>> the president of the united honor exposure present in for conspicuous gallantry of the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an automatic rifleman with company f second battalion regimental combat team one, forcemarine expeditionary forward in helmand province afghanistan in support of enduring freedom afghanistan. and corporal carpenter was the member of a platoon-sized coalition force with two reinforced marine rifle squads partnered with an afghan national army squad. smallad gathered in a village in order to disrupt enemy activity and provide security for the local afghan

population. lance corporal carpenter in the fellow greens were manning a rooftop security position on the perimeter when the enemy initiative a daylight attack with hand grenades one of which landed inside the sandbagged position. without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own safety, lance corporal carpenter moved towards the grenade in an attempt to shield his fellow marine from the deadly blast. his body absorb the brunt of the blast severely wounding him but saving the lives of his fellow marine. undaunted courage, bold fighting spirit, unwavering devotion to duty in the face of almost certain death, lance corporal carpenter reflected a great honor upon himself and the greatest honors of the marine corps and the naval service.

[applause] >> let us pray. precious god, made the ceremony served as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with receiving the greatest gift of freedom. as we depart this hallowed hall and return to our daily life, we pray that you would empower us

that when called upon, we would represent the resolute fearlessness of corporal kyle carpinteria and all those who wear the star of valor and live up to our responsibilities bringing honor to you and to this country. it is in the strength of your name we pray, amen. brings us to the conclusion of the ceremony but not the reception and party. want to thank everyone again for being here especially kyle's .onderful family, his parents i understand the food here at the white house is pretty good. family theyld his should be chowing down but it goes for everyone. i think the drinks are free. early in the afternoon. thank you very much, everybody.

let's and one more round of oflause for our latest medal honor winner, kyle carpenter. [applause] >> following the ceremony, speaking to reporters in the james brady press briefing room. >> good afternoon, everyone. today, i'mbefore you truly honored and humbled yet i accept this honor with a heavy heart. as the president put the medal of honor around my neck, i felt the history and the weight of the nation. i think about the continental marines who fearlessly defended their ships and fought for an idea, a new way of life.

i think about the deadly theches of world war i in marines who charged the bloody beaches throughout world war ii. i think about the marines in korea who lost their feet, hands, and lives to frostbite and those who trudged through .he thick jungles of vietnam i think about the marines who fought for days on end from house to house in the scorching heat through cities like fallujah, bag that. baghdad. if i close my eyes today i can still hit the desperation for medevac's to be called as they bled out in the field of afghanistan. today, i accept this medal for them and i will wear it for every person who makes up our great and blessed nation. i will wear it for those who have been wanted on distant lands but still continue to

fight and battle through long and difficult days of recovery here at home. for those who have given all and their families, i can never express in words what you mean to this nation that uses selflessly and courageously gave four. we are forever indebted to you and your inspiring devotion to your country. for theear this medal incredible medical staff that helped keep me alive and put me together. i will wear it for my family and those who have them here to help love, support, and encourage me along my journey of healing and recovery. and --oud of the emory proud to be a marine. i'm proud of those who raise their right hand. those who sacrificed to earn the right to wear the sacred cloth of our nation.

all whoall -- i thank have served, are serving, or will serve. freedom is a powerful and beautiful thing. be thankful for what you have, appreciate the small and simple things. be kind and help others. let the ones you love know you love them. when things get tough, trust the resid bigger plan and you will be stronger for it. thank you very much. >> about $10 million in bonuses paid out by the phoenix v.a. health system over three years while veterans dealt with long health care delays. friday, the house veterans affairs committee holds a hearing to examine bonuses of the veteran affairs department

alive at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. next, an interview with outgoing white house press secretary jay newsy followed by a conference with house republicans after leadership elections. later, president obama's announcement about sending troops to iraq. >> this weekend, "american history tv" live from the gettysburg college civil war institute beginning at 845 a.m. eastern. you will hear from robert r michael on robert e lee followed by brooks simpson on ulysses s. grant. burning of chambersburg this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. white housegoing

press secretary jay carney talks about the most difficult aspect of his job. he was the featured guest of the "christian science monitor" breakfast series. it's about one hour. >> peter? we've got a space. p come on, brother. , brother.g-- come on you can be on tv with me.

thank you for coming. just this morning is jay carney, president obama's departing press secretary and we are delighted to have him as a guest on the day he is traversing the polar extremes of the media world starting with the monitor breakfast and moving to new york for the "colbert report." hare asecretary to say high cholesterol breakfast with us. shareis the 12th to breakfast with us. he has degrees in russian and european studies. career in journalism began with the miami herald. he moved to time magazine and was with the moscow bureau and in 1993 came to washington where he was reporter, deputy chief,

and bureau chief at which point he left to become vice president communications director. he stepped in front of the podium in february 2011. whatever his new job, a says he will have more time for his wife. now on to the ever popular process portion of the program. as always, we are on the record. no means of filing of any time while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guests as. there is no embargo when it ends. do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal, the always open to interpretation finger wave or what have you. we will start by offering our guests the opportunity to make some opening comments and then move around the table. thanks again for doing this.

>> thank you, dave. i appreciated. thanks, everyone, for being here. i've had a couple of opportunities now in the briefing room both when the president announced my departure and then yesterday to say a few things about the experience that gratifying andw rewarding it's been, how imbling, and how much appreciate this process, whether it is here or in the briefing room. people constantly say when you have this job, and i'm sure it was true for my predecessors, but you have the hardest job or one of the hardest jobs. as my colleagues know on the staff at the white house, and i think many of you know, especially if you are in the regular press corps, i really enjoyed it.

the briefing interactions and even the contentious ones to be stimulating and at times frustrating but in a way that i would not trade. there are things about the briefing, obviously, that could be improved. overall, i think it's been a great thing for me. doe done the best i could serve both the president, the white house, the administration, to be asry, and also informative as i could be about what the president, the white house, the administration, and the government are doing. the earliest, best advice i had about the job was to never guess. if you did not know the answer, the surest way to get into and saywas to assume

that from the podium. i try to take my own advice not always but mostly. another thing i think that i learned is the white house has become, both in fact and in the youit's covered -- no thank -- the center of the universe in washington and the country. that pressant secretaries have to have an answer for everything. often it is the case that the best ways to go for information, especially some of the more detailed information as to agencies, congress, elsewhere. while it's true press secretaries indulge in the phrase, "i refer you to the department of whatever" in order

