some of the former reform members of parliament who were subsequently disqualified from running again by one of the islamic council is, the guardian council, they talked about preparing the ground that none of them will try to run again but they are actively now recruiting and for the momentum to move in the favor of rouhani's crowd, to break the hardline lock on parliament, something has to happen this year and, you know, earlier than the end of the year, so he doesn't have forever and legislative elections are just as important in iran as they are in this country. let me just say that about 10% oflet me just say that 10% is

reform. the rest are conservative or hard-line. >> how did they view us? it seems to me that they might come to the view that we are , aed of war and as a result more aggressive approach to us might be in order. the other question goes to in interesting aspect of the run, the use of drugs and the source of drugs. if yous very high straight of heroin, for example. one of the highest in the world. they are increasingly a source for methamphetamine.

did you see in the streets or hear from any of the people that you spoke with concern about the use of drugs in iran? >> the first thing to say is everyone you encounter any row and has got a brother,, somebody in the u.s. that has done spectacularly well. the idea of america is a place is a they have prospered very powerful idea and they look and makepeople go money and generally have good lives.

we have taken down their two biggest adversaries, their biggest national security problem was saddam hussein in iraq. they fought and inconclusive eight year war and we blew in and that was the end of their problem. there are other problem was the and sunnie taliban extremism on their other border, in afghanistan. we have pretty much taken that down. aftere often -- also gone their adversaries and al qaeda. but policymakers must scratch their head and ask themselves, what is this american conspiracy that appears to be serving the national interest of the wrong? what is the trick? a view anyt there is and elsewhere

that the u.s. is exhausted. is in a kind of retreat from this part of the , they arefrankly reading the country pretty accurately. there is no arguing with that. somehow, the president has to find policies that have enough public support and we have some staying power for the strategy we choose and the uranium's, the saudi's, everybody else understands that these are policies that we are serious about strategically. if the perception that the u.s. is on its way out takes hold, why would you make a deal today if six months from now you are going to a much better deal. ae classic problem of distressed seller as they say in real estate.

,> i would only add one thought i went up to see the new head of the foreign ministry think tank. he is a very thoughtful guy and he did scratch his head and it was really about in terms of the nuclear deal. he said, sometimes it seems like the americas don't know what they are doing. to get the president who says we celebrated this deal and we are going to honor the terms and then congress turns around and says, says, we are going to have new sanctions. that they cannot make sense of, when you ask about what they think of us, there is a very distinct division between what they think of the u.s. and what they think of the american people. that is always been true and i remember, i go down to khamenei's tomb, i go to certain landmarks as a barometer on every trip and several years

-- i met an american an american tour group and i said to one of the women, i said, well, what do you think? she said, it is so refreshing been in the country that they like americans. , i went down to his tomb and one of the pictures that was shown were two of the duster's, two guys with their green and yellow dusters, they dusted to. it took a picture of them and they were -- when i went to the they wantrity side, to make sure i did not have anything. the woman said, where you from and and i said, the united states and she said, welcome, welcome. whereas not north tehran

they have a long history. this is a really serious problem for iran, the drug question. they have the highest percentage use of heroin. in the old days, the rule of thumb was, the traffic could move from afghanistan through iran as long as it was not left behind. obviously, particularly beginning with the war years, it wasn't has become a chronic problem. i've seen in the past, but this is many years ago, the drug use wandering the streets, begging for money, and then the uranium's "facilities for them .o deal with this they recognize the drug problem in the same way that they despite ahmadinejad's comments about there being no days any wrong, they are doing with the

hiv problem now. recently, they opened alcoholism centers, so there being a a little bit more regal -- realistic about dealing with some of these growing problems. >> good, thank you. in the middle. not quite 20bout minutes left. we will try to get as many as we can. you mentioned early in the talk that rouhani has gained in popularity since he came to power and i was wondering about the backlash from those people that have made a lot of money and a lot of success from the sanctions. guard.e revolutionary how much has there been a backlash and how much power do they have? >> you both address that. i can't --

>> he is described as being more powerful for several reasons. i think mostly rainy and that his opening to the west succeeds. he ran in the elections last june as the candidate who said we cannot just have friendships with russia and china. we need to have friendships with arewest and they embarrassed to feel so isolated. by a half-dozen different people that i've talked to, seen as a better manager. he is more efficient and his has helpednagement obviously in the markets are doing better.

, i believes down that nonoil experts are up. my feeling is that a year is the right time horizon to how long there is to work on this. i don't think that the backlash would necessarily overwhelm him. they are not completely interchangeable. just mention one more interesting thing about rouhani. when i interviewed him when he came for the general assembly, i have the on the record printed interview that he gave.

there were others that were more background. he said in the course of that, i think we can negotiate a nuclear deal within three months. the other thing that was fascinating was that i asked him about something he had said airing the campaign about how the -- is too powerful. the security agencies in the iran are too powerful and they should pull back. i said, do you still feel this and what can you do about it? he did answered on the record. are ad, i think that they wonderful organization in many ways but it just a out of politics and it should not form relationships with other political groups.

in iran's future, other parts of our society need to blossom. that is really interesting. somebody wrote a recent commentary that i'm sure that robin posted noting that he is not doing this directly, not challenging them directly but trying to get the supreme leader to do it for him. i guess that is the space that i would most be watching myself over the next year, the space theeen rouhani and revolutionary guard. is that why do you mean? are there signs that he is trying to reduce their say over some of the files that they control? >> supreme leader has come out more than once and said it is time with the revolutionary guard to go back to their barracks and help the country develop economically. and this place what happens to the iran-iraq war. greatsnomy wasn't irish

-- was in dire straits. they decided to up feel people and rally support for the government by opening the floodgates and they imported everything and went into terrible debt. to the firsting mercedes-benz franchise and i thought this was fascinating. the two guys that were running , bearded, stereotypical guard type. this does not match. i asked about their backgrounds. they wanted to keep those cards. they kind of bought them out. deeply in to this

process that the revolutionary run by the companies guards at discharge and companies particularly. one of the more interesting lines was when asked about the leadership at the end of the was to keep joffe his job. they want the system to survive to do that, they have to be sometimes realistic. >> all the way to the top. yes, sir.

