syria during the crisis. leo of the cost to russia on the syrian policy which i believe is quite large. try to explain why russia perseveres and seems tothe russp goes back a long way. syria became independent from france, scout established an embassy in damascus and became a major center of soviet diplomatic activity and was the center. for negotiation between the zionist movement and the soviet union leading up to the soviet support of the establishment of the state of israel in 1948. following the death of stalin and a series of coups in domestic, syria became a purchaser of soviet arms and at the time, some fear that syria was going communist. the united arab republic defeated those fears but it was

called -- called a leader a heady and men for doing it. when it broke up in 1961, moscow courted damascus and a following the left-wing coup, relationships became quite close and you will recall the soviet efforts to preserve the narrowly-based assets pterygium called for an end to the war. relations grew closer in 1970. syria granted russia enabled installation, supply and maintenance facility, and two countries signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation. by 1974, as egypt began to move into the u.s. orbit, syria emerged as the no. 1 ally. not to say there are no problems between the two sides. the syrian intervention in lebanon clearly displeased moscow as did its agreement to security council to hundred 42.

it's one of the few states that supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1979 and was richly rewarded with military aid as a result. that continued until the advent of gorbachev in 1985 to turn off the tap of military aid. the chill in the relationship continued until 2005 when a combination of increasing syrian isolation due to policies in lebanon and a much more aggressive russian foreign policy under vladimir putin established a close russian- syrian relationship we see today. let's look at the policies of vladimir putin in his second term. i see is reacting to be setbacks like the school fiasco, the orange revolution in the ukraine, and the increasing vulnerability of the u.s. in the middle east because of the invasion of iraq which -- and

because of the revival in the taliban in afghanistan, vladimir putin went on the offensive. first, he tried to improve relations with iran, syria, and turkey. in the case of syria, the soviet era debt was forgiven and vladimir putin authorize new weapons sale. syria was one of the few states in the world to support the russian invasion in 2008. the second step occurred in 2007. the u.s. was still in disarray in the middle east, trying to disband the rogue states to cultivate the remaining states. in 2008, at of libya to moscow's expanding activity. vladimir putin hospitals were for full -- to demonstrate it was a major power in the middle east and the world.

no. 2, the investment for industrial projects while selling nuclear reactors and railway systems. number three, as the cost and difficulty of extracting natural gas with countries like saudi aria, libya and iraq. -- saudi arabia, libya and iraq. and to prevent -- keeping the ties with the sunni alignment of the gulf states and the shiite groups of iran and hezbollah was not easy as tensions rose between the two groups. this was increasingly clear with the onset of the arab spring. when you look at russian concerns, it could spread to russia which suffered some of the same problems as the arab states. widespread corruption and rising

prices and some of the -- [indiscernible] next stop moscow. and further inspire the islamists. no. 3, investments and a lease could be jeopardized as well as business and arms sales deals. no. 4, when libya occurred, the russians took a major lesson. they abstained from the security council vote over the no-fly zone in libya. therefore continuing the white in russian policy. as the russians say, it was going quite badly as the no-fly zone became a case for regime change and russia lost almost $4 billion in arms sales and several billion dollars in industrial contracts. here we come to the main point.

why are the russians doing what they're doing? number one -- no repeated experience -- we will not permit regime change. number two, syria remained an important country in the middle east with ties to hezbollah and much less now to's. the russians don't want to alienate iran, syria's main ally, which is already ancient -- already angry because of the 2002 sanctions. number three, it's a major market for russian arms. number four, the naval facility at targets -- while it is mostly floating docks and warehouses, the only facility open to russia in the middle east of important symbolic value. russian ships visited showing the flag. russia has an economic investment in syria totaling almost $20 billion.

number six, and this is the. my colleague is going to talk about -- anti-americanism. syria is a major anti-american force in the middle east and vladimir putin will not let this be overthrown. no. 7 -- islam. if islamists takeover in syria, it will have a negative effect on russian's -- russia's muslim population. when ambassadors were attacked and ambassador stevens were killed, the combat -- the russians said we told you this would happen if you back the rebels -- if you back the revolutions. with streets demonstrations in the midst of the presidential campaign in russia, vladimir putin saw the same forces at work in russia as in syria and the u.s. is trying to do and warned revolution in russia. efficient -- russia in summing up, has vetoed three resolutions, including water

down once to syria, continues to ship arms to syria, saying there's no security resolution against arms shipments. it is urging them to open up a dialogue with the regime and supported the ill-fated kofi anan mission is to prolong the life of the regime. moscow has been wooing these states since 2007, especially saudi arabia. number two, alienating key islamic leaders who called for boycotting of products from russia and said several days ago "russian jets are bombing the syrian people. the arab and islamic world must and against russia, boy, russia and consider rush-hour number one enemy." #3, it angers and alienates the united states. and increasingly irritates turkey. why is russia doing this?

there is continued disunity in the ranks of the rebels, although after this morning, there's another chance they say to reunify. hopefully, scout, think they won't be able to oust assad. turkey has not been willing to extend their anti-syrian rhetoric. however, the turkish prime minister is quite had strong. if he continues to be provoked by syrian shelling, he may take action. this is why in recent days, following the shelling, forcing down a jet flying to damascus, russia is trying to ply the situation and by increasing the supply of natural gas to turkey, making up for a short fly to iran to maintain good relations between russia and turkey despite what is happening in syria. in conclusion, moscow is taking a major middle east gamble with its policy in syria. if the gamble fails, and i think it will, hopefully if the u.s.

get a little more active in the process, moscow's middle east policy will be in deep trouble. thank you. >> thank you very much. steve? >> thank you very much. i want to thank everyone and the heritage foundation for inviting me. a pleasure to be back with some old friends. i have to say my remarks to not reflect the views of the army, the defense department or the u.s. government. i'm going to talk about russian motives, building on what bob just said. i think there are some points that can be added to that discussion. the motives i see operating to draw and russian foreign policy are simultaneously implicated in the policy. you can't just pull out one string and say that is the decisive factor in the policy making process. what we can say and we have observed in the last several years, not just syria, we see an increasing, narrowing policy

process in russia. fewer and fewer people are refusing to make policy in general. vladimir putin rarely listens to a large circle of people. he gets his information from a very restricted circle of people. he is not a tech-savvy guy the way dimitry medvedev was. if you have had the misfortune of reading this question me as i do, he lives in what may be called an echo chamber of paranoid reflecting each other's paranoia and that. the russian belief that the country is under siege, and i use that term advisedly, from a western effort to undermine the stability of the russian government and replace it, and that the allies of the west, russian democrats feeds into this. that is the first point.

democracy threatens russia. there was an essay in the wall street journal making clear democracy was the biggest threat to democracy and is the -- and still is. there's a profound fear on the part of the government of any manifestation by the public. in russia or elsewhere. the middle east is an example that could spread to russia and the russians know it. russia is quite a long or at least was quite alarmed that you would see in central asia a manifestation of this kind. the deputy foreign minister actually got at and said they were quite worried about this and gave the central asians advice. dimitry medvedev tried to work out a strategy with is pakistan to stretch out any manifestation of what you might call a central asian spring. the motive here is the profound

belief that the russian government is under threat from democracy and that democracy is essentially a western invention and that and me at home is the enemy abroad. in other words, we still say a government addicted to the old leninist threat paradigm. 20 years after the cold war, even if it is an ideology gone the way of flesh, the government of moscow believes the internal and external enemy has the common goal of unseating the government through democracy demotion. many people cannot believe the revolution and the arab countries were autonomous affairs because they are all experiencing the politics and coups, provocations made by summit with something to gain from it. that is how they ended their own paranoia into the system. widespreadre isn't

and purpose of -- pervasive attitude among the analytical factories that they use that any revolutionary movement in that arab world and in the muslim world generally, including central asia, is going to lead to the victory of islamic terrorists and fanatics. they can point to libya and say i told you so. they haven't said much about in asia because to me is quiet even though the islamic party prevailed in the elections there. it's their belief that any manifestation of islamic political assertion is terrorist. they cannot see it any other way and they have brought this upon themselves in their caucuses which is out of control and is on the verge of spreading into the russian heartland. what they see in tripoli and benghazi and damascus is that if

that dictator's fall, the only thing that would stand is the threat that will export itself to russia. or foreign governments are supporting them in the caucasus -- we will probably never know who these foreign governments are. nonetheless, you might think there is an international muslim conspiracy to replace the old conspiracy that used to exist in the fevered soviet imagination, and they actually believe the stuff. therefore, they believe if assad does, al qaeda is going to come in. third, anti-americanism is a fundamental mainspring of all russian foreign policy, not just syria. two things have to be mentioned -- one is the belief as they see themselves under siege from u.s.

democracy in general. they see the u.s. carrying out a strategy of information warfare, etc., links to non governmental organizations and hence the demonstrations and ongoing streams of repressive legislation. today, they just opened a case against one of the leaders of the opposition. this is part of their world view, but geopolitically, their assessed the idea russia must be a great power in the middle east, which they see as an area close to their borders as if 1991 never happened. their objective is to prevent the of the leased from having a free hand to consolidate a geopolitical order in the middle east. that's one of the fundamental reasons behind their support for iraq. there are others, such as the fear of what me -- what might be done in the caucuses of russia was antagonistic to us.

nonetheless, it is essential to russian geopolitical thinking that russia must play a role in the police and it cannot allow the middle east to be rendered peaceful by u.s. efforts alone. a continuation of tension, arms sales, they have a program to run guns until 2008. there are running of guns and weapons we have seen in syria, attempts to talk about diplomacy against turkey and other similar examples -- russia is determined to play a great power role here and to prevent the united states from consolidating a geopolitical order. they see the united states as doing so or attempting to do so. and by that unilateral force by passing the un.

