few other issues was because there was a larger void on fiscal and economic issues. >> much of this talk and discussion the last presidential election i think on this, and a few other issues was because there was a larger void on fiscal and economic issues. if you do not have a plan that is articulated to the people, about what you're going to do to improve people's economy, you articulate a plan about what you're going to do to balance the budget, take care the debt, do what is morally responsible to our children and grandchildren, and others issues like this right to a higher level of importance. that void has not been filled. as a result in our state and i did not spend my focus on it because that is not what people elected me to talk about or focus on. >> thank you for being here. the conventional wisdom used to

be that divided government created a space for deliberation, but now has created gridlock. yesterday democrats weakened the filibuster. i'm curious about your thinking in wisconsin, what you think of the filibuster debate in washington. >> i remember and a lot of conservatives remember that were frustrated during the bush presidency times when more was not done. it is always interesting when there are debates like this that videos of opposing party members, from the past and make for interesting discussions out there. i think in general that executives, be it a governor, be it a county executive, or a president, if he or she wants to put people into run portions of their administration among my belief is efforts should begin peopleven as long as

are competent and ethical and difference should be given to the chief executive in terms of the appointments they make to executive positions. where i understand why there is a larger concern about judicial appointments is those are much more lasting and they are concerned with is present or president bush, depending on party, and so i think it does bear a larger level of scrutiny because at the federal bench you're talking about lifetime appointments. those have an impact far beyond an election cycle or term. it does make sense to have a higher standard and do not know that up as frustrating as it is to people in either spectrum when they have candidates in office. that is the difference in terms of difference. >> governor, thanks for joining us. wisconsin was one of the states that has the voter id laws. how many frauds did you have in

wisconsin? >> i do not know -- i will give you a list of stores of the past. i do not have a number. if there is a handful of cases at a substantial because of my vote or anyone else's is jeopardized by the lack of integrity of the process, i can guarantee one vote counts for one person, that is a legitimate issue. >> i asked because in a number of places and on the federal level, efforts to find people who are voting front only have been very few -- >> when this came up there was talk about few, if any, over time. you have seen the district attorney in milwaukee, a democrat, prosecutors, along with state prosecutors, others. you're not talking about tens of thousands. you had a significant enough number that it was not done by republicans, but was done by democrats. to me in our state the law i signed into we effect provides

state-issued id cards in addition to the driver's license free upon request. there's no deterrent to people who some claim would not have otherwise access to photo identification. >> democrats have made the argument that voter id laws were designed that were designed to make harder for certain groups to vote -- elderly, minorities especially, who do not have driver's licenses. >> i think that is an insulting argument to those groups of people that you mentioned. that somehow they any more than anybody else out there would not have access to the things that are essential to survive in today's society. >> robert. >> governor -- [indiscernible] >> the first thing you got to do is fix the front door.

i do not have a perfect plan. i am elected to be governor. if i was running for something else, i would lay out a plan. i do not know what the magic number is because i hear that number, but people who are here legally, how do we know how many there are or not? it could be far fewer or more. i do not know what the magic number is. to me, i know the plans being discussed right now in washington are far and significant problem we have about legal immigration network in this country. >> governor, it is common for people in your position running for office to talk about political polarization as a bad thing and the need for everyone to get along and lower the temperature, but the experience in wisconsin has been record

voter turnout, banished apathy about state government. i wonder, having gone to this experience, is polarization a good thing or a bad thing? >> i think getting people focused -- i mean, for a second, your premise, but the important point you said is accurate. one, what we did, what i would argue we did, went to talk about in the book, as we pushed aggressive reforms by dramatically taking on the status quo. and i hear time and time again from voters before i was elected, across the spectrum, just republicans or conservatives, who say i am sick and tired of politicians who said one thing when elected and then do another when they get into office. to set aside the issue, and i would assume if you talk to other voters out there, and when you talk to voters across my

