--the student cam video cam the student video cam >> entry should include c-span video, and are due by january 20, 2014. .isit student cam.org >> a look at the president of john f. kennedy. part of the washington journal spotlight on magazine series. this is 35 minutes. we take a look of recent magazine articles. today, we are focusing on a special commemorative issue of the atlantic. jfk is on the cover.

hour,me in our -- and approaching the 50 anniversary of his assassination. in the studio, the editor-in- chief of "the atlantic." could you tell us what this is about, and why you decided to put out this edition? thet: we're approaching 50th anniversary of the assassination of jfk and the -- john f. kennedy. kennedy remains with us today. his legacy is so contested. views of him are still all over the map. historians to rate him that high. the put them in the top 20. americans rate him extremely high. he remains the most popular president of the 20th century besides of franklin roosevelt. "atlantic" has been around for a long time. we covered the kennedy administration thoroughly.

our writers have struggled with the question of what impact his administration had, and what he was like as a man. forommission new stories the insights and revelations of the 50 years since he was killed. putting that together with great pieces by walter litman and other writers. trying to produce a composite orchard of the man and his moment, it is president. -- and his presidency. pas conversations, past editions, publications. new essayse are about kennedy struggles with joint chiefs. i think it is the most clear portrait of how he handled the human missile crisis. we have been on all sides of

this. condemning him in years since, but what relic -- but he was in a real battle not just that the soviets but with his own joint chiefs who were accusing him of appeasement and trying to rush him into war in cuba. he successfully fought them off internally, and eventually achieved a negotiated compromise. host: the piece is an excerpt from his new book. in this piece, he writes -- freedom a field commanders to launch without permission from the commander-in-chief. bundy, facedorge with military action, could start the thermal nuclear holocaust on its own initiative.

we became increasingly horrified over how little positive control the president really had overuse arsenaler use of this of weapons. guest: field commanders had a wide degree of latitude in employing nuclear weapons. the joint chiefs believed we could fight and win a nuclear war. these are the early years of our defense apparatus coming to terms with the vast power in our nuclear arsenal, and how a change the way war be conducted, the way diplomacy should be conducted. kennedy kennedy -- and then think again, this is one of the ways his administration had an enduring impact -- was the first

president to really try to bring it under executive authority, full executive authority. host: how did he respond to the power? guest: by struggling to bring the power under civilian control. and lifting it up certainly from the level of field commanders. again, in cuba, the joint chiefs thought a nuclear war should be an option after a five-day bombing campaign. if necessary, they would have resorted to a full invasion and they believe nukes would have been deployed. it was much more of a live option at the time. host: and this piece and the special edition of the magazine is adapted from his new book. there is the commemorative edition on your screen, marking the upcoming 50th anniversary of jfk's assassination. that is the topic or all of you. james bennet, editor-in-chief of "atlanta" is with us. john from north carolina. democratic caller. caller: how many decades need to pass before journalists and employers feel it is safe to

write about building 7, 105 feet of freefall on 9/11 and evidence moving preplanned explosions rock the building them. host: that is not our topic. we adjusted the phone calls from you and others that are part of the group that made an effort to call into this program. we are going to move on. tony and austin, texas. independent caller. caller: last year, i called into c-span on 9/11 him as i do every year, and as soon as i told the screener that i was wanting a new investigation of 9/11, she hung up on me. i am not sure why we cannot be taken seriously. i think you should get an expert on 9/11 on, someone from the alternative side, let's discuss this. host: tony, we have taken your phone calls.

we appreciate you are exercising your right to call in and voice your opinion. and that is the format of this show. we have had members of congress who were on the program when you and others have called in to answer those questions. that is not our topic right now. so, i am going to move on and stick to "the atlantic" special commemorative edition, looking at jfk, the man and his leadership. you, mr. bennett, talk about the piece that talked about how historians do not give him such a great grade, but americans do. can you talk about a little bit more about why it is? guest: alan brinkley wrestles with this question, what is the explanation for president kennedy's enduring grip on the national imagination. i think it is partly obviously the glamour, the memory of camelot as jackie kennedy recalled the years of the white house. and he makes the point that

kennedy, we remember him properly anyway as this tremendously charismatic figure who called americans to a higher purpose and injected a new element of morality into public affairs. in fact, he was a deeply reserved and highly pragmatic man. in many ways, extremely cold and calculating. but that impression of him indoors. and the point that he and bill clinton make is that for all the turbulence of those years, with his administration cut short by assassination, it did end up serving as a springboard to a tremendous amount of change on civil rights, the conduct of foreign affairs, medicare. the great society, lbj, premised by things he said, that john kennedy called for. so a pivotal moment in our

