah has an awful lot of arms right now. even if the shock were to topple today, they probably have enough rockets for more than one round in israel. nevertheless, for hezbollah to lose, its strategic ally in syria, that would represent a huge setback for the iranians.

the iranians and recognize this. that is why we should probably lend some credence to the reports that there are both irgc fighters and hezbollah fighters in syria in order to keep the regime of float. -- aflota. -- aflota. it is also interesting what it says about how the regime is doing militarily if there are foreign fighters supporting it. what does the military position look like? let me go through this very quickly. again, if we believe that the iranian threats -- if the iranian threat is that significant, why don't we look for an opportunity to take on the iranians wherever possible? especially if everyone is saying -- david said there should be boots on the ground in turkey, but not in syria. no one else is calling for

american troops right now. the administration has said -- they have been quite clear saying, look, we are not moving toward a policy of containment and deterrence. we are looking at iranians getting nuclear. that means an incredible use of force, like in the cold war. i'm not sure why we are reluctant to back the free syrian army. one possibility is that we think syria is a distraction. we think iran is much more important. this might be a reason why we have given russia a leading role. we expect russians to deliver the iranians over the next two days to begin with, and then

over the negotiation process as well. and the other possibility is that we actually do not think the iranian nuclear program -- and i have not heard this argument made by the administration, but i could see how one would be made that the iranian nuclear program is not that big an issue. if the israelis have a problem with it, let them deal with it. but remember, our issue is not protecting israel. and i mean american interests. it is the persian gulf. american lake. this is our interest. the idea that we are turning against sunnis and that we keep aligning sunnis and al qaeda and syria says something about the way we perceive the iranian

nuclear program generally. >> [applause] >> what i would like to do is immediately move on to q&a. a couple of notes before we do. please state your name and affiliation when i hand you the microphone. i also believe in jeopardy rules. if you have a phrase, a statement to make, please frame it in the form of a question. asked as many questions as you want. they will only answer the first question, so we get as much back and forth as possible and so as many people as possible can ask questions. yes, sir. >> >> i am a teacher. i was struck by his call to action, which seemed to hinge on the statement, "that we hold these truths to be self-evident

and inalienable, that all men are created equal rights." this argument is that a nation is hitched to universal rights. therefore, sovereignty, national sovereignty, dissolves in the face of this. you have a nation that is based on universal ideals and that applies to the sovereignty of all nations, generally speaking. >> who would like to take that? >> let me rephrase it, if i may. you are saying that because the united states has an exceptional list view of itself, that means it perceives itself as able to trample the sovereignty of other nations? is that what you mean?

>> [inaudible] >> we need to address this issue. let me phrase it this way. if the panel could address the issues relating to sovereignty with universalism, idealism, and we can also talk about the concept of unilateralism vs. multilateralism. >> i do not see it in terms of a violation of syrian sovereignty in terms of universal values. it very quickly, the way i phrased my argument is in terms of u.s. interests. especially regarding iran and the nuclear program. that is how i see it. >> he identified the intersection of american values and national interests. we cannot fix everything everywhere, but this is a clear case where it meet both

criteria. >> [inaudible] the moral adjustment and strategic utility of any action based on the expected outcome of those actions, not on the motivation for making them. i worry in this case that our actions are not necessarily going to advance our cause the way we would like them to. that is my note of caution. [laughter] >> other questions? i would like to start in the back and work our way forward, so people who have not had the opportunity before can ask questions. >> thank you. i am from the center for global development. my colleagues and i have been working on a new tool, a diplomatic tool if you will.

the idea is that the debt -- the u.s. and u.k. would assign with a regime that would be legitimate. this could be done multilaterally with other government and be more effective. this could have a direct impact on companies and with russia and china doing business. it might make it clear that their contracts might not be enforceable is the successor government chooses to repudiate them. and the successor government could be saddled with debt from their regime. that could be a diplomatic tool that we could discuss, not having any other diplomatic tools. i wonder if you have any thoughts and other ways that we could address russia and diplomacy.

>> that was directed to senator mccain before and i think skepticism is called for. if we look of what the regime is doing -- i wrote a book about the use of force and coercion. that is how middle east politics works. if we are talking about ethnic cleansing, then we are past the point of diplomacy and passed the point of contracts. maybe i am misunderstanding, but i do not see how that is going to happen. >> the syrian national council already said it will not honor a contract with russia, the weapons being sold to russia to kill them. that is not stopping russia from sending more weapons. >> i think these things are worth trying. i do not think they are necessarily independent of

military action. the one thing i want to point out that i think is interesting, but not directly related, is when you look at jihadist discourse about syria, it is interesting to note that russia and china have become the big bugaboos in the way that the u.s. was in the past. china imports just as much saudi oil as we do and this has always been an argument for al qaeda. al qaeda looks at this situation and they do see -- this does not mean they will change their focus, but you do see the popular resentment towards russia and china that is reflected across the arab world because the support for the assad regime is sharpened through these jihadist arguments. it is interesting that those two countries that are backing

the syrian regime, i think they will see some consequences from the ugly non-state actors. >> i will use moderator's perata and john been on this question as well. military academies teach the so- called dime strategy, the thought that every strategy should have diplomatic and military components. the lumber that some of these conflicts drive on, there are some that seek to profit from them. we saw, for example, saddam hussein, who no policymaker expected to survive the uprising in 1991. russia and china, perhaps, decided they would break the isolation by trying to win contracts, up to and including the last days of saddam hussein. if contracts can provide some positive pressure to

unilaterally bypass the stranglehold that the -- that moscow has on the international security council by means of its veto, and at the same time it is not adopted by the security council, but is also adopted by declaration in london and in washington as the policy of the british government and the american government, it can perhaps, have some weight in court and in discussions as various government and companies try to pick up the pieces should the assad regime fall. >> look, i think these kinds of movement are important. i wish they had been undertaken months ago. right now, it is okay. let's have them, but not as a substitute for intervention. i also want to abuse my

prerogative as a panelist. the response on jihadists, is not that i'm agreeing with you or that i think this is not a complex situation. we should consider intervention more strongly, because reality is that without the possibility of influence on the ground for intervention, you have given jihadists more leeway on the ground that you should. with that said, jihadist are not independent actors, especially in the middle east and in syria. one of the sponsors of the jihadist movement -- and you

have seen this in lebanon. they have been up until recently very much infiltrating the movement like marionettes to do their bidding. jihadists are actually a creation of assad. but why they have created them -- up until a few days ago, there was an interview with a jihadist that was imprisoned. and before he carried out a suicide attack. what was the target? was it a particular neighborhood? it was not. was a church? it was not. and was a mosque at the center of the protest movement in the neighborhood.

this was one of the thorny places. the mosque was at the center of the assad regime. but people would go there and hold daily and weekly protests, and a challenge in the uprising. these are very strange jihadists, really. they go out and kill the people they are supposed to be supporting. the idea at is to create problems for the protests community and for the protest leaders and those in their own community. they are not only interested in creating their own areas, but also in making sure the other areas are destabilized. they are not congealing into one government. they have a series of

challenges that they have to surmount. on the other hand, they are giving the jihadist problems as well. they were encouraging them, using them, and if they lost control at some point, who cares? it will be trouble for the government that will emerge in the rest of syria. this is why they were trying to get booed on the ground and to train the fsa and help the fsa. they need to train security forces and police forces to make sure that they address these kinds of challenges, because they have been trained

to do so more effectively than the local fighters. they need to make sure these kinds of challenges are under control from the beginning. >> i agree, if we were going to train folks -- i think the description of how to do it that david gave it makes a lot of sense. in my mind, a stronger argument for that course of action exist then for using international air power. to because i do not think that mission can be sustained. it will become a mission to remove the assad regime. if that is what we want to do, then we should get on with it. i'm skeptical it will work. but clarity about goals is very important. i agree with you that i think the presence of jihadist groups in syria benefits the assad

regime. but i do not think that necessarily means that those groups are a product of the assad regime or working for the regime. i think at times, the assad regime will manipulate those elements to try to create problems for the opposition. and i think it is clear that the assad regime is using propaganda of those small groups to try to discredit the opposition. that is something we all need to push back against because it is simply not true. we should also not overstate the connection between the assad regime and the jihadists. the regime enables jihadist groups on their way to iraq, and we have documents of that. very clear documentary evidence of that. i would argue as much as there are jihadists and traveling

through syria into iraq, and we have record of it, we also have very good testimony of captured shiites that iraqi shiite fighters were being flown to damascus for training by hezbollah. the assad regime was playing both sides during the war. that is what regime is due. they look out for number one. this is not a regime that is in bed with the jihadist by any means. they will try to create trouble for their opposition. at the end of the day, in my judgment, there is an independent jihadist movement, certainly the divide your jihadist community believes in and is supporting that group. they feel is one of their own. i am not in a great position to make that decision independently. but the regional work of the jihadists is in a better