state, and i would imagine across america, voters say they want people who will not make these promises, will make all promises, and will make people who will stand up and have the courage to fall through on those. not wilt under political pressure, did do what ultimately they said they were going to do and make those commitments. so to me, i think the polarization came in large part because not because of what we did but as much as the reaction, when the national units came in. i saw a story in a book about a teacher in central wisconsin, and to the midst of this i would go to schools in my state and read to kids and then go meet for an hour or so in the teachers lounge with teachers, and she said today, second and third question, why do you hate teachers so much? i said, with all due respect, ma'am, if you know to youtube

tonight and type in my name, there's probably even a video clip of me buying a hamburger in a state this week. everything i do is on youtube. and one is always -- there's out there that gets whatever i am doing or saying. you would be hard-pressed to find any videotape of me where you can find me saying anything but praise for teachers and other public service, and in our state great i said you do not have to agree with me, but know full well the people who are making you feel like you're under attack are not people like me and are not even lawmakers. it is your union leadership, because they need to mobilize you. that is where i think -- it is what in the end, the oddity of oddities, one of the most surprising things people find in this book is at the time of my recall election, one of the exit polls showed that one out of every six voters in my state who were voting for me were also intending to vote for barack obama. my numbers consistent last year

have shown that more than one out of every 10 voters in the state shows up on the list for me in support and also for barack obama. politically, that makes no sense whatsoever. ideologically, right, except that our bases, are both of our parties, partisan opposition, of the opposing party, but the people in the middle, for those folks that are the persuadable, whatever-you-want-to-call-them voters, ironically, if a significant number of them supported me and the president, they felt they were for something. it may not be consistent ideologically, but it was something where they said but their opponents did not fill the void, they made the election about i'm not scott walker, i hate scott walker, in some ways the republican nominee was the same. in the case of the center, what

they wanted was candidates that ran their way on issues, he wanted people who wanted to lead. >> thanks for being here, governor. so you and other governors who have conservative views of lawmakers in washington, like bobby jindal, who say that governors should be branding the party more than republicans here. you're making an argument earlier that you need or whoever is the next president needs the chance to have the party to make its stamp on washington. what is your advice to republicans in congress republicans running for congress, what should they be doing in washington to improve the brand in order to take over the senate? >> not only what they are doing now, but going out as they are running next are for the senate, in particular, they need to be focused on what i still think are the two key issues nationally like they were in my state when i first ran, and we still have a in large part an economic or outright crisis,

some very serious economic concerns in our country. not for the coming as a whole, but there too many people, and some are recovering in people, but too many who are not coming through on that recovery. one of the things i mentioned about reagan's acceptance speech that many people forget about. it was aspirational. if you are living in despair, we want to give you hope, but not necessarily hope based on the government. we want them to have our recovery and we do not want to leave anyone behind. that has got to be the message that republicans need to do more to embrace across the board, but in these senate elections, and it means we cannot be to that extent viewed as the party of no, which in the state where we are successful, that is exactly what has happened. they're optimistic, speaking in terms of relevance, showing that we can act in terms of conviction.

the national level, obamacare, other things, if we go to the people and say we sense that republicans running for office go to voters in their districts and their states and across this country and say, here is there a big plan, here is our alternative, market-driven alternative that will improve your life, make your life better, this is our alternative to obamacare, they go to the public and say, here is what we think we need to do to stability, lower the tax burden, whatever it might be, those are very impelling issues out there, and i think that feeling in america is that at least i hear from people talking about washington is not just focused on republicans, but everybody here, is they think people in washington just fight for the sake of fighting. i think voters did not mind fighters as long as they think people are writing for them, fighting for the hard-working taxpayers. >> you know that anybody in the senate in the republican side

has put forward that would be a dramatic what you're talking about? >> you hear bits and pieces of it. i would like to see a more aggressive -- and it does not have to be done today, but going into next year, a more aggressive focus on a market- driven alternative to obamacare, because a lot of americans, they're frustrated not just with the website, but with the program itself, and they are hungry to find out what an alternative would be. my state -- the kaiser family foundation did this overview, it was in "the washington post" last saturday, talked about the coverage gap. interestingly, it mentions in that report what the single coverage gap in other states who did not take medicaid expansion, i'm the only state who does not have that gap, and why, because we have a competitive market for health care in a state, and that is the overwhelming charge, people over 90% of our folks are covered, and with limited

