respondent's position would eem to be grave. mr. chief justice, you pointed out and we completely agree that the term "specific" whichts critical to their argument could just as easily, and we think properly, mean express, which is what it means here. nd justice scalia, you asked about criminal penalties, but the statute itself does not provide criminal penalties just as mr. katyal said, but it does provide civil penalties. we think in that situation where you have the prior case law, the legislative history, the practical effects and the plain text that to say that a statute hat mandates nondisclosure regulations does not specifically prohibit disclosure is just a very odd construction. the principal practical arguments we've heard today are that we don't have to worry because congress could have had an executive order to make it work. we continue to think there is no ispute that the ssi system

doesn't work under mr. katyal's construction. the idea that what congress expected was a duplicative executive order to mimic the ssi scheme seems very odd to us, and seems like a very odd way to construe congressional statutes. there was a concern here that there's this fox guarding the hen house. that may be a concern with the whistleblower protection act, but it has no application here, where congress itself mandated the nondisclosure regulations, and did so knowing precisely what those regulations were when it did so. and finally, there's been some suggestion that the facts are in mr. maclean's favor here. i would only say this. what mr. maclean what a tsa employee has before them is not a full picture of the threats, is not a full picture of the resource constraints, is not a full picture of the other means that the agency is taking and is not possessed with the same experience that tsa has. >> excuse me, i hate to

interrupt you, but you worry me. i assume that if we find for your friend on the other side, the ssi regulations are not null nd void. they would still apply to everybody except whistleblowers. isn't that right? >> yes. >> it would still be a violation for anybody to make those disclosures unless he's doing it in a whistleblower capacity. >> it would be yes, your honor, but the standard in whistleblowing is do you reasonably believe that there is a specific and substantial danger to public safety? that is a judgment made on the information known reasonably known to the employee and readily ascertainable. it is not a judgment made with the full picture of the security consequences. i suggest to the court, as a step back, that the right way to think about this case is that in a situation where the statute mandates nondisclosure -- just as if the chief justice were to tell the marshal to bar me from the courtroom, that it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the chief justice had expressly prohibited, specifically prohibited, my presence in the courtroom, even if the marshal

were the one standing at the oor. >> do you know how come that is, mr. gershengorn? >> excuse me? >> how common it is to have regulations specifically mandated as opposed to authorized or permitted. >> your honor, we're not aware of very many statutes like the ssi statute, where congress has expressly mandated regulations. there are things like the 102(d)(3) of the national ecurity act, which generally says to the cia director, protect sources and methods, and statutes like that. there are, of course, a wide range of nondisclosures, but we're focused principally on the nondisclosure provisions here. we respectfully ask the court to hold that this is specifically prohibited by law and in particular by the ssi statute. >> we would never bar you from the courtroom. >> he wasn't talking about you. thank you, counsel. the case is submitted.

>> the republican controlled house passed legislation including the construction of the keystone oil pipeline. the shows was 252-161. the bill now goes to senate. also during the ent of the week session, house majority leader kenn mccarthy of california and minority win steny hoyer of maryland discuss next week's legislative schedule. the house will take up three bills to limit the power over the e.p.a. they also discuss the possibility of an omnibus spending bill, tax incentives and terrorism risk legislation. this is just over 10 minutes. s. i want to congratulate the gentleman for his re-election and the expansion of his

majority. not something i was seeking but it is the reality, and i say to him -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is right. he house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. i know that all of us look forward to moving forward and hopefully having a degree of cooperation that will respond to what clearly the american people want and that is the two sides to be working together to make their country better and more successful. and so i want to congratulate the majority leader. at this point in time, i yield to the majority leader for the purposes of telling us what the schedule if is for the week to ome.

mr. mccarthy: on monday the house will meet at noon and 2:00 p.m. for legislate i have business. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes are expected before 3:00 p.m. no votes are expected in the house on friday. a complete list of bills that will be considered will be released today. the house will consider three bills to alleviate burdens on small businesses, h.r. 1422, the --.a. science advisory board mr. hoyer: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: the first h.r. 1422, the e.p.a. science advisory board reforming at, sponsored by representative chris stewart, would establish board member qualifications. the second, h.r. 4012, the by et science reform act, representative david schweikert, would prevent them finalizing a regulation unless the data is made public. and another by steve scalise will bring much-needed transparency to the permitting process. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for that information and we will expect to be considering those piece of legislation. the majority leader, excuse me, has not mentioned, of course, four bill which is i know the majority leader is focused on

that are very important and that must be passed prior to -- let me back up. are we still, mr. majority are we still expecting to end this session of the congress on the 11th of december? mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman yields. yes, it is our intention, and i do understand that government is only funded until the 11th. it's our intention to work -- continue to work with you and all members and have that finished by december 11 and be out. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that observation. let me say, mr. majority leader, i know there's been discussion on your side and my side of the aisle, i know mrs. lowey is working with mr. rogers to affect an omnibus appropriation bill, as we all know not a single appropriation bill has been adopted. we're operating under a continuing resolution. that's not giving the stability

that we need to give to the agencies to know what resources they have to accomplish the objectives we expect. can the gentleman tell me whether or not his expectation is we will proceed with an omnibus out of the ppropriations committee before december 11? and it's not on the schedule for next week, my presumption would be therefore it would be on the schedule for the first week in december when we get back, so that we can send it to the senate to be adopted. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman is right. we did pass seven of the 12 -- 11 out of the 12 out of committee. unfortunately the senate had passed none. and the best way for this house and this country to work is through regular order. and we hope to be able to get back that with the new senate. the gentleman is right, it is not scheduled for next week.

no decisions are made but there's a possibility that we could end an omnibus in december. mr. hoyer: and is it the expectation of the majority leader that we would be considering an omnibus so that we would do the 12 appropriation bills in a single bill? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: no decisions are made on the direction that we'll go. the gentleman knows that we were down at the white house just last week meeting with the president. i do believe the best way forward is that we would all work together and move this country in the right direction. so no decisions are made on the direction that we go. mr. hoyer: all right. , we ld say on our side agree with mr. rogers and senator mcconnell who did indicate early on that an omnibus would be the preferable alternative. the problem is the gentleman well knows with the c.r., it

gives a very limited ability of agencies, particularly department of defense, at a critical time to plan as they would like. general dempsey and others have mentioned that. so i'm hopeful that we'll be able to work together to accomplish that objective. the other -- there were three others. there's no mention of a tax extenders bill. as the gentleman knows, the senate is addressing that. does the gentleman have any idea, again given the fact that we have essentially three weeks left to go and a few days and cooperation's going to be essential if we get our work done, on where we're going on tax extenders? i'll yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had just met with our chairman of ways and means and he's been working in the other house and nothing has been finalized yet. as you know, we had passed many of those bills permanently out

of this house. negotiations are still going on with the senate. but it's our intention to have that done before the end of the year as well. mr. hoyer: given that intention , can the majority leader tell us whether or not there is an inclination -- the senate, as you know had, a different approach. they did a limited extension, not a permanent extension. and they dealt with all of the extenders. and they had a two-year extension, as you know. whether or not we are looking at doing something temporarily while we prepare for what i think both sides think are necessary, and that is a major tax reform bill at some point in time in the spring or the summer, can the gentleman tell me whether there is that component of the consideration of the tax extenders legislation? i yield to my friend.

mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman again. as the gentleman stated, yes, coming out of the house we made it permanent because that gives much greater stability to the country. and that's still part of the negotiation. the senate has a different idea than inside the house. none of that has been finalized yet. when the negotiation gets finalized, that will give us the answer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and urge him that we get to agreement pretty soon because if we're going to give some certainty to the business community, as well as individuals, we need to act on that and we have some -- approximately maybe -- maybe 10 days, if we count three days for each one of the weeks at that that's remaining, 10 days in order to accomplish that through the house and the senate. so it's necessary, i suggest respectfully to the majority leader, we come to agreement on that fairly soon. if we're going to have the ability to pass and send to the president that legislation.

hirdly, the third of the items , the terrorism risk insurance act, which mr. hensarling just wrote an op ed about. i know the committee has acted or is contemplating action on that. can the gentleman tell me whether or not -- i know there has been some discussion on including it in the omnibus, i don't know whether that's rumor or fact that it's being considered, but account the gentleman tell me where we are on the terrorism risk insurance? as the gentleman knows, it passed 93-4 in the united states senate. so it was not a partisan bill in the senate, overwhelming support for it. and i would hope that we could move it through the house in a similar bipartisan overwhelming fashion. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had just met with our chairman and he's scheduled to

meet with the senate on the other side of the aisle early next week. the speaker and i have both put a statement out that we know the timeline of this, if they can't come to agreement, we are open to doing a one-year extension, making sure that it doesn't have any problems. but we would like to see a resolution of this with a negotiation between both sides. mr. hoyer: the senate bill of course is seven years as the gentleman knows. that gives a certain degree of certainty to the lenders and borrowers and those who do business with both lenders and borrowers and in the construction industry. i'm hopeful we could come to an agreement that is longer term so we could give more confidence. i think that would be in the best interest, and very frankly i think would enjoy bipartisan significant support in this house, mr. majority leader. stly, the national defense

act, authorization bill, which has passed this house, as you know, is pending in the senate. does the gentleman have any knowledge as to where that stands now and what possibilities there are to assure its adoption prior to the 11th of december? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentleman is correct, we have passed it in the house. we have been working with the senate. think very strongly that we will get this done before september 11. i don't have a set date but -- december 11. i don't have a set date but i believe this is a top priority on both sides of the aisle. we need movement on the senate and we'll be done with it. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. given that expectation of moving on it, does the gentleman expect or know whether or not we will deal with the train and equip authorization within the framework of the national defense authorization act, or perhaps the omnibus or some

other piece of legislation? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and you were with us at the white house when the president laid out the supplemental. appropriations committee is going through all the funding there. no decisions have been made yet. where that would move forward. but it's our intention to be able to have that question answered and be able to have the resources needed to do the job. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i >> the house and senate back in session before they take a thanksgiving break. to talk about that we give what we can expect, the chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. let star in the senate and the senate and they plan to take up a bill on tuesday on the keystone xl pipeline. six hours of debate scheduled. that's mary landrieu's bill, the democrat from louisiana.

why are they taking this up now? how does this tie and her reelection? >> there is a battle now between sitting lawmakers. one in the house, one in the senate. one is a republican in the house. in the senate we have mary landrieu. they had an election on november 4. there was not a prevailing candidate with 50%. there has to be a runoff election. that is scheduled for december 6. each lawmaker is trying to show voters what kind of impact or influence they have on capitol hill. the best way to do that is to push a vote on the keystone xl project. it is essentially a pipeline rom the oil sands. that will eventually extend all the way to the gulf coast where there are oil refineries in louisiana. they promised job growth, a boost to the economy, and oil efinery.

both lawmakers want to look like they are the ones who are one to bring this project to life. today in the house there was a vote on the keystone project. they have had several votes. they voted again verwhelmingly. mostly with republican support to green light the xl project. which president obama has put on hold. in the senate next week we are going to see the same thing happened. this time with a bill sponsored by mary landrieu. the democrat. the outcome is slightly less certain. the senate is still governed by democrats. that's because they hold the gavel until the end of the year. it is unclear whether they will get 60 votes needed to pass. present obama has said that he is not ready to greenlight the project for variety of reasons.

whether we will end up wrong is up in the air. what this is about as a political battle over this seat in louisiana which is very important to both parties. democrats want to hang onto it if they can. republicans are hoping to take a another seat to add to their ajority. that will start in january. it is an interesting vote that brings together politics and policy. the more exciting of the two will be next week in the senate. >> her arrival in that runoff -- rival in thathas been spearheading this in runoff the house. he was successful. >> he was. he has promoted his ability or desire to have an impact on

capitol hill throughout his campaign. he tried to show senator landrieu as someone who was ineffective even though she was the chairwoman of the energy committee in the senate. it is a tough position to be in because democrats push for green energy jobs. louisiana is an oil state. mary landrieu has been walking hat. she's a bit of an endangered species. she is double digits in the latest poll. it is a tough uphill battle for her to hold onto her seat. and for cassidy, the vote is just another feather in his cap. >> let's turn to another votes, the nsa surveillance program. senator leahy on the judiciary committee tweeted about the being poised to take up this act this month. what would this do and how ikely is it to pass?

>> it is interesting legislation. bit of an uncertain future in congress. many people support it. you have republicans and democrats behind it. it would end the collection of data by the government which has been so controversial. it would turn into more of a targeted surveillance program with extra safeguards in place to protect the public from unwarranted surveillance by the federal government. there are people who oppose it because they fear it may make it too difficult for intelligence to prevent and know about most f terrorism. in the senate there are a lot of people who support this legislation. whether it would end up going through the house before the end of the congress is unknown. i think there are people who say the house would take it up. there are summative proponents in the house on both sides of the aisle. the house version of the similar legislation is a watered-down version, fewer provisions and it that proponents of stopping the boat data collection feel are necessary. they are not the same bill in the house and senate. there would have to be a unification. there is not a lot of time for congress to work on this. they only have a few weeks left until the end of this congress when they would to build these two up from scratch.

there is definitely momentum behind this bill in the senate. it came up by surprise. he did it rather unexpectedly. i think there is definitely advocates on both sides. it is something everybody will be closely watching and something -- >> obama saying he is going to be pushing for immigration changes. he could take executive action as early as next week.

you tweeted about speaker boehner's response to that saying that all of the options re on the table for fighting his plan on deportations. no government shutdown. if president took action what are the options congress might ake? >> republicans are divided. some want to include a provision in the government spending bill that would strip out funding for executive actions. a move like that might get democrats upset in the enate.

they may not want to pass a bill like that. republican leaders want to avoid the gridlock we saw in october 2013 over the health care bill nd government funding. that led to the government shutdown. in both the house and senate republican leaders are saying no to that option. in some ways that limits what they can do. they are talking my taking the president to court over this. that is a protracted exercise. that may not satisfy the conservative base. they are facing a dilemma. how they want to handle this. there is this outstanding question on when exactly the president will act. the government funding bill of the congress needs to take up expires. does the president wait until after they pass something? that may buy them time to deal with the issue. he president is weighing whether to act next week or two wait until later which would

still fulfill his promise of taking action before the end of he year. >> follow susan via twitter. on the examiner's website, washington examiner.com. >> on news makers a look at the ffordable care act with anne filipic. news makers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> recently a debate was held that focused o on president obama's foreign policy. arguing on one side, brett

stevens and robert kagan. facing them, anne marie slaughter. the munk debate is a by annual debate in toronto. this is about an hour and a half. >> you do not know. your facts will be demolished. >> [indiscernible] >> you do not know that your arguments will be totally destroyed. you are shaken out. >> you do not know what he said. he said something.

