greatest asked order of terrorism in the world. let's not forget iran is pursuing -- pursuing a unique capability. they have steadfastly refused to the next thing i would tell the prime minister to do is to turn ones who have our

citizens. let's let them have freedom of movement and let's give them take there, let's sewage out of their cap met. let's treat them no longer as criminals. if you look at the 10 points, it reads like america's declaration of independence. in favor of freedom of religion, >> , freedom of the press, all of the things we hold near and dear in america. why should they not be a friend of america and why should we support them?

we expect that of them. after all, america guaranteed their safety and security. we should not say we no longer have a role in that just because we are no longer in iraq. we need to let the prime minister know we treat them as if they are american citizens and any attack on them is an attack against america. host: iran u.s. ambassador was asked about what the u.s. is and is not willing to do when it comes to iran yesterday on faith and nation. here's a bit of what she had to say. >> secretary kerry said last week in new york that every country has a part in this, including iran. what exactly is iran's part? >> let me stress we are not coordinating sharing intelligence with iran. the secretary met iran made clear it used isil as an enemy and a threat. in that respect, although our operations around rejecting and degrading isil, we are waiting to hear if iran has a constructive role to play. i know iran's behavior and actions in syria have been destructive from our

perspective, supporting hezbollah and the assad regime. not exhibiting any energy or intensity going after isil, spending much more time going after civilian neighborhoods than going after a profound monstrous terrorist threat. they have received support in iran in this conflict. those actions have to change if we will deal with isil in a comprehensive way. assad is not somebody who can be relied upon. host: general shelton. guest: i think she hit it out of the ballpark. she said basically what i would say. we have got to treat iran as part of the problem and not part of the solution. if iran has a constructive role we should play on this, we should hear him, but let's not

fall prey to propaganda. let's watch very carefully what they're talking about when they talk about helping in syria. let's not forget iran wants to be the key player in the middle east and they want to be the one that everyone in the middle east has to cater to. we talk about iraq and influence they exerted over malki. they said he had become an iranian puppet. i believe iran would continue to pursue that to the last to do great. they will not give up on long-term goals. caller: i want to ask a question about the united states.

the former guest mentioned minnesota having great population of somalians and a lot of the fighters have went back to somalia and different places, and then recruited. also, the boston bombing. what i don't understand is why we are not focusing more on united states safety than other countries. the republicans were talking about, there is no money. there is no money for unemployment, for different people. here in the united states. minnesota is run. cab companies, doctors, the banks, everybody is run by other people that come from other countries. guest: first and foremost, you make a very valid point. we have to be concerned about homeland. i would say secretary johnson in

homeland security and a director with the fbi, that is part of the major focus, protecting america. i would not suggest that just because we have a large number of people that come from different countries in the world that seem to be congregated in one spot, you look at washington d.c. you find almost the very same thing you mentioned about minnesota. we need to be vigilant and watch that. i would also say any time we have an individual who visits another country, whether an attempt to go to syria, whether it is trying to get into iraq or whatever, we need to make sure we understand why they are going and monitor them very closely. our previous speaker in the program this morning suggested may ought to be a crime to go to these countries. i believe we need legislation. it is a crime in countries like syria right now. if we have american that will go

join freedom fighters in somalia or syria or iraq, joining isis, we also have a law that says, that is an act of treason punishable by death. we ought to become very hard on that. that is a serious offense in my opinion. when an american turns its back on its country, he ought to give up all his rights as an american and convicted of treason. host: talking about threats against the united states. we are joined now by the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who currently works as the director of the hugh shelton leadership center. guest: we are basically starting with young high school students, going all the way up until best to the corporate level,

stressing value-based leadership, integrity, ethics, compassion, things that make great leaders. trying to stress leaders that lead by the golden rule, that people respect. we will leave a legacy of being a great leader. host: general shelton served as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. here to answer your questions and take your comments. glen oak, maryland, on our line for republicans, your next. caller: first, i would like to thank the general for your service. i myself am a vet. i can kind of speak to what he is saying. just as when i was a veteran, i was part of one of the last groups that was supposed to go to iraq and was pulled from that because the president wanted to pull our troops. our mission as intelligence soldiers was to create the iraqis.

that created a vacuum. people need to realize that. we did not follow through, which the general and other guys probably said was coming. it created a vacuum to what we see now. that is one. the american military, this is what we do. everybody does not like the military to be in certain places, but it is what we trained to do. guest: first of all, thank you for your service. it is very commendable. thank you. i would agree with you 100%. you have to have an orderly withdrawal plan whenever you go into the country. you have to have an exit strategy. part of the exit strategy is to make sure you leave in place a government that can stand up and defend itself, a government that can survive. it is important as we're doing this is to make sure as we pull

our troops out that the government is one that in fact will not be, as in the case of malki, very controlled by another foreign entity, in this case iran. if it is, no matter how long we stay there, the government is headed in the wrong direction. unless we have an exit strategy that includes a long-term presence to give the country time to get on its feet and operate the way we feel like they should be able to operate and defend itself, if you will, and provide for its own security, and we in fact will leave a vacuum and in this case in iraq, we saw the iranians moving quickly influencing malki and starting to turn things around. a very nonsectarian government, one noninclusive and did not include iraqi tribes, did not include sunnis, and therefore, it started falling apart quickly. caught in the middle of all of that were the 3000 iranian

dissidents that should be supporting and making sure they're taking care for getting out of the mess we left them in. host: melvin is up next. you're on with general shelton. caller: i want to thank the general for his service and the program is undertaking with students. one thing i want to remind him of is, when you do this, make sure the information you lay is always accurate. general dempsey, what he actually said with respect to the president's plan, he agreed to the plan as is. after being questioned several times, he indicated if there came a time when troops may be necessary, i would make the recommendation for the troops to be used only as advisory. he did not say he wanted troops on the ground now. this is like individual undergoing operation. i think we can treat this

without any surgery. if it comes to that, we will do that. he did not indicate anything about putting troops in initially. he said i agree with the plan as is. guest: i think you are exactly right. that is exactly what he said. what he did say was ultimately, if the plan could not exceed without troops on the ground, then that might be required. he agreed with the plan. that is important. however, he was also quick to say that plan might not be sufficient to ensure a victory against isis and if it was not him about my call for putting troops on the ground. that in fact is what we will have to wait and see. if iraq is come through the way they should, the troops on the ground will be the iraqis. there will have to be troops on

the ground to defeat isis. we are already seeing them modify tactics and techniques to include moving up against populated areas and into populated areas so you have to kill a lot of civilians. it is the iraqi troops go in and root them out of there and put them in places where air power can get to them, and we can win it was just the iraqi troops there in america, i think we all hope that is how it turns out. host: in the wake of the testimony and capitol hill last week, headlines, this one in the washington post, military skepticism of obama's plan. yesterday, on meet the press, admiral mike mullen was asked about his disagreement and here is a bit of his reaction. guest: i think when general dempsey, our current chairman, anticipated a question at a hearing that he would be asked about ground troops, took it off the table in his opening statement from the standpoint

of, if the circumstances warranted it, that he go back. that is a natural part of the discussion in this debate about how to execute a mission. there should not be any question in the end of who decides this and that is the president. i think what general dempsey was trying to do is certainly understand, explain to some degree how the process works. i think it has been blown way out of proportion in terms of the disagreement between the military and the president. host: do you agree? has it been blown out of proportion? guest: i would say yes, to a degree. this is a natural debate that takes place when you go in with any kind of strategy. most of the time, i would say when you come out of the national security council meeting, the president has made a decision.