numbers who do not, and as i mentioned we have an aggressive program helping people living a -- in poverty. our bigger challenge in wisconsin was not access, but the cost to small business owners, to new startups, small businesses, to a company that starts out with 5, 10, 15 employees who get eaten alive, if they do not have a big enough number of employees to handle the risk pool that is required to get affordable health care options, as an employer for your employees. obamacare in our state does not do anything for us. if you're buying off the single market, individual market, it makes it more difficult cost wise. those are the things that need to be talked about. >> next, sean. >> governor, why specifically is right to work a bad idea for the state?

you have essentially right to work for the public. why not private as well? >> it is not. i supported it in the legislature. i have said in the past that there was so much attention, so much focus last time that what i heard from my employers, the biggest thing in the state was things needed to cool down in the state, things need to get focused in the state, and while they appreciated it, from a larger context, they said, we need things to get back on track. people like what happened, but a certain amount of employers who were frozen during the protests, during the recalls, first wave for second wave, they wanted stability of knowing what was coming next. beyond that, a very small percentage in our state of private sector union-based employers to begin with, and so as you mentioned, the vast majority of people who would be

affected by right work in the state anyway are already covered because in our state the 300000 servants have the right to choose. it has been successful for them. >> it seems like twice you have the last that presidential election there were problems, there was a lack of focus on the fiscal and economic prisons. there's often a focus on social issues. is that in your view a distraction from -- that carries over into the general election, from keeping the party focused on selling its message on fiscal and economic issues, that comes up in the primaries? >> is a byproduct of the system in the past, and one of the best things that i think right previously is changing that process, not solely directed at the issues you mentioned, but just in general.

the thought the rnc has been talking about moving the convention up to june, shrinking the number of debates about having a more focused attention on the primary caucus process. number of other people who were solicited for ideas last year, those will were things we highlighted that were be useful. you have 23 debates about it is unmanageable. and what happens is and you know this, following this, not so much exclusive on social issues, but any issue, because the candidates running then, as i imagine would be for any candidates in the future, very similar on economic and fiscal issues. what happens with that many debates is you find very narrow issues that define minute differences. social issues should not be pushed out, because they have

some of that handful of issues where there is a minute difference. it makes sense to have the bread and butter of what the party is about at the forefront and it does not mean you can ever ask question is about other issues, but that process russian is one that should, of all the things the rnc has been talking about doing, is one of the most significant features. >> governor, a social issues question. and you were saying it is not a major element that people think it is the voters on the question of same-sex marriage, do you include abortion as one of those issues that maybe is not as relevant or high profile as it seems to be in the debate? i have a few other follow-ups on that. do you think that some of the most conservative lawmakers need to be moderating their views on those issues in order to win

national elections or statewide elections? >> no. i talked about that in the book as well. >> what do you think about the fact that a third or so of abortion clinics in texas are now closed at least until january? >> i cannot comment on that because that is not what i am familiar with. but the larger issue on social issues, no, i am not say moderate your positions, because again, i talk at the end of the book about how i think persuadable, moderate, middle- of-the-road, whatever-you-want- to-call voters in that categories are the ones in suing decide states that elections. what i found in my state and in that i reference, people voted for both me and barack obama are obviously not people who do not necessarily perfectly align.

what they want more than anything is somebody who have bold ideas that are aggressively putting those out. in the state, on principle, -- it is a mistake on fundamental issues, to come out and say to win elections, i need to change my -- you will lose votes. they want to respect. i do not think everybody wants a replicaidentical to their beliefs on every issue. they want to know that they respect first and foremost that elected official. he or she has a course of principles they wanted to stick with. secondly, to my larger point, they want to know even if they differ, i happen to people what no problem voting for me even though they do not share my belief on that particular issue

