iran but a lot to do with taking prilidges away from the revolutionary guard and back to the first generation of the revolutionary republic. their clan around him. >> you might want to discuss a little bit in this regard, it's related, your confrontation with foreign minister czar reef. >> sure. >> use that as a jumping off point. >> sure. a few months ago, i attended a lutch with foreign minister czar riff and a few other people. after the lunch i approached him and asked him if he thought it was iranic posting on facebook when his government bans it in iran. to which he replays hah hah that's life. that's word for word what he said. and then i said, when will one of iran's most famous political prisoners be free in and he

says, i don't know who that is. so i published this in the daily beast that the foreign minister doesn't know one of iran's most famous political prisoners. and it got picked up from there. thousands wrote him on facebook a lot of pressure they released him on furlough for about a week. and then when the media pressure died down he was put right back into prison. 15, k interesting was my 20 minute debate/confrontation with the u.n. ambassador at the time when i approached him about the same issues, i said why is it that the foreign minister gets to post on facebook when it's banned in iran and he said, word for word, are the facebook and twitter band in iran? i assured him that they were. and i list add whole bunch of political prisoners. and i said when will they be

free? and he says i don't know who that is. then i sad have you heard about this one? and he said she's the only one i've heard of because her name is in the media. i think he's lying about the others but it's a testament to the power of the media to raise these names. now, during lunch he founded and i do not exaggerate slightly between a cross like mother tweesa and gandhi. in his telling there is no government on the planet more dedicated to peace and freedom and democracy and justice, and it's sad to report that he has succeeded in convincing many of the world's governments and much of the world's media. when i left that lunch, a very renowned journalist said, isn't he so wonderful?

and there were very few difficult questions. and this is the sort of situation which i hope to change. any time an iranian diplomat steps outside of his office he should be confronted with the names of the political prisoners. i think there's a direct link to how much pressure we put on this vicious theocratic regime and how much they open. the fact that even in today's age they let tave coley out of prison even for a week after this international outcry says that the same model used for soviet dissidents to raise the international pressure is still effective. used to work for one of the government officials. and they said why did you release shir an ski? and he said everywhere i went

the only thing they would talk with me about is shirnski. . you can ask about they would bring up their names and that had a real effect on soviet policy. so that was just one small confrontation but one that we can all be part of recreating over and over so we don't let the regime get away with their absolutely absurd narrative that things are getting better when there are still thousands of people in prison. >> go ahead. >> i just want to say this goes to people don't get the importance of what david's talking about. but even during the holocaust all ean countries found -- the danes who were very good at this, found that when people wrote letters to concentration

camp prisoners, sent them presents, wrote them post cards, whatever, that they had a much better survival rate than people who didn't get attention. and that was because in part writing to them, calling them out, naming them, putting their names on lists given to foreign ministers and so on removes the cloak of anonymity from them because it is much easier for regimes to kill anonymous people than it is to kill people who have real names and real faces and people out there in the world who are calling attention to them. this has worked over and over and over again. >> i want to press all of you on this in a way. t strikes me that letters to officials would probably not

have saved james foley. at the same time, it also seems to me that among organizations that are identifyably and self-identifyably jihaddists, whether the islamic state or republic, there are common goals, common themes even if there are different strategies. how do we understand that? do we say the iranian regime is much more moderate than the islamic state? it puts journalists in prison but doesn't cut their heads off. we should recognize that and talk about that as progress? r, should we see all these various self-proclaimed jihaddist groups as essentially similar even if their strategies are different? >> one of the issues i think the iranian government, one of the things they really want to avoid is diplomatic isolation. they really fear. and what they have been

particularly happy about when it comes to nuclear negotiations is that they genuinely believe that if they give some tactical concessions in the nuclear issue nobody would care talking about human rights situations in iran. and this is a policy that they have been pursuing. these are the statements that mr. ham ni himself is making in public. and it is also some of the threats that he is making against the u.s. government saying that if we accept your nuclear terms do not come after us with the human rights issues. the answer of the obama administration and i think all civilized governments in the world is no there is actually a connection between the nuclear issue and human rights questions. how a regime treats its own population at home also relates to the way it would behave in international and political settings. and this is the connection i think that we really need to make here in the west and

threaten them saying sanctions do not only apply if you reach with your contractual obligations. there is also something called human rights and do not forget the u.s. got and the u.s. president has on many, many occasions made direct addresses to the the iranian public. how do you think the iranian public would feel if they are totally abandoned by washington and washington only cares when it comes to nuclear issues? it is a very, very important message that washington needs to send. to the iran government and to the iranian public. >> i would say the supporting dissidents is not just a moral issue it's a strategic issue as well. faufl was say famous for saying there can be no peace inside of countries until there is peace in how it treats its people. d iran torturing and jailing

dissidents will treat its enemies with mag anymorety is a rather silly contention. but the way it was used in the soviet context was it was a tool to end the soviet union. and so too it can be used in the iranian context. and we -- when you look at the boldness of someone like senator jackson who confronted the soviet union and directly linked most favored status, that was a tool which drove them absolutely crazy. and if you read the memoirs of these guys, you see that when carter or reagan would bring up the names of dissidents, they really hated it. and i think that's one sign that it's the right approach. i think that human rights is a real achilles heel of the iranian regime because they are depend bt upon external actors to some degree. their economy is being hit hard. and i think if we understand

this human rights issue not just as the right thing to do morally but that opening up this closed society is absolutely critical to the peace and stability of the region, we'll begin to war ze it as a tool in the against dit takorship. -- dictatorship. >> i've been writing this for 30 years that there's a real identity, and i think david put it exactly right. this is an identity between moral imperatives and strategic sexaretives. it's rare that you find such a perfect fit of one to the other. degree to which the myth of rue wanie has been created along the same lines as the myth of gorbachev.

it's a real throwback for me. because i remember back in those days as one soviet dictator after another emerged they were always had their loveable human aspects. were -- d jazz, they they had been head of the kgb bot. they liked -- there was a human element to them and so on. rue hanie is a man of the system. he is a pure product of the system. he came of age in it, he worked in it all his life. he's always bone a loyal servant of the system itself. and now here he is at the top and people don't talk much about what he is really all about and what he really wants. why does he take all these different positions? because the main game that's being played inside iran right now among the various factions who are contending among one another is who is going to

secede common aid? -- ham ni? he is believed to be sick. he's truly died long since if he is anywhere near as sick as the stories say he is. but anyway, people think he's sick and no one would be surprised, let's put it this way, quietly, carefully, no one would be surprised if he dropped dead tomorrow. so all these various characters, e rue wanies, the acmani nidgejadge. they're al maneuvering for the succession. that's what i've called the war of the person succession. so rue hanie is basically acquiring support everywhere. that means that each individual faction has greater autonomy and has greater run at its own enemies. and that is why in part -- i mean, his government is setting

records for executions for turs, sensorships, so on and so forth. worse than nidgejad who was the stereo type of the nasty vicious hard liner. and rue han aeie who is the stereo type of the angel child mulea is objectively by any measure worse, much worse. so this tells us among other things that there are these fractures inside. i want to make one point about what we know and what we don't know, since you started with that, about the known unknowns. in iran there are a lot of known unknowns. if you just look at our history in anticipating internal developments inside the country, look at the big uprising of 2009 which was bigger than the uprising that overthrew the shah in 1979. more people in the streets, covered larger areas of the

country, so on and so forth. i think it's fair to say that no one inside government saw that coming. no one in serious position either to make policy or affect policy. they were amazed. because up until then the conventional wisdom had been there is no opposition of any standing or significance inside iran. and even if it exist t they don't have leaders that people are going to follow. so it doesn't matter. just forget about it. there isn't going to be insurrecks inside iran. theen people said of course it was there. we knew it was there. it was there all along. you could see it. and of course blah blah blah. and then they added. and it's irresistable. if you go back and read the press of 2009, june and onwards, you'll see that the intelligence community and the policy making