>> you have been going to ironic for about 40 years. about 40 years. probably has some some t-shirts and sat around with women. what was your take, what were their concerns and aspirations, i guess and david can free during his trip. >> it is a good question and i think that the women know that they are in a holding pattern and women's rights are not a top priority right now. oftenesident has talked about equal job opportunities, equal pay, giving women the opportunity to be inside of the home and have equal access to education. i think there is a sense that the current government heart is

in the right place and it is not likely to be able to do anything dramatic. one of there i saw .ffsprings to thein went back nuclear deal and says if you get the nuclear deal, that opens the door for other things to happen. everybody is waiting. that is why this year is very important because it is not just the nuclear deal. is everything that the u.s. would like to happen in iran. by doing that, the senate thinks that it is doing something that

will help achieve american goals when it could be the most counterproductive thing that the u.s. does in terms of its very own goals. >> if you talk to demographers, they will tell you that one of the most striking developments in the world is the radical decline in birth rates among the women in iran. have just kind of fallen off a cliff. actually, there are sharp declines in fertility in many other muslim countries as well. this is one of the unnoted fascinating facts in the world. in iran, when you talk to people, they just say, first, education for women is widespread, i believe a

significant majority of those in university are women. these women are taking the career seriously, they are delaying marriage, they are delaying having children so as to have careers. it is really hard for a middle- class family to make ends meet. of theboth members family work. that has had the effect of reducing birthrates. i find this aspect of life fascinating. it comes through in a marvelous movie, separation. that was about the strains in by modernge caused life. so many parts of the world, the changing role of women is probably the most important driver of broader change and i bet that is true in iran. >> i forgot, one of my favorite stories.

ther the revolution, leadership called on women to breed an islamic generation and they did. in a decade, their population 2nt from 34,000,002 60 million. then the government of god plummeted to earth. ,hey realize they cannot feed clothe, educate, eventually employ and they had reduced the voting age to 15. in a decade, their population to 62rom 34 million million. the government introduced a family-planning program and everything was free. the water tower said that there is a vasectomy clinic. on u.n. population day, the clerks would give talks about limit your family to to and i

actually to a dissecting me clinic with a cleric who was taking two of his guys to have surgery as they figured out a way to reverse it so that it was not necessarily permanent in case of a wife or child dying or something. it did. it rots the average number of children down to under two per woman from six. awards.two one of them was having the most effective pen -- planning program. they had women going door-to- the to peach -- to preach benefits of family planning. the children would have better health, that the mother would have more of a life. the country's welfare wouldn't be squandered on all of these children but could be more focused and ultimately that more resources could be used for the defense.

the numbers turned around with lightning speed. then they decided to introduce a program to make sure that this became a part of life where every couple getting married would have to get a family planning course, a one-day .ourse with their betrothed i decided to go to one of these and see what it was like. i have to tell you, i learned some things. they are incredibly graphic and there were many couples who were arranged marriages and they just met each other a couple of weeks ago. brother or father, there was a chaperone. there was a class of them. they even had a giant phallus and they did the condom thing. i was like, oh, my god. they apologized that they cannot use their musical tape because

they don't play music during this month. you have to have that certificate in order to get your marriage license. theynteresting thing now, do not realize that the unintended consequence of the revolution was that a lot of traditional families who not allow their girls to go to school suddenly began to trust the system of education and let them go on. have 64% of you do the university community that is now female. they have won the highest award for gender equality. there are more girls in school across the board than there are boys. it is also lead to unusual demographic and now they are realizing that this be generation where you have a decade that is going to work its

way through the system. by twoe being supported children and it is the same problem of maintaining social security. now, they talked about giving gold coins and other incentives so that families would have more children. the interesting thing is that it is part of the system. they excepted more. don't have a lot of interest going on. >> let me ask the last question. go from here? ,ased on your observations they have given us some advice on what they should do about the bill. robin has called this morbid. david has some advice on integrating i ran into a

regional structure. how would you like to conclude, what final thoughts about the ay forward? >> what is next? i think a deal is possible. i think that they will compromise more than we think they will to get it. they're really ready to move on. for a lot of reasons, for things that we don't recognize. the environmental problems are horrific. , you wonder that half the population doesn't have lung disease. three of the four most polluted cities in the world are in iran. they are running out of water. they have a great piece about

these environmental challenges. .his is a reality we keep thinking about crippling sanctions. they want to move on. 34 yearsy worried that of tension and making them the .nemy they showed an old woman taking a mac of iran. -- taking a map of iran. they're still that hangover from the hostage crisis that still finds out perceptions of iran. that is so out of date. that is why keep going back and looking at whether it is the anniversaries anniversaries are trying to get into the indices. i'm not sure that we have moved .n

i don't know whether the psychology, the fear beyond the fear factor. >> i think i'm probably a little bit more pessimistic than robin about the ability to get a conference of deal. they should try to do it. i think it is important that those edges remain clear, we really are requiring them to reverse elements of their nuclear program, to give up things that they have and try to prepare and that is not so. i would close by saying that i hope that president obama and his advisers on this policy will

continue to be strategic and i say continue to be because i think while i would fault many things it ministration has done in foreign policy, on iran, they have done is pretty sensibly. when the president came into office, he said, we need to find a way to engage. we need to open the door to real contact with them so as to talk about the nuclear issue and other issues. then he realized that we need to find a way to organize a coalition of support that will through iran to walk that door. open it and find a way to move them in the direction of negotiation. he did that and the coalition is powerful. he has kept russia and china as part of it with a lot of hard work. i think the

president needs to own this and continue to drive it and continue to make good decisions. i thought he was pretty honest the other week when he said to a gathering sort of like this that he thought there was a 50- 50 chance of a deal. .e was not blowing smoke, if he sticks to that, and continues to empower secretary kerry and all of the other people, even if you don't get the deal after a year, i think the process itself will be a good one for a iran and will the iranian people a taste of what they will get if they go around the corner. positive onere their intent. -- >> you were positive on their intent. you've taken us through family planning and the nuclear deal.

we really appreciate the work that was done with the wilson center. we look forward to tomorrow as well. i think that your parents will be very proud. very proud. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> is disappointed to all of us to see the deterioration of the security inside of her rock -- iraq. i spent my life over there. 2010 i06 to september was there as we continue to reduce the level of violence and the secretary and violence was going on. i believe that we left it in a place where was capable to move

forward. we have seen because of internal issues to iraq that the security situation has devolved into something that is concerning. this is not just about iraq. it is something we have to be cognizant of as we look across the middle east. what is going on in syria, on insidehat is going of a rock. -- iraq. his exploitation of that by nonstate actors such as al qaeda and other organizations will try to take advantage of this. saturday morning at 10 eastern. jamescal strategists carville on there will love and war relationship.

on c-span3 american history tv, probation and the rise of the gains to. sunday morning right past 10 eastern. will rear the talks of the form over iran's nuclear program. at 9:00 -- at 11:00 eastern, former senate majority leader can daschle is

at the washington center to talk about bipartisanship. >> i think that there is a way in which we have set up this kind of impossible series of expectations, especially for our president. from elected officials as a whole that they are going to come in, swooping, save the day and when it does not happen we percentgress a nine approval rating and the president a 39% approval rating. expectations have to be lower. that is really what is quite amazing about the american founders. it's not as if the founders said don't expect much from government. government is not going to be the main driver of our liberty. it is going to be civil society. the federal government exists to do certain things and it had better do them well. if it does not do them well, nothing else we properly situated.

the main area of activity is going to be in the private sphere, and the civil society. and the election of local officers and the carrying out of duties at local and state levels. >> david baum on humility. on c-span's q&a. more now on the fighting in iraq from republican centers -- senators john mccain and lindsey graham. >> my calling from south carolina will shortly join me -- colleague from south carolina will shortly join me on the floor but i would like to make remarks while i am waiting. when the senator from south

carolina joins me i asked for -- >> without objection. some of us were here in senate 10 years ago when u.s. troops led to major offensives against al qaeda and other militants in the i iraqi -- in the iraqi city of falluja. how 146us are member men and women lost their lives and thousands more were warned it. those were some of the toughest and bloodiest battle since the vietnam war. success was costly but success we did. there we are 10 years later and al qaeda has once again raised black flags over falluja and are battling to control or parts of iraq.