position and they have made that judgment. though the existence of that growth helps assad politically and operationally, i think what it does is help him keep control of the dominant military because it scares those folks. it does not have to be a dominant group. it can be a small group. but it scares those folks. it allows assad to say, if you defect on me, those are the people you have to deal with. even if they are not everybody. that is what is dangerous about this. >> if you like to ask questions, make yourself known where you are sitting. are there questions toward the back? yes, sir, with the glasses. and second to that, the gentleman right in front of him. >> i think most of the speakers are very much in favor of what

senator mccain said today, with the exception of mr. fishman. if you could give your plan of what you would like to see happen in syria and how that separates you from everyone else. thanks. >> well, you got me. touche. i think there is a program, as some have indicated, of stepped-up sanctions. i think we need to reach out to as many factions as possible in iran and iraq to stop the spread of what is happening there. i think we need to establish programs to stop the spread of nauert and to plan our to try to

stop the spread of dangerous weapons from syria as possible. none of those are perfect answers. i think we should explore a dedicated program to try to understand the syrian opposition such that we can make good decisions if we want to support someone like that in a program, as david was talking about. i think we have developed that kind of knowledge. and i do not want to make the argument that there is not a place we want to do that. but what i am very wary have is this notion of safe zones and trying to carve out direct action against the syrian regime. and i think the regime is acting from a position of fear internationally, and from a

position of fear where they could lash out in really unpredictable ways. we need to consider the interest in iran. if we can pull this off, it is the biggest blow against them in 25 years. but they will push back in iraq in a big way and in afghanistan a big way. if anything, the loss of syria will retrench the running regime's desire for a nuclear weapon. some would argue that they could not desired more. it that as possible. but i think all of that is a repercussion here that we should consider. >> i will just repeat the question so the microphones will pick it up. the question is, what about the slaughter? how does one deal with the responsibility to protect and the humanitaria crisis?

that is directed to the whole panel. >> i will speak just briefly because i have been talking a lot. we have an obvious responsibility to do what we can to stop the slaughter, not just in syria, but in other places. we are talking about this particular instance of a humanitarian crisis because there is a nexus with our strategic interests in the u.s. we have seen terrible slaughter in somalia, in sudan. we are not having the first conversation about that situation. and those people's lives are worth just as much as the syrians. we are having this conversation because of the strategic dynamic. the issue is not that i think we should not do things about slaughter. the issue is that i think the military action in this contest

is likely to be very violent. there is likely to be a lot of collateral damage. it is a much denser society than in libya. most of the killing is being done by men with ak-47's. those are hard people to bomb. it is hard to stop the slaughter in a small village when the killing is being done with knives and power tools. >> i think we should stop it more for interest reasons. the fact that we did not have this discussion with sudan or somalia reflects negatively on us, not necessarily on whether we should not be having this conversation. i think we should have been having this conversation. there are a lot of legitimate

reasons why there should be something serious doubt about the slaughter that is taking place in sudan and somal. the issues of intervention for me, those are complex for me. we have reached a stage of consciousness in this world where we begin to say that some things should not ever happen. slaughtering children, that should not happen. on the other hand, when you are talking about the dynamism and intervention and the military aspect and collateral damage, we are all aware of that. we realized assad is not going to go way through peaceful means. our people began to try to fight back.

it is that moment we realized there would not be a solution without a military intervention. no one is asking people to take away ak-47s. the rebels can take care of that themselves. i put up a youtube video of the houses come that they were being pounded. the area was empty. it was intentionally away from residential neighborhoods because they did not want to get found by the local fighters. these kinds of weapons, it is the tank convoys moving on the highways between different

cities that can be targeted. we are aware of the collateral damage and there are places where there can be minimal collateral damage. it is a combination of things. i really believe that the discussion is not about intervention, it is more like -- this is what senator mccain pointed out when he said we are moving forward because these scenarios are on the table. but you need to realize that time is not on our side. the partitioning is taking place. we should be speeding up the

scenarios. i want to acknowledge the fact we have a couple of people that could help shed light on this. they do not come here often. it also shows something about the syrian opposition. for all of the talk about the divisions, actually there is a lot of coordination between all of the different political factions. today we have a group of syrian opposition members, one is a representative of the muslim brotherhood, and there is my colleague also from the syrian national consul representing liberal independents there. we have my colleague from the national council for syria. we also have my colleague who is from the first opposition

conference that was formed. so all of these different people from different backgrounds, and representatives from a group of activists, all of these people have been working together for months at a time trying to create coordination between the different opposition groups and trying to create a unity. it is just important to realize that it is not only division, but there is scored nation taking place. that can be leveraged as well.

this kind of effort can be leveraged. to do the things. >> we also have another group of questions from the opposition delegation. i had offered this gentlemen up here the opportunity to be next then we will move in the back. and then the question over to the right. >> my name is david and i work in special operations. my question is, the u.s. involvement, even in a limited scope, as a have the potential to galvanize the situation and increase the likelihood form fighters and other terrorist organizations will want to go into syria? is that an acceptable risk to take because it would probably lead to scope creep? >> i do not think we have to encourage, i think we are going to see a foreign fighters. we have an interest in helping it to end as quickly as possible in the favor of the opposition.

the no fly zone, i do not think that would energize the jihadi. we are trying to help syrians fight the regime. you're going to get some of foreign fighters as well that i do not think this is going to change the dynamic entirely by having u.s. involvement, if it is not on the ground. >> i saw a question all the way in the back corner. please wait for the microphone and introduce yourself. >> i am from the syrian national council. the syrian government has a biological weapon.

we have to intervene at one point to control that stockpile. >> again, this was just mentioned. boots on the ground killing syrian officers and collateral damage and suffering u.s. casualties. this is going to be a big risk to do that. it will create a whole host of operational challenges for us. better that they are secured by syrians. once you go in there, by the way, you are in there for the long haul. you have to figure out a way to destroy them as well. this is a long-term operation and will be the least popular

operation for americans to try to sell this type of involvement. it will have high casualties, potentially. wod is going to be an issue to keep the attention of u.s. policy makers. but that is all the more reason to try to create areas that are not law list but are well disciplined to guard these facilities. >> the gentleman in the back. please wait for the microphone. >> thank you. my question is looking back at history, i think senator mccain pointed out an example but kosovo has been an example where by the u.s. intervening after it was clear that atrocities were happening. i am also looking at it from the experience of rwanda where

people did not intervene while atrocities were happening. a genocide happen. we have seen hama happen. i am skeptical, what will it take for the international community to be in a position to do something about what is happening in syria? or are we going to wait until it reaches the scale of rwanda? i am not convinced of that. i tend to think that the administration is going to avoid doing anything about it for as long as possible and that the romney campaign, it is not to just there are republicans who look at this differently. there are a lot of republicans

who do not want to act on this. what will change it? will it be raw numbers? it might be. the regime is avoiding a step like that. i do not know what will change the equation. >> the gentleman over here. >> i am retired from the office of the secretary of defense. you talked about the partition that is happening. look into the future, any of you come up with a partition be bad? i am not arguing for it but think it through. what is wrong with that?

>> if it is cordial. if it does not involve ethnic cleansing of so many people, if it is a partitioned into two states instead of god knows how many systems, perhaps the syrian people can come together and agree in a dialogue to do it. the problem is we do not have that scenario. it is not just coming together and discussing in a peaceful, civilized manner whether we want to be together or not. what is happening is one-sided. one regime, for its own purposes, for the sake of remaining in power, for having the privilege of the rule, for being able to keep the billions he has stolen and to keep stealing more, wanting to do this.

we are talking about the scenario that will involve, if it is allowed to continue to unfold in this way, thousands and thousands of lives more that will have to die and hundred thousands that will be displaced. the cost of it is so draconian, i cannot even speculate about this. seehis stage, i'd prefer to calls for reintegration as much impossible of the rest of syria. i do not see a scenario where we will go into the stronghold to incorporate them into the country. but they do not want to, they do not want to.

at this stage, the strategy is about supporters of the entities that are emerging in trying to make them two a viable entities that can still be integrated once they realize how much of a problem assad is an decide to rebel against him. i do not want to see people who are at war with each other. unfortunately, the dithering of the international community has brought us to where i do not see a solution that can keep syria whole anymore. russian backing is very important. they have been given the opportunity to do it.

>> i cannot think of any more fitting way then giving the last question to the syrian national council. if i could have moham ask the question. >> i am an executive with in the muslim brotherhood of syria. what i have here today is many reasons for not intervening. i would like to also here, if you have enough analysis of not intervening, what would be the results from the american point of view and the interest of the freedom fighters worldwide?

