subject brought about. particular re is my love, the international feminist map. very happy to be about. this is a group of women who got that thered realized is millions of us and we don't know where we all are. and every time demonstrations reinvent the of wheel in alerting other like-minded groups. rape occurred le in india last year when the woman died and the five men gang raped here and the women took to the streets and students the whole nd then country followed and eventually the world. rather than go back to that each time alerting people around join us on ll you this, the feminist map, which is network project although if you google international feminist map it

up, too, or international feminist network. a world map with all of those dots on it. nd you can add to the dots by putting yourself in. they have constructed it with if you are in an authoritarian country and you don't want to use your name a way to use that. there is a way to register as a group. immediately you are networked by country, region by world. and it is fascinating also to where there isn't a dot. which doesn't mean there are not feminists there. it just means they are not able to be visible yet. up because i ind want to have time if it is possible for some questions and answers. get to ask the questions as answers.the i want to leave you with the

lectricity of the tool in your that and with an urging you access other tools that are technological. but that everything in our arky willd anticipate tell you not to access. , risk., humor i'm not say that passing my torch. own damn torch. we all of us need more and more torches to bring this down. i'm hanging on to my torch until the last. waving my torch. carry yourselves as someone who is going to save the world pers-- without high you will.nally

sometimes it is real. sometimes older feminists can be bullying and take a tone like i had to walk six miles in the wearing only socks and that turns you off. but sometimes younger feminists say you never dealt with racism. least in the s at 1960's and 1970's came out of the civil rights movement. there is a tremendous ignorance. t is like a cross cultural dialogue except now that it has been happening. say is don't thank us because when you reach a certain age people treat you a like something in a museum and thank you. they are like thank you for what done for me and it is very nice and i know they mean really well. is nice that women honor women because normally women very much.onored men are much better about honoring each other.

medals, guns go, off. they know how to deal and we don't know how. it is nice when anybody thanks anything. for almost but the truth is that you don't really owe us anything. we didn't do it. this is the little dirty secret. we didn't do it for you. e do not do it for future generations. we did it for ourselves. reached a ecause we moment of insult so profound we didn't know this politics was equality but about saving the planet. knew n't know that but we we couldn't not act. so you don't owe us anything. you know what? you owe yourselves everything. that.ight for so, i thank you for coming out. i thank you for who you are and you have do and the electric tool that is in your

hands. sing. se it for real purposes and communicate across barriers that have no right being there. genius of anticipapatriarchy a separa separatism. genius of feminism is living in the connections. thank you. applause] for do have some time questions. good. i raced toward the end because i you.ed to hear from yes. > in thinking about the ways when women are portrayed

ositively in social media, i'm curious about your ideas when we allize iing -- concept conceptualizing our history and advancing the women of color who are leading what is happening we keep the larger understanding of what is reduced hed from being or misunderstood or represented as being a white woman accomplishment and the way it has been in the past? >> one of the problems here -- i think it probably is not one that you necessarily share here because you have an amazing women's studies program. but one of the problems i a lot of places is academia academia. a woman will stand up in q&a and a list of books to read and she will say i have ever heard of some of these autho authors. and i will say, really, what is your major.

studies. say women's i will say i don't know why you haven't heard of them. will raisether woman her hand and she will stand up and say i have heard of them and and i will f them say really what is your major nd she will say women in development or third world women. so there is an almost arbitrary down tion that has again and a lot of this i have to say put at the foot of blame of fad structionism and its faddinist. don't want to go there because a is boring but it has done lot of damage. one of its basic thrusts -- and do use the word advisedly -- that since nothing eally has any meaning, everything is an abstract

theorization. that is all very well when you are theorizing. to in t it breaks down reality if nothing has any meaning it becomes profoundly reactionary. it is also in part -- i'm so hrilled that you still call it women's studies here. i've got to tell you there are a peoples it is women and gender and sexuality and gender and there and gender is nothing wrong with gender but since when was women not good enough? and since when does everything the banner ofnder women? because obviously there's not so youto say about women have to put other subjects in there because you can't fill a course. what you have is a situation a subtle and sometimes not so subtle eenforcement of division and race i

racism. means of ademic addressing that, which is , but the very useful intersecti one.rsectionality being but intersectionality is not new. a is a new word so it becomes vogue word. if one is an organizer and approaching this as an organize intellectual an erson one simply notices that ifferent women have the sam experience across race, across thnicity, across sexual preference, across differing abilities, across age. of that xperiences experience difficult. and is a subtle distinction an important one. sets like to say that the and costumes changes but the

plot is tediously the same. until we make those connections, the compartmentalization works. that when, directifor example,e feminist of the global north egan organizing in a lady bountiful away about female mutilation in the global south there was backlash because they had not done their and didn't know in fact there will been organizing by women in those countries already the 1930's and because they also didn't bother to do that inmework and learn the united states as late as the 1940's this procedure was as a cure foromen or lesbian behavior. it makes you crazy. in both have integrity meanings of that word, integral

in a women's studies department that is itself women's studies -- go, athens, georgia able to have those and ctions simmer electrically conduct back and forth. , an approach a hat is based on nothing really eans, it is all abstract and reinforces difference, that is a problem. -- and there is an a ied problem which is particular pet peeve of mine and oes feed into racism and sexism, which is secondary and tertiary sources. how many times somebody will stand up and say that is not what you used to say. you have changed your position.

actually, no, i'm tediously consistent on this subject, whatever it may be. can't be. because it and i will say excuse me, i'm really here and i'm in the room i can answer. and finally i will say have you me?r read and almost invariably she will .nswer no but she's read secondary or analyzing.urces mis ne way to break down communication -- and here i will white specifically feminists because that is who ou are -- is to really do your homework. is to read as much as you can of work of women of color. feminists of color. engage and now with the

vailability online that is exponential. another way is language. we are going to say african-american where are we american? european realization of the energy and leadership coming color, in of particular online, is so cool is calling itself guess what, feminism. to drive us crazy some years ago as late as the 1980's that that, although many women still had trouble with the f word, you that maddening word a woman will say i'm no feminist out of her mouth after that is feminist and i got care oint where i don't any more. i use the word. social t is incredible justice history but if a woman

squirrel all herself that is ok as long as she fights for herself and other women. but even then more black women were using the word feminist and womanist and other allied parallel words than white women were. it -- the leadership, the leadership of voices on line is african-american women with and asian american women chose second. so, it is there for people to do homework and be acquainted with it and then reach out. if the time isn't right to patient.ck, then be it is a very exciting time to be you.g and i don't envy yes. use the maker, or yell.