russians say the un must be observed because of the only game in town and they have a veto power in the security council. when they want to accommodate this regard that un and make democracy -- and make a mockery of it. vladimir putin added that was the plan, despite the claims they were invoking article 51. the un as a facade by which they pursue their main objectives of sculpting democracy and blocking the promotion of u.s. interests and power abroad. fourth, as i mentioned, they see that u.s. promotion of democracy not only as a threat to russia but as singularly on informed because they believe invariably it leads to protracted wars in the middle east. they invoke iraq in this example. they will tell you libya is completely out of control,

though it does not approach with going on in the north caucasus despite the attack in been gauzy last month. they will also say if assad goes, islamist will take over. therefore that united states really does not know what it is doing and assad and opponents of the regime have to negotiate. the fact is they will never support and leaving and they don't want him to leave because the new government would be anti-russian. that marginalizes russia and the least and renders the pursuit of the geopolitical objectives quite questionable. it would certainly probably mean because they will not be particularly prone shiite in lebanon, the funneling of weapons to hezbollah which a large scale operation going back six or seven years. the israelis discovered these weapons in 2006 and finally force the russians to admit they might have gotten them somehow.

the fact is they went through syria and the russians knew all well who the end users of the system was. the fourth reason is the belief that united states doesn't know it's playing with fire. finally, the fifth reason, they have substantial, though not nearly as substantial as these to become energy interests in syria. place for the navy can project power into the mediterranean and the navy has been itching for the opportunity to do so. by sending a fleet there twice, using it in cyprus as well to check turkey. and arms sales -- arms sales and russia are just a question of selling [indiscernible] they are trying to create block within syria and latest one is

the $4.2 billion arms sales announced to iraq a week or 10 days ago. if iran manages to satisfy russian apprehensions with regard to the iaea, i would not be surprised to see russian weapons back to iran. they are clearly trying to sell to everyone else in the middle east. of asymmetrical. -- asymmetric appointments in keeping russia in the game as hour. therefore, we have -- in the game as a great power. as many of you know, arms sales in russia are one of those mechanisms because the home sector is thoroughly corrupt, by which this slush funds are provided to top government officials for black operations of various kinds whether at home or abroad. to lose another $4 billion

market, which they lost in libya, that would put a dent in the graft going to the top of the regime. we must never forget what we are dealing with here is what is called decriminalized regime. if you read wikileaks, it is all over the place. if you have read the books by ed with this and the top foreign diplomats, it behaves like a mafia state. one of the principles of the mafia state is support your friends when they are in trouble. assad is a friend to the mafia state. thank you. >> thank you very much. would you like to bring it home? >> bring it home and try to connect to u.s. policy. there are different opinions in the community about why russia is so adamant about its support of bashar al-assad.

it is a historic regime, a regime that goes back to the '60s and even the '50s. russia got along famously well with the regimes in iraq and syria and a regime in egypt it was not that different. basically, white secular arab socialists, ultranationalists in some cases. these regimes for anti-american and with the leader of russia saying the soviet -- the death of the soviet union was the worst geopolitical pastor of the 20th-century, having an anti- american regime is a good thing. some said this is about iran. i think the iranian dimension we did not discussed in great detail here was an important dimension. iran is the strongest middle eastern, albeit not an arab

country, but the strongest anti american middle eastern country. it has a relationship that goes back toward the gorbachev era when the late ayatollah sent a letter to gorbachev say mr gorbachev, instead of tear down this wall, he said the wall fell, your ideology collapsed, and i shall convert to islam. there is a more and a protocol from a meeting where gorbachev mentioned that and they said ha ha. the president and the foreign minister and mocked -- in moscow signed the first arms transactions with russia. russia sold weapons both to their friends in iraq and to their friends in iran during the

iraq-iran war. they felt great about and later run, there is a massive channel of nuclear expertise, hundreds of scientists and engineers, hundreds of iranian scientists and engineers being trained in russia. many of them were also trained in their west unfortunately. iran is extremely important as a battering ram against american interests and, by implication, the suny arab allies. -- the sunni arab allies that are seen as still little satan's compared to america's great satan. undermining syria, giving iran a

bloody nose is of course a major priority both for the sunni arab and for the west. therefore, russia supports its syrian allies. support, it does, including supply of weapons of different kinds, refurbishing of attack helicopters, providing as we saw, aircraft that was forced to land in on cross -- in turkey -- the dual use waiver parts were used to protect. from turkish aircraft, one of which was shut down and you use it not only to conduct civilian traffic. a prominent observer of russian

foreign policy, the head of the moscow office the carnegie endowment says it's not only about geopolitics, it's also about geopolitics. my colleagues did a good job talking about the port. there is also anchorage and a supply base. by the way, i published a list of russian aspirations and priorities, including before muammar gaddafi went, there are thinking about renewing anchorage in libya and even thinking about going back to the island, the entrance to the red sea from the south, the island was an important soviet naval base during the cold war. so those aspirations of the russian navy are known and still

there. probably we should take them with a grain of salt because of you look at the example of the black sea fleet, the last ship was introduced into service in 1992. the black sea fleet is not in great shape. there is a lot of work to be done there. in any event, it's not only about geopolitics, it's not about arms sales, it is about respect. over theant to go mafia metaphor that steve just did, but in deed, not just mafia see, but real powers sometimes crave respect. its about who makes decisions. if the decision about the use of force in syria is made without russia or against russian

opposition, vladimir putin will look at it in a very grave way just as he and his allies at a time looked at our decision to use force in iraq in 2003 and, before that, for those who track the russian fears back then, and 1999, i believe that the then prime minister turned the plane around in the atlantic when the bombing of serbia started and went back because russia was not appropriately consulted over the use of force against slobodan milosevic, let alone getting a russian agreement in the security council. they issues of sovereignty, the issue of use of force, the issues of agreement, how to use force are extremely important not just for russia but also for china. in the three vetoes in the security council, it was not

just russia, but also china who opposed any kind of resolution that may have led to the use of force against the assad regime. my colleague mentioned the russian abstained at the security council on libya. that was very important because that was a rare, public disagreement. he apparently went along, saying that russia should be on the same bandwagon with the west. i do not know if the arab sumi tents -- sensitivity was going on. he used the word crusade. a western crusade against

gaddafi. because they had this weird separation of the work, he prevailed. there was a public -- about that decision. i personally think it was right. then russia would pay a very high price by not just standing idly by. but aiding and abetting the murder of all arm -- of on armed people in muslim society. here, we go to a very important statement by the leading muslim

brotherhood ideologue that my colleague mentioned. when i saw it, i read and reread what was said. they command the loyalty of thousands of thousands of islamists. we all know that he was no friend of the united states. he is no friend of united states. he justified the killing of american soldiers in iraq. he justified the killing of civilians. he said a 30,000 syrians were killed -- what weapons were they killed? and with anything else, its needs -- the army is farming people with airplanes.

why these planes are not -- is a bombing -- is bombing people with their plans. we must boycott russia and consider russia our number one enemy. i repeat we must consider russia our number one enemy. here is the list for the global islamist sumi movement. this is a major confrontation, ladies and gentleman. this is no joke. as they said, we are in an ongoing sumi insurrection.

it started and the leaders were soviet general kernels and then by 1996, the movement was hijacked by islamists. today, the rhetoric, the narrative, the tactics are all jihad islamist tactics. why do not agree it will be spilling over, as my colleague suggested, because one was killed and one was severely wounded. there is radicalization. it is not there yet, but in places this is a day to day struggle.

law enforcement and the local civilians are killed by the radicals. russia has a serious problem on their hands with that. beyond that, a lot of analysts point out that for the russian government, for an interim pension were there is an insurgency or even a civilian mass protests is a big no. that is why they want to support the syrian regime. let's not forget that this is in syria. a minority rule by the group

that is close over 80% of the population which is sunni. somehow, the russian leaders and the analysts tend to disregard it or do not give enough weight to that. i really do not understand how come that little significant detail is being ignored. i find that when i talked to russian officials, a willful misunderstanding and that -- and lacking of knowledge about the middle east and islam. been referred to their own terrorists as criminals and the whole view was that these are just some groups that can be dealt through the prism of crime-fighting that's probably

reminds some of us of some other countries that are making this a mistake. but, what it does, the two mitt take-home points that i want to make our one, that this clash over syria changes the dynamics that we saw for the last 20 years in the middle east. it was not so bad. turkey and russia were talking to each other. a thriving and economic relationship. russia made inroads in many parts of the middle east, including the gulf. there were selling weapons to the sunni. russia improve its relations with israel. things were not so bad. now, we are in a situation where these formal alliances are unraveling. the relationship between russia and turkey, for example, it is

in its lowest point in the last 20 years. so much -- declared subzero problems without neighbors. zero problems with russia, 0 comes with greece -- i am being sarcastic. turkey is a hereditary enemy of russia. there is a history of over 300 years of incessant wars. i think both sides need to tread very carefully as to how far this confrontation can go. the russians, i think, are finding themselves on the wrong side of the large middle eastern divide. they have squirrely aligned themselves with syria. they essentially are the diplomatic sugar daddies. in the long term, when you look

at the resources, when you look at the population, it will be the sunni arabs who will be the force in this a divide. we heard a lot about the obama administration pushing the reset button. of course, reset was not translated. it was built -- overload, instead of reset. but the syrian case, as many other cases of missile defense and others, demonstrate the depth of the fear of the united states. the amnesty and the inability to find common ground. the radical, if we recognize the russian interest -- and the specific interest -- not the geopolitical ideas and fantasies, but, yes, there is a

$4 billion market for arms. in libya, there is x billion dollars of going arms sales to syria. and that the struggle with the iranians. there is a minor chemical operation going on where russia was buying chemicals and selling them. there is anchorage. not all of these things could have been discussed. instead, what we now have is a continuation of a confrontation which is ongoing between the united states and russia, but what is demonstrated to us is the enormity of the failure of the recent policy. the recent policy does not provide any ability for us and the russians to resolve on going to political conflicts and

issues. unfortunately, the syrian people, their blood is the price for that. thank you. >> all right. i have to tell you, if you have not been to these things before, you have just been treated to an overload of expertise and, frankly, very intellectually, even handed ideas on an issue that i think it is both under appreciated and under reported as an aspect of the middle eastern issues. but this is now time for q&a. get our microphones moving. when i call on you, wait for the microphone. i am going to exercise my prerogative to ask the first question. this is for anybody incumbent upon. is there a possibility of russia playing a positive role in syria starting from today? what is the worst-case scenario of a role russia could play.