community, they are saying we don't have to do anything because these people are irresistable. look at them all. they're going to win. it's sort of a precurser of the assad is going to fall. no, assad is going to win. no, assad is going to fall. no assad is going to win. types of conventional wisdoms. so the bottom line, we don't know. we didn't know in 2009. and we don't know today. what we do know is that the regime acts as if there was something serious to be afraid of. we can say that. this increase in slaughter and mayhem, the increase in censorship, all of that, that bespeaks a regime which doesn't ink it has control and which this -- so whenever more than three people gather on a street corner in any major street in the country, they're either

broken up, beaten up, or sent home or whatever. >> michael, you talked about record numbers of executions, incarcerations. i guarantee you that most people don't know that, most people think that we're in a period of post ahmadinejad of reform and moderation. if you simply read the media as i suggested earlier i think you would get that impression. maybe if you come to think tanks you would have a different understanding. does that not suggest -- let me start with ali on this, that the regime is doing very well on public relations, in fact it's winning the public relations war right now and perhaps the media is not doing their job in terms of covering iran? >> absolutely. i think it's very clear, if you compare mr. rue hani to his predecessor mr. ahmadinejad, mr. are you hani is a sophisticated man. he speaks like a lawyer.

he's a trained lawyer. mr. ahmadinejad was an engineer but spoke like a truck driver. re rohan hawaii is in silk robes. these are some of the findings f this government. mr. ahmadinejad managed to isolate iran diplomatically. they are in reality bringing iran out of diplomatic isolation. so yes they are succeeding and the western media is not paying the attention they should. they should to begin with start reading what he has said all over the years. back in 1999, iran, the islamic republic, experienced ets most serious political unrest. that was the tehran university unrest which spread to the

entire country which politician do you think it was who went to the public and supported the revolutionary guard and the police suppression of the students movement? mr. rue hani who systemically called the iranian students foreign agents. it was he who systemically as chairman of the supreme national security council was banning newspapers and now people are expecting that he of all the people is going to allow freedom of the press? why? why? this is why i believe is the mistake of the western press that they do not pay attention. they do not take a look at the history of those individuals. therefore, they have expectations which is totally immature. some younger people in tehran have these kind of expectations. this is why they voted for him.

but you cannot blame them. they are young and naive. here in washington people are not so young but naive. this is one of the complaints that i have when it comes to u.s. government view of the rohanie cabinet. >> i think the regime has succeeded in making 98% of the discourse of the nuclear issue, maybe even higher, and convinced the west is how to prevent iran from getting nuke deleer weapons. without nuclear weapons, with purely conventional arms, hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the last 150 years. 200,000 people slaughtered in syria, 800,000 in rwanda, tens of millions in world war ii. so i think we need to dramatically and unequivocally restore the focus to the human rights question. when his wife was touring the state department one time in the 80's she would tell a story that there was a huge map on the wall

and one of the senior state department officials said with all due respect you don't really expect us to relegate your husband's release to all these important geostrategic challenges. what you don't understand is those issues won't be resolved until my husband is released. and i think we're aware of the informations. there are lists of hundreds of thousands of political prisoners but many people don't get the link between internal freedom and external peace. and just real quick about the issue of the letters ba baghdadie. emboldning dissidents also encourages those movements inside iran. there's nothing more fearful for a disdent than feeling alone and isolated and not cared about by the rest of the world. we can do an enormous amount to increase the strength of disdent movements inside authoritarian countries simply by speaking out and supporting them. this helps gives them the

impetus to rise up against those who throw them in prison. i think that's another issue that the west doesn't understand. and i completely agree about missing what has become conventional wisdom of even the arab spring. it's fantastic to look back at the predictions of supposedly smart people in 2009 newsweek said that the best thing for syria was a wise and cares madic leader named assad and in 2010 kerry said he was a partner for peace, prosperity and stability. and in 2011, they said syria was an island of stability. those talking about egypt as a rock of stability in an island of stability and secretary clinton's famous remark on january 25 is our assessment that the egyptian government is stable. all of these were false and just dangerously wrong in no small part i think because they weren't listening and they missed the fact that the amount

of double thinkers is always bigger than we think and the amount of true believers is typically lower than we think. >> the only thing i'll push you on a little bit, and i may have mission understood. yes greater emphasis in human rights is called for but that shouldn't mean less emphasis on the nuclear issue. if this regime should get nuclear weapons, the amount of repression and carnage we could see under that nuclear umbrella for the remainder of this century would make what's going on now seem very small. >> no question it would be a large danger. but i think the unfortunate correlator is that people underestimate the danger of the regime staying in power and supporting terrorism and undermining every single gulf country and funding terrorism as far as the eye can see and bruletly repressing 80 million people for decades. that's an absolutely untenable and unforgiveable situation which we can work faster to

undo. >> we've got some questions. again introduce yourself and speak into the microphone. e-learning institute for iranian civil society. my question or comment is about michael la dean's point that in 2009 american intelligence or policy makers were saying things like these guys are going to win. we really don't need to do much of anything. i question that because president obama in one of the very few things he said when people on the street were chanting for him to do something ay something, the slogan was barack was saying -- you're itesdz we are them or with us. when he did respond he said, we really don't care if he wins or who wins, it doesn't make any difference to us.

he had just taken office and he reportedly had sent a couple letters. so i question that the mude was one of optimism. if anything i think it was the movement was inconvenient and was a wrench in the works of what the incoming administration thought that they could achieve with him. and a lot of iranians in civil society, people we work with, feel a big sense of betrayal from america because of that. so i wanted to voice it here. >> i think it's a good point. >> i think everything the true. i agree with everything you said. and of course iranians feel betrayed. they were betrayed. they're right to feel betrayed. at the same time, the consensus of pundityry at that time was that this is a huge thing, the uprising, the june uprising, and it continued and it went on and on.

they said they're going to win. it's not easy to be wrong systemically wrong about everything from beginning to end. but we're trying. and actually in that case we did pretty well. >> this is part of the discussion. it raises a point i would like to tease out, if i could. getting back to what you said about triegic clarity versus moral clarity. there's a view on i would say both on the right and multicultural left that moral clarity is an impediment to strategic clarity, that once we start -- and this is a piece that came out on friday in the "new york times" an op ed, that if we talk about what's going on including the islamic state in moral terms in the language of good and evil we get away from the possibility of good

strategic thinking. i would argue it's just the opposite, that moral clarity is necessary for strategic clarity but that also means the following. when you're deciding whether to, for example, support the green movement in 2009, wh you're deciding three years ago to support the nationalists in syria, the equation becomes, ell, what can they do? the question is being asked right now should we be supporting what's left of the nationalists more or less secular movement in syria or should we not? that gets the question of whether we have a moral obligation to support those people fighting for values we hold dear even if they may lose as i think was the case we thought in the soviet union years ago or whether we support them only if they've got a good chance to win? dounsdz what i'm getting at? >> first, they said in the end the moral choice turns out to be the pragmatic choice, too.