history. also obviously modern techniques of campaigning, the political tactics john kennedy put in place. he was the youngest president ever to serve. he came into office at 43, replacing then the oldest serving u.s. president, dwight eisenhower. so i think for many americans, and not just debuted boomers, he is recalled as marking an important pivot point in american history. host: he writes in the piece -- president kennedy spent less than three years in the white house and his first year was a disaster, as he himself acknowledged. guest: he basically cannot get anything done. he struggled all the way through. he got very little of his legislative agenda through, despite having huge democratic majorities in both houses. he obviously had this asterisk the disastrous day of pigs invasion.

something he intensely regret it. he felt like he had been essentially railroaded, i think, by the pentagon. he had his first encounter with nikita khrushchev in which he came away looking callow and unprepared. so, the first year was a big learning experience from the president. host: you have in the special edition reporting from kennedy's years and around those years as well. the headline from david brinkley in february of 1965, originally entitled "leading from strength lbj and action." "too cool for congress" could be a headline for this administration and its relationship. guest: there are interesting

echoes. there are some interesting comparisons to be drawn, i think, between that administration and this one. david brinkley, of course, was a very famous broadcaster and obviously a wonderful writer. deeply knowledgeable about congress and washington. and he argues in this piece that part of the reason kennedy failed with congress was he simply couldn't connect. he vaulted to the white house after only briefly serving in the senate. he remained in all of the old -- awe of the lions in both of the senate and felt maybe insecure dealing with them. and then brinkley makes an argument that there was simply a cultural disconnect, the "too cool" point. congressman serving from elsewhere in america were not as impressed by this extremely of sophisticated glamorous white house. host: what was his approach? was it intellectual?

guest: excessively intellectual. and he wasn't shaking hands and he wasn't going inside and having any kind of meetings with these guys and talking to them the way they liked to be talked to. he was a remote president. host: silver spring, maryland. republican caller. caller: how are you doing? a relationship between kennedy and his brother bobby, how much influence did he have not just in domestic issues but also when it comes to foreign policy? i am just curious to see your opinion on this. guest: i am fascinated by the same question. i should say, i don't pretend to be a historian myself about the kennedys. i am an expert on our own work,

so i can only answer the question within the -- within what we write. what our own coverage has shown is they were extremely close. and john kennedy relied hugely on bobby during his own administration. so, that's as far as i can take it. sorry. host: talk a little bit more about the original reporting you have in this piece and how did you go about culling this, and your decision of what to put in? yeah, from "the atlantic'" archives, or from the era, i should say. guest: we were looking for

pieces from great writers that advance a provocative point of view, but we were also looking very much to see how the tenor of the -- of our own coverage, how would change. how are own approach to the administration chains contemporaneously. and those years "the atlantic" publish something called the report on washington which was a monthly summary of what would later be called "beltway inside" which was an inside opinion of what the president is doing. something that would not necessarily happen today with everything on twitter. and in those days a monthly magazine could update readers on with the beltway opinion was. what you see is a very familiar arc of coverage. we started out and these anonymous pieces that were written by very eminent journalists here, completely excited and in awe of this charismatic president and there is huge praise for assembling this great team of young

advisers, this wonderful new breeze blowing in washington. moves very quickly to kind of a jaded, cynical attitude about this guy. we have heard this before. the same act. there is a piece in july of 1963 saying, it opens with the observation that no words ever uttered by john f. kennedy proved more embarrassing to him and fan his inaugural extrication that you should ask not what the country should do for you but what you should do for the country. which, of course, those words are remembered as one of the most inspiring uttered by president. host: why was that embarrassing? guest: our view was that he had gotten so little done and he still failed to deliver on the promise of that extrication, to provide means for americans to get more involved. the piece says he did push for the peace corps, but beyond that, he basically did nothing. as "the atlantic" went to press, our issue of december of 1963 which went to the printer and would have reached newsstands when john f. kennedy was killed

some of the washington report said this administration has moved very quickly from the cry of what can be done to the lament of what can't be done, and there is this aura of pervasive gloom in washington. and it goes on to wonder how he will possibly recapture the dynamism of his first campaign during his reelection. by the time kennedy was assassinated, the kind of inspirational message, the notion that he was charismatic and bringing something new to washington, had really worn thin. and there was criticism for failing to revive the economy. he had come in saying he would get the economy going, and that did not happen. and his overall legislative agenda, as we already discussed, had gone nowhere. host: bob, georgia, independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call.