they find themselves agreeing with congressman duncan hunter, a former range who fought in falluja. i quote, we did our job. we did what we were asked to do and we won. every single man and woman who fought in iraq feels a kick in the gut for all they did because this president decided to squander their sacrifice. to 2011, president obama frequently referred to a responsible withdrawal from iraq which was based on leaving behind a stable and representative government in baghdad and avoiding a power vacuum that terrorists could exploit. national security advisor stated in 2012 that -- and i am not making this up -- iraq today is less violent, more

democratic, and more prosperous than at any time in recent history. president's own markers, the administration is falling short of its own goals. the allusion of a stable government has been shattered by increasing sectarian tension and it is clear that terrorists arts oily -- exploiting the power vacuum. the obama administration blames iraqui ---- iraqis.. this is false. the ministration never took diplomatic actions necessary to reach an agreement. the senator from south carolina and i traveled to iraq in may, 2011 only several months away from the deadline for the beginning of the withdrawal. with leaders of iraq

political blocs and we heard a common message during all these conversations. i leaders recognize that it was in their country's interest to maintain a limited number of u.s. troops to continue training and assisting iraqi security .orces beyond 2011 -- while in a meeting how the prime minister, many they would remain to perform and how many they sought to maintain, they would not tell us. the white house had not made a decision. it went on like this for the next few months. by august of 2011 leaders of iraq's main political blocs stated they were prepared to enter negotiations to keep some u.s. troops in iraq. an entire month passed and still the white house made no decision.

all the while during this internal deliberation as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, later testified before the senate armed services committee, the size of a potential u.s. force presence kept cascading -- upwards ofords 16,000 to an eventual low of less than 3000. the force would be able to do little rather than protect itself. the prime minister and other iraqi leaders realize the accepting the of proposal was not worth the benefit. on the iraqis is convenient but it misses a real point. keeping forces in iraq was not for the sake of iraq alone. it was in our national security interest to continue training iraqi forces and

maintain greater u.s. influence in iraq. havecorporate will should written a different u.s. to diplomacy. the obama administration should have recognized that after years of conflict, iraq you leaders still lacked trust in one another and a strong u.s. role was required to help iraqis broker their most politically sensitive decisions. -- reason, they should have the term and what was in the interest of maintaining troop levels in iraq. we focus on this failure not because u.s. troops would have made a decisive difference in iraq by engaging in unilateral combat operations against al qaeda and other threats to iraq's stability.

forces were no longer in iraq he cities or engaged in security operations. troop presence could have continued -- continue to support fights against al qaeda. it could have made iranian leaders think twice about using a iraqi airspace to transit weapons arms, and equipment to assad and his forces. it could have maintained a significant diplomatic influence that the u.s. at that time possessed in iraq. inluence that was essential guaranteeing iraq's nascent lyrical system. resolving the leaders could resolve their differences peacefully and politically despite their mistrust of one another and checking the

authoritarian and secretary in -- thetary and authoritarian tendencies of the administration. the initially peaceful protests of early 2011 were met horrific violence by assad regime. this president and this administration have stood back and watched well over 130,000 have been brutally killed and one fourth of the population displaced. yes promise to avoid military action reduce the u.s. footprint in the middle east. we have seen the resurgence of al qaeda in the region. russia is also reasserting its presence for the first time after it was kicked out of egypt

by president said. -- and were anwar sadat in 1983. some argue this is not america's problem to solve. that the u.s. is fundamentally limited in its ability to do a big middle east is a consistent theme with the administration. no one denies there are limits to what the u.s. can do. that is always the case. but as secretary hillary clinton office,she was leaving let me underscore the importance of the united states continuing to lead in the middle east, north africa, and around the world. ,hen america is absent especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. extremism takes root, our interests never, and our

security at home was threatened. -- our interests suffer, and our security at home was threatened. her words ring truer than in iraq and syria today. there are long-term threats to national security. i'm afraid it is hard to argue that the answer is no. the administration must recognize its failed policies and change course. credibility and influence over the past years and we simply can't afford to remain disengaged. it is time that american standup -- america stands up and plays its rightful role in his altering these conflicts in best serving american interest. a is time that we'd adopt compress -- comprehensive strategy for addressing threats that are now emanating from the region and move forward from a position of strength. is aeturn of al qaeda

sobering provider -- reminder for the administration that the tide of war is not receding. i see my colleague from south carolina here. i did not realize you had come. i know the senator from south carolina and i need to discuss a recent, unfortunate development in afghanistan. , could i recall from my friend from south carolina of the many, many visits -- and i have lost count the many visits that we may 2 toq from 2003, really up 2012 -- that one of the most interesting visits we had is when we were in romani and colonel mcfarland announced to us that the sunni and sheiks had come over.

the major she could come over and sent tanks over. whatwas the beginning of we know as the awakening, the turning point in the entire thelict which, coupled with search, change the fortunes of war -- changed the fortunes of war in iraq. the search was opposed vehemently by the president of united states and the former secretary of state, the then senator clinton. she said she would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief in order to believe that the surge would succeed. -- later,at aside, when we came back again to and the senator from south carolina and i walked down with iraqi'set proving the success

of the surge. now, the same streets that we walked through, the exact same filled, are now vehicles with al qaeda flying the black flag. in thisdiest war conflict that was fought in our entire involvement in iraq was the second battle of falluja. 95 brave americans killed over 600 wounded. what do we tell these young people and their families? what do we tell them? i will tell you what we have to tell them. we have to tell them that their sacrifice was squandered by an administration that wanted out and did not want to remain and consolidate the gains that were made with the blood and american blood.

to the average american, i understand being war weary. wars,re long, difficult cost a lot of money and american lives. the point of the war is to make sure that radical islam is contained it eventually defeated. that is going to take effort on our part. does it matter that the al qaeda flag flies over falluja? i think it does. i think that when al qaeda occupies a city anywhere in the world, it potentially affects any city to route the world. having comenot sees back in germany and occupying s having comeazi back in germany and occupying part of germany. we did not allow that. we had a transition from totalitarian states to democracies that occurred. we are still injured matt -- we are still in japan and germany.