my thoughts on what? on the are your thoughts [inaudible] campaign that was on recently? >> funny you should ask. a friend sandburg is colleague and she has been involved in the tryingk negotiations and to move them along. relative.is to me, it seems that when you are a billion contrary and c.o.o. of i don't know, a is enormous , that power. but the men dump on her. why are you wasting your time on women? laugh. gets the last

she's been a real friend to the omen's media center and a real support and she is a feminist. that said -- and i said this to on the radio program on women's media center sometimes she reinvents the wheel and says look at that, rolls.ound and it and part of that is not her fault because this country is ahistoric and it doesn't register. ban bossy is not a bad thing. somebody who d oves language i have a problem banning any word including the n word because the problem is not youhe word, particularly if know its history. the problem is in how it is being used. is so convenient for people to say the n word and

racist.ey are not to me is sortword of meaningless. what is behind that in their campaign is not a bad thing, you teachers to h encourage little girls to get families to say yes, you can do it. that is all to the good. i guess it comes in at a level marketing sophistication that akes me as a grassroots organizer nervous. me nervousldn't make so long we are on to it and we use it. to understand hat with the movement it is at a very interesting place but ban door.opens the the movement is at a place where power, not ave real relative to men who have more

ut real power to where women have been are now discovering feminism. and sometimes it is hard it figure out when you are winning when you are being cooperat co-opted. nd for me it is case-by-case situation because we want women to hold power and mentor other women and that they are doing. a different kind of powerful woman tan the tokens and kick o be around in the face anybody coming up. they get that they have to plentior. is a huge leap forward. but they still are coming from a of assumption and entitlement. nd that makes me a little nervous. i don't mean this particularly about sheryl. there are a number of people in mind.uld have and it comes in at a superficial me thinks, rt of well, it is better than nothing at all and it reaches women of

ilk. the problem is when they fall in love with their own rhetoric and think that it reaches all women. ecause when you say this is what feminism looks like and you , a come from whatever massage or being wrapped or that, this is not what feminism looks like if you a e three kids and work on factory floor. it is not. ntil and unless it comes home that all of us come in together on this one or nobody comes in there is no planet, it is a problem. and i forgot to mention before -- and i do want to add this in perfect example of somebody who has power and after sort of getting then not, little but hillary clinton gets it.

perfect.t she's not queen of the women's movement. -- and she oes run will -- and if she does win -- will -- she will bring that with her. she won't be perfect and there when we disagree with her. she is not running for the queen the women's movement she is running for president of the [bleep] united states. she was secretary of state she did something that all bright will not done, she did condi rice never condoleezza e when rice looks in a mirror she sees a white man. the politics seem to reflect that. maybe i'm wrong. but beautiful pianist. but none of these -- neither of the previous women secretaries what hillary did which is to put women and women's right centerpiece in

policy.reign not only because it fwas justic because it was good for securi security. you t recommend a book to that is brilliant on this that finally makes honest women of us who have been saying this the past 40 years, a book peace --omen and world sor sex and world peace." it is by academics. and ie will you describe three other -- hudson and three other academic mechanics. 12-year study of a number of countries, i have forgotten how many but quite a mass, that proves once of for all that the arbiter a country's peacefulness or of the thingsnone we've been told. it is not civil society. it is not democracy. it s tphis not natural resource

where it al situation is situated. it is not g.d.p. literacy.level of it is none of those things. the arbiter of a country's a urity, the arbiter of country's aggression or peopleness, is how it is how it ulness, treats its women. there is an issue now of world positions it hat very differently. and what we are hearing right now at this moment from ukraine -- it just bears it out again and again. i really recommend this, "sex and world peace" columbia university press. valerie hudson is the primary author. the hillary ort of doctrine that she's made those connections and i think she will if y that through with her this turns out the way we hope it will turn out. that is a roundabout way to

anning bossy but it does deal with the irony we are facing of women in power who are no longer tokens but also not a critical mass, which is what we really need. we negotiate there period. and i think we negotiate it with vigilance. we trust but verify. reagan.normally quote i -- and we verify because see the want to women's zation of the moveme movement. we don't need that. i think we have time for maybe one more. women's moveme movement. we don't need that. >> my passion is repeated to -- sfer pblt of knowledge transferability fr

transferability of knowledge of to women who may never pick up these books and could be easily transferable in the times we live what would that be? context?my that is why i'm dock the radio show -- doing the radio show, the podcast. because you don't have to be literate. to don't have to know how read. because, if you mix it so there -- mebody taeuplgs somebody famous up there but these are principled women but application it so there is also somebody in , who is the doing survivor of trafficking, or who a mom against guns, then it is something that they can grasp and say i'm like that. i can do that. and isn't the point of it so she says i can do that? find?do you -- find that from radio

because i taoul hractually pass hrough in a rural community so many of them don't have the technology. so i'm particularly interested be, that can t can cross and transcend media and those in cuments that those trenches can share with people, with women in their that can therefore impact change. > well, it probably comes out of them mostly. i don't know about you, but i the myth that d blank, a is fill in the white women's thing, a northern hemisphere thing. that is such crap. you can say that on c-span but i just did. i have never been anywhere where if you listen to women know.on't already

they know. they know. and when there is space to breathe and somebody says here is where i'm coming from and i'm anger comes their through and rises. and their vision. whether it is around the cook stove in an african village or in the refugee comes of the women are thehose hope of the world. really are. t is not high persyperbola or melodrama. kind of leadership that doesn't even call itself leadership. papers.e no conferences. a child is hungry. in to get a bowl of rice child's hands now. such a wit to it as well. indulge ourselves in generational interactions and

problems. but i have seen -- i saw march the sudan at one point led by mother, en a grandmother and daughter and the nonliterate and he mother was a sixth grade education and the dauer -- the a doctor.s when you can be married off by eight or nine what is a difference then? so, in so many parts of the so many poor places in this country there is no time for games. that is where the heart be of feminism always has been if we listen for it. they are lucky to be working you are a cause listener. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you so much. applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] i have not mellowed. times you would say, look, there is not for ttribution, there is for background. you can attribute it to a white house source or something. that with live cameras. you can't say i'm just giving this for background but this is not for publication. >> did you actually do that, did you brief on background from the podium at the white house from time to time? >> sure. not a whole briefing. let me give you something on background so you know it is coming. something like florithat.

-- he fatal mistake i made and this is in the weeds for the audience but interesting to some you. i didn't put the restriction that we had at the state was not t, which is it available for live broadcast. use as partable for of the story that you would because the briefing is not a news event. it is part of the way in which people gather information, put their stories together, test sources, get other information, put together a comprehensive report and deliver consumers of news. >> i once had to do i think it what is estions on universal healthcare. would that be 98% but what about 97%? what about 96.5%? vaguely familiar. >> and 56 questions in one berry wrote a ve column saying she would be a

take her out you for a beer and get her to answer the question. life of a white house press secretary. >> tonight on speed span -- c-span, journalists glenn greenwald. on foreign policy. senatesaid it -- the confirmation hearing for hhs secretary nominee. a preview of the susan rice event. hill newspaper, she was asked about the benghazi attack. here is that part of the questioning. >> if you brought up benghazi --

you are too smart for that. the republicans have created a special committee in the house of representatives to look at what happened before and during the attack. there -- what more is there that the administration has done or said we are not aware of? f i know. the administration has produced 25,000 pages of arguments. -- documents. supported, participated, contributed to the investigations of seven different committees. we have had an accountability roof -- review board by a group of outsiders.