>> to paraphrase, what would be the cost of inaction if the americans continue to sit on the sidelines, and the international community? if you have a quick answer, we can move across the panel. >> again, my focus, bashar al- assad can survive a little while. even cause a great deal of damage during the time he will survive. i think it will affect the region and for the night did states, i want people to focus on this and for the united states, i want people to focus on this and they are not. if iran is the problem, iran is the problem. that is what is going on in syria. it is iran benefiting from this and i see more regional turmoil. that is the cost. >> i'm going to flip the question for dave. what would be the american response?

if you believe there is a hope there could be a crew that would replace bashar al-assad with a military general and would that give policymakers something? >> i think that is absolutely the u.s. policy. secretary of state clinton says we are waiting for a coup. we will continue to wait while people are massacred. hopefully if things get bad enough, she said we think it is becoming. this is the thing, a coup is essentially not a change of power. this is not going to be something that is qualitatively different for us.

i do not think it is a reasonable alternative and some general out there it may find it useful to be done with the assads because there will this be -- there will be a plan offered where the opposition is offered 40% of and relevant parliament and the west can wipe their hands of this dirty business. but that is unacceptable to the opposition and should be an acceptable to us. >> what i would like to do now is think all of the panelists who have participated as well as the syrian delegation who has come a long way, not only geographically to come here to washington. i am not a syria expert. i am just the moderator of this panel but when i want to learn what is going on in syria, i always turn to the analysis and the essays of the four panelists who are here today.

i would urge all of you to give them a great round of applause and to do likewise. thank you very much. [applause] >> up next, nobel peace prize winner tawakkol karman discusses women's rights and human rights in the middle east. and then a panel discussion on the obama health care law. u.s. immigration policy, and gop presidential candidate mitt romney campaign in wisconsin.

tomorrow, democratic congresswoman sheila jackson lee of texas discusses the administration's new deportation policy and our support for attorney general eric holder. texas congressman will give his view of the new policy. the current discussion on capitol hill regarding erika holzer and the transportation and student bills. -- eric holder and the transportation and student bells. -- bills. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. next time month, our guest on

booktv. it has resulted in a dozen books. joining us live with calls, e- mails, and tweedts. in 2011, a 32-year-old political activist became the first arab woman to win the nobel peace prize. tawakkol karman spoke to students at harvard university about her role in the yemenia uprising in the arab spring. her speech includes questions from the audience. this is about one hour and 25 minutes.

>> i am honored to this evening to introduce her excellency tawakkol karman, a journalist, and she has been fighting publicly for political liberties since at least without chains, yes. without to change, yes. -- without chains, yes. nge, chains. that is a big difference. she has been dubbed on the subject of change, at the yemeni joan of arc.

but at home, she is known as the mother of the revolution. a mother of three children herself and a mother of what she refers to as the yemeni youths peaceful resolution. she is credited with lighting the spark of the air of spring in yemen and leading the transformational demonstration in what she calls change. that is a central message. and it tends to dampen her fine, she has been arrested, -- and that tends to dampen her, she has been arrested and attacked. she and her fellow protesters are credited with the removal of the yemeni dictator and for setting her country on the course to democratic rule. in 2011, she was counted among

foreign policies 100 most influential thinkers globally. as you know, she was also awarded the nobel peace prize for her leadership in non- violent struggle for peace, democracy, and women's liberation. karman dedicated her nobel prize to all of the yemeni who sought a peaceful resolution -- a revolution, facing snipers with flowers. and to be peaceful protesters in tunisia, egypt, and all of the arab world. in anticipation of her visit, i watched a lot of youtube videos. i wanted to see her message and watcher in action. i was tempted to stream of some of the images of her leading chants. many of these videos brought

tears to my eyes. as i watched these videos, i was reminded of the poet carl sandburg's tribute to abraham lincoln, a man who led our country through a painful civil war, fighting for the integrity of our democracy and human rights. sandburg wrote of lincoln, "and not often in the story of mankind does a man arrive on earth who is both steel and velvet, who is as hard as rock and soft is drifting fog. who holds the paradox of terrible storm and peace, unspeakable and perfect." we have the honor this evening to share the company of a woman who is both steel and velvet. a person who has the strength

of a pair but -- terrible storms and the vision of peace unspeakable imperfect. the type of person are world needs so desperately today. please join me in welcoming her helplessly, -- excellency, tawakkol karman. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am tawakkol karman. i am so proud, i am so grateful, i am so happy that i am here at harvard university. this is my second time to be here.

i was wondering what is the time i will study at harvard university. but now i am teaching. what is that? [laughter] really, i am so proud and also i am so proud for coming to harvard university with the president, that she is a woman. her excellency, i would congratulate her to leading this oldest and biggest university in the world. this is a big achievement for all women, and also for a man

around the world. i am sure that harvard university's leadership will be big and more effective. now i will speak in arabic.

[translating] i continue to smell the fragrance for hope and peace that will better our society. however, i still see leftovers of that time such as the blood of my brothers who were murdered and wounded in the revolution. their only crime was to demand a better future in their homeland for all people and their desire for equality of citizens. [speaking arabic]

let me talk to you about the country posts of -- countries of the arab spring as those who will likely go a similar fate in the near future. the change which was a historical effort because of the tierney that has been in place -- tyranny that has been in place. [speaking arabic]

there are common factors among these countries that have brought down a tyrant and corrupt dictators. [speaking arabic]

they are set up around individuals and families. the corruption and -- is significant and supported by those in power. they are set up to ensure the protection and enhanced powers of the leaders. in addition, the security service and military service are also in a place to support the practice of the leaders. their mission is to practice different forms of torture as well as arbitrary detention. people suffe from unemployment and a lack of minimum

requirements to live their lives in a free and respectful manner. >> [speaking foreign-language] >> the joint factors are among the cultures of the arab spring are the passing of power from father to son or other members of the family. bashar aside took the power from his father who died. it is the same as gaddafi in

libya. >> [speaking foreign language] >> what has made it worse is where the opposition of these systems failed in their power centers.

it was hampered and oftentimes had to be led by those outside the country until they could return for the revolution. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> this created frustration among the people and a crisis of leadership. the situation got worse. the youth were allowed to reach out through this system of flexibility and communication, something that the regime could not control. this will happen time and time again as long as the leaders of a press in -- oppress communication. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> the use have been showing up a lot internees' yeah, and in egypt and then in syria. they are looking for freedom, justice and equality before the law. they want justice and the ability to live their lives in this manner. they came out and did not want to die, but rather, were searching for this event -- the

dignity that had been taken from them until this time and not just for them, but for generations to come. [speaking foreign language] >> the use of the arab spring -- youth of the arab spring wanted sacrifice. they had a great deal of confidence in the power of protest and demonstration, working in a peaceful manner. they viewed this as the on the

way to achieve their dream of a country based upon justice and rule of law. peaceful, our revolution is peaceful. we went to the streets. our revolution is a flower. we were yelling and sharing in the alleys and streets -- shouting in the alleys and the street. the people want to bring down the regime. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> we are just focusing on the future, not the past conflict. and we'd throw -- [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, let me try in english. we went to the streets. people wanted to put down the regime. when we went to the streets, [unintelligible] or pictures or images of any kind of differences.

[unintelligible] and also with confidence that the only link between all the people, and the strongest link is the link of revolution. i will repeat in arabic. [speaking forum in which -- speaking foreign language]

>> the old regime uses the old style, which is divide and rule. we did not care about past conflicts. we struggled and tried to unite our nation. >> [speaking foreign language) >> we faced all of these challenges and we did not back off at all. we were courageous. we could not continue just to watch.

everything for our freedom and our dignity, we want to gain a pack. -- get back. everything we do is for our freedom and dignity so that we will gain it back. ladies and gentlemen, -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> at the west pointed out the corrupt system of modernization to the world. it was clear that the tunisian government worked against its people, putting pressure on them.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> in egypt, the regime of hawes in the park was also presented in a similar manner -- of hosni mubarak was also presented a similar manner. it was seen as aligned with the west, more particularly, interested in the interest of the west. the arab spring was an awakening for that region. also, it was an awakening for the west. the west was made alive with the

arabs through the formal statement. >> i will stake -- say in english. ok, i will search myself. i am sorry for this. [unintelligible] we pay the price of ignorant

people. there are people in this country that have a lot of ignorance also. because that is the on the way for him [unintelligible] i came here to harvard university to tell you that when the arab spring decided, when the arab youth spring decided to step down the regime, they decided not simply for progress inside their congdon -- their country. no, they decided to solve the problems are around the world.

because this is the source of all that is unstable or on the world. it is the result of the hate feelings between nations, between people, between west and east. we decided to make this great division, and we paid a lot for that. for what? for the values that all of us carry, unity, freedom, democracy. accountability. and when we decided to do that,

you respond to us that we are with you. we listened to all of your support and democracy. the west was with us when we started the tennessean -- the tunisian revolution and also the egyptian revolution and the libyan revolution. there are many obstacles up to now. it has not move forward very well.