>> that is two questions. >> i know. but in the moderator, so i get to do that. >> it is easier to answer the first question. is there a positive role that russia could play? yes. it could change its policy and allow the u.n. to intervene and get assad on trial, where he belongs. establish a process where power can be taken in a legitimate way. not going to happen. the second, worst-case scenario, a few days ago he was up there about nuclear war. russia is not going to intervene in syria. the worst possible case is, of course, an intervention that fails.

the indescribable chaos. also, that spreads. either of those two situations are, perhaps, the worst possible case. >> it is spreading already. it is spreading to lebanon and jordan. >> the husband of violence. -- there has not been of violence in lebanon. at the same time, there is so many other places where you could have a fire began. -- which i think the russians are, here. >> i agree that russia is unlikely to help us in the united states. we have tried three times in the u.n.. cotton three vetoes in return. best case, maybe i was in china

a few months ago. talking about, maybe they should concentrate on domestic problems, rather than having a domestic -- rather than having an aggressive domestic foreign policy. it is a possibility. i would give you my worst case, and it may be unfolding before our eyes. nato has guarantee turkey's borders. in case, what happened in just a week ago flares up -- more shelling. remember when i said in my presentation. he decides -- nonetheless, he might escalate the conflict the russians will not intervene. they said they -- their treaty with syria is not going to

guarantee russian aid. we could see a nice war opening up with my then dragged into russia with the iranians. then it begins to escalate this brings pressure on united states. the real payoff, and here i spoke -- here i agree with jim. i'm a liberal democrat -- i do not usually do it. the stakes are so high. the syrian government false and is replaced by a moderate islamist government that the u.s. government can work with, here the u.s. will send -- the u.s. will spend much more time to creighton opposition we can work with. -- that we can work with. this is a huge issue.

my hope is that after the election, the administration might change its policy. >> i would caution and say that we should not delude ourselves that the people who may take over syria in the style of the professor. there are different people fighting in syria. there are some that are more or less secular. the syrian people army -- of the free syrian army. the syrian cancel, the kurds, these are all rather secular

people. some of them are refugees. on the other hand, there are islamists and there are elements all kind in iraq. and to get this right is very difficult. we saw how difficult this was in libya where one of former al qaeda figure became a security chief. and two, the tragic attack and we heard from the president himself. he did call it a terrorist attack the next day. the tragic attack that took lives of chris stevens and three other embassy personnel. there are a lot of bad actors in syria. we saw them going across the syria-iraq border and killing our people there. among these are the -- and of

the brotherhood. there is no scarcity of bad actors there. the cautionary note of every so- called arab spring in every country brings to the surface in egypt, in syria, and now some bad apples in that syria. everybody has to be very careful not to rush in and can just for worst actors. some of them may be worse. >> very briefly on that -- i agree with what everyone else says. however, as it has been mentioned, you have the islamist

take over a nationalist war against the russians. you almost had the same thing happen in bosnia in 1995. you may be seeing that happen now in syria, but i do not think it is over yet. i think what has to be done, and i've fought -- and i spoke to ambassador for about it and he shared his frustrations. after the election, the u.s. will have to work much harder in unifying the syrian opposition and work the more secular forces come out on top once assad goes. if you see what is happening now, you have more and more support going to the jihad.

have we reached the tipping point yet where they control the opposition of assad? hopefully not. we will see. hopefully sooner rather than later. >> get to the microphone, identify yourself, and as the question. >> are there circumstances in which russian would consider military intervention? >> i cannot see any. the operational obstacles are formidable. they have to get flights over turkey or the turks will have to allow them to open up the streets. i just do not see that happening. what contingency would justify doing that? no. i do see an expanded effort to

engage in what you might call intelligence and selling weapons to various factions assad factions -- if assad himself of falls. >> the question i am asking myself is at what point will decide to use the threat of a nuclear confrontation. reread the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. clearly, the relationship, the dynamic, the balance of power is very different than in 1962. but, as he said, it is not about geopolitics. it is about respect and decisions. well i think the probability of a nuclear threat is very low, i do not think it is a zero. even today and even over syria. having said that, in the next five to 10 years if somebody

asked me, i would say that we may come to see, especially taking into account the 700 billion russian military modernization. was it defcon 3 instead of that on to? threats by the russian federation -- instead of defcon 2? threats by the russian federation. >> what chance do think if obama is reelected with the reset do reset? and considering the incredible bread and complexity, what is the direction -- and considering the incredible a threat and complex the, what is the direction? >> we believe on the score. i'm not sure what a signals

president obama is sending him, but he has said that he believes, like on some other issues that president obama is waiting until after the election to engage more forcefully on syria. i am not sure that will come to pass. i think there are strong reasons for the u.s. refraining from getting on the ground. unless, worst case scenarios come to pass involving syrian chemical weapons as you testified about. but i do not see the u.s. in a direct military intervention. perhaps, if there risk greater cooperation with turkey and turkey went in on the ground. maybe the u.s. might provide some kind of air cover or some kind of no fly zone. my worry there is that if we get

involved in a no fly zone, that could be an open-ended commitment which will not be decisive as far as displacing the us of -- as far as displacing the assad regime. i think we will have to become more realistic about the situation. we will have to look outside and see if it will take effective action. that will mean a close cooperation with turkey. >> ok. right here in the front. >> thank you. i am with the american national committee. this will be a question about the info wars. what are your perception about what the reaches of al jazeera? i imagined that assad controls

the message there in the country. brought into the region, the western media or russian services -- may be also a word about the kurds. >> ok. i will start. >> i have a hard enough time keeping up with the u.s. government, so i cannot claim great expertise on al jazeera. clearly, from what i watch, it is astonishingly against assad. and rt, russia today, is the arabic service of russia today. we, by the way, do not have anything cut from al jazeera. english, arabic, chinese, you name it -- we cannot have it. there is great credibility for al jazeera is the arab world.

it is probably one of the highest-watched channels. so, both. in preparation for this, i was reading an article by the general editor who claims that he read the syrian intelligence analysis that they obtained from the embassy in moscow. that was quite interesting. basically saying that the russians will never abandon an asset and they are willing to fight until the last hello. in syria. today, it is a multi source -- multi-media environment. is not just a tv show. it is the internet. we see activists being quoted extensively in every report from damascus, from lebanon -- you name it.

i think your question leads to a broader policy issue -- what is today? what are we, 11 years after 9/11? what is our information footprint? in the arab world in the muslim world, and worldwide, our information footprint in the world where russia, china -- you mentioned al jazeera itself. the french, the germans -- you name it -- are spending $1.7 billion a year for information. if i may, a separate issue. that we did not talk about. that is the syrian chemical wars. that escalates in syria in terms of intervention.

our intervention, a russian intervention, nato intervention, turkey intervention -- no one should trifle with chemical weapons. when you read a report that the north koreans and the chinese are helping the syrians to produce and secure and manage their chemical weapons near when the fighting is all over the place and they are stocking up on diesel generators in case, they're under siege of these chemical weapons facilities, that scares even me. >> ok. we have time. >> a word about the kurds. the business is very tricky. is thes biggest fear breaking up of turkey and the kurdish area from turkey. they are very unhappy with united states intervened in i

iraq. it strengthened of the kurdish resistance. it brought the kurdish rebellion back to life. there now worry that the kurds in syria are to join with the kurds in iraq and that will make things even more difficult for turkey. the turks have tried to balance this by having very good relations political and economical in the north. it is a very tricky business. and we have not seen the end of it. that is one of the things on their minds. >> all right. adam. i work here at "heritage." i was wondering if anyone thinks that russia may be operating whenever it needs to do on a slightly accelerated timescale given the grand pr tactic -- pageant.

and that they're not going to want a bad pr. this will either accelerate or make sure the issue is cleaned up. >> i have not seen anything that connects it with syria. if someone decides to intervene in syria, these are not the kinds of affairs you can manage -- according to a timetable. i do not think -- the real problem is not seyria. it is possible that when the winter olympics open in 2014 the jihadists will be active there. >> there is a lot of attention

to the czech issue. in the last year or two, a profile of the movement and ethnic cleansing in the 19th cleansing -- century became more visible. there is a campaign. it is linked. the georgians said they did not want the gravel and building materials for the olympics. they have a stronger case because there from the region. i am sure that that will make the russians on happy. i saw a contra -- construct that said if the syrian business is going on for a long time that will radicalize people in the

north caucasus and make the environment even more dangerous. i do not know -- i think about it with a look -- with a little bit of luck it will pull it off, something bad happens inside of russia. >> i like to give each of the speaker's two minutes to give us the last take away you want us to have as we walked out of the door. ji,m, we will start with you. >> in terms of u.s. policy, whoever is elected in november, they must become more realistic about what is going on inside syria and how best to approach it. i have no problem with multilateralism, especially in an area of the world that is so volatile where you need allies if only to minimize the

footprint so u.s. forces on the ground. we cannot get that by going through the united nations. we have to remember who are our friends are. israel, turkey, jordan, our nato allies. working to boost the syrian opposition to bring the fight into in end as soon as possible. i do not think a political likely.nt is the obama administration is holding out walking russian cooperation at the u.n. we need to look at multilateral operations with friends and not with rivals. in the long run, that is the way to go not only on syria but on

broader foreign policy in general. >> mr. obamas bet on thand it h. the sanctions against iran, which they would form. it was an improvement of relations. there were women's -- there were limits on arms to syria. things the buyer. the russians have taken a huge gamble year. they have taken a very big gamble. they are lining themselves up with the share crescent in the u.s. -- alienating much if not all of the sunni islamic world. in the long run, this is a losing proposition. selling $4.20 billion worth of arms to iraq, which brought arms from czechoslovakia in from the

united states as the iraqis are trying to balance their arms purchases. it does not make up for this. >> i think that the incoming administration is going to have to rethink what it wants to accomplish in the middle east, with its real objectives and capabilities are, and they have to be brought into alignment. if the objectives are that assad be removed and a more acceptable syria, i do not accept a liberal democratic syria, come to pass, it will have to work with allies and our intelligence capability will have to increase to credit them before.