because that effect that the things i focus in on even on the fiscal issues in my state and that is what they feel they hired me to do. i use example outside of politics. if i were hiring somebody to be the chief executive of a company i had and i said he or she was exceptional chief executive of a smaller company, here are the two things i want him to focus on. development and sales. it would not bother me if -- it would but i would get over it if they were a vikings or a bears fan and i could get over it. as long as they got -- they do not focus on that. >> voters who are different on things like gay marriage and abortion do not really need to worry that you are going to do anything to change laws because

because you're more interested in -- >> much of the debate and the question asked earlier sometimes of these issues are interest -- different jurisdictions. an example i got asked about same-sex marriage for example, i said it i is in the constitution. i was not hiding a secret agenda. if i were in a different state, it might be. >> yes, sir? >> you have passed a couple of laws. restricting abortion. are you concerned if you do not want to talk about it they will?

>> sure, i talk about in my book. he spent a month and a half, very ineffectively. my answer was simple. you think that voters just care about one or two issues. i found the man and the women in my state what they wanted to know what i continue to move forward with reforms and get the budget balanced at lower our debts and move our economy and improve our schools and higher education. that is what i talked about in my recall election. >> medicaid expansion. can you talk a little bit? do you have any concerns about what you will do in response?

>> last week i called a special session to do for transition by three months. politically it would have been great for me as an opponent to say, i told you so. instead i said, i'm not going to let the people my stator depending on the program to fall through the cracks just because of failures of the federal government. this is not a new concept. the latest buzz has been how to respond to this. we said back in february when i introduced my budget what we were doing and why, essentially it was the law. i don't like the law, but it is the law. but we said, all the way to june the exchanges were not in place. if exchanges were somehow deferred, we put in our statute the transition would be postponed equivalent with that delay. what we found in the last few

months, i had 877 people that were signed up. what we found was after weeks and weeks of telling my office that things were coming together and they were saying the same things to reporters, and is -- it is obviously not going to work in time to make the transition. we are not going to let people fall through the cracks. i called a special session. we are going to deferred for three months. are going to defer the medicaid transition and reinstate the successful program we had before that got pushed out because of the affordable care act. it is a high risk insurance pool for people can pay at higher premium and get access to health insurance in our state. part of the reason why we didn't have a coverage gap.

all the things we did well got pushed out. but we said, we will extend that for three more months to keep them on board, and we asked secretary lew and sebelius to give us a change which they are reluctant to do. in many of our counties, we actually have were qualified health plans outside of the exchange that we do in the exchange. we asked them to consider if somebody qualifies that they authorize a use the subsidy that -- whether they purchased it under the exchange or outside the change. the idea that would free up some of the volume that would have to go to the exchange and make it easier. it is the law. it gives us the option of doing that. we have said since day one, the difference is we assume that if there was a delay, it would be an intentional delay where the

administration and the congress would say, it is not ready yet you would need to push back. we are not there legally. it's just practically not working. >> i wanted to ask a question about something you talked about, negotiations with iran. also the forces agreement in afghanistan. you said focused on 2014, but looking to 2016, foreign policy andriences you have had, what is your larger critique of the obama administration's performance? >> on the wider part i will answer as an american. being concerned about today. a couple of months ago, i was in tokyo for a trade mission. i made it easier to fly out to the west coast. i stopped to kill time with

george shultz. any of you who have sat down with him, it is interesting in general to spend about an hour and a half before we took off. at the time, it was when the debate about syria. i asked him about that. he told when interesting story. many of you know that secretary scholtz was a marine in world war ii. he talked about how before he went into war he went to boot camp. how his sergeant told him and gave from his firearm and said, this is your firearm, it'll be your best friend and you will live with and sleep with it. the most important thing i can tell you is do not point it at anyone you are not prepared to shoot. initially, he did not think about it, is an old world war ii veteran telling war stories. really very profound insight on foreign policy today here and around the globe.