house and senate committees have pronounced on this repeatedly. imagine what further will come of yet another committee. what i think about is what we increase thedo to security of our facilities. we have a budget request on the hill for $4.6 million. it is necessary in the administration's judgment to make the kind of upgrades and provide the kind of security that we need. let's focus on that. what is lost in all of that discussion about talking points is that we lost brave americans on that day. their families and those of us who work with them continue to grieve. the last thing we need to do is

to lose anymore. looking around the world in any number of places where american diplomats and servicemen and servicewomen are doing what we asked them to do and be on the front lines of one policy, they deserve the support and protection that we can provide >> do you think it is legitimate -- the committee chairman said to look at whether the administration should have done more to make that conflict safe and make the ambassador safe. >> absolutely. that is what we have done. that is why we have an accountability review or. dashboard. that is why we are seeking be resources that we need. there are risks that our personnel might face in other parts of the world. security and safety of american

personnel is absolutely the top priority of the administration. to the extent that we are focused on that, i think we all agree that that is where the focus should be. >> we will bring you the rest of -- 8:55 eastern on c-span. first, journalist greenwald has been working with nsa leaker edward snowden to publish documentation of the surveillance programs. we talked to him about edward edward snowden on the washington journal today. >> a look into the mind of the man who made the revelations. these are reasons to pick up his new book. will be answering your questions and comments. i want to start by a story that

you lay out. it was the name he used when he first contacted me. he is a fifth century leader of rome. there came a time when rome was the siege by all sorts of enemies and was under attack and they needed a leader who they thought could lead rome to victory. they recruited him. he had gone off to his farm to retire and live a peaceful life and they persuaded him to come back to the bedroom. he led a successful war victory he was incredibly popular and had immense amounts of power and instead of keeping that power, he did what he said he was quick to do, which was relinquished voluntarily -- relinquished it voluntarily and he became this model of civic virtue. someone who uses power for the collective good, not their own.

found thatwden inspiring and use that name. host: is this who edward snowden thought he was? guest: he did not think he was a roman emperor or anything like that. he admired what he did. he paid tribute to the relinquishment of power and the use of power for the public good by adopting his name as a pseudonym. host: you have been writing about these issues for many years. you have a lot of tips on different inks that people are willing to give you. what was it about the tips he got from edward snowden and made you trust him? guest: it took a while to establish trust. he first contacted me, he was quite reluctant to say anything about who he was or what he had. communicate in an unencrypted environment, there's a chance that others are listening to the things you're saying. it took many weeks before we

could begin communicating. once we did, i can't say that i fully trusted what he was saying or who he was. not until a got to hong kong and was able to sit down with him at a room and subject him to six hours of extremely intense and nonstop interrogation where i asked him every question that i had. was extremely able to withstand that questioning. everything he said was very consistent. there was no hesitation. i was entirely convinced that he was who he said he was and was convinced that his motives are what you are presented them to be. book you talk in your about what you were expecting versus what you found when you first met him. when he first contacted me, he made claims about the kind of documents he had. he said they were extremely sensitive, top-secret documents that were highly incriminating.

before i would go to hong kong to meet him, asked him to provide me with some samples selected know he was serious and real. he provided those and those were explosive. they were unlike anything that had leaked from the agency before. that fact that he had access to this material combined with his sophisticated insight that he demonstrated to me made me assume that he was very sincere. the fact that he was adamant about the fact that he wanted to be identified as the source, not to hide or remain anonymous, knowing the risks also made me assume that he had been around for somebody decades that he became so disillusioned by what he was seeing that he was willing to do that. when i met him and he turned out , it was really

disorienting and confusing and it took me a good couple of hours to get my composure and figure out what was going on. host: you said you kept coming back to the question of why he was doing this. finally, he gave me an answer. the true measurement of a person's worth is not what they say they believe in, but what they do in defense of those police. if you're not acting on your believes, they are probably not real. and try toou go back put yourself in the position that i was in, which is part of ,hat i tried to do in this book to me, the most cold thing to understand was why was this 29-year-old who had a very stable life and prosperous career and a girlfriend who he loved and a family that was supportive, why was he willing to unravel his whole life and throw it all away in defense of his political principle?

i need to know that he had thought this through and there were motives that were genuine that he understood. he finally was able to access those during that time and said, conscious demands that i not let these injustices linger. i can only look at myself in the defense. i know i took to hide.place edward snowden, the nsa and the western real estate. we will get two calls. eric is waiting in georgia. on our line for democrats. you are on. caller: thank you. did -- i have a couple of points i would like to make. what snowden did, would you recommend that everyone who

worked in this agency tell what they know? take it upon themselves to make themselves the king who determines what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. all of these documents that you documentsht -- these are national security issues. what makes you think you are the people who should disseminate this information? guest: there is a history in the united states that is extremely important where whistleblowers inside the government discover things that the u.s. government is doing and come forward. probably the most significant case prior to the ones of the -- heive years was

discovered classified information showing the u.s. government was systematically lying to the american people about the vietnam war ended upon himself -- and took it upon himself to come forward and bring that to newspapers which then published it and informed people. the reason there is a constitutional protection of the free press is because the design of our country recognizes that , ifle inside the government they can exercise people with transparency, they will abuse the power. the role of the press is embedded into the design of the country that we will report the things people in power are trying to hide. host: a question on twitter -- tommy documents did he take from the nsa? when will they all be released to the public? how many documents? guest: i don't know how many

documents he took. i know how many he gave me. i have said it's tens of thousands. disclosedeen publicly many times. the government keeps trying to claim that he took 1.7 million documents. last alexander just said week that they actually have no idea how many took. that is a made up number. the media has been reporting it. us, edward snowden came to he was very clear that he was giving us these documents because -- if you wanted them all to be published, he would not have come to us. he would not need us. he could have uploaded them all to the internet himself. that would have been very easy for him to do. what he said was, there is a lot of documents here and i don't believe i should be in the position to decide which ones should and should not be published. there are some that i think should not be published.

is these kinds of documents that should be published and there is a lot in the middle that i want you with your editors and fellow journalists to make decisions about and report on responsibly. we are reporting on them one by one and we agreed we would do so. that is the best way to do so. i don't think all of the documents will be published because that is not what you wanted. all of the newsworthy stories here will be published. host: andrew is waiting in california on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. you.an honor to speak to i believe in restoring basic fourth amendment rights. given the tendency of government to maximize their own power over time, what safeguards could be put in place today which are

likely to continue protecting our privacy 20 years down the road? guest: great question. a hard one to answer in the digital age when so much information is transmitted electronically. there is a lot of different ways that the powers of the u.s. government are going to incur -- there is an institutional setting a couple of blocks away from us called the was congress that is in the process of passing some bills that will rein in a bit of what the nsa is doing. in there other countries world's populations and governments are indignant over what the united states is doing. i think they are in the process of working on ways to re-create the internet so that u.s. hegemony is not possible. nsa now perceive surveillance as a serious threat to their prosperity. the most promising change is

that individuals around the world now realize the extent to which their privacy is compromised. they are series and crypt and tools that do work that let you wrap your e-mails and protective covers or containers that the nsa can't penetrate. for more people who use those, will be for the surveillance to continue. thatefault will be everyone's communications online are encrypted. host: no place to hide. a book about snowden and the nsa. also a book about your experience, which brings a broad question. to what degree has relied and the lives of others been disrupted by u.s. government retaliation for your support of snowden? guest: it has been disruptive to a substantial degree. it's fairly well known that after 10 months, my reporting

