divide in the middle east that makes things very, ery complicate in that region of the world. me this argues for some restraint in what we try to do. i don't want to pull back and go isolationist mode here. on the other hand, we have to act with great, great caution. much, no ly do so matter how strong, no matter how good we are.er how in correcting the problems of the middle east. and as she suggests in the call, fundamentally take responsibility for resolve their own problems. we want to help to the extent that we can. but we can't solve these problems for them. deep seeded with deep animosities in the region.

host: jack, democrats' line, go your question or comment. caller: yeah, i would like to know from the representative, i've not heard from anybody but maybe john mccain and graham, what exactly do this count stand in country or our governing body, winning a war? not understand the mindset of the muslims, i don't care if they're an individual group or they want to annihilate christianity. that's what it boils down to. in ancient ook back ruling you see where didn't sit around and say maybe, and if. in to re directed to go annihilate and the same attitude

that the muslims have taken. any way you them muslims -- ists or no, it doesn't look that way. it's no different than vietnam war.the gulf you commit to a belief, you stand behind it. host: congressman? guest: the president has said we want to destroy isis. now, it's fair to ask the question what kind of instruments/tools is he going to use? what kind of resources is he prepared to spend? lives is he prepared to put on the line in order to destroy isis. had great military victories in world war ii and preceding.

had since that time have ambiguous results. partially this is because as the said, we haven't rought to bear the full military power of the united states. we have held back, we have used way.tary force in a limited that's been the choice of all of our presidents. for multiple reasons. to destroy is how isis. that's the operative question today. ne thing is we have to make clear what kind of resources we are prepared to bring to the achieve the objective of destroying isis. what's that going to take in military action, in terms of diplomatic action, in erms of propaganda, public relations, if you would, fighting the ideological war. prepared to do. and what are others prepared to

do to defeat and destroy isis? that's the big question on the table for me at least right now. by no means clear that we are resources he put the in, needed to achieve the if you e of destroyingf look at the press today, it's a lot of the at arab countries have drilled down the strategy and giving lip service support but not forward.to come even our european friends, germany said they're not going to engage in air strikes. the uk is saying they're going to consider it. is you see this phenomenon once again of the united states being eft out there by itself to carry the full burden. now another aspect that needs to carefully.at that's the so-called backlash

problem. has the power advantages, becomes necessary very, very often in conflicts around the world. a backlash to it. hen you bomb an area, you may destroy a lot of facilities. people, kill a lot of but you also raise a lot of nger, very deep seeded hate rhe -- atred of the people doing the bombing. that has consequences down the road. one of the reasons that the isis been so popular in getting the extremists to come to their anger because of the that exists against the united west.s and the reasons.iety of you have to be conscious of the military power. it sounds easy that you can solve the problem with the military power alone. cannot. it takes more than that.

host: lee hamilton served in 1965 do 1999. in that time frame, he was chair f the foreign affairs committee, chair of the intelligence committee, chair 9/11 the vice chair of the commission. he's also a co-chair along with iraq study of the group in 2006. mr. hamilton, would we be this today if we had not invaded iraq in 2003? knows?who you can argue it any way you want to. if there had been a decision in the united states not to try to itself militarily in these regions but to let them sort out their own problems, my be -- but it's nothing more than a guess that we would not be facing the kind of problems that we had today. we might be facing a whole other et of problems, but not the precise kinds we have today. i must say, i get a little maybe

mpatient and probably i should not, but i get a little mpatient with the analysis of the recent past because you can either way. what's important at the moment is to figure out what to do with isis and to try to think forward to move ahead on that question, learn from the we can, but focus on the future and the resolve the isis ems of the future and is certainly in that category. host: alvin in brooklyn on our line.ndent thanks for holding. you're on the air with lee hamilton. morning.good thanks for your broadcast. i wonder, why couldn't we if done, have eady intelligence among isis, even as they are, and also isn't there a continuum of the

religion they're fighting for in a continuum there down to more moderate moderate elements of that religion. they're destroyed, isn't it like cutting off the rainbow at the blue. ost: i want to flow up that caller's comments with laura's tweet. she asks -- war on terror kill diplomacy? guest: i hope it did not kill diplomacy. i want to go to the caller's about intelligence. because i think intelligence is the key to so many things that we do now. years ago, our intelligence was limited, what was the power of the soviet union to do this, or the other. today our policy makers want to know everything about the enemy friends we spy upon

as we learned in recent weeks. broadly used.e is isis presented a very tough target for the intelligence community. of them an keep track with a lot of fancy technological devices. get the movements and all of the rest of it. but penetrating an extremist group is very, very hard to do. you can't do it with a guy like me. midwesterner with a crew cut and so forth. you have to use people who are who look the language, like they look like, whose may not be in all respects perfect from our point of view. tough intelligence target. we have had some success. we're getting better. keep in mind, in the middle groups that e many do not like the united states and wish us ill. easy to not always

identi identify through intelligence is going to rise to cause us the most trouble. look at isis. there aren't many americans that isis.ell you the leader of we learned about it a few weeks ago. it's been in the paper a few or on television. we can't even decide what to call them. we have a debate going on on the over here whether it's isis or isil or some other name. very new group that is suddenly popped up here and verybody says, why didn't our intelligence let us know about this? have a lot of groups to keep their eye upon. number of assets in the intelligence communities. very tough targets. easy. things are not now, diplomacy is going to have to play a big role in all of this down the line.

i hope there are always as ersations going forward to how you can minimize conflict. to ooks very hard right now see any way to negotiate a with isis. i can't see how that can be done given the positions they have taken. doesn't mean you give up on diplomacy. there are groups out there that ill have more influence with isis than we have. nd we may have to work through those groups. may be possible that some kind of a diplomatic resolution opens up an avenue. now that has to be used in military force. military force and diplomacy have to go hand-in-hand and they to work together. one, probably, by itself can solve the problem. necessary.e host: fred, auburn, new york on

the republican line. go ahead for your question or to lee hamilton. caller: thank you for the program. t seems to me and reminded yesterday that people forget in people tes over 3,000 thousands of jobs were lost. and everybody says we don't know who to fight because we didn't know what to call them. isis.ou said, it's now they're still muslims. they're still -- the only thing somebody thatd is teddy nger and like roosevelt said, speak softly, but carry a big stick. and someone ready to use it. think we're ready to use it any longer like we did in germany.ike we did in the only thing they finally nderstood was somebody that's going to stop them and stop them now. hamilton. guest: i've indicated of course

that the caller did that the military force is an important of the equation here. have some considerable her hesitation, however, in condemning the entire islamic of d as some of the words the caller suggests. there are many wonderful muslim the e, islamic people in world. its's be in large a very attractive religion. i don't know what the numbers are. but they have an enormous following. ell over 1 billion people in the world today. it's been a peaceful religion for many aspects of it. al qaeda asisis and being an extreme fringe of the by most not followed of the adherents of the religion. fringe, it's tant caused great problems. isis, al regime,

committing some horrific acts, and something we have to respond to. but i don't think it represents main stream islam today. we have to be careful. this , i think to solve problem, we are going to need down the line of some of the islamic muslim world. some of the friends in the we've had many and have had over the a period of years. hamilton, been years since the 9/11 commission released the report. what changed in the world for better and not so much for the better? guest: let's look at the success we've had. to success -- lots of ways measure what's happened since 9/11. important way to measure casualties have we had? we've had nothing to compare with the 3,000 people that one mentioned a s moment ago that were killed on

that horrible day. traumatic day st in the history of our country. we have been successful in blocking, defeating mass attacks united states. the record is good. the record is not perfect. the boston marathon case, the hood shootings, other instances, and a number of close calls of much lesser strikes. so people kind of forget that of the efforts that we have made, reorganizing a new ent, creating department of government, making screening go through at airports. every state and local government focused on homeland security. we spend millions and millions

of dollars. maybe it's not well spent. we've been reasonably successful in our efforts. now, have we made enough terrorism?o fight no, we have not. there are some things that deeply.e or example, at the site of the disaster, the first responders must be able to communicate with one another. that's common sense. the police have to talk to the fire department and the fire department have to talk to the health care people and all of rest of it as these heroic to the sponders come scene. they can't do that. 9/11.de progress on complicated, technical in nature ometimes, but we have not developed a seamless way of conversing by the first esponders at the scene of a disaster. likewise, someone at a disaster has to be in charge. a commander.o have

that commander has to make decisions fast. relating to all kinds of things, people, ood to sanitation, security, transportation, housing, the list goes on and on and on. who's in charge at the scene makes all of the difference. some of the decisions will be made wrong. they will have to be made quickly. we do not have to resolve the who's in charge. metropolitan areas in the scene of the disaster. intelligence is better. being shared better. e've opportunity a lot to protect our transportation ystem and other key systems of our society. but the people of the united safer than nk are they were on before 9/11. not safe enough.