to deflect some of the questioning elsewhere, it's also frequently true that a lot of the important work and policy development, implementation that happens is in the agencies. the spotlight is on the white house, but that's not the only game in town. should just go to questions. it's early for me to be speaking. [laughter] if you have a long-winded question, please raise your hand. i am on my ceremonial soapbox. you told charlie rose that a good white house reporter know 15% or 20% of what's going on. carefully extrapolate a little beyond that. looking back on your experience, does the area of press ignorance

follow a pattern? intel or is the ignorance random? >> i tried to explain that it this as a hit on reporters or the suggestion that they were ignorant or that this of secretiveness. he goes back to what i was just talking about. the amount of traffic through the white house is immense. the number of issues people are working on on any given day is very broad, very deep. reporters who cover the white house on a daily basis, in particular, tend to because of the demand of news and their focus on the top one or two topics of the day and are kind of unaware of and don't have the capacity to become aware of so much else that is

happening. that wase things initially and continues to be really fascinating to me about the experience of working in the white house is just how the train never stops. we've seen this just in terms of the number of issues that have demanded our attention, your attention, dominated the news only to be replaced by an issue that has garnered equally intensive attention. that's really what i meant. we talked about that line, charlie and i, but it was based on a conversation i had won a first came to washington from my michaelnd mentor, duffy, when he told me as i was young reporter covering the white house that really we only

know -- i cannot remember if he said this team, 20, 30% so i don't want to pin this on them entirely, but then we have to figure it out or extrapolated from there and i think it's a fair point. true and hasis become more so over the years i've been in washington, both as a reporter and in the white the demand for instant information and revelation in the covering of the white house and washington coupled with the strain on resources that so many news organizations have been feeling has resulted in an exacerbation of this issue where there just is not the bandwidth in the organization to cover the agencies or congress with the depth they used to and there is a tendency to just throw folks out the white house and have them chase whatever the story of which can be, i

think, frustrating for white house correspondents and certainly, on occasion, for those who work there. garrett in aajor presentation you did george washington that after you have been selected as white house press secretary, before you moved to the podium that you went through mock briefings where robert gives "knew from personal experience just the right kind of question that would completely unsettle me." now that you're leaving, can you give us a kind of example of what the question would he? >> the risk that any press secretary in the modern age where everything is televised is to be forced by a .uestion to lose your composure

sometimes that is because of a sometimes iton or is just a difficult and penetrating question. it took me a while to figure this out. the exchange win from the podium. you have the higher ground. you have the capacity to: somebody else. on somebody else. then when you review the tape, it's pretty clear that you took the bait and let yourself be less than 100% on your game. with also true, to only people who sit in the remand suffer through the briefing and a handful of folks who have nothing better to do than watch the whole thing, experience it that way. most people just see a snippet. they often do not see the interplay between the questioner and the press secretary. they just see what i say and you

have to keep that in mind when you are up there. robert was great having had done me into the kind of exchange i found out i wanted to avoid but did not always. [laughter] >> sam. >> me? thank you. what was the toughest point as a press secretary for you in this gig? what was the best point for you in this gig? what was the most memorable? no policy because i know -- as press secretary. newton, connecticut, was emotionally low for a lot of parents in here. it was just unimaginably bad for

everyone. and separating it from that, i difficultthe most period since i've been press secretary was dealing with healthcare.gov and it's pretty awful rollout and that was because, in contrast to some of the other issues that became challenging at the podium and challenging for us in the press, this one was completely of our doing, completely our responsibility, was obviously a major legislative accomplishment of the president. we had really not gotten it i think that made everyone feel from the president on down a great deal of responsibility. it made a lot of us worry about

what would happen if we could not fix it in terms of the goal of expanding the availability of health insurance to millions of americans. obviously it was a concern politically if it did not work out. in contrast to a lot of these sort of issues that burn , this was a for now sustained bad news story. i remember that as being the biggest challenge. , because it iss more recent than some of the other issues, in many ways it's one of the best moments also. gradually became confident that the website was going to be fixed, as we became aware gradually that revising down expert rations of what the numbers would be were too low when they were going to get -- revising down

expectations of what the numbers would be and when we hit one million, that was a good day. what distinguishes that is unlike a lot of things the president and the white house has to deal with and some of the toughest moments often started by events not in your control, this was on us. felt that president responsibility deeply and others who worked on it felt it deeply and we are all indebted to the team that went in there and figured it out, got it right. >> alexis. >> he's mixing it up going to the back row. >> alexis was often my go to. [laughter] >> several former presidential press secretary's say they don't

know why the gavel does not still exist in think it should be resurrected. you think there is value in trying to do the morning gavel? i'm not trigger but he remembers the cameras were put into the briefing room not that long ago, during the bush administration for the inside of the white house to be paying attention, you call out the names in the transcript so it's clear who asked the question. can you tell us about how the breaking is carved up inside the white house and used by the staff and how the president absorbs anything that's been asked? >> after the fact? >> after, yes. >> let me answer the gavel question. .t is a great idea what i found, and i think robert found before me, is that it's very challenging to try to do at the gaggle and a briefing in the same day if you also want to be

in the room during team meeting see you can stand at the podium and represent what's happening on the inside. is my daynd early on starts with the first meeting in the chief of staff's office pending if it's 7:30 a.m. or 7:45 a.m. i have five meetings before then and 10:00 or 10:30 a.m. a morning to do gaggle, that would require more prep and time, then i would miss most or at least some of those meetings and those are key. prepared and more toe comfortable trying answer questions authoritatively if i was in the room and i heard the discussion and they understood and participated in exactly what was happening. what i think would be a good

idea, and this will not be universally welcomed, is to off-camera anden on camera briefings. ,t's very hard to do both especially now. what robert found out is the old days, like when i started in the early clinton years there were a handful of people who would come to the press secretary's office for the gaggle, that does not work. robert found he had to move it to allow for all the people who had to be there and you had to take it out of the office into the briefing room. then people wanted to turn on the cameras and you get in this cycle where it was just going to be another briefing. it did not have the kind of informal value it had had in the past. i urge mymething that successor and sick -- successors

to consider. i found that the gaggle's i've done on air force one were just as substantive and a lot less cameracal than the on briefings. as you know, because you were around, mike mccurdy apologize for being the press secretary who agreed that the entirety of the briefing be on camera. i know why people wanted that. i certainly don't expect it would be reversed. it creates a different dynamic. there would be some value, i think, and having more of those off-camera gaggles. after a briefing, my team depending on what else is going on in the nature of the briefing, we sort of dissected

quickly and assess where there any things we needed to get back to people on, anything where a messed up and we needed to correct -- that almost never happens. the teams who represent different areas of policy would make sure that folks off they needed to what we were saying thet things either in policy councils are out in the agencies. in the modern communication world, this all becomes available so there was not a formal way or a more regular way of disseminating it. if there was a flag or some issue somebody needed to know about, it would move around pretty quickly. as i said, truthfully over the years, the president does not watch a lot of tv during the day and does not really ever watch any news tv.