-- senior officials repeatedly come explicitly characterized what we were doing is criminal and they ask wh escalated to that characterization. forpartner was was held nine hours under a terrorism law. there was a lot of concern about what would happen if we did return. there are all sorts of her risks.curity at the same time, i think if you're going to do a pic of journalism and you want to challenge people in power, there will be some disruption and journalists around the world have more risk and threats than in standingronted up to corrupt police departments

and the like. good to james in jacksonville, north carolina our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. studied your book last night. i do have three quick questions today. -- richard responded to snowden's appearance and said that the conversation could have the nsaace about what was doing. it was the way the documents were released that it showed methods. organizations were moving away from using telecommunications, which made it harder for us to gain insight. is, edward snowden turned over top-secret documents

to journalists. do you guys use anything to determine which to disseminate to the public and which do not? did anybody have a background in intelligence to know the full scope of what they were releasing? the question about whether or not the disclosures helped the terrorists avoid communication, if you look at every unwanted disclosure over the last 50 years, they make the same arguments. daniel was told that he would have blood on his hands and he would endanger the lives of men and women in uniform. every subsequent disclosure faces the same thing. there is zero evidence that any of that actually happens. that is the fear mongering of state officials.

transparency -- i was asked about the number of documents we were given. we have published a small percentage. we have been criticized in some quarters that don't get a lot of attention for not publishing a documents. o many.ding onto to i have that criticism much more then the claim that we publish too much. i think we have aired on the side of caution, especially in the beginning. we work with editors and the most experienced national security reporters around the world and we consult with experts in cryptography cryptology and diligence. them and geteasing

the information that way. processrough the same that all journalists do when making choices. host: the caller brings up edward snowden's appearance on sxsw. we have seen appearances in russia. square with this nonmedia strategy that you talk about? he said, once identify and explore myself, i don't want to be the story. guest: he stuck to that for a long time. when we revealed edward snowden to the world, he became the most wanted media guest in the united states. every day, i had the biggest media stars in the united states bombarding me with e-mails and phone calls. you could have been on television every night on prime time for hours around the world. for months, he still has not given an american television

interview because he knew that his strategy of the american media and the political class in washington is to demonize the messenger. he wanted the focus to remain on the revelations. that really work. that is why there is a worldwide debate. he is now participating more actively in the debate that he helped start around the world. he does it when he can talk about the documents and surveillance. not when he is going to be asked , what do you do with your day in moscow and do you miss your girlfriend? even now that he is becoming more assertive about expressing himself, he does so in a way that ensures that that participation will be substantive. host: how much are you still in contact with them? contact am in regular

with him where he is able to communicate entirely through encrypted chat technology. we have appeared together on a couple of occasions and events. he sits on the board of an organization, the freedom of the press foundation. i see him on video when we have board meetings. host: let's go to chuck in kansas city on our live for democrats. good morning. ask, if weanted to can't address the surveillance -- why aren't more journalists seven onbout building 9/11 -- host: we will stick to edward snowden. let's go to lance waiting in springfield, missouri. on our live for republicans. talk toit is great to you i can't wait to read her book.

it is great to talk to you. i can't wait to read your book. british intelligence agencies have treated you guys, rating your compound and a string or personal property, holding your curious if mr.s snowden is being pressured in any way by the russian hisration in agreement with political asylum not to release any more documents? is, ist thing i would ask believe you live in brazil, correct? i am from middle america and they like to keep us in poverty here. about moving to south america myself before too long. i would like to hear your thoughts on what you think about it down there. as far as mr. snowden and

the pressure he faces or does not face in russia, i think it's quite clear that the russian document has never pressured -- russian government has never pressured him in any way. he does not even have any of the documents with them any longer. as far as the erring on the side of caution, the way this works is that, what we were in hong kong, he gave us many thousands of documents. those were all the documents that he ever released. he has not released a single document to anybody. since june of last year. since then, the decision about which documents to be released have been made by journalists. whether you agree with the disclosure not, that decision is made by the journalist who published them. there is a framework he created to which we agreed about how it would work and which kinds of documents would be created. in general, he is not the one making those decisions. it's really the journalists.

y aboutan say i south america, it's a beautiful content. worse thano a lot those kinds of places. host: there has been criticism about picking hong kong to meet with you. where would snowden have landed had we not taken his passport when he was in the moscow airport? guest: on the question of hong kong, when he decided he was going to take these documents an, his overarching priority was to make sure it happened. that he got his documents into the hands of the journalists he had chosen to work with. he needed to be in a place where he felt secure that it united states government had detected what he was doing, they would be unable to operate easily guessed

him to stop him from doing this. if you got to iceland, the u.s. pressured could have the icelandic government to turn him over. if you got to ecuador, the cia operates very freely and that would or and they could have stopped him. that gavewas a place him some degree of security because the u.s. government does have a hard time operating there , but he wanted to be in a place that had political values that he felt come bowl with. hong kong has this climate of dissidents -- there was this massive protest against the chinese government. he felt like it was this perfectly calibrated lays in which to be. the public record is clear that he is in moscow. because he just to be there -- he was trying to transit out of moscow in order to get to cuba and fly on to ecuador.

he never got out of moscow because the was government revoked his passport. -- whatere will snowden will snowden do when his temporary asylum expires? guest: it is unclear. the russians have indicated that they intend to extend his asylum by another year. are very active debates about whether they should offer him asylum. the acts that of he undertook to protect the privacy of the citizens of those countries. for at least a good while longer, he will be safe. host: diane is calling in from florida on outline for democrats. good morning. caller: hello. honor to speak with you and i want to thank you so much for your journalism and your ethics. i watched the frontline show

last night. it was amazing. it it was so informative and so well put together. my question goes to an interview you did on democracy now regarding the cisco equipment and going through fedex and being intercepted. had the nsa altering the equipment. guest: that is a perfectly fine description. if they are using tal service, which is a government entity, packages first class are sealed to inspection unless under warned by postal inspectors. you were saying that the postal service is part of that?

know you made a comment and that you weren't sure how it worked. that you'reocument talking about is one that we published for the first time in the book. documents in the book, we put them online so people could see them for free. , 149 inment is a page the book, describes a program in provide internet services to villages or municipalities. the nsa will physically intercept the product in transit, open it up and re-seal it with a factory seal and send .t on to the end user

one of the photos actually shows boasting about what they do. having opened a package from cisco. and then resealing it with a factory seal and sending it on after the implant a surveillance device that is undetectable to the eye. whether they do that from the u.s. postal service or from private mail companies like fedex or ups is unclear from the document. it's a good question. i think that is something we ought to know. what is clear is that they do it. they have a team devoted to that being done. this is something the government has been vehemently denies and the chinese for allegedly doing the public about. here is the nsa doing exactly that. ward the world off of chinese products.