we are not taking casualties. but to think you can do it in a matter of months or even a decade is probably not going to hold water, quite frankly. the good news is we were in a position in iraq in 2010 where we had left behind a residual force not to be in combat, but to be provided the logistical air support, training, intelligence capabilities missing in the iraq he army. this would have been a very different outcome. it does matter to my fellow citizens in the united states during if al qaeda is on the rise anywhere, it does affect us. member afghanistan? -- remember afghanistan ? the reason 3000 americans died on 9/11 and not 3 million is qaeda and their

affiliates cannot get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. if they could, they would. stabilitys to create and marginalize al qaeda throughout the region. unfortunately, as senator mccain has predicted for a long time, the absence of the force allows security to break down and the vacuum was filled by the emergence of al qaeda in iraq. i would like to go over some testimony in june, 2010. general austin was about to take over from general odor narrow -- in iraq.al -- we were inside the 10 yard line when it came from being successful in iraq. in other words, the search at work. -- the surge had worked. president bush made his fair share of mistakes in iraq, but you his credit he adjusted

policies. gave general petraeus all the troops we had to give and stood behind him. over a two or three-year. over a was another -- two or three-year span, there was another phenomenal shift. we were basically inside the 10 yard line. the general said that in the next 18 months will determine whether we get to the goal line or get the iraq east an opportunity to get to the goal line beyond 2011. s an opportunity to it to the goal line beyond 2011. i asked this in 2010 -- what happened if iraq became a failed state? but say we're not smart enough

to get inside the end zone. here's what the general said -- if we had a failed state in iraq, it would create uncertainty and significant instability within the region. , itsriticality of a rack relationship to iran, its relationship to the other arab states in the region. couldbecame unstable it create an environment that could continue to increase the instability. i don't believe we are close to that. i believe we are very far away from that happening. i think we are definitely on the right path. those of the kind of things that would happen if we had a complete breakdown inside of iraq and there is a quote i can't find right now. i will get it in a second. from general austin. the top u.s. commander in iraq. he has said repeatedly that iraq is not yet fully capable of defending its own airspace or land borders and it needs help

in other areas such as intelligence and logistics. our military commanders were telling us that the surge had worked for we were not there yet. here is what i would like to say to the administration -- if you believed iraq was the long war to fight and we should not be there, own your decision. don't blame the iraqis. the truth of the matter is that the administration led by president obama had absolutely no desire to leave one person behind in iraq because this was bush's war and america was tired. he ran on the idea of ending the war in iraq. when it came time to make that fateful decision about a small, to000, 12,000 residual force maintain the gains we have fought so hard for to keep iraq stable, he now was to tell the world it was the iraqis.

i know different. i know and so does senator mccain that this administration made it impossible for the iraqis to say yes because this administration would never give the iraqi government a troop number from the white house as to the size of the force. i remember general austin saying that we needed 18,000. the bottom line of the pen again -- had a gun was slightly north of 10,000. -- pentagon was slightly north of 10,000. was it as a result of the iraqi saying no, that is too many troops to leave behind? was the number reduced because the white house did not want to have that many people behind? he said the case -- the cascading down all the way to 3500 had nothing to do with the iraqi's. it was the uncertainty and willingness of the white house

to commit to a number. what happened? we left the country with 200 u.s. troops advising and assisting. no capability. everything that they talked about happening, if you do not get iraq right and get into the end zone from the 10 yard line, it is happening on steroids. everything our generals told us about what would wait for iraq is coming true at an accelerated pace. i will turn it back over to senator mccain. one, iraq and syria now are in danger of becoming a base for al qaeda. the movement back and forth between that area of the province which obviously poses an enormous threat. we know what the ultimate goal of al qaeda is. i also recall from my friend

from south carolina the meeting had met-- had after we with barzani, the leader of the kurds. they agreed to get together and endorse a u.s. troop presence to remain in iraq and this administration refused, even after we came back, we begged of to give them a number. they refused to give the number and claiming that it had to be endorsed by the president -- by their parliament, which was absolutely false. iranian aircraft overflying iraq with weapons and assad.or bashir al- we see that area of syria and iraq now becoming possibly a base for al qaeda to operate.

,e see the two major cities were so much american blood was shed, now vehicles driving around the lack flag of al qaeda on display. -- black flag of al qaeda on display. the men make it clear and i think it is important we do. the senator from south carolina and i are not advocating sending comeback -- combat troops. it is impossible. we are not advocating that. advocating-- we are that we send advice, we give them equipment, we give them capabilities, we help with intelligence and there are certain places we can help them with. , prime minister malki has to reach out to the sunni and get reconciliation. from the day u.s. troops left, he began to persecute the sunni.

even charged his own vice president, who is a sunni, with treason. the vice president had to leave the country. this -- any of this is going to work, and if we have influence -- and have no doubt who has influence on iraq today. iran. if we have influence, we have to tell him that we want to help and we want to give him the technical assistance he needs. -- he has toout reach out to the sunni the way it took place in the awakening back in 2000 away. without national reconciliation, all the equipment and assistance we can give the iraqis will not happen. i do blame prime minister malki. this possibility lies with his behavior towards the sunni. -- responsibility lies with his behavior towards the sunni. we were not there and it is not

only the kind of assistance we could have provided them that they need. it is also the influence issue. no expert on iraq today will tell you that we have anything but a minimum influence and iran has that. if anyone thinks that al qaeda control of large portions of iraq and syria are not a threat to the united states of america, then they don't understand the nature of al qaeda. >> as to the future of how to move forward, prime minister and didith all faults, go to -- and take on the militia. to --d urge the she is the sunni, excuse me, to reach back out. the gains we have made are being lost by lack of security.

momentum could -- the immediate problem is how do falluja?l qaeda out of you had the sunni awakening where the tribal leaders had a taste of the iraqi -- the al qaeda agenda and said no thank you. there were literally killing children in front of their parents for smoking. the stories coming out of the province out of the abuse that -- people there and bar is that the people there suffered under al qaeda control would break your heart. with military up personnel to drive al qaeda elements out. we are not there now. how do you get al qaeda from falluja?

get theming to have to to work with the iraqi army. i think now is a good time to send a former -- of u.s. forces to see if they can bring these parties together to form a with the sunnice tribal leaders in the iraqi army so that the weight of the iraqi army can be wrought into this fight. -- brought into this fight. the distrust is high but the way al qaeda was defeated in the past was that the u.s. military work with the sunni tribal leaders. we are not there. -- i would saye two names spring to mind. petraeus and ambassador crocker. maybe we are getting into too much detail, but i do agree with

them on that. >> the bottom line is we have to change the momentum. we are not there. senator menendez is as great -- to his great credit, is willing helicopters.ache supplying arms and a smart way part of a strategy to move forward. you have got to get the military in iraq working with the tribal leaders. on the other side of the border in syria is complete chaos, hell on earth. i don't know how you stabilize iraq long-term until you deal with the dismantling of syria where all caps -- or al qaeda occupies the region right across the iraqi border. as a breakdown in syria threaten iraq? >> i don't think there's any doubt that this has become an

area onafe operating both sides of the border for al qaeda. there has been little good news in the last day or two and that is that some of the more moderate forces in syria have struck back at this radical list islamic group -- radical islamist group because of the s,credible cruelty of isi which is the radical islamic group both in iraq and syria. interestingly enough, that is being accomplished without united states help. thank god for the other countries like saudi arabia and others that have been of assistance to these people. they have been driving out some of the more extremist elements.