i need someone to help me in translation, please. please. >> [inaudible] >> no, no. speaking in arabic? and you will translate? ok. [speaking arabic] >> you have to bear with me. [speaking arabic. -- [speaking arabic] but i want the tone of my speech to reach the people. [laughter] [speaking arabic] >> the west's speed in transmitting your support reached the revolutions in the

arab world. >> [speaking arabic] >> id reached one revolution after another through the different media outlets and through the legal and human rights organizations against the crimes that were being committed by the tyrannical regimes. >> [speaking arabic] >> and demanded legal action be taken against the tyrannical leaders. could you repeat the last part? >> [speaking arabic] >> but for the west to assume responsibility, the more unethical responsibility of

supporting the arab relations against the regime's, the west supported the arab revolutions. and less than anticipated [unintelligible] >> [speaking arabic] >> to advocate human rights and equality and to support human rights in the arab world. >> [speaking arabic] >> the work that the u.s. government can do in terms of

the support of the arab governments -- in support of the revolution against the arab governments to can come in the agreements and obligations. >> [speaking arabic] >> especially with government, whh it has been proven are the number one supporters and incubators and supporters of terrorism. allow me to be even more exclusive. >> [speaking arabic] >> foreign support for the governments in the region and for support against the government's -- against the revelations in the region -- >> [speaking arabic]

>> it is the other way. >> again, again. >> support for the revolution against the regime is necessary and important. >> [speaking arabic] >> such support begins by severing relationships with the government, severing diplomatic relationships and acknowledging these revolutions. >> know. >> acknowledging these revolutions? [laughter] >> again, again. >> [speaking arabic] come here. [laughter] [applause]

[speaking arabic] >> allow me to be more explicit. the support of -- the foreign intervention of the revolution and all of the people who are fighting for freedom and democracy, it is demanded. a humanitarian intervention, it is -- it is right is unnecessary. -- righteous and necessary. this support begins by severing their relationships with tyrannical and corrupt political regimes. >> [speaking arabic] >> while simultaneously acknowledging and accepting

these revolutions and their strength. and providing all of the necessary political and logistical support for the revolutions. >> [speaking arabic] >> support does not end by providing safe havens, isolated safe haven, or buying -- by allowing safe passage for them. >> [speaking arabic] >> this is the most important type of support that we ask for. and we would not resort to demands, only in the case of

safe haven for regimes that have been tenneco and barbaric like assad. -- tyrannical and barbaric like assad. >> [speaking arabic] >> all of these forms of support our harford. -- are offered we do not ask for your support except for security and military apparatus. >> [speaking arabic] >> we ask for support if and

only if the government military attacks in these isolated areas. >> [speaking arabic] >> without this exception, these revolutions should be allowed to continue in peace. regardless of how much sacrifice is involved. >> [speaking arabic] >> this allows these revolutions of 2 continue peacefully and prevent the outbreak of sectarian war and strife. >> [speaking arabic] >> this will ensure peace and international stability for the

region. >> [speaking arabic] >> the supporting -- supporting the revolution and the oppressed populations is a responsibility of each country, each organization, network, regional and international organization. supporting the oppressed is at the heart of the pce prizes -- peace process. there is no peace without justice. peace between countries is no less important than peace within the countries.

>> [speaking arabic] >> tyrant's warring against their own people requires international response equal in importance to national sovereignty. as much as is restricted by international regulations or international agreements. ladies and gentleman, -- >> [speaking arabic] [applause]

>> it is safe to say that following these revolutions, we call for a country of partnership, a country of plurality, rule of law, citizenship, equality, not a country of religion sectarianism or sharia rule of law. >> [speaking arabic] >> there is no need to fear that these revolutions will result in in -- in an outbreak of violence and civil unrest. as long as they have started peacefully, then they will struggle with peaceful means.

>> [speaking arabic] >> the social partnerships with in these revelations that were started by the youth in which they sacrificed all that they owned has proven that within this broad social partnership -- that this broad social partnership was capable of bringing down dictatorships. [speaking arabic] [laughter]

it is this spirit of the youth that is capable of bringing down the revolution and also capable of sustainability. >> [speaking foreign language] >> these revelations are also capable of fighting terrorism. following the removal of the dictators, there will not be -- these revelations will be able to contain terrorism. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the fear of terrorism is misplaced. >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorism and tyranny and are two faces of the samoa:. -- tyranny are two phases of a similar koran -- faces of a similar coin. [applause] >> [speaking foreign language]

>> terrorists and tyrants share a similar goal, which is a strategic interest. and they feed off of each other's strengths. >> [speaking foreign language] >> dear guests, humanity is capable of fixing it passed. >>-- past >> [speaking foreign language] >> history has proven this is not the germany. >> -- in a nazi germany. it has prevented with the civil- rights movement. language]foreign languag>> [spn >> here in the u.s. which is based on human rights and dignity, regardless of race or color. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> we have seen amazing human rights developments in south africa. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and a reduction of military rule in latin america. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and receive a ferocious move to rectify -- and we see a ferocious move to rectify our past. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it is enough to see the massacres in syria to realize the gravity and the size of the sacrifice that nations have to give up for dignity. [applause] >> [speaking foreign language]

>> ladies and gentlemen, i do not want to send like a preacher. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i am highly hopeful that these young generations will graduate from esteemed education organizations so they can soar with freedom and dignity and righteousness. >> [speaking foreign language] >> life, dignity, freedom, and democracy, are all principles that are not subject to separation. >> [speaking foreign language] >> call for them for yourself and humidity.

-- humanity. >> [speaking foreign language] >> this planet is of a tiny village. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they are in desperate needs of weapons that are less aggressive. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it is in desperate need of love and peace and to do without all of the dictators that are corrupt and tyrannical. >> thank you so much. [applause]

>> we might need your assistance. what is her name? >> i do not know. >> she is a beautiful interpreter who is facilitating this event. would you continue to help us? [applause] here in the forum, i will facilitate question and answers. we have three rules. all questioners must identify themselves. you can come forward. there are four mikes here.

two on the floor and two on the stairs. our second rule is one brief question per person. no speeches. we remind you all that questions and with? we wanted q --uestions end with question marks. we want real questions. i have been granted to ask the first question. i want to go back to my introduction. i think you can see visibly why she would be referred to as the mother of the revolution. you have been an extraordinary inspiration to the use in yemen -- youth in yemen. what is your message to the youth here in the united states with regards to how they can better the world?

if you do not mind. >> >> [speaking foreign language] >> my message to all people is to look to dignity and liberty. >> [speaking foreign language] >> my message to youth in the west -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> the freedom of populations that suffer under tyrannical regimes is your personal responsibility. >> [speaking foreign language] >> you cannot say this is an issue that does not concern us. >> [speaking foreign language] >> this is an issue that

concerns you. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it causes instability to the world in general. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i say to all youth -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> it cannot keep witnessing people being killed. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it cannot keep witnessing the children being killed. >> [speaking foreign language] >> these solutions are in your hands. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it can pressure our government. -- you can pressure your

government. for intervention in syria to be effective and to go beyond general statements and political announcement. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i say to youth and students, after a year-and-a-half of massacres and deaths -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> after a year and a half we heard that the syrian ambassador has been kicked out. only then did other nations follow suit. why the delay? >> [speaking foreign language] >> can you ask your government?

>> [speaking foreign language] >> i call on you to pressure your governments and pressure your parliament to establish safe havens. >> [speaking foreign language] >> to establish safe passages to provide humanitarian aid to syrians. >> [speaking foreign language] >> for there to be true economic sanctions. >> [speaking foreign language] >> for him to be included in the international criminal courts. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> to acknowledge the national transition council as the only legitimate authority. >> [speaking foreign language] >> to support the use of the revolution within the -- youth of the revolution. do not say there is nothing you can do. >> [speaking foreign language] >> youth was capable of deposit gaddafi, and, hopefully assad in the future. >> we can work together. we can build together. we need each other. [applause]

>> my name is janet. i am stuck in government. -- studying at government. some say that libya's upcoming election will be a great success. what advice do you have for the which havelexielections not been successful? >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language]