that gives the nsa access to more people's devices. mark int's go to maryland. on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. find this whole issue very interesting. when he first came out, there revelation about his character and what have you. how he will be viewed in the long-term. involves -- do you see that mr. snowden -- do you think he was naïve in any way as to how this would affect international relations among the different countries?

how do you think you've use it now as to what he has done to the international community? guest: for me, the guiding light of how to understand these issues is what happened to daniel, my political hero from my childhood. i spent a lot of time talking to them about what he went through and he has been one of mr. snowden's most ardent defenders. all the things being said now by democrats and some republicans that we have supporters on both they wereell -- saying he was a russian spy and was reckless and anti-american. the country regards what he did as noble and heroic. that is how history will view mr. snowden as well. there are a lot of adjectives you could to edward snowden. naïve is not one of them. he had a very clear understanding of how the

international community would react to this finding. i think part of his hope for reform lay in the fact that most people around the world had no idea that the u.s. government was doing these things. they would demand that the government take action against them. he hoped that was one of the primary ways that reform could come about. host: kentucky on our line for republicans. the money. caller -- good morning. caller: the information that you now know, is there any hope for some nuremberg trials in the future for corrupt politicians who are trying to start world war iii with russia? the mainstream media will derail rand paul's 2016 presidential run like they did his father in 2012? guest: the last time i was on

c-span, it was in conjunction with my 2011 book, which is a book about how political allegiance in the united states have committed the most egregious crimes you can imagine over the last decade. from torturing people systematically to rendering kidnapping them into invading and destroying a country of 26 million people. also causing a financial collapse around the world through systemic financial fraud. none of the people responsible for any of those policies were even remotely punish or held accountable. -- theal and financial lesson from the armored trials -- nuremberg trials was that all countries -- as far as rand paul, it's true for both the democratic and republican

parties, whenever there is a candidate who challenges politics in washington, they step outside , theonfines of orthodoxy reflection of the media is to demonize them. that will happen to any politician in 2016 who does that. what is establishment journalism and corporate journalism as you describe it in your book? guest: one of the big changes in american journalism over the last 30 years has become this corporatization of journalism. when you went to work for your or a television program, you were essentially working for families or companies that had primary

business journalism. general rule. now, if you work for a large you reallyt, what are is a comcast employee. you go to work for the washington post, you are an employee of a corporation that owns educational services. these corporations have somebody different relationships and dependencies on the united states government and other factions that will power -- that will power. they have an overwhelming beingst in cooperative. ties affect how journalism functions. there is no adversarial youth those of what journalism is. , like theton-down insurance industry. it is transforming journalism for the worst. new media and the digital age is allowing the older spirit of

journalism that is more noble and more constructive to reemerge. you can now do journalism outside of those confines. host: how do you feel about your interaction with some of those media identities that you were talking about? how do you feel about the washington post and new york times doing book reviews on your book this week? guest: despite what i said, there are good journalists at every single one of the large media institutions, including the new york times and the washington post. it has been interesting to watch that over the past year, because i've been able to do the story and the reporting has received awards, the way that the reporting has been treated as changed to some extent. reviews,mbedded in the even the post and the new york times, this sort of closing up the ranks criticism and attacks on what i wrote. largely due to the fact that i've been critical of the criticalto ration -- of the obama administration.

host: from the new york times review that came out yesterday, noting towards the end of that review, "he makes false assertion that one unwritten rule designed to protect the government is that media outlets published only a few secret documents and stop. they would report on the archives like snowden's to limit its impact and publish and full stories, revel in the accolades of the big scoop, click prizes and walk away come ensuring that nothing had really changed. based at which media outlets continue to pursue the story. many of his gross generalizations about the establishment media do a terrible disservice to the many tenacious investigative reporters who broken important stories on some of of the very subjects that he feels so strongly about." a very positive review overall. surprise surprise that he disliked my critiques of the dark times. it -- of the new york times.

the new york times has been in possession of many tens of thousands of documents from the nsa. the received them from the guardian. they have produced very few stories over the past eight months since they have received the material. there absolutely are good journalists and these newspapers. they do break good stories sometimes. everybody knows what the new york times did in the run-up to the iraq war. they sat on the story of the nsa -- in general, although there are exceptions, there is an overwhelming closeness between media outlets that are the andest and most influential the government. host: let's go to dan in george on our line for republicans. caller: i was talking to amy

goodman about what the nsa -- a lot ofs about people in the world claim treason for this. it is noted going to be able to discredit the nsa where we can get away with our 20130 deal? guest: what will happen to the nsa is unknown because so much of it depends on how people around the world respond in terms of commanding reforms. facesowden already serious charges. that is why he has been given asylum at four different countries. host: another question on 9/11 relating to your work. do you have anything on the events surrounding 9/11 and the snowden archive? guest: i try not to comment on

the stuff we have not published. it is very easy to say things that are not accurate representations. he tookments that tended to be very recent documents. almost all of what we published have been from 2012 and 2013. there are things like investigations into 9/11 that occurred 10 years ago -- they tend not to be in what he turned over. int: let's go to mike florida on our life for republicans. the morning. caller-- good morning. caller: good morning. president kennedy had concern about secret government , if yet gonewden to the regular process of whistleblowing, he would have been accused of treason anyway. my concern is, how can we better the process if we have an employee under federal contract

-- if he wants to step forward, protective enough if there is a enough claim of wrongdoing without this political infighting about him being a traitor. he knows if you went through that process, he would have been tried and convicted for being a traitor. i just wanted to ask you of your opinion about how to better that process. guest: it's a good question because so much of what is said here is designed to deceive and mislead the public. mr. snowden should have invoked the protections he had under the laws of a whistleblower. which is something president obama himself said. false isn it is so because the law that president obama was talking about is not even apply to private contractor

employees. which is significant because a huge part of the national security state is outsourced to private corporations. something like 70% of the overall budget goes to the nsa. it ends up going to the functions of private corporations. this idea that there are these great whistleblowing procedures that he should've gone through, the way the u.s. government is structured is to hide, not to eliminate secret wrongdoing by people in power. the best proof of that is that there are two democratic senators who sit on the senate intelligence community weapon going round the city and everywhere they can for years warning the public that there are these radical surveillance policies. stunned towould be learn about what it was that was being done. yet, those two senders do not --

senators do not have the courage to disclose these programs because the system is designed to gag even powerful senators when they discover the national security is doing something wrong. he knew he cannot go to people like them because they were impotent. the system ensures they are and they ensure that they are. was to go to newspapers and ask them to publish it. twitterong with questions and colors, a few questions over e-mail. one of the questions from jackie he stayed to fight for his ideals. mr. snowden ran for russia and it looks like he is making money off of this, as are you. you are a blogger and are now making a lot of money off the stealing of these documents. guest: he did hide. he had for weeks because he did not want to be rested. he is the person who most vehemently disagrees with the person invoking his name.