you have got pretty much an agreement across the board. in this case, as i indicated earlier, marty looking down from a military perspective, can see exactly what isis might do if in fact we used our air power. if the iraqis were not capable of routing them out for those populated areas and getting them out with air power to them, that would change dynamics of the demands so to speak. i think marty was laying the groundwork. that is part of the overall solution to the issue. >> good afternoon. of the hamilton project, thank you for joining us this afternoon for a public discussion of the economic cost of climate change. it is our privileged today to

host u.s. treasury secretary jacob j lew who will give remarks on the challenge of climate change. followed by a roundtable discussion between secretary lu, former treasury secretary robert rubin, and professor of economics at the university of chicago, michael greenstone. before i turn the podium over, i would like to give a brief introduction to the hamilton project. the project is named after alexander hamilton from the nation's first secretary who laid the foundation for the modern american economy. it is fitting that today we welcome two treasury secretaries. the vision and intent is to promote evidence-based policies that work to secure economic growth, share prosperity, and economic security. to fosters innovative, nonpartisan ideas, and ultimately to introduce new

and effective policy options into the national conversation. we at the project knowledge that a defining feature of our nations history is that succeeding generations of americans having george -- enjoyed standards of living i are than the generations that came before. but looking around us today can we say that america is failing to make critical investments in areas that contribute to our nation's growth and security. within this vision, we recognize climate change as posing real and present challenges to our nation and indeed our growth economic future. to our about risks safety and our economy. we need serious policy conversations about what actions to take to address those risks. that is what we are focused on here this afternoon. thank you for joining us. i know invite secretary rubin to introduce our featured guest. [applause]

>> thank you. let me apologize or starting a little bit late. i had to fly in from laguardia. any doubt in your mind for our desperate need for infrastructure, take that flight. just want to make a substantive comment. i have gotten pretty involved in this. the reason i've gotten pretty involved is that is a learn more about it i begin to realize that you have not only the most likely scenarios, which are pretty serious in many cases and severe over time, but you also have the real possibility, unfortunately a hive of ability -- high probability, that consequences would be vast

multiples of the base case. instead of just being severe, in addition to being severe, in the long run it would become catastrophic. we can expand on that in our conversation. i said to a friend of mine the other day who is a well-known new york this newsman -- this newsman that i had developed an intense concern about this. he said we can deal with this decades done the road. i said no, the reason, as many of you know, the decay rate of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is hundreds of years. what we do today will affect us for hundreds of years. their cumulative there they are irreversible, and as a consequence this is an issue that cannot wait. as hank paulson observed to me the other day, if you look past over the cap past 10 years and see the predictions climate

scientist have made, they bring theard the timeframe when severe consequences occurred. this is an issue that we have to deal with now. in that context, let me invite to the podium secretar y jack lew. [applause] michaelg to on invite -- uninvite michael. i will only invite jack. say one thing. when jack was in the clinton administration, he was a pleasure to deal with. he is immensely substantive, and very sensitive to the politics of the issues he deals with p review knows washington, and he also knows how to work with all of us numbers as we dealt with our issues.

introduced east distinguished secretary of the treasury, jack lew. [applause] >> thank you bob for that introduction and for your strong leadership. and thank you to the hamilton project and brookings for hosting this event. issue of great significance to our economy and to our nations future. i want to talk today about the economic applications of a changing climate and i would like to say a few words about the u.s. economy. the u.s. economy emerged from the financial crisis that triggered a devastating recession pushing us to the second great depression. now 6.6% larger

than when the recession began in 2007. dvd increase in a 4.2% annual rate of the second quarter of this year. and our private sector has created 10 million new jobs over the past 54 months. the longest stretch of job growth in our nations history. while more work remains, confidence is strong at home and internationally, something i saw g 20ast few days at the finance ministers meeting. in addition to discussing the needs to take the skies of action to grow the global a country a great jobs, we discussed leveling the playing field on tax policy, so that we would stop erosion of the corporate tax base and avoid a race to the bottom in international tax policy. sayy i will have more to whereinversions, an companies move outside to take it vantage of the tax base.

they need for action is clear. choose tocan either ignore the challenge today and be forced to take more drastic further down the road a greater cost. or we can make sensible, modest, gradual changes now, and in the process great jobs, reduce household expenses, and drive innovation, technology, and new industries. this choice should be clear. as in a correct matter, the cost of an action or delays far greater than the cost of action. extremesociated with weather events like rising sea levels, drought, heat waves, wildfires, solids and severe storms, that demonstrates the scope of economic exposure. the council of economic advisers estimates that of warming above the industrial levels increases to three degrees celsius instead of two, there could be a 1% decrease in global output of a newly. -- output annually.

it threatens our agricultural productivity, our transportation infrastructure, and drives up health care problems. we are facing historic levels of extreme weather from a range of conditions. some parts of the country face extreme flooding, and others face severe drought. nowhere is the economic cost of climate change more clear that in the area of infrastructure, which is fundamental to our economy's productivity and competitiveness. the fact is our water and sewer -- and are power plant sewer grids were not designed or built for the extreme climate conditions we face now or expect to face in the coming decades.

hurricane sandy close to every tunnel and bridge leading into new york city, while all seven tunnels under the east river was flooded. areeased health care costs well documented. high temperatures threatened the safety of construction workers, farmers, and those who work outdoors, while putting entire industries at risk. dangers air pollution creates the risk of similar negative consequences for the health and safety of americans across the country. on the other hand, much less has been said about the nation's fiscal system and climate change. relief, crop insurance, protection from wildfires. health care, taxpayers pay the cost. already the national flood insurance program has had to borrow $24 billion from the treasury department because of a out resulting from the last

hurricanes, all of which happened in the last nine years. if the fiscal burden continues to climb, it will create budgetary pressures that will force hard to trade-offs and higher taxes. it would make it more challenging to invest in growth, meet the needs of an aging population, and provide for our national event -- defense. whatever your public policy views, whether you care about our death and deficit -- at an debt and deficit commission should care about coping with climate related damage. president obama understands what is at the. after years of talk in washington about chasing the challenge of climate. he is investing in american energy including natural gas, solar, and when power.