>> they need to continue within the revolution. the revolution has not ended yet. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they need to know that they are the only guaranteed power that can assure the revolution. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they need to work more effectively in order to help the political activism. they need to work within more

aggressive political parties to be able to lobby and run a more effective election campaign. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they were successful in the revolution. they need to have faith they can continue that success. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. thank you for reminding us that all people face, and challenges were periodically they have to get it right. there are older people working with younger people to create affective models were more productive things get done. people feel we can use the internet to share these ideas without anyone being in physical danger. the stories can be shared. when this group starts to come

together, would you be willing to advise it? >> [speaking foreign language] >> i am ready. is this a question? >> i will give you a card afterwards. >> i am ready. >> thank you for supporting the resolution. [speaking foreign language]

what can we do to put pressure on assad and his mother to pressure him to step down? [speaking foreign language] and what is your message for a syrian women in supporting the revolution or the movement? [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> it is the same kind of pressure we have been talking about. the establishment of safe havens. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and to provide safe routes and passages to provide humanitarian relief. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> assad and government officials who have been engaging in these war crimes need to be put on the list of war criminals and those being saw by the tribunal. -- saw by the tribunal. she is considered an accomplice if she does not try to stop him. >> [speaking foreign language] >> syrian women have been an

example of this sacrifice and strife. we will not let you down. we will support you and stand by you. [applause] >> drone attacks in southern yemen, do you think they are helpful? >> [speaking foreign language] >> absolutely not. >> [speaking foreign language]

[applause] >> the drones do not remove members of al qaeda. they kill women and children. >> [speaking foreign language] >> president obama and the cia are well aware that al qaeda's main supporter was -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> if the cia was not aware, then they're a much weaker than we think. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> we launched our youth peaceful revolution for the sake of equality, liberty, democracy, and counterterrorism. >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorism has distorted the economy, -- destroyed the economy. >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorism has only prolonged the life and rule of -- >> [speaking foreign language]

>> the only beneficiary from counter-terrorism is the yemeni population. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the development is depended heavily on safety and security and stability. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the peaceful revolution was successful in silencing and eliminating the voice of terrorism. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it was successful in silencing the cause of terrorism ie to thed's. -- and the ied's.

it made effective the peaceful calls for a revolution. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the peaceful revolutions, the counter-terrorism with an ideology. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the revolution was successful. the youth is being recruited by of canada, especially between 17 and 25. -- by al qaeda, especially between 17 and 25. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it was also successful in

changing the view of the youth who fought that violence was the only way to change. >> [speaking foreign language] >> following the toppling of the five dictators, youth are now convinced that peace is the only way to a successful revolution, not violence. >> [speaking foreign language] >> on the other hand, we now have the new president. >> [speaking foreign language] >> of when newly there has engaged in a true war. -- our new leader has engaged in a true war. >> [speaking foreign language] >> he has proven how much they

were tricked. >> [speaking foreign language] >> within only the span of three months al qaeda has been much less affected than it was before. -- affective and it was before. >> [speaking foreign language] >> a lot of the areas have been reclaimed by the government. those that received by a kid. -- were received by al qaeda. -- seiged by al qaeda. those who will fight al qaeda are the great people of yemen. >> [speaking foreign language] >> we welcome a partnership with the u.s. to counter al qaeda in

yemen. >> [speaking foreign language] >> but, for the fight to be by yemenis. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. i cannot let you go without speaking to your work for women. you have done so much for women through your actions and examples. when i have seen you in interviews and asked if he were a women's rights activist, you describe yourself as a humanist. as a humanist, what is the importance of women's liberation for peace and democracy? >> good question. i like this question. to all women around the world, you have to be human, not just

woman. [speaking foreign language] >> when women assume their obligation as humans in general to fight for rights and liberty and the establishment of a modern democratic righteous nation, only then did they serve the cause of women. >> [speaking foreign language] >> from a personal experience -- >> [speaking forgn language]

>> prior to the revolution, there was a lot of talk about the need for women's rights and women's participation and for women to be more active in political work, in parliament. there was talk about women needing to be more representative -- represented more effectively. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it was always beseeching and asking and imploring a specific person or a specific leader within the government

organization. >> i decided, to not ask anybody to give me my rights. [applause] we decided to take our rights. by going to the street, doing demonstrations, sit-in's, sacrificing, then you will get men out there. [inaudible] [applause] to all women, please, [inaudible] [applause] i was alone.

i did not like to think about myself a lot. they told me, you have to tell them your story. i will do that. i was alone in the street with my assistant, my good friend, and by other assistant. we were just three women. there were a lot of men. they were saying. we decided to fight for human rights. ingdecided for sacrifice i forgiving the rights to the people who came to our organization.

the first we called the square. [unintelligible] >> it was in 2007, after we established our organization. >> [speaking arabic] >> when we established the organization, it was without change. it was for the sole purpose of advocating democracy, freedom of speech, and the quality.

>> [speaking arabic] >> this was to defend the female journalists and all journalists for their right of freedom of expression. >> [speaking arabic] >> in 2007, when violations against the journalists and the yemeni population with regard to freedom of speech had reached a height, we decided to up activism by engaging in demonstrations and protests. >> [speaking arabic] >> we got a gracious bought at

the beginning from the number of people and after a while, it disappeared. every tuesday, we showed up and we decided that is going to be the past to establish a new freedom. and a number of men were victims of the crackdown on freedom of expression. we used to show up on a weekly basis, and we would not get bored. we would not lose hope.

we were subjects to all forms of abuse within the premises of the presidential palace. when i was at the microphone, i used to be made fun of. women would talk into the microphone as men would called behind her. it is the only one that used to be within the premises -- >> [speaking arabic] >> she was the only source that was transferring the information.

she said she suffered an attack on her back. i left the detention center at the hospital and returned back to the square and continued chanting that we demand freedom and equality. [applause] >> [speaking arabic] >> again, we were alone in this

was prior to the arabs spring. the yemeni when men would come out and demand their freedom and integrity. >> [speaking arabic] >> we would take to the street and take to the corner alley and we would be accompanied by a small group subject to abuse. what they would wake up [unintelligible]

it means, wake up all those that seek freedom. there was no one to hear our calls at the time. but we continued. we did not continue for the rights of women only. we continue our fight for their rights of equal citizenship. we convinced society that we were capable of defending these rights. the soldiers and the security officials and members of the security apparatus were attacked and we, as lead men, would defend them. -- as women, would defend them. we succeeded in burning them out of the detention centers.

despite proving that we could be affected in the fight, we continued asking when we would take to the streets to ask for the rights. the answer would come back, soon. we never gave up. we continued in our protest and we upped the frequency from every tuesday to almost every day. we slept in the streets before the arab spring. we went on hunger strikes.

we went on hunger strikes before the arabs spring, we went on hunger strikes for the rights and the quality of citizens. people were pulled out of their homes and demonstrated by the government. no one heard their calls at the time. >> [speaking arabic] >> instead, we adopted a slogan. i will tell you what it is and they give you a meeting. -- then give you its meaning.

let's see if i can do this. all nation, to glory. revolt with determination of the youth to see the struggle. did anyone hear our calls? yes. we continued with the revolution. they congregated with greater numbers.

so the women that used to see us alone in the streets now developed the courage. this was before women and youth took to the streets. this was the first case of a political- abductions. >> [speaking arabic] >> despite by anchor at the time, i realized my voice had reached every house. the next day, hundreds of thousands of people --

>> [speaking arabic] there used to be three of us carrying microphones and asking people to take to the streets. at that time, there were dozens of people taking to the streets. >> [speaking arabic] >> there were thousands of women. my close friends lost their lives hunting for their rights and liberties of other people. and during their battle, they succeeded in achieving their rights as women.

at this point, the yemeni population and a society is now ready to accept women's engagement in political affairs. and this is not because women fought for women's rights, but because we fought for human rights. [applause]

as j. p. morgan just showed us, losing $3 billion on one reckless trading scheme. we are back with trade deficits. and we face the struggle of what comes next. americans are only learning about mitt romney. he is not a mystery. he is what, but inevitably, -- he is what, inevitably is wanted by the 1%. he would give millionaire's an average 25% tax cut on top of

the bush tax cuts. he calls for eliminating taxes on corporate profits abroad, turning the entire world into an offshore tax evasion. he wants to reopen the casino economy that blew up the economy. he would repeal health care reform and medicare and medicaid, throwing 34 million people out of health care protection. he protects subsidies to big oil. wants more money for the military and less for our schools. this guy is building a summer home with elevators for his cars and he says obama is out of touch. he paid a tax rate of about 15% of income of $20 million, a lower rate than his chauffeur. that is the tax return he chose to show us. imagine the ones he keeps secret.

no wonder he says that talking about inequality is the politics of envy and should only be done in quiet rooms. are you kidding me? we are not going to let the brazen billionaires' elect this guy for president. [applause] he is not offering a remedy. he is offering potions that are poison for the middle class and the american dream. we're going to work to reelect the president and take back the house. that is not enough. we have a bigger battle for america's future. columnist david brooks says republicans are extreme because they are fearful that the welfare state is unaffordable and it now threatens our future. we agree that we cannot go back to the old state.