russiansrking with the to remove the chemical weapons. from helicopters they are dropping these crude cluster bombs. areas,g in on populated bashir al-assad has slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. here we are working with the russians. today there was a u.n. resolution from the security council condemning basher al- assad's barbaric behavior. guess who vetoed? our friends, the russians. most orwellian situation in iraq that anyone has ever seen throughout history. russians are working with us to remove chemical weapons from syria and at the same time aircraft from russia are landing

full of weapons to kill syrian men, women, and children from russia. it is -- it is -- i am not sure that a syrian mother can differentiate between her child dying from a chemical weapon were dying from one of these cluster bombs that basher al- al-d is unloading -- bashir assad is unloading from his helicopters. they have been pushing for months for a geneva two. does anyone in god's green earth believes that by sheer all assad is going to preside over his own transition from power? of course not. i will never forget the testimony of our now still chairman of the joint chiefs of

leon panetta before the committee. leave.assad will --is not a matter of when matter of whether he will leave, but when. a quarter of the population -- while this administration not only sits by and does nothing, but the president of the united states says nothing. this will go down as one the most shameful chapters in american history. if the policy of this administration is only to focus on counterterrorism and get out of the middle east, remove any involvement from the middle east, i can assure you that the middle east will not allow the

united states of america not to be involved. >> if i may conclude here. i have a quote from speaker boehner who said he would support the admin -- the obama administration if they choose to keep troops beyond 2011. ira member senator obama and senator clinton -- i remember senator obama and senator clinton not being particularly helpful. i remember the politics of toack obama candidate basically use that to win the nomination. during the campaign he talked about afghanistan being the good war. we will talk about that later. it is not happy either, i am afraid. there was bipartisan or -- bipartisan support for true presence beyond 2011.

they created a situation with the iraqis could not say yes and yet they want history to record this being a problem created by the iraqis for not giving legal immunity to u.s. soldiers. history will be written about our times. how this ends, no one knows. it is not fair to say the reason we have nobody left behind in iraq is because of the iraqis. it is stare to say that the administration that the result they wanted and they should own that. good, bad, or indifferent. don't create a straw person for the situation that you drove and you created. as to syria, please understand that this whole conflict started when people went to the streets peacefully to ask for more political freedom after the uprising in egypt.

startar in syria did not with a sunni uprising or al qaeda invasion of the country. the conflict in syria started when the people of syria, from all walks of life, started demanding more from their government, from this dictatorship, and the response they received from the government was the use of lethal force. it has broken down now to a regional conflict for the backing assad and you have a sunni arab states backing part of the opposition and you have al qaeda types coming from iraq in other places filling in the vacuum created by this breakdown in syria. what senator mccain had been talking about for about three years is that once you say assad has to go, no president should ever say that unless they're willing to make it happen. assad was on the ropes. with any effort on our part, and

something, zone, assad would have been gone and a transition would be underway. it would have been bloody at first but now we would have a syria moving toward stability. the good news is is that the average syrian is not a radical. they have been living peaceful with each other, sunnis and christians, for hundreds of years. now serious has become the central -- syria has become the central battle for every radical islamist in the region and it is sad and sorry to witness. what does it mean to us? the war continues and our friends in georgia are under siege. jordan are under siege. almost one million said -- almost one million refugees from

syria have gone to lebanon. their 5 billion people in lebanon today. they added almost one million from syria. they do not plan to get to that number until 2050. syria is not at civil war. syria is a regional conflict where you have proxies backing each side in syria that is taking the entire region into chaos. it is killing iraq. it is destabilizing lebanon and jordan. it has to be addressed in an effective way. you want to be president of the united states? certain requirements come with the job. having a vision, making tough calls at the time when it would matter. on president obama's watcher at watch, youring -- had the arab spring come about and the desire from the it

ministration to leave the region at any or all costs. now you have chaos. the other way we will fix this is for america to get reengaged. you don't need boots on the cloud -- ground but you need leadership. it breaks my heart to see how close we were in 2010. the surge did work despite of .pposition it did work and on their watch, on their watch, we are about to lose everything we fought for. al qaeda is the guest beneficiary of our withdrawal from iraq -- the greatest beneficiary of our withdrawal from iraq. al qaeda is thriving and our allies and our friends are in retreat. >> the current situation in iraq is deeply disturbing.

the violence there is a human tragedy. the resurgence of al qaeda affiliated forces in falluja and elsewhere represents a threat not just to the people of iraq but to our own security and to that of our friends and allies in the region. share in concerns that many of us have expressed about recent developments in iraq. the united states has announced it will expedite military deliverye, including of uavs and hellfire missiles. the administration has stepped up intelligence sharing to help iraq security forces in the fight. that is appropriate. they are holding ongoing conversations with iraq about other ways in which the united states might assist. that is appropriate. assistance that might be the sale of weapons, such as attack helicopters, to iraq. the issue here is not whether

such aircraft would help iraq fight violent extremists. it would. the question is whether the maliki government would use that government only against violent extremists. would receive credible assurances that such weapons would be used to target iraq's real enemies and not the further sectarian political objectives? with credible assurances it would be appropriate to provide iraq such assistance. blames wrong to do is to the obama administration for the political failures of iraqi leaders. when the administration for failures -- blaming the decision -- blaming the administration for failures of the iraqi government will lead to policy approaches that would not be in our interest or the interest of the iraqi people.

for example, here's what senators mccain and gramm said recently. when president obama withdrew 2011, over iraq in the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by america's enemies and would emerge as a threat to u.s. national security interests. sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever. that argument ignores some important history. it ignores the fact that the 2011 withdrawal date for u.s. forces in iraq was not set by president obama but by president bush. just beforeof 2008 he left office, resident bush signed an agreement with the iraqi government that called for the withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq he cities in 2009 and the complete withdrawal of u.s.

forces by the end of 2011. president bush himself standing next to prime minister malik he said the agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of american forces in iraq. set2011 withdrawal date was by president bush. not by president obama. while there was no mention for president bush or prime minister maliki, secretary gates and others discuss the hostility of some forces remaining in iraq after 2011. then, during 2011 the obama administration entered into negotiations with the iraqi government with the goal of

inping some u.s. troops limited roles in iraq to assist security forces after the 2011 withdrawal say -- dates set by the president. i supported the idea of continuing a smaller, specialized u.s. force. while there was disagreement in the administration over the size of the residual force, but the the issue is not how many troops would remain. rather, it was the iraqi's to -- u.s.s refusal troops, whatever the numbers. it was the opinion of our military leaders that no u.s. forces should remain in iraq regardless of whether the number was 3500 or 20,000.

in in november, 2011, at a hearing, i asked general dempsey , then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff about the importance of legal protections for our troops as part of any agreement to keep troops in iraq after 2011. this is what the questions and answers were. -- are you willing to have those forces remain without immunity? general dempsey -- no sir, i am not. it was the recommendation and strong belief of the joint chiefs that we should not leave servicemen and women there without protections. senator levin -- why is that? general them see -- because of the many institutions in iraq that are still evolving and immature. the judicial system is certainly among those and we did not believe that we -- it was appropriate or prudent to leave servicemen are women in a

country that still has the challenges we know it has and a very immature judicial system. later in that hearing i asked general dempsey if our commanders on the ground in iraq shared that opinion. it was the topic of many secure video teleconferences and engagements, person to person. i can state that they also believe that they needed the protections in order to leave our troops there. community -- committee, general austin, our commander in the ground in iraq during the 2011 negotiations, testified that there were extensive discussions with iraq about a continuing u.s. troop presence. he testified, we worked with the iraqi leadership all the way up to the point in time when they decided they weren't going to be