what i mean is, one of the biggest frustrations i have had as an american with what is going on in foreign policy is much like obamacare and other issues, a president who spend too much time listening to his political team and not policy team. speaking at on things, pushing things which may not have a full set of reality in terms of policy and locations but politically might sound very nice at the time. i think that is dangerous territory whether republican or democrat. i am not even going to advocate whether we should or should not have drawn the red line. you have to set the standard about if you say something, you have to mean something to your allies and it has to mean something to your adversaries. one of the reference in the book i mentioned something early on,

the monday before he put out budget reforms i invited my or the executive residence -- cabinet to the executive residence in madison. i sat down and i knew it would not be that tough but tough. i talked about how reagan, the -- he took on the air traffic controllers. taking on union issues, that is what it is all about -- it really wasn't. i pointed out in my humble opinion, that when he took on air traffic controllers that had a much more profound effect than union or domestic issues. that sent a powerful message around the world that this was a serious president. a president that was not going to say something and do something differently. a president that was serious. you can trace part of the end of

the cold war back to that elements of early on. if you look back at history, reagan had very few military engagements. in large part to cast his adversaries new this was a guy not to be messed with because he would do what he said he was going to do. i don't see that with this current administration. >> we have a few minutes left. >> at the state level, there are certain things the president can do. if the next president is a republican, what should they do to protect and strengthen the institution of traditional marriage and reduce the number of abortions in the country? >> two things. without being insulting, to make my point about how media seems to be more obsessed with social issues than the average voter. that aside, in terms of the president, i do not know.

i have not spent a lot time focusing, the things we try to do in our state in terms of marriage in general is look at ways you can help lift people out of poverty. make it easier to get to work and help with early development especially with reading. those are the sorts of things would've hoped to strengthen families and it makes for strong marriages. the same thing with looking at terms and reducing the number of abortions or other things. the whole spectrum from safe havens to prenatal assistance to making it easier for adoption. at the national and federal level, and that is something i really don't know. >> unfortunately, we are out of time. we hope you come back soon. thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

in distinct conversation -- [indistinct conversation] >> tomorrow on c-span, u.s. nuclear weapons policy from the ofo institute, and the cost maintaining a nuclear arsenal. coverage begins at 12:00 eastern. and president obama's plans for immigration, live from san francisco, also here on c-span.

kentucky senator rand paul addressed cadets at the sid l, -- citadel, a military academy in south carolina. he took questions from the audience. for about half an hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, thank you. i understand you guys have a big game on saturday. who is going to win? all right, all right. i'm glad to see there is no debate on that. it is an honor to be with you today at the citadel. i want to thank general rosa for inviting me and having me at the

citadel. i went to knowledge the chairman of the board and cadet colonel resident -- regimental commander. on a more serious note, some of you may one day be called to defend your country. if you choose to serve, you will do it willingly, as a volunteer. ,ur military is second to none and our excellence stems from having professionals who serve voluntarily. since 1843, cadets like yourselves have been coming from the citadel and answering your nation's calling. of last year's class, 40% of you chose to serve and accepted commissions in the armed forces. you will serve, if you do, bravely and with purpose. you follow in the footsteps of colonel myron harrington in the u.s. marine corps, citadel class of 1960,

who during the tet offensive in 1968 lead a courageous assault against a heavily fortified anomie stronghold, disregarding extreme personal danger. he led his marines in overrunning the enemy position. or that access -- action, and all harrington received the navy cross, the second-highest military award for valor in combat. colonel harrington is with us today, and i would like to thank him for his service. all of us should thank him for his service and his bravery. [applause] some people in washington think war is a chess game. you can ask colonel harrington,

he would tell you differently. those of us in washington must make decisions. you will fight the wars, but we have to make decisions about whether we go to war. we owe you something. we are you something i think is sometimes lacking in washington. we owe you a full and proper consideration of the pros and cons of war. we owe it to you to follow our constitution and for congress to debate and authorize all wars. we owe it to you to clearly show our national interest before we go into war. we'll it to you to have a sound strategy and an achievable goal, and most of all, an exit plan so we don't get stuck in quagmires from decades on in. above all, we should demand a formal declaration of war before we ask you to risk and ask our soldiers to risk their blood and their lives. i have taken an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies. andnsider the primary