power. making the right investments will make our economy stronger today, it greets tens of thousands of new jobs, and position the united states to lead the world and industries of the future. and we have already seen this work. our new fuel economy standards would double the distance our cars would go on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade . we have doubled the amount of renewable energy reproduced. we will compete effectively in a world looking for energy efficiency, lower cost, and fewer emissions. the fact of the matter in over , solart few years stol installations have increased, and now every form in the -- four minutes another solar institution goes into place in

the united states. so far this initiative is led to $300 million in energy savings homes and businesses. how we power our country is good mrs. policy -- business policy. renewables now produce as much electricity worldwide as gas, and more than twice that from nuclear. in the coming years and expanding world would depend on more and more electricity, and renewables are the fastest-growing source to meet that increased demand. positions are companies and workers will be to take advantage of these new business opportunities. the president announced new rules this summer for existing power plants. these rules represent the most

significant policy to arrest climate change that united states has taken to date. will help us to cut carbon pollution and increase could energy -- clean energy production. joinrow the president will more than 20 heads of state in new york to mobilize global action about like a change. global action is imperative, and it is a good investment in global economic growth. first, making these changes is cost effective. look at the new powerplant rule i just mention. decrease them 30%. health and climate benefits for producing more clean energy and reducing our use of dirty energy is expected to be worth

55 billion dollars and $93 billion in 2030. king changesak more costly to do later, and may fail entirely. with the way the science tells temperatureseep below dangerous levels. the alternative, allowing them to reach increasingly dangerous levels will require expensive and dangerous action later. advisersil of economic found that for each decade of delay, the cost of hitting a given climate target goes up on average approximately 40%. we must adopt a risk management approach to climate change. we must do it we can to substantially lower the risk of the most catastrophic climate impacts, and that means reducing emissions. as the former secretary of the

treasury said recently, there is a time for weighing evidence, and there is a time for acting. and if there is one thing i have learned, it is that it is to act still smalls are enough to manage. let me close with two points. cannot do this alone. we must work with the rest of the world to address this challenge and we must work with other industrialized economies so that everyone is cutting carbon pollution in a state of away -- in a sustainable way. we must work with developing hichtries, w are the fastest-growing carbon producers.

instead of leveling the playing field for clean energy alternatives. this step is leveling the playing field for clean energy alternatives. we are also strong supporters of the green climate fund. a multilateral fund created to impact ofe the climate change. we must continue to seek the most efficient, market oriented waste to reduce carbon pollution. the congressional action based es is the approach most effective way. climate change is one of the most important challenges of our time at what we do in the next few months and years to address this challenge will determine our nations future, and if we take the right steps, we will leave the next generation with a

stronger country, a that are economy, and a brighter future. thank you. i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> thank you very much. introduce michael greenstone now. he was the director of the thelton project, he is now professor of economics in chicago. >> thank you. [applause] [laughter] >> i thought that was a good introduction. let's start with two related questions. talking to you a couple of years ago about climate change. and almost everybody talks to me saying it is a problem,

let's talk about something else. do you get any greater sense of urgency? people will make all sorts of wonderful speeches. i gave one myself which i liked. [laughter] have people started to realize this is real? >> i think there are two pieces of evidence that i can give you that is taken seriously. on this by the administration. think it will have a very serious impact, both on power plants on a motor vehicles. frankly, i think the work that you and hang olson and michael bloomberg and others have done hundreds the business brought together the business community.

aople who were looking at from a public-private perspective that puts it higher on our radar for ongoing policy debate. or not legislation can focused on what we can do with it. the commitments we make internationally matter. i know theyou say, argument the indians and chinese make him a that you created the problem, we are not sure we are adding more than you are. you have to compensate us in some way or another. make us good. what is the problem? i think that one of the reasons that we are so much so

board of of international climate fund instruments and direct bilateral support is there are a lot of countries that will need help to take the measures that are both in their interest and global interest. large economies like india and china, there is more do. can do and china is embracing the challenge of climate change and pollution in a different way than it did even a few years ago. there is a domestic demand because of the problems of smog and asthma and other house pleasures -- health issues. it is internal debate, not just international debate. we have to lead by taking action, we take ordinance upon burdens upon our

self. there will not be a one-size-fits-all answer. -- but there is no doubt that the world's largest economies will be a major factor because that is where it is coming from. to do something, get a expect to have you more developed state. >> they are at a different stage of development than they are at and they needed an opportunity for them that we do not have when we are at a similar point of development. we do not have the renewable options when the united states was building its first generation of power plants. with the go back and deal with a lot of existing facilities. if going forward we all deal with the challenge of putting capacityend --

standards in place, that would help. we are to make sure that our existing power plants do better. we also have more natural gas resource than a lot of other .ountries if countries like china do not dress this issue, it will not matter what we say. they will have domestic problems that are just beyond the current imagination. they are quite have to deal with this. and setting ambitious goals is the only way we're going to take on this challenge. >> let me complete the introduction of michael. he is a milton friedman economics professor. why don't you give us a little the magnitude of

of possible risk. not just the baseline, but what might lie beyond that? ,> the troubles we most although there's great scientific certainty am a there is a consensus among scientists .hat what is happening in this view, how much forerature will change double co2 in the atmosphere. if werevery wide one, just three degrees fahrenheit, ellen be ok. it originates the way they live, with the hardships.

you can see huge parts of the united states the roughly uninhabitable outside during the summer. you can see large crop to climb, tremendous demand for new energy. that is to say nothing of the very painful discussion that we did have, which words of the nuns did some going to build dams to protect. which ones are we going to let go? theink it is that risk of really bad stuff that drives a lot of the concern. >> do you want to add to that? i covered it in my introduction when i said if the debate is how bad the book is important toit is

read the directions. caps o that is the line that people have, that they are near consensus among scientists. there is consensus among the economist about what to do about it. that ranges all the way to milton friedman to fill in your economisteft-wing that writes for the new york times. there is a clear consensus about what to do. you're engaged in activity that is harming other people, that activity should be pricey. we should not have a society where it is ok for me to dump garbage in the former secretary's yard. >> i heard somebody the other high probability that

technology will be developed at some point double pull the missions out of the atmosphere and we are trained to bridger way to that. and i talk to other people named say that is a risk to take. >> i think the private sector will play an analyst role in driving that point. without it, we are not a businessman, but we just don't see companies engaging in extensive investments. when you speak to the indians, i do not know this is right or not, they're less receptive to

moving forward than the chinese. what is a possible response to the kind of scenarios that we have been discussing? i do not understand how anybody can look at the center not say we will be engulfed by this. is not so much a domestic issue as it is around china. cannot grieveyou in indian cities is probably waiting too long. that a question of rules do not interfere with the ability of a country like india to grow. it will come down to how do you finance the investments of the future. to the extent that we have tech knowledge he that is available to meet the electricity needs of a growing economy in the affordable cost, it will help a lot. they are not going to not be able to have more electricity.