needs to be ress made. we live in a dangerous world. host: lee hamilton and tom ccain who served as chair wrote who appeared in "the wall street journal" and the threat of cybersecurity. threat of "the wall street journal." dave tweets to you, mr. lee hamilton ank trying to get r 9-11 commission reports declassified so the public can be informed. guest: mm-hmm. that's important to us. the commission didn't control the question of classification of the materials it collected. that's done by the executive branch. i want all of the 9/11 materials record.n the public they should be. i don't see any reason to classify him. host: chris, buffalo, democrat, ahead. caller: yes, it seems to me that

actually want a kuwait.the first war in and we actually paid for that war. bush senior raised taxes. voted out of got office. do you think the republicans the congress now would actually want to pay for do now instead of running us back into debt? guest: well, i'm a firm believer of paying bills on a current basis. that.en't done we like to get into the wars, pay the battles, not bills and let the debt pile up. that's not a good way to run the country. we should run way the united states. so if you're going to fight a out and pay for

it one way or the other. a very important component of the strategy we were talking in the program. how do we pay for it? shared the burden of doing the fighting. a easy thing for anybody to sit back in the armchair. vote for militarily intervene. the people who bare the burden decision are very, very few people. volunteers for sure. percentage of the american people so that the burden of fighting war in terms casualties, in terms of fatalities is carry bid a very few people. the question to of military intervention, sometimes it's an easy political vote saying that's for the american people all for the

exercise of military power. the defeat tore win or whatever they were doing. votes with the heavy heart. because i recognize that while lee hamill top was silting in chambers in the united states house of conditionedves, air and nice office and all the rest, good meal every night, go to bed in a nice bed and getting a solid dinner going through all of the comfort of america like voting to send people into war and even then they were there voluntarily. caused me a deep concern. no matter what the international equities may have been at the time. and you can make a strong case of intervention. by the peopleried on the battlefield is highly significant. nd we have to have a consideration when ever we make the decision. we're going go to war, we're militarily intervene,

let's think about the people out.have to carry it host: are there similarities to the vietnam era when you first in the iraq era when your service ended? similarities and differences. as the media began to report from vietnam, you saw the fullbright hearings and the congress begin to make a full active role in that war. people turned against the war. and eventually we pulled out of vietnam. a very, very different situation for sure. every war has the similarities, previous wars in some differences. went in to thewe

under george bush after why they were still fighting with afghanistan and we went in in a powerful way, made a lot of progress in a short period of militarily.ground but, of course, did not begin to resolve the internal problems on ground there. both instances, they played a executive ole in the branch in making the decision to go in. centerville, massachusetts, five minutes with our guests. go ahead. caller: good morning, representative. two questions. the first question is -- and i'm birther, a 9/11 truther. i just want to know -- the building seven, did hat question come up in how it collapsed during the commission? didn't, why not?

guest: building seven was a ajor focus of our investigation. building seven was not one of it really big towers, but was a substantial building, i think, 30, 40 stories high. collapsed, not hit directly by the airplanes. and there was a huge debate, debate as to why that building collapsed. we on the commission were not engineers. certainly not experts on why buildings collapsed. we consulted s with the engineers of the country. besthey came up with their judgment as to why that building went down. i don't remember all the details. was an basic part of it intense heat developed within the building. sprinkler systems did not work. and such intense heat buildup eventually lding collapsed. now a lot of people have been 9/11 ng into that since commission reported.

they had a lot of criticism of the commission because they we explored it properly. we did what we could do. we consulted the exports. experts. and experts often disagree with each other. i think that debate continues. explanationsnds of as to why building seven collapsed. an expert tend to be on that. some of the ideas put forward don't make a lot of sense to me. no engineer and i don't know much about architecture. but we took the word of the best advice we could get and they gave the reason we spelled out detail in the report. host: what's your response to those folks. segment on this program on building seven and some of the conspiracy theories 9/11.ding but what's your general response to folks who think 9/11 was an preplanned?r

guest: i just don't think there's very much evidence for it. good bit of evidence for what we found. charged with the responsibility of determining how this happened. and the rest of it. we wrote it in a best seller in this country. i think that story has basically held up. there are a lot of people who the agree with all of facts of it. at the end of the day, you can't just theorize here. have to bring forth hard facts. every morning, hundreds of would come in with suggestions of what should be done, what should not be done. things best h the you can with limited staff and

the best uggestions you can based on the circumstances. i think we got it right on the evidence we had. evidence may develop in years ahead to change some part of our story. i don't think it has thus far. we basically got it right. to get hard facts as to what happened on that day. vista, eorge in belle california. go ahead. caller: you talked about the ate that's brought about by bombing. what i don't understand. live with ople who you have a group that you either join, submit to, or you're going to die. if you bomb that group or other

people are killed, how can you to the fact that -- dresden, hiroshima, were ki, those items brought about by the bombing. those wars and stopped them fast. and -- you were doneught there. go ahead, congressman. >> i think everybody favors air ing the damage done by strike strikes. powerful s can be tools. they do sometimes. have unintended consequences. he united states military goes to great extremes to try to damage casualties

of innocent people. you don't want to -- i don't caller t least, the disagrees, you don't want to kill hundreds and hundreds of after t people as you go 10, 15, 20 bad guys. the military force has to be with discrimination and not just with abandon. host: if so many are unhappy why do they , continue to re-elect their congressman. guest: because the members of congress have all kinds of advantages. advantages are innumerable. they understand if people don't like the congress so incumbents

against the un congress and separate themselves from the congress. any voices speaking up to favor the congress at all. sport e favorite indoor of america to criticize the congress. but members of congress have massive mailing privileges. kinds of staff to work and help develop in district. of their a lot constituents. they have great advantages with media. to the use of the and so you always have these olls showing the people don't like the congress and they re-elect the congress almost year-after-year. they do it again this year. it's because of the advantages incumbent has. i think it needs to be equalized myself. but not everybody agrees with that. i want to see more competitive

elections in this country. had nk the reason we've this extreme polarization in merican politics because so many congressional districts and ven states have become noncompetitive. and i think the election, the the the middle rather than extremes of the american electorate are represented. in the great question takenan politics today is over. that's why you have the polarization of the congress today. let's get back to the system where the representatives represent all americans. not just a few of them. have you invited them to come out and speak to your center. guest: be glad to have either one of

>> on the next "washington looks at the cohn fall campaigns. then anthony cordesman looks at the president's plan. i was always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next conversation with rob portman on the midterm elections. after that, a form on u.s. strategy to combat the isis terror group. 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." ohio senator rob portman discussed topics at the christian science monitor breakfast. about the him president strategy, the responsibility of the gop -- the

possibility of a gop senate takeover, tax reform, and the possibility of running for president. this is just under an hour.