-- increase to greater capability them before. on regional security issues, it is possible with moscow. i except on a limited basis. they will help us get out of afghanistan. they do not want us to leave from afghanistan. they do not. iran to have a nuclear weapon carried they are not prepared to stop it from getting a nuclear weapon. same with nuclear -- same with north korea. set rounds to an re are in place. regardless of what mr. rahman are mr. romney won. >> the next demonstration has to recognize that we sent a bunch

of which will thinking. we need to take a look at our interest in the middle east broader. none to syria. the name of the game ends iran, the iranian nuclear program, and i s the price of stopping the nuclear program having the regime in iran getting a blow inside iran for losing syria? i wish them a strong debate of who lost area, then so be it. whoever is in the next a ministration, and some adults understand geopolitics, not to say theory, but in practice. and i look at this current administration, i wonder about that. >> ladies and gentlemen, i would

ask you in thanking our panel for a rich discussion. [applause] we also things which i think the folks that came in on c-span two. have a wonderful day. thank you for being here at heritage. >> c-span brings you live coverage of house, senate, and governors' debate. in less than an hour, we'll have live college of the new york senate debate. this is their only debate. it begins as 7:00 eastern. connecticut's u.s. senate candidate's face off in the second debate for the senate seat to replace retiring senator lieberman. this is courtesy of fox ct in hartford, conn. it is about 50 minutes.

answer to the question. republican linda mcmahon. senate debate. democrat chris murphy and mcmahon will begin with a one minute opening statement. senate? prosperity.

>> from channel 3 eyewitness news, a special campaign 2012 senate debate. >> a very good sunday to you. welcome to the first debate in the race for the u.s. senate seat currently held by the retiring senator, joe lieberman.

first, the rules -- each candidate will have 90 seconds. can it ask the question first will have 30 seconds to rebut his or her opponent after the answer to the question. welcome our panelists -- and now, let's bring our candidates, democrat chris murphy and republican linda mcmahon. a coin toss determined that ms. mcmahon will begin with a one minute opening statement. >> good morning, and thanks to channel 3 and our panelists and welcome to our studio audience. i am often asked why are you running for the united states senate? that angeles -- answer is simple -- some six grandchildren and future generations will be guarantee america's promise for prosperity. that promise is rapidly slipping away because our economy is on the wrong track. 170,000 people woke up in our state this morning without a job. we can get our economy back on track if we get our people back to work. i have a plan to do that. i have been there. i've been bankrupt. i've lost everything and i have been able to come back. that's what we need a -- that's what we need to do. the plans my opponent has support in washington has only made things worse. you can look it a path for someone who has created millions of jobs or you can look at the path for someone who's going to push the economy of the fiscal cliff. >> thank you very much and thank you to channel three. i'm looking forward to this morning.

i am a product of connecticut possible class. my grandfather worked in the factories of new britain, my mother is a retired schoolteacher. i was raised to believe i need to live my life in a way to stand up for the bill class families of the state that has meant so much to my family. >> my america is a slogan, it is not a plan. it cut taxes to the middle class. it cut spending 1%, one penny of every dollar. it empowers cover work-force so

we train our folks for the jobs available. it calls for a comprehensive energy policy that will continue to drill for our oral and national gas while we develop our own nobles, wind, solar, geothermal. i have a comprehensive six-point plan. we have asked him to show us his plan. he has not. he has a perfect opportunity to comment. >> it is fiction. it is made a. i have a jobs plan in a job to record. this idea to july's pictorialized by america -- our government is shipping jobs overseas. it is their livelihood.

when we send our taxpayer dollars to washington, they should be used to create jobs here. that is real life for people the need to have a job. both chances you have to both you got voted against it. i am not sure how that is an integral part of their jobs plan. >> our next topic is taxes. chris keating will ask that question first to mrs. mcmahon. >> there is broad consensus that extending the bush tax cuts to be middle-class this is a good

idea. there is disagreement about whether the wealthy should benefit. how will you keep taxes low on the wealthiest americans benefit the economy as a whole? >> in my jobs plan i call for a tax cut for the middle class. i would keep all of the other tax brackets in place. there would be no getting more loss for others. president obama in 2010 said we should not increase taxes when we're in a recession. we are barely out of a recession. our gdp growth is only 1.3%. now is not the time to raise taxes. my plan calls for a tax cut for the middle class. i am the only one who has called for tax cuts for the middle- class. we need to make sure that if our economy turns around and we improved, i would recommend that we pay more taxes. i would be willing to pay more taxes as long as they are used

to pay down the debt and deficit and not continue with the spending we have in washington. >> could raising taxes on the wealthy proved to be a disincentive for the investment and growth? >> the centerpiece and the man's economic plan is an extension of the book -- bush tax cuts on the wealthy. tax cuts for the rich do not work. we tried it during the bush administration. t the question is this -- if we have $7 million to allocate in our economy, it makes sense to get it to linda mcmahon in a new tax cut above and beyond, law or put it in the hands of middle-class families? this and make sense to give her another $7 million tax cut or lower class sizes? that makes sense to do with the

may ban another $7 million tax cut or try to put construction workers back on the job? there is a difference between us on this issue. i do not think we should reauthorize the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. linda mcmahon's plan is a recipe to explode the deficit doing harm to our economy. >> to have 30 seconds. >> studies have shown that if your proposal of allowing all of the bush tax cuts to go for it except those in the upper income, we will lose 700,000 jobs. i do not think that is a plan to create jobs. my plan calls for keeping all of the tax levels the same except cutting taxes to the middle class. i get no tax cut. you are talking about an increase of taxes across the board. >> here's what in economics

professor says that you kong -- he said it would balloon the deficit at a phenomenal rate. the arithmetic has to matter. there is a call for $4.1 trillion in tax cuts. spending cuts are $360 billion. that is 12 times as many tax cuts as spending cuts. we are not serious about deficit reduction. if we do not, the country will slip back into a recession. >> the next topic deals with cutting the national deficit.

of those who cannot take care of i'm pushing for of my jobs plan to get our people back to work and grow our economy because when we grow our economy, everyone will benefit and will have a healthier and stronger nation. that's what i propose to do in washington. >> just to be clear, mr. murphy, to cut programs like social security and medicare to tackle republicans in general say we don't need to raise taxes. what do you think about that and would you? have been specific about where $3 billion. agribusiness in the midwest that over $8 billion a year that we don't need.

i oppose giving away tax breaks cuts. i am. washington. given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it.

we have to address how we will reform social security and medicare. use of an ongoing support any policy that will reduce benefits for our sins. >> she's not can you answer this. the question was what are you going to do? she said she lifted everyone in a room and they would talk about it fro. be honest.

when the cameras were not on, she told a tea party group as she she supported sons of a -- sun setting social security. she said she would support privatizing medicare for individuals, which could result in $6,000 or more and cost to the hon. you have to be series of positive social security and shrinking and which is shrinking and. i would put a cap on income. i have been on record as being willing to support cuts in the rate of growth of medicare so we take money out of the hands of security which insurance companies and put them in the hands of beneficiaries. linda mcmahon on not tell the voters where she stands on these issues. >> you have to be honest. you are not being honest about

my saying that i will sunset medicare, social security. i set that was a false ad. i said i would never cut or support a budget that would cut benefits to our sense. i will not. medicare was passed not in a bipartisan way. we to have to have bought hyson action on these issues. >> she still didn't give you specifics because she does not want you to know which you will do. i am not making this up. you said i believe in sunset provisions. so we can take a look at it 10 or 50 years down the road. i am not putting words in her mouth. i am saying what she told a tea party group.

>> we will take a quick break. we will be back with more questions for our u.s. senate candidates and a variety of other topics. coming up next, live from the university of connecticut. ♪ we continue our u.s. senate debate with candidate linda mcmahon and chris murphy. here is a hot-button issue that has divided lawmakers in washington. that is the issue of universal health care. chris keating will ask the next question. he will post this to mr. murphy. >> the u.s. supreme court has upheld the key parts of the universal health care including the individual mandate. which elements of obamacare should be left alone, and which

should be changed? >> i have devoted my life to the issue of making sure everyone has access to affordable quality health care. i have done that because of little boys, like kyle from connecticut's . he is a hemophiliac. he takes medication. it cost his family $3,000 every time he has to take the medication. his insurance plan has a lifetime limit. without the health care bill, it would bring to work his family. they will lose everything. we should -- it would bankrupt his family. they will lose everything. we should make sure this bill goes into effect. there are thousands of family who are at risk of losing everything because of the costs of health care. there are individuals who lose their jobs because thickets it. i have been practiced in the for the concept that in the richest

country a new route, health care should be a human rights, not something you get if you are rich enough to afford it. i am a proud to have played a .ole in that legislation >> i would like to refill the act because it was put into place to bring the cost curve down. it is not doing that. premiums are going up. the cost of health care is going up.

put into place to bring down the that is not what is happening. up. we're going to add about 10 million more people to our health care world and we're not going to have that doctors or medical personnel to support that. revision. but we need a health care revisions that's going to allow a marketplace to compete to bring down the cost. we need to be able to buythat means states have to get out of mandates for insurance. down the cost and we need insurance. this current law is not going to do that. of insurance premiums. >> you have 90 seconds. have dedicated my life to the and so has her husband. and in between those two jobs, during the week he was diagnosed with cancer. when it would to get insurance

insurance. simply because an illness plan. republicans in washington have voted to repeal is built 33 times that have never offered a forward. discriminated against because the money to afford it. right. what getting all -- getting rid of the parts you don't like cannot happen. party planned on doing. >> to restore a pro-choice

candidate. i believe women should have access to contraceptives. i am about women posing health issues. i would not be opposed to them. the greatest thing that has happened relative to women are because of the failed policies of congressman murphy. more women are out of work. more women are in poverty. they have the same issues today that everyone has. the fate of their jobs. they are worth about making their house payments. if their kids to graduate from college will get a job. these are the issues facing salomon today. while health issues are important, when i am traveling, they are not talking to me about contraception. they are talking to me about how they will have a job and how to make ends meet. >> health care may not be an economic issue to when the

mcmann, but it is to millions of women in the state. when they do not have access to preventive health care, when their employer denies them access to birth control and contraception, that is an economic issue to women in the states who are not making as much as one of a man does on an annual basis. she supports the blunt amendment to allow any more player -- any employer to deny him the employees access to birth control in contraception. the reason why the head of the pro-choice america was here today campaign for me is because pro-choice advocates across the country know that linda mcmahon with in power and a radical right in the u.s. senate that would deny a women's right to choose info to of contraception courage for millions of women across the country.