♪ >> i can't believe i am about to say this, but dr. kissinger, you have six minutes. >> china is our biggest trading partner? that is the kind of political argument -- [laughter] >> you are annoying even though you are not funny. >> women are affected by lunar tides only once a month. men are subject to them every single day. as we saw when dick cheney rampaged around the globe like godzilla. >> no! indiscernible]

>> the power to tax -- are we prepared to say this is your success limit? you always owe us. ow dare you? >> no one on my side ever says hat. >> imagine indeed a world without religious faith. there are no men or women who because of their faith are dedicating their lives to others. >> it makes us objects in a ruel experiment. it installs a celestial dictatorship, i kind of divine north korea. [laughter]

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. [applause] welcome to the munk debates on barack obama's foreign policy. it is my privilege to be the organizer of this debate and to once again serve as your moderator. i want to start by welcoming the north american why television and radio audience, from cpac to c-span. a warm hello also to the online audience watching this debate right now on munkdebates.com. it is an honor to have you as a participant in tonight's proceedings.

and hello to you, the people who filled the call to capacity for yet another munk debate. we engage in the geopolitical debate of the moment. has the administration of barack obama through inaction and incompetence, as its critics will claim, fan the flames of lobal conflicts and encouraged the very forces that want to roll back individual rights, the rule of law, economic globalization? or, and it is a big or, has this president wisely, courageously does avoid that this about the role of global policeman for the united states, a role embraced by his predecessor, in favor of alliance building and targeted use of military power? these are the battle lines off tonight's contest.

on the stage, for outstanding presenters, which would not be possible without the public spiritedness of our hosts. our hosts. thank you, guys. another great debate. [applause] bravo. now, the moment we have been waiting for. let's get our debaters out here on center stage and the debate underway. speaking first for the motion, be it resolved president obama has emboldened our enemies and made the world a more dangerous place is one of the most prominent writers and thinkers on all things foreign policy, the brookings institution's senior foreign policy, robert kagan.

robert, come on out here. [applause] joining bob kagan, the international affairs columnist for "the wall street journal," bret stephens. come on out. [applause] now, one great team of debaters deserves another and i would like you all to join me in welcoming a woman of singular accomplishment. she is a renowned scholar of international affairs, a former senior official in the u.s. state department and ceo of the present is new america oundation. ladies and gentlemen, anne-marie slaughter. [applause]

her debating partner tonight is no stranger to this series. he is one of the most formidable debaters to appear on the stage. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome best-selling author and the host of cnn's's flagship foreign affairs program, fareed zakaria. [applause] now, before we call on our debaters further opening remarks, i need your help with three simple tasks. first, power up your smartphones. we have a wi-fi network throughout the building. you can engage with the debate through twitter, munkdebates. second, and this includes people watching online -- we have a url.

you can interact with a series of questions. vote often. americans did it last night with a consequence. third, my favorite part of the evening -- the countdown clock. it will appear on the screen at various times during tonight's debate. when you see it countdown to zero, please join me in a round of applause. this will keep our speakers on their toes and our the on schedule. finally, let's find out how the audience voted on tonight's resolution, be it resolved president obama has emboldened our enemies and made the world a more dangerous ways. interesting. 43% agree, 57% disagreed.

almost a tie vote. the second question -- depending on what you hear during the debates, are you willing to change your mind? whoa. 93%. this is a crowd that can be wooed. you clearly have your work cut out for you. it is time for our six-minute opening statements. as per convention, the pro side ill speak first. bret stephens, your six minutes begins now. >> a ladies and gentlemen, do you remember? do you remember the first time -- no, i don't mean that first time. [laughter] the first time you heard barack obama, the first time you were spellbound by his wrongness -- his promise and his promises.

we were going to defeat al qaeda. we were going to win the war that must be one in afghanistan while getting out of iraq. we would reset relations with ussia. we would have new partnerships in europe and the americas. we would reassure allies in sia. we would save the climate area stop iran from getting the bomb and prevent chemical weapons from being used against civilians in a genocide. that seems like a very long time ago, does it not? six years on, there is one thing we can say for sure. not one, not one of those goals has been achieved. the number of jihadists

according to a rand corporation study more than doubled from 2010 until 2013 and that does not include isis. we are not out of iraq and we are back in iraq. relations with russia have been reset to about 1956. [laughter] a syrian dictator continues to gas his people with impunity, the only difference being that he switched from sarin to hlorine. ran is closer to a bomb. america is more hated in countries like pakistan and egypt than it was even when george w. bush was president. the war in afghanistan forced so many young americans and young canadians gave their lives has not, to say the least, been one. at but here you say, it is not all obama's fault. he has been dealt a tough and. the world is a complicated place.

ladies and gentlemen, presidents are often dealt a tough and. wilson got a bad hand from hoover. reagan got a bad hand from carter. what makes a good president is the ability to meet the goals he sets, defined events more than he is defined by evidence, and leave the united states tronger. this is not to say the least has been the mark of obama's tenure. such is the gap between expectations and delivery that one might say to paraphrase a famous line that never in the field of political self-promotion have so many been promised so much by someone who delivered so little. why is this? i think it is a confidence problem. this is a president who is busy alling isis the jv team.

he didn't bother finding out who the intelligence agency was wiretapping. a president who has compiled a record of being harsh with his allies in the world or going on his way to accommodate america's adversaries. this is a president who talks about the portents of rules and fails to enforce those rules. "when dictators create atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way you'd if we fail to act, the assad regime and others will not think twice -- " as a result, under obama, america is no longer feared by its enemies. we no longer trusted by its friends.

why is this uniquely dangerous? first, perceptions shape actions. our enemies take the message they could do whatever they want as long as they have the capability and the will to do o. "if the u.s. weeps bullets with words, tyrants will draw their own conclusion." that is my colleague in an op-ed earlier this year. the second reason is that rogue regimes have an incentive to act sooner rather than later because they know obama still has two years in office and they suspect the next president will have ore spine. the third reason is if america's allies cannot trust it, he will go their own way. we will live in a world of dangerous roads and equally dangerous freelancers. this is a world of unprecedented or nearly unprecedented unpredictability in our lifetime.

when your enemies are tempted to strike in your allies are tempted to preempt and all the while is you are on the hook even as you are losing control. let me close by reminding you that barack obama won a nobel peace prize in 2009 in the expectation of making the world a better, more peaceful place. as you follow our debate, ask yourself with the benefit of hindsight, would you still give him that prize? thank you very much. [applause] >> three seconds to spare. hat was pretty impressive. > blaming barack obama for the state the world is in right now s like blaming a caribbean

island for a hurricane. think very carefully about what our opponents have to prove. not only do they have to prove the world would be less dangerous if barack obama were not president, but they have to prove that the world is as dangerous as it is because he has emboldened our enemies. it is a two step and they have to prove. that means they have to prove that putin would not have annexed crimea. in fact, putin hardened when that ukrainian president eft. t that moment, putin decide it was time to get serious and there's no way of dealing with the united states.