>> ok, here we go, folks. thanks for coming. i am dave cook from "the monitor." our guest this morning is senator rob portman of ohio, vice chairman for finance of the national republican senatorial committee. this is his first visit with our group. our guest was born and raised in cincinnati. he earned his bachelor's degree at dartmouth. he earned a law degree from the university of michigan. he worked in the elder president bush's white house as head of the office of legislative affairs. in 1993, he ran for a vacant congressional seat and served in the house from 1994 to 2004. in 2005, president george w. bush named him as u.s. trade representative and appointed him as director of the office of management and budget. in 2010, he was elected to the senate. he and his wife have three grown children.

thus endeth the biographical portion of the program. we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting. give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session as soon as the breakfast ends. if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal. raised eyebrow, finger wave, what have you. we are going to start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments. thanks again for doing this, sir. >> thank you, dave. this is a great turnout. i see you all have your reading material in front of you. thank you for memorizing this. i will talk about this plan for

action, not just a way to explain to people why it is important to elect republicans but it is a blueprint for governing. i would like to start by saying, here we are, 13 years after 9/11. although some of us may not remember what we were doing yesterday, i think everybody remembers exactly where they were 13 years ago. the nation was riveted by the attacks on the world trade center. the fight against terrorism began in earnest, and here we are 13 years later with the president giving a speech about fighting terrorism. this is a determined and obstinate enemy that continues to threaten our country. i believe there is a national security threat in what isis is doing in iraq and syria.

they are attempting to establish a form not just to terrorize that part of the world, but to attack the west. i think we can learn a number of lessons from it. one is that we are blessed to have the greatest military on the face of the earth. although we have made many sacrifices in the last 13 years, our military and intelligence is second to none. i thank god. dave and i were talking coming in. dave is a veteran and has two sons who currently serve. i appreciate them and him. i think we have to count our blessings that we have the ability to respond as the president talked about last night. keep in mind the need for us to continue to have the strongest military on earth to not just protect us, but to ensure we have peace and stability around the world. i believe the president's speech

last night laid out a strategy for dealing with the isis threat in a general way, and that was good. i think it was tardy, but i believe what the president laid out in terms of his four points, including continued military activity in the region, air assaults, is appropriate. the president made it clear that we have not had the kind of leadership that is necessary by saying on the outset of his speech, one, taking credit for leaving iraq in total, saying that we had no more combat troops in iraq and taking credit for that. it was ironic to me that he said that because i think the vacuum

that was left by the way in which we chose to leave iraq is much of the problem we currently see. i think by not leaving a residual force, specifically trainers to keep the maliki government in check and have some leverage on them, not to have intelligence on the ground to monitor what was going on, including the movement of isis fighters, and, third, to have some special operators to work with the iraqi forces to deal with that kind of threat is the reason we are in the situation we are in. second, the president made it clear in his speech before he started talking about terrorism threat that he is proud of the fact that we are ending the combat mission in afghanistan this year. again, i think we are not learning the lessons of iraq by setting an arbitrary timeline for afghanistan.

again, attesting to not just our enemies, but our allies, that the united states is not in this for the long haul. whether it is in iraq where we have seen chaos, or potentially in afghanistan where this could happen as well, i think we need to let those around the world know -- again, both our enemies, the terrorist groups that are listening carefully, but also our allies -- that the united states is in this for the long haul. it has been 13 years since the 9/11 attacks. many of us would like to think we solved the problem. i think the president has succumbed to the political temptation to do that repeatedly. again, last night in his speech, which i support what he laid out, i think congress ought to respond appropriately and provide him the funding that he has asked for with regard to training forces in syria to help

us carry out the necessary counterterrorism activity against isis there, but what i don't support is this continued reluctance on behalf of our commander in chief to let the world know that the united states can be depended on and we will be there for the long haul and will not allow 13 years after 9/11 for those kinds of horrific attacks to happen again. i think we need to learn from our mistakes and apply those to afghanistan and around the world. on the home front, america is only strong globally when we are strong at home. even if that weren't the case, one reason i brought this plan with us is that i am -- >> i hear you take it with you everywhere, sir. >> i apparently do. i do think we are in a situation

now where we have a leadership deficit both abroad and at home. there are certain things we can and should be doing to deal with the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. if you look at the job numbers last month, another disappointing month. yes, the unemployment numbers ticked down because more people left the workforce altogether. we had the so-called labor force participation rate actually go down to the point that among men and women combined, we are probably at the level we were during the incredibly weak economic period in the carter administration in the 1970's. among men, it probably goes back to the 1940's. we have the lowest participation rate we have had since the 1940's when we started keeping track of these statistics.

median income is down. health care costs obviously are up, as is the price at the pump. people's net worth is down considerably. if you look at the period from ronald reagan until 2007, we had a steady increase in income, even taking into account an inflation rate that is not accurate, about an 18% increase in income, now we have had an actual loss of income and net worth. so when i am back in ohio, what i find is that what the president said last night, which is basically we are out of the woods, things are getting better, he talked about this unparalleled period of job creation, that is not what i hear and that is not what i see. in fact, i see a lot of people who are hurting. i see people who are very worried, uncertain about the future.

i will acknowledge that i looked at the polls in august. the poll i've found that was most troubling and interesting was the wall street journal poll about how people feel about the future. it asked the american people, do you think the next generation is going to be better off? the answer was a resounding no. 77% of americans said no. that is unprecedented. these numbers have never been seen before. >> this is the point in the program where i earn my salary by saying, if you could bring your opening to a close, then we will go to questions. if they don't questions, they will march on me with torches. >> i would hate to see that. let me conclude by saying i think we are suffering from a leadership deficit abroad and at home. in terms of leadership at home, i think there is a way forward here.

our future can be very bright and it requires republicans and democrats alike to find common ground on issues where there is a consensus. we know we need to deal with the debt, which is at record levels. we know we need to give our economy a shot in the arm by doing the tax reform the president talked about. we have to deal with our regulatory system and provide regulatory relief which we can and should do. we know our energy opportunities are great. the numbers would be far worse if not for the growth in the private sector. there is so much more we can do. that includes the keystone pipeline, but also energy efficiency. expanding trade is another area. i would tell you not to have the ability to negotiate has hobbled our economy. it has not enabled us to expand

exports. we have the opportunity by doing some of these simple things to get the economy moving again and do what john f. kennedy talked about, which is rising the tide. a rising tide lifts all boats, he said. that is the necessary, not sufficient, but the necessary action we should be taking as a country. i am ultimately optimistic and i think having a republican majority helps make that happen, for the simple reason that this town is dysfunctional. we are not doing things we should be doing. by getting a republican majority, i believe it would get the president to the table on some of these issues. i think that can happen. we will talk more about the specific races, if you like. if it does happen, the next few years can be productive. i may sound naïve. i look at what has happened over

the years when we have divided government. that is when we have done tax reform, entitlement reform, helped to move the economy forward. we have a desperate need for that right now. a need for leadership. that requires both sides to come together and do what is best for the american people. >> catherine, alex, paul, and burgess to start. a politico story yesterday noted that republicans in a number of races, including kentucky and iowa, are seizing on what they call the obama administration's feckless response to islamic state militants. their argument is that obama is disengaged. how did last night's speech in your view change the effectiveness of that line of attack?

how do you sense the change in the battle for control of the senate? >> first, i think the speech last night laid out a general strategy that i hope most republicans will support. i think it is right. we need to be more aggressive. we were in a much more difficult situation because of this vacuum of leadership that we talked about. but we are where we are. i think it is appropriate that the president laid out a strategy to deal with the isis threat in iraq and syria. i don't think this is a political issue. i understand the connection with the states where there is a senate campaign and people have different takes on it in terms of the political implications of last night's speech. this is about our national security.