the op ed was outrageous. the dissidents in the soviet union, who spent nine years in the ghouling a, the single happiest day he had in prison is when the american president called the president of the soviet union evil because finally someone spoke the truth about that incredible evil. so no i think that tooments today i think it's what it boils down to is a loss of confidence in our own civilization and our own power. it's not a one to one. there are many differences obviously but american policy makers stood up to a nuclear super power which spanned 11 times and killed tens of millions of people and took on the realists like kissinger who said don't bother with this human rights nonsense. we're trying to contain the soviet union. you compare that to iran today, which doesn't have a fraction of

a fraction of the power of the soviet union and people are afraid to confront iran on the human rights issue. and when they work out a nuclear deal human rights are not even on the table and that's outrage on both moral and security and strategic grounds. the question is really more of a challenge, i think of myself as both sort of a moral view of this and i'm very mufte by what you're saying about not forgetting the human rights aspect. but there's a part of me that wants to challenge you. what to do about this? for deckades en pouring sanctions but it's had the effect it seems of starting a negotiation again, good or

bad, let's leave that to the side. but it took that. so my question is, for those of us who cannot have a colloquy with the foreign minister of iran and for those of us who think that a letter or two -- how effective is it? let any challenge you, what do we need to do? how much do we put on the table? i mean, honestly. not just saying oh let's put this as the last talking point. but what do we really pay to move this agenda forward and how likely is it that we will be joined by those areas which are even closer to have more leverage on the islamic republic such as europe? look at reagan and the soviet canre and i think you answer your question just from historical events. when reagan started speaking out against the soviet empire and saying that it's day in history

was finished, people yelled and screamed at him. they said he was dangerous. jackson-vanik was up for s, you cannot imagine how many people said do not put the soviet union with its back against the wall, things will get worse. the things that people like everyday when they speak about what is going on inside iran. and as we know from all the dissidents, speaking out made life better. supporting dissident groups inside the soviet empire eventually was a crucial part in bringing down the whole soviet system. if we could bring down the soviet empire, how could anybody doubt that we could bring down

this hollow, corrupt regime in tehran? compare.ot begin to yet whenever we have this discussion, people always talk it is big, powerful, massive, they are brilliant. they make mistakes all the time. can i make one point about iran -- keep in mind. ofn, on paper, should be one the most successful countries on earth. they have everything. when we sit down and draw up a checklist of what does it take to be a booming, democratic, successful country, iran has it all. even an educated middle-class and women with a significant role in society. now, go into the streets of the major cities. what do you see? a basket case. record numbers of suicides, drug

addiction, prostitution, you name it. all those indicators of social malaise and failure. brilliant, as we invariably think of them, have wrecked a country that was very wreck. in thatlike venezuela regard. my journalism days sent me to venezuela. everybody said god is venezuelan, you cannot wreck this place. of the sky, trees grow twice as fast. it takes a lot of work to wreck it, they've wrecked it. so, support the opposition. what are we waiting for? as was said by soviet

dissidents, it is morally right and strategically right. and it will probably work. everyone is afraid of them. everybody thinks it is crackpot and crazy. and yet, the track record, historically, is pretty good. ask robespierre, sometimes it works. >> there is a certain generation in the american foreign-policy making community that has experienced the cold war. they know how the system works. one of the things some younger people have forgotten is that there is a thinking process that began as an arms agreement and then it proliferated to encompass human rights issue. most unfortunately, the

brilliant people who are in government right now in the u.s. did not think of a similar model for the nuclear negotiations with the islamic republic of iran. maybe because it was not a priority, maybe they had no recollection of how things were done in the cold war period. take a look at the right, iranians are successful everyplace in the world but inside of iran. that tells you something about the system, which is called the islamic republic. >> there is something you can do on a personal level and then more on a diplomatic level. a few weeks ago, my organization, advancing human rights, relaunched movements.org, which links dissidents to people around the world with skills that can happen. it is like craigslist for human rights. thousands of people have come asking for something, legal help, pr help, policy health,

some of them want a song written. you can go to movements.org and saudiomebody from syria, arabia, russia, china -- it is open to large dictatorships. sergei had songs about and about syrian refugees and so forth. have a rabble rousing. i came up with the idea to rename the street in front of the chinese embassy liu xiaobo congress voted to change the name in front of the xiaobo plaza,u

just as they did with the soviet union. why is every street in front of the iranian embassy not named after a political prisoner? it has some effect on the soviet union. the press covered it massively, plaza, the chinese had to answer for this outrageous violation of human rights. on the national level, i think traditional things like raising the names of these political prisoners in meetings. when you do go negotiate in geneva or vienna, you have to -- you cannot say we will get to .uman rights later saudi arabia and officials said of course we will raise human rights, but then they ran out of time. like one names, a guy dissident said the fact that he

was on the cover of "the economist does quote saved his life. after 10 years in prison, he said it saved his life. attention, attention. to the any improvements iranian economy to improvements in human rights is a critical letter, which is underappreciated. let's go to the north a little bit. >> i wanted to talk more about the green movement. i'm a believer that the green movement is not dead and iranians are very smart, like boxers, waiting for the opportunity to come again and get out into the streets when they feel it is appropriate. what can the west or the u.s. do this time around when the opportunity comes? i am sure it will come again, it is a matter of time. what should they do to support people? what things can i do? one of the things that the

islamic republic cannot control is spontaneous uprisings. they can infiltrate any political organization, they can infiltrate even the smallest cell. the intelligence services have learned all the tricks of spy and from thee kgb ah's secret service. they cannot control when massive uprisings spontaneously break out. massive uprisings need communication. participate in the uprising. there's also a need for further mobilization of the public for a specific cause. their unique public broadcast systems. has alamic republic highly sensitive institution valuee it has strategic

for the regime. most foreign broadcasters to iran are extremely cautious in their coverage of the green revolution. one of the things that could be done and should be done is to fromde not only support the media only when things happen, but also prior to it. single media, a voice of america persian, there is no room for debate. there are a number of other countries broadcasting to iran, none of them would be willing to provide those kinds of services. there is a lot of wish that can be done when it comes to the media. and then we also need to look at ourselves. most iranians, one of the reasons why the green revolution

thedefeated was because of divide between the leaders of the movement and the followers. usually mao, you do not quote chairman mao zedong, he a husband andat wife sleep in the same bed but they do not share the same dreams. that was the problem between leaders and followers of the green movement. leaders wanted to reform the followers wanted to get rid of the system altogether. that was the big issue. in egypt, one of the reasons why the mubarak regime collapsed as is because the leaders said that we are going to stay until mubarak is gone. in the green movement, leaders urged supporters to go home so they could negotiate with mr. khamenei in the dock of the night. as soon as the people had gone of the movement

had nothing to negotiate with and they became captives of the regime. andink from the u.s. side those who are interested in better development in iran, media and communication. when it comes to iranians, think hard if this regime is capable of reforming itself. it is a valid question and something we need to discuss. is that thething leaders of the u.s. have to stand up and embrace these things. had a reagan failed to embrace the movement, it would not have become what it became. since we now have an administration who does not seem at all interested in endorsing, supporting, embracing an anti-regime movement in iran, quite the contrary. evidence that i have

seen is that this administration wants to work with iran and coordinate and have a big deal with a rant. as long as that continues, no iranian is going to risk his or her life to bring down this , hoping or anticipating or expecting he or she will get american support. that support has to be explicit, outspoken, and continuous. that has to come with all leaders of the administration, starting with the white house. here.uestion fardahctor of radio based in prague. small provision to what was said about the media of iran, particularly persian speaking media. provides such an

opportunity for debate and for ideas.ns and exchanging >> is a great job that is being done at radio farda, following the tradition of providing radio broadcasting to eastern europe. a great job is being done. thank you for your service. >> i'm a consultant to aipac. i know this is not the main focus of the meeting but i would appreciate hearing from the members of the panel what you think would happen with a nuclear talk between iran and the u.s. talksal.ate of the i-- the state of the talks. ali? >> unlike many in washington, i

havet concerned that you someone here who lives and is deceptive and makes promises that the person is not ready to keep. i think there are three different approaches in iran but comes to the nuclear issue. all of them strategically agreed rouhani isear bomb desirable. all of them strategically agrees that a nuclear bomb is desirable. mr. rouhani believes that, so does mr. rafsanjani. is on their god side. each group has used different tactics. mr. rouhani's goal is longer-term, they believe right now iran is on the verge of bankruptcy and sanction relief is needed to keep the system afloat. on the other hand, you have the revolutionary guard. the revolutionary guard wants to get the bomb as fast as possible. they believe fundamentally it