they have the victim's wrong and the culprits wrong. it is not the poor who read the rules and pocket millions in subsidies and privileges. it is not the elderly who blew up the economy. it is not the young who pay for the revolving door of young at -- of officials. if you want to build a sustainable growth for working people, it is not enough to put obama in the white house and nancy pelosi in the speaker's chair, we have to take on the big money, the corrupt politicians in both parties. [applause] look at the sources of our current debt. half of our deficit comes from the economic collapse that came when wall street blue of the economy. next comes the bush tax cuts and tax loopholes that have millionaires paying lower taxes than their secretaries and big corporations paying no taxes at

all. and then the continued cost of a bloated military and two wars. turned to the scary long-term projections that look like america is going broke. these are entirely the question of soaring health-care costs and an unaffordable health care system formed by powerful companies. americans pay twice per capita what other citizens in other industrial countries pay for worse health care results. to revive the american dream, we have to take on the powerful and profit from these arrangements, not the vulnerable, who are their victims. this is not a question for one president, won election, one administration. we are about to head into what they call the grand bargain.

i think. right after the election, we hit a fiscal train wreck purely made by the politicians in washington. it is an excuse to cut a grand bargain. shared sacrifice is necessary, we are told. it's time to put our books in order. let's trade social security and medicare for tax reform that lowers rates, closes loopholes, and gives us more revenue. this ought to be known, instead of the grand bargain, as the the highest writ -- as the big heis t. [applause] be clear about what it means. it means we accept mass unemployment as normal. we are turning towards balancing our budget rather than focus on

creating jobs. it means that middle-class americans and the vulnerable will be stuck with much of the bill for the mess that wall street created. and, worse in some ways, it ignores the causes of the plight we face. the wealthy will still not pay their fair share of taxes. wealthy people will still be free to blow up the economy. the insurance and drug companies will still drive up health-care costs. we will still not have our long- term budget under control. we have to organize now to avoid the big heist and demand the real deal. we need good jobs now and good jobs first before return to austerity. and we have got to focus on what drives our deficits, the big money interests that are now before in our government. -- deforming our government. this will not be easy.

we have to build an independent capacity to elect people's champions and hold them publicly accountable. we need to make big money toxic in this election even as we work to return citizens united and get money out of politics. [applause] we need direct action, nonviolent confrontation, demonstrations that expose and challenge the understanding of the way. [applause] this is a forbidding task. it is a great challenge of democracy. can people curb the rapaciousness of big money and big power? we have been in this situation before. at the end of the 19th century, the robber barons consolidated monopolies and major industries. politicians were routinely bought or rented labor unions were outlawed.

the coppolas movement, a progressive reformers, labor of province -- labor uprisings challenged the power and it took decades of struggle. eventually, the people's movement won. the extremes of inequality were reduced and, what made america special, exceptional, the broad middle class was built. now we are back to that same kind of inequality, the same kind of robber baron money politics. once more, the test is pose. can we, can the many, overcome the power of the few? what is exciting is we have seen the first stirrings in wisconsin, ohio, occupy wall street, which spread across the country like wildfire. we must continue to build, serious about taking power, rebuilding the country.

understanding we will suffer setbacks. here is our opposition to robber baron politics. we will try to work to defeat romney and the right, but we will keep on building an independent movement to take back the american dream. that is our subject this week. that is our task for the years to come. we know it is not going to be easy. we know it can be done. si se puede. yes, we can. [applause] i am delighted to introduce melissa harris-perry. she is a modern wonder woman. she is a professor of political science at tulane university. she is the author of "sister

citizen." she is a regular columnist for the nation magazine. and she is the host of her own show on msnbc. she is the proud mother of a young daughter. once a month or so, she gets a little sleep. i am proud to introduce you to melissa harris-perry. [applause] >> good morning. the start of an ideologically diverse day for me. i will run off the stage when i am done because i am heading to chicago to join the bush family about a conversation about volunteerism in america. that will be fun. by the end of the day, i will

have no idea what is going on in the world. i am very happy to start the day with you. particularly because what i find to be my value added within the public sphere is not as an activist or organizer, perce. i am married to an active as an organizer. it is very clear to me which one of us talks about the real work that needs to get done in the world. that is not my comparative advantage. i hope to do a little bit about what my comparative advantage is, to try to understand, analytically, where we are and how we got here. first, the framework of thinking about this in a historical context, this robber baron moment. i want to take a much shorter historical context. really just the past decade.

focusing primarily on what the beliefs -- the elites have been up to. where we are now have -- was made possible by the choices that we, as ordinary americans, made. we were not fully disempowered in this -- in these moments. we made many choices. i want to start with september 11, 2001. it is believed that the era we are in now begins on september 11, 2001. the election of george w. bush in 2000, whenever we think about it, is an election that ultimately was the choice of the american people about -- ok, that is fine. that is fine. [laughter]

i was running through my head what kind of thing the capital might have been sending to us. so, september 11, 2001. when we elected george w. bush and when he was handed the american presidency by the supreme court of the united states, that decision was made, in part, because we understood ourselves to be in a time of peace internationally, domestic economic growth. and george w. bush does seem like the guy to keep the party going. if you are thinking you are coming out of the clinton era and things are good economically and we are at peace internationally, it does not seem that ought to make the choice of electing a kinder, gentler conservative. you have to go back to 2000 to remember where we were in a moment. we did not know then that just a

few months into the first year of george w. bush's presidency, that it would no longer be the good times, no longer a time of economic expansion, international peace. instead, the new era would begin when americans finally came into where many of our trading partners, political partners, and allies had been for decades , the age of contemporary terrorism. americans responded in a typically american way to that entre into something many people in the world had already experienced. we began with a nationalist fervor that was justified as reasonable. patriotism. we clearly must have been having post-traumatic stress disorder because, for about one year after september 11, there were african american men walking

around the city of new york with nypd hats on. that can only be explained as a patriotic response. [laughter] i do not know. i will let that sit with you for a minute. the only thing that happens -- the other thing that happens in a moment is a new version of what americans need, a racial enemy. americans identify who we are and who deserves what through our notions of a whiteness and the racial enemies that are the non-white. in this moment, the racial enemy became this imagined other that is somehow muslim or arab or sheik or something else. we became willing to stomach a kind of horrific, racial

violence in the name of national security. it is something that we had been willing to stomach as a people over and over again in our history. the patriot act was not an act of a republican president acting alone. the patriot act was a bipartisan decision by both parties. it was not bought and paid for by corporations. it was bought and paid for by our fear. as much as we have our eyes on the citizens united decision, we have to remember that it was our collective angst that gave permission to democrats in the house to rally behind republicans in the white house under the banner of nationalist, patriotic security with the goal of both reducing our domestic civil liberties and giving us an entrance into what is, at this

moment, and everlasting war. we made those choices. [applause] that was september 11, 2001. an interesting thing happens a few years later. the democrats need to run a presidential candidate. it turns out democrats are very bad at one thing, actually, a couple of things. one thing in particular. one of the things we are back at is trying to figure out what kind of democrat republicans were vote for. -- will vote for. it is the only reason we ended up with candidate obama. we did not know who we were running against so we got free with our actual preferences and ended up with hillary clinton and barack obama as our final two. we never would have made those choices if we were running

against an incumbent. we would have picked john henry to rid let's be honest about that. [laughter] in 2004, we chose a moderate candidate, one we thought would get votes, and that was john kerry. we did not, in the fall of 2004, launched as a democratic party, an attempt to push back against the war effort. quite the opposite. democrats decided to run a soldier under the idea that he could be even better at the war machine. what changed then? august 29, 2005. the day that the levees failed in the city of new orleans in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. maybe not exactly that day. on that day and the five subsequent days immediately after the levees failed, as the

city's flooded, we behave just as we did in the immediate post-911 moments, scared of our racial enemies. the governor of louisiana, a democrat, the mayor of the city of new orleans, a black democrat, jointly decided to suspend search and rescue efforts in order to focus on law and order. until the national media recognize that there were people, not people actually, but women, elderly, and children starving and dying in the city center. it was not until the images of the women, elderly, and children who were dehydrating in the heat of a new orleans august finally turned the language away from the law and order language and

into what the economists called the shaming of america. i do not know if you remember this. if i had got myself together, i would have put the image up on a power point. it was the image from the economist magazine. an african-american woman is on the cover, wearing a new orleans t-shirt. it says, "the shaming of america." i would like you to pause and ask yourself, how many women -- how many black women have appeared on the cover of the economist magazine. there are very few black economists who have ever appeared. maybe condi. yet the notion that there is a collective shaming that happens in a country that fancies itself a place where women and children are first, hurricane katrina actually shamed us into an anti- war stance. here is how it goes.