he might hear about it from somebody else if there was an interesting exchange or read it later at night and i would hear from him if he had a comment. it's usually at night. >> michael. >> i'm assuming you've got to know him well personally. i'm kind of curious why publicly sometimes,oof unlikable. what's your view on why that public image persists? doesn'tld argue that it , when you say that broadly. the first president in more than your lifetime to be elected twice with more than 50% of the vote. you have to be pretty likable to have that happen. i think there are two things that i can say about that

perception that some have. one of the very compelling and distinct things about barack obama is he was not on the national stage until fairly shortly before he was elected president. is he was, ins ways that his predecessors were not, a fully formed person before people were looking at him as a potential president. ofwas not a creature washington. he did not spend much time here. he was a senator only for a few years before elected and that to how he is as a person compared to a lot of people who run for the office. you can argue there are downsides to that. are downsides to being a creature of washington and having those relationships, to

be sure. when he took office, president obama, i would argue, was a lot more unlike and in touch with the experiences of non-washington people than the usual occupant of the office. part -- a lot of this welleen written and said -- he's not an individual person topolitician who is reactive the emotions in the sort of swings of everyday politics in washington. there are upsides and downsides. i would argue the outbound ways the down because it means -- the up outweighs the downs. he looks at issues and

challenges with a night to the horizon as opposed to winning the day. when you are on his columns team him tos team your urging do something and he does not do it that way. more often than not, he's been right in that decision. side, i've said this before, it's a great thing about this country and it says so much that one reason i found it so easy to work with him and have developed a relationship with him is that we are not unalike, which is pretty amazing. he's three and a half years older than im, has kids a little older than mine. , i felt a lot in common with him. say one of the myths, i think i mentioned this somewhere, maybe charlie rose, when you are president of the united states and you have that

they playing, there is a bedroom that's really nice and an office that's really big on the plane. if you want to be alone, you can spend all your time in those spaces. in the miles i traveled with him, which were many, never spent any time in those rooms. he's in the conference room with people around him all the time engaged in conversations, watching sports, reading briefing books, playing cards. i think that reflects his nature. >> justin. >> i have a personal and maybe a follow-up. >> what's the question? >> i wanted to ask about russia. notow you said you are interested in the ambassador job, but there seems about --

>> my wife is not interested. [laughter] >> there are a lot of people who suggested that at some point you are interested in that job or had conversations about it. i wanted to ask if that was something you ever discussed with people or the president even though it has not come to fruition. >> the truth is there were some --ks -- not the president who looking at my record, my interests, my background thought it would be a great idea. there was some story that said i was lobbying for it. to the extent there were any discussions, i was lobbying against it, not that it was ever a real thing. there's a certain romantic

circularity to it. if i were ever able to do something like that, but it's not something i ever expressed any real interest in. .o there's that because of my seminal experience as a reporter is in the soviet union, being in what was then leningrad with me democratizing awareand being vaguely that this lieutenant of his, was also on his team and having him now be who he is, that will always be interesting to me but not in service of the government. ande will go next to peter, .ulie, ryan, neil

you've learned a lot about media that you got to see from the point of view. as you mentioned, reporters probably get 15% of what's going on. after 20 years of doing this, what surprised you most about how it works inside the white house that reporters don't got? don't get? >> right. what surprised me -- i think what is surprising is how human the enterprise is, how small the rooms are.

, very weightyd in a veryare made human way. i think there's a tendency when you cover a white house, the tendency i had, to make about control, but did not intent account for the fact that in the a lot of these issues have to be decided, and this is true of any white house of either party, by a handful of people dealing with the best collection of fact they might be able to get but invariably an incomplete election. in a veryion challenging environment usually.

you don't have the luxury when it gets to that room where the president is making the decision among the menu of options seeing the one that says you get everything you want just as you would have it be. , and ier side of that would assume this has been true for mike houses of both parties, is that the people in that room are trying to do the right thing as they see it. encouraged by what i saw from the very beginning as people dealing with -- with the economic collapse and through this day with a tough issues in trying to get it right and the way they thought best serve the country and its people.

mushy buts a little it is encouraging. , andnk there is a tendency i succumbed to it, to be very cynical about the decision-making process, very cynical about what the reasoning behind anything that a white house does is. as a tendency to assume that politics and political considerations drive every decision. i'm here to tell you that's definitely not the case. as someone on the communications political side, it would have been a lot more convenient had it been the case, but it's just not. for the country, i think that's a good thing. >> was there ever a time you felt tension between 21 years of trying to be a truth teller, in

effect, and five years now as mccurdy once said telling the truth slowly or finding ways of telling the truth that presented the best possible version of the truth but in maybe not what you would have written had you been a time magazine reporter? lot spendingd a the first two years in the white house as the vice president communication director in essentially, a behind-the-scenes job. there's only one podium job at the white house. nearly ast have been ready to take the podium if someone had suggested i do it right out of being a reporter because i think there's a lot you need to learn about how a white house works and how the policy process works and how decisions are made about the ways that you explain and

describe policy decisions that i was able to learn in two years. you and i have talked about this. hows shocked to find out the expertise i thought i had developed as a political reporter about communication strategies and white house communications was not really expertise and there was a lot to learn. i learned a lot thanks to others in the vp office, axelrod, gibbs, others on the president's team. to go to the other part of your question -- you know, i was talking to someone yesterday about this. i tried very hard. i was not a traditional old-school reporter in that i was not an advocate i did not take sides in my reporting. i did not feel like i had a

straitjacket but on me. i felt liberated. that only works if you actually believe in and agree with the policies you are advocating. i certainly did. but the problem for people not only in this job at other jobs in a white house or administration. you take a job because it's a good career move but you don't agree with what you're doing? that's a risky proposition especially if you're having to articulate and speak about it publicly. differingstrongly views inside the policy process. those are expressed and the president and vice president insist on that. you obviously know a lot more about what's going on when you are a press secretary. i understand what mike was saying when he said you tell the truth slowly. you only do this job

successfully if you tell the truth. i know he did the that -- he did that and i did. the media landscape has changed more dramatically from the time you've been in the white house than any previous time. i'm wondering if you could walk us through how to change is not the communication strategy per se but policymaking, the idea that you not only have news popping all the time but there could be a single tweet about starts changing the conversation. when i talk to those who serve in multiple administrations, they talk about how the policy teams operate particularly in crisis situations, domestic or international, is somewhat different given the media pressures. >> i will take a couple of wax at that. that.cks at

