of time in the last few months explaining nara regulations, explaining the basics of the government's record-keeping policy to journalists. i would hope that this does not die and that it does not die because of the press. i would also hope that the same amount of time that is put into training journalists on foia and the importance of it that at least an equivalent amount of time or some percentage of that amount of time would go into training journalists in what the statutes are, what the regulations are. we do not have many beat journalists anymore were looking at the agencies. that is a huge problem because nobody is paying attention

outside of the government, to whether things are being implemented properly in the government. i think it is incumbent upon all of us of how are you going to keep this an issue, not a scandal but an important issue in governance and accountability and history. it will disappear. it will fall below the radar at some point unless there is a steady drumbeat -- unless there is constant attention to the issue and what is happening. whether we do get to where we are supposed to be in 2016 and

2019. we still have a long way to go. >> i'm lauren. i was wondering, if so many agencies are not keeping their records properly, what are the national security implications of that, beyond just keeping them for historical records? host: we have four minutes left. quick. tom: the problem with record-keeping systems means that real-time releases of documents just does not happen. it is a key piece of the delays we see across the freedom of information system. we have argued that there is really only one way out. the point that our former chief financial officer made about financial limitations goes in spades for the freedom of information system.

any new request you put in slows down your previous freedom of information request. it is a zero-sum system. the only way out is for agencies to proactively post everything they are releasing and everything they think might get released. for example, all of ms. clinton's calendars, you better believe there are dozens of requests right now for everybody she met with, when, for how long. it is of national interest if she is running for president or just policy interests. that stuff should just be before a request comes in, they should be looking to release that, post it online. we can see examples like the challenger shuttle disaster. nasa was getting hundreds of

requests. they said, we will post it online when we are done with our investigation. it is efficient, it is good for all of us. that should be the default setting. it is not today. host: the question was, the implications on national security. we have one minute left. who would like to answer? jason: the history of this country includes documents that are classified under the executive order laws. the important point is that those e-mails need to be preserved and eventually you need better preservation mechanisms. there will be one billion e-mails coming out of the obama white house alone in january

2017. the exponential curve is clear. we are living in an age of communications. we need to have better preservation mechanisms, better search mechanisms, better information governance throughout the federal government in terms of who is paying attention to these issues. this is a start. i hope we can meet again soon, and i hope that the panel will have conversations going forward, and i want everyone in the room watching to challenge government agencies to ask what are they doing to meet the 2018 and 2019 deadlines. mr. singh: thank you very much. we have come to an end of a very interesting session. please become a member of the national press club, if you are not a member. thank you very much for your time and effort. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] [applause] >> now for presidency with a video on youtube. ♪ >> i have done a lot of things. we are starting to get the gardens ready.

they are legendary in my own neighborhood. they are starting to start kindergarten next year. >> after five years of raising my children i'm going back to work. i'm ready and more prepared. >> i am looking into it the real world will look like after college. ♪ >> i'm getting ready to retire. >> a lot of home motivations. >> a lot is going to happen.

>> i started a new career recently. this is a fifth generation company which means a lot to me. this is a company that was founded on hard work. >> i am getting ready to do something too. i am running for president. americans of brought themselves back from tough economic times. everyday americans need a champion, and i want to be the champion. you can do want to get by commute can get ahead and day. when families are strong, america is strong. i'm hitting the road to earn your vote. it is your time, and i hope you will join me on my journey. ♪

>> there is reaction to hillary clinton announcement today on her face page. any rate she is the most intelligent and has more experience than any other candidate already knows the hands of other countries. i think she will make an excellent president. darnell says she should not be able to run for president. thousand other comments you can find it facebook.com. even before the announcement was made official, republicans were commenting on the hillary clinton candidacy. here is jeb bush who is giving his own run a consideration. >> in the coming weeks and months, i look forward to an exchange of ideas and policy

proposals. believe that every american deserves the right to rise, and the opportunity to achieve the american dream. i believe we should be respected by her allies and feared why our enemies. we must do better than the obama and clinton foreign-policy that has damaged relationships with our allies and emboldened our enemies. better than their big government failed policies that embroiled us in debt and data the way of real economic growth and prosperity. i think it is conservative ideas that will renew america and make our great country even stronger. i know we can do better, and together we will. >> what path will america take? a road to yesterday? a place we've into before?

the washington machine is destroying the american dream. it is time or a new leader and a new way. rand paul. rand paul's plan to defeat the washington machine. balance the budget by law. require congress to read legislation before the vote on it. term limits on washington politicians. >> i have a message. a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. way have come to take our country back. >> unleashed the american dream. >> i am rand paul, and i approve this message. >> a former hewlett-packard ceo said this. she does and have a -- does not have a track record of leadership trustworthiness. >> i do not think any of us

down that the race is not stronger a with her in it. now we'll expect vigorous debate. senator rubio will become the third republican to officially enter the geo residential race -- gop presidential race. on monday, hewlett-packard ceo carly fiorina was a speaker at the center for strategic and international studies. she reportedly is considering a run for the gop residential nomination. -- presidential nomination. >> ok.

we're going to get started. we have plenty of room and we look forward to the session. thank you for coming and a special thank you to carly fiorina. i had the privilege of working with her on a number of occasions and you are in for a real treat. i just want to tell you this is a special evening. we have public events. we have a safety announcement. i am the responsible safety officer tonight. if you have an emergency, you will follow me. we have the exits and the stairway is in that corner. we will go down and outside to the beacon hotel. we will be ok. if something happens, follow me. my sincere thanks to nina and carly. thank you for the sponsorship of this. this is a popular series for us and it shows the emotion about bringing all of the gene pool

into play to help the country. think about how many problems we would solve if we tapped the full gene pool talent. this is a mission for the world. we are glad that we can start it here and we have this impressive program. thank you for inventing it. thanks. [applause] >> i want to thank the doctor. this is our fourth event of the series that we sponsored with

fortune. since it kicked off, we have welcomed three impressive women involved in government. the tradition continues with our first business speaker. carly fiorina. she shatter the glass ceiling when she was appointed the ceo of hewlett-packard. today, in a number of different roles that she has, she lends her voice and influence to building a network of women and ending the cycle of poverty. i am proud to say that more than half of the workforce is made up of women. in financial services, there are not enough women. she is a symbol of a woman who has achieved the highest levels of power in mail-dominated business. this highlights the amazing

talent that women bring to government and the community. this gives us an opportunity to highlight those talents. today is one month after international women's day. throughout the month of march, the city posted 200 events for clients and the community. today is a natural culmination of what i would say is not so much international women's day. it is international women's month. it is a testament to the series that we culminate the month of march -- the beginning of april -- it is a month. the city is a proud sponsor and i want to welcome all of you. thank you.

[applause] kathleen: i direct the program here and the smart power initiative. i am here to impart social media information. make sure you are following us on twitter. our twitter account shows the power of expanding the gene pool through great programming we put through the twitter feed relating to great things women are doing in international business and affairs. check out our series on itunes. it has done well and we invite you to join the conversations on the podcast series. carly fiorina is here to discuss topics relating to world affairs, foreign policy,

international business microfinance. there are no end to the issues she will cover with nina. sheet is part of the largest microfinance lender in the world. she is part of a philanthropy organization and most of you know her as the former chairman of hewlett-packard. she may also be a candidate for office at some point. we may hear about that at some point. our moderator is nina. she is the chair of the international women's summit. thanks for joining us. nina, over to you.

[applause] nina: thank you for the kind remarks. it is such an honor to have carly fiorina here. you have been here and other capacities. i guess you all probably know about her 90% summit, as in, 90% chance she will run for president. it is an incredible opportunity to get to know carly better and drilled down on foreign policy. there have been a lot of attention towards domestic issues in the last couple of weeks. foreign policy and the role of international business is something we want to hear from you on. thank you for being here. i want to start with a "get to know ya." your mother was an abstract

artist and your father was a judge. talk about two different minds. how did that produce you? carly fiorina: you would have to ask them. my father was a law professor at the university of texas. my mother was a stay-at-home mom and a talented artist who kept her light hidden under a bushel for most of her life. she went on and got her masters late in life. my parents had so much to do with who i am and what i believe. they met during world war ii in texas.

my mother was the secretary to the c.o. she had ran away from home because her father did not think she should go to college. she met my dad. i learnt important things from both my mother and father. my mother told me, when i was about eight years old and sundry school -- in sunday school that

what you are is god's gift to you and what you make of yourself is your gift to god. that was a challenge and a promise. my father was a conservative of great integrity. i would sit and watch the news with him. he would yell at the television, you know? he would get wrapped up in politics. he was one of these people who when he went on to the federal bench on the ninth circuit court of appeals, he got along with everyone, though not everyone agreed with him. you can have strong core principles and find common ground. he says, your integrity and reputation are the most important. don't ever sell them. nina: you ended up at the pinnacle of the business community. you were the first woman to run a fortune 50 company. you took a circuitous route.

why? carly fiorina: security us -- circuitous is a nice way of saying it. what that meant was, i was all dressed up and nowhere to go. so, i went to law school. my dad thought it would be great if i followed in his footsteps. i adored him. i hated law school. i hated it. i think it was judge learned hand that put me over the edge. i thought the emphasis on precedent wasn't very interesting and i quit. i did not make it through the first semester. so imagine what my resume reads. i had to earn a living. i had to do full-time what i had done part time to put myself through stanford. it was an expensive school and i had to work. i was a secretary and a kelly

girl. i was a temporary office personnel. i did all kinds of things. i went back to work as a secretary for a nine-person real estate firm. i had no idea what i was going to do with my life. i was grateful to be hanging around. nina: you got an mba. carly fiorina: i did. nina: you started at at&t. carly fiorina: 1980. would that i were that young. it was a lesson in that stayed with me from the nine-person real estate firm. the men who worked there said that they had been watching me and thought i could do more than type and file. they put me on a path to consider business. nothing in my background would have caused me to think about a career in business. what i remember it was, the

trajectory of my life changed because two men took a chance on me. they took a chance on me. everybody needs somebody to take a chance on them, at least once in their life. my very first job, when i finally got the mba, it was right here in washington dc. -- washington, d.c. i was hired as an entry level salesperson. my job was -- i was kind of a sales training person. my job was to sell telephone systems to government agencies. that is what i learned that, at the end of a fiscal year, every government agency spends every last dime, no matter what. and, it continues. nina: to jump forward, 1999, you are chosen to lead hewlett-packard. did someone take a chance on you? carly fiorina: all of us do something for the first time and that was the first time i was a ceo. nina: there was a lot of attention. carly fiorina: in retrospect, it sounds foolish for me to say that i was unprepared for how much attention there was. i had spent my career moving up. i learned, over time, that i would run into problems. if there was a problem, i ran to it. i found it interesting. if there was a problem, there

were people who knew how to fix it. they had never been asked. their potential had not been tapped. i would find people with potential who had not been tapped and focus on how to solve problems and capture opportunities. when you run into problems and you solve them, people pay attention. i worked my way up. i never thought about myself as a "woman in business." even though the majority of meetings i was in were only men, i would routinely find women in organizations whose potential was being ignored and give them a chance. when i arrived, i thought people will would ask me about me being the first outsider to ever lead this storied technology company or that questions would be about

not being an engineer. or, maybe the questions would be, "how do you grow the company." it was known as the grey lady of silicon valley. the questions that were asked were, "you are a woman." it caught me off guard. the attention that was paid to me because i was a woman never

abated. nina: you had asked for mende's run -- a tremendous run and were abruptly fired. there was an earnings slump. in your book, you talk about sexism, in some way. the way you work fo -- were portrayed. nina: it is -- carly fiorina: it is true that, when you are trying to change the order of things -- and that is what leadership is about. leadership is about unlocking potential in others, like the men did for me. and, it is about changing the order of things for the better. when you change the order of things, you are taking on established orders, the status quo. you will make enemies. it is the nature of leadership. in the course of my time, we accomplished really

extraordinary things. we took the company from $44 billion to $88 billion. we went to 9% growth. we went from not being counted in the top 25 innovators to tripling our innovation to 11 patents a day. we went from being behind to leading. we grew a company by innovating. we, of course, created jobs. you cannot create jobs, unless you are growing. if you are not leaving and -- leading, you are lagging. some of the moves we made were controversial. we acquired compaq. it was the most complex

integration in technology history. we did that at -- in the middle of the biggest technology recession in 25 years and it was against conventional wisdom. in 2001, they thought the era that would follow would be the one that preceded the bust. the one that preceded it was the pure-play era. we said, no, the teacher belongs to diversified technology companies that will consolidate the industry. not just in scope and scale, in innovative capacity. i was fired because we had board members who were leaking confidential information. you cannot do that. i said, either this stops or i go.

there was a board room tussle that was over in 10 days. i could have prevented leaving by casting a vote as the chairman of the board. i did not. i thought it was important that the board worked through the conduct that was becoming of the board. a lot of board members were fired with tom waltz -- with tumult. it was best for the company that all of this came out. nina: did the way things ended -- will the way things ended her you? -- hurt you? carly fiorina: what is good about business is that there are facts. there are numbers. sometimes, i think that politics is a fact-free zone. i think that is what people are

sick of in politics. people are sick of no facts. i think they are sick of no results. i think they are sick of vitriol. somehow, the order of things never really changes. nina: our time is limited. you did a senate race against barbara boxer. obviously, lost. you faced breast cancer. you had that battle. talk about the lessons from that. carly fiorina: the senate run, yes, i lost the general

election. we had a 3-way primary and i came from behind and won with 57% of the vote. i understand what it takes to unify a party. of course, i lost. i gained more republican democratic, and independent votes than virtually anyone running in the nation that year. that is how big california is.

that taught me that, if you talk to people in terms they understand about the problems they actually face and you are authentic about what you believe and how you would approach problems, you can unify and reach beyond a party. that is why i love to campaign. it is helpful for a president. nina: what do you love?

carly fiorina: i find people fascinating. when you are campaigning for yourself or others -- i have spent a lot of time campaigning for others and helping others win. you meet all kinds of people in all kinds of places. they have fears, concerns, hopes. i am struck by -- i will digress for a moment and tell a story on associated -- unassociated with politics. i was in a homeless women's

shelter. this is a women's shelter that rotates between a catholic church and a jewish synagogue every other night, which says wonderful things about the community. i am speaking to a woman who is a guest. they call them guests, as they should. she says, "you are somebody." i said, i am carly fiorina.

she said, all these politicians up here, they are talking in their language and they are not connected to us down here. what they do impacts those of us down here. that is as concise of a definition of the disconnect that people feel between their lives in the political process that i have ever heard. so, you know, you run into people like that. here is a woman in difficult circumstances. yet, she was not hopeless. she was hopeful. she was concerned. she was worried, of course. she was hopeful because people were giving her a helping hand and taking a chance on her. when you take a chance on someone, you are saying to someone, "you have value." you can live a life of dignity and purpose. in the end, that is the highest

calling. nina: you are an advocate of the free market globally and in the united states. pope francis says the free market is creating economies of exclusion and inequality. carly fiorina: we have less and less free market and more and more crony capitalism. that is what happens when big government gets more complicated and only big business can thrive. big business uses the government to advance their position. we have this going on all over the world. the only way to level the playing field is to lessen the power and complexity of big government and big business. nina: how do you do that

internationally? carly fiorina: i cannot speak for what other countries are doing. we can do something here. if you look at dodd-frank, whatever you think, the results have been fannie mae and freddie mac, a big source of the financial crisis, continue without any reform. 10 banks to big to fail have become five. their position is stronger, not weaker. the risk is arguably stronger. the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be overseeing the financial system have not been reformed. we just added a new one.

3000 community banks have gone out of business. what happens with complicated and complex government is the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected thrive. the small get crushed. that is what happens. it matters when we are destroying community tanks because they are places that lend a helping hand to family-owned businesses and small businesses, which are still the engine of economic growth in this country. my husband started as a tow truck driver.

that is how many americans start. when we crush small businesses and create a system where only the big and powerful can make it, we have economic growth at 2% and not 4%. we have stagnant wages and not enough jobs being created. that is what is going on. there are so many people -- our market is less and less free. ms. easton: when you talk about the powerless, bringing home the $2 trillion of big companies abroad. something else that might help them is the role of technology. technology is displacing jobs. how would you tackle this kind of problems to help income growth at home? ms. fiorina: both of those things, you are absolutely right, and i would address both

of those things, but i will start by saying we cannot underestimate the historic role that family businesses, small businesses, startup businesses play in the economy. we were really proud of hewlett-packard. they innovated at a much faster rate because big companies tend to be big bureaucracies. small companies tend to be willing to take risks. if you want innovation, you want to tolerate mistake making. small and new businesses create 2/3 of the new jobs in this country, employing half the people. if you go to any community anywhere in the country, you will see small and family-owned businesses giving up, and it is of huge consequence. we are now for the first time in u.s. history -- think about this -- here is a fact -- for the first time in u.s. history we are now destroying more businesses than we are creating. that is a terrible problem that impacts everybody.

so now, to your point, yes, why do these big corporations not bring their cash home? because it will be taxed at exorbitant rates. we should of course have a competitive tax rate in this country for everybody. we do not. in the 21st century, any job can go anywhere, money can go anywhere, ideas, people can go anywhere, so we have to compete for it every job. we have to be the country that is the best place in the world to build a new business. we have to be the country that is the best in the world to do business, and we are not if our tax rates are uncompetitive. so we have to lower the rate but we have to vastly simplify the tax code. it is not enough to keep tweaking it and changing it and making it better, but never

make it simple cannot because the big companies can deal with big, antiquated tax codes. the little guys cannot. as a ceo, i hired accountants and lawyers to deal with this complexity. yes, we should change the tax code so that money comes home. we can incent companies to help startups get going, but if we do not signify the tax code, if all we do is worry about the rate, we will not make enough progress in terms of leveling the playing field for the small and powerless against the big and powerful. technology is an unbelievable tool for innovation. it is interesting because it is technology that small startups are trying to use to gain competitive advantage. all of you know about uber or about -- but think about it -- what are the competitors trying to do?

big companies are getting together with regulators and government entities to try and make their entrance into the marketplace harder. why? because their entrance into the marketplace disadvantages the big, established players. that is the kind of disruption we wanted our economy. government should not be used to crush opposition, and that is actually what is happening in our economy now. ms. easton: social security is at the top of the headlines, the iranian agreement. the president argued this is our best bet for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of tehran. what is your response to that? ms. fiorina: my own view is we should have stopped talking to iran after the first six-month deadline passed.

the reason i say that is because we have been sending signals to iran and to everyone else in the world that bad behavior will be rewarded. why do i say that? think about iran's behavior over decades. iran has had a strategy to destabilize the middle east through their proxies. iran has had a strategy to gain a nuclear weapon. iran has had a strategy to stonewall every inspection regime that has been put in place. and iran has had a strategy to stonewall every negotiating effort. we're rewarding that behavior. i also think that tactically from negotiating point of view it is a huge error for the president of the united states to declare victory in a rose garden ceremony when only a

framework agreement has been decided, because what that signals is that this president is now committed publicly to getting the deal done. so my prediction is that what the iranians will do on the other side is spending the next two months trying to get a better deal. that is what happens in negotiations. i have never negotiated an iranian nuclear deal, but i have negotiated big deals. you have to be willing to walk away from the table, and you cannot get so committed publicly that it does not really matter what deal you get. and i am afraid that is what is happening. finally, i would say there are people at the negotiating table with us whose side i am not sure they are on. so russia -- russia is not on our side in this negotiation. russia has a very keen national

interest in building up their nuclear industry. and the way they do that is to become the supplier and partner of choice to iran, and they are well on their way to doing it. we should have stopped talking a long time ago. i think we should have pushed back on some of their behavior but if we are going to go forward with this new deal now then i believe we must insist on inspections first and compliance first before sanctions are lifted. because once sanctions are lifted, there will be no snap. you cannot snap back when six different parties are on the table. you cannot snap back when industries rush in. i think inspection first verification first, and then perhaps -- ms. easton: what about the process of engaging a foe in the first place?

we've heard about the obama doctrine where he said we engage, but we preserve all our options and capabilities. what is the theory in the doctrine on foes like iran? ms. fiorina: i think before we engage with anyone, we have to be consistent about rewarding good behavior and recognizing bad behavior. and my fear is that we are sending exactly the opposite set of signals. so i mentioned rewarding bad behavior -- i think it is indisputable that we are rewarding bad behavior. no matter what the iranians are doing, that they are engaged in a bloody civil war in yemen, no

matter what the proxies do throughout the region, nothing changes in our posture towards them. that sends a signal to every other adversary we have. on the flip side, we are not standing with our allies and rewarding good behavior. so, example -- when the kurds, the most capable fighting force in the region -- when the kurds step forward and fight against isis, and we refuse to arm them as they have requested for over a year and a half, what signal are we sending? the signal we are sending is it does not really pay to be our friend. when the jordanian king -- whom i have known for many years -- but when king abdullah flies king -- whom i have known for many years -- but when king abdullah flies that to jordan and probably beheads -- not beheads -- probably executes two convicted terrorists in retaliation for the burning alive of a jordanian pilot and

then begins bombing, having just left washington where he was asking for bombs and matériel to reinforce him and we do not provide it, which we still have not, what signal are we sending? when the president of egypt, not a perfect character, by any means, but when the president of egypt takes action in retaliation for the beheading of 21 coptic christians and goes to cairo and speaks to the imams about the cancer that is sitting in the hearts of islam and responds bravely as well into all of what is going on in the region, and we say we do not condone his actions, what signal are we sending? we have our allies in the baltic states, in ukraine who are asking us to do very specific things that would be helpful and we are doing none of them.

and so the signal we send is it is a tough game to be america's friend. and the signal also is if you behave badly, there are no consequences, there are only rewards. and that has huge consequences for this nation, and i think the world is a very dangerous and tragic place when we are not leading. ms. easton: you know a lot of world leaders, putin among them. explain to us about your meeting with him. ms. fiorina: i met putin at an apec meeting, and putin is a very formidable, very interesting man. first of all, he is highly

intelligent, highly educated very cosmopolitan, quite charming. if he was here, he would be charming and entertaining. he actually has a very good sense of humor. he is formidable. he is also a man who is focused on power. not even ideology. power. economic power, political power, territorial power. and he believes it is his mission to restore the historic power of the russian empire. so if that is who you are facing off against, it does not take a lot to understand that someone like that will not be stopped unless he senses real strength and resolve and purpose on the other side. and so again, we have the ukrainians asking for help, we have the baltic states asking

for help and we are not providing much help. so i doubt that vladimir putin will stop. there's no reason for him to stop. he actually is achieving his objectives. ms. easton: so you met him once -- ms. fiorina: yes, we had a rather lengthy meeting, and i had done business in russia for some time. and i would say that he is a man who has effectively concentrated so much power in his person, it is really stunning. ms. easton: what about the chinese leadership? you have spent time with them as well. ms. fiorina: i have been doing business with in china for a couple of decades now, and the chinese are motivated first and foremost by what they perceive to be in their nation's economic self-interest.

their economic-self interest requires them to grow at a certain rate, to lift a certain number of people out of poverty, because they have figured out that political peace and social peace require a certain standard of living. that is the bargain they have made with the chinese people. we will crush freedoms, and in return, you will have a reasonable standard of living. that's a bargain that's fraying at the edges in very real ways. they do not care what we think about their human rights record. they really do not care. and so however objectionable we may find their human rights record, we are wasting our breath. they actually do not care when we say we think they are manipulating their currency. they think we are manipulating our country.

-- currency. i would agree with them. qe1, qe2, qe3 has had the effect of manipulating our currency. so we have to talk to them if we want to change their behavior. the only thing that changes their behavior is begin to have an impact on their calculation about their economic self-interest. in this regard, we have leverage where we can use it. we are their largest market. virtually all of their industry has been built one way or another through collaboration with american companies. so there are real conversations we must have with them about the systematic pilfering our intellectual property and we are not really having them. ms. easton: what would you do? would you stand up to them on

that? ms. fiorina: what i would do first, yes, i think the wto is in some ways a useful body. but i would remind the chinese that it is the american business community that helped the chinese enter the wto. i would gather a set of american business leaders who also are very concerned about what is happening to their intellectual property, and i would form a united front between the policies that the u.s. government pursues and a set of american businesses. i think that would have an impact. i would change the nature of the topics about which we speak to the chinese, and i would ensure that there are real consequences to some of their behavior. there is no doubt, i chaired the advisory board of the central intelligence agency for several years, there is no doubt that the chinese are engaged in very

deliberate cyber warfare, what everyone to call it, against both government and is this in this country. there is no doubt they are doing that. ms. easton: so i am going to open this up to questions in about five minutes, so get them ready. i wanted to drill down deeper on your views about the use of force. and let's look backward before we look forwards. the iraq war, knowing what we know now, would you have authorized that? ms. fiorina: of course not, and we i think, even if we assumed now, looking back, ok, they had weapons of mass destruction, i think we mismanaged that conflict, and we have mismanaged going in and mismanaged going out. i think the use of force as well as american leadership on the world stage requires both clear-eyed realism and moral

clarity, and what i mean by clear-eyed realism, let's take afghanistan, which in some ways was a clear case. we had a major terrorist attack launched, plotted, and planned from there. clearly, there had to be a response, a forceful response. that was realistic. it was totally unrealistic to decide that the mission we need to be engaged in was to build a central government where none had existed for 2000 years. that was completely unrealistic. so we were imposing a model of political governance on a nation in which that model would never take root. and so i think force is always a

last resort, and when it is used, it must be used for a very limited purpose. but there is a time. ms. easton: syria, containing isis, and so forth -- are you in favor of american troops there? >> one of the things this administration has the own is continually present the american people with a false choice. the false choice is either we go to war or there's nothing we can do. i think syria is an example where that false choice has been offered over and over again. we could have provided more help to the rebels when there were more moderate rebels there. we could have joined together more effectively with turkey instead of fighting against what turkey wanted to do.