he wrote an op-ed in the july 2013.post mr. snowden was right to flee. snowden, if he were to come back to the nest is, unlike him, he would not be permitted to speak for himself or released on bail. he did the right thing and leaving. there is zero evidence that edward snowden made any money off of these disclosures. he could have. he could have sold this information to foreign intelligence agencies for tens of millions of dollars and been extremely rich for the rest of his life. that was not his goal. i am paid for my work. all journalists should be paid for their work. edward snowden himself has never made a single penny from what he has done, except for the few whistleblower awards he has been given around the world. host: a question from scott on

facebook. "where do you think we draw the line between being a whistleblower versus illegally hacking into classified systems, revealing classified information and thus been guilty of treason ?" guest: this word treason is being thrown around so frequently. there is a definition of what it means in the constitution. it means aiding and abetting america's enemies. giving them assistance. i don't think he did that. there is no evidence that he illegally hacked into the systems. he was an employee of these corporations that were entitled to access these documents. he was doing it as part of his job. ultimately, the distinction between a whistleblower and someone who commits treason is, you look at their actions. hand information

over to america's adversaries. he did exactly what you want a whistleblower to do, come to journalists and say to journalists, i discovered this wrongdoing and i wanted to publish it. federal courts in the united states have said that the program we were able to reveal was a violation of the constitutional rights of millions of americans. that is what a whistleblower is. host: do you ever fear for your life? guest: there is risk to all of this journalism. voted backan senate in july to provide me and my partner with federal security and protection. i think there are a lot of journalists all over the world who face much greater risk than we are. host: james is up next in new mexico on our life are independents. good morning. caller: good morning. that the problems

we are experiencing today are only here today after the advent of the internet. secure the banking systems in america again and business in america again, it would be prudent that we remove business and banking from the toernet and allow it be for social purposes only. that would address some of the issues we're dealing with today with financial security. host: how would banking and business work under your scenario? guest: we would go back to the paper system and put more people to work. secure the systems like they had in the past. i don't think you can never fight against the wave of technology. you can make the internet a much

safer place. our government spends $75 billion to weaken privacy protocols on the internet and allow themselves and other to invade our information. demanded that just a small fraction of that money comments of that money, and so the being spent by our government to destroy privacy on the internet, were devoted to finding way to bolster privacy and strengthen it. that seems to be a much better expenditure of a lesser sum of money. go to dwight in alexandria, louisiana shoreline for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. journalism.r your

i have three questions. what would snowden want in china and russia? do not feel like this makes him seem as though he is a traitor? there are other places such as where you are that do not have extradition treaties and so forth with the united states. adversariesiggest -- formakes it look like the country to be holding him up when we have never had andt goes back to hoover

his rapid movement that he had during his tenure. host: i want to let him respond. we are running out of time. guest: anybody can make up anything and say, i think china offered him money and he moved on to russia and got more money there. that is what we call delusions and fantasies. if you have no evidence for those serious accusations, they are not worth it. there is a perception problem with him being in russia. maybe that is the reason that united states government forced him there. i don't know what their motive is, but i know the reason he is in russia is not because you chose to be there. it is because he was trying to get out and was brought -- blocked by doing so. the hoover part of the question is important. we do have a history of systematic surveillance abuses over many decades by democratic and republican administrations. it should teach us a lesson that we don't want the u.s.

government being able to monitor our communications because we know that it will be abused and that the victims of that abuse will be our nation's minorities and marginalized groups. host: the book is "no place to hide." we appreciate yo >> both political parties are seeking to attract voters. then john campbell on the recent of the option of nigerian girls. how the u.s. is working with other nations in the search for them.

thethen gina discusses changes after the recent elections. and your phone calls tweets. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. convergence. you use that word throughout your book. >> throughout the country, there is a convergence of left-right agreement on important things. -- we start, for example, with public opinion around the country. they are upset with the patriot act restrictions on privacy and civil liberties. a big convergence. they don't like handouts to corporations on the backs of taxpayers. especially the wall street

bailouts were no crooks were prosecuted and put in jail. they want to corp. -- crackdown on corporate crime. it it is mainstream versus wall street. they don't like empire. right, left, they don't like empire. they don't like us pushing around all over the world and into countries and losing our soldiers. they come back traumatized. all the people around the country see crumbling public works. america needs repair. we are blowing it up over serious -- overseas. that is a convergence issue. >> ralph nader on creating left-right alliances. sunday night at 8:00. >> c-span's newest book. >> i can't say with the moment was. i have been living at all my life.

my parents migrated from the south. my mother from georgia, my father from southern virginia. that is when they met, married, and then had me. without the make ration -- without the migration, i wouldn't be here. i have lived with people from north carolina, south carolina, georgia. all around the neighborhood where i grew up. i was surrounded by the language, the food, the music. the ambitions of the people. a lot of competition about whose child would go to which school. it has been with me all this time. quinn -- ofisabel wilkerson, one several unique voices. published by public affairs books. today, national security

advisor security -- susan rice talked about foreign policy. she is questioned by judy woodruff in an event hosted by the women's foreign policy group. >> hello, i hope you have enjoyed your lunch. have waiting to hear from has arrived. we are going to get started. we are so delighted to have this

program today with the women's policy group. i have to say at the outset, as someone who worked at the news hour some years ago, it has been a thrill to watch the growth of this organization. it is a thrill to bring together women who are not only interested in foreign policy, but who are accomplishing things in foreign policy. as we heard earlier, the mentor program with young women is remarkable and i know that is going to continue to grow as well. so now it is my great pleasure to introduce the person you have come to hear, ambassador susan rice. she is, as you know, the president's national security

adviser. she has been in this position since july of last year. before that she was ambassador to the united nations and of course a member of the president's cabinet. during the clinton administration, she served as u.s. assistant secretary of state for african affairs, and prior to that, as senior director for african affairs and the director of international organizations and peacekeeping at the national security council. between her two stints in government, she was a senior fellow at the brookings institute. i could go on and on, but we want to leave time for questions, so please join me in welcoming ambassador susan rice. [applause] >> there are so many areas of the world getting a lot of attention right now, it's hard to know where to begin. maybe that's how you feel every morning. but just to start with something

i know has captured everyone's attention the last couple of weeks and that is nigeria. what right now is the state of the search for these young girls who were kidnapped, abducted from their school. and the u.s. has now joined the search with the nigerian government. >> i appreciate you asking about it. this is such a horrific situation. for those of us who are policymakers but also those of us who are parents, as i am, it is heartbreaking to imagine your teenage girl taken away and potentially at risk of being sold into captivity or worse. this has gripped all of us in the administration and across the country. we are doing all we can to support the nigerian government's efforts to recover the girls, which is obviously -- job one is to try to find them. they are now missing in an area that is roughly the size of the state of west virginia.