able to give us the protections that we needed to keep our troops there. panetta put it before our committee, the key moment in the negotiations was " once the iraqis made the decision that they were not going to provide any communities for any level of force that we would have their." our military leaders were very much unwilling to leave u.s. forces on the ground in iraq so that they could be subjected to the iraqi judicial system. it is therefore wrong to say the withdrawal took place over the objections of our military leaders. grant iraq's refusal to important legal protections to our troops that decided the matter. this criticism of the

administration's iraq policy also understates the importance of factors that have come to the front since the 2011 withdrawal. foremost among these has been an iraqi government that has repeatedly pursued a sectarian agenda, disenfranchised sunni iraqis, failed to aggress -- overss kurdish concerns the hydrocarbons law, and alienated moderate shiite iraqi's who seek a more inclusive government. prime minister malik he -- mal iki's government has stoked secretary intentions on which al qaeda and other extremist groups capitalize. members of congress have made clear that it is extremely difficult to support more robust assistance to the iraqi government unless the iraqi leadership places the good of their country ahead of secretary

and politics. and unless it produces a practical strategy for governing iraq on a more inclusive and less secretary and basis. sectarianary and -- basis. i joined a group writing to president obama about deteriorating concerns. i asked that the letter be placed in the record. >> without objecting. >> we supported an increase in support for iraq's counterterrorism efforts. but we made clear that the iraqi government was providing tactical plans for using such aid and provide assurances relative to who it vast welcomes -- advanced weapons would be used against.

it is in our national security interest to enhance the effectiveness of iraq's security forces. especially through greater intelligence sharing. however, would must see more evidence from the prime minister that u.s. security assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive iraqi strategy that addresses the political sources of the current violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country. we further wrote the following -- this leads us to the final and most important went that we urge you to stress with the prime minister. if he advises and implement a real government strategy for iraq, the united states is ready to provide the appropriate support to help that strategy succeed. if the prime minister continues --, treat large numbers of sunnis as terrace, no

amount of security assistance will be able to bring stability to iraq. it is a tragedy to the iraqi. and 80he iraqi people concern to the people of the united states that the prime minister has yet to bring a plan for broad governance iraq. forget that the decision to reject an ongoing u.s. troop presence after 2011 was iraq's because of iraq's recusal to assure us -- refusal to assure us that they would -- the troops would have protections from iraqi courts and prosecution. we should not forget our military leader supported the decision not to leave our troops without direction from iraqi prosecution. and while an ongoing

relationship is in our interest, no amount of rotary equipment from us will protect the iraqi people if their government continues to waste secretary and goals-- place sectarian ahead of sound governance. we should use opportunities to assist iraq in its struggle against violent extremism, but iraq's face -- fate ultimately rests with its people and leaders. i think the chair and i yield the floor. is less than a week to go before the government spending bill, the temporary government spending bill expires on the 15th. she has been covering the story. where do things stand on negotiations between house and senate? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> talks are still fragile right now. author still ongoing. the senate appropriation chairwoman told us that

negotiations have been resolved on six of the 12 annual spending bills. two of them appear to be progressing well. what right now they are going through our for the domestic spending bills, which include the bills are overseeing the department of health and human services. there is also the financial services bill. this seems to be a lot of writers that seems to be holding up negotiations. >> this seems to be an annual thing. you tweeted about it the other day. the tweet said policy riders are still an issue. what are some of these policy writers that negotiators are saying? a lot has to do with abortion. the limitation of the 2010 health care law.

-- the implementation of the 2010 health care law. there also seems to be hiccups related to early childhood education international relations -- labor relations board. they don't seem to be resolved yet. >> we are hearing a lot of reports that we are under a week until the january 15 deadline. the current continuing resolution is expiring. negotiators may need a couple more days to get it done. does that mean there is real consideration of another short- term spending bill? >> it is looking more and more like that. we are not seeing resolution on these last few spending bills. today for the first time we --rd health the corporations help appropriations committee chair talk about they would need two or three days. they're going to add some time for floor consideration in the house and especially in the senate where there will be procedural votes that could take time. >> no caps on is are following

the negotiations between appropriators -- cameras are following the negotiations between appropriators. they are trading paper on the various proposals. where in the r the meeting? -- where in the capital are they meeting? >> they also met with the two ranking members of the house and senate appropriation committees. they met on tuesday. they did not meet all four of wem yesterday or today but know there are still meetings between house appropriators and staff. says he hasharkin been meeting with his counterparts and with his staff to try and resolve last-minute issues. their are still meetings going on especially at the staff later -- level. amar hellerman is a reporter

for cq roll call. >> in a few modes, new jersey governor christie apologizes for the actions of aides. a little less than two hour, "washington post" journalist over continuing talks on iran's nuclear program. after that, we will re-air senator comments on the fighting in iraq. on the way -- on the next "washington journal," will focus on chris christie's apology. several bridge closings last year were apparently orchestrated by members of his staff. we'll talk about the incident virtually halted traffic on one of the busiest bridges between new jersey and new york. we will also be joined by a georgetown university law professor, george butler.

that's paul butler. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the firsteagan was sitting first lady to address the united nations. >> to my young friends out there , life can be great but not when you can't see it. open your eyes to life, to see it in the vivid colors that god gave us to the precious gift to his children. to enjoy life to the fullest and make it count. say yes to your life. when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady nancy reagan. -- seriesginal lady "first ladies: image and influence" continues.

>> new jersey governor chris christie has apologized for the toion of aides who conspired cause a traffic jam in retaliation against a mayor who did endorse the governor's reelection. he told reporters he fired his deputy chief of staff and cut ties with his after e-mails and texts showed they orchestrated the lane closures that created the traffic jam. >> good morning. i cannot to this office where i've been many times before. i come out to his office today to apologize to the people of

new jersey. i apologize to the people of fort lee and i apologize to the members of the state legislature. i am embarrassed and humiliated by the conduct of some of the people on my team. there is no doubt in my mind that the conduct exhibited is completely unacceptable and showed a lack of respect for the role in the government and the people they were trusted to serve. two pieces of what i want to alk about today. the first is i believe that all of the people who were affected i this conduct -- by this conduct deserve this apology and

this is why i'm giving it to them. i also need to apologize to them for my failure as the governor of the state to understand the true nature of the problem sooner than i did. but i believe i have an understanding of the true nature of the problem and i have taken the following action as a result. this morning, i have terminated the employment of richard kelly effective amended -- immediately. she was terminated because you lie to me. i brought my senior staff together about four weeks ago tomorrow and i put to all of them one simple challenge -- if there is any information that you know about the decision to close these lanes in fort lee,

you have one hour to tell either my chief of staff kevin o'dowd or my chief counsel, charlie mckenna. i told him that in an hour i was going to go out and a press conference and if no one gave me any information to the contrary that i was going to say that no ne on my staff was involved in this matter. over the course of the next few ours, they interviewed members of the senior staff, came back and reported to me that they all reported that there was no information other than what we already knew that had been testified to by senator baroni regarding this incident. i then questioned kevin o'dowd and car -- charlie mckenna

rectally since they are the only two who report directly to me and they assured me and they had no information that would change my ability to say that no one on my staff was involved in this matter. hat was obviously a lie. the mills lysol yesterday morning when they were broken -- the e-mails that i saw yesterday morning when they were broken proves that is a lie. there is no justification for that behavior. there is no justification for ever lying to a governor or a person in authority in this government. as a result i have terminated the employment immediately this morning. econdly, i have and will