the screener said it was ok to talk about the assassination -- it is hard to believe that oswald acted alone. although he shot the president, he said he was a patsy. i believe he was a patsy. he had people helping him. a lot of people loved the president and a lot of people hated him. i'm wondering, mr. bennet, you said he had a problem with the military. take the whole fiasco, the bay of pigs, from that day on people have plans to kill him. some even called him a traitor. guest: again, i did not portend to be an expert on all the different theories of the kennedy assassination. in this issue, we found in our archives -- and it is just a very short, surprising little nugget of lyndon johnson quoted in a piece we ran, i believe, in 1973.

in his view, some kind of cuban connection, not necessarily for the bay of pigs but other attempts to destabilize the regime or even kill castro. beyond that, we also published in this issue a wonderful short story by a man who is an expert on the assassination and has written voluminously on it for us and for others, in which he imagines a counterfactual and tells a story in which oswald loses his nerve and does not she kennedy and what could have transpired. host: connecticut, democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: hello, how are you? i am a subscriber to your magazine. i love your magazine. you were talking about the joint chiefs of staff and the trouble

kennedy had. it was not just with kennedy unknown, but eisenhower had trouble and nixon had later. eisenhower had trouble, when the u2 biplane, a lot of historians thought it was done purposely to undercut -- the u2 spy plane, a lot of historians but it was done to purposely undercut the meeting with khrushchev. and nixon, being spied on. the joint chiefs of staff especially after the world war ii era for 20 years or so really ran amok and no one trained them in. the only guy who did anything was truman when he cut down macarthur -- he was not with the joint chiefs at the time, but those guys really thought they were entitled to run their own show without any input from civilian authority. i just want to get that out there. thank you. guest: thank you. i think that is just an

excellent point. it is a thread running through american history. and certainly the modern history of the presidency, this tension between this kind of permanent defense infrastructure and civilian control of the white house. host: a viewer tweets in -- they go on to question whether it was a bad idea or a good idea. you're right about jfk's civil rights problems, a report from washington in 1963 about what was going on. guest: this is, again, one of the things he was criticized for in our pages and elsewhere. the first couple of years his administration was basically avoiding talking about civil rights at all, at a time the issue was beginning really to explode in the south particularly, and across the country.

and he basically ducked. until june of 1963, and again, this is something bill clinton really seized on in his own assessment of kennedy when he gave this moving speech about the importance of advancing civil rights, something that lbj would obviously see is a porch he pick up and carry forward. host: passing the torch, that is the piece written by bill clinton. he assesses the civil rights accomplishments of the 35th. a viewer tweets in this -- do you think jfk would have gone is out of vietnam if he lived? guest: this is an endless -- question. i am sorry, i hate to do this, but i really don't feel qualified to answer the question. there is a very important piece i think in understanding how we

got into vietnam. an argument about the bureaucratic imperatives that deepened our experience there, the unwillingness of people to speak up and oppose this issue a mission and the sidelining of experts at the time. it is possible that john kennedy you see it in the cuban missile crisis, as he gets stronger in the course of the presidency, more deeply skeptical about the ability of military force to advance diplomatic objectives. it seems conceivable he may have recognized the danger of deepening our involvement in vietnam, but it is impossible for me to say he would have gotten us out of there. it is quite interesting -- and this came up and we talked about this a lot -- in your last segment, the comparison to what is happening now in syria and how would john f. kennedy have handled it. it came up in the last segment, understood as being a proxy war.

it shows, taking kennedy out of it, how much the times have changed. cuba then very much was a proxy struggle, with nuclear armageddon waiting in the wings. syria was a client state of the soviet union, just as it is now a client state of russia. but the issue, as we struggle with the russians on the path forward, it is not seen as a proxy standoff with the risk of a deployment of nuclear weapons. host: there is a piece from gary wills in 1982 -- you put the headline, the kennedy called the crisis? "conventional wisdom tended to rank the cuban missile crisis as the kennedy presidency's highest drama and grandest success.