foremost duty of the federal government to defend america, defend our bill of rights, and defend our god-given liberties. as a senator, i will, if i have to, not hesitate to vote for war. if war is needed to defend the united states. once war is declared, it is the duty of a commander-in-chief to fight safely and execute victory . america can't shrink from its role in the world. we have been, and should continue to be, a shining example of god and at times a superpower -- good, and at times a superpower of last resort to maintain peace and prosperity -- prosperity. america must be engaged with the world, diplomatically, commercially, and when necessary, militarily. but to be engaged is not always to be -- does not mean always to be engaged in war. reagan believed in peace through strength. secretary, caspar

weinberger, insisted that war occur only as a last resort, only when a vital national interest was at stake, and only when our objective was complete victory. for inspiration and guidance, i often look to america's greatest military leaders. some of our best observations on war and diplomacy come from the president who is one of our most decorated generals, dwight eisenhower. in david nichols' book, he believed withe good reason that once the violence begins, everything changes and you can throw your plans in the trash. it is too bad war in washington -- more in washington don't heed his advice today. in egypt we recently saw a military coup that this administration says was not a coup. in a highly unstable situation, our government continues to stand at-16's and tanks and american-made teargas to egypt

when it was against the law. my guess is those protesting for freedom in egypt who were on the receiving end of tear gas made in pennsylvania don't harbor warm, fuzzy feelings about us. generals, weg the send billions of dollars in aid to a government they just overthrew. the president morsi and the muslim brotherhood. before that, we send billions in planes and tanks to hosni m ubarak, a dictator we called our ally. common sense tells us we should not be sending dictators or the muslim brotherhood our money, our treasure. wemon sense tells us that should not be delivering advanced weaponry into unstable situations where the outcome is completely unpredictable. i will tell you one thing. one thing of which i am certain. we should not be sending foreign aid to nations that burn our

flag. without question, it is a mistake. [applause] in 2012, i introduced a bill in the senate that calls for transport halting the of weapons to egypt, pakistan, and libya. in february i introduced an amendment that would have prevented the shipment of weapons to the muslim brotherhood. i think the american people are with me. they realize we have limited resources and should not be sending weapons to people who hate us. but the senate defeated this legislation. this past summer i introduced another bill to prevent the sale of weapons to egypt after the military coup. it is what the law says. required not even another bill. u.s. law states all foreign aid must be suspended when the military -- when there is a military coup. what did this administration do?

it simply pretends there is not a coup and continues to send weapons and arms egypt. in egypt, the regimes keep changing but our system of foreign aid stays the same. after several months of ignoring the law, finally the president did, the obama administration finally agreed to stop military aid. i say, too little, too late. we are either a nation of laws, or we are not. earlierisenhower and generations, we too often don't think before. many in washington do things in foreign policy to accomplish short-term goals but ultimately hurt our national interest and our allies. as we continue to aid and arm this product regimes -- despo tic, we are aiding rebels in syria. according to a recent poll, 70% of americans are against arming islamic rebels in syria, yet the administration continues to arm these islamic rebels.

this is unacceptable. the assad regime is no friend of ours, no friend of freedom, but it doesn't mean the enemy of our enemy is always our friend. there are many rebel groups in syria, including extremist groups such as al qaeda. they are eager to send weapons -- they want not fall into the arms of the enemy. does anybody believe that? we have trouble telling friends from foe in afghanistan. 100 of your fellow soldiers have died from friendly fire, from people we can figure out whether they are friend or foe in afghanistan. you think we will be able to figure out the difference in syria? it is 1000 fold more competition. even our joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey, says it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe in syria. what eisenhower buy into this

nonsense? regardless, the united states government should not, even if indirectly, the arming al qaeda. this administration is currently moving ahead with plans to do precisely that, without any authorization. i will not get a vote. the president just as he will arm the syrian rebels. how can we ask our brave young men to fight around the world somest al qaeda while in countries actually arming al qaeda? it makes no sense. i, for one, am not inclined to make america the air force for al qaeda. there is the very real possibility that these weapons may be used against 2 million christians. 2 million christians that live in syria, protected by assad. nationalo legitimate interest in syria. it is certainly not in our interest to arm extremists who may one day use those weapons against americans or to kill christians within their country. why do we armed dictators and the muslim brotherhood? why do we arm allies of al qaeda