someone once said famously, partnership ends up the water's edge. i think america is in trouble abroad. with ukraine and russia, i think the same is true in the south china sea. i think the same is true in other parts of the middle east, including gaza and israel and with regard to iran and their march toward a nuclear weapon. we need to show more leadership. i hope last night's speech begins the process of getting america back on track. the president, based on remarks last night, continues to hope it will go away. hope is not a strategy. we need to engage more aggressively. and the president took some of those steps last night. >> earlier this week, it was written that they were expecting a sizable republican wing.

charlie cook offers a different view. he says there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming republican side. another said the democrats could well lose the senate even without such a wave. which senate race keeps you up most at night? is it our friend in kansas where you recently dispatched two top aides to work on it? what keeps you up at night? >> first, none of the races keep me up at night. i am kept up at night by other issues, including the lack of leadership abroad and my worry about what that means. i was in ukraine a few months ago with the elections there. one thing that keeps me up at night is the fact that the united states is allowing the ukrainian people to have to engage in a fight with a much

stronger military, russia, without providing them the weapons they need. i am kept up by the fact that this economy continues to be incredibly weak despite there are things we can do to get it moving again. to get back to your question, i think 50 days is a lifetime in politics, so things could in terms of the senate races. charlie cook said the bad news is that republicans could win without a wave. i don't know if that is bad news. but i think it is too close to call. i believe there are three states where both republicans are seemingly doing very well, double-digit leads in the polls, and that would be that would be west virginia, south dakota and montana. there are probably seven states where it is too close to call. republicans would need gains in

order to get the majority. i don't think any republican seats are in great danger. i think mitch mcconnell is doing well in kentucky. i live in greater northern kentucky, in cincinnati. i get a lot of those ads at home. i think mitch is going to be fine. i think in georgia, we are doing well. it is trending in the right direction. it comes down to those handful of states. it is simply going to depend on what happens here in the next 50 days or so. >> catherine? >> will the nrfc contribute money to state senator jim oberweis' campaign against dick durbin? >> i don't know what the decision will be there. i have been told that that race

is close somewhat. it is a single-digit race. i don't know enough about it. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't know. frankly, the playing field is already very broad. i don't think people would expect that we would be talking about minnesota, new hampshire, virginia, and oregon, but we are. the playing field is already quite broad. >> alex? >> you guys take over the majority, one of the first things you have to do is craft the budget. you are on the budget committee. what will the budget look like? you have to get ted cruz to vote for it, possibly. will it be like the ryan budget? if not, what are the key differences going to be? >> it is a great question. if we get 55 or 57 republicans, we won't need ted and susan. just kidding.

you have to assume it is going to be a narrow majority and we need to pull together to make sure we do pass a budget. it is unbelievable to me that we do not have a budget in the house and senate for the last several years. i have been back in congress now for three years. i was vice chair of the house budget committee. i put together my own budget for an administration. it is amazing to me that we continue to move forward without even having the blueprint on spending. i think it is our responsibility to provide that blueprint for the american people. they need to know what direction our country is heading in. how much you tax and spend is critical to that. i think some folks around this table have not given enough attention to that issue. >> do you think there would be some key differences? >> there would be some differences, but in general

where republicans want to head is toward a balanced budget over time. in a budget, you can have what is called reconciliation instructions. if you can pass a budget in the house and senate, which i am confident that we will be able to do, although it is a challenge, you can have these reconciliation instructions that provide for something on the revenue side, which could lead to tax reform, something on the spending side, which could lead to some of the necessary changes to our incredibly important programs, and it can also deal with the debt. those can be done not with 60 votes in the senate that with 51 votes as we saw with president obama pushing obamacare through the senate with 51 votes. this is a significant part of, should we get the majority, what we ought to be doing. it is included in here.

i do think this is part of leadership. i am amazed again at the substantial five-vote majority that the democrats didn't even try to do a budget this year. when they did do one, it was a strictly partisan exercise that had no opportunity to be reconciled with the house budget. i think this will be one of our challenges when we get the majority, one that we should embrace. we should move forward with a budget that provides that blueprint. >> paul singer and others. >> senator, over the next week or so, what votes do you expect the senate and congress to take on the isis threat, and what votes do you feel will be difficult to take? we are asking people going into election to vote essentially for a new war.

>> i don't consider it a new war. i consider it a continuation of something that began 13 years ago. that is part of the point i tried to make earlier. the president may wish it away, but this threat continues. to compare what is going on with isis in iraq and syria to what is going on in somalia or yemen also misses the point. the president also continues to take great pains to describe what he is not going to do, including telling our allies and telegraphing to our enemies that there will not be u.s. troops on the ground, even though he authorized an additional 475 troops in iraq last night. i don't think it is about a new effort. as i have said to others around this table, i believe the president has the authority to act in iraq against isis.

when he begins to execute the plan in syria, he should come to congress. i think that would be smart. congress will have a debate on this that enables the american people to have more buy-in into what the president is proposing. that would be helpful. >> [indiscernible] >> i think it would be smart for the president to ask for that. last night he said he didn't believe he needed the authority. if congress passed a resolution, it would make sense. the other thing that makes me concerned about the president's speech last night is that by comparing what is going on in yemen or somalia to iraq and syria and by suggesting that he is very proud of the fact that we have pulled out of iraq altogether, he may be underestimating the threat. i think this is, as i said earlier, a very real national

security threat to the united states of america. it is a humanitarian crisis as well. i also hope this won't be the last speech the president gives on it. one thing i think is apparent to a lot of you around the table is that during the obama administration there was very little talk about what was going on even as our troops were engaged in iraq and afghanistan. the president rarely talked about it. i think that is a problem. i think what people around the world are looking for are allies who are looking to ensure we have the tenacity and the resolve to be able to finish this task, and our enemies who are looking for weakness, they want to know that we have a focus here. this won't be just another speech. a speech is not a strategy. >> moving on something that is >> i don't think we will vote in a few days.

it seems as though harry reid wants to focus on political growth that has no chance of passage in the senate. we are doing that again today. we will be voting on a constitutional amendment on campaign finance and the so-called paycheck fairness act without offering any amendments. this is the first time i have been told there is a proposal to amend the constitution without offering any amendments on the floor of the senate. that is what we will be doing in the senate. at some point, i hope we will bring up this issue and have a resolution with regard to the use of force, and i hope we will be able to have this debate so that the american people can be more engaged and we have an honest discussion about the difficulties, the need for difficulties, the need for us to make a commitment to it, and the need for additional funding for our military to

accomplish this, specifically with regard to the military getting more training in syria. >> the nrfc i just read had a pretty good august fundraising month. you said that kansas, georgia, and kentucky, you're not worried about the races there. you don't think you should put resources in those states? >> i hope we won't have to. we did have a good august. we exceeded our goals. overall, we are raising record amounts as compared to previous cycles. the democrats are doing very well at fundraising, too. the president is a terrific fundraiser. he has done 19 advance for the senate campaign committee. so that has helped them to have resources they wouldn't otherwise have. i am hopeful we won't have to spend nrfc resources on those

red states i talked about. ll states which romney won handily and we have good candidates will be fine. our focus will be more on these states, north carolina, arkansas, louisiana, iowa, michigan, colorado, new hampshire, alaska, i think those are the states where we will look for a majority. >> you said you hoped that a republican majority in the senate could both bring the president to the table and also work to find some common ground. i would like to ask you to play out what issues you think you would be able to find common ground on. since that would be a great novelty in the past era. secondly, senator mcconnell has been quoted as saying things that make it sound as if he would take a much more

onfrontational tack and turn a budget resolution into a set of repeals -- it sounds a little less like finding common ground. are you an senator mcconnell in sync on that strategy? >> i don't know precisely what he laid out, but i have talked to him and other members of our leadership team about the need for us to pass a budget, to move forward with legislation that we can find a consensus among republican colleagues and also some democrats. with the exception of these reconciliation ideas, 50 votes would be required in the senate to pass anything. i don't think anybody is suggesting we will have 60 votes on the republican side. i just need to check to see if the polls have changed this morning. i think we are going to need to work with democrats on many of these issues. i will lay out a simple agenda for the first 50 days.