it's totally different. it's a different job and a whatrent atmosphere from it was when i first came in first term clinton and even from the bush years. ofovered the first term president george w. bush. media drives the discussion did not even exist inn and there is no question the public-facing parts of the white house that creates a totally different dynamic. mostly it's about trying to assess very quickly, because the it, whether or not we need to chase that ball down the field or if she would take a step back to wait and see where something is going that's

popping on twitter or elsewhere. push amonge great some to follow something and respond instantly and aggressively. what you find is that there is some wisdom in being discerning about doing that. twitter and social media have newted an environment where news grabs people attention much more quickly than it used to. the fires burn brighter but they burn out faster. there is wisdom and valor in waiting sometimes to see whether and how quickly you need to react. in the policy world, there are numerous ways this has a profound effect, just this bead with which a very important

information guest policy especially in the foreign-policy world where you have the impact of social media in the arab spring and elsewhere. i think it also effects the way developed,licy has too, but the way i've seen it, at least, to have the most is in generally a good way, the rapidity with which policymakers, journalists, and everyone else get information from some areas of the world where it was never is easily available as it is now. >> miles. can tellndering if you us whether you sat in on any meetings during your tenure in constitutional amendments were discussed and whether, with , the climaterience

of politics now in the changes that we've seen, the difficulties that governing is encountering. are there any kind of constitutional amendments that you yourself would imagine a big improvement in the way things get done? >> i've certainly been in a lot of meetings where policy has been discussed. we made clear the president's views around the campaign and theissue possibility that an amendment is the only way to address some of what we've seen in the wake of citizens united. the only one that comes to mind when it comes to a constitutional amendment. [no audio]

>> i have not really thought about it in terms of an amendment to the constitution. of experts on electoral politics have noted that we have a real issue, i think, when it comes to the way the district are drawn in congress and the impact it has in creating ever more polarized politics here. i think i would associate myself with the prevailing wisdom that addressing that issue would probably be an official to the body politic. i'm not sure that requires a constitutional amendment, but it certainly would not be a bad idea. class ryan. >> you said earlier the best pieces of advice you got were not to guess. what's the best piece of advice you have passed along to josh? how do you think his experience

being in the briefing room for so long might help him in a way that perhaps you did not have going in? yesterday, and i absolutely believe it, that there has never been anyone as ready to take over the job as josh is now. been abecause he's deputy press secretary from the beginning of this white house and in my nearly three and a half years he's been the principal deputy. if i need to go do a teacher conference, baseball game, kids , i have asked josh to fill in for me at the podium a fair number of times during this time . there was nothing like that experience, i can tell you. with ae sessions i did handful of people in a room before i took the podium did not adequately simulate what the briefing is really like.

josh has done that. i think it's different from answering questions on a tv show or just on the record in a conversation with a reporter. it's a unique experience and josh is ready for it. he's had it. i pass on some of the obvious advice to josh. he's not going out for the first time. i've told him what i've learned and i think he's demonstrated that he's absorbed whatever good advice i've given them. i think what i would, however, and will tell josh going forward is that it's important internally, and this goes back to the question that alexis , to listen carefully

and those meetings you are participating in so that you hear from the president and of thethe parameters policy discussion. one of the wings so useful to me in being in meetings with the president when he was deliberating over policy decisions he had not made yet was the understanding of the universe of his thinking. that created beyond talking lines as our first answer to a question that gave me a sense of where i could go, but language i could use. i know i had a better sense of hearing him say it in those meetings what he might say if he were up there. always felt a lot of comfort if i had heard the president evenlf talk about an issue

obviously if he was talking about it and he was still midstream in the decision-making process about whether you still had to protect but i was able to understand the way it was thinking about it and it gave me he -- more confidence that was accurate in his thinking. when people talk about press secretary access and their role internally, that's the most important thing, you develop an way the president and other top policymakers think about things. >> is obviously done briefings before. do you go back and watch the game tape? everything,efore health care, national security, education, talk to me about what's new in some of those areas, what's new overnight. sometimes at the end of that

process, if there is a particularly contentious issue or one where precision is important especially in foreign policy, we will do a quick back-and-forth just in my office . i don't expect josh will be doing any formal mocks. he does not need them. >> you talked about wanting to bring back an off-camera gaggle. what are the different ways you are building the press operation from the ground up in a fantasy world? what it would look like if it was not all about -- >> the reference to the blackberry is about anachronisms? [laughter] about 36 more hours with this baby. [laughter] it's a great question.

are a lot of institutional constraints on the way the press office operates and interact with the press corps. there is inertia on both sides to any attempt to change any of .hose constraints talking about doing away with the briefing because it's become so much of a theater performance. i think that there probably is away, and we were talking about this earlier, to drain some of out. having a situation in an everyday basis, a spokesman from the white house is out there answering questions.

incould be that you do that an off-camera gaggle in the press secretary is available at different points of the day to do quick interviews. maybe that's the way to do it. i don't know. i think there is some dissatisfaction on all sides with the way that the briefing has evolved. we've done a lot within those constraints to change on the broader communications side what we do to modernize, take advantage of media development in social media. i know that has also caused some tension and i understand that. it would be that malpractice for anyone in our positions not to take advantage of social media.

i know that our successors will in ways that we cannot even imagine. .'ve always believed that peter, in some ways this goes back a little bit to your question in the whole thing about what percentage of wings, what percentage of what's going .n, what reporters know there are really good ones, and a lot of you in this room don't rely just on the briefings or the press releases for your stories. would -- wish you [laughter] reporter, the best ones certainly didn't and they do not today. it's just part of the information you get as you piece together your understanding of what's going on. >> we have about two minutes left.