it was when he thought we were more hard lined. isil is not responding to obama's lack of responses. it is not that he has emboldened our enemies. you have heard i am known for some could a schism's of our president. i have disagreed with him strongly and strenuously on syria. my criticisms have not been that he embolden assad to take the actions he is taken. it is once assad decided to obliterate opposition, obama could be doing more.

you cannot lame them for the fact that the hurricane came in the first place. obama i think could do different things in response, but i don't think there is anything obama could've done that would've stopped aside from doing what he did. let's look at how obama has worked to make the world a safer place. the single greatest threat is the danger of a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon.

stopping nuclear proliferation is absolutely essential as people such as a henry kissinger, george scholz, bill terry all agree stopping nuclear proliferation is a single thing e must do. barack obama has worked doggedly or a deal with iran. he has been externally tough when he had to be tough. he has imposed sanctions. he is closer than anyone has been in 20 years to that eal. we don't know he will get there. even for all my criticisms of obama on syria -- he has

decimated al qaeda. he took out osama bin laden. he is working very hard and successfully to contain isil appeared not to eradicate it, but to contain it so it cannot spread the on the middle east. he has also strengthened regional and international organizations contrary to what look like when he came into ffice. nobody asks without the united nations. it is important to restrain china and russia. those are just the state to state problems. what about the deeper problem?

if you're reading the headlines on why the world is such a dangerous place, you're not just reading about russia should your reading about ebola. you are reading about spaces that give rise to disease, violence, wars the spillover borders that fuel extremism. the answers to those problems are slow and complicated. hey cannot be -- they focus on things like development. works on the longer-term problems that ultimately we have to address. like climate change. keep trying. ork on longer-term problems. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you for coming out here to listen to a debate on foreign olicy.

it is a pleasure to be here. i know my colleagues are very pleased to be here. this is an excellent day to be defending barack obama in canada. [laughter] i suspect it might be a little bit tougher back in the united states. we all saw the results of the election. you may know what the approval ratings of president obama are up you what you may not know is that his general approval rating is significantly higher than his foreign-policy approval rating. his general approval rating -- his foreign-policy is between 0-35%.

that is george w. territory. that is george w. in 2006. you canadians may not trust the american people's judgment and i would except that. [laughter] maybe they are wrong now it may be they were wrong in 2006 with george w. or maybe they were ight both times. is the world a more dangerous place. 65% say yes. they are not in any doubt about whether the world has gotten more dangerous. you could trust their judgment are not. are they wrong? are they wrong the world is more dangerous. there are two points. is the world more dangerous? does barack obama have anything to do with it?

i think the world is more dangerous. he talked about statistics noting that violence had decline. another answer is people have gotten nicer. i have a different answer. the study begins in 1945. of violence had declined from 1945 steadily over the decades. why is that? what happened in 1945? [laughter] what happened in 1945 -- world war ii, a period of global isorder.

many got together and built a liberal world order that we strengthened over the decades. it achieved three extraordinary things -- one, enormous spread of democracy. another, an enormous increase in global prosperity the likes of which we haven't seen efore. and finally, we saw in the first part of the 20th century -- if the world is more dangerous, it is because that of which is at risk is at risk today. i don't know what the future holds. icy areas for reason of concern that this world order is at risk. we see what is happening to the global economy. for the first time in europe since 1945, we see cross-border ggression. something without we eradicated in europe. is this barack obama's fault? of course not.

has his policies made these things the situation worse? of course they have. of course they have. maria is reading into the mind of isis and what they think of what they want to do. we know how isis got to be what it is today. it was because the u.s. withdrew prematurely from iraq. he was because the president did not listen when it was repeatedly said they may be able to avoid having failed by jihadists. lo and behold, it has been illed in by jihadists.

this a obama is a caribbean island sitting here watching the hurricane go by? [laughter] american presidents are not ll-powerful. china is growing more aggressive where least was to flex its elbows a little bit. that is not barack obama's fault. we see japan increasingly independent come increasingly nationalist come increasingly taking steps which if we're not careful could lead to a conflict n east asia. what is japan doing now? because japan is wondering whether barack obama can be trusted. his unwillingness to use force in syria after he said he was

going to use force did echo around the world and raise doubts among our allies about whether we could be relied upon. [applause] more to come. [laughter] [applause] >> well done. final opening statement. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. ladies and gentlemen, i hope you will be persuaded. he is so persuaded by my colleague. [laughter] i trust you will vote the way she is voting in this resolution. clearly she has good judgment. [laughter] let me address the proposition very simply. the question is what has happened to the united states's enemy? osama bin laden is dead last i checked. al qaeda that launched the 9/11 ttack decimated.

entirely decimated to the point it is unable for years to even pretend to launch a major or minor terrorist operation. now it releases ideocassettes. that is what osama bin laden's successors have done the last few years. enemy number two, iran. we have good data on this. we have good data on this. in 2006, saudi arabia, egypt, ordan were on iran's favorability rating. why? iran was seen as the country standing up to the united states. 2012, the same poll was

done. the number was 35%. why? barack obama assembled a national coalition and put in place tough sanctions and gathered the arabs together. we watched this experiment. russia invaded another country during the bush dministration. georgia. the consequence was zero. the bush administration did nothing. george bush was at the olympics. spent time palling around with putin. nothing happened. russia did something similar. you have nato and the european union putting a place real sanctions. the u.s. put in place tougher

sanctions. what you see in russia is growth has slowed to zero. its stock market has collapsed. the ruble is down 25%. russia jacked up interest rates. 150 basis points. if you're wondering where to park your cash, and i put 5% in -- put 9.5% in russia. i don't think any of you will do it. [laughter] those are the three principal adversaries of the united states. that is what barack obama has been able to do. u also have the reof the preemptive moves that the obama administration has been able to o. there has been a recognition if the united states is going to play the role as the -- the place of action is asia. if the united states is going to be the superpower, it has to be a pacific power. the obama administration has zealously pursued a relationship

with asia every open a base in the philippines. he has been able to put in place a symbolic, but important base of sorts in australia. making clear that the disputed islands would be covered by the u.s. defense treaty with japan. he has been able to offer a kind of vision of trade and opportunity to asia that bush was not able to do. all of these things have created a reality that the united states is now much more able to play that role of balancer and stabilize. it would not be enough. the basic strategy is correct.

a final point i want to make about the world being so unstable -- really what you have is a world in which the middle east is deeply unstable. the rest of the world is in pretty good shape. the rest of the world has in pretty unstable if you haven't noticed. the 14th american military intervention in syria since 1982, since reagan sent marines into lebanon. how has that worked out? not so well. they tell us things are errible. we are you may terrible situation. the world has become a much more dangerous place. the only word that describes this is appeasement. sorry. that was 1999. my mistake. 'm so sorry. [laughter] [applause]

made them better or made it worse. now, to listen to our colleagues here, barack obama has accomplished miracles. i cannot believe what he has accomplished. well, actually in fairness if what he is going to accomplish. if you listen to ann marie carefully, he's going to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

well, i will take that on faith. right now to me it looks like that's a question. global warming, i'm really impressed by the incredible agreement that we've all pulled together. the united states and china and india and europe, which is finally solving or even addressing the problem of climate change. maybe he is going to be able to do that in his last two years what he was not able to do in the previous six years. if you look at the record of what has actually occurred i'm thrilled that osama bin laden is dead. i think that's a great victory. i just wish we weren't now in a situation where we're now facing individual terrorites operating in failed stat