continue to, starting with yesterday, to once again now have personal one-on-one discussions myself with the remaining officers -- members of my senior staff to determine if there is any other information that i do not know and need to now in order to take appropriate action. i am not completed with those interviews yet. when i am, if there is additional information that needs to be disclosed i will do so. if there is additional action that needs to be taken with my enior staff, i will do so. will tell you, though -- it

as been written a lot over the past couple of days about what a tightknit staff i have an how closely every work -- everyone orks together. that is true. as i was u.s. attorney i have engendered a sense and feeling among the people closest to me that we are family and we work together and we tell each other the truth and support each other when we need to be supported and we admonish each month -- admonish each other when we need to be admonished. i am heartbroken that i permitted to be in that circle of trust for the last five euros -- years betrayed my trust. i would never have come out here for five weeks ago -- four or five weeks ago and made a joke about these link loge or's -- lane closures if i had had an inkling that anyone on my staff would have been so stupid as to be involved in and so deceitful as to not disclose the

information of their involvement to me when directly asked by their superior. those questions were not asked just once. they were after beautifully. -- repeatedly -- they were asked repeatedly. i take this action today because it is my job. am responsible for what happened. i am sad to report to the people of new jersey that we fell short. we fell short of the expectations that we have created over the last four years for the type of excellence in government they should expect from this office. but i have repeatedly said to them that while i promised them the best governor's office i could give them, i could never promise them a perfect one. when i find those imperfections, those mistakes, those lies, my obligation as a chief executive of the state is to act.

as to bridget kelly, i have acted today. secondly, i was disturbed by the tone and behavior and attitude of caliber ash callus indifference is displayed in the e-mails -- and the attitude of callous indifference displayed n the e-mails. reading that, it made me lose my confidence in bill's judgment. you cannot have someone at the top of your political operation who you do not have confidence in. as a result, i have instructed bill stepney and to not place his name in nomination for state party chairman and he will not be considered for state party chairman. i have instructed him to withdraw his consultancy with

republican governor's association. if i cannot trust someone's judgment, i cannot ask others to do so. i would not place him at the head of my political operation ecause of the lack of judgment hat was shown in the e-mails that were revealed yesterday. that is also been communicated. there is no doubt that bill has been one of my closest advisers over the last five years. for that, i am said today -- sad today to have to take this action. i also know that i have a job to do. it is a job that i have asked the people of new jersey to entrust me with and i can never allow personal feelings or long-standing relationships to

get in the way of doing my job the way it is appropriate to do it. but i don't want any of you to confuse what i am saying this morning. ultimately, i am responsible for what happened -- happens under my watch, the good and the bad. when mistakes are made, then i have to own up to them and take the action that i believe is necessary in order to remediate them. as i mentioned earlier, i spent all day yesterday digging in to talking to folks and getting to the bottom of things. nother was much discussion yesterday about, what was i doing? that we tell you -- i was blindsided yesterday morning. i was done with my workout yesterday morning. i got a call from my communications director at about

8:50, 8:55 informing me of the story that had broken on the website. hat was the first i'd knew about that, seen any of the documents revealed yesterday. before i came out and spoke to all of you, i wanted to do the est that i could to get to the bottom of some of this so that when i came out i could answer questions as best i can and take appropriate action if action was necessary. there is no doubt from reading those e-mails yesterday, in my mind, that action was necessary. want to make sure that i spoke

to those people that advised me to make sure there was any interest ash any other information -- that there was any other information that they were aware of that i had before i acted. i want to continue this process. i could not get it all done yesterday. if there is more information than i am cover i will act accordingly in terms of releasing it to the public and taking whatever net ash action -- taking whatever action is necessary. given there is an oig investigation and legislative investigation. later today i am going to be going to fort lee and asked to meet with the mayor to apologize to him personally, face to ace. i will also pillage you -- apologize to the people of fort lee in their town.

i think they need to see me do that personally and 910 to do that later on today. -- and i intend to do that later on today. i'm going to apologize. let me conclude with this -- this is not the tone that i have set over the last four years in this building. it is not the environment i have worked so hard to achieve. we saw just a few months ago, and i have seen of the lot -- the course over the last four years, republicans and democrats working together. not without arguments, but ultimately coming to resolution on so many different issues in a bar -- bipartisan way and running a campaign that was a bipartisan campaign. so i'm extraordinarily disappointed by this. but this is the exception. it is not the rule of what has happened over the last four years and the administration. i've considered it to be my job to be the governor of every new ersey and -- new jersey and -- new jersian, republican, democrat, and independent. i've worked with officials on both sides of the aisle, once i have disagreed with and agreed

with. the political overtones that were exhibited in those documents released yesterday by the conduct of those people is ot acceptable. but people all across this state understand. they understand that human beings are not perfect. mistakes are made. i believe that what they expect of me as the chief executive of the state is when that information comes into my possession that i consider it and act as swiftly as possible to remediate whatever ill occurred. that is what i have done today. actions have consequences.

i am living up to that right now. i will say one last thing, just so we are really clear. i had no knowledge or involvement in this issue. in its planning or its execution. i am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here regardless of what the facts ultimately uncover. his was handled in a callous and indifferent way and it is not the way the administration has conducted itself of the last four years and not the way it will conduct itself over the next four. i will do everything in my power to assure the people of new jersey that and i thank them for their willingness to consider my apology on behalf of of this government. in the and, -- indian bank -- into the -- in the end, i have housands of people working for me and i cannot know what they

are doing it every minute. but i'm still responsible for what they are doing. >> beyond the apology in the terminations, what other concrete steps you plan to -- for the people of new jersey and the people of the country that you want to change the perception of what has happened here. will that include working cooperatively with the investigation that is now moving forward? in the past, you had some rather nasty words for people heading them up. >> yeah, and i apologize for that this morning. i was under the belief from folks around me that there was no basis for it. so let's be fair. there have been times when there have been investigations around here that have led to nothing and have had no basis, but i was wrong. now having been proven wrong, of course we'll work cooperatively with the investigation. and i'm going through an examination as i mentioned to you right now.