but this provocative recounting of the administration's policy toward castro's cuba suggests kennedy brought the crisis on himself. guest: the argument is quite persuasive. castro had every reason to be scared and to want missiles in cuba for defensive purposes because the kennedys had made very clear their desire to see him brought down. so, gary wills' argument is kennedy provoked the crisis in the first place. i think it is very important in a historical context of this. host: anyone seen a resemblance here between kennedy and mr. obama? brian, east sandwich, massachusetts. republican caller.

caller: thank you for letting me come on. i remember when president kennedy was assassinated, and all the teachers and the students in a high school were crying. i have a couple of questions am a real brief. thank you for entertaining them. i understand douglas macarthur, the famous general of world war ii and the korean war, advised mr. kennedy, president kennedy, not to get involved in vietnam. i wonder if you have comments. and what about the lasting legacy of nasa and the peace corps for president kennedy? i would take my answers off- line. guest: sorry to say, i can't address the first question. i simply don't know the facts. the peace corps and nasa -- i think both were obviously incredibly important to explaining, i think, why people

remember kennedy so fondly, for the most part. the moonshot obviously was an extraordinary example of a president summoning the country to a new national mission and sense of purpose. that a lot of people thought was not achievable when he enunciated it. we did make it to the moon by the end of the decade, as he envisioned. and as alan brinkley writes in the introduction, in his views, this is one of the reasons kennedy and doors -- endures the way he does, the feeling of american possibility during his administration that we don't live with at least not in the same way today. in the peace corps, also,

summoning americans to a higher purpose. to my mind, a really interesting piece and hereby eleanor roosevelt, actually, about the peace corps, in which he is making a very non-sentimental argument. it is not just about idealistic young people going out into the world. it is about containing the soviet union. she says, i spent time in russia and i see the way they train their young people. i spent time in places like morocco and i have seen the way the colonial powers are retreating. and these countries need experts, and the russians will be in a position to supply the experts to help them make the transition into a new era in full independence. if we don't have our people in there, we will lose the struggle in the long haul. which is a very kind of hardheaded argument on why we needed a peace corps. host: james bennet, editor-in- chief of "the atlantic." talking about the special commemorative edition a just put out. some of the pieces will be available online.

but it is a lengthy piece, a special edition with an introduction by former president bill clinton and several other pieces throughout the magazine. it is marking the upcoming 50th anniversary of jfk's assassination. a chance to talk about the man of the legacy. sean, portland oregon. democratic caller. caller: i would like first of all to thank "the atlantic." i worked for jfk in 1960 as a student for kennedy when he was running for president. host: what did you do? caller: oh, he came to our little town and we met him and shook his hand -- and he said, those who can't vote, can you help us by putting papers under windshield wipers, under people's doors, will you hang them on the doorknobs, kennedy for president? it was an incredible, incredible time.

i spent the last 50 years, i think, both mourning kennedy and studying him. it was a privilege to meet him. i think he would have gotten as out of vietnam. most of all, i really want to thank "the atlantic." i think people are starting to forget him and i do not want that to happen. i think he was the best. i thank you so much. host: before you go, can i ask you -- you work for him on his campaign. he was elected to office. in the three years that he served in the white house, how did you feel about his lack of legislative accomplishments or his agenda those first three years? caller: i thought his agenda was wonderful. bringing us back to today -- he couldn't get some things through. i think he was late to come to civil rights. i think -- i can't -- i am having trouble even explaining how i feel. host: but it sounds like your adoration, if i may use that word, never dwindled for him? caller: it never dwindled.

i light a candle every year. i am very glad that more and more people think oswald did not act alone. guest: thank you. to me -- thank you very much for the call. tremendously touching after 50 years she retains this adoration for that president. host: in putting this together, i think i read in the introduction or maybe in your editor's note that you talked to a poet who put together a poet poland eulogizing the president. you asked to republish -- but he won it used to omit one line. what was it? guest: he published a column in

"the atlantic" immediately after the assassination called "death of a man" and we contacted him to ask if we would republish it as part of the issue but he said we could on the condition that we delete the one line in which he described kennedy as being "cradled by his queen in life." he said he regretted it almost as he wrote it. i called him to talk about why it was, because i was interested in the question of how his own view of kennedy may have changed over the years. what he says -- he was a seminarian, by the way, when he wrote the poem. which is quite a powerful poem. he credited because it was so purple and a plate into the notion that trumpets were

sounding -- played into the notion that trumpets were silent sounding rather than the tragic death of one man. i think in his mind, he did not use the word, that it was dehumanizing, whereas the rest of the poem was not that. and he said at the time, so many people treated it as -- you don't want to understate the importance of a u.s. president but you treated it as an event of kind of biblical proportion and turned kennedy into kind of a godlike figure, which i think he came to think was unfair to history and unfair to kennedy. host: ronnie is next from kentucky. caller: i just want to say i remember exactly when this happened to mr. kennedy.