this is not something that is impossible to accomplish. we have already votes on these issues. one would be keystone pipeline. this is one where i believe if we can get the majority, we can get close to getting a eto-proof majority on that issue. i think it makes sense. it should be coupled with other things including the energy efficiency bill that has come o the floor twice now in the senate. parts have already passed the house. it is one we could pass with overwhelming republican and democrat majority. i think this shows we have a balanced and all-of-the-above energy approach. it won't cover everything. but it will help to move forward this strategy.

two would be to give the president what he has asked for with regard to negotiating authority on trade agreements. in my view, there will not be a new trade agreement negotiated whether it is the transpacific partnership or bilateral agreements if the president doesn't have the authority to negotiate under trade promotion. we haven't had this for seven years. we suffered as a result. we are losing market share. it hurts american workers. again, it is one of those issues that does keep me up at night. i worry that we are falling behind. that is something we can do. the president in my view would sign it. third, i would say, and this is a broader area, but there are some specific measures we passed in the house and the senate has looked at, and that is on the regulatory front. one is a permitting bill that would enable us to move forward

in a more logical way with permitting. the house has already passed several of these bills. the commonsense bills like ensuring that independent gencies have to go through a cost-benefit analysis, which is not required now, tightening up the cost-benefit analysis on executive branch agencies. this is something the american economy would react to very favorably. i think you would see much more certainty. one thing that has been evident in the polling i talked about is this sense of anxiety and uncertainty. the fourth thing is dealing with tax reform. i don't think the president's approach to this will help. he is talking about putting a band-aid on the issue of so-called inversions. that doesn't deal with corporate takeovers, which is

going to accelerate in my view. the obvious answer is to fix the code. if we don't do that, we will continue to have american companies taking jobs and investment abroad. and you will continue to see more and more american companies being taken over by foreign companies. again, it is outrageous to me that washington sits back and criticizes while we refuse to act on what is such an obvious disadvantage for american workers, a tax code that is inefficient. we are one of the only developed countries in the world that hasn't reformed our tax code since the 1980's. we owe it to american workers to do this. i think we can. there is a consensus about lowering the rate and broadening the base. it won't be easy, but there is a consensus about that general approach. the president has said repeatedly, including that it can be done on a revenue-neutral basis. republicans would like to see some tasks cuts. i think we understand that

revenue neutrality is something we can live with on the business side and that we have an urgent need to address this to avoid more companies leaving our shores and being taken over by foreign companies. those are four things that could happen that i believe would be great for the economy and enable us to move forward on a bipartisan basis, showing the people that washington can work. >> you said earlier that you don't think this is a political issue, referring to the isis ebate and the syrian ebate. do you believe republicans should stop using this issue in campaign ads? >> no, i think the issue about leadership is absolutely appropriate to talk about.

i think because of that vacuum that has been created, chaos has ensued. that is an issue that is appropriate to talk about. what i am referring to is when the president lays out an approach to attack the isis terrorists that are providing an increased threat to our country, we ought to rally behind the president and provide the means to execute what he talked about last night in terms of the military side of this. >> would you -- do you think this should be a separate vote on authorizing the title x or are you ok if it is rolled into the c.r.? >> i think it would be ok to roll it into the c.r. and that might be the more practical way to deal with it. with regard to title x, i do believe having the military involved in training in an overt way is the more effective way to proceed.

i was over there a year and a half ago or so, i got the opportunity to speak to folks in jordan in the region. my sense was that there was an opportunity with the free syrian army to engage in the kind of training that was necessary to ensure that whatever weapons we provided was going to be properly used. we didn't do it. i think we made a mistake there. we are in worse shape today because of it. i think we need to act on that now. >> senator, looking at the home stretch of the senatorial elections, what are the known unknowns that we should be keeping an eye on, things that could affect the election? >> oh, gosh, you would have a better sense of that than i

would, probably. you sound like a good republican. i like that. i think the most important things in elections is good candidates. i have always believed that. that is why for the first six months i had this job as the national chairman on the fundraising side i focused more on recruiting and training candidates. i think we have done a good job with that. i think we have the best slate of candidates that i have seen. i think that the lack of any big mistakes on the campaign trail was partly due to the fact that people have been focused on ensuring that we stay on the issues that people care about. this plan that you have before you is one that i provided to every candidate, not that they all use it, but i think the focus on economic and fiscal issues and how to get this economy moving, has been through the isis attacks, through the back and forth on obamacare, the top issue has

been and will be how to create more opportunity and get at this sense of anxiety and uncertainty that american people feel about their ids. that is why i suspect we are going to do well in the next 50 ays. >> [indiscernible] >> what happens in terms of the economy is always an x factor, but i think it is very unlikely you will see the significant improvements in our economy that all of us would love to see over the short term. i would say that the jobs numbers we just got, 142,000 jobs and an unemployment rate that ticked down 0.1% only because people have left the workforce, the fact that there have been since the recession 3 million full-time jobs created -- 3 million full-time

jobs lost and 3 million part-time jobs created, more part-time work is a huge concern. when you look at these numbers of people who have left the workforce altogether, it is creating more and more dependency. these are the issues that people are worried about. i don't think the campaigns in every one of these states is going to be affected by what happens in the broader economy because i think much of it is locked in. >> you said that the president would be smart to ask for additional authorizations, but he has said he is not going to

ask, and there doesn't seem to be a huge appetite among your colleagues to proceed on their own. is anything going to happen in terms of additional authorization? if nothing happens, what do you think the consequences of that are for the way our system andles these issues? >> it is a good question. i do think authorization to use military force on this issue is appropriate and necessary. i don't think the president needs additional authority to o what he has done, will continue to do in iraq, but i think it would be smart for him to come to congress with regard to the expanded efforts in syria. as you know, ruth, this is always a controversial and gray area in terms of the war powers act and what it requires and

what the constitutional responsibilities are. i am one who believes the commander in chief role enables he president to react to imminent threats. i think the two issues you need to look at our how immediate the threat is, and i think the isis threat was something he needed to respond to without seeking authorization, in iraq, and second is the scope. there is already in place enough authorization from previous actions in iraq that the scope was not significantly expanded. so i am fine with what he has done so far. with regard to syria, i think it would be smart for him to come to congress. >> if he does not, what should happen? >> congress should act on its own. >> do you see that happening? >> i think it is possible that could happen next week. i think next week it is possible.

the house has put off continuing resolutions until next week to consider this as a possibility. specifically, on this issue of authorizing our military to engage in training -- >> how troubled would you be if there is not authorization? if he is going to do what he is going to do in syria, if he doesn't ask and congress doesn't act to authorize it, how big of a problem is that? >> i think it would be better if he did. i understand this is a gray area. the president has certain inherent powers that we should respect. he is asking for a specific military involvement and training. under the law, that is something congress should authorize. >> senator, you said it was unbelievable the president hasn't done something to help ukraine with arms. what would you do? can you see a republican senate acting on that?

ed gillespie seems dead in the water, has only gained one point in virginia since january, and is losing by 22 points to mark warner. why do you even throw that in to the states hopeful? >> with regard to ukraine, i am in disbelief that we are not doing more to help. i don't get it. i don't think america can be the world's policeman, but i think america has to play the leadership role, more like a sheriff where you get a posse with you, and the posse is there. and it is the nato allies. it is the countries of europe who are not part of nato who and our allies. the election i went to observe was all about that. it was about looking to the west rather than russia, both economically and in terms of an eventual military alliance. they have stood with us and it seems to me we are not standing with them.