>> deuce around the uncomfortable truth with a ,lizzard of uncomfortable facts where there e-mails between lois lerner and other members of the irs who could have been involved in some sort of conversation. did you know about those e-mails and did you like? no.he answer is >> did you lie? >> honestly, it's not because i'm a paragon of virtue. that would be a terrible way to do the job. when you cannot say is you don't. you take the question or you explain without revealing what you cannot say because these are internal deliberations or national security issues. , what theer question

irs is dealing with the terms and, i don't know all the details about what the next things are. i addressed e-mails from lois lerner yesterday and i would just refer you to them for what else they are doing on that issue. last lastll be the question. you understand the concept. >> and asking you are leaving with the midterms coming and there will be more of a struggle to get media attention than the white house has had in the previous year. what kind of advice would you give josh about that? how would you expect the operation to change given that? >> that's a great question. there are upsides potentially to the fact that, as i did, most of electionscited about

and the intensity of coverage shifts, especially the presidential beginning immediately after the midterms. i think there's an opportunity to continue to focus on what the white house has been focused on, which is getting as much done as he can in the time that he has. governance. and using every tool he has to make that happen. congress has not been particularly cooperative or to movean in efforts the president's agenda. an agenda shared by the majority of the american people. but that doesn't mean he cannot do a lot of important things and i think we have seen that this year. it does not mean that there are not any opportunities for getting significant legislation passed through congress.

not because republicans will suddenly decide that they want to do president obama a favor, but because they will see it in compromise on to some of these issues that are actually good for the economy and good for them politically, immigration reform being one of them. get peoplew do you to pay attention to what you are doing, there is an upside to having maybe not as much of that attention. but i think this would be true of any white house. there is the preoccupation with electoral politics in washington that is not shared outside of washington, certainly not this far out. and what you have seen us do come up president is

with as many ways as we can find to have him seen and heard talk about what he believes by americans who are not tuning into -- tuning in to political shows. -- ext am i sometimes what we need but it is the right thing to do. most people, especially in this media landscape, they don't consume it the way we do here. but they do care deeply about their own economic future and the future of their country and there are ways to engage with that we try to find an exploit and i'm sure our successors will go, too. >> people who want to ask

questions, my apologies. we have run out of time. much.nk you very it has been a pleasure. >> i have absolutely made no decisions about what i am doing spending a lot more time with my kids. it is an amazing thing, after the resident visited my daughter's little league game, they did not lose another game and they were sort of middle of the pack and they won the championship on saturday. but i look forward to spending time -- my son is 12. as parents with kids older than he is reminded me, it will not be that one before he is not that interested in hanging out with his dad so i am going to do that first. >> did you keep a journal for a book/>> i didn't, probably because of the volume that i

talked about. i took notes to keep track of what was going on. we were talking about this earlier. my wife came out with a book and i lived that process twice with her. as anybody knows from personal experience, writing a book seems to me something that is very demanding. and i wrote for a living for 21 years. ien i came to the vp office, said i am not writing speeches because i found that really hard. i am looking to relax a little bit. writing is not what i am looking to do. >> thank you. >> next on c-span, a news conference with house republicans after leadership elections. that is followed by seven republican senators discussing their opposition to president obama's foreign policies.

that xirs has reported irs official lois lerner's e-mail and the e-mails are lost. you can see it live starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. $10 million in bonuses was made out by the phoenix be a -- .hoenix v.a. system friday, the house veterans affairs committee holds a hearing to examine bonuses at the veterans affairs office. >> the thesis of the book is that there is a whole group of

america, a big swath of america, that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion i think for either party. -- particularly, i would say the republican party, the blue-collar, the folks that are working people. most of them don't have college degrees. folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and the responsibility of people who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. you say, well, those are conservative republican voters. in many cases, they are not. a lot of them are not voting at all because they don't see either party talking to them about the concerns they have and trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. rick santorum argues that

working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers conservative answers to their problems saturday night at 10:00 eastern part of the tv" on c-span 2. arethis weekend, we discussing "the forgotten man." tv, television for serious readers. >> thursday, house republicans elected kevin mccarthy of california to be the next house majority leader and steve scully's to be the next majority scalise to be the next majority whip. after the results were announced, speaker boehner spoke with reporters.

>> i want to congratulate two new members of our leadership team. kevin mccarthy is our new majority leader and steve scalise is our new majority whip. i want to thank my colleagues to participated in this election. focus on theto priorities of the american people. our job is to make sure we are doing everything we can to promote our economy, create more jobs and higher wages for the american people. let me turn it over to our new majority leader kevin mccarthy.

foremost, i want to thank my constituents and my colleagues for the trust that they have instilled in me. .merica is struggling we are struggling within it -- with a staggering economy and so many are living paycheck to paycheck. they are looking for individuals that put people before politics. i make one promise. day towork every single make sure this conference has the courage to lead with the wisdom to listen. and we will turn this country around. >> i want to thank my colleagues and my constituents for the honor they have interested in me to be the next majority whip. i am looking forward to bring a fresh new voice to our leadership table and join with this team with the challenges that people all across country

are facing. we have conservative solutions that will solve the problems facing our country great we have reached out to the president to join us in solving those problem's but we will continue to work in the house as a united team to address those problems and continue to put our country back. >> this has been a big day for the republicans and i am proud to stand with their new leadership team for the hundred and 13th congress and congratulations to our new majority leader kevin mccarthy and any majority whip, steve scalise. we are united.

and more than anything, we are united. we are united in our efforts to move america forward, make america strong. make sure moms and dads have more opportunities to provide, bring home higher paychecks for their children and provide for their families. we're united in getting americans back to work. we are united in getting the job done here on capitol hill. we want to be putting forward solutions, rather than continuing to see inaction out of the senate. we're going to continue to work on behalf of the people that have sent us here to make them proud and give them more opportunity. >> a couple questions. >> the second ballot here, a lot of people say the tests that counted on leadership, how did you have this number down that you were able to get -- >> we built a strong team representative of our entire conference. i'm proud to be the chairman of the republican study committee, which is 176 members of our conference. and i have worked very hard over that year and a half that i have been chairman to build consensus, to move conservative solutions forward in a way that unes our conference and solves problems facing our country. the results hi in that year and a half had broad appeal throughout our conference, and those who helped strengthen our time to address the problems

that face america. we have built a strong team, a team very representative of our entire conference, which shows. the conference wants to move forward even stronger so we can do a better job of addressing the problems facing the country and now have the white house and senate start working with us to join in and addressing those problems as well. this is a win for america because we're going to be a more united team moving forward. you look at a senate that's dysfunctional. there are so many bills that we passed to get our economy moving again, solve real problems facing hard-working taxpayers the senate doesn't even want to act on. the president doesn't want to engage, sit in the oval office with a pen acting like there's no legislative branch. people want to see people in washington working together to solve real problems. i think what this message sends is the house is very united to address those and now we're waiting, let the senate and president follow suit. >> mr. speaker, i have a

question for mr. mccarthy. sir, probably a lot of grass roots republicans out there, the kind that voted for dave against eric cantor saying are you guys kidding me? we got him out because we wanted a more conservative leadership and they elected a guy from one of the bluest states of the union in california. >> they elected a guy who is a grandson of a cattle rancher, son of a firefighter, only in america do you get that opportunity. they elected a guy that has only grown up through the grass roots. they elected a guy that's -- spends his time going around recruiting individuals to get the majority. i have always had to struggle for whatever we wanted to overcome. i think that's the greatest part about america, they always give you the privilege and the opportunity. that's what this party brings as well. i think you you get an opportunity, people will be very impressed about what we're going to do and where we're going to go.