would end like pakistan's nuclear bomb, iran would be forgiven and sanctions would be removed because you round would the a nuclear armed state. no one would like to see and economically bankrupt nuclear power. the argument that the revolutionary guard is making. mr. khamenei is oscillating between the two power centers. every second day he extends support to the line of mr. day he, the second supports the revolutionary guard and says he does not believe in a positive outcome of the nuclear negotiations. on the one hand, he understands the rouhani argument, that iran needs to get sanction relief. on the other hand, mr. khamenei cannot afford to alienate the revolutionary guard. people go to the streets of -- the next time people go to the streets of tehran like in 2009, he needs the revolutionary guard

to suppress the public dissidents. the difference tween these three groups is not so much strategic but tactical. as soon as the worst sanctions are removed, as soon as iran's economy has stabilized, we will see tendencies where mr. khamenei is backing the revolutionary guard. so iran would walk away from the and things would change. these are some of the expectations that i have right now. which is very pessimistic. this,ill say a word on even though it is out of my role as a moderator. i'm familiar with the study of this being done by a number of people at fdd. one of the things we have to worry about at this point in the negotiations is that rouhani will -- two things -- one is tot rouhani will pretend

have made significant concessions and the obama administration will pretend to believe them. one way this might happen is to hereis being talked about as the sunset provisions. the idea that you would say ok, how about this -- you will not have nuclear capability during the life of this administration. the next administration is not going to be our problem. one hopes that those who are thinking about running for 16 are aware of this. the sunset provisions would tie iran's hands, at least make the breakout period reasonably long -- no more than a year -- but only for a few you're the next few years. at that point, there are no more restrictions on iran

than there are in japan. that seems like a plausible and distressing narrative that we could see unfold as early as this november. this agreement that holds it off for this administration is spun as a good deal, a deal we should all applaud. we're justt -- opening -- the one thing that might stop, ali has mentioned this. guard,olutionary khamenei is not young and healthy, he might have a different timeframe and not want to wait. i don't seenow and any reason why we can't have it. i throw that out for your discussion. if you think i am wrong, please say so. happy to disagree in this forum. >> just bring down the regime and then you do not have to worry about this. >> -- >> next question?

yes. will it be that what is being played in iran is good cop bad cop. they know exactly what they are doing. this administration and other administrations play a whether --[indiscernible] and they do not have to worry about it. the iranians are moving forward with the nuclear plan. they think that even holding it ,ack just for strategic reasons it is much farther ahead than you really think. my question is, on this side, we

useful idiots. the people who really want to reduced andbeing having less influence in the world. the press is a much more amorphous thing. they've been playing along all along with this game. what will await the press? -- what will wake the press up? this is the only thing we can do. the government is whatever the government is. organizations of --ividuals, the only angle what would that be? >> the first thing is to be realistic about what a journalist can or cannot do inside it italian here in -- inside it italian regime --

inside a totalitarian regime. years ago, i went to grenada on the first anniversary of the american invasion. i let with a tv news crew. the correspondent, we were walking in the hills outside a city and he came across some man and they knew each other and they embraced. he said good to see you, how are things? the local person said great. to, they are not going torture me anymore. what do you mean torture? the guy took off his shirt and turned his back and you can see the scars. the correspondent said how long have we known each other, five years, 10 years? i've been talking to you and you never mentioned this. why did you never mention it? the guy looked at him like he was a madman. expect that

journalists inside countries where people are routinely tortured, killed, locked away to haveorth, are going reliable sources who are going to tell them the truth about what is really going on in that country. it cannot happen. >> [indiscernible] country that is completely sold on the way things are, they have to be changed. >> that takes us to a your problem, which is the educational system. at the people talking about the world right now, your heart sinks. because they do not know anything about anything. words they use to talk about the world show you that they do not know. they do not know because they down by anumbed educational system that only

teaches them certain kinds of doctrine, rather than information so they can think by themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. when the candidate for president talks about 57 states and you slip of theat was a tongue. then you go on to all the other things that the same person has said over the last six plus years, it is astonishing. it becomes a characteristic of a whole generation. excuse me if i vent on this. when i was in the white house, when a draft reagan speech started to circulate, all of us he really jumped on it -- all of us eagerly jumped on it. if you get the presidential speech, that is what policy is. not want himdid saying something stupid, ignorant, misguided thing. obama, nevermind policy. obama says so many wrong things,

false facts. he gets so many things wrong about the world. just as matter of simple respect, people are obviously not doing that for him. that is not happening. there are two possible reasons. is, he has made it clear not going to happen. he is going to write his own damn speech and if you do not shut up or get yourself elected. do notond is that they know. when the president goes to cairo and say muslims brought printing to the middle east, that it is three times wrong. not just wrong, but triply wrong. the chinese brought it, they sold it to the middle east, they did not want it, they sold it to europe and in portuguese j egypt in aboutto

1492. wrong, wrong, wrong. when you ask the question, we have journalists talking about the world in ways that alarm you, and me, obviously. if you want to fix that, you have to fix the schools. that is a really big undertaking. >> bring the microphone so we can hear you. in thoseup and comment areas. >> [indiscernible]

people. some are very dumb and have not learned anything. but some who know and choose not to call the president or the policy or any of those things. that is a process that has to be in place. those who know and are quiet. that is a question -- [indiscernible] there is so much information out there already. every minute, there is a new youtube video of slaughter in syria by assad's forces. who showed tens of thousands of photographs of people starved and killed. it does not move policy, seemingly. for a lot of reasons -- fatigue, sos is worse, so on and forth. it requires -- we'll write op-ed frequently. frustrated about the little impact in op-ed has, even in "the new york times," people forget about it. it requires a new way of thinking about how to use and totion to push it

impact people who can make policy decisions. i'm not sure that we need a bunch more journalists covering good things. even when we do know, we fail to act. that is a spiritual and a moral failure more than a lack of information. that is a much tougher thing to broach. would say one thing. it is in a way worse because anyone who you hear on npr saying i have been to iran 12 times in the last five years, you know that means they have not done anything too seriously offend the regime and all those times. and, therefore, as brave as they may be, you have to take with a grain of salt what they are saying. nobody at this table can say i want to find out for real what is going on, i am going to get some notebooks and apply for a visa and go to tehran and find out what is going on. journalism is in a total crisis today in terms of what can be reported.

it also coincides with a crisis and that there is no business model for journalism anymore. this is a subject for another panel or many more panels. there is a lot of noise and very little signal. >> let's go back there. previous post was in vienna. i know what the game is for negotiations. saidt to stick to it ali about helsinki. i believe the cornerstone of every and fair elections. -- out that is iran going to have an atomic bomb at all, that is a technical issue. pakistan, india, china, russia have it.

what is going to happen with the regime? said helsinki, human rights. how realistic is it that we have free and fair elections in iran? if you have a democratic government then you can negotiate because democracies do not go to war with each other and talks. >> ali, want to respond? >> thank you. your country has gone through very harsh his circle times, just like ours. you have experienced even greater harshness then our country has in many ways. most unfortunately, many of the intellectuals in my country draw the wrong lessons from what happened in central and eastern europe. many of them still live in a world of utopia.

those who are in power right now, they believe the establishment and continuation of an islamist ideological regime in power. some parts of the opposition are misleading them in deceiving them so that there would be some kind of communist utopia at the end of the rainbow where ukrainians can find peace -- where iranians can find peace and prosperity. this is very unfortunate. ideological experiences in your part of the world show this is not a path iran should follow. considering helsinki and how realistic it is, i think some parts of it should be imposed on iran. if the u.s. government genuinely as a spread of democracy model very seriously, that should be tied to the nuclear negotiations. this is not the case. this is one of the issues that we really need to talk more with the obama administration about. we also need to make the leaders

a iran understand that democratic transition, a slow democratic transition would even be in their own interests because a violent turnover of the regime and the system would worse for the system, the country, and current ruling elites. they are seeing a gradual maturity among large parts of the opposition, particularly in the u.s., where even those who abusectims of the regime human rights. former political prisoners, those who have lost family members, they say we do not want revenge. we want justice. justice is fundamentally different than revenge. there are those who generally talk about the south african model. about committees and those who say keep all the money you have stolen. but make iran a democracy.