>> this is not true. i am a pro-choice candidate. i am for weather and access to contraception. in for women's health issues. i am a pro-choice candidate. always have been and will not change said. >> our next topic. mr. murphy -- >> i do not know if she did not read the blunt amendment, but it is not about religious employers. it would allow any employer to unconscious of shift coverage for their female -- contraceptive coverage for their plan maryland -- female employees. you cannot continue to run away

from the things that you have said he will support. the blunt amendment would deny women access to contraception. >> our neck richard allen ex- convict -- conversation about the candidate -- conduct of the campaign. >> several of our viewers say the campaign has been on- attacked a short on the issues. do you plan to change the approach? >> this campaign has to be about the issues. there are big differences between linda mcmahon and i when it comes to the issues. one reporter asked mrs. mcmahon's campaign while she was not talking about the issues and her aunt's --ad. her campaign manager said talking about the issues of the census. it would be for linda mcmahon. on the issues, she is a long. she is not where the state is one it comes to passing another

tax cut for the rich. she is not where it is where it comes to protecting women's health care. when it comes to standing up to outsourcing. this campaign should be about this issue -- should be about the issues. i hope that the next three weeks are spent talking about the issue differences between linda mcmahon and i. the difference between our professional backgrounds and not the personal attacks would have seen in her ads. >> to you plan to change your approach. i have been talking about my jobs plan. the primary issue our jobs in the economy. congressman murphy talks about everything but jobs in the economy because he has no plan. he can talk about a plan based on his past record, but they are failed policies. it is doubling our debt.

23 million people and our country out of work or looking for work. these are the statistics that are not part of a plan of success of have an economic growth. i have had the six. plan. look at it, website. we have used outside experts, which have been police cited. congress and murphy has no plan. if he wants to focus on the issues, we can look on the issues of whether or not he will speak about his attendance record, his special loan agreement. he needs to be honest about these issues. >> if you ask her if she was stop the character of salt -- assault -- i think you asked her if she would stop the character of salt? [applause] she listed a bunch more of them. but talk about what people want

us to talk about. that is these differences on the issues. i did read her jobs plan. i read it twice. she lifted almost -- she lifted paragraph from people who do not have connecticut's interest of hearts. >> remind the audience not to applaud so we can hire more time for the questions. >> there have been plenty of negative ads coming from congress and lower fares well.

>> there have been plenty of negative ads coming from congressman murphy as well. he is not talked about the issues. this morning our host said they are accusing this relative to social security and medicare was false. let's make sure we have the facts straight year the need to be honest with the people of connecticut. come clean about your attendance record. >> you have run at sang in 2008 that they have given your opponent a special below market loan that ordinary people could not get in suggesting the deal was linked to mr. murphy's vote on the bailout bill. your campaign has also said that only mr. murphy now is the detail of the loans. if you do not know the details, what are you saying he got a special loan? >> he represented the bank. he had foreclosure issues. the banks bailed him out. he sat on the finance committee. that bank received $400 million of special bailout money. neither you nor the bank has been willing to release the arguments.

>> he responded with a campaign describing her as false. he then cited a different statistic touting your voting record. why did you describe per ads as false? >> what she is trying to essentially say is about my work ethic. the people of the fed district know that i have worked my tail off for them. i have played well about my weight in winning fights for them. this attack is ludicrous.

i have worked my tail off for them. i one product and won fights for them. but this attack is ludicrous. everybody who has looked at this from the hartford courant to the connecticut post have all said it is not true. and the hypocrisy from linda mcmahon attacking me on this issue when she took 36 years to pay back creditors and a $1 million bankruptcy during the exact time she was running this ad. she was $26,000 overdue on the taxes on her penthouse in stanford which is mind blowing. linda mcmahon is addicted to personal attacks. it is such a tight to do two years ago-- it is what she tried to do two years ago and she is doing it again. >> he says everybody that looked at his record has said it is all.

nobody has seen the records. just so your documents. what you do that, he would lay all of this to rest. i think personal integrity is an issue. only in washington could you miss 75% of your job, get paid one descended thousand dollars a year -- get paid $170,000 a year and they get a promotion. that would not happen in the private sector -- sector pierre >> linda mcmahon cannot talk about the issues in the campaign. she referred to this character assassinations. on this voting issue, hypocrisy is stunning. linda mcmahon admits that before she was running for the senate, she hardly ever voted. she had to show up just once a year to vote and she herself admits that she barely ever did it. spare me the indignation on this issue when linda mcmahon has not done her basic duty. >> thank you. >> that is absolutely false. and you know it.

>> linda mcmahon, you can use that time to bring that up and in the room bottle to the next question if you like. professor will ask the next question. >> i would like to continue this line of questioning. both of you at that point had challenges when it comes to paying your debt. mr. murphy, we would like to know what voters should make of these lapses on your part and on the part of your opponent. >> we both had financial issues in our life. the difference is that when i made mistakes, i corrected them. when linda mcmahon made mistakes, she waited to correct them until she was two months away from an election. he had a $1 million bankruptcy and did not payback as creditors until she was asking for people's votes.

i do not think it is credible that she did not know who she owed money to or how much money she owed. this campaign ultimately has to be about the people of this state and about what our respective plans for this budget mean for the people. you want to talk about fiscal responsibility, let's talk about linda mcmahon's economic plan that would cut taxes by 12 times as much as spending. with all due respect, i think the people of the state want us to be talking about that. >> what should voters make of these lapses on the part of you and your point? >> everybody can have a financial difficulty. a couple of missed mortgage payments and credit-card payments is different. but i am asking he come clean about is the special -- special interest loan.

one that men regular middle- class folks in connecticut could not get. he says he voted 97% of the time and he did but he did not show up for 75% of his committee hearings and he would never learned about the issues. i will not vote just down party lines. i am an independent thinker and i will be different than my party on a lot of votes. but to just show up to vote without getting the information, i cannot think that is what the people of connecticut want to see. so i am challenging congressman murphy to come clean and show us his records. it is not just about missing some payments. this is about an issue of integrity and ethics. >> mr. murphy, your rebuttal. >> i think this is about character. when you make mistakes, do you fix them? i did. linda mcmahon didn't. when she owed people money, she

ran away from those obligations. for 36 years, she has been pulling in salaries of $40 million a year and still could not come to pay back the people of connecticut that she owed. if you want to talk about this issue, the way you handle your problems and the way that i handled mind to speak to differences between us. >> i did eventually pay -- [laughter] >> i paid them. i did it with my money. and you got a special loan from the bank. [applause] i will spend my money making sure people like you do not go back to washington and spend money from the people of connecticut. >> we will pause for a break. i think we need one. we will be back with more questions for connecticut's u.s. senate candidates live from the

university of connecticut. >> continuing now at the u.s. senate debate between linda mcmahon and chris murphy. >> linda mcmahon, this race is important for connecticut and the nation. the outcome could go a long way toward deciding which party controls the senate. why is it important your party control the senate in 2013? >> i think what we have seen over the past four years are filled policies of an administration where our debt and deficit has increased, our respect around the world has declined. i believe we need to have senators in washington who are going to make sure those qualities are restored to america.

the biggest issues we face today are jobs and the economy. we cannot have a strong foreign- policy if we do not have a strong economy. we cannot have a strong offense -- defense if we do not have a strong economy. the greatest debt to our security is debt. we have to make sure we are putting policies in place to get our people back to work. this administration, congress and murphy has been in washington but failed policies. --with failed policies. we need to change that. >> that was not the answer to the question. the answer to the question was why should the republicans be in charge of the united states senate? let's be hoenst. this is not the republican party of our parents are grandparents. linda mcmahon, a republican majority in the senate who would stop at nothing to it and a woman's right to choose.

it would stop at nothing to destroy environmental protection, a party that now denies global warming even exist. a party that would seek to perpetuate another round of massive tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. boaters are deciding between linda mcmahon and myself but they are also deciding whether the tea party should be in charge of the united states senate or democrats. i think both are relevant considerations but there are national implications to this race. and the kind people that linda mcmahon would empower do not have connecticut postal interests at heart. >> congressman murphy still tries to put me into a corner but he knows that is not my plan.

i am an independent thinker. he knows i differ from my party on various issues. i will be an independent thinker in washington. i will not vote for my party 98% of the time. i bring to the table experience of job creation, of putting people back to work and i have a plan to do that. he does not. >> mr. murphy, your rebuttal. >> what are all these republican senators coming to connecticut to campaign for linda mcmahon? because they know she will vote for them. the look of what she stands for. she stands with the national republicans on the amendment. she stands with the national republicans on more tax cuts for the wealthy and when it comes to drilling rather than investment in renewable energy. on issue after issue, she stands with them which is why they are so enthusiastic about coming to connecticut to hope that she is the 51st vote for a tea party republican majority in the

senate. >> thank you very much. our next topic is one the u.s. senators deal with extensively -- foreign affairs. >> mr. murphy as we wind down the american presence in afghanistan and the troops come home, other problems are rising in the middle east. we saw that images of the u.s. embassy under attack in libya. how aggressive to the united states be when it comes to getting involved in internal affairs of these and other countries? >> i ran for congress in 2006. i could not sit back and let my congresswoman at the time continue president bush's open ended commitment there. i put myself on the line to bring our troops home. i am now a believer that it is time to wrap up our commitment in afghanistan.

i do not think it is in our strategic interest to stay there any longer and i do not think we can afford to spend $2 billion a week. we should bring our men and women home. i fought hard to use my voice and vote to do that. moving forward, we have to be a lot more stingy about how we use american resources abroad. and commit ourselves to the notion that if we do engage in foreign intervention, it has to be in a multilateral way. the biggest mistake we have made is one we have gone in alone. i have been proud of my commitment to bringing our troops home from afghanistan. my commitment to any foreign policy based on a more stringent intervention. that is the kind of senator i will be. >> linda mcmahon, same question. >> i did not think the united states should be involved until war in another country unless a vital u.s. interest is at stake. i am also for bringing our

troops home from afghanistan. along the timetable that president obama has established. i do not think that would have gone in and [unintelligible] we have to have a strong foreign-policy. i believe peace through strength. congressman murphy has voted twice to de-fund our jobs vote, costing our state as many as 35,000 jobs. we need to have a strong defense. we cannot have a strong defense if we de-fund this budget, especially when every other member of the connecticut delegation voted for it.