>> thank you, thank you. >> next, president obama announces that he will send 300 military advisers to assist iraqi forces but no combat troops. this is happening our. an hour.s half >> good afternoon, everybody. i just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in iraq. we've been meeting regularly to review the situation since isil, a terrorist organization that operates in iraq and syria, made advances inside of iraq. as i said last week, isil poses a threat to the iraqi people, to the region, and to u.s. interests.

so today i wanted to provide you an update on how we're responding to the situation. first, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of iraq. as president, i have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas. so i've taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we've sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities. second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we've got a better picture of what's taking place inside of iraq. and this will give us a greater understanding of what isil is doing, where it's located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat. third, the united states will continue to increase our support to iraqi security forces. we're prepared to create joint operation centers in baghdad and northern iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of isil.

through our new counterterrorism partnership fund, we're prepared to work with congress to provide additional equipment. we have had advisors in iraq through our embassy, and we're prepared to send a small number of additional american military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support iraqi security forces going forward. american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq, but we will help iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the iraqi people, the region, and american interests as well. fourth, in recent days, we've positioned additional u.s. military assets in the region. because of our increased intelligence resources, we're developing more information about potential targets associated with isil. and going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.

if we do, i will consult closely with congress and leaders in iraq and in the region. i want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like isil will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like iraqis, take the lead. finally, the united states will lead a diplomatic effort to work with iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in iraq. at my direction, secretary kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the middle east and europe, where he'll be able to consult with our allies and partners. and just as all iraq's neighbors must respect iraq's territorial integrity, all of iraq's neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists. above all, iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for iraq's future.

shia, sunni, kurds -- all iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. national unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across iraq's different communities. now that the results of iraq's recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible. the formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all iraqis. now, it's not the place for the united states to choose iraq's leaders. it is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the iraqi people together and help them through this crisis. meanwhile, the united states will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of iraq at the expense of another. there's no military solution inside of iraq, certainly not

one that is led by the united states. but there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like isil a safe haven. in closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by america's war in iraq. alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 american patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the rest of their lives. here at home, iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we've seen some of those debates resurface. but what's clear from the last decade is the need for the united states to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action. the most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and

center -- the issue that i keep front and center -- is what is in the national security interests of the united states of america. as commander in chief, that's what i stay focused on. as americans, that's what all of us should be focused on. and going forward, we will continue to consult closely with congress. we will keep the american people informed. we will remain vigilant. and we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the united states and the safety of the american people. so with that, i'm going to take a couple of questions. i'll start with colleen mccain nelson of the wall street journal. >> thank you, mr. president. do you have any confidence in prime minister maliki at this point? and can maliki bring political stability to iraq? >> as i said, it's not our job to choose iraq's leaders. part of what our patriots fought for during many years in iraq was the right and the opportunity for iraqis to

determine their own destiny and choose their own leaders. but i don't think there's any secret that right now at least there is deep divisions between sunni, shia, and kurdish leaders. and as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it's going to be very hard for an iraqi central government to direct an iraqi military to deal with these threats. and so we've consulted with prime minister maliki, and we've said that to him privately. we've said it publicly that whether he is prime minister, or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which sunni, shia, and kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process. and we've seen over the last two

years, actually dating back to 2008, 2009 -- but i think worse over the last two years -- the sense among sunnis that their interests were not being served, that legislation that had been promised around, for example, de-ba'athification had been stalled. i think that you hear similar complaints that the government in baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them in to a process that gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single nation-state. and that has to be worked through. part of the reason why we saw better-equipped iraqi security forces with larger numbers not be able to hold contested

territory against isil probably reflects that lack of a sense of commitment on the part of sunni communities to work with baghdad. and that has to be fixed if we're going to get through this crisis. jim acosta. >> thank you, mr. president. americans may look at this decision that you're making today as a sneak preview of coming attractions; that the number of advisors that you're planning to send in may just be the beginning of a boots-on-the-ground scenario down the road. why is iraq's civil war in the national security interests of the united states? and are you concerned about the potential for mission creep? >> i think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what i've said in the past -- american combat troops are not going to be fighting in iraq again. we do not have the ability to

simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in iraq. ultimately, this is something that is going to have to be solved by the iraqis. it is in our national security interests not to see an all-out civil war inside of iraq, not just for humanitarian reasons, but because that ultimately can be destabilizing throughout the region. and in addition to having strong allies there that we are committed to protecting, obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continues to be important. we also have an interest in making sure that we don't have a safe haven that continues to grow for isil and other

extremist jihadist groups who could use that as a base of operations for planning and targeting ourselves, our personnel overseas, and eventually the homeland. and if they accumulate more money, they accumulate more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great dangers not just to allies of ours like jordan, which is very close by, but it also poses a great danger potentially to europe and ultimately the united states. we have already seen inside of syria that -- or groups like isil that right now are fighting with other extremist groups, or an assad regime that was non-responsive to a sunni majority there, that that has attracted more and more

jihadists or would-be jihadists, some of them from europe. they then start traveling back to europe, and that, over time, can create a cadre of terrorists that could harm us. so we have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed. we have strategic interests in stability in the region. we have counterterrorism interests. all those have to be addressed. the initial effort for us to get situational awareness through the reconnaissance and surveillance that we've already done, coupled with some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what the situation is -- starting, by the way, with the perimeter around baghdad and making sure that that's not overrun -- that's a

good investment for us to make. but that does not foreshadow a larger commitment of troops to actually fight in iraq. that would not be effective in meeting the core interests that we have. >> just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in iraq? any regrets about that decision in 2011? >> well, keep in mind that wasn't a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the iraqi government. we offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise iraqi security forces. we had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have u.s. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation,

that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court. that's a core requirement that we have for u.s. troop presence anywhere. the iraqi government and prime minister maliki declined to provide us that immunity. and so i think it is important though to recognize that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we've also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.