the challenge is going to be to meet the load with new technologies. that is why think we can work together. but i think it helps when there is a measure for it. i see more of that in china than i do in here right now. i think that explains some of the difference. on a question that michael is raising, on market forces. in the year administration earlier we made a doubles on a cap and trade kind of approach. it got through part of congress, not all of congress. it would be a very good discussion to get back into with congress on how to have market forces work to help shape this to a better solution. ishink what we cannot do wait until congress acts to take the steps that we can because what we are doing while it is incremental is very significant in terms of changing what usa missions will be over the next decade. >> given that our political system seems to be somewhat less than perfectly functional to say

the least. [laughter] if you take a look at what you ive done, which i think as have said before -- if you take , whatist in totality percentage of the total response is not going to constitute? >> i'm better at the economics than i am at the science. the auto side, on doubling the fuel economy it in gasolinetself tax, we see it already. we are using less gasoline which is that are in terms of emission the powerpoint rules will dramatically reduce emissions. i'm not sure what percent. michael may have an answer. standard take the

close close tot sufficient to address the u.s. piece of this problem? >> it is sufficient to keep the commitment we have made in the international negotiations on climate policy. we want to do more to get to the next level. it certainly accomplishes a great deal. i do not think we can stop where we are. we're going to have to keep putting more policies into place. but it builds a foundation where there was a lot of skepticism that we could meet the commitment that we made in the last round of climate negotiations. because of the actions we've taken we are on track. this is not a problem we are going to solve and one action, and i think what we have to do is take the steps that we can and are clear and concrete

if we were able to have a debate on the broader policy that would require legislation, i think we can do more. the ministry of authority we have, meeting the international commitments we have made. i think it is a substantial accomplishment. we are not resting on our laurels. and it's sufficient for the president to go to the international community and say we are doing our part. there were a lot of skeptics a few years ago that we would be in the position to do that. >> if we go back to previous iterations of greenhouse gas treaty efforts, every single time we have had to show up and should dosay, you something, and if you do it we will back and confirm for a .ittle while

the commitment that was made in 2009, that these rules will be 2020,7% reduction in relative to 2005, the longer-term commitment will require a lot more effort. the unitedst time states can go to the international coalition say we have done something. i think this is partially a reflection of the efforts of the robot administration has made of the efforts the obama administration has made. 20%, 15% --

>> the way i think about it is the problem has been for decades that the effective price on carbon, the penalty for emitting co2 into the atmosphere was zero. around the world. spots, theese bright new rules, china doing things. it is a huge step to get the price above zero. now we have to get the effect of rice and a higher level to achieve the levels of reductions that are kind of necessary it is an enormous step. this is happening at the exact same time, it is the golden age of fossil fuels with respect to fracking. enormous accomplishment to make that at the same time that is happening. >> what is going to happen in paris? ofthere will be a lot

bilateral discussions between now and paris. we will work very hard to get an agreement with both the developed and developing countries to set ambitious standards. --o nothing going to paris do not think going to paris for these high lateral discussions will be productive. cannot put a number out there. we want the goal to be as ambitious as realistic, and probably push a little bit beyond realistic. the challenge is going to be substantial because everyone is worried about economic growth in their own country. so we're going to have to be in a position where we can demonstrate that dealing with climate change is compatible with economic growth.

if it becomes a choice between economic growth and climate policy, it will be much more difficult. >> when you frame the question -- do you were other countries look at the question as a trade-off of growth now i climate change now, or do you look at it longer-term perspective? if we do not deal with this we will create havoc for our economy so -- >> that is exactly the challenge. we are experiencing now that it does not have to be a choice. i think that is perfectly inarent in our café rules, our fuel economy rules. by taking the weight out of the pickup trucks, we're going to sell more.

some level that cannot be true in every product everywhere, but overall being more efficient should lead to more growth and more jobs even in the short term. the fact that we are recovering and growing at different rates makes the challenge also more complicated. the need for short-term growth is an independent challenge of dealing with climate change in a lot of parts of the world. >> a little bit of short-term versus long-term. it is always difficult to get clinical systems to focus on the long-term. . there arelly where short-term challenges worthy -- where the long-term goal seems at conflict with the short-term need. just had a conference about demand in the global economy.

bit betterg a little and short-term growth. we will expand the likelihood of an openness to dealing with a long-term issue. i do not think we can wait until everyone is feeling well in the short-term all over the world to deal with climate change, otherwise we will have waited too long. this is going to be a case of making the argument to do as much as we can as fast as we can. in different countries, that will play out in a different way. i think for a country that is exporter ofeing an technology in the future, they should want to be at the cutting edge of this, not the last adopters. they should be wanting to compete with us in solar, wind, and they should want to be able fuel,uce their demand for which is both a strategic risk

for a lot of countries, and an akamai chris -- an economic risk. we can make the case to overcome the short-term issues, but the that therefact are lots of countries who are not experiencing the growth that they like, is challenging. >> in the administration's , are there resources being devoted to incentivize research? increased research both in the department of energy and we have used a tax credit to create incentives for renewables. we have more proposed than have been enacted, but we have seen a lot of them already put into effect. ininteresting conversation the g 20 over the weekend was what kind of expenditures should countries prioritized if they are interested in a long-term growth. everyone agreed it was research,

development, and education. there wasn't a vote of the table that said that that was not the way to create the greatest economic future. michael, describe a little bit, if you want, the dynamics the methane gas, with specifics of what could be catastrophic impacts. >> my high school science teacher will be appalled at your attempt to explain that. [laughter] it, a lot ofnd what is going to happen in terms -- turns on this climate sensitivity parameter. if it is higher than we expect, it could lead the ice sheets to

melt more rapidly than we expect. that would increase the sea level. it would also cause the ark to permafrost to melt which would have masse releases of method. it would have this reinforcing effect on the weight the climate on the rate at- which the climate is changing. in the month after superstorm sandy, there was assigned -- heightened awareness of what the impossible could become possible. storms, majorjor , major droughts in the last decade has increased in an undeniable way.

it does not even have to get to these next level of extreme developments which are highly credible if not certain to know that we have to deal with this. this, i have you had the notion, but i do not over it is right or not, that as i said before, you have done a terrific job, but there is not a sense of urgency that permeates our political system. if we had a parallel gene to be that took into account externalities, and in the fiscal projections that you used to make, you had a separate set of projections that took into account potential climate effects. and if we had disclosure requirements with businesses and climate change, would that increase awareness and perhaps help motivate action? each of them in a different way would play a role.

let me start with the piece that i have had most experience with. budget rejections are backwards looking -- projections are backwards looking. and more being built into the projections, and you can see the size of the disaster relief fund that has grown exponentially over the last decade. gdp, as you know better than i, the complicated model that is in does ring in direct and indirect effects with a high degree of utility, the projection i referred to that the atomic advisers did that looks at the impact of three degrees versus two degrees increase in temperature on

global gdp, reflect the indirect impact of climate through the gdp model. -- an economic attrition might be able to figure that out, but it is being reflected in a way that makes the case and to some extent it is a question of recognizing that and dealing with as opposed to the lack of transparency. on the disclosure side, the basic standard of disclosure is reality. i think the more i think the more investors make under current, law coming they will have to make disclosures. experience with specific requirements has not been as successful as the general materiality standard.

chairmanscuss with the the idea and get a sense of their reaction to separate standard. i think the challenge is for investors to say they need to know more about the risks. then firms will have to make disclosures under current law. >> maybe i am being unduly concerned, but it does not seem there is a sense of urgency in the world i live in. >> i don't disagree about the sense of urgency. and others work you did on risky business raised it for a time to where it was on the top of people's minds. it is not a lack of analysis or information. ,t is a question of repetition at the risk of sounding like a pessimist, one has to say this

is serious and we have to deal with it until it is dealt with. sure youly i am not want to wait until the public demands action because it will be too late when people are feeling it personally. it will be a measure of leadership to get to the solution before it is out of control. >> which you and the president have done. michael? >> i want to join in the discussion of how you get people engaged on this question. excellenteas and idea. the challenge the less idea is an excellent idea. the challenge is how to monetize it. how you come up with a dahlia for that. -- how do solution you come up with a value for that? there is a solution. isre isn't estimated -- estimated damages.