>> i am proud of in part of a delegation that won a commitment to build two submarines. and a single source contact for the new engine on the torrance latter to be built. there is a gimmick between linda mcmahon and i on afghanistan. she wants to sit there for another two years. i think that's too expensive of a commitment and i would rather see those dollars spent on defense production and at the connecticut rather than a war overseas. >> defense production, congressman, you recently voted twice to make sure of the authorization bill. we did not get the jobs. as many as 35,000. we could lose 1 million jobs nationwide and that a 35,000 jobs.

we have to have a strong defense but record recently is not one that shows you are willing to support their jobs right here in our state. >> our next question, you will each have 60 seconds to answer. there will be no rebuttals. >> linda mcmahon, you touted your experience in business as a key asset but some of your critics say that does not qualify you to handle the business of the united states senate. they have a fair point. >> i think what we need to do is to send someone to washington who was had experience creating jobs. we need a blend of representation. the biggest hole we have is those of the the private sector for businesses. a ceo has to build a team to execute the vision, manage them, motivates them, and lead them. i'm good at that. i have a good track record at that. i think those skills are missing

in washington. we need business leaders to understand that when you negotiate, you debate robustly but when you walk away, each side has gotten somewhat -- some of what it wanted but not all of what it wanted. that is missing in washington today. nobody is coming to the middle to negotiate. i am not talking about giving up principles. i'm talking about negotiating for the good of our country. the ceo of starbucks said he hoped when the elections were over, the american public would think they would -- it would think they had won. >> mr. murphy, you have been criticized as someone who has no experience other than being a that the politics. do they have a fair point? >> not every ceo is qualified to be united states senator. linda mcmahon as an example of the kind of ceo that is not. she denies her people health care with a badly needed it. to ship jobs overseas. she took $10 million in tax

credits from the state designed to create jobs and laid off & l for work force by making $46 million. refusing to take a bit of a pay cut to keep people employed. linda mcmahon has shown consistently that as a ceo, she put her interest first over and over again, at the expense of the state, our tax players and employees that rely on her. i do not fit that qualifies you to be a u.s. senator. >> at this point, each candidate will have to 1 minutes to offer a closing statement. based on the drawing to determine the speaking order, mr. murphy will go first. you have 60 seconds.

>> again, taking very much to our sponsors today. earlier in the debate, linda mcmahon got a question about why she cannot talk about something other than personal attacks. she entered it by lodging more personal attacks against me and my family. that is what she will try to make the rest of this race about. as i challenge the people of the state at our debate on sunday, did not let her do it. make this race be about you. as the question but one of us is going to stand up for the seniors of the state to cannot have their medicare privatized, who will stand up for the factory worker who cannot continue to see jobs sent overseas. he will stand up for students here at uconn? if that is the question in this race, there is only one choice. linda mcmahon has stood up only for herself, not for us. my career has been dedicated to

fighting for the people of this state and i cannot wait to continue to do it as a u.s. senator. thank you offer being here tonight. >> linda mcmahon, you have one minute. >> i like to thank our hosts, panelists and for those of you who joined us this evening. connecticut, it is time. time to elect a senator who is a job creator with a real plan for putting people back to work. who will cut taxes for the middle class, who values showing up for work. it cannot be bought by special interests. we do not need another senator whose primary aspiration is a political career. we need someone who will tell us that our kids and grandkids will be better off than we are. we cannot afford six more years of congressman murphy's failed policies. of higher unemployment, higher costs for gas and groceries. a low wages and homes moving into foreclosure.

connecticut, it is time. time to elect a senator who will bring knowledge and experience to create jobs and who believe that america's best days are ahead. i am linda mcmahon and i would be honored to have your vote on november 6. >> thank you very much. we would like to thank the hartford courant and our panelists. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we will bring you another connecticut debate. next we will take you to new york where senator kirsten

gullibrand will debate wendy long. >> good evening. welcome from skidmore college. >> tonight the u.s. senate debate is being filmed across the stay on ny1 news as well as across the country on c-span. let us introduce the two

candidates this evening in order what they are speaking which was determined today by a coin toss. >> please welcome senator kirsten gillibrand. [cheers and applause] and please welcome attorney wendy long. [cheers and applause] we are going to begin now with one minute opening statements. we begin with senator gillibrand. >> this election is about who we fight for. i am fighting for middle class,

our military, and our seniors. i am fighting so that every york has anew opportunity for their god-given potential. i know that government does not create jobs. people do. we have unleashed on to the normal spirit and businesses -- spirit andrialis businesses. we can see america made again right here in new york. we have to clean up washington. members of madracongress need to focus on accountability. we can bring people together to get it done. at the senate, that is what i have done. >> thank you.

we will turn to ms. long. >> thank you to skidmore college and you for moderating this debate. i believe in a constitution that unites us all as a people. i was fortunate to get an outstanding public school education and service a top staffer to two state u.s. senators and a law clerk at the u.s. supreme court. i am a wife and a mother of two school age children. i have been through many tough times in my family and many good times too. i understand what is going on around the kitchen tables around new york. we are broke. we are overtaxed, or regulated -- overregulated, and we have

lost jobs. >> thank you for both of those statements. we will begin with the next question. answers will be limited to 60 seconds. rebuttals will be 45 seconds. re-rebuttals will be 30 seconds. the first question goes to senator gillibrand. the state department has been criticized for its handling and the situation in libya. we know there were multiple requests for security and i went unheeded -- it went unheeded. what could have been done to avoid this attack? what should be done going forward? >> the secretary of state, hillary clinton, has done an extraordinary job around the world representing our values.

president obama has taken responsibility for what happened in libya. my heart goes out to families of those who were killed in that terror attack. as president obama explained, we will make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened in libya. we will make sure that that will be heldackers accountable. he will conduct a full-scale investigation with secretary clinton to find a were the peelings and shortcomings work. as he has shown time and time again, he does not give up and he does not forget. he holds those response will who must be held responsible. i have no doubt he will do the same in this case. >> lesson at the debate, we heard president obama say something that was clearly incorrect. he was saying for days and secretaire clinton was saying for days that this whole thing in libya was spurred by this amateur video.

they did not say this was a concerted terrorist attack. ambassador rice went out time after time saying this and i agree that it is time for ambassador rice to resign. when you agree that after she went out with this false story that she should resign? >> absolutely not. we know that has been extraordinary for moral because of the -- extraordinary turmoil and arabs spring. we lost lives. president obama has been committed to trying to strengthen democracy in the middle east. >> i know, but i am talking about the specific instance. we know this was a specific act of terror. he was tried to blame it on an amateur video. we know that is not the case.

we have got to get to the bottom of this case and figure out who knew what and when. >> we will get to the bottom of this. we will hold those in comparable for the attack. -- accountable for the attack. this is the kind of issue that should not be politicized. it is the kind of issue where we come together and get to the bottom of it. >> i'm sorry, but we want to move on from this topic. >> the next question is for ms. long. you have criticized the stimulus, which is the centerpiece of the obama's recovery plan. do you think that government spending can never bring the economy out of the recession? >> i think that people create jobs and that government does not create jobs. most of the stimulus was

completely wasted. it was filled with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate that when to companies like solyndra. all of that money came from somewhere. it came out of the pockets of taxpayers or it increased our debt to china. that is where the money came from. as pope said, there was not as many shovel ready jobs-president obama said, there were not as many shovel ready jobs as he thought. >> the cut its way to pay down the debt and the deficit is create a growing economy. that is what we are focused on. we are focused on small business and. that means cutting their taxes and streamlining taxes. make sure the have the loans that they need. we want to see made in america.

rebuilding our infrastructure. built towns, roads, and water systems across our state. we need to refocus on building new roads and projects. i can tell you, we have tough choices to make. we can tighten our belt. we can cut spending. we have to do it precisely and carefully. we cannot have a "slash only" approach. >> can you suggest something that you would cut? she talks about cutting taxes and getting small businesses of the loans they need, but she has not done any of these things. what we need to get small business is going is to get the private sector to give them loans. her idea of getting a loan is taking money from taxpayers and giving it out to her favorite group. the right way to make a loan is to go to a bank can go through a

legitimate project. she has undermined the ability of banks to do that with the dodd-frank bill. >> we will move onto that. let me move on to another question. this is for senator gillibrand. the rest of the new york citizens for allegedly trying to bomb a federal reserve _ as any for robust national defense and national security. we are weeks away from the fiscal cliff that would cut $55 billion a year from defense spending. what steps are you prepared to take to prevent that from happening if you think that is something to be avoided? >> there was a terror attack this morning in new york at the federal reserve. i have deep gratitude for the fbi and our police force. once again, the have bo

thwarted another terrorist attack. the reason why i disagree with my opponent's approach -- i work hard with peter king and across party lines to make sure that a dirty bomb cannot attack. city. we want to make sure that our religious institutions -- >> let her finish. you will have a chance to rebut. >> we look for fat and waste in the program. that is why i did not vote for this budget deal. i believe sequestration will be bad for new york. it will cut the things we need most -- firefighters, police force, education. >> sequestration would be terrible, senator, but what have

you done to avoid sequestration? you have to decide which until japan's to make. as far as i can see, you have not done anything to advance the ball and bat -- you have to decide which cuts to make. as far as i can see, you have not done anything to bans the ball in that -- advance the ball in that. if i were representing a york, i would know what is going on. it would not touch me off of guard. in terms of the attack on the federal reserve, it will be important to make sure that i ran does not get a nuclear weapon. we do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of any of the terrorists. that will increase what we already know are not only threats of terrorism, but right here on american soil. >> the pledge you have taken,

the tax pledge to never increase taxes, doesn't that lead to the kind of budget showdown that has brought us to the edge of the fiscal cliff? >> no know. i agree with the final reagan. we have -- i agree with ronald reagan. we cannot increase taxes. the tax foundation showed the york is dead last in the tax climate. it is not the answer. the more we increase taxes, the more spending that follows. we need to cut. that is the only way to go about it. the tax system we have now is counterproductive. it is confusing. it takes forever. we need tax reform. we definitely do not want to increase the overall amount of

taxes we are paying. that is the nature of the pledge that i took. >> thank you. >> social issues. ms. long, you have called roe v. wade a horrible position. you also said that you believe abortion rights should be left to the people to decide. explain exactly what that means. also, do you believe that an update is needed for new york's laws which are antiquated and potentially dangerous for some of you wants to score political points? >> roe v. wade is universally recognized among most scholars. whether you are pro-life or pro- choice, if it were overturned, every state would get the lobby want -- would get a law that

they want. >> would you advocate for the overturn of roe v. wade? would like to see it? >> of course. it was a terrible constitutional decision. there was a lot of confusion on this. if it were overturned, the decision would return to the state. each state can decide what policy they want. i am pro-life. there is no doubt about that. i believe that every single human being from conception until natural death has the right to life. the includes elderly, the disabled, everyone.