pressure from within, where domestic opposition and opposition abroad says justice is more important than revenge and we care more about the future, a brighter future, then about correcting the injustices of the past. those negotiating with the regime in tehran also pay attention to the plight of the iranian public, that would be a combination. and we certainly do need to learn from your experiences, mr. ambassador. >> i want to follow up on that. the agreement on this panel in regards to human rights is probably not widely shared nowadays. i think the obama administration has not made human rights a rand paul does not think human rights internationally should be a priority. the human human rights council -- the un's human rights council

has become a forum for human rights violators. even major organizations are selective about human rights, that is why your organization came into being. this is a challenging time to make the case. -- weab spring has not have not seen human rights flowering from the soil, as some had hoped. this is a challenging time to with moralan rights clarity or as a strategic imperative. >> no doubt. you got to the heart of the challenge i face everyday. and in the state department, it is just too frequent to hear yeah, this democracy stuff, but better siis than the brotherhood and better assad than isis. better king abdullah than what waits in the wings.

people in policymaking circles and even amongst the general public do not understand what tierney does to increase radicalism. rany does to increase radicalism. they do not have to question where the muslim brotherhood came from, 30 years of brutal dictatorship that decimated political discourse and wrecked the economy, that helped give rise to the muslim brotherhood. no smallyria is in part a consequence of the combination of brutal dictatorship for the last decade and a half and western inaction to stop it. the quicker we understand that opening these societies is absolutely critical to the fight , thest the radicalism sooner we will act on human rights. that is not to negate the importance of simultaneously

combating and liberalism -- llibrism. i if you polled people and say what is the punishment for leaving islam? die, high percentage say that is a cultural issue. identifying true moderates and not fake moderates and supporting dissidents and liberals and democrats and moderates is absolutely crucial to our own safety. until that link is recognized, we're going to keep this vicious cycle a lot of roadworks so -- .eep this vicious cycle alive egypt, the only forum is you go to the mosque and rant against the jews.

radicalism grows and instability increases. go back and read "the case for democracy." it is all in there. >> the other thing is modesty. as we judge our own ability to see what is coming next and forecast what is happening. and what david said about the brotherhood reminded me. i did not know anything about the brotherhood. when they came to power, i asked all the experts on the brotherhood, ok, what is going to happen now? what should we expect. said this is them it, they are in for x generations, two, 3, 4. they have been preparing for this for 80 years and they are ready and they are organized. fail in twothey

months, three months, or four months. something like that. they failed almost at once. these were the great experts who told us that the brothers were rule for generation after generation. we're not very good about what is -- we are not very good at figuring out what is going to happen next. the experts on the brothers had the advantage of knowing what the brothers wanted and intended , which is a big part of good intelligence. sake, do not think that anyone has a reliable crystal ball or even a good magnifying glass. you have to keep fighting and you have to keep at it. of the why it policies sort we are talking about here, which combine moral and strategic wisdom are so valuable

and so important. it is always very discouraging to me, when we get national leaders who do not appreciate who've run from it in the name of false realism, which is based on this conceit that we can see the future when we cannot. a very precise example, people say there are no liberals in egypt or saudi arabia. yourself about where it might liberals be if they had received tens of billions of dollars of support going back decades. rather than funding these theocratic these tyrants, imagine if a fraction of that support went to actual dissidents, as small in number as they maybe. that would only help them grow. hosni mubarak got over $50 billion of military aid. we got instability, a coup, muslim brotherhood. another $10 billion would not have kept him in place.

the same is true for countries like saudi arabia, the president just signed $60 billion worth of arms to a country that does not let women travel without a man's permission and kills you if you bring a cross or bible or try to build a synagogue. does that strengthen liberalism in saudi arabia or give hope to democratic dissidents? or does it cut the rug from under them and keep in power these dictators which only help foster instability and radicalism in the societies. question --nother take the microphone. >> we were talking about the spiritual and moral failure that we can control in democracies about the media in particular. one thing nobody wants to hear about, i do not really even want to mention it, a monk -- among the iranian american community, we have a spiritual-moral failure. sometimes it is real, sometimes

it is manipulated. particularly under the guise of the national iranian american council. all the people who had to leave the country because of a lack of thisom are now being sold association that the best thing that we can do for our homeland is to not support sanctions, to not talk about human rights, to not talk about political prisoners. it is all a game and it is all meant to create war and bring suffering to the iranian people. moral andlk about spiritual failure, we as iranian americans are not doing our part, unfortunately. i would even wager that more than half of iranian americans are falling prey to this propaganda that is being developed right here in america. >> i spent a week in london meeting with iranian dissidents. i met with opposition sources.

i would say i just met with so-and-so. they would badmouth the person i had just met with. they say oh, he takes money from shady sources, he has no influence inside iraq, he's a joke, or he is connected to the regime. for thes flabbergasted past seven or so years, i've worked with dissidents in the middle east, a really matters come all this undercutting and tax dabbing and fighting -- all this undercutting and backstabbing and inviting. fighting fore rights, they got 250,000 people in washington. that made a big difference. i pretend to be iranian because i grew up in l.a. it is difficult. >> the iranian government is very adept at causing fractures outside the country.

groups like the national iranian , it is not that hard to caused splits in the community if you are clever. >> and i was in copenhagen,, i finished university and started .peaking in public there would be a gentleman from the iranian embassy and he would not ask any questions. he was always wearing the same suit and would come and go, no exchange. i need tont, i said have some fun with the gentleman. i said hello, very polite exchange of words. , could utility how many spies you have here in denmark? -- could you tell me how many spies you have in denmark?

he said we do not need any spies, a radiance come -- he said we do not need any spies, iranians, report on each other so much that we do not have enough administrative capacity. we dislike each other so much that we forget the big enemy, tehran. there is a systematic infiltration attempts. whenever you organize a poetry europe,anywhere in somebody's is going to stab you with a knife. if you and your wife go to a poetry reading, you do not expect 70 to get stocked with a knife. at the same time, the mosque is also organizing a competing poetry evening, at which there takinged people who are care of the situation and nobody gets stabbed. the regime provides safe alternatives even for cultural activities for the community.

to make things more interesting, the regime manages to establish opposition movements. it is the intelligence ministry itself control and even the opposition. this is big brother, the steeple have been reading orwell too well -- these people have been reading orwell too well. be stronger and forgiving even if somebody, we believe, is working for the regime. even that person is our family member. may be a distant relative. we are better. >> i will ask everyone to sum up, state if you can the one policy change or legislative initiatives that would be most helpful in regard to the situation we are discussing today. tie the nuclear negotiations

with the human rights issue in iran. i hope the one issue president obama and the demonstration coming after will take up for consideration. >> does that mean that unless you get agreement on the nuclear portfolio and on the human rights portfolio, sanctions will be increased and the pain will be greater for the regime and for the people. >> that is correct, that is one of the side effects of sanctions. in the longer term, the iranian public will benefit. >> david? out whether it is tied or not about human rights and making the strategic goal, ending the regime and not keeping it in place without nuclear weapons. even if that comes about, it is profoundly dangerous not just for iranians but for the entire world. >> michael? >> systematically support dissidents and freedom movement

inside iran. and start at the top, from the president on down. every top policy maker and spokesperson for the american government. and the two international meetings, whatever they might be . whether it is the olympic games , go withr negotiations lists of political prisoners and demand they are and keep at it -- and demand their release and keep at it. >> i want to thank our panel. [applause] coming, well for will be in touch for another session before too long. thanks again. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> coming up on c-span, v.a. secretary robert mcdonnell and president obama talk to veterans at the american legion conference. on this morning's "washington journal," a report on the cost

of raising a child in the u.s.. later, a discussion on targeting voters. "washington journal" is like each morning at 7:00 eastern. >> "new york times" reporter matthew rosenberg was expelled by thebul last week afghan government. he will be at the national press club to talk about his experience and the chance he will return to afghanistan. two former technology strategists from the obama and romney presidential campaigns will talk about how digital innovation has changed the way campaigns are run. live coverage from george washington university begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend on c-span, friday night on c-span, native american history.

saturday, all-day coverage from the national book festival's science pavilion. saturday evening from bbc scotland, a debate on scotland's decision on whether to end its political union with england. someday, q&a with chief justice of the second circuit court of appeals. he shares his approach to interpreting laws passed by congress. friday at 8:00 p.m., in-depth with ron paul. on saturday, live coverage of the national book festival from the history and biography pavilions. speakers, interviews, and the recall and with authors. sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, after words. on american history tv on c-span3 friday, a documentary about the 1969 moon landing. saturday on the civil war, william sherman's limit campaign.