they have asked for the ability to defend themselves. they are looking for antiaircraft weaponry, antitank weaponry. they are looking for more heavy weapons and communications equipment, things as simple as bullet-proof vests. we have promised some of that. we have not provided the weapons that they need. they have asked for it repeatedly. ronald reagan's famous peace through strength principle continues to hold true. it is more likely that putin will not continue this aggression on the eastern border of ukraine as he did in crimea already if he knows there is going to be some reaction. a lot of speeches and hot air from conferences in europe and presidential speeches means nothing to him. what would mean something is if

we acted. so i think we should be more aggressive in ukraine. i think we should move nato troops to the positions in poland, romania, and elsewhere, as has been requested. i think we need to move these forces closer to the border. that shouldn't be viewed as a threat. it should be viewed as a safeguard. i like the idea of nato coming up with a rapid response force. they are talking about 4000 troops. i think that is too small. remember the russians have amassed on the border at certain times up to 40,000 troops in ukraine alone. i think we need to stand up and be counted. otherwise, you will continue to see unbelievable encroachment on a sovereign country's territory by russia. this is the first time since world war ii we have seen this. they walked in and took crimea

and no one talks about it. i have attempted to get the senate on record on this. we have to push the administration to be more aggressive. again, it is not about creating a bitter conflict. it is about reducing the possibility of a regional conflict that could spread into a global conflict by showing the russians that the west will respond. i mentioned a vacuum of leadership earlier. this is a great example of it. in terms of these races around the country, including virginia, acknowledging that there are plenty of these races where republicans are ahead now, and i said earlier -- not in virginia, but my point is some of the other races, and i

think they are all going to be determined in the next 50 days. i don't think there is anything set yet. it is still in flux. these numbers will go up and down, but i still think -- how much time is left? 51? i said 50 earlier. i was off. i am hoping it is as few days as possible. 51, 5 hours, 13 minutes, and 10 seconds, and that is a lifetime in politics. things can change. >> what does the republican-run say to you about obamacare? is full repeal still an option at this stage of the law's maturation? separately, how do you assess your home state's decision on medicare at this juncture? >> i don't know what is going to happen on obamacare. i suspect we will put on record epeal and the fact that we republicans think it was a bad policy.

we think health care costs should be going down, not up and people should be able to keep the insurance they had. we are worried about the fact that the next shoe to drop is going to the employer coverage. the president has put that off until after the election. about 80%, 85% of us that are not going to be affected. i would support that. i would support repeal. i think we ought to also spend more time on the replacement side of that. the republican approach has never been just repeal. it has always been let's get rid of this, but replace it with something that does deal with the problem in our health care system. that is the increased costs and the lack of coverage. as you will see, in this plan, the first thing we talk about is what to do on health care.

it lays out some specific ideas. >> are you saying a senate republican majority would develop their own health care reform? >> i think we should. i think we should. it is something that ought to go along with the repeal. yes, we think this is the wrong way to go, but we also think that health care system must be improved. particularly now that you see costs escalating higher than anyone projected, including republicans. it has been worse than expected in terms of the cost increases. in my home state of ohio, it is double-digit cost increases. this is a killer for families and small businesses. and we are looking at the possibility, as you broaden this mandate to include employer-based coverage, to have impact. i am hopeful, as i said earlier, that we can find common ground. one is some aspect of health

care. yes, we are for repeal. there are also some specific things where i think the senate and house could act. i think getting rid of the medical device tax, the tax on revenues, is one where i think you could see a 60-vote majority in the senate and may be close to a 2/3 majority. it makes no sense. it is driving jobs offshore. i hear about it a lot. he fact is, when you take it off of revenues, it requires changing the expense side. that is happening right now. i think that is an area where you could see some consensus. one that i also think was messed in the whole debate over obamacare -- frivolous lawsuits. there is some issue with regard to the federal versus state

role. there is a clear opportunity to reduce cost. the budget office has laid it out for us repeatedly. it is over $50 billion over 10 years. there is some area here where you can find some common ground. >> what about medicaid expansion in your state? >> this is a decision that our state made, the governor and legislature. e will see what happens. my concern has been that i think these important programs, unsustainable programs on the entitlement side, need to be addressed. a vital program, but we need a way to pay for it. right now, these programs, medicaid, medicare and social security, are not sustainable. i am curious that some in the other party are talking about

expanding these programs at a time when they are already looking at, for those retiring today, the very real possibility that most of these people would see their benefits sharply reduced. in social security, in a 2024 timeframe, there would be a roughly 24% cut in benefits without the law being changed. this is within the lifetime of people who are retiring today and we seem incapable of dealing with the issue. we need to figure out a way to come up with entitlement reforms that make sense. small changes now to ensure these programs will be there. >> we have about 40 seconds left. we have six people who want to ask questions. >> lightning round. >> i am going to ask one.

you told "the washington post," i am not eager to run for president. you added, if nobody is running who is able to win and willing to address these issues, i might have a change of heart. have you made a trip to new hampshire? >> my daughter goes to school up there. part of my heart is in new hampshire. i do feel the same way. i am focused on 2014 and on doing my job as a senator, right now. after the election, as i said in that story that somehow "the washington post" got out of me, i am going to take a look at it after the election. >> thanks for doing this. you will be mobbed on the way out by the people who didn't get their questions. >> thank you, all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, a forum on u.s. strategy to combat the isis terror group. and live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on washington journal." sunday bill and hillary clinton will attend the 37th and annual steak fry hosted by senator tom harkin, who's retiring at the end of this term. this will be the first visit to iowa for the former secretary of state, and she lost the 200 presidential caucuses. here, senator harkin talks about inviting the clintons. >> well, i put in a request to hillary. i spoke with her some time ago, but she was getting ready to do her book tour. she was just finishing her book, and she said i just don't know what that's going to be like and how that's all going to transpire, she said, but i'd really like to do it if you just give me some time, figure out what my schedule is

employing to be like, and i said sure. then i saw bill out in california. i was at a healthcare event in california, and i saw bill clinton there. of course, then we started commiserating about this and that, and i remember, as he was kind of walking, he was signing some of his books for some people. there were just the two of us, so i told him that i had invited hillary to come out to speak at my steak fry. as he turned and walked away, i said you should come too, and i said you should come too. you've been good friends of ruth and my, and i said, yeah, i'd love it, think about that. and he said i will. they can. and it's just a great honor to have them both out. they've been just good friends of ours for all these years. bill and hillary will provided, i think, great leadership for our country in the past in their respective ways. i served on the committee in the senate under ted kennedy

with hillary clinton all the time she was in the senate, so we had great working relationships in the senate. i think she just did an outstanding job as our secretary of state. in fact, as i traveled around the world the last few years, it is just amazing how the stature that hillary clinton has globally among women and girls all over this globe, she a kind of lit a spark, lit fire among women and girls in different countries around the world, and they just hold her in very, rehigh esteem. >> senator harkin, former president clinton, and hillary clinton are all expected to speak at the 37th annual harkin steak fry. r live coverage from indianola, iowa, starts sunday at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. now the center for american progress in washington, d.c., hosted a discussion on u.s.

strategy for combating isis in syria and iraq. the panel included former u.s. ambassador to syria, robert ford, as well as middle east foreign policy and national security experts. this is an hour and 30 minutes. >> welcome to the center for american progress, i am a senior fellow here at the center. i am so pleased we have such a turnout. what we are gearing for here is an in-depth discuss on isis in syria and iraq. we really have an excellent panel here today.