fareed. >> you heard june, a fotrumpet

achievement. you mentioned the pivot to asia after the pivot was announced, there were zero troops in

australia, the tpp? >> trespassific partnership is dead. i love these achievements if they were reel the outlines of this debate are e mensching of quick and fast. ms. slaughter, you are up next for rebuttal. thank you. >> so we have definitively established one thing without any question. barack obama has emboldened the republican party. so i want to ask you again to remember what they have to prove because they are winning, and they are deft at quoting me against me. but they have to prove that the world is more dangerous now than it would be if barack obama were

president. that's a heavy counter ask-factual. it's more dangerous now than it would be if he were president and one of the reasons we got there was that he emboldened our enemies. we have heard he has not achieved all of the goals he laid out in 2009. >> that's not exactly unique to barack obama. that is pretty much the way of politicians. he had high hopes. he did not achieve them. we have heard that he his not reagan or roosevelt. i will accept that. he is not reagan or roosevelt. we have heard that he is not competent. we have heard that he gives speeches. what we haven't heard is how any of that emboldened our enemies and led to making the world a more dangerous place if he were not president. you can like him or not like him, think he gives more speeches, doesn't take action

but you have to show that it is his lack of action or action that makes the world a more dangerous place. what we have also heard are attacks on the good things that both fareed and i say he has done. we can debate that. perhaps he has not yet achieved a deal with iran and he may not, but he has done more than any other president. we are closer than we have ever been, and our opponents agree that that is absolutely central because if iran guessed a nuclear weapon, saudi arabia will get a nuclear weapon and turkey and egypt will want to get nuclear weapons. that are the stakes he is playing for. the worst thing i have heard, me against me, is that he may have made the japanese government nervous. okay. i will take that, too. as far as i know, we are doing quite well with japan, tpt is not yet dead. let's see what happens with the

republican congress. and fraibling, if he did make the government of japan nervous by not following through on his threatened strikes against assad, it was because he reasoned that leaving checkcal weapons in syria, whereas we now know, isil or any other group can get hold of them would have been a worse threat [applause.] if. >> fareed, we will give you the final rebuttal. three minutes are up on the clock. please proceed. >> so it's been through -- it's a prem is we have to figure out: is the world deep, dark, dangerous and adored? or are we in pretty good shape? taken correctly, the world is in pretty good shape. if you look around the world and simply don't look at the crisis and execution in the middle east, what you see is a latin

america that 30 years ago was ruled by dictators in which the economies were run in a socialist fashion and was deeply anti-american. latin america is a transformed continent democracies everywhere with the exception of cuba, venzuela, to a large extent, what is the most remarkable piece is the degree to which anti-americanism has waned. i was interviewing the new president of mexico who comes from a historically deeply american party and was remarking how extraordinary it was that it is now a party that is pro-american. you can see similar things happening across the continent. go to asia and asia is a different continent than it was 30 years ago. think of the issue of the 1970 did with mao and revolutionary guerilla movements. all of that has been transformed. today, asia has elected a new

pro--growth, proceed-american prime minister. indonesia has a similar experience. japan has a somewhat similar experience. in all of these places, you are seeing extraordinary opportunities. >> look at africa compared to 30 years ago. if you want to ask yourself: what did all of this look like and what do people think of the american president, it turns out we ask this question a lot in the world, and again, let's move from fulminations to fact. this is the approval rates of the president, not the u.s. when they were asked this question in the last year of the bush administration, the germans said: 14%. today, that number is 71%. today. 2014. france, 13% under bush. 83% under obama. indonesia, 23% under bush. 60% under obama. israel: 57% understand bush. 71% under obama.

not the people you talk to brett but most israelis. china: 30% under bush. 51% under obama. i can go on all night. it's a long list of countries. i will close with one near and dear to your heart. canadacapped 28% in 2007. 81% in 20s 13 [applause.] wow. the table has certainly been set by our opening statements and our rebuttals. now is an opportunity for us to get these two teams of debaters engaging with each other directly in our exchange. and the i will tau start with you. fareed it brought up 14 interventions since the marines went into lebanon. why do you think more intervention if the president had chosen that action would have made the world a safer

place when the record looks atrocious? >> the president has chosen more intervention. so, he obviously thinks it's the right thing to do and march fareed things it's the right thing to do. the problem is that in this case, he has ignored the ad vice of his own hand-picked chairman of the joint chiefs, general did as to how to go about carrying out this activity. whether it succeeds, i hope it does succeed. you know, you can make a list of all of the things that have gone wrong in american foreign policy. it's a longer list than fareed likes to read. the question is: has the broad thrust of american foreign policy produced a better world, or hasn't it? i doubt anybody on this dup -- up here on this stage would disagree that what has been accomplished since 1945 has been despite all of the mistakes. i must say, if i could just answer one of ann marie's

points, i like the way she wants to form this question. i understand she wants us to say that barak obama would have done worse than some other president, and i now know that what fareed wants to say is that barack obama. we have to prove that he did worse than george bush. >> that's not the question that we are being asked. and if you want me to say all of the things that george bush did wrong, i would agree he did a lot of things wrong. but i also in the context of this debate, in answering the question: has barack obama made things better or worse, given the state of the involved, i have not heard a single way other than what they hope obama might achieve, how he's actually made things better. >> very specific. give specifics. >> on something that barak obama has done up to this point in his presidency? >> he has gone to asia and restrength ended our alliances with all of asia, and particularly with southeast asia

such that we are now threatened, the biggest problem is the united states is not there. we are there. we are committed, working on a trade agreement. we are actively present in the east asia in a way that george bush was not. and wait a minute, i want to answer specifically your point. you said you are worried that the world order that the united states and canada and all of the allies in world war ii built is at risk. george w. bush did more to do in that world order with his invasion of iraq against the will of the security council and pretty much the world than anyone else. barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through these security institutions. >> nonsense [applause.] >> first of all, i do think that everyone should know that everyone on this stage supported the iraq war. fareed and marie, brett and i.

as long as we are talking about the iraq war. but in terms of him systematically rebuilding, you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies in order to believe that. if you talk to japanese officials, they are worried about the extent of america's commitment. if you talk to officials in saudi arabia, in the uae, in israel, they are worried. sokorski, the polish foreign minister, you know, they don't say these things publiso it's not so easy to find it. but he said it on a testimony he said the american guarantee is worthless. worthless. >> that's our polish friend. >> bob, you know -- >> said something worse? >> he said it's bullshit. i don't like it use thatse that language in a friendly debate. >> this is one of the things that dick cheney has been saying for a while that when he goes abroad can all of his friends tell him that the united states can't be trusted. and of course, that's true.