-- atlanta campaign. find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. 202-626-3400. 123.witter, use the #c join the conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. now, remarks from veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald from the american legion's national convention in charlotte, north carolina. this is 30 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. it's a pleasure to be with you here today in charlotte, and a true privilege to hear president obama's remarks earlier. i deeply appreciate his trust and confidence in providing me

the opportunity to serve at va. president obama's presence here at your convention, his steady support of va over the past six-and-a-half years, and the leadership he has demonstrated in driving greater support and opportunities for veterans are all evidence of his strong, unwavering support of veterans. once again, he has taken the lead in calling for elimination of the claims backlog, the ending of veterans' homelessness, better and more substantial mental healthcare and support, encouraging companies to seek veteran employees, increasing educational opportunities, and recruiting medical professionals to better serve our nation's veterans. there is no stronger advocate for veterans than president obama. first, let me thank the legion for your staunch support, for almost a full century now, of our nation's veterans.

your counsel is important to me, i welcome your advice on how to reinforce the time-honored covenant between america and her veterans. the va owes its existence, in part, to the legion. you lobbied for the creation of the veterans bureau in 1921. you fought long and hard to see that bureau become, first, an administration in 1930, and, then, a cabinet-level department in 1989. your accomplishments on behalf of veterans are legendary. harry colmery, a past national commander, wrote the first draft of the g.i. bill of rights a year before congress passed the g.i. bill and two years before the first wave of wwii veterans returned home. you led the effort to pass the post-9/11 g.i. bill. thousands of your volunteers donate millions of hours through

the va voluntary service program. your veterans affairs and rehabilitation commission provides assistance to veterans and families to make sure they receive the benefits they deserve. and myriad other legion programs well serve this nation's veterans of all generations. so, your devotion to veterans isn't lost on me, and i want to assure you your contributions to va reform discussions have been of great help. that sort of ongoing give-and-take will be vital as we take steps to right the wrongs that have occurred, and to improve the department and reposition it for years to come. there's no question that this is a critical moment for va. we have a lot of work to do to resolve the challenges we're facing.

before my confirmation hearing, i spoke with vso leaders and met with many members of congress. again and again, i was asked, "why do you want to be secretary of veterans affairs?" here's what i told them, and i believe this strongly, to the bottom of my heart. there's no higher calling in life than serving america's veterans. i see leadership of va as an opportunity to improve the lives of men and women i care deeply about. it's more than professional, for me, it is very personal. my wife, diane, and i both come from military families. diane's father was a tail gunner in a b-24 during world war ii. he was shot down over europe and survived the hardships of being a prisoner of war. my father served in the army air corps after world war ii and was

in the occupation forces in japan. both our fathers were educated through the original gi bill. dianne's uncle was a member of the101st airborne division, screaming eagles, in vietnam. he was exposed to agent orange, and today he receives care from va. and right now my nephew, a pilot in the air force, is flying missions in the middle east. i graduated from the united states military academy in 1975 along with sloan gibson, va's deputy secretary, a great leader and a great friend of mine for many years. my education at west point and then my service as an airborne ranger in the 82nd airborne division instilled in me a lifelong sense of duty to country. four decades later, the words of the west point cadet prayer

-- which president obama referred to earlier -- still guide me, "help me choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong." subsequently, 33 years of experience at the procter & gamble company taught me a great deal about a mission-driven corporation, about strong company values, about good management practices and goal-oriented leadership. i believe that i can use many of those lessons learned to help change and move va forward. unlike p&g, va may not be concerned about quarterly profit and loss statements or shareholder value, but it does have a bottom line, that bottom line is care for veterans. [applause] ms. is in the important as -- v.a. is in the important

business of making a positive difference in their lives. i'm here to promise you that va will get beyond its present difficulties and be the stronger for it. there are two reasons for that mission and values. , first, va has a great mission. it doesn't matter whether you're a gs-1 or a senior executive, everyone wants to have a clear purpose for coming to work every day. there are few clearer or more inspiring missions than caring for those who have borne the battle for our nation. even with just a few weeks on the job, there's no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of va employees, many of them veterans themselves, come to work with a strong passion and even a stronger sense of purpose. they take great pride in what they do, and who they do it for. and from what i've seen and what i have heard, i can't overstate their enthusiasm for being part of the solution to our current problems.

overwhelmingly, their dedication to veterans is 100%. second, va has strong, institutional values. those mission-critical ideals and attitudes that profoundly influenced our day-to-day behavior and performance. integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence. taken together to spell the acronym i-care. that is why i wear this button. on my first day as secretary, i asked all va employees to join me in reaffirming our commitment to these core values. and i've directed va leaders to do the same with the people who work for them. as we tackle va's specific problems, our values help cultivate a climate where everyone understands what the right thing is, and then does it.

said another way, va's way of doing business must conform to how we expect employees to treat veterans. and how we expect employees to treat one another. those expectations extend to how people behave on-the-job, as when no onebehave is looking. somewhere along the way, some people's behavior was at odds with va's mission and core values. this was seen in the stark difference between receiving care at, say, one of our highest performing locations, like the medical center not far from here in columbia, s.c., and until recently, in phoenix. that said, though, i don't think we can lose sight of the fact that it was at phoenix, and elsewhere, that employees had the moral courage to do the right thing, take a stand, and make sure their voices were

heard about what they saw happening that was going wrong. those employees are examples of i-care at its best. i just mentioned columbia a moment ago. i think it's important to note that last year, the joint commission, which accredits and certifies health care organizations all over the country named the william jennings bryan dorn medical and 31there in columbia other v.a. hospitals to its top performers list in its annual review of patient care. this recognition goes back to my earlier comment that the vast majority of va employees are 100% committed to veterans and to the highest standards in care. at columbia, and at va facilities across the country, veterans always come first. i don't think we should overlook that fact. at procter & gamble, the most

important metric for its more than 120,000 employees is customer satisfaction. it's the most important metric for any organization, public or private. for v.a., that means veterans' satisfaction. our strategic plan says it plainly, "v.a. is a customer-service organization. we serve veterans." and it's by how well we serve them that veterans ultimately decide our value as an organization. the truth of the matter is that we've failed in a number of ways. we need to do better. we have to do better. much better. right now, it's up to the department to reaffirm its worth and regain veterans' trust. over the past few months, we've been forced to take a hard look at ourselves through their eyes, and through their experiences -- good, bad, and indifferent.

i think one of the lessons learned is that, if we are to be truly veteran-focused, we need to continuously measure our performance -- not just when things go wrong, but also when things go right. it's a 24/7, 365 days-a-year job. and that's what we intend to do. from here on out, we want veterans to know that when they walk through v.a.'s doors, employees are all in when it comes to meeting our mission , living our values, and keeping veterans first and foremost in all that they do. without that, there can be no trust. right now, we're listening hard to what veterans, employees, congress, vso's, and other stakeholders are telling us. based on we've heard, we're in the process of rapidly developing and instituting an array of changes aimed at fixing v.a.'s problems in the areas of process initiatives, leadership, and resources.