it could be used for the gdp number, corporate disclosure. it could be used by utility commissions. it could be used in the treatment of natural resources and how we sell them. principle, that exercise you are suggesting is not difficult to do. thank you. you have been terrific. thank you for joining us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> more live coverage coming up in about half an hour. bob schieffer moderates a group about terrorist groups. he will be speaking the center

for strategic and international studies at 5:30. after that, "invisible soldiers," a book that focuses on how private military and security companies have become an industry within military and foreign affairs live at 6:30 eastern. tonight, campaign coverage continues with the pennsylvania governors debate between incumbent tom corbett and democratic challenger tom wolf. that gets underway tonight at 7:30 eastern. we spoke to a reporter covering the race for a preview. >> let's try the philadelphia governors race and the debate tomorrow night again with tom fitzgerald of the "philadelphia inquirer." good morning. host: could you set up not only this debate tomorrow night which folks can see on c-span but where the two candidates stand as far as this race is

concerne concerned? >> absolutely. the first debate tomorrow is that it finds the incumbent, the top republican, needing to really have something happen to reset this race. he's been the under dog almost from the beginning which is a huge surprises in a new statement that historically has re-elected the incumbent governs overwhelmingly. basically, it's been a stable race. the real clear policy averages have democrat tom wolfe with 17 percentage points, a little over a fraction over, and there was a new poll up this morning from the kneeland berg and the morning call newspaper in allentown found wolfe leading 52% to 31% among likely voters. it also found that it's not

necessarily a pro-wolfe vote. half of the respondents said they were -- who were voting for involve but they were motivated by dissatisfaction with corbett. >> i was going to ask you if there were specific instances why mr. corbett is seeing these low numbers. >> it's somewhat of a mystery, but substantively t probably goes back to the number 1 issue is education, and when he took over in 2011 after the -- after being elected in the republican way, there were, because of the stimulus ran out, there were cuts to education funding from the state from harrisburg. the governor cut some state money. the stimulus was a bear. and then, he went ahead with some business tax cuts that his

predecessor had on the plan. and schools increased class sizes, laid off teachers and other workers and increases property taxes. so, he started the negativity toward him among voters across the state and upon his own party. there were a variety of things he did that form very conservative republicans don't feel he really stood up for their issues. for instance, he had pushed through voter id law that then when it got in to tough challenges, the appeals court abandoned the appeal, accepted a ruling it was unconstitutional. >> was there any doubt from governor corbett as far as the expansion of medicare within the

state? ca >> it does not seem like he got much bounce from that. the dominant narrative would have been that he was not expanding medicare. when he finally, did, you know, it's an innovative program that might well work. it's going to do some good. i think people focus did on -- most voters focused on if they thought about the issue at all, they focus did on the fact that a year had gone by and we missed a billion dollars of federal funding because there were negotiations between the administration and d.c. about pennsylvania's alternative version of the establishment. host: as far as his challenger, tom wolfe, how is he casting himself? what's his strategy? >> tom wolfe's strategy has been

to do no harm. he's being very cautious. he is limited public appearances. he doesn't get specific, doesn't take many questions. he is trying to avoid a mistake. he's sort of major policy pitch is that he wants to put a tax on natural tax, of 5% and use that money to increase spending on education. and a couple of other things and the governor has declined to put a tax on natural gas. >> tom fitzgerald of the philadelphia inquirer who covers politics for that paper.

>> a reminder you can see the governors debate later on c-span. sullivan -- jay solomon talks about president obama leading wednesday's security council meeting on the threat posed by foreign terrorist groups. the author discusses his new book that offers up a new prescription to end washington gridlock. after that, purdue university president looks at public policy higherthat impact education costs. "washington journal" is live tuesday at 7:00 eastern on c-span. baker on theade recent data breaches at home depot, target, and jpmorgan

chase. >> it is all of the above. we have worked with law enforcement agencies who have busted down doors and drag people out of their basements literally. in fairlyrticipated large-scale arrests of multiple individuals that are highly connected, very well organized. they each have individual specialties and roles. someone writes malicious software and someone else knows how to launder the money just like physical organized crime. others are working on behalf of the government. there are offices and recon photos. they go to that building. their job is to hack into companies and steal information on behalf of a government. i have seen some photos of where anuropean towns

insane number of people drive lamborghinis and things like this. pam, fakethat is the s pharmaceuticals, fraud, all of these things. it is staggering amounts of money that are traced back to at astolen, stored corporation or government. 8:00 on c-span2. at five: 30, we will take you to the panel discussion on terrorist threats moderated by bob schieffer live at 5:30 eastern on c-span. till then, today's white house briefing.

>> happy monday. we will go straight to questions. >> how was the intruder able to make it into the white house before the secret service stopped him? >> i read your reporting on the topic over the weekend. [laughter] let me say a couple of things. indicatedvice has they are conducting a review of the incident that occurred friday night. that review will include a wide variety of things. for a conference of list, i would refer you to the secret service. but it will include a variety of things including the positioning of assets inside and outside the fence line. it will include a review of

technical and physical security enhancements that may be necessary to improve security at the white house. aboutl include a question ongoing staffing and assessment about whether additional staffing is needed. there will be a review of policy and procedures related to the assessment of threats. it also will include a review of previous interactions with the subject. let me alsosay -- say providing security at the white house is complicated business. is one of thee more popular tourist destinations in our nations capital. thousands of tourists on a typical day will tour the white house. that means thousands of tourists, members of the public, will walk out that front door at the conclusion of their tour. the white house is a place of business.

is essentially a large office building. it is where members of the staff and journalists show up every day to do their work. facilitating your injury and exit with minimum convenience while providing security is an important part ready. right outside the front gate of the white house's lafayette park which is among the more prominent first amendment zones in the country. individuals will gather in that area to make their first amendment views known. servicens the secret has the challenging task of balancing the need to ensure the safety and security of the first family while also ensuring the white house continues to be the people's house. balancing those is challenging. but it is clear in this case a review of that work is warranted. that review will be conducted. >> what was the president's personal reaction to this? did he express concern about

whether his family is safe? >> i had the opportunity to speak with the president earlier today. he did indicate his family lives in the white house, so he is obviously concerned that the incident that occurred friday evening. at the same time, the president continues to have complete confidence in the professionals at the secret service to do the challenging work i described earlier. the president is also confident this review is one that will be conducted with the highest amount of professionalism. he is confident the reforms determined to be necessary will be implemented in the proper way. >> he talked about the need to strike the right balance between security and access. does the president favor expanding the security perimeter around the white house grounds or further restricting the ability for tourists and other people to be in the immediate area? >> there are highly trained professionals at the united states secret service who will