the corpulent monarchs of saudi arabia and, with fat off of the hog are terrified we are asking them to protect themselves so they send in a few fighter planes tugging at our coattails for the most part. seniors have a cozy relationship feel that way. let's look at japan. 25% under bush trust the u.s. president. 60% under barack obama. so, you know, you can make these kind of -- you can pull arguments out of your hat, but when you say the world has lost faith in obama, we actually have very good data on this. the real question, and you asked a wonderful question is: what would you like to see instead? we know the one administration bob did not have many objections to was the bush administration. and. >> checked with the bush

administration? f >> he loved the aggressiveness, german. so is that going to work? bob's problem with the syrian intervention he is hinting at is it is not vigorous enough, not that he has invaded but that he needs to do it more whole-heartedly with lots of proof, ground forces like we did in iraq. >> worked out so well. i was one of the people who originally thought getting rid of saddam hussein was a good idea. two trillion ideas, 175,000 troops, 5,000 troops dead and 400,000 iraqis, perhaps, dead and wounded later, i learned something, and i don't want to replicate that lesson in syria, the neighboring countries [applause.] >> let me -- you are applauding because it's fun and because it's easy to switch the subject. they would like nothing more to

make -- than to make this debate a referendum on the bush administration. notice how we have somehow slowly worked our way into a conversation about bush. >> somebody, you can't, you know, who are we compare to go? we have 43 predecessors to barack obama. surely you can find george h.w. bush or ronald reagan or other president who proved that they were able to be effective. now, when it comes to military interventi intervention, i would love to quote a piece here from an marie's piece because it's so wonderful. this is the irony because i think she should be -- she is secretly -- type cast on your side of the debate but she has a kind of split personality here, and i am just bringing the other, the hawkish side of her out where she talks about together with as many countries

as will cooperate and could use force to eliminate syria's fixed-wing aircraft to enforce 2139, aerial bombard 89 will likely continue via helicopter but would announce the game has changed after the strike, the u.s., france and britain should ask the security council's approval as they did after nato's intervention as in kosovo, the military strike, the hard military strike that you want to carry out against the assad regime. i couldn't agree with you more, an marie. now, again, you know, this is -- you have heard this quote before. it deserves to be said again as daniel patrick monahan said. they are not entitled to their own facts. to make the case that this administration has pushed it's democratic al tloishingz bring about a free trade agreement is simply not true. the free trade agreement, agenda

under obama has been dead. and by an marie's own admission earlier, maybe now that republicans if, free trading republicans, are running congress, maybe something will be done. the suggestion that our allies, japan and south korea are reassured by the united states again is false. interesting story in the japanese newspaper not too long ago. the japanese have taken note because of military cuts in the united states, we will have a four-month stretch next year where there is no u.s. air craft carrier in the western pacific. why is japan -- by the way, why is japan -- >> last question here. >> building a plutonium facility that will produce nine tons of weapo weapons-usable plutone yuma year if they are not having serious doubts about the reliability of barack obama's security guarantees? why would they spend the money? >> okay.

>> your response fareed and a follow-up. >> i will be completely frank. when i was originally asked to be on this side of this debate, i did wonder because i have been very, very vocal, as you have heard, in terms of what i think the obama administration should have done in syria. and i don't think that they responded correctly. but when i thought about it, when i really thought about it, i thought, wait a minute, i disagree with this president on a number of issues. but do i actually think he's made the world a more dangerous place? no. i don't. in the first place, most of the things we are describing, like china rising, which is why japan is really nervous, happens completely independently of barack obama. the question s. what does he do in response? the answer is, he at least tries to get a trade agreement, which is certainly more than any other. >> no, he does not. >> he launched in europe and he

is pushing it. he was waiting to do it from the beginning. >> what was the last time barack obama gave a major foreign policy address saying, my fellow americans, like bill clinton did with nafta, we are going to promote free trade because it's good for our continent. it's gore our country sflee he did it because he capitulated to labor-backed allies in congress. >> that's what's happened. tell me just site me the speech where he stood up as clinton did or al gore sentence al gore to debate ross perot on the giant sucking sound. he has not. we have this fantasy. you all have this fantasy about barack obama. he was the savior. he was a jesus. you have the feeling. but it didn't work out [applause.] >> now sounds like the party you

are trying to move away from. it look, i want to -- by the way, since we are at it, i haven't mentioned this, but i have i have a reading suggestion to you if you are enjoying this debate. brett has a new book out called "america in retreat: the new isolationism" wonderfuly written, vivid, all of the things you look for in a good book of fiction. i really suggest -- i really suggest you pick it up on your next long beach vacation. but what i was going to actually say is let's try to broad en this topic out one beat, which is foreign policy surely is also about rebuilding american strength because i think all of us would agree the only way the united states can play the pivotal role that we want it to play is for it to be fundamentally strong at home, particularly economically. and here we have a good control

experiment again: europe, the united states and japan, the three long advanced industrial blocks coming out of the great recession. the obama administration n coordination with the federal reserve had an aggressive monetary response, an aggressive fiscal response and regulatory response, by which i mean the banks were given stress tests. we made them more like can aideian banks. the three things worked brilliantly. the united states is the strongest economy out of the great recession. there is no question on this front. you ask any economist in the world to judge the performance of those three blocks. it is clear because of public policy, the united states has come out of the global financial crisis in much better shape. it has also come out because of other public policies where again, the obama administration deserves some credit, for example, fracking. but leave those aside. the fundamental reality of where

the united states stands economically compared with the europe that is disunited, dysfunctional and stripping into the third recession with a japan that continues to drive monastery stimulus because it doesn't have the guts to do the other hard things with the united states that is demographically, economic itcally and in energy terms vibrant. this is what is going to allow the united states to power forward. >> post-american world anymore? >> if you read the book -- >> i read the book. the united states was going to be the most powerful kuncoun in the 21st century by far. >> what the world means. >> the question we have to ask ourselves, though, is: are we strengthened by more interventions? your question, the 14th. and i would tell you one of the things that i think obama has done in solid terms that he deserves a lot of credit for is being somewhat restrained in terms of the foolish adventu

adventurism, misguided adventurism that has taken place. he takes a page from dwight eyes own hour who was asked by the french, the british, and israelis to intervene in sues. he refused. he was asked by the french to intervene. he refused. there are reports the french asked him to use nuclear weapons. he was asked by the taiwan easetese. he said no. at the time people like bob kagan pillaried ice en hour. >> pillaried eisen hour? my god. >> i don't know if you heard, people like bob kagan pillaried ice en hour. these were wise exercises in restraint. sometimes, as all of you who are in business know saying no is the hardest thing to do. obama has said no in many important cases [applause.] >> the effect of ice en hour's policies in 1956 it was cut the legs out from all of our allies which i am sure you know perfectly well fareed from your

historical knowledge. i hesitate to keep quoting an marie, but -- >> that's all we ask. >> i think this has been unfair. we are basically have been asking -- he is extremely formidable person but we have been asking fareed essentially to hold up this argument all by himself since effectively, an marie should have been on her side as she originally thought. let me read something that an marie wrote in april, 2014. the solution to the crisis in ukraine lies in part in syria. it is time if for u.s. president barack obama to demonstrate that he can order the offensive use of force. closure ears, fareed, another intervention. the offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or covert operations. the result will change the strategic calculus not only in damascus but in moscow, not to mention beijing and tokyo.

another statement -- >> he is doing it now. putin must be trembling because obama has now what is it? 400, 500 strikes in syria? >> let's talk about futin? >> the world is quaking. >> we have been talking about putin and i think it's worth. an marie is exactly right that the putin went into crime crimea. what about since then? the points of an marie's piece about syria was how to do you deter putin from going further than he had already gone? fareed is talking about all of the incredible suffering that the russian economy is going through and certainly, it is. the only problem is, every day punishment continues to poor weapons into ukraine, continues to poor troops into ukraine in violation of his own agreement and the west's only response is: possibly, we will think about more sanctions in a few weeks. we couldn't be bothered to

provide the ukrainians with some capacity to defend themselves, some weaponry, some training? >> -- that is the least that we ought to be able to do to help th him not intervene. >> it's great. i am not doing any work tonight. i love that. i think an marie has the right to respond. a direct line to her. >> remember that moment when woody allen says, you know, he has this series about marble mcclun. >> and. >> and he said he can answer these questions and he said you know nothing of my work. [applause.] ann marie, is the response of the obama administration to putin's aggression sufficient? >> yes. >> yes?