here's what we're doing to address these challenges. first, process initiatives -- we've reached out to over 266,000 veterans to get them off wait lists and into clinics sooner. in just the last two months, we've made almost 912,000 referrals for veterans to receive care in the private sector. the number of people waiting for appointments has declined by 57% since may 15th of this year. facilities are adding more clinic hours, we're recruiting to fill physician vacancies, we're deploying mobile medical units, and using temporary staffing to provide more care to veterans more quickly.

we're updating the existing appointment scheduling system with short-term enhancements, until we replace it with a state-of-the-art, commercial off-the-shelf system. we're contracting with an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive independent audit of vha's scheduling practices. we've directed every medical center and visn director to make regular monthly, in-person inspections of their clinics to assess scheduling practices and identify obstacles to timely care. so far, we've conducted over 2,300 of these visits. i spoke earlier about the importance of customer satisfaction. right now, we're building a more robust system for measuring veterans' satisfaction. it will capture real-time, site-specific information on a continuing basis, and incorporate social media and on-line input as well. we'll also be reaching out to leading healthcare systems to see what they're doing to track patient access experiences. the 14-day access measure has

been removed from all individual employee performance plans to eliminate any motive for inappropriate scheduling practices or behaviors. vha is providing direct assistance to facilities that need the most improvement. there's a large multi-disciplinary team on the ground, right now, in phoenix, where we've taken action on all the recommendations made in the inspector general's may interim report. until we get our systems up to capacity, we're expanding the use of private-sector care. at the same time, we're better monitoring it closely to ensure veterans are receiving the quality care they deserve. [applause] second, leadership challenges. too many v.a. leaders failed to take ownership of the problems

facing their facilities and employees. they failed to identify shortfalls in resources and take action to obtain the additional resources they needed. and they failed to set the standard for honesty and integrity and quash the culture of self-protection and retaliation. as you would expect, we've made a number of leadership changes in the field and at central office. to help address our immediate concerns, i've brought in former v.a. under secretary for health, dr. jonathan perlin, for a short tour of duty as my senior advisor, and former v.a. general counsel, leigh bradley, to help sort through v.a.'s responsibilities for taking action against those accused of wrongdoing or management negligence.

since may 1, 2014, we have taken over 30 personnel actions, and investigations are ongoing. two members of the senior executive service have resigned or retired. three more members of the senior executive service have been placed on administrative leave pending the results of investigations. over two dozen healthcare personnel have been removed from their positions. and, four more gs-15's, or below, have been placed on administrative leave. [applause] that said, right now over 100 ongoing investigations at v.a. facilities are being conducted by the office of special counsel

, an independent federal agency that investigates whistleblower allegations and complaints of whistleblower retaliation and by v.a.'s office of inspector general -- in some cases, jointly investigating with the fbi. in most cases, we cannot begin our own investigations while third-party investigations are still active. when the investigations are concluded and the findings provided to us, we will take appropriate action. [applause] as those outcomes unfold, we will share information to the degree that we can -- while abiding by the law, issues of privacy covered by the privacy act of 1974, and due process. for cases involving senior executives, the veterans access, choice, and accountability act of 2014, that president obama recently signed into law, streamlines the removal of senior executives and the appeals process -- intended to allow us to terminate ses leaders' employment more quickly than we might have previously if

misconduct is found. it does not change any timelines related to front-line employees or lower-level supervisors. v.a. has a noble mission, caring for veterans and their families. and we have strong, institutional values -- mission-critical ideals that must profoundly influence our day-to-day behavior and performance -- integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence. in performing that mission and guided by those values, we will judge the success of our efforts against a single metric -- veterans' outcomes. our strategic plan already states, "v.a. is a customer-service organization. we serve veterans." if we fail at serving veterans, we fail. they are our only reason for being. so, we are awaiting outcomes from the investigations now ongoing with osc, oig, and other parties.

in some cases we have already announced personnel actions -- cheyenne, wy, and fort collins, co are cases in point. others will follow. in addition to leadership accountability issues, we're also addressing cultural issues and creating a more open v.a.: -- we've frozen vha central office and visn office headquarters hiring and suspended vha senior executive performance awards for fy 2014. v.a.'s now posting regular data updates showing progress in improving access to healthcare and making public additional care-quality statistics for every medical center. communication is key. sloan gibson and i have been making the rounds of vha medical centers and vba regional offices to get at the on-the-ground truth. over the past several weeks,

i've been to our facilities in phoenix, las vegas, memphis, reno, and palo alto. later this week, i'll be in durham, north carolina. at every location, i've met with good people who spoke honestly -- from janitorial staff to medical center directors -- caring and compassionate employees who want to do right by veterans. i'm listening carefully to veterans and to our vso partners, like the legion, and to our own hard-working employees. i want to know when you and other veterans are not being served well -- and when you are. the information, the insights, and the input i hear from employees, from you, and from others will shape and determine

the way forward for v.a., and, it will constitute the kind of accountability we at v.a. always want to ensure and that veterans always deserve. last, let me turn to resource issues. in june, acting secretary gibson made a compelling case to congress for the additional funds needed to address our immediate needs. the result is found in the veterans access, choice, and accountability act of 2014. the act allocates $15 billion to v.a. -- $5 billion to hire physicians and other medical staff and improve infrastructure, and $10 billion to fund additional purchased care while we build capacity to meet demand. it authorizes v.a. to enter into 27 major medical facility leases to give us more space to treat patients. and, as i mentioned earlier, it streamlines the removal of senior executives based on poor performance or misconduct.

what v.a. needs to do now is institute the operational efficiencies, the cost savings, the productivity improvements, and the service innov.a.tions innovations needed to support future budget requests. we must show congress that v.a. can operate with the same levels of efficiency, customer service, and financial discipline as the best-run companies in america. here are a few areas where i intend to change the status quo. for one thing, we need to get back to basics and reset the focus on v.a.'s strategic plan -- it's v.a.'s scripture, so to speak, at the core of all we do. i'll be reorganizing the department to efficiently leverage v.a.'s resources and operate cohesively as one team, with one dream in delivering the best in care and services to veterans. part of that includes redesigning or streamlining work processes -- in other words, ferreting out the bottle necks in our operations that slow down

service and frustrate veterans. a lot of that change will come from our people in the field -- in our hospitals and clinics. high-performance companies get their best ideas for improvements and innovations from those closest to the customer -- v.a. can, too. we need to do a better job of forecasting. it's essential for us to reliably predict future demand for services so we can make good decisions about budgets, about support systems, and about people. inadequate forecasting was partly responsible for severe shortages of personnel at some locations. and so recruiting is job one right now. i intend to be out-in-front and hands-on in that effort. later this week i'm going to launch our recruiting efforts by speaking to doctors, interns, residents, and students at duke university's medical school. recruiting isn't just for hr.

here's how i look at it -- i was on an airplane going to phoenix. a 22 year veteran who is currently with lockheed martin. he said he needed to do something about recruiting. his daughter is a lieutenant in the air force. she is currently going to medical school and washington, d.c. he talked to her about a career with the v.a. she said dad, have you not seen what is going on with the v.a.? why would i want to work there? i am here to tell you i asked for her phone number, i called her three different times, i'm going to speak at her medical school -- dva is a great place to work. i also want to tell you a story about nancy. nancy is a knowledge is in medical school. we met on a plane coming back

from memphis. she said my dream job is to work in the v.a., and she is a school at george washington university medical school, and she wants to be a neurologist was up i gave her my card and my address and i said contact me, i want you to work for the v.a., too. turning to technology -- it's an enabler for us. and we need to make the most of it, particularly by expanding use of digital technology to free up doctors and nurses for direct care to patients. on another front, v.a. and dod synergy is critical. chuck hagel and i agree on this. we need to create an integrated records system. like you, i don't want v.a. to be known for just standard care; -- i want it known as "the

standard" in healthcare. [applause] to help do that, i'm establishing a board of medical professionals comprised of the foremost medical minds in the nation to advise me on industry best practices. now i know i've just laid down an ambitious agenda. however all this, and more, can be done. it can be done with the american legion's help and the support of all of our veteran sources organizations. close collaboration and ongoing dialogue are priorities. no organization can operate successfully in a vacuum. together we can move v.a. forward with the urgency that the current situation demands with the balanced reforms that will ensure v.a. is the provider-of-choice for veterans from maine to manila.