when i see that little picture of a baby in the ultrasound, that is a human being. it is entitled to respect. that is up to state legislators. as i go around the state, i do not hear anyone talking about abortion issue. my opponent wants to talk about this issue because you want to distract from her terrible record on the economy. >> senator. >> i disagree with my opponent. i believe everyone has a right to make a decision about her productive rights and about her family and when she will begin a family. we have to fight for when and's rights. this is not a made up issue. -- we have to fight for women's rights. this is not a made up issue. they introduced a bill that would debunk all of title 10, which is the money spent on out

at-risk women. it would also be defined rape. the one bosses to decide whether or not employees should be able to have access to birth control -- they want bosses to decide whether or not employees should be able to have access to birth control. >> first of all, i am fully in favor of women's rights. i am a woman. i believe in women's rights. there is something else that you said that is completely wrong. no one is advocating making decisions about anyone else's contracepting. no one is suggesting taking anyone's contraception away.

the issue is -- will religious employ years and religious institutions are other people's faiths and i have the faith that tells me that abortion is evil. will i be forced to buy such a plan and offer it to my employees? this is a question of infringing the law's basic liberty you have. >> fundamentally, if you support that, that will give any employer the right to deny any coverage that they have a religious belief that opposes it. a majority of women use birth control. to say that it is evil shows a disregard for the building of a woman to make her personal

decision about her body and her family. >> ms. long -- >> i just repeated what she said. that is off. -- all. >> as long as we are on this issue of the war on women, there is a war going on in this state. we have in new york assembly -- >> let's stick to the topic at hand. >> we will give you an opportunity to speak on the issues you want to go to. when you talk about -- when democrats talk about the fear that roe v. wade might be overturned, doesn't that relate

to fear mongering? >> i do not think it is fear mongering. this presidential nominee, mitt romney, said he would get rid of planned parenthood. his party has said that there should be no exceptions for abortions. no exceptions for rape, incest, for the life of the mother. that is a serious problem for new yorkers and many women that i know. look, these are fight and battles that my mother had and that my grandmother had. women of america believe that they should make their own decisions about contraceptions. they do not expect legislators to think that the bosses should make that decision. i am making sure that women are heard in this election. women have to vote and hold

congressional members accountable. they have to be heard. these are fundamental issues of all right. you talk about the war on women. mitt romney says -- it is an issue of fairness. >> you are completely misleading this audience and people who you say employers could decide what a woman could do with contraception. it is completely false. religious and players have the right to subsidize and what it will offer, it is completely -- >> employers do not get to pick and choose which laws they will follow.

>> we have set up a situation where government dictates your faith. do you know what will happen? >> look, this is a compromise that was reached in the new york state and signed into law by a republican governor for 10 years. i do not think that citizens believe their religious beliefs have been circumvented. >> let me ask you the original question. i want to ask about the supreme court. make this a brief exchange. who is a model supreme court justice and why? >> i greatly admire just a sotomayor -- justic sce sotomayor. she was the number one proponent against sotomayor.

i think she will make a tremendous justice roberts and have a long run -- justice sotomayor will have a long run. >> my problem with her is that she does not follow the constitution. we need people who will be modest judges and follow the law. i cannot believe we are sending -- the people of new york are out of new york. the unemployment rate has gone up over the last year. it seems that all anybody wants to talk about is -- >> we will talk about economic issues some more. >> i admire many justices.

stevens.just thiice justice roberts is a good justice too. the question is the approach to the law. did apply the constitution? our do they seek to impose our own political views on the bench. >> thank you. >> this question deals of the second amendment regarding second amendment rights. you support second amendment rights. you would want to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen. explained why as semiautomatic is something gun advocates would seek to limit or ban?

>> that is not my only concern at all. i want to preserve what the second amendment says, which is the right to own arms. that is an individual right, like the other list of the bill rights. that is what i am concerned with protecting. it is for purposes of self- defense. it does all sorts of purposes. what i think it's amazing is my opponent when she represented this area and congress, she until everyone she kept her gone under the bed. -- gun under her bed. it amazes me how she can do this 180 flip. by the way, the most basic nra course, they tell you where to store your gun and it is a bad

idea to put it under your bed. >> response. >> i support the second amendment and the right of gun owners. we have serious issues across new york. we have a gang violence and gun violence. it is deserving to sit next to a mother who lost a child to gun violence. it is inexcusable. what i have to do is make sure that i can protect our families. that means a common-sense reforms that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. the biggest challenges we have is 90% of our weapons come from out of state. 90% are used by criminals. what we have to do is keep those guns out of the hands of

criminals. that is why i have written a piece of legislation that would lock down on them and should the law enforcement have the tools to track them. >> she is overlooking the root cause of crime is criminal. you did not solve this problem by hindering the rights of law- abiding citizens. the way to stop the gun violence is to apprehend criminals. criminals do not care what the laws are. they will find ways to get guns and commit violence anyways. all of these restrictions on the basic second amendment right of law abiding citizens who have firearms is not the answer. >> does to be clear regarding the change in the nra reading, did you change your ideology between the time that you were a congresswoman representing this area and subsequently become a

senator? did he do that for some other reason? -- did you do that for some other reason? >> my believes have never changed. i met with a family that lost their daughter. i met with a family that was experiencing enormous amount of gun violence and gang violence. i have to be able to protect those families. i have been outspoken on common- sense legislation that could be bipartisan. it is not about law abiding gun owners. it is about criminals. we need to give the law enforcement the tools to find them. >> ok. >> thank you. it is time for our lightning round. we will ask questions that can only be answered by words yes or no. both candidates must refrain from explanations or "maybes."

we will start with senator gillibrand. should new york reinstate the death penalty? >> no. >> yes. >> do you read books on your ipad? >> now know. >> no. >> no. >> the what programs on pbs -- do you watch programs on pbs? >> yes. >> yes, but i could live without it. >> do you write your own twee

ts? >> yes. >> yes. >> have you ever been arrested? >> no. >> no. >> we're going to start with ms. long. would like to be selected as a senate majority leader? >> would i like to be senate majority leader? sure. [laughter] >> senator. >> yes. >> have been fired a gun within the last year it? -- have you fired a gun within the last year? >> yes. >> no.

>> have you read "fifty shades of grey?" [laughter] >> no. >> no. >> should there be a national ban on a large sugar drinks? >> no. >> no. >> do you read political blogs? >> yes. >> yes. >> have you purchased a lottery ticket within the last year? >> yes. >> no. >> that concludes are lightening ground. now it is time for cross- examination. you can ask your opponent one question. response is 60 minutes-60

seconds long. -- 60 seconds long. >> congress is broken. if you are elected, will you break your pledge if there is a deal that has $10 of cuts for every $1 of revenue increase? >> that is a little bit of a false question. we could raise revenue in such a deal without amending the tax code. i am opposed to higher tax rates. what we really need is an economy that will grow. you can cut tax rates tremendously. you can reduce loopholes. we have a pro-growth tax code. you can make more revenue.

i think we should reform the tax code. it needs an overhaul. if we do that and we have a pro- growth tax code, we will see the economy grow and jobs created. that is a fantastic idea. >> ms. long, you can ask senator gillibrand a question. >> you have been an advocate for transparencyts and in government. i see this crisis in new york assembly in we have an assemblymen who is sexually harassing women in his office. this is a repeated pattern in this culture of corruption in albany. and assembly speaker instead of

trying to remedy it, instead took over money in taxpayer money and gave fresh money to quiet.hese women cr this is a scandal. these young women were probably very idealistic. they are working in the state assembly and treated this way by someone in power. what i found out vegas is the actions of the assembly speaker in the cover it up -- outrageous is the actions of the assembly speaker to cover it up. why did not call for his resignation? >> the allegations against lopez for sexually harassing his employees is outrageous.

it is disgraceful. there is no place in the state for a bounce to harass his employees and certainly -- for a boss to harass his employees. there has been a full investigation and why it was permitted to a confidential settlement when we have the facts from that investigation, we will know whether or not that was done improperly. lopez should have paid those finds himself. taxpayer money should not have been used. we do have to hold people accountable. that is why the investigation is important. he was wrong to not have done this in public. >> was and iran to use taxpayer money to cover it up? we know that it was wrong. - wasn't it wrong to use taxpayer money to cover it up? we know it was wrong.

>> we wanted one question and we got one answer. we will move on to some of our additional questions. this one is for senator gillibrand. the affordable health care, also .nown as obamacare republicans are calling this a hit on medicare. is the reduction justified? what would you tell senior citizens about the reduction? >> i would reassure senior citizens that those were reforms that strength and medicare and medicaid. it takes some fat out of the system. the money was going to insurance companies. we want to streamline medicare and medicaid to make sure it will be there for seniors and the next generation of seniors. these are the kind of reforms that matter.

they strengthen our entitlements. at the same time, they get rid of fraud or abuse. >> ms. long. >> i'm sorry, but i have to return to the topic i was addressing. you set of the speaker -- said of the speaker that he should have resigned. there is taxpayer money to cover up the sexual harassment that was going on. how do not ask him to resign? >> there is an ongoing investigation right now to get to the bottom of it. with the speaker, it was a bipartisan call for him to resign for what he was covering up. >> there was an investigation going on with the speaker? questionmove on to any

at this point. at this point, we know there is a hot presidential race going on. polls are tight. if president obama is reelected and you are also successful on election day, you will have to work with the president of the opposing party. can you please in one area where you agree with the president? where do believe you could work together to benefits new york ers? >> first of all, i believe president obama has been the one who has not been willing to come have we work with people in the senate. he sent a budget that he knows no one will vote for. that is really the problem here. we're not seeing compromise from his side in the white house.