>> yes. this was about syria. so, i mean we are all here in a debate. we actually believe in reason, he deliberation and we believe if you hear facts and well expressed opinions based upon facts, it can change your mind. >> that's the premise of this evening. i knew you would devote that against me and i did believe it when i wrote it. i absolutely thought this is critical in terms of sending a message to putin. i have since spent half the summer talking to russian experts, talking about what, in fact, is driving putin and i absolutely think at this point that had we done what i was suggesting, it wouldn't have changed putin's calculus. >> but what you are suggesting now. >> but equally importantly, it might have change would. it might well have torpedoed our negotiations with iran. i am s

i am serious barack obama calculus says this is the single most important thing in the region. i am not going to do anything that gets the iranians -- that strengthsens iranian hard liners and jeopardizes this deal. i might make a different decision. i respect that as a foreign policy calculation that is absolutely focused on extremely dangerous threat and he is in that way certainly not enticing putin to do things putin wouldn't otherwise do. he may well be playing for what is the biggest success of all. >> tonight, i just want to step back for a moment to syria. first, i want to take a further step back and just a clarification for the record because fareed said something that was very hurtful to me and, also, quite frankly, hypocritical. >> okay. >> i was certainly no college republican. i voted for bill clinton in my first election. fareed -- fareed was head of the party of the right at yale.

he is the college republican [applause.] more substantively. >> what we are talking about here, ukraine, syria, iraq, we are talking about intervention. let's be intelligent adults. there is some interventions that work. there are some that fail. you have to as a leader be pragmatic, prudential, think things through. every president should do that when confront with various crises when you don't interfere and say in sudan but you do in somalia, for better or worse. now, let's think about syria. for the first six months of the syrian uprising when we failed to lift a finger, when the united states failed to even call for assad's removal, there were peaceful -- it was almost

entirely peaceful uprising of syrian citizens saying enough to their tierney, an effort to replicate what had happened in tahrir square in egypt which inspired the world. only thing then did elements of syrian civil society responding to massive brutality by the assad regime start forming a free syrian army. we refused to support them because we said, well, we don't know who these people are. it's all very complicated. obama, after all, likes to say that he was the man who ended wars. he didn't start wars. so things became worse. next thing you know, you have 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 human beings slaughtered. nothing happens. a thousand people are killed in a sarin gas attack. all right?

and we said, that is our red line. well, guess what. you know, now, you are going to talk about, we removed a lot of the chemical weapons. there are still chemical weapons in syria by the admission of the u.n. organization or the ngo that is responsible, responsible for them. in the meantime, the tragedy of the syrian people, while we have not intervened has been expanded to a million refugees in jordan and the security of jordan as a state. another million in lebanon. two million in turkey. the rise of isis, the collapse of the iraqi state, its division into spheres of evil between hezbollah and al-qaeda. this has been the price of non-intervention. so, it's very easy and fareed will play a very useful, for his side, rhetorical trumpet saying interventions are dangerous and there are consequences and he is right. thru br consequences to non-intervention. do yourselves -- it's a brutal favor, but do it. look at the pictures of the syrians who have been starved to

death by the assad regime while we sat on our hands and talked about the possibility -- the testees of any kind of ha intervention. syria has gone from a local crisis to an international catastrophe because we wouldn't intervene [applause.] >> so, fareed, you are going to have the last word on this section of the debate. then we will move in to closing statements. >> okay. i think it's a fundamental miss relating of syria to look at it as a tale of democrats rising up against a dictatorial regime and us being unable to support them. syria is ta third of the graduae minority. the first was the christians in lebanon in the 1970s. what happened was you began to see a mass uprising against that minority regime. it turned into pa brutal 15 year civil war.

one out of every 20 lebanese were killed and finally, they came to a power sharing deem. the second great minority regime was iraq. we kindly got rid of the minority, the sunni minority but they fought back in an insurgency which continues to this day. iraq is still the second most violent country in the world and the civil war in iraq has had huge consequences. syria is the third of these minority rege-mails. 12% allowhites ruling over 85% sunnis. what you are seeing is exactly that rebalancing take place. it has now turned into a ferocious sectarian conflict, but it is at its heart. assad was anna allahowhite who oppressed the sunnis. >> was violent and highly religious from the 1980s, the massacre that took place 25 years ago. >> process bubbled up again.

what we are now witnessing is the result of that. it is a 20-cornered civil war, and we, in america, are sure that there are good guys somewhere and, b action we know who they are, c, we can find them, support them, and they will win, and d, they will set up a jeffersonian process at the end of the process. our ability to via remote control are limited. i met with the head of the political wing of the free syrian army two years ago in istanbul, a lovely man who talked about an open, pluralistic syria in which everyone would participate. it was heart anything to hear him. then i asked him: when were you last there? 31 years ago. i said where do you live now? stockholm. >> what do you do? >> i teach it philosophy, a khan scholar. >> the modern sirians, it's not

they are not moderate. the current head has not been in syria for 24 years. >> jump in on this? >> my point is -- >> the point you are making, fareed, the point has been made many times is that the syrians are getting killed. it's their own damn fault? >> no, bob. >> i can't tell you -- >> a wonderful example of how we could help. if we had a lot of troops there, we could establish some order. we can try help create, you know, and help support a government a moderate government, the good guys. well, we did that in iraq. right? we had 175,000 troops. we supported the government there. we thought we had political sustainabilitity and power sharing deals. here is what happened in iraq. these are the pictures you should take a look at. 2 and a half million people fled iraq never to return. two to 300,000 people for sure died christian life in iraq in

existence since the bible has been extinguished, 500,000 christians have fled iraq. >> all happened while we were there occupying the country. so now, we are sure that the solution to syria is that we do another one of those because that's going to make it work? and i only ask you: do not at a time don't we ever learn something from those pictures of the iraqis who have been killed, maimed, wounded, dispossessed, in large part because of the misadventures of american intervention [applause.] we will move to closing statements. ann marie, you are first with your closing statements. we will give you three minutes on the clock starting now. >> okay. so debates are funny and witty and we have heard lots of

reparty and lots of laughs. there are some serious issues at stake here i agree more with brett on syria than i do with fareed, but fareed and i have debated this issue repeatedly. and there is no certainty. as fareed says, if we intervened, we might well ends up with an iraq. if we intervened, we might well end up at war directly with iran. there are argument did on both sides. which way you come out can be a prudent decision that you don't want to take that risk or a more risk acceptance position that you are going to try because you believe in the end it may -- it may make a positive difference for the syrian people. our opponents have an old fashion view of history, a great man view of history, a view of history that says once bismarck

was dead, world war i broke out because kaiser wilhelm was instrumental or neville chamberlain could have stopped hitler or ronald reagan brought about the end of the cold war by defeating gorbachev. i am not sure that was ever an honest account ofhit but i am very sure it does not apply today. we are no longer in a world where you can plot out moves statesman to statesman like a chessboard. we are in an extraordinarily complex world, a world in which we have government, individuals, networks, corporations, all jumbled together in ways that make it almost impossible to predict what is going to happen if you take a certain move. no world, barack obama is playing a prudent hand. he knows maybe he could deter putin and it may be he could put the world at the brink of