and in danger questions -- christians? why do we reward pakistan as they continued to imprison the man who helped us catch bin laden? he was given 30 years in prison. i say, no more aid to pakistan unless they release them. this administration keeps sending good money after bad. the first and primary function of our government is a strong national defense, bar none. [applause] but so much of what we do in washington today is more like an irrational offense. how do sending foreign aid to egypt, syria, pakistan help national security? lessit make us stronger, likely, more likely to get drawn into some war in the middle east? in egypt, they burn our flag. . say, not one penny more

in egypt a mob was on top of our embassy and almost got our embassy. where was the egyptian military to defend our embassy? it is inexcusable. we used to do -- opposing the market -- muammar gaddafi. responsible for the lockerbie school, killed american kids. then, someone decided to make him an ally. member said, let's give qaddafi weapons. interestingly, the same members said not much later, supporting money to the rebels to overthrow qaddafi. which is it? why are we arming both sides. i year later we have a tragedy in libya where our ambassador and other diplomats are murdered in the streets in benghazi. is this over -- done by rebels we assisted in overthrowing ?addafi

why did we ever help qaddafi? and hillary clinton was asked for more security, he turned the -- she turned the ambassador down. under cross-examination, i asked her, did you read the cables? read anyshe never cables. she said, don't blame me, somebody beneath me should have been reading those cables. , find it a dereliction of duty a clear dereliction of duty. she wants to blame it on somebody else. it is absolutely a responsibility, and her failure to revive the ambassador and his mission with advocate security should preclude hillary clinton from ever holding high office again. [applause] amidst the chaos in the middle east, we have always had one friend, a friend that never leaves our side, israel. as an ally, israel has never

wavered. one thing you can know for sure -- and i visited there -- you will never see an israeli burning an american flag. america has never backed down from a fight, but we should never be a nation that is eager to get involved in a fight. the veterans i have talked to are not eager. when you have more veterans in congress, you are less likely to have war. president eisenhower said, i have one yardstick for which i test every major problem. that is, is a good for america? is our current foreign policy good for america? is our engagement or involvement in egypt, syria, pakistan, to ?ur benefit or detriment i think we must have the strongest military on earth. not because we are eager to use it, but because no one would ever dare to challenge us. i think reagan. it right when he said -- got it right when he said, as are the enemies of freedom, those who are potential

adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is our highest aspiration. we will negotiate for it. we will sacrifice for it. but we will not surrender for it. now or ever. should not bee misunderstood, our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. when action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. we will maintain sufficient strength to avail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. there is probably no clear or disposition of what it means to have peace through strength. -- country'sries sake, for our soldiers'sake for every veteran that ever fought for his country or her country, america's mission should always be to keep the peace, not police the world. an america that does not seek to

be involved in every conflict around the world would do things that make us safer. we could modernize and strengthen our military. in a few weeks, i will be announcing a task force to do just that, to bring together great minds from our national defense and put forward a plan to modernize our military so we have the most modern, highly technological, highly capable military and strengthen our defenses. theill begin by an audit of pentagon. not because i dislike the military. because i like the military. i want to cut out waste and fraud and make the military stronger and direct the resources where they need to go. but it means you have to have the strength to look even at military spending and say, nobody gets a blank check. with the savings for modernization and a more reasonable foreign policy, we will do something we are failing at right now. we will make and take better care of our nation's greatest resource, our servicemembers. we will train them better, i quit them better, fit -- fix a broken v.a. system.