>> we do not know who will control the senate at this point. what could you work with him on a? >> if he is interested in reducing our deficit as he said he is, if he is interested in reviewing our deficits, i would work with him on that. i would be willing to cut any and all areas of the federal budget. i am talking about cutting spending right now. >> senator gillibrand, if mitt romney is elected, what is an area that you have of agreement with him? >> as governor, he fought for health care. >> we got that done. according to the supreme court, it is considered constitutional. it is something you could work with him on. >> there are, and values we can

come together on. when i spoke this on friday passed a health care bill, and reached across the aisle to make sure to help our heroes and protect them and help that they desperately need. we were able to repeal but corrosive and negative policy that undermines our military. i can find common ground with the senators. i would look toward president on where we can agree. we want to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear-weapons. that is an area and where we can get along. >> there are some jewish voters

or remain unconvinced about the president, the current one, particularly when it comes to iran and its nuclear program. the president did not meet time to meet with that israeli president benjamin netanyahu. >> i know that president obama is an ally of isreal. we have worked side by side to make sure that iran never attains a nuclear weapons and is now reach the capability. all options are on the table. president obama and the prime minister of israel have a strong relationship. they talk all the time. whether or not to make a meeting on a given day is not the

measurement of their relationship. they are collectively working on sanctions and putting enormous pressure on the countries of that we can convince the i ran people to rise up against their leadership or to convince assad that he has to join the economic community and stop pursuing a clear weapons. i have no doubt in my mind the presence of bomb is 100% allied with israel on security. -- president obama is 100% allied with israel on security. >> this administration's policies with regards to israel is incomprehensible. our relationship with israel is at an all-time low. president obama is responsible for that. if i were the senator, i did a senator should stand up and be an advocate for isreal -- i think a senator should stand up

and be an advocate for israel. it is clear we have not done it is real want us to do. i agree with secretary ellen hillary clinton. we have to make sure that the military option is on the table. we have to make clear to iran that if they go ahead with an attack, they will meet with reprisal from us. they are still negotiating iran and it is not working. they are marching very close to that red line. >> rebuttal? >> i disagree. we are hand and glove with israel. president obama will make sure that america is safe. he has on his commitment to national security. when he came into office, we

were in iraq and afghanistan. he has been able to take on osama bin laden. we are out of iraq. he is making sure our country is safe. he wants to make sure that iran never obtained nuclear weapons. >> it is wonderful to kill osama bin laden, but we cannot rest on our laurels and take victory laps when the head of islam and terrorism is rearing its ugly head out the middle east. we saw this at the federal reserve today. it is still a dangerous world. radical terrorists still want to kill us. this is not the right direction to be going in by leading behind and letting the situation get out of control and letting iran to continue to march toward nuclear capability. then they will not only be able to arm themselves, but armed terrorists. >> question for ms. long.

the think u.s. involvement in afghanistan was a mistake? should there have been a public deadline for withdrawal? >> it was not a mistake. we went in for a good reason -- to go after the terrorists will have cause the 9/11 attacks on america in new york. we need to disable al qaeda. that is our goal. what bothers me is that when the president initiated this, he did so with a timetable as well. it seems to me that his timetable has been politically driven and not driven by military reality our national security and the need to defend our country. bill timetable -- the whole timetable has disregarded the recommendations of the general.

it is not for the purposes of winning over al qaeda. >> i believe we should be out of afghanistan right now. 10 years ago, we were attacked and 9/11 by al qaeda. they created a base of operations and training ground in afghanistan. it is important to take? al qaeda and their operations and take osama bin laden. we have done that. al qaeda has now become an international a remotely operated organization. the last attacks have taken place is from pakistan or yemen. today very little of oxide is left in -- al qaeda is left in afghanistan. there is right corruption

throughout his government. -- ripe crops and brought his government. we should not put our money in afghanistan. the threat has moved. we have threats in pakistan. we should have a counter terrorism approach as opposed search capture and an approach. we need narrow, targeted missions against terrorism. that would be preferable. >> i certainly agree on al qaeda. we cannot limit our concern to afghanistan. i saw some of these people. we thought they were our friends when they were the freedom fighters and fighting the soviet union. it is difficult sometimes to know who your allies are and who you can trust.

i think there might be a limited role to continue to play in afghanistan and be more nimble. there are other places where we need to combat terrorism. >> senator, this question is for you. back to the economy. new york lost jobs while the eight years she was in office. what would you support and the believe fracking should be part of that mix? >> all in one minute? >> yes. [laughter] >> i can stand are unique challenges.

i also understand are unique opportunities. what we have going for us is an incredible system with our private and public colleges. we have a great manufacturing tradition. where opportunities lie is in manufacturing. we have biotechnology. we have energy technology. we have office technology all across our state. that is why funding in research and development is so important. it is why we have to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit for all of our engineers and our ventures. that is how businesses can be created. that is where opportunity is. we need to see it right here in upstate new york. we have the tools and what it takes. that is what will turn the economy around. >> you believe the future is in

what might be called "clean tech." there is manufacturing that is not clean tech. is drilling something you would support? >> we have unlimited opportunity in by a fuel and wind and solar. we produce those technologies on those products right here in new york. we want to make a longterm investment there. it is a significant economic opportunity. what we need to make sure of before we start hydro fracking is to understand the facts. there are three things we need to know before i would be encouraging that in new york. first, what are the chemicals and formulas used? have there been any studies about the health of facts of those formulas and chemicals? second, when you drill down weekly, when you bring the water

back up, it can be read it active? you have to have in place an agreement on how you look clean and treat that water. third, when that is done, you can have wells that will deteriorate over time. we have to require that gas companies will have a commitment to do the cleanup so we do not have more in our state. one of the things we have going for us in new york is that we have clean drinking water. we relied on agriculture and tourism. we have to keep on having clean drinking water. >> two things -- first of all, the question was, what have you done to bring jobs back to upstate? the answer really is, nothing. as i go around upstate, i see towns with and the store fronts and factories that have been closed out and paint peeling off

of buildings and people desperate for work and desperate for jobs. your only answer to this is to introduce these things are called jobs bills. what they really are is taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket and handed it out to other taxpayers who are favored by you. jobs are created by people. they are created by the private sector. what we need is to cut taxes and cut regulation and absolutely get going with a tighter fracking for natural gas. this has been studied. we have it happening. it has been happening for decades in ohio and west virginia. it is called the gold rush of west virginia. and the economies are booming. guess what? there has been no evidence anywhere that is polluting drinking water. that is a phony concern.

people need to get going with hydro fracking. it could spur a manufacturing renaissance in this state. we could get manufacturing going again. what we have right now as you go around the state, you will hear about plants closing and people being laid off. you hear about layoffs. [talking over each other] >> can i respond to the first issue hydrocracking? >> go ahead. >> you said that you believe the economic benefits outweigh the risk of methane in drinking water. health risks.no 88

>> to the extent that there the concern i have is this, how much methane is too much in drinking water? how much to my children be exposed to? those are not questions on other should have to ask. yes, it is an economic opportunity, but before we destroy our clean drinking water, we shall make sure we have all the facts. we have a right to know those facts. by then we do not want to know the facts? that should be disclosed. why would do not want to know the facts? >> net and has been going up the water for centuries -- methane has been going through the water for centuries ad. this little movie where you let

a match and it burns -- that has nothing to do with fracking. >> i will sneak in one more question. i might cut you abruptly because we want to the closing statements. this is for ms. long. you oppose a the dream act. imagine you are talking to the many young people in new york. how would you explain to them why the country is better off if they were deported? >> i do not think they should be deported. immigration needs immigration reform. we need to do it properly by congress and not our an unlawful and unconstitutional act of the president acting without congress. the first thing is, we need to secure our borders. we need to know who is coming in and who is coming out. once we secure our borders, we

should proceed to immigration reform. i mean it's a completely reforming our immigration laws and coming up with an orderly progress -- processed to address the issue you are talking about. if people come here illegally and they have committed crimes -- if they are here and do not have family connections, that is another story. if there were brought here as a young person, it is correct to establish a path where they could gain a path to legality. >> senator gillibrand. >> i believe in comprehensive immigration reform. we have an immigrant heritage in new york. we need to make sure that a child to comes to this country can have the opportunity for a college education and can serve in our military and have the

pathway to citizenship. this is the kind of bill that would have common sense and have positive progress. >> start to cut you off. we have covered a lot of ground. it is time for closing remarks. you will have 60 seconds for both of these. senator, we will begin with you. >> i want to thank ny1 and ny1 news for hosting this debate. i want to thank ms. long joining me in this debate. in new york, it has been an honor to serve you. i want to continue to fight for middle class families. let's be clear, there is a lot at stake in this election. it is a choice between moving forward or whether we will go

backward. i know that new york to lead the way in economic recovery. to do that, we need to focus on our strengths. our world-class universities and educational institutions, our commitment to advanced manufacturing, our great workers who can compete with anyone in the world is given a level playing field. i know that we can come together in this election and get things done. i know that we can do that. in the senate, i have done it. >> ms. long. >> i have been talking to people around the state. november 6 as not just an election, but an emergency. people sit around the kitchen tables all around the state. they know that we are broke. they want us to stop spending money we do not have. they want us to reform taxes and

affordable health care. they want to cut the red tape that is strangling small businesses. i hear people saying, we do not trust the democrats. not trusto say, we do the republicans either. but i believe the greatness of america and the prosperity in new york is within our reach. we need to pull together and do it. i would be privileged to represent you and the state of new york and america. i asked for your vote on november 6. >> thank you. thank you for participating. >> we would like to thank you, skidmore college. thank you. goodnight from saratoga springs. election day is on november 6. [applause] [applause]