first and foremost, i am going to introduce in the order of speaking. we are lucky to have ambassador robert ford. after 30 years of service, he resigned in february as our ambassador to syria. he is well-known to everyone in this room for his committment and dedication to service. we look forward to hearing to his remarks. then we we hear from hardon lang. he is a senior fellow here at the center. and then we will hear some remarks from andrew tabler. our friend at the washington institute for policy. anyonelso well-known to who is paying attention to syria. andrew and i met in 2007, and we engaged him early, back in 2010. this was when george bush was in

office. his expertise is well-known. last, but not least, is doug oliphant. , ande lucky to have him thank you everyone. before we get underway, we have three points. the first point i wanted to make is to acknowledge the fundamental challenge that the iraqi and syrian people face. we sit here in think tanks, and we often forget that beneath these statistics of 3 million syrians and hundreds and in syria andled iraq, these are human stories.

in our research, we have all had contact. we all need to remember about the people who are there. remember being at the border of syria and seeing a family who who had everything they had. i think it is appropriate to start their. we are going to talk about targeted strikes, diplomacy, and a moral framework that we need things in mind are those when we have a discussion like this. there are crimes against humanity by both the assad regime and isis. i wanted to acknowledge our colleagues who are not on stage. syrian opposition, we released today. it is a strategy report on isis

strategyo release a report on isis earlier this week. it is something new we have done here. we have a core team, including jewel, including others who have been out in the fields with us. we have done studies in turkey, and the syrian report is the fourth in the series. we are grateful for our senior colleagues. those acknowledgments are important. reports, wethese try to wrestle with not just what the u.s. does, and also the dynamics of each country. these are longer reports, but we hope you have a chance to take a look at them.

lastly, and i will shut up after offer my ownd to analytical interpretation of what the president said, and what his policy is. and whether it is good or not. and we can talk about that later. athink a useful way, perhaps, little over simple five, is how this administration has used the challenge of isis and iraqi and how to approach it is like a stool with three legs. at we hear about is today with secretary kerry going out to get a regional coalition and an international coalition to fix this. that is one component. thes one that requires u.s. leadership to construct. the second, obviously, is a rock raq. it is fraught with a

lot of booby-traps. hopefully, this moment of crisis with isis and other groups is a wake-up call. the third is syria. in my view, it is the one that even after what president obama said the other night, is still the one that needs the most development, and it needs more coherency from a u.s. policy from how we connect with these actors in the region. it is that last pillar that we want to hold it -- hone in on a bit today. again, with ambassador ford here, i thought we would kick off our discussion just asking ambassador ford. about's are, what is your

ford,sion -- ambassador what is your impression of the .emonstration -- administration how do you see the president'new , and where do you see sort of the next steps on the syrian opposition? >> thank you. thank you. nice to be here. thank you for the invitation. this is my first time here. i see two distinguished colleagues with whom i used to work, and i just want to highlight that. it's great to see you, rich. i think he is just now leaving government. let me tell you that it's ok. [laughter] i also see colonel rob friedenberg, and he was our defense attaché and repeatedly put himself at some physical

risk in order to help us understand what was going on there. rob, it's great to see you. i am actually a bit encouraged. i think the administration's overall approach of lining up diplomatic, regional, that is to say, above all, support for the effort against islamic state as well as political and financial, trying to cut money flows into the very well-financed islamic state -- these are very well spot on. i was extremely struck by the picture coming out of saudi arabia yesterday of the arab foreign ministers, and there was ibrahim joffrey from iraq, the former prime minister of iraq, 2005, 2006, a man with whom the

saudi's would have nothing to do when he was prime minister, despite repeated requests from the american embassy. rich and i were there. we could not convince the saudi's to engage with him, and yet, yesterday, the saudi's brought him. he was included in the meetings. i think we are making progress on that. i think it is really important that the governments in the gulf iraq in a new and better way than they ever have before, so i thought that was a good sign. i have three other points i would like to make, and then i will get to serious specifically. you said we need more coherence

on how we are going to do this with the syrians, and i completely agree because it's going to be extremely hard -- it's not going to be easy. three points then first. i keep seeing in the press that there really is very little left of these syrian moderate armed opposition, and i'm here to tell you, please check it out. get on the social websites, get into the arabic press, and check it out. the moderate armed opposition is fighting right now, friday september 12, fighting the islamic state up along the turkish border. interesting that they are fighting there. the islamic state actually things the battle for armageddon is going to come based on some koran.nts from the there's a big battle going on right now over that border area because the free syrian army depends on the bylines that come down from turkey, and there's a sharp confrontation going there around aleppo. there's not a confrontation any

longer. to the west of that because the free syrian army kicked the out, militarily defeated them and kicked them out some months ago, they are fighting them right now. also farther to the south on the south side of aleppo. the moderate armed opposition is very much fighting the regime, too, in northwestern syria as well as around damascus. to say there's not much to work with, i just think is completely wrong. it's a bad analysis. that said, they are there and on the ground, but their number one priority is not the islamic state. the islamic state has killed thousands of people in iraq and

syria. it has killed two very brave american journalists, but the assad regime has killed tens of thousands, if not more than that. we just saw pictures of victims of the military intelligence facilities brought by a guy named caesar who was just here in washington a month ago, six weeks ago. just that part of what the regime has done killed 55,000 people, and we got photographic evidence. that's more than the islamic state has killed. i do not for a minute justify what the islamic state has done -- not at all -- but i think as we try to work with the syrian opposition, we must understand that today, the syrian regime was barrel bombing damascus, which tells you right there, they do not control it, and they were barrel bombing down in the south in the north, and dozens

of civilians were killed, so their priority is not the islamic state. the moderate opposition. it is the bashar al-assad regime. we need to understand that going in. but that said, they are fighting the islamic state, so we can work with them against the islamic state, but we need to understand going forward that tactically, on the ground, as the free syrian army, regime, free syrian army or moderate armed opposition -- call them what you want -- and the islamic state with the al qaeda link maybe is a variable out there. there are going to be a lot of tactical alliance is on the ground. in particular between the nusra front and the moderate armed opposition that will make a very uncomfortable situation. they are going to make everybody

in washington very uncomfortable, but they are there because of a tactical necessity, not an ideological affiliation. that is really important to understand. the only way we are going to be able to avoid that is if we flood the zone so much that their help no longer becomes important, but i'm not sure that's what the administration is thinking. it's not clear to me. we will have to understand going in this is going to be a very hard ross s. it's not going to be smooth. it's going to be very bumpy. it's going to be a turbulent ride. the only way to make this work is being patient and keep our eyes on where we are trying to go, which is the destruction and -- an incredibly vicious and rabid andly ideologically extreme and marginal force in iraq and in syria.

thanks. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. we have done these four-country studies, and again, i encourage you to look at -- we went into it looking at the various strands of islam is him, especially the muslim brotherhood in egypt and tunisia. when we did our field work on syria, it was a hard time to figure out what our sample was. given how diverse and fractured even at the start of the spring this year -- it's very difficult to figure out what sample size you want, but we came out with it, and i think we have a very in-depth report. it is not the be all end all. i thought maybe you could walk us through specifically what we saw in terms of the main findings there, and then to the central question which everybody i think is focused on now -- is there a syrian opposition that we can work with? >> sure. the $64,000 question. thanks very much for getting us

started, and, ambassador, thank you very much for the overview. those points, i think, are spot on. >> and we did not rehearse ahead of time. >> the center for american progress put out a report today, and it was focused more on trying to understand over the course of a series of field research trips where we find ourselves today. and what we are trying to do in the report as outlined some observations that we think the administration is going to have to take account of as they craft a strategy moving forward, particularly getting the syrian opposition into a position to play an effective role. the point the ambassador makes with respect to damascus is quite important. as brian said, it is in depth, which is a polite way of saying very long. [laughter] i would like to report a few key findings at this stage. the first one is the urgency of the situation. the point the ambassador made about syrian opposition, sort