from december 11, 2001 until about september 4 of 2005, we are trying to participate in this nationalist, patriotic fervor against the racial enemy that is the others that are activating terrorism against us. right until levees failed, we realize that we have allowed our own citizens to drown, die, and dehydrate on camera. and we go, oh. if you cannot get water to an american city for one week, how can you prosecute a foreign war. the democratic party felt a little steel dropped down its fine. all of the folks who realized this is how we responded, they are screwed. for the first time, we started hearing an active anti-war message not from the people, but

it resonated through the party. this is how, in 2006, democrats win back the house. they when the house in 2006 because, for the first time, there was a paradigm difference to the republican party. you remember the response to the anti-war message that won the midterm elections in 2006. do you remember what happened? the surge, the response to the american people saying we want out of the war is that the white house send more soldiers into the war. it is exactly the opposite of what happened in 2010, when, by taking over the house, the republican party decides that it has a mandate for the american people to turn back what they had just done in 2008. this white house, in 2006, told

us, we do not care what happens in the midterms. we are running this war effort. of course, we know what happened right after that. a young guy was a predator in illinois. he managed to make it into the u.s. senate only because the republican party in illinois was in such a shambles that their decisions for a candidate to run against him was alan keys. on wednesday, i could probably beat alan keyes and almost any race. this is not to say obama is anything short of exceptional, but the ease in which he walked into the u.s. senate has everything to do with the failure of the illinois republican party. thank you. we appreciate that. [laughter] in the immediate aftermath of hurricane katrina, the national

figure that emerges is barack obama on one hand and hillary clinton on the other. and a sense among the american people that what we had just done and what we had been doing since 2001 was not who we were. that we were capable of something else. i loved the 2008 campaign to rid it was great fun. it was. it just was. great fun. but it was not great fun because the obama for america campaign was so brilliant. they were fine. it was fun because of the freelancing that went on. i am trying to tell a story about the people. barack obama goes and does this amazing thing in new hampshire. he loses and gives a victory speech. that is real gumption. he loses in new hampshire and he is like, i'm going to give it anyways. he stands up and gives yes we

can. and then we walk away until one week later. what happens? will.i.am remixes yes we can. it is not about president -- not about barack obama giving it, but him remixing it and it became viral. the excitement of the 2008 campaign was the way in which freelancing of technology and ordinary people decided that what we had been doing since september 11, 2001, was no longer the best of who we were and how the 2008 campaign might provide an opportunity for us to indicate the best of who we were, the exceptional is and that we define as what made us exceptional, a willingness to think of either a white woman or a black guy. that is cool. the response from the right was

a kind of anxiety about what that meant. a willingness to pull us back into what we had been doing for the years before. once president obama is elected, the language was that he was a secret muslim. because remember, september 11, 2001, our new enemy becomes a muslim. you know you cannot be a secret muslim. you can be a secret question but you cannot be a secret muslim. if you are a muslim, there are certain practices that you have to do so you cannot secretly be one. it is just not how it works. you would notice them praying five times per day. [laughter] [applause] along with that anxiety, and i

will go very quickly here, was the author of the bible of the anti-immigrant head. we are as much to blame for failing to recognize and stem this at the moment that it occurred. do you remember the joe wilson moment, president obama speaking and the left breaks out, it is racism. a black man speaking and a white guy from a former confederate state, that looks like ordinary, old-fashioned racism. do not forget this. president obama, when he was speaking in the moment, was talking about the health care reform bill. he said, do not worry. illegals will not be allowed to partake in the health care reform we are passing. joe wilson stood up and said, you lied. the president was drawing a boundary between citizens and non-citizens on this issue of a fundamental human rights health

care reform before joe wilson stands up and says, you lied. the terrain there is multiple levels. there is old-fashioned racism but also anti-immigration panic. this week, when the president was again interrupted by a journalist, that interruption came when he was talking about immigration. that laying on of our anxieties is about this new fear, old fear mixed together with american racism. there is plenty of american racism going on still among us. the shoot-to-kill wallace -- laws that took the life of trade on martin -- of trayvon martin were the same laws immediately enacted following hurricane katrina, based in the same fears

that emerged post-september 11. this vilification of bodies that we assume to be criminal. lay on top of all of that the war on women that i noticed was occurring for the first -- i started seeing it when president obama dominated sotomayor to the supreme court. if you can take yourself back and remember the gauntlet that she was forced to walk through the senate confirmation hearing, just for fun, watched the jamie dimon testimony right next to the sotomayor confirmation hearings. just watch them. right after she was put through what i like to call elizabeth

expert moments, remember, she is the teenage girl who was forced to walk the gauntlet in little rock with the screaming, yelling faces behind her, much of what i saw when i was watching sotomayor. right after that, we have the vilification of shirley's gerard. i am not making a critique of the administration. i am making a critique of the naacp, an administration who has been doing extraordinary work recently. but in that moment when she was presented to the american people by andrew breitbart as a racist, the leadership of the naacp to initially, although they came around quickly, initially said she should be ashamed of herself for her comments. they did not know who she was.

that is fine. if you do not know who she was, if you have ever watched "eye on the prize," which i should anyone in the naacp leadership did, then the name should have run a bell for you. that willingness to see a rural black woman from georgia as an era of the expendable -- as inherently expendable -- and then, of course, in 2010, the fight between komen and planned parenthood. it is horrible what you have to laugh. seriously? we are talking about the pill in 2012. the outlawing of abortions that never actually occurred.

telling sandra flu that she has to suspend against being a slut in order to speak to the american people as though we are in egypt and she has to submit to a virginity test to be in the public sphere. the -- 2010, the year of the gop woman, is the first year we lost ground in terms of women's representation in more than 30 years. we did that. when i say we, i mean the american people in the broadest sense. our fear, our anxiety, our willingness to frame others, whether they are unruly women, illegal immigrants, lazy black people, terrorist muslims, our willingness to not see ourselves in them but to see ourselves as the other makes possible all of these policy moments. this is the last thing -- this is the last thing i will say and

then i will run from this building. there is no reason to lose hope. we are just not a perfect people. we are just not. kind of like an adolescent countries. remember adolescence? my daughter is almost 11. adolescence is hard. you just randomly feel bad and get afraid and wonder about the security of childhood that he once had. particularly for countries that became so dominant so quickly, that became so wealthy in the context of such inequality, that understood itself as standing on a shining hill. we are in our adolescence and we're making a bit of a mess of it. [applause] that said, this is no reason to

lose hope. the fear that has activated the past decade cannot be countered with more fear of what is coming. is there money in the political system? yep. is the supreme court friendly? nope. are there faults willing to damage the very core of our democratic principles in order to win short-term gains? mmhmm. yep. maybe it is coming from people who were slaves and mormons, everyone was basically after them. they had to push handcarts across the american west. the black folks got in slave for a couple of centuries. i guess that does not worry me in the sense of being struggled

itself. my enslaved grandmother, who was sold on a street corner in richmond, va., believe in god. i'm not asking you to believe in god. i am asking you to think about this. she never knew anything but slavery. never knew anything but slavery for any one she was ever related to and never expected anything but slavery for all the people who she would be related to in the future. there is no empirical evidence that any being cared about her circumstances. there was no empirical evidence that there was a loving god that had any power. if there was a loving god, he was pretty pitiful. if he was powerful, he did not seem to love her. i am not asking you to believe in god or accept a supreme being. i'm asking you to accept a fate that is not necessarily rooted

in the empirical reality around you at the moment writ we can still be part of something bigger than yourself. something that you cannot necessarily see at this moment, but requires us not to be afraid of each other. because it is our fear of each other -- [applause] it is our fear of each other that makes us exceptionally easy to divide. i promise i am leaving. i'm going to go talk to the bush is right now because i am not afraid of them. i am angry with them and i often disagree but i am not afraid of any person. we can get to another place. there is no reason to lose hope. [applause] >> melissa harris-perry. [applause]

she is literally running to make that airplane. leave you with one final speaker this morning. you all know van jones, i assume. [applause] he is a public-school what. grew up to be a graduate of yale law school. i like to tease him and tell him that he rose above it. [laughter] is the co-founder of the baker center for human rights, the co- founder of green for all. we joined him in launching his new venture, rebuild the american dream, an extraordinary, innovative effort to restore good jobs and economic opportunity and build the movement necessary to make that happened.

he has not amassed a great personal fortune. he has not held an elected public office. and yet time magazine named him one of the world's most -- 100 most influential people. given up for van jones. -- give it up for van jones. [applause] >> good morning. melissa is kind of bad. give it up for melissa harris- perry. [applause] i tell you what, i love getting up when i can and seeing her on television. she does not speak without much clarity and that much insight to us, she gets a chance to speak that way to the whole of the american people on saturdays and sundays.

that is part of what i want to talk about today, the voice that has been missing. rodney king passed away over this weekend and it's hard for me to imagine that it has been 20 years since he became a household name on planet earth. just a regular brother with a lot of regular brother problems than regular brother issues, put in a situation that we all saw coming. the only difference was, it was put on camera. we all know what happened with the verdicts and the uprising, but we sometimes don't think about what it must have been like for him to be pushed out in front of television cameras, no speech in hand, -- with the

whole world watching, and have to speak from his heart. a lot of things you could easily dismiss him and discount him for, but in those moments, who you are really comes through. he just said five words. the same five words that melissa tries to bring us back around to, can we all get along? a prayer, a plea for some kind of sanity to emerge from the catastrophe that was unfolding all around, for some kind of wisdom, some kind of higher purpose to be somehow pulled from the mess, to be pulled from the wreckage of america.