i was in a school. i am 63 years old now, so i was probably around 12 or 13 or so. i remember the whole class, how heartbreaking we all were to hear the news. i just think it would have been so nice for him to have been able to have a full term as president. he is one of the greatest presidents in my lifetime i was ever able to know. i just don't think the assassin acted alone, either. thank you for honoring mr. kennedy. thank you. guest: thank you very much. thank you for the call. you know, it is funny, i do think another reason he remains kind of with us the way he does is there are so many unanswered questions about what he would

have done had he lived and where his presidency would have gone. like other presidents, he grew in office and he changed. he became more experienced and he got better. and questions, again, like what would he have done with vietnam, where would he have gone with civil rights? they will just be an mostly debated, i think. host: in this special edition, you have quite a deep section dedicated to what happened november 22, 1963, 12:30 p.m. tell people what they will find. guest: we do not spend a huge amount of time in this issue debating the warren commission and its findings, because one could devote -- and many people have -- whole books to that subject without reaching any kind of meaningful resolution. they will find in their the speculation and mentioned earlier by lbj that oswald, in

his view, probably didn't act alone. and also this terrific short story which is just a very different way of approaching the assassination. and we have, i think, a very powerful photo gallery that recalls the assassination in the immediate aftermath. host: and you can find a special edition on newsstands now? guest: it is on newsstands now, and it is also available electronically in "the atlantic" app. i hope people pick it up and enjoy it. host: with a couple of months to go before we mark the anniversary of the assassination, what is the take away from this magazine and from jfk's legacy? guest: i mean, i think -- i have tried to say, i feel like all of these versions of kennedy are to

some extent true. we haven't even discussed the kind of private cruelties of the infidelity, the fact he lived with pain and was heavily medicated during a lot of his presidency, all of which is reflected in this issue. but also to some degree he transcended all of that and did manage to some of the nation to a higher sense of itself, a higher sense of purpose, both at home and in the world, and his administration really did, despite all the confusion and uncertainty and lurching from crisis to crisis, it ultimately significantly helped drive the country forward. host: james bennet is the editor-in-chief of "the atlantic." thank you for sharing the stories part of the special >>mmemorative edition. secretary of state john kerry

and the russian foreign minister announced they have reached an agreement on how to move forward with the chemical weapons stock while in serious. -- syria. until mid-2014e to dispose of its chemical weapons or face possible sanctions. agreement, to the president obama released a statement. part of it reads -- >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room a congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences.

all of the public service of private industry. industryy the cable tv 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. youomorrow, we will show segments from intelligence summit. 35 eastern.t 10:00 here is a brief look at that event. >> this is about the media. the first amendment is one of the most important things we have to stand behind.

i do not have a problem with this debate and printing all of these issues that are out there. need to comeelf together and to see how far do we go when we are beyond the debate on privacy but more on printing sources and ethics that will cause death to americans if we are attacked. it is a very sensitive issue. i think when you get to the point of article after article talking about sources and methods and will not be able to find where they are, how they are going to protect us. i just throw that out there. we're not doing anything about it -- i remember when i was a prosecutor, on the intelligence committee, you would never see information of al qaeda giving groups data on what we are

trying to do to protect us. what is intelligence all about? what are the millions of dollars we spend? it is about trying to protect us. we have to have the laws. we have more checks and balances than any other country in the world on what we do. believe me, mike and i make sure they follow the law and is constitutional. if something is wrong, we will try to fix it. i better stop there. do not give me a hard time. >> this has been the most frustrating series of weeks. candidly, the damage is growing by the day.

it has nothing to do with privacy issues, nothing. they are providing adversaries valuable information. by the way, we have already see one al qaeda affiliate completely change the way it does business, which means we now have a gap and the ability to try to stop something bad from happening. it has been described by senior intelligence officials as significant and irreversible. we think it is fun to put this in the newspaper, and i feel irresponsibly on some of these issues. we have a gap. what is frustrating to us is our job was to find ways to close the gap in ways we knew existed prior to 9/11. some of these programs fill the gap. those gaps are back. if we think for one minute that people did not perceive that when there is a gap they will not take advantage of it, we're absolutely fooling ourselves.