that is a large territory. the united states is very actively involved. we have a team now of up to 30 people on the ground cooperating closely with the nigerian government. our team consists of diplomats, military advisers, intelligence experts, law-enforcement experts and even development experts all coordinating closely with the nigerian government and now, increasingly, with representatives from the british government, the french government, and the israeli government, all of whom are there in search of the girls. we are also applying aerial assets including manned and unmanned aircraft to do what we call intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance over this large area so we can maximize the resources devoted to trying to locate the girls.

as i said, that's job one. >> i think everyone has observed how long it took the government of good luck jonathan, to get started on this. >> we're certainly pleased that now they have accepted international offers of assistance, including that of the united states. we indicated early on our readiness to help in whatever ways they felt necessary. it is late, but hopefully it is not too late. the good news is that the best efforts of the countries that can provide the most sophisticated support and surveillance are now on the scene. the government is working cooperatively with us and others on the ground in an all hands effort. >> you will not be surprised to

know that there are already voices on capitol hill being, if not critical, at least questioning the administration. senator susan collins is saying that there should be special forces deployed. john mccain is saying that not only should there be troops, but they should be sent in even if the nigerian government does not want them. [laughter] >> well -- [laughter] let me say that obviously in this sort of situation the responsibility rests with the government of nigeria to provide for the security of its people and to protect the citizens. to the extent they make requests of us or others to provide support, we are open to entertaining those, but obviously, as we said at the outset, the most important thing now is to locate the girls. there is no point in sending in additional support if we don't know where they are.

that has to be the first order of business. >> but you're not ruling it out. >> frankly, in all likelihood, if we were to do more, it would likely be in an advisory capacity, which is what we are doing now and could potentially do more of if we had better information on where the girls were located. >> there are so many parts of the world to ask you about. i next want to turn to ukraine. there are roundtable talks about ukraine decentralizing the government in some way, potentially shifting power to officials outside of kiev. do these talks, in your view, have a chance of success since at this point the government is still not including any representatives of the pro-russian separatist?

>> for folks that have been following this closely, they began the day, as judy said, in the parliament building in kiev. it is quite a broad cross-section of ukrainian society, folks from the east, south, west, former politicians, groups of all sorts supported by the osce -- an international organization that has been integral in trying to reduce tensions inside the ukraine. it does not yet include elements from the armed opposition. the government has taken the perspective that if they are to participate in a national dialogue or roundtable, they need to lay down their weapons. the separatists, for their part, have refused to participate as well.

this is something we hope can be inclusive as possible. clearly, a national dialogue is not the place for armed elements, but if they wish to participate and do so on a peaceful basis, i think the government of ukraine would be open to that and we certainly would be supportive. the osce, an organization we are a member of, has committed itself to supporting this process. there is an internal dialogue within ukraine to deal with the very real issues of language that need to be resolved. >> do you think a new form of government in ukraine is inevitable given what we have seen in the informal elections? some have called it a referendum. others are not recognizing the legitimacy of it. clearly there is dissatisfaction on the part of a significant minority, if not majority, in parts of eastern ukraine.

>> i would not say anything is inevitable in this context. first of all, there will be elections in a couple of weeks time. these are important elections that the vast majority of ukrainians are committed to participating in and taking seriously. we hope very much that security conditions will be such that those elections can be held throughout the country. it is a small minority that has resorted to armed tactics in the east, and the ukrainian people, having been through a huge political and social transformation, want very much to have the opportunity to determine for themselves the future form of government and their constitution. there is clearly a need to have a roundtable dialogue to work through the ease issues that are so divisive, including decentralization.

they will do so, i think, with the opportunity to chart together what their new form of government will be. i don't think there is inevitably going to be an external dictating of the ukrainian government. >> in crimea, it seemed a quick move for russia to come in and annex crimea. does that say to you that resolution of this is possible and possible in the near term, or do you look at this as a long, drawnout slog, in effect, that will mean rising sanctions and continued tensions with the russians. they have already said americans

can't use their rockets for space exploration. it seems like every day there is something else. which explanation do you see. >> the true answer is one cannot be certain how this is going to unfold. first, to be clear, what happened in crimea is completely illegitimate. nobody in the international community gives that any credence. that itself is something we need to be firm about and recognize that there are costs that have already been imposed for the illegal annexation of crimea and nobody is excepting that. beyond that, what the russians choose to do and what they will risk for themselves going forward is really the tension we are dealing with. on the one hand, russians have seen significant cost to their economy already.

in terms of flow of capital and private businesses being very reticent to get involved in what was already a weakening economy. we have been very clear that if russians move forces in or take actions that cannot be held in a credible fashion, that will trigger much more significant sanctions, including, as we have indicated, sanctions on key elements of the russian economy. i think that prospect has been heard and understood. i would not say definitively. he has to weigh the very real risks to this country and this economy of further destabilization.

>> let's turn to the middle east, where there is a lot to look at. starting with syria. yesterday you and the president met with the leader of the syrian opposition at the white house, reaffirmed your political commitment to a solution. but there are two other new developments. a designated mediator quit his job. among other things, he criticized the rest of the world for failing to agree on

humanitarian aid, much less assistance that would bring this crisis to an end. the administration's statement says that assad regime has lost all legitimacy. but he holds the upper hand. he has called an election. his military seems to have the upper hand. what can anyone on the outside, including the administration, due to change the situation on the ground in syria? >> we had a very productive meeting yesterday with the syrian opposition. it was not just the leader of the military side of the opposition. a number of their top advisors. the meeting lasted over two hours. we had an opportunity to hear from them what they most want from the united states and the

international community. it was a very interesting discussion in several respects. first, what they explicitly do not want his u.s. military intervention. what they do want is increased support, which is exactly what we are doing. a large part of the discussion focused on their desire to be able to stand up hospitals and schools, and the institutions of civil authority in the areas they control. they're very concerned, obviously, as we are, about the humanitarian situation. the united states is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance, 1.7 billion dollars worth, which they are very appreciative of, and obviously want to see continued. the problem on the humanitarian

side, which we discussed at length, is really twofold. there is a denial of access across borders that the government is substantially responsible for, and the use of barrel bombs and other weapons of terror that are increasingly a tactic employed by the government. they have asked for support to deter the use of aerial bombardment, particularly barrel bombs, along with increased humanitarian, civilian, and of course they want military assistance. from the u.s. point of view, we have for quite a while been not only the primary provider of humanitarian assistance, we have been ramping up our support to the opposition both in terms of the armed opposition in the civilian opposition. we have been very careful to try to vet the aid we provide. that is increasing and they acknowledge and appreciate that it is increasing.