juliet eilperin. >> mr. president, you just mentioned syria a moment ago. the united states has been slow to provide significant weapons and training directly to the syrian opposition. has the expansion of the syria war into iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we're now willing to give the opposition there? is that what prompted secretary kerry to say of syria, "we are augmenting our assistance in significant ways"? and can you elaborate on what you are you doing now that you weren't doing before? >> that assessment about the dangers of what was happening in syria have existed since the very beginning of the syrian civil war. the question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem. the question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists

that might have been pouring in, as well as an assad regime supported by iran and russia that outmanned them and was ruthless. and so we have consistently provided that opposition with support. oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained, how effective are you able to mobilize them. and that continues to be a challenge. and even before the situation that we saw with isil going into

iraq, we had already tried to maximize what we could do to support a moderate opposition that not only can counteract the brutality of assad, but also can make sure that in the minds of sunnis they don't think that their only alternative is either mr. assad or extremist groups like isil or al nusra. >> and can you speak to what you might be doing differently, as the secretary of state alluded to? >> well, i think that the key to both syria and iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country working with the moderate syrian opposition, working with an iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the

region pulling in the same direction. and i alluded to this in the west point speech. i talked about it today with respect to the counterterrorism partnership fund. there is going to be a long-term problem in this region in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values. and at the same time, we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing. and rather than try to play whac-a-mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships, make sure that they have capacity. some of the assets that have been devoted solely to

afghanistan over the last decade we've got to shift to make sure that we have coverage in the middle east and north africa. you look at a country like yemen -- a very impoverished country and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions -- there, we do have a committed partner in president hadi and his government. and we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground at the same time as we've got enough ct, or counterterrorism capabilities that we're able to go after folks that might try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism into europe or the united states. and looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be part of the solution in dealing with both syria and

iraq. but in order for us to do that, we still need to have actual governments on the ground that we can partner with and that we've got some confidence are going to pursue the political policies of inclusiveness. in yemen, for example, a wide-ranging national dialogue that took a long time, but helped to give people a sense that there is a legitimate political outlet for grievances that they may have. peter maer. >> thank you, sir. going back to where you see prime minister al-maliki playing a role at this point, you said that it's a time to rise above differences, that there's a need for more inclusive government. is he a unifier? and how much clout does the united states ultimately have with any of the leadership in

iraq at this point really? >> well, we still provide them significant assistance. i think they recognize that, unlike some other players in the region, we don't have territorial ambitions in their country. we're not looking to control their assets or their energy. we want to make sure that we're vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our troops in giving them an opportunity to build a stable, inclusive society that can prosper and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations of the iraqi people. and at the same time, they are a sovereign country. they have their own politics. and what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems. now that they are in crisis, we

are indicating to them that there is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue. if you start seeing the various groups inside of iraq simply go to their respective corners, then it is almost certain that baghdad and the central government will not be able to control huge chunks of their own country. the only way they can do that is if there are credible sunni leaders, both at the national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a shia majority, that the kurds, that all those folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country. right now, that doesn't exist. there's too much suspicion, there's too much mistrust.

and the good news is that an election took place in which despite all this mistrust, despite all this frustration, despite all this anger, you still had millions of iraqis turn out -- in some cases, in very dangerous circumstances. you now have a court that has certified those elections, and you have a constitutional process to advance government formation. so far, at least, the one bit of encouraging news that we've seen inside of iraq is that all the parties have said they continue to be committed to choosing a leadership and a government through the existing constitutional order. so what you're seeing i think is, as the prospects of civil war heighten, many iraq leaders stepping back and saying, let's

not plunge back into the abyss; let's see if we can resolve this politically. but they don't have a lot of time. and you have a group like isil that is doing everything that it can to descend the country back into chaos. and so one of the messages that we had for prime minister maliki but also for the speaker of the house and the other leadership inside of iraq is, get going on this government formation. it'll make it a lot easier for them to shape a military strategy. it'll also make it possible for us to partner much more effectively than we can currently. >> given the prime minister's track record, is he a unifier? can he play that role after what we've seen play out over the last couple of weeks is brought into play? >> i think the test is before him and other iraqi leaders as

we speak. right now, they can make a series of decisions. regardless of what's happened in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of iraq hangs in the balance, and the test for all of them is going to be whether they can overcome the mistrust, the deep sectarian divisions, in some cases just political opportunism, and say this is bigger than any one of us and we've got to make sure that we do what's right for the iraqi people. and that's a challenge. that's not something that the united states can do for them. that's not something, by the way, that the united states armed forces can do for them. we can provide them the space, we can provide them the tools. but ultimately, they're going to have to make those decisions. in the meantime, my job is to make sure that american personnel there are safe; that

. -- that american personnel there are safe, that we are consulting with the iraqi security forces that we're getting a better assessment of what's on the ground; and that we're recognizing the dangers of isil over the long term, and developing the kinds of comprehensive counterterrorism strategies that we're going to need to deal with this issue. and that's going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that isil is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly or our allies and partners. but it also is going to require some long-term strategies, as well. because part of what we've with respect to isil is a broader

trend that i talked about at west point -- rather than a single network, a discreet network of terrorists, this fluid combination of hardened terrorists, disaffected local leadership. and where there's vacuums, they're filling it and creating the potential for serious danger for all concerned. thank you very much. >> on iran, mr. president, any words on what you're willing to do, and are you also willing to work with them? >> our view is that iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the iraqi government that we're sending, which is that iraq only holds together if it's inclusive and that if the interests of sunni, shia, and kurd are all respected.

if iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the shia, and if it is framed in that fashion, then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would actually be constructive over the long term. >> what's your sense of that right now? >> well, i think that just as iraq's leaders have to make decisions, i think iran has heard from us. we've indicated to them that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war. and the one thing that i think has to be emphasized -- we have deep differences with iran across the board on a whole host of issues. obviously, what's happened in

syria in part is the result of iran coming in hot and heavy on one side. and iran obviously should consider the fact that if its view of the region is solely through sectarian frames, they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places. and that's probably not good for the iranian economy or the iranian people over the long term either. i suspect there are folks in iran who recognize that. a iraq in chaos on their borders is probably not in their interests. but old habits die hard, and we'll have to see whether they can take what i think would be a more promising path over the next several days. thank you very much, everybody.

>> on the next washington journal, donna edwards discusses the 2014 elections and democratic efforts to turn out women voters. and altered jones talks about the military, political, and diplomatic options available to the u.s. in iraq. you can join the conversation. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. thate irs has reported s crashed computer had been recycled and her e-mails lost. you can see it live starting at

9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> the idea between 250 and 250 the minds that are trying to tell the entire story of st. louis by era, we would miss vitally important things. instead of doing that, we decided what if we just a snapshots of st. louis history that would give people a glimpse of all the diverse things that have happened here and they can use their imagination to fill in the rest. people, 50 50 places, 50 moments, 50 images, and 50 objects and tried to choose the most diverse selection we possibly could. >> we are standing in the exhibit right now. this is where most people would call the real history.