all qaeda is on the rise. matter of fact, it has become the largest single source of financing for the core al qaeda leadership through kidnappings, ransoms. you have al qaeda causing us great concern. destabilization efforts underway. you also have new affiliates that are growing in interest in external operations, meaning u.s. targets or western targets along the pakistani/afghan border. new safe havens developing as the troops drawdown happens in the northeast.

you see al qaeda talking about safe havens in syria. along the iraq/syrian border. we are to put in context about what we are disclosing. secondly, the reports that get leaked are reported as they have found them doing something wrong. we have found this horrible thing that no one knows about and we are printing it. part of what edward snowden stole was slide decks that described what was wrong and what the mitigation process was, which means we knew about it. these are management tools to fix problems we have found in the system. that means the court has found some. the intelligence committee found some.

we used such specific language in describing the events, every time it came out people set that is a privacy violation. it says it is a violation. absolutely wrong. they were not privacy violations. some of them were technical. i use the word violation and that is even wrong. it is just the technology changes. everyone knows about internet protocol. when something changes, there will be a glitch in the system to catch up. those are listed in there. the newspaper says let's describe this as a privacy violation. most of those -- you get my

blood pressure up on this. americans should be mad about this for all the wrong reasons they are mad about it now. most of the violations that were reported was because there was lawful intercept of bad guys overseas. legitimately identified, reasonable suspicion, all of that found. in the modern day you really do not know where that person is with the particular device at any time. you can be a u.s. person for a temporary amount of time being somewhere else by using u.s. networks. that is a confusing thing for a guy trying to catch a bad guy. we also legal implications. we put a lot of pressure to make sure they do it right. we are the only intelligence service in the world that does it the way we do. i guarantee you putin is not having this conversation. so here is the thing. they get on the phone. the guy goes from pakistan to afghanistan to dubai, catches a flight to new york city. if we know this is a bad guy doing bad things, trying to figure out what is that person up to. the person makes a phone call. we have to turn it off and try to find another system by

handing it over to the fbi. that is considered a violation. i do not think we ought to turn it off. that is what the law is. our job is to make sure that law is followed. we are working against ourselves every day. when the newspaper picks it up, they are calling these violations. doesn't it sound like a horrible thing these people must be doing about violating someone's privacy in the united states? that is what people believe and we are working against ourselves we will have an outcry against the law. the court challenges them

frequently. what you saw was the court working on technical corrections. you want that to happen. it shows you that oversight works. instead, it is being portrayed as an agency out of control doing horrible things. it is costing us significantly in the ability to collect against our adversaries, and they know it. there is a reason putin decided to put an op-ed in the new york times. he knows america is on a feeding frenzy against itself, and he would love to join in on the game. so when you hear it, i will ask you all to be skeptical. the notion the agency is collecting on u.s. persons and giving it to any foreign intelligence agency in the way it was described is completely wrong. that is not what has happened. i can guarantee you the privacy of americans are protected in

the way we operate. part of the problem was we were too aggressive in the oversight, and we documented it and talk about it with leadership in order to fix it. they stole the slide deck and put it out there and said we caught them doing something horribly wrong and should dismantle the national security agency. i am really worried about where we are going in the growing sense of isolationism is concerning. if we do not start getting it right, we're going to be in a lot of trouble when it comes to providing intelligence services the tools that they need to protect this country. all worked up about that. >> just getting the facts right. [applause] >> we get criticized for giving the facts. we oversee the intelligence community.

we make sure they follow the law, but they also have to put the facts on the table. when you get the allegations like the metadata program, that is not the case, but we have to deal with the perception. some of the things we're doing, we are trying to make sure we can declassify more information so that we get people more information so they know we are always following the law but also trying to protect the american people. the head of al qaeda they will start targeting more in the united states and allies. believe me, we are more all vulnerable because of the leaks. we will lose lives because of these leaks and where we're going. we have a lot to do. we ask you all to be there with us. we have a lot more to do to communicate with the american >> you can see that event

in its entirety tomorrow at 10:35 eastern on c-span. >> the case, verizon versus the fcc, pits one of the largest internet providers against the federal government. >> thanks very much for being with us. what is this case about? >> thank you. the case is about whether or not the fcc has the authority to set rules over the internet, particularly over internet service providers, the company