of, there's nothing left to work with. the key finding we came back with is that there is something still to work with, and it's time to put our shoulder in. it is just going to be clear that this is not going to be easy by any stretch of the imagination, and the only point i want to build on with his there is a sense of urgency to getting increased levels of the system into the forces of the -- what remains of the moderate opposition in aleppo and in other areas in trying to fight the three sided war. isis and the a sawed regime have assad regime have been squeezing these forces for quite some time, and their situation, while not as essential at the moment, is quite higher. the president has put forth a request some months ago for $500 million to get this effort started, and i think we are at a point now where would if we are

serious about this, congress does need to move forward quickly. the news over the last couple of days from the hill is welcome in that regard. the other point i would make is something we heard a little bit about here in terms of the importance of the regional peace. one of the things we found in our interviews with the political and military leadership -- there's this constant refrain about the difficulty of managing regional politics inside the syrian opposition. it is not a surprise to anyone that the level of discord and competition between certain states and the gulf has become a problem for the different factions that have been backed over time in syria. this is kind of the expense of the unity of effort. the competition is diverting undercut resources that are not being used in the best way possible. this is a serious problem at this stage. we have seen some news out of the gulf recently, and i agree that the press conference and the communiqué out of saudi

arabia is deeply welcome news, but it's going to require, as brian said, u.s. leadership to maintain this over time. we've been able to pull together a group now that's looking good at the moment, but this effort is going to take years, and we are going to put into place some sort of mechanism for this process or it's likely to fall apart as time goes on. the third point i would say, again i don't think anyone , coming into this thing's it's is going to bet any of the effort, and i think we need to moderate our expectations from the get go let me explain why. the first point would be that the nature of the battlefield -- much of the free syrian army at this stage is deeply granular in nature. we have a number of local forces fighting to protect their locality. there's not a great deal of tactical -- tactical coordination is consecrated, and the strategic effort at this

point is purely operational. being able to work through this point, i think expecting too much too soon is a huge mistake. the second point would be there have been incredible efforts by the opposition with both political and military to try to lead this effort, but there is a significant divorce we picked up at least in our interviews , between some of that leadership and those on the ground who we could get access to. being able to bridge this gap or finding another way to mobilize and organize those fighting on the ground would be a critical part of the solution. third, there's a question of absorbent of capacity. the ambassador mentioned the idea of if the u.s. were to flood the zone. i'm not sure, from our interviews, that flooding the zone would help more than it would hurt at this stage. some of the groups we met with that are already receiving weapons from the united states , made it clear that there is a limit to the absorbent of capacity. if we work to proceed with pushing too much down the

pipeline, the outcome would not necessarily be a concerted effort with affecting the battlefield. there is one group put it to us, the most important thing now is that we get a sustained pipeline which is predicted over time, and that we work with this as opposed to a mass influx of weapons. the bottom line is that we temper our expectations going forward. we came away with a bit of a concern about what we were going to call for lack of a better term the syrian salafi of jihadist, referring to groups like the islamic front and those fighting under that banner. some of the most effective fighters against the regime and isis were moderate. i think this is something their

master made reference to. here, you know, the islamic front for those groups who have been fighting up to this front composed tens of thousands of sort of conservative salafi fighters, many of whom -- as one member of the leadership put it to us -- likened himself to the syrian taliban. i would be remiss if i did not note that at least some of these organizations in the way in which they operated next to the more moderate elements of the free syrian army has not been helpful. over the last year, we saw a major effort were starting the islamic for and in and seize weapons caches, warehouses, logistical support, elements for the free syrian army. this gives you a deposit in in termsives you pause

of thinking about how we are going to coordinate the effort going forward. again, all i want to say is be careful here. these groups are not like ices in the sense that from what we heard in the interviews and the way they explain their ideology to us, they are not transnational in aspiration. but the syria that they would rule -- i think there's a huge difference between that and the aspirations of the moderate opposition and what they are fighting for. the good news is that some of these groups have begun to suffer a bit in terms of their organizations, their capability. their leadership has seen a significant strike recently, so there are questions about whether or not they are going to hang together, but the question for u.s. policymakers is what do you do with tens of thousands of more conservative salafi extremists, some of whom might be willing to bleed over into the isis threat or into the ices isis camp at a certain stage,

and how do we understand the role they are going to play and the effort we are going to fund going forward, given that their aspirations are probably quite different than the one to which we would like to ally ourselves in syria. >> if you look at the report, you will see that what we try to do for the obama ministry should if it does lean into this problem is to look at the challenge of the syrian opposition, not only from a security standpoint, but also this political standpoint. when you see oftentimes plans developed by some of our agencies, we assume we can just do a technical assistance program, and as we see, i think, a lesson from iraq over the last few years is that you have to pay attention to those internal politics, and who really has access to resources, and then what is their political vision? that is something that requires a lot of intelligence and intelligence on the situation inside of syria, which is something andrew has. he has a lot of smarts. he has been following it for years. sitting here in september 2014

, and thank you for reviewing -- doing a peer review of our draft paper before it came out -- how do you see the situation now? are you encouraged by president obama's strategy? any encouragements or criticisms of the report just outlined? >> first of all, thank you very much for the invitation and not just the opportunity to read the study, but also just the thoughtful discussions we have had over the years. that goes for everybody on this podium at the moment. i feel much better after the president's speech. there are a lot of details that need to be worked out. clearly, in our attempt to degrade and destroy isis, the

hard part is going to come in syria, and that's where a lot of the hard work is going to come. the study, i think, plops into the middle of that discussion because the moderate and particularly the opposition are key to this. in that regard, i see the situation inside the country as dire overall. not just because isis decapitated to journalist that i journalist that i knew, and they were both really great guys -- i cannot emphasize that more -- but echoing ambassador ford's comments, there are moderates inside of syria. there have been since the beginning of this. i remember when i set up one of the first unofficial meetings between moderates and an unofficial member of the u.s. government in southern turkey, this is been going on for a long time. there has been armed opposition. they have been significantly weakened, particularly since the non-strike incident, what we

know is the redline incident. it was interesting that president obama's remarks the other evening were exactly a year from that speech, and, boy, what a difference a year makes. backing off the regimes in an ordering what it seems our strikes against isis. i think this report is extremely sobering and fair to the situation. i oftentimes am caught with people whether it's out there who have limited amounts of time because they have families and so on -- they want easy answers on this stuff, right? there are no more easy answers because we waited. earlier on, things could have been easier, could have been addressed through state structure. we do not have those options anymore, and there's no sense we cannot go back in time. the nature of this. battlefield that is outlined in this report is key.

there are moderates. the problem is they coordinate with jihadists against the assad regime, and coordination has been a keyword throughout the syrian uprising. i think they coordinate with them out of necessity. my long experience in syria -- i lived there about seven years and i have been dealing with it for far too long. i think that the colt or in the region as well as in that part of the region is primarily mercantile. i believe that the people are motivated by security but also by the provision of basic goods. the united states has an opportunity to back moderate rebels and to work with them to defeat common enemies like ices -- isis as well as the assad regime. that said, i think the report outlines this as well, syrian moderates are extremely difficult to deal with, and i cannot emphasize that enough. because of their unwillingness because of the situation they are in to make clear distinctions.

i would echo ambassador ford's statement about we have a choice here. either we flood the zone and really try to back these forces and by the more and do the fighting that needs to be done, or we try to go into this piecemeal. i hope we do not do that. i hope we do something more comprehensive. i think this report will help inform that strategy as it eve -- as it evolves. i was just in the golan heights, and i had the opportunity to visit and watch what could only be described as sectarian armageddon. the assad regime, has below-backed forces, and a whole host of others, battling against a plethora of opposition groups in southern syria, and they were not pulling any punches. it was like being in the middle of a storm, and it has been going on for weeks.