be conducting a broader review about security at the white house. the kinds of questions you're asking the kinds of things that will be included in that review. >> turning to the united nations activities this week, when the president laid out his strategy earlier to combat islamist state terrorist group, secretary kerry said they expected other nations to have commitments to this coalition be firmed up by the time we go to new york this week for the general assembly. possessed of a case or is the president looking to use the next few days to press country to contribute to the effort and broaden the coalition he is building? >> the effort to build the coalition will be ongoing. for weeks, the president and , other of the cabinet senior members of a national security team have been actively engaged in their counterparts in

countries around the world related to contributions to this broader collision to degrade and destroy isil. this is a high-priority. we have seen important public commitments from individual support fordicating the goals the president laid out for the broader coalition. place, never reach the at least i don't anticipate we will reach a place where we stand up from the desk and say our efforts to build this coalition have been completed. this will be ongoing work. there is this important task general allen is focused on which is assessing the needs of the coalition. over needs will change time. he will also be assessing the

capabilities of individual nations who have committed to being part of the broader coalition and matching up those capabilities with the needs of the coalition. that will be work that is ongoing. i do anticipate when the president is participating in activities associated with the general assembly in new york that he will have the kinds of conversations with world leaders how they can contribute to the broader coalition. that is work that has been going on for weeks in advance of the general assembly. it is work that will occur during the united nations general assembly. the efforts of the president and other members of his team will continue long after the united nations general assembly has gaveled to a close. roberta? >> iranian officials said yesterday iran was ready to work with united states and its state about islamic militants but they want more flexible be on their nuclear program in exchange.

i wondered what would be the u.s. response to linking those two issues. the conversations related to the talks have to do with resolving the international community's concerns about the iranian nuclear program. conversations to try to resolve those concerns are entirely separate from any of the overlapping interests iran they have with the broader international community as it relates to isil. as you have heard me discuss on iner occasions, it is not the interest of the iranian regime for this extremist organization to be wreaking havoc on its doorstep. like the international community, the iranians are understandably concerned about has made in.l they have indicated they are

ready to fight isil. will notd states coordinate military activities with the iranians. the united states will not be involved in sharing intelligence with the iranians. the united states will not be aspectstion of trading nuclear program to secure commitments to take on isil. these issues are entirely separate. focus of the talks will remain on resolving the international community's concerns about the iranian nuclear program. it is possible as we have indicated conversations on the sidelines of those talks could occur. concerns or overlapping interests with the

international community as it relates to isil. this weekend, john kerry was in new york to engage in conversations about resolving concerns about iran's nuclear program. on the sidelines of those broader conversations, he did have a conversation with his iranian counterpart to discuss isil. i don't have an additional readout of the meeting. but that is an indication of the approach we are taking, that these or two different matters that will be resolved separately. >> the idea of a trade-off is a nonstarter. >> correct. overtly made by iranian officials and projected? >> i believe the speech was given by the iranian leader over the weekend. i don't know if a was a speech or interview. but i read news accounts of this proposal. i'm confident our views on this topic have been conveyed to the iranians. what that conversation was like or how it was brought up by the iranians, i cannot characterize

e conversations other than to say that we have made it clear those are separate. what is the timeline for the review you discussed? >> i can tell you the senior secret service officials responsible for the review are carrying it out with a sense of urgency. i don't have a specific timeline to share at this point. you might check with secret service to see if they have a time when they are putting on at. i know this is something they are pursuing urgently and the review began friday night. the incident on friday evening occurred a few minutes after the president and first family left the white house, i would think the president would be more than just concerned. was he angry? did he pick up the phone and

call the head of the secret service? can you give us more on his response? >> i can tell you the president over the weekend was briefed. friday night, he was briefed multiple times on the incident. over the course of the weekend, he was updated on the investigation. i don't have specific presidential conversations to read out to you other than the conversation i had with him earlier today. the chief of staff and others have been in frequent touch with secret service personnel over the weekend and today to discuss the incident and review the secret service has already started. >> the chief of staff and other top officials, were they scratching their heads as to how these dogs were not deployed? how the north portico door was unlocked? that gains access to an area that takes you close to the residence of the white house.

any reaction to some of these lapses that allowed this intruder to get so far? >> many of the things you're raising are topics that will be the subject of the review the secret service is conducting. i can tell you there are a number of changes to the security posture the secret service has already implemented at the white house. these were changes implemented in the immediate aftermath of the incident friday. the secret service has beefed-up foot patrols around the fence line of the white house complex. the secret service has deployed additional surveillance resources to beef up surveillance on the white house. secret service has changed procedures for ensuring the entrance is secure. there is already stepped up training for officers standing on the front lines of the white house to ensure they are aware of the policies and procedures related to securing the white

house and dealing with incidents like the one we saw friday. >> it seems clear you have antiquated procedures. is that fair to say? >> i would not describe them that way. there is a review that will examine what procedures are appropriate. some will need to be changed. i am sure they will recommend this changes take place and the president is confident they will be properly implement it. >> the spokesman for isis issued a call to foreign fighters around the world to carry out attacks on coalition countries. what is the administration's response? >> i don't have a response. >> during a briefing this morning, a senior official did say there is concern the international community is not prepared to deal with these isis.of calls issued by the president wants to accomplish that this week, is that right? >> the president will be

chairing a meeting of the united nations security council. it is only the second time a u.s. president has chaired it. the topic of discussion will be what nations can do to mitigate the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. we have seen there are several dozen countries around the globe where individuals have traveled to the region, taken up arms fighters.isil these are individuals trained who have indicated a willingness to die for the cause. the u.s. and our allies and partners around the world have is these individuals could decide to return to their home country and possibly carry out acts of violence. what the president hopes to is to have a discussion about what kinds of global standards can be put in place to mitigate the threat from these individuals. >> a quick follow-up on the

fence jumper. there are multiple jurisdictions outside the fence. post call is it if you're going to expand the perimeter? of the secret service wants to do it, is it done? does metro and park police have a say in it? >> you did raise another challenge the secret service deals with in terms of providing security at the white house. there are overlapping jurisdictions. the secret service does have to work closely with park police and the metropolitan washington police department as they provide security at the white house. that is another layer of complexity added to the task. as to who might be involved in the proposed reforms, i would refer you to the secret service and other law enforcement agencies. i'm confident the review the secret service will conduct is one that will consider a wide range of factors.