as a physician, when i visited walter reed i was profoundly impacted by the young men and women there. close in age to my own kids, receiving care for injuries sustained in battle. it reinforces my worldview about the need to prevent conflict unless it is absolutely necessary. those injured in our most recent conflicts in iraq and afghanistan will require a lifetime of care. we must work together to provide for that, to protect those who per -- protected us. [applause] we must be more prudent in our foreign policy. eisenhower was right to observe that the wars can lead to big wars. that america'st purpose is to promote peace through strength. reagan once said, above all, we must realize that no arsenal or

no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the whale and moral courage of a free -- free men and women. it is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. we do ourselves no favors when we ate our enemies, when we aid the enemies of freedom around the world. america has always stood tall as a shining beacon of hope and freedom to the world. america's guiding light is made possible by those willing to wield the sword and the shield, unwavering, steadfast. the american soldier, a volunteer in defense of liberty. for you we are grateful, for your service and your sacrifice. thank you very much. [applause]

thank you. >> thank you, senator paul, for those inspiring remarks. we have time for three questions from the corps cadets. instead of the normal practice of bringing the microphone to you, we ask you come to the microphone located on the floor. >> good morning, senator. and vicet logan morris president of our society of libertarians. i would like to ask you, what is the number one issue facing america in the coming years, and how can the republican party -- issue?s issue9 is like it is the debt. people say your generation will inherit the debt. it is already a problem. i economists say the burden of debt right now is costing one

million jobs a year. while some of you will serve in the military, 60% of you will be looking for jobs. there are do not jobs because of the burden of debt. there are to nudge him because we are over-tax and overregulated. jobs because we are over-taxed and overregulated. we need a smaller federal government and larger private economy. [applause] >> thank you, senator. >> cadet john vogel -- fogel. you talked a lot about dwight eisenhower. our first president, george washington, was also a military commander. but in the constitution we believe the military should be headed by a civilian. how do you feel about the importance of military service in presidents past and future? >> one of the things i mentioned , the more people we have who

have been in combat or in the military service in the government, it is interesting that during those times when people look at it, we were less likely to be involved in war. if you talk to some of our bravest soldiers, they would probably say that they are not eager for war. we need to have a certain reluctance for war. people who have been involved in combat are more circumspect than people who have never fought. is it a prerequisite for serving or being president? no, i don't think it is. it is useful to have many people involved. the idea of having civilians is very important. even when we elected a general like eisenhower, we are like today civilian. it makes as different than other countries. you see other countries led by generals. they are usually autocracies, totalitarian regimes. something i'm very worried about, having an active duty military person. i think our tradition is very good that we separate civilian from the military. >> thank you, sir. [applause] >> this will be our last question.

, on the subject of holding the current administration accountable, do you think we should pursue incidents such as ping ghazi -- what do youazi -- think the final outcome should be? opinion, andis my this is an opinion that needs to be supported by interviewing those involved, it is my opinion that i cannot believe that a military commander did not send reinforcements. i fully believe that in thing a politicianhazi was involved, i will not name any names, but someone was involved in the decision. there was a lot of discussion going on that night. there is some debate whether they have gotten from italy. they were still soldiers in tripoli. i know a lot of of you are from military families. if you have ever known someone involved, marines, army, or otherwise, they rescue their

dad, their wounded. there were still people alive and fighting for hours upon hours, and there were some people in tripoli who could have gone. i don't think that decision was made by a military person. i think it was made ultimately by a politician, and i think we need to know that. so i think everybody needs to be interviewed. they need to come in, and the question needs to be asked, who was it that made the decision not to send soldiers from tripoli to reinforce those under attack in benghazi? never have we should a commander-in-chief who is unwilling to send in troops for reinforcement or in the six- month time, did not send accurate -- adequate security when it was asked for repeatedly. to me, that should preclude you from ever holding the high office. [applause] >> thank you, senator.

>> thank you, senator paul, for coming to the siddall -- citadel. as a token of our appreciation, i present you with something that has a great deal of symbolism for this institution. a picture of one of our most identifiable icons. [applause] that concludes our program. please join me in one more round of applause for senator paul. [applause] i ask everyone to please rise or remain in your places while our speaker and special guests depart. upon dismissal, cadets are to return to the barracks.

[applause] >> tonight on c-span, the head

of amc networks, josh -- followed by british prime mr. david cameron. later, another look at senator paul's remarks at the citadel military academy in south carolina. >> this week on "q&a," the president and chief executive officer discusses his work and latest book, entitled "the big picture." .> culture >> a big impact in many ways. a lot of people get their news from tv. a lot of peoge