that's what i'm doing. i'm going through an examination and talking to the individual people who work for me, not only to discover if there's any other information we need to find, but also to ask them how did this happen? how did this occur to us? i think -- listen, i said before, i had a tight knit group of people who i trust implicitly. i had no reason to believe they weren't telling me the truth. it is heartbreaking to me that i wasn't told the truth. i'm a very loyal guy. and i expect loyalty in return. and lying to me is not an exhibition of loyalty. so i'm going to look into this personally. this is my responsibility, david. what steps we'll take after that, if there are concrete steps beyond what i have done today, then we'll certainly announce them and talk about

them. if not, then ill just say, i think we have gotten to the bottom of this and we'll move forward with the new team. i have a new team coming in as well who i'm trying to integrate now also in the next two weeks. there will be a lot of action going on around here. >> >> no, i'm not. isten, kelly, everybody in the country who engages in politics knows that. on the other hand, that's very, very different than saying that someone is a bully. i have very heated discussions nd arguments with people in my own party and own the other side

of the aisle. feel passionately about issues. i don't hide my emotions from people. i am not a focus group tested, blow-dried candidate or governor. now, that has always made some people, as you know, uneasy. some people like that style, some people don't. nd i have always said, i think ou asked me a question after the election, are you willing to change your style in order to appeal to a broader audience? i think i said no. because i am who i am. but i am not a bully. what i will tell you is that the folks who have worked with me

over a long period of time would, i believe, tell you that i'm tough. but i've shown over the last four years and the tone we have set here that i'm willing to compromise, that i'm willing to work with others. and the campaign showed with all of the folks who came from the other side of the aisle to support us, if we weren't willing to have relationships with those folks, it never would have happened that way. i don't believe that, kelly, and i don't believe the body of work in the last four years displayed that. now, in this instance the language used and the conduct displayed in those emails is unacceptable to me. and i will not tolerate it. but the best can i do is when i see stuff like that to end it. and i know that won't satisfy everybody, but i'm not in the business of satisfying everybody. i'm in the business of trying to satisfy the people who elected me governor. michael. >> governor, you stated you're going to individually interview all the members of the governor's office. >> senior staff. >> what about the campaign?

are you going to personally interview -- >> there was no one above bill in the campaign. he was the campaign manager. there was no one above. their role in the campaign was not the day-to-day operation in the campaign. bill was the chairman of the campaign and he was essentially involved in fundraising. that was bill's main task. mike duhain was the general consultant. he dealt with tv ads. the day-to-day operation of the campaign -- >> was it that they did not know about it? >> yes. i have spoken to both of them. they were two of my discussions yesterday. angie. angie. guys, we don't work that way. >> how confident are you that this tactic will not go beyond this? >> listen, i'm not going -- i'm smart enough now after this experience not to go out there and certify that unequivocally. k? i don't have any evidence before me as we speak that it went beyond this incident.

but i can't tell you that i know that for sure as to every aspect of everything. now, i have to be much more circumspect about that. prior to yesterday i believed that if i looked someone in the eye who i worked with and trusted and asked them that i would get an honest answer. aybe that was naive. that's what i believed. now i'm going in and digging in and asking more questions. can i make a warranty on that? i don't believe so. but i can't make a warranty on hat and i won't because when i did that four weeks ago i wound up being wrong. >> did you not authorize -- >> absolutely not. no. and i knew nothing about this. ntil it started to be reported n the papers about the closure. even then, i was told this was a

traffic study. senator brodie testified it was a traffic site. there still may have been a traffic study that now has political overtones to it as ell. i don't know the answer to that, angie. we are going to find out. but i don't know because senator brodie presented all types of information that day to the legislature, statistics and maps and otherwise, that seemed evidence a traffic study. why would i believe that anybody would not be telling the truth about that? i think i said that at the time. not finished yet, guys. but the fact is that regardless of all that, it's clear now that in the minds of some people there were political overtones or political side fields on this. and that's unacceptable. so whether there was a traffic

tudy or not, i don't know. it appeared there was one based on what i saw in the testimony, but regardless of whether there was or wasn't there clearly also political overtones that were evident in that -- in those emails and other messages that were never, ever brought to my attention until yesterday. >> do you understand why people would have a hard time -- it is your management style. that you didn't know about it. what is that say about --? >> listen, i am -- there's this epetition out there me being a micromanager. i'm not. i think if you talk to my staff what i tell you is i delegate enormous authority to my staff. and enormous authority to my cabinet. and i tell them, come to me with

the policy decisions that need to be made, with some high level personnel decision that is need to be made, but i do not manage n that kind of micro way first. second, there is no way that nybody would think that i know about everything that's going on not only in every agency of government at all times, but also every independent authority that new jersey has on its own or by state with new york, pennsylvania, and delaware. so what i can tell you is people find that hard to believe, i don't know what else to say except to tell them that i had no knowledge of this. he planning, execution, or anything about it. then i first found out about it after it was over. and even then what i was told

was that it was a traffic study. and there was no evidence to the contrary until yesterday. that was brought to my attention or anybody else's attention. i understand why people would ask that question and i understand your question completely. but what i also want to tell the people is that even with all that being said, it's still my responsibility. i didn't know about it, but it's my responsibility because i'm the governor. so i'm faking that -- i'm taking that responsibility and taking actions appropriate with executing the responsibility in accord with what the information is today. marcia? >> >> as i have said many times, when i was u.s. attorney i hated when politicians stood behind a podium and said, this is what the u.s. attorney should or shouldn't do and i'm not going to engage in that conduct. >> are you asking your staff are there any other cases -- > listen, again. let me say this. clearly that's the tone of those emails, but the thing that -- the other part that shocks me is, as i have said to you all many times before, the mayor was never on my radar screen. he was never mentioned to me as somebody whose endorsement we were pursuing. i think he said on cnn he doesn't recall being asked for his endorsement. so part of this is i never saw this as political retribution

because i didn't think he did anything to us. now, we pursued lots of endorsements during the campaign from democrats, and we didn't receive most of them. we received about 60 at the end of the day. we pursued hundreds. so i never -- i don't have any recollection of at any time anybody in the campaign ever asking me to meet with mayor sokolich or call him which was the typical course that was used when we were attempting to get endorsement that staff would work with the elected official first and then when they thought, using the vernacular, the ball was on the tee, they would call me in to make a phone call or have a meeting over breakfast and i would meet with the elected official and see if i could bring it over the line. i don't remember ever meeting the mayor, certainly never did

in that context. i'm sure i met him at some point at an event, but i have to tell you, until i saw his picture last night on television, i wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a lineup. so part of this is the reason that the retribution idea never came into my head is because i never even knew that we were pursuing his endorsement. and no one ever came to me to et me to try to pursue the endorsement in any way. i never saw it as a serious effort. >> now that you know it did happen -- >> of course, of course. john, john. >> [inaudible] >> with the birthday party, ine? yeah, a few of them were there.

>> [inaudible] >> if -- listen, obviously i said earlier john, i'm heartbroken about it. and i'm incredibly disappointed. i don't think i have gotten to the angry stage yet, but i'm sure i'll get there. i'm just stunned. and what it make me ask about me? it makes me ask about me what did i do wrong to have these folks think it was ok to lie to me? and there's a lot of soul- searching that goes around with this. when you're a leader of an organization, and i have had this happen to me before where i have had folks not tell me the truth about something, not since i have been governor, but in previous leadership positions, you always wonder about what you could do differently. believe me, john, i haven't had a lot of sleep the last two nights, and i have been doing a

lot of soul-searching. i'm sick over this. have worked for the last 12 years in public life developing a reputation for honesty and directness and blunt talk. one that i think is well deserved. but when something like this happens, it's appropriate for you to question yourself. and certainly i am. and i am soul-searching on this. but what i also want the people of new jersey to know is that this is the exception not the rule. and they have seen that over the last four years with the way i have worked and what i have done. i don't want to fall into the trap of saying, well, this one incident happened, therefore the one incident defines the whole. it does not. just like one employee who's lied doesn't determine the character of all the other employees around you. so i don't want to overreact to that in that way either, john. if you're asking me over the last 48 hour l