can we all get along? he went on with his life. he did good things, he did bad things, he did things he regretted. and he passed away. but i think his question still resounds. can we all get along? we have this extraordinary moment now, when you look at november and the months beyond. who are we as a country in this mess, in this catastrophe? are we going to turn to each other or were going to turn on each other? that is a great moment, the great question that the world is now looking at us to answer. and i appreciate dr. perry for pointing out that it is not just about the corporation's, it is about us in this room.

we have a responsibility. some people felt that four years ago we were too emotional. we made decisions to emotionally and then we got a little bit doped up on hold and stuff. -- on hope and stuff. we were not thinking clearly, and now we want to have a reaction to that. i am wanting as this moment of testing for america emerges. i am seeing the people who fall hardest, in the decade that dr. perry just talked about, now fighting the least. i am seeing a movement that was built up over that decade that stood up against bush, stood up against cheney, that stood up against torture and more, that stood up for the people who were suffering in katrina. who saw african-american mothers and grandmothers on rooftops and whose hearts were

broken to see people drowning, to see an american city drowning, and who stood up at that time when there was nothing in washington d.c. that would answer the call, and who insisted that we go a better way. and luncheon at movement that broke the back of karl rove's stranglehold -- i am looking at that movement that inspired the world, that shocked and stunned the world. in a moment of maximum peril, sit down. there are people in this country who were drowning on dry land. they are drawn in economically on dry land. they need a movement that is willing to stand with them, and yet, and yet, there is this reluctance.

we saw in wisconsin what happens when we put our minimum against our opponents maximum. the people in wisconsin ball beautifully and bravely, but help was not on the way -- the people in wisconsin fought bitterly. that had to fight against 13 billionaires, a whole squadron of billionaires, only one of whom lived in wisconsin. our opponents did their maximum. most of us did our minimum, and we saw what happened. so there is a question now that falls upon this conference. are we going to let the tea party govern america? is that the kind of movement that we are? can we not find some lessons

from 2008 to 2010 2010 that would allow it -- that would allow us to move forward, and more committed, that innocent people, whether they beat rodney king's of today like trayvon martin, and those of us across the country who are suffering economically will not be further harmed by the outcome of the two big fights of 2012. in order for us to figure out what we are going to do, we will have to do something i was taught to do when i was in public schools. i got some education, as you mentioned. i get credit for having gone to yale, that is true, but i was not born at yale.

i was born on the edge of those small town in rural western tennessee. both my parents for public- school teachers. i had a public schoolteacher named miss brown who was my kindergarten teacher. whenever we were stumped, whenever she would ask a question that was just too hard answer, she would say put your thinking caps on. did you guys have thinking caps in the budget in your public schools? and we will put them on. and we would think. and lo and behold, somebody would come up with the answer. why was that? because we had a moment to go deep, and we had a public schoolteacher who cared.

i will say this before i move on. maybe i was raised from, but in my community, my neighborhood, and my home, i was never taught about any threat to meet call the public employee. -- any threat to me called a public employee. we did not call them public employees. [applause] we did not call them public employees, we call them teachers, nurses, librarians, firefighters, police officers. they were the backbone of our community. they were our everyday heroes. we were taught to look up to them. we were taught to respect them. we were taught to say yes ma'am and no sir to them.

and they never abandon us. and never abandoned us, not one time, no matter how big the fire, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter how slow the learner. they never abandoned us, not one single time. but now it is fashionable to turn on them and abandon them. we say no, we are a better country than that. we are not going to attack the people who have been there for us. we are going to lift them up and treat them right. but let's just be smart enough to follow the words of miss brown, god bless her soul. let's put our thinking caps on and reason together. if we were too emotional last time to learn all the right lessons, let's not be so

emotional this time that we do stupid stuff in the other direction. let's put our thinking caps on. what can we learn from 2010 that will let us win not just politically in november, but economically in 2012. what did we learn from 2008? we all know the happy part of it. people went from hoping to moving. we went from hope to heartbreak. what happened? well, we did not know enough. we thought something that was not true. we thought that we had at 100% of what we needed to govern in america. we had a house, with the best degree of ever had, nancy pelosi. we had the house of representatives. we had the senate with 60 votes, and we had president obama.

we had enough now to govern. but it turned out not to be true. it turned out we only had one third of all we needed to govern. turns out you don't just need formal control of the government, but you also need to back other things. you have to have movement in the st. -- you need two other things. we abandoned the streets. you have to have a media establishment like babcock -- like that have on fox. not having a coordinated media strategy, we were checkmated by fired up, fearful, right wing, funded by brazen billionaires', and we were checkmated. it does not mean the administration did not make big mistakes, we will talk about those, but fundamentally, we did not have what we needed to

be able to govern from below, even as the democrats tried to govern from above. we had a top down capacity that was not met by a bottom up movement. instead, the streets were filled, not with people like us, but with people carrying signs, comparing the president to hitler. people were spitting on commerce people and calling them the "n" word. many people sat down in 2010. what can we learn from 2010? if you look at the numbers, they did not turn out that many more people in 2010 than 28, we just turned out a lot fewer. we stood up in 2010 and made history, then we sat down in 2010 and helped other people make history. people will tell you if it doesn't matter who wins these elections, i am just so

disgusted. i am just going to quit. i just cannot take this. you hear this. not for immune -- not from you, but you hear this. and it doesn't matter. who cares? after all, ask people in wisconsin if it matters. ask people in ohio if it matters. ask people who are living with the consequences of that kind of the mobilization and demoralization. be careful, now.

you have more power and influence than you recognize. careful, now. everybody in this room, and most people who are watching at home, are what are called opinion leaders. you may not have a lot of money or elective office, it does not matter. you are an opinion leader. people look to you in your social network. a look at your facebook page. they look to your e-mail, to figure out what is right and what is wrong. careful, now. is a dangerous time to be reckless and irresponsible with the power that we do have. we are now in danger of demobilizing and demoralizing people at the very moment they need to be lifted up, just like dr. perry did. be careful, now. for us to quit now, surrender now, given to cynicism now, is

to disrespect the shoulders of the people we are standing on. is to disrespect them. this change stuff is just too hard, van. i voted once. and you see what happened. democracy is not an app. just downloaded, push the button one time. that sucks. the people in my father's generation knew what it meant to fight for change. they had fire hoses put on them, fighting for change.

they were beaten, fighting for change. someone went to jail fighting for change. some were murdered and put in the ground, mortars, dead, gone, never to come back, fighting for change. -- martyrs, fighting for change. we will quit over a really mean tweet. [laughter] did you read that terrible tweet? i just cannot stand it. so we have a quandary. if we just for the president, just vote for the democrats, we don't get what we want.

but if we don't, our opponents get power and decimate us. so we have a quandary. [applause] can we put our thinking caps on now? look at what they do when they get power, just in case you did not pay attention and did not get the memo. and they get power, they don't say that i think the unions perhaps have gone a bit too far, and i think what we should do is have some reforms. no, they decimate us. they destroy the unions. they did not run on that, they ran on a terrible message and as soon as they got power, they did even worse. we are the only ones that when we get power, we say we now have power, we will now be bipartisan. can we compromise on something to make you happy, please?

that is not what they do. they get power, they decimate us. the same right now, if they get power, they are going to eliminate the epa, wipe it out. the epa, which has probably saved wore american lives and the department of defense. it is keeping the poison out of our children's bodies. they are just going to wipe that out. when they get power, they use it to destroy us, but if we just support the existing democrats, we still warned of disappointing. so what is the answer? what do we need to do? very simple. the lesson of the past decade is very clear. if you have the wrong president, say george bush, it doesn't matter how strong your movement is. if there is a movement for peace to try to stop the country

from invading iraq, your movement, it was beautiful. millions of people you put in the street. you put more people in the street to stop the invasion of iraq in six weeks than the entire mobilization against vietnam in six years. you put a magnificent movement on the streets. you have the right movement, you have the wrong president. then, arguably, you have the right president with obama, but the people in the street where the wrong people, in the tea party. the tea party changed the narrative and the discussion so much that they were able to make austerity the watchword last year, when every in the economy in the world said it would be the worst thing to do. you had arguably the right president, but the wrong movement. the key to real change is to have the right president and

the right movement at the same time. that is the way forward. what that means is, yes, we have to reelect the president, and we have to reenergize the movement. that is the right formula. you have to have a president willing to be moved. you cannot have an bush, of romney, you cannot have a koch brothers president. the young people have taught us something in this past year since we were here together. if we learned their lesson, we can win in november and in december. look at these extraordinary young people. young people.