secret service is always updating in reviewing the security posture at the white house. there have been reports about a possible change to the screening of tourists before they participate in a white house tour. >> i am andrew schwartz. i work in external relations. thank you for coming out on a gorgeous night. i would like to thank rob schieffer and everyone at the bob schieffer school at tcu. overve been doing this for five years. bob has been kind enough to us.te his time shepherding these thoughtful conversations. he's a great friend of ours. seventh series in our new building which we moved into one year ago tomorrow. cannot believe we have been here a year. i hope you have enjoyed the schieffer series as much as i have. it has been terrific. tonight's discussion was made possible by the support of our

friends at the foundation. without them, we would have a hard time putting on such good presentations. friends. to our is there anybody better in washington than bob schieffer? please join me in welcoming bob. [applause] i take andrew around to introduce me. he is very good at it. 3.0.opic today is jihad we have a great panel to discuss it. most of you are familiar with john alterman. he has served in senior posts in the government. andeaches at johns hopkins george washington and has lectured in more than 30 countries. adviser on, senior

transnational threats, homeland security, encountered were -- counterterrorism. he was the deputy advisor the bush administration. a formal federal -- former federal prosecutor who worked on the investigation of the uss cole. prouda goldman who i am to say is our newest cbs news correspondent. she came over from bloomberg in august and has more than a decade of experience covering international news. she covered both president obama's presidential campaign, went with him to china, got the first one-on-one interview with the president after reelection, and reported from the white house on the night osama bin laden was killed. alterman,man -- jon let me start with you.

you wrote after trying hard to downplay policy in syria and iraq, the white house has dived in. you said the beheadings of americans had crystallized the new policy approach by the administration. you said while the new policy is more than merely military, it is more military than it should be. it seems like a good question to with, what do you think about that? >> i think the next 800 words i wrote tried to capture that. [laughter] it is on the csis website. time, the administration was cautious about being drawn too far into syria. we saw that caution manifested morethe president a little than a year ago hesitated to use military action. there seemed to be a confluence of forces, and we pulled off.

people in the white house kept saying we are not sure what we can do in syria that would not open the door to further involvement. in many ways our policy was to find almost as much by what it was not as what it was. there was a desire to avoid getting too sucked in. iraqg isis spread into where you have a government welcoming of u.s. involvement, where you have kurdish allies of the united states desirous for american involvement, it took it how do you messy attack a hostile group in a hostile country and you are trying to work with a group to take down this government and on the other hand you don't want the group to win, it seemed much clearer in iraq. it provided an opportunity in

iraq. said weican public should be active against people killing americans in iraq. we support military action in iraq. the problem the peace talks about is all the things worth few have military components. the harder part, diplomacy, economics, politics, maybe havee sharing, a military role in convincing people you're serious. but you have to accomplish them away from the spotlight with more qualitative actions than merely bombing things from the air. bombing from the air comes down to physics and chemistry. changing the situation on the ground is more complex. i remain worried we are doing what we can, but not doing what we need to be.

we have to focus more on doing what we need to do. >> do you think the policy is too focused on the military? what is your assessment? what do you think the policy is right now? >> that is a great question. in part, that is the challenge for the administration. what is the policy? what is the regional strategy and how does this fit into the other things we care about? things like what happens in damascus, in our relationship long-term --w to' posture for the long-term. broader this fit into a vision for the region? it feels like it is very reactive. we are reacting to the videos and the sense of threat. we are reacting to the reports

of thousands of foreign fighters that potentially threaten the west. wat lends itself to a hack-a-mole approach. military solution is not the only solution, but it has to be part of changing the landscape on the ground. this is about the laws of physics and geography. created theas largest safe haven in modern history. you have to dislodge a group like that. that takes military force from the air and ground. the military from standpoint is to execute a long-term strategy like that in a complex environment like syria is going to take more than just proxy forces hoping can build the forces over time to take on the fight in a place like syria. the danger for the policy is a halfhearted attempt to dislodge

timeroup, and at the same we are distorting the policies that matter to us on things like iran and syria. i know you have done work on this. i was surprised yesterday when ambassador samantha powell sle or something like that. i know the president calls it isil. some of us call it isis. where is cole porter when you need him? [laughter] what is the deal? what is the name of this outfit? >> we can confuse it even more because isis calls itself the islamic state. it rebranded itself in june. in the arabic world, it goes by diash. but isis does not like that name for itself. the problem for the government wants to refer to the

group did not validate the idea it is the islamic state. name, inll down at the wordc, the rob is the last that refers to either syria or greater syria. is at the end of isis is this. thegreater syria refers to labant. there are some in the government who want to come up with ways to talk about it differently. thosecould be among options. the french announced they will be using that. that is not to validate the name islamic state. closuree ever come to

ubl? the government had a whole debate. >> the question of lexicons is important for two reasons. the group is trying to hearken back to history and the lure of the movement they are trying to lead. this group establishing itself as the islamic state is announcing itself the vanguard of the new movement giving the right to the imagine seeing -- imaginings of ubl and trying to give life to that. one of the dangers is in its inspiration, it is not only establishing territory, but inspiring others to imagine what is possible in terms of an islamic state. the other thing important about lexicon from an american standpoint is we go through contortions to make sure the terminology we use does not

inadvertently aggrandize groups. jon brennan gave a speech at csis early after president obama took office talking about not using the term islamic extremism jihadists useuse that term to validate themselves. lexicon matters quite a bit. the problem is we contort ourselves quite a bit to describe the enemy. >> let me ask all three of you, saidecretary of state last week there is a part for every nation to play in the andt against isis terrorism, including iran. what is the role of iran? how do they fit into this? >> iran is in an interesting position because on the one hand they hate these guys as much as anybody.

partly because isis is attacking , in syria.s in iraq it is attacking some of their , the kurds, who they have a historic relationship with despite the fact they have a historic district of relationship with the united states. iran also fears u.s. plans for the region. does not want to give things up to the united states without getting something in return. i think where that leaves us is work inlenge of how to parallel with the iranians without coordinating with the iranians, certainly without cooperating with the iranians. it seems whenever we ask the iranians for something, the next part of the conversation is, what are you going to do for us? challenge, i think our

diplomats and others are up to it. how do you signal to the iranians what we are doing, what we have an option to do but will not do in deference to them, what we might do that will annoy them but maybe we won't in case other things happen? and keep that in a constructive direction and not fall into the trap of if you do this, we will do that. on a series of levels, that would put the u.s. in a much more -- >> where do you see iran in all this? >> that is one of the most difficult questions. iranians have learned and played a great game of duality. where there is commonality of interest, they have been able to work with the united states or other adversaries while at the same time attacking those interests. the u.s. and iran were aligned in attacking the precursor to

isis, islamic state ever rock. at the same time, the was cornnary guard mating against forces to create instability in iraq. on narcoticsking issues with nato while working with the taliban. being opposed to al qaeda while taking steps to put senior al qaeda leaders under custody, but allowing al qaeda facilitation networks to operate through iran. iran is a curious animal in this game because they have learned to play multiple games at once. they can feed from one hand and bite the other. that is what makes iran difficult to work with. i don't think we are going to find the sweet spot of commonality in this context. if you're going to see activity happen, it will happen in

parallel. not in coordination. >> in the middle eastern context, in able to play two science is seen as a sign of sophistication. >> i think right now the challenge for the administration is making the distinction is because they are trying to assemble this coalition of arab countries. they want to bring the saudi's on board. going to say about coordinating with iran? the white house announced today the president will be meeting with netanyahu when he comes next week. the israelis have long voiced their concerns with the u.s. engaging with iran on nuclear talks. the iranian and saudi foreign ministers met this week. >> samantha powers said yesterday on all three networks we have gotten commitments from

some arab countries to join in airstrikes on syria. do you have any idea who they are? an official said there will be multiple arab countries making military commitments. >> did they tell you one name? it would not be going out of the limb to save the uae. jordan would also be likely to be one of those commitments. will you take that seriously? >> i think it will happen. it won't be terribly decisive. >> don't you think it would be important customer >> it is important to say we having the uae and other countries with us in libya made it seem like there

was a broader coalition. it does not necessarily get to better outcomes down the line as we have seen in libya. there are lots of rules people template. you can be the refueling guy, the logistics guy. you can fly surveillance. i think one of the things that the be discussed is whether egyptians signal something visible in support as a way to try to limit hostilities. we just announced we were giving them 10 apaches that had been in the u.s. for repair. this isacteristic of you can contribute on many different levels, just like in your church or school. there different levels. of think we will see different -- i think we will see different levels. the challenge is how to make it out up to mean something. you need all of these pieces.