this is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a great part of san luis cost history -- st. louis's history. it is when anheuser-busch was the largest in the world here in in the era of anheuser-busch, talking about millions of barrels produced each year, they are producing so much beer. this is from an era when things were a little bit simpler and it is fun to show people the subject and kind of gauge their response. in the days before they had cans or bottle caps, that the corks in the top of bottles during somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. you can see it has foot pedals on the bottom. that is where the operator would push down with his feet to give the court enough force to get in the bottle. it has three holes for three different sized bottles. >> this weekend, the history and literary life of st. louis, the gateway to the west on c-span two of tv and c-span 3 american

history tv. >> seven republican senators came to the senate floor and the day to criticize president's foreign. senator john mccain is the first speaker. this is 50 minutes. minutes. >> today, we see reports that new isis has taken over the major oil refinery in iraq. names that we used to hear quite often like mocities that are under the playing flag of al qaeda and isis which is worse than al qaeda if that can be believ believed. we now see the forces of isis

marching on baghdad itself, which i don't believe they can take, but the second largest city is now under the black flag and quantities of military equipment is falling into the hands of what is now a syria-iraq largest terrorist, richest largest base for terrorism in history. this is all come about in the last couple weeks and what is the united states of america done? today we see on the front page of the "washington post" u.s. see risks in iraqi airstrikes. the president of the united states goes for fundraising and golfing and is now fiddling while iraq burns. we need act, mr. president. but we need to understand why we

are where we are today. the senator from south carolina and i visited iraq on many occasi occasions. more than i can count and know were a fact we could have left a residual force behind and we would not be where we are today. if the president of the united states wanted to leave a force he never made it clear to the american people. the president said quote what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq. that would tie us down. he celebrated in 2011 the departure of the last -- as he described it, the last combat soldier from iraq and was of our defect and we didn't leave the force behind we are paying a price and the people of iraq are paying a heavier price.

what do we need to do? we need to understand there are no good options remaining. this is a cull forming of failure after failure of this administration. but for us to do nothing will ensure this base of terrorism, over a hundred, have come back to the united states of america. there are hundreds and hundreds who are leaving the battlefield in syria and iraq and they will pose a direct threat to the the security of the united states. i say to the critics who say do nothing and let them fight it out. you cannot confine this conflict to iraq and syria. the director of national intelligence and secretary of homeland security said that these people will be planning attacks on the united states of america. so what do we need to do? of course malkey has to be

transitioned out but the only way that is going to happen is to assure the iraqis will be to assist. and no one i know wants to send combat troop on the ground. but airstrikes are an important factor, psychologically and in other ways. we cannot afford to allow a syria-iraq enclave that will pose a threat to the united states of america and if we act we going to have the act in syria as well. a residual force could have checked the conflict. and what are the iranians doing while we are not making decisions? the head of the kurd's force is

the one of the most evil people on earth was reported to be in baghdad. i say to my colleagues we must make this threat and the president of the united states must make decisions and i am convinced the national security of the united states of america is at risk here and the sooner that all of us realize it the better off we will be. i yield to my collyialolleaguao south carolina. >> the senator from south carolina. >> i would ask to be recognized for four minutes. >> without objection. >> thank you. mr. president, contrary to what maybe poplar belief there are plenty of democrats worried about iraq. the question is what do we do it about it. it is complicated. but we have to asess does it

matter what happens with iraq? yes, i think it does. iraq could be a fail state that spreads against the country you will feel at the gas pump and at the wallet. it will affect the world oil market and throw it into turmoil. military does it matter? it does in this regard. isis is an off shoot of al qaeda because they al qaeda kicked them out. they will have safety from syria to the gates of baghdad. they are sworn to attack us. part of their agenda is to strike our homeland. their goal is to create an islamic state that would put the

people under their rule into darkness and i don't know want to hear war about women studies unless you address iraq and syria. you want to see a war on women i will show you one. can you imagine what little girls are thinking today in the sunni part of iraq and syria? the hell on on earth. the people that will do that to their own what would they do us. i don't mean to be an alarmist but i am alarmed. i am telling you what they are saying they will do. our director of national intelligence said the safe haven for isis in syria and now iraq presents a great threat to the homeland. the mistake the president is making is not to realize we need lines of defense. 10,000-15,000 would have given

the iraq military the capacity they don't have and con -- confidence -- they have today. and you have seen the collapse of iraqi army i thought would keep us safe. you cannot kill all of the terrorist to keep us safe. our goal is to keep the war over there so it doesn't come over here. it is in our national security interest to partner with people in iraq and there were many who wanted a different life than isis would have. many shia's want to be iraqiraq shia's not iranian. so the decision to look for ways

to get out totally has come back it haunt us and we are on the verge of doing the same in afghanistan. the taliban would be dancing in the street, they just don't believe in dancing, when they heard we were leaving in 2016. can you imagine how the afghan people feel believing we would not abandon them that we are pulling out the troops. can you imagine how the young women in afghanistan and pakistan feel? they could be in the cross hairs of the people trying to take afghanistan down. but what about us? president obama is going back to a pre-9/11 day. those in america who think if you leave these guys alone they will leave you alone you are not listening to what they are saying and the only reason 3,000

died on september 11th and not three million is because cannot get the weapons. but if they could they would. and they are close. the taliban will regroup and the afghan army will meet a terrible fate and the people that wish us harm will come back our way. the region is a target for radical islamic. at the end of the day your job is to protect us. the afghan people are willing to have us stay there in enough numbers to protect them and us. mr. president, before it is too late change your policy in afghanistan. don't take this country back to pre-9/11 mentality when you treat terrorist their rights rather than gather intelligence.

we are letting down our defense all over the world. if we continue on this track it will come here again. i yield the floor to senator chandler. >> senator from georgia. >> i rise to join my colleagues in talking about the direction of foreign policy especially relating to the middle east. the policy has unravelled and the president made it a priority and attempted to forge a new beginning between the muslim world and the united states. the middle east over the last three years have been beseized by resurgeance of violence, instability and terrorism. the administration has chosen to confront the challenge that has

implications for u.s. security by leading from behind and relying on a strategy that includes view concrete measures. the shortcoming of the strategy are evident in both syria and iraq. and in september of last year the administration praised the u.s. russian deal disarm syria of its chemical weapons and buy time for a diplomatic solution. here we have today where the syrian have missed deadlines, have chemical weapons and continue to use barrel bombs filled with chlorine and other chemicals. in addition to the disaster that unfolded in syria allowing to status quo to continue has given

the islamic state and others the save haven they needed to grow into the force we phase -- face -- tide. and terrorist are training in syria today planning to attack in america and american interest. i have heard some in this body talk about the intelligence failures of iraq. the intelligence community makes fair share of mistakes and i am the first to criticize them when they do. but these recent events including the resurgeance of isil are policy and leadership failures. they provided warning of the declining security situation in rebecca libya but