testifying before congress last month, my good friend and our deputy secretary sloan gibson portrayed our situation this way when he said, "we can turn these challenges into the greatest opportunity for improvement in the history of the department." i firmly believe that. i don't deny that the challenges ahead are significant. there's a lot to do. and there's a lot at stake. in tough times, i've always turned to a favorite saying of mine by winston churchill -- "a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity -- an optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty." well, i'm an optimist. am a realist.

a pragmatist. i've no doubt that with the support of president obama, congress, vso's like the legion, and other stakeholders, we can do what needs to be done to restore confidence in the veterans affairs department. i want to thank all of you for being a long-time, good friend to the v.a. thank you for all you've done, and continue to do for veterans and their families. and thank you for giving me this important opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. i look forward to working closely with you as we go forward together. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ >> mr. secretary, i would like to thank you very much to -- for taking time out of your schedule

to be with us, and also thank you very much for the steps you have already taken to right and to put trust backend for our stakeholders, our veterans, and believe me, we are looking forward to our partnership with uyyou, and you will be hearing from us. >> thank you very much. >> as a memento, i would like to present you with my medallion. >> thank you very much for stop >> give the secretary of they can't, please. [applause] ♪ >> president obama announced steps to improve the availability of mental health care for military personnel and talked about the ongoing violence in the iraq. he spoke at the american legion's national convention in charlotte, north carolina. [applause] >> thank so much. please, everybody, have a seat. hello, legionnaires. >> hello!

>> i want to thank commander dillinger for the introduction, but more importantly, for your service in the army and as you conclude your tenure as commander. thank you for your tireless commitment to america's veterans. i want to thank the entire leadership team for welcoming me here today, including the executive director in washington, all the daughters, spouses -- [cheers] sisters of the auxiliary, and the sons of the american legion.

let me say that i join you in honoring the memory of a friend to many of you, an army veteran and a great legionnaire from north carolina. [applause] to senators richard burr and kay hagan, mayor, thank you for welcoming us to the great state of north carolina and to charlotte, and for your great support of our troops and our veterans. i do have to mention the presence of boys nation. matthew from alabama, i welcome matthew and all the incredible young people, boys and girls nation to the white house last month. i was running a little late, so they just started singing, filling the white house with patriotic songs, and then they sang "happy birthday" to me, so i was pretty moved, and they are a tribute to the region and to our country. i've brought with me today the our new secretary of veterans affairs, bob mcdonald. [applause]

and for those of you who are not aware, bob is one of america's most accomplished business leaders. he comes from west point. he served as an army airborne ranger. so he has got a reputation for jumping into tough situations. and he has hit the ground running, visiting hospitals and clinics across the country, hearing directly from veterans, helping us change the way v.a. does business. and by the way, washington doesn't agree on much these days, but he got confirmed 97-0. [applause] people understand he is the right man for the job and he has my full support. bob, i want to thank you for once again serving your country. it is an honor to be back with the american legion.

the story of your service, we see the service of america. when your country needed you most, you stepped forward, raised your right hand, you swore a solemn oath, you earned the title you carried to this day. whether soldier, sailor, airman, marine, coast guard. among you are proud veterans of world war ii, of korea, of vietnam, of desert storm and the balkans, and our newest veterans from iraq and afghanistan. across the generations, you served with honor, you made us proud, you carried the memory of friends who never came home. our fallen, our prisoners of war, those missing in action, heroes that our nation can never forget.

when you took off that uniform, you earned another title, the title of the veteran, and you never stop serving. as legionnaires, you put on that cap and wore that emblem for god and country and took care of one another, making sure that you receive the benefits you have earned and deserve. just as you help the defend america over there, you have helped build it at home as leaders and role models in your communities, as entrepreneurs, as business owners. as champions for a strong national defense. you helped the united states of america become what we are today, the greatest democratic, economic, and military force for freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known. these are challenging times. i don't have to tell you that. around the world, as well as here at home, you turn on the tv and we are saturated with heartbreaking images of war and

senseless violence and terrorism and tragedy. it can be easy to grow cynical or get into the sense that the future we seek is somehow beyond our reach. but as men and women who have been tested like few others, you should know better. you know that cynicism is not the character of a great nation. even as we face, yes, the hard task of our time, we should never lose sight of our progress as a people or the strength of our leadership in the world. think about it, six years after the worst financial crisis since the great depression, in some ways the crisis at the potential of being worse than the great depression, thanks to the decisions we made to secure our economy, thanks to the determination of the american people, we are stronger at home.

our businesses have added nearly 10 million new jobs, the longest streak of private sector job creation in american history. construction and housing are rebounding. our auto industry and manufacturing are booming. our high school graduation rate is at a record high. more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. millions more americans now have quality affordable health care. we have cut the deficit by more than half. and now we have to sustain this momentum so more people share in the progress and the economy works for every working american. just as we are stronger at home, the united states is better positioned to lead in the 21st century than any nation on earth. not even close. we have the most powerful military in history. that is certainly not close. from europe to asia, our alliances are unrivaled, our economy is the most dynamic, we

have the best workers and businesses and university and scientists. with the domestic energy revolution, including more renewable energy, we are more energy independent. our technologies connect the world. our freedoms and opportunities attract immigrants who yearn to breathe free. our founding ideals inspire the oppressed across the globe to reach for their own liberty. that is who we are. that is what america is. and moreover, nobody else can do what we do. no other nation does more to underwrite the security and prosperity on which the world depends. in times of crisis, no other nation can rally such broad coalitions to stand up for international norms and peace. in times of disaster, no other

nation has the capability to deliver so much so quickly. no nation does more to help citizens claim their rights and build their democracies. no nation does more to help people on the far corners of the earth escape poverty and disease and realize their dignity. even countries that criticize us when the chips are down, when they need help, they know who to call. they call us. that is what american leadership looks like. that is why the united states is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world. now, sustaining our leadership, keeping america strong and secure, means we have to use our power wisely. history teaches us of the dangers of overreaching and spreading ourselves too thin,

trying to go it alone without international support or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences. nobody knows this better than our veterans and our families -- our veteran families. because you are the ones who bear the wages of war. you are the ones who carry the scars. you know that we should never send our sons and daughters into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary and we have a plan and are resourcing and prepared to see it through. [applause] you know the united states has to lead with strength and confidence and wisdom. that is why after incredible sacrifice, by so many of our men and women in uniform, we removed more than 140,000 troops from iraq and welcome to those troops home. it was the right thing to do.

it is why we refocused our efforts in afghanistan and went after al qaeda's leadership in the tribal regions, driving the taliban out of its strongholds. and training afghans forces, which are now in the lead for their own security. in just 4 months, we will complete our combat mission in afghanistan and america's longest war will come to a responsible end. and we honor every american who served to make this progress possible. [applause] every single one, especially the more than 2200 american patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan to keep us safe. and now, as afghans continue to work towards the first democratic transfer of power in their history, afghan leaders need to make the hard compromises that are necessary to give the afghan people a future of security and progress. as we go forward, we will continue to partner with afghans so their country can never again be used to launch attacks