>> there is a disagreement over more lethal assistance. the administration is concerned that it gets to the wrong hands. >> they are very concerned about getting into the wrong hands, too. they are in fact fighting a two front war, on the one hand against assad regime and on the other hand against the extremists, the al qaeda elements. they are very focused, frankly, on the need to eradicate the radical threat as well as dealing with the assad regime through the negotiating table. they view the military effort against assad as a way of getting to the negotiating table. >> the french foreign minister said there is evidence the syrian government has used chemical weapons more than a dozen times after it signed a treaty banning them.

he went on to say france had been prepared to use force last year as part of a u.s.-led coalition, but has not wanted to act alone. he said of the strike had been carried out, it would've changed many things. do you or the president have any regrets at this point about not moving into syria? >> the credible threat to use military force was to deal with the threat of chemical weapons. i think there are no number of airstrikes that might have been contemplated that would have done what has been accomplished, which is 92.5% of the declared chemical weapons are out of the country. that last eight percent, we are determined to get out. we made more progress in that regard in the time that has expired than many would've thought possible. i was in israel last week meeting, as i do with some

regularity, with my israeli colleagues and counterparts. they have obviously for many years been deeply concerned about the chemical weapons inside of syria and the risk that poses to israel and other neighboring countries. they thanked us profusely for our approach and our success in helping to get those chemical weapons out, which has substantially increase their sense of security even as they are dealing with the very difficult environment. i want to thank ambassador rose and our undersecretary for arms control, who has been the most active person and to work with the united nations and the russians to get those chemical weapons out. i think that is a huge success. i think it is important that we

recognize that had we not had a credible threat of force the serious would not have a knowledge they had these weapons much less shipped them out. in terms of the recent allegations, that is something we are quite concerned about. the allegations, by the way, are that the syrian government might have used a form of chlorine gas, which is not the same substance as sarin and the other lethal banned substances that are on the chemical weapons list, but the use of chlorine, which is an industrial chemical, even though it is not on the chemical weapons prohibited list. it is a crime. it is against the chemical weapons convention if it is used in combat. we are looking very seriously at that through the opw, which has launched an investigation on the ground. they are the ones doing the removal. if in fact these allegations are verified, we will deal with them

accordingly. but i want to be clear that there is some confusion in the public domain. these are not the same weapons that were meant to be confiscated previously. >> but based on what the french foreign minister said, it sounded like there was some division among western powers. he said if the president had acted it would have changed many things. >> because we acted, it made it clear that the use of force was credible. it changed and 92.5% of the chemical weapons are out of syria. there has been discussion, and you are very familiar with comments you made in the time when you served in the clinton administration. samantha power, the u.s.

ambassador now, quoted you as saying that after rwanda, 20 years ago, i swore to myself that if i ever faced such a crisis again, i would come down on the side of dramatic action. going down in flames if that is required. >> some would argue that i have. [laughter] >> isn't syria is equally horrible a humanitarian crisis as rwanda? >> it is not a genocide. one million people have not been killed with machetes in a door to door massacre. as human beings and policymakers, mothers and fathers, we feel these tragedies personally and deeply. i visited rwanda six months

after the genocide. i walked through school yards and church yards where the bodies still weren't buried. that is the kind of experience that will never leave me or any other individual who experiences. when you see a situation like syria and the cost in lives is extraordinary, one feels passionately about it. what are the tools available to us? syria is now a civil war. it is something that is horrific, but it needs to be distinguished from the type of genocide that we saw in rwanda. there will be instances where the tools we have can be

deployed with greater or lesser effect to prevent the continuation of the conflict. this is not the only one. what is happening in other areas has cost many lives. it is profoundly disturbing. if you visit there, you see the huge human cost. you can say the same in places like somalia and south sudan and the central african republic. in each of these instances, i think our consciences are tested. that doesn't mean in every instance, that the obvious answer is international military intervention. sometimes it may be. but not always. as pained as we are by circumstance, i do not think

that it is reasonable or wise to think that our military intervention is viable. >> do you have a yardstick for when it is appropriate? >> i do not think there is a yardstick. each circumstance is different. the approach of the international community may vary. the complexity of the situation may differ. let's talk about libya. we were able to create some positive affect. on the eve of the un security council, qaddafi's forces were on the outskirts of benghazi. he had said that he was going to wipe it out. he had a history of wiping out so many people.

that was a credible threat. what distinguished libya was that the community was united. there was no great power for his government. it was not a situation in which you had al qaeda and other extremists involved. it was not a situation that had regional dimensions. we were able to accomplish that in a coalition. it included arab states and countries. that is different from what we are dealing with in syria. or in any number of the other

places we discussed. >> since you brought up benghazi -- [laughter] >> you are too smart for that. come on. the republicans have created a special committee in the house of representatives to look at what happens before and during the attack on the consulate. that was when the ambassador and three others were killed. what more is there? >> dang if i know. the administration has produced at least 25,000 pages of documents or individual documents. they have supported, participated in, contributed to the investigation of seven different committees.

we have had an accountability review board by a very distinguished group of outsiders. house an senate committees have pronounced on this repeatedly. it is hard to imagine what further will come of yet another committee. what i think about and focus on as the national security advisor is what we can do and what we must do with congress to increase the security of our embassies and facilities around the world. we have a budget request on the hill for $4.6 billion that is necessary in the administration's judgment to make the upgrades and provide the security our facilities need. let's focus on that. because what is lost in all of this discussion about sunday shows and talking points is away

lost four brave americans on that day and their families and those of us who work with them continue to grieve. and the last thing we need to do is lose any more. looking around the world in yemen, kenya, somalia and any number of places where american diplomats and american servicemen and women are doing what we ask them to do, being on the front lines of our foreign policy, they deserve the support and protection we can best provide. >> but do you not think it is legitimate for the committee chairman to look at, among other things, whether the administration should have done more to make that consulate safe, to make the ambassador safe before this happened? >> absolutely. which is what we have done and why we had an accountability review board and why we're implementing those

recommendations and seeking the resources not only to deal with what transpired in libya but the risk our personnel may face in other parts of the world feel the security,and safety of american personnel is absolutely the top priority of the president, the administration and ought to be of congress. to the extent we are focusing on that i think we all agree that is where the focus ought to be. >> several other things i want to ask and i want to incorporate some questions i have been given from you all. negotiation over iran's nuclear program resuming again today. what is your sense? is that feeling like there is going to be a productive outcome? >> too soon to tell. the negotiations for the comprehensive agreement have been -- are about halfway through. what we can say so far is that the interim agreement that was concluded in january has been substantially i..ed by the iranians, by the other side, including us.

and that is indeed a positive step because what it means is that iran will be ridding itself of its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. it will be rolling back its nuclear program in this interim period in meaningful ways while it halts progress on the remaining elements. whether we will get to a successful conclusion of a comprehensive agreement, i think, is very much to be determined. there are going to be some very difficult issues, and the iranians will have to make some very difficult decisions feel >> a quick note saudi arabia has invited iranian leaders to come, which is remarkable because they have been archrivals. how significant of a move is that?

>> it is a good move. it is one that we've certainly encouraged and supported. because the tensions in the region that go well beyond saudi arabia and iran but are being played out including in places like syria can best be addressed by enhanced communication and we have supported that. whether it happens and what comes of it we will have to see. >> you came back from a trip with israel and met their leaders and you met with the palestinian leaders. any hope for serious peace talks in the coming year? >> any hope? i think those of us who work in my business always have to have hope. and i do.