you are going to rummage sales and picking up this and that that people contribute. how does that translate into the sustained campaign the administration has committed to doing? and not just for a month. this is a multiyear commitment long after people have lost interest in the headlines. >> what is the latest number? about 190 airstrikes we have flown so far? as that made any significant difference that you can tell? >> i think the notion of degrading the group, were never we have two goals. -- remember we have two goals. degrade and destroy isis. for our allies, it has been effective. the release of isis control of

the dam and other infrastructure, very important. getting supplyof lines probably important longer-term. the real question is we can do this in iraq. you can imagine what the sun reo -- scenario in iraq looks like with the peshmerga fighting along with us. what does it look like when it crosses the syrian border? i think that is the tricky military, political, social conundrum. it isms of the coalition, important symbolically to have these countries involved militarily. it also is critical to have them behind the u.s. going after the ideology and funding. this is where turkey becomes important.

and providing a patina of legitimacy in the heart of the middle east for what is to happen. this is not going to be a month-long effort. this is going to be years in the making if we are to really destroy this group. >> two other important pieces for the city state. the sunnisuading tribes to come back over. one is creating incentives for the government of iraq to be more inclusive. they have been ostracized from their neighbors. attractive is is you can be closer and in a better environment. a country likeng lik saudi arabia can offer the iraqis. >> this is a moment>> of opportunity for the u.s. to rejuvenate some of the strained relationships it has had an serve in a leadership role that the region has been thirsty for. not that we put thousands of

troops on the ground but that the u.s. serve as the quarterback aligning forces to go after this group. the region and world is hungry for u.s. leadership. the question is whether we can do it credibly and whether we have staying power. >> you're close with the president. you have interviewed him numerous times. you have been with him on good days and bad. it took a while for them to get to where he is now. talk about that. him in his to hear recent speech. he has come a ways. >> i looked at the david remnick interview from last january. takeaways was something obama said about how we are swimming in the rapids of the river of history and he

takes the long view. he is writing paragraph now. his presidency will be seen as a paragraph. these are not going to go away with mike presidency or in the next. he would rather take his time and take a more cautious approach. in august,ok back, some of his messages and statements have hurt him now and hurt the credibility of this administration. whether it was saying we don't have a strategy, weather was in the same press conference saying our goal is to degrade and defeat isis and then saying they're are manageable problems. it reminded me of the attitude and issues obama had before the first debate with that romney.

of his advisers at the time said he was suffering from presidency disease and had kind of checked out. through august, that was the rhetorical approach he was taking to isis. advisers, atis primetime speech and his speech at nato, they knew they had to change the language they were using and come out much more forcefully and send a stronger signal to the international community, to congress, and the american people. >> one thing i find interesting. i have seen a lot of administrations. you get into the second term of every administration and there are always one or two people that leave. they did not like what happened. books and soese forth.

i can't remember when as many people in the national security i mean, yesterday on "60 minutes" you heard leon panetta. you have had gates come out. hillary clinton has said she disagreed with the president. we know martin dempsey, jim jones, the former national security advisor has not been that complement three. -- complementary. what do you make of this? in defense of the president, just because something is not working does not mean something else would have worked better. we consistently have that problem in the middle east because there are lots and lots of stupid ideas. sometimes we do the stupid things. othernot to say anything than the stupid idea would have turned out better. wheres an administration

even on the inside people complained this is a very tiny circle who make all the decisions. debate. a lot of people get tucked into these endless meetings, and then the made whens when -- two people are in the room. i think that has created an environment -- >> who do you think is the president's most influential advisor on foreign policy? >> i have never been in that small meeting. i can't tell you. remainsay the president closest to mcdonagh and valerie jarrett weighs in on a a lot of issues. the speechwriter has a mind meld with him. whether susan rice is in that circle, i don't know. >> you have not mentioned john

kerry, secretary of state. >> john kerry is not here very much. he is not, honestly. proximity matters. when i was working in the state department in the early years of ,he bush administration, colin powell was terrified to leave the country. >> that did not seem to bother henry kissinger. see an erosion of trust and confidence. you also see this in the stories about the split between military leadership in the president. i think the president and his inner circle have been trapped by their political narrative of not wanting to be the bush .dministration

in that way being sort of allured by inaction not action is advisable. they've really been captured by inaction. i think there has been frustration at the top level there has not been more strategic vision. the redline debate with respect to syria, i am not sure the president realized how strategically relevant that moment was. has issued an indictment against the assad regime for chemical weapons. the president countered his own redline, undercut his secretary of state. and i think begin a cycle of growing mistrust and lack of confidence among his senior team. i think you are seeing reflections of that in what you described.

>> when it comes to the decision to not arm syrian rebels, they were digging their heels in. there was a story last week quoting some off the record sessions he had with journalists. he defended said, the time it took to vet the rebels. they look at this and say in hindsight this is not a silver bullet. they can't say this but it was a few months later the u.s. through covert operations began arming moderate rebels. they said it was important to take that time to vet them. his point, this is a tight inner circle.

when they do reach out, one of the biggest criticisms is there is never any follow through. the president has a bunch of former national security aides, advisers, who came to dinner a couple of nights before the big time time speech. it is not just a matter of having them come to the white house to listen, but whether or not there's going to be any follow through and follow up. >> do you have any disagreement with jon on who are the people closest to the president? who would you say are the most influential in foreign policy? >> i would put susan rice in their and samantha powell. in the white house state today, probably dennis mcdonough and been roads. >> let's talk about this new group we are talk -- hearing about. all of a sudden, this name

surfaces. who are these people and where did they come from? >> this is the al qaeda senior leadership caravan that moved from afghanistan and pakistan into syria. in particular and to java chaos -- in part to take advantage of the chaos and to plan from syria attacks against the west. cbs news broke a story. that isity is the group most lethal and focused on the west is not necessarily isis. whichthis al qaeda group is linking other elements of the al qaeda constellation. maker inhe master bomb yemen with other parts of the network. in some ways these guys are becoming an operational and for a new ale

qaeda universe. that is why officials are worried about them. >> is the reason the president is so circumspect or focused on listing what we are not going to do -- about what he just said. don't want to be the bush administration? is that is what is going on here? >> i think getting involved in a and open-ended way, that's true. it, how do wee to from whatt terrorism is truly strategically important. one of my