nuclear war. i do not think you can blame him for making the world more dangerous because he decides not to risk nuclear war or to risk war with iran in the middle east. you can say he may not have made the world a saferplation or as save a place as he would like it, but i put to you: you cannot charge him with having brought about the dangers that we find ourselves in because he has emboldened our enemies. thank you. [applause.] >> concise and powerful closing statement. bob kagan, you are up next. >> okay. look. i am not going to quote ann marie. >> that's my first contribution to this debate. but i am going to quote some other people. and i am going to play a little game with you. when the president of the united states draws a red line, the

credibility of this country is dependent upon him backing up his word. who said that? >> ronald reagan before he pulled the marines out. >> leon panetta. secretary of defense of president obama. here is another quote. i think when we stepped out of iraq, in many ways, we created this vacuum in which not a lot of attention was paid to what was happening in iraq or what was happening in syria with the extremists who were on developing base of operations there and that combination, i think, is what produced the isis that we are confronting today. leon panetta. great nations need organizing principles and don't do stupid stuff, which is also fareed's approach to the world, is not an organizing principle. this is like wait, don't tell me. do you guys listen to that show? hillae clinton.

i could actually ask fareed to go on and on. there have been an extraordinary thing that happened over the course of this obama administration. senior officials, cabinet officials, bob gates effectively a non-partisan government servant who served presidents, i believe, going back to nixon and was named barack obama's secretary offoff defense. leon panetta a, a democrat's democrat, long-time democrat in the house named as secretary of defense. hillary clinton. not anyone's idea of a college republican. secretary of state. civil servants, foreign service officers that ann marie knows well like robert ford and frederick hoff, who were the syria experts for the obama administration. when they left this administration, they all did

something extraordinary. they really laid out some very serious critiques of how this administration, how president obama handled foreign policy. very strong critiques and, you know, they were accused of disloyaltity. i don't know how you could accuse leon panetta of disloyaltity. hillae clinton was as loyal as one could be given this team of rivals that was created. they effectively criticized in very strong terms president obama's leadership. what explains it? what explains it is their interest in the united states playing a better and more effective role in the world. they were willing -- [applause.] >> -- to come out and criticize their own president in order to make that point. listen to them more than you listen to us [applause.] >> fareed? your closing statement please. three minutes is up on the

clock. >> you know, i want to just reiterate something that ann marie said. this is important. this is not -- i mean, we have all had a lot of fun, and it's been a great pleasew and i have been outed as a college republican. i wasn't a citizen of the united states in those days. but i will admit that's a legalism. what i want to talk about is the world that robert and brett stevens want: a world that is stable, that is peaceful, that is prosperous and is under girded by american power. i think that is a world we all believe has been vastly beneficial for the united states for, for canada but for, by and large, the whole world. it has allowed the rise of asia, the transformation. i talk about in latin america, and the question s. has made that possible? and i would argue the image you should think about is franklin roosevelt after winning decisivetively in world war ii, decides that he wants to create

the united nations, an institution in which all countries will be represented and an institactualliesalized effort in which other countries are heard. >> that's really what the united states has at its core been trying to do since 1945. it's not really because the united states has gone in to lots of third-world countries and intervened and beaten up people and killed leaders that global order has been secured. it is because of this positive vision of building institutions of peace and prosperity that the united states has been able to preside over this world and a crucial part of that has been an element of restraint that the united states has had not using its awesome powers to get its way on everything, try to do things multilaterally and

diplomatically rather than militarily. >> has been so much a part of the merge tradition. yes, the united states has intervened in some places. and by the way, it is not clear to me that sending half a million troops into vietnam really upheld the global order. but it is clear to me that creating the u.n., the world bank, the imf, the world trade organization, all of those institutions have been a crucial part of it. what obama represents really is that lib internal national tradition. and i think it should find a voice in canada because you understand it. look at how you responded to the recent horrible terrorist attack. you were resilient, you bounced back. you didn't go in and invade two countries. god knows you have got a pretty good army. it is that kind of restraint. it is that kind of sober-minded sensible intelligentphon obama represents. so, i guess what i am telling you is he is sort of a closet canadian. vote for him for god's sake [applause.]

brett stevens, you are going to get the final word. last i checked, caniatedians were joining coalition forces bomb isis. [applause.] >> i commend canada for being such a core member of a western alliance which hasheld peace, prosperity and freedom for the past 70 years. fareed mentioned my book. i am glad you are enjoying it so much. i want to talk a little bit about what my book is about because what's clear to us here is that the united states needs to find a goldie locks recipe between the axis of idealism which tipfied, say, johnson in vietnam or george w. bush in iraq, trying to be the world's priests, to change hearts, to save souls, to make the world safe for democracy that

wilsonian tradition and the cold-hearted real i am and timidity that has tipfied the obama administration. you heard a wonderful am universe described today about this peaceful world where only our only problems are sort of in the middle east. there is that little thing in ukraine but, you know, whatever, air defense zones in the south china sea, whatever, it's a scary world. so how do we chart a course between the bush excesses and the lack of imagination, vision, courage, and initiative that i think has tipfied the obama administration? well, that's what my book is about. now, something amazing happened in america in the last 25 years. what happened is our crime rate, our murder rates, which were so st staggeringly high in the 1970s and 1980s went down. and they went down because

american police departments adopted what was known as broken windows policing. they observed if a single window was broken in a neighborhood, it's a sign that nobody is in charge. and so it's an invitation to break all of the rest of the windows and to create disorder. disorder, criminal natty, they are not just causal. they are environmental. well, the argument i would make to you tonight is that something like that is happening in the world, too. there were no consequences for assad in syria. there were no consequences really for putin in georgia or in ukraine and the roads of the world sense that we now live in a place where no one is in charge, where the united states is afraid to intervene in all circumstances and they can do what they want. we are entering into a broken windows world. we need a foreign policy that understands that the role of a great power is to maintain order as a policeman, not as a priest, to be the man on the corner who

is reassuring the good, deterring the tempting, and punishing the wicked. i look forward to a president who does that [applause.] >> closing statements, debaters, wow, what a meaty, significant and important debate we have had tonight. let's give them a big round of applause. [applause.] >> a big thank you to the foundation. this is our 14th consecutive debate. a huge crow in toronto. peter, mellony, thank you guys. great to do this again [applause.] okay. now, this evening, the second

audience vote. so before you go out and do that, as a group, we are going to review again, again, how you voted at the beginning of tonight's debates. so the supports agree slew, 43/57 that have been a support on the con side and then the percentage that would change their minds, sky high. i have never seen that before at the munk debates. this room is in play tonight. the final outcome ladies and gentlemen is your hands in the ballots attached to each of your program. for those of you watching online, you can vote on our app, www.munkdebates.com/vote. we will release the results shortly after 9:00 p.m. ladies and gentlemen, thanks for a great debate [applause.]

♪

♪ next, your calls and

comments live on "washington journal" after that virg senate tim kaine on the response to isis. and the united nations security discussions on ukraine. >> the 2015 student competition is underway to create a 5 to 7 minute do you recollectary, the three branches and you, showing how a policy, law, or action by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the federal government has affected you or your community. there is 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totalling $100,000. a list of rules and how to get started, go to student cam.org. ...