♪ >> [cheers and applause] host: thank you. dr. carson: thank you very much. [applause] dr. carson: thank you. we have limited time. thank you. thank you so much for that warm welcome. this is my wonderful wife candy. [applause] dr. carson: even though we are

both from detroit, we had to go to new haven to meet each other. kandi has been by my side for 40 years. [laughter] [applause] dr. carson: it is my best friend -- she is my best friend. she even learned how to play pool because she knew i was a good player. [laughter] dr. carson: most of the times i beat her. there are media here and their headline will be that carson admits he beats his wife. [laughter] dr. carson: if you guys would not mind sitting down, so that i can introduce our son -- my oldest son, murray and his wife are right here. stand up, please. [applause]

dr. carson: murray is an engineer and his wife is an analyst. my middle son cj and his wife marlen is right here. [applause] dr. carson: he is an entrepreneur and merlin owns a company that does placements and they do a lot of things. they own a lot of stuff. very cool. my youngest son is right here. his wife is at home with the baby. [applause] dr. carson: royce is a cpa and they all three got married in 2011. [laughter] [applause]

dr. carson: now, i have introduced my family. you say, who are you? i am ben carson and i am a candidate for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. america remains a place of dreams. a lot of people are down on our nation. they want to point out all of the bad things that have happened here. have you ever noticed that there

are a lot of people trying to get in here and not a lot of people trying to escape? [laughter] dr. carson: it says something. it was a place of dreams for my mother. she came from a large rural family in tennessee. she always had a desire for education. she was never able to get beyond the third grade. she married at age 13 with the hope of escaping a desperate situation. she and my father moved here to detroit. he worked in a factory. in fact, i remember one christmas being in this auditorium, sitting right over there. they had a christmas program for the kids. some years later, my mother discovered that he was a bigamist and had another family.

that occasioned the divorce. she only had a third grade education. consequently we were thrown into a situation of dire poverty. she still maintained that dream of education. now, it was for us. more so than for herself. we moved in with her older sister and brother-in-law in boston. typical tenement. large, multifamily dwelling. sirens gangs murders. both of our older cousins, who we adored, were killed. i remember when our favorite drug dealer was killed. [laughter] he drove a blue cadillac.

they brought us candy, so we likes to see the drug dealers. the rats in the roaches. in the more upscale area, they call them water bugs, but we knew what they were. [laughter] my mother was out working extraordinarily hard. two sometimes three jobs at a time. trying to stay off of welfare. the reason for that which she noticed that most of the people she saw go on welfare never came off of it. she did not want to be dependent. she wanted us to be independent. she said she would work long and as hard as necessary, leaving at 5:00 in the morning and getting back after mid-night, day after day after day, doing what other people did not want to do to maintain your independence. she was very thrifty. she would drive a car until it would not make a sound. [laughter] dr. carson: then she would go

and collect all of for dimes and nickels and quarters and buy a new car. they would say, how does that woman afford a new car? she knew how to manage money. i am fond of saying this. if my mother was treasurer very -- secretary of the treasury we would not be in a deficit situation. [laughter] [applause] dr. carson: you know, there were many people who are critical of me because they say carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs, even though he must've benefited from them. this is a blatant lie. i have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. i have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.

[cheers and applause] dr. carson: we are not doing people a favor when we pat them on the head and say they are, they're, you poor little thing we are going to take care of all you needs, you don't have to worry about anything. you know who else says stuff like that? socialists. their programs always end up looking the same. they want to take care of people from cradle to grave. they want to be involved in every aspect of their lives. they want most of their earnings. they say it will be a utopia and nobody will have to worry. the problem is that all of those societies end up looking the same. with a small group of elites at the top controlling everything a rapidly diminishing middle

class, and a vastly it spanned a defendant -- dependent class. that was not the intention for this country. this country was envisioned by individuals who wanted everything to be surrounding the people. of, four, and by the people. not, of, for and by the government. the government was to respond to the will of the people, not the people to the will of the government area i am not an antigovernment person by any stretch of the imagination. i think the government, as described in our constitution, is wonderful. but we have gone far beyond what our constitution describes and we have begun to allow it to expand based on what the political class wants. i think it is time for the people to rise up and take the

government back. [applause] dr. carson: the political class won't like me saying stuff like that. [laughter] dr. carson: i will to you a secret. the political class comes from both parties and all over the place. [applause] dr. carson: it includes unfortunately, even the media now. the press is the only business in america that is protected by our constitution. you have to ask yourself a question. why were they the only ones protected? it was because our founders envisioned a press that was on the side of the people, not a

press that was on the side of the democrats or the republicans or the federalists or the antifederalists. [applause] dr. carson: this is a direct appeal to media. you guys have an almost sacred position in a true democracy. please don't abuse it. [applause] dr. carson: my mother' was for us to move back to detroit and we were eventually able to do that. i was a terrible student. my brother was a terrible student.

she did not know what to do. so she prayed. she asked god for wisdom. you know what? you don't have to have a phd to talk to god. you just have to have faith. god gave for the wisdom. my brother and i did not think it was that wise. [laughter] dr. carson: turning off the tv and making a three books -- making us read books and turn into her written book reports which she could not read. but it worked. i started reading about people of accomplishment. i started to recognize that the purse who has to do the most with what happens in your life is you. it is not somebody else. you do not have to be dependent on the good graces of somebody else. you can do it on your round if you have a normal brain and you are willing to work and you are willing to have that can-do attitude. it was the can-do attitude that

allowed this nation to rise so quickly. we had people who did not stop when there was an obstacle. that is how those early settlers were able to move from one seat to the other seat across a rugged and hostile terrain. they knew how to do things. there were many communities that were separated from other communities by hundreds of miles, but they thrived. why did they thrive? because people were willing to work together, to work with each other. if a farmer got injured everybody else harvested his crops. if somebody got killed, everybody else pitched in to take care of their families. that is who we are. we, americans, we take care of each other.

that is why we are called the united states of america. what we have done is we have allowed the purveyors of division to become rampant in our society and to create friction and fear in our society. people are afraid to stand up for what they believe in because they do not want to be called a name. they do not want an irs audit. they do not want their jobs messed with or their families messed with. but isn't it time for us to think about the people who came before us? and what they were willing to do? so that we could be free. nathan hill, a teenage rebel caught by the british, ready to be executed -- he said my only regret is that i have but one life to give my country.

a couple of nights ago, i was in mobile alabama. there were several world war ii veterans there in uniform. i took pictures with all of them. they were thanking me for being courageous enough to do what i am doing now. i said no, it is you who we must thank. [applause] dr. carson: we think about all of those brave men and women who sacrificed life and limb over the years so that we could be free. we dare not soil by being --

their efforts by being timid now and not standing up for what we believe. to recognize that one of the rules for radicals is that you make the majority believe that what they believe is no longer relevant and no intelligent person thinks that way and the way you believe is the only way intelligent people believe. and that way they will keep silent. i will tell you something. they don't care if you don't believe what they believe, as long as you keep your mouth shut. that is what we have to start doing. we have to start opening our mouth's for the values and principles of america. [applause] dr. carson: i have got to tell

you something. i am not politically correct. [cheers and applause] dr. carson: i am probably never going to be politically correct because i am not a politician. i don't want to be a politician. [applause] dr. carson: politicians do what is politically expedient and i am going to do what is right. [laughter] [applause] dr. carson: we have to think about that once again in our country. this past couple of weeks, there has been a great deal of turmoil in baltimore. i spent 36 years of my life there. and we see the turmoil in our cities all over our nation.

we need to start thinking about how do we get to the bottom of this issue? i believe that the real issue here is that people are losing hope and they don't feel that life is going to be good for them no matter what happens. when an opportunity comes to l oot, to riot, to get mine, they take it -- not believing that there is a much better way to get the things that they desire. interestingly enough, many of these people buy hook, line, and sinker, the idea that our economy is getting much better and that the unemployment rate is down to 5.5%. you know what? if the unemployment rate was

down to 5.5%, our economy was coming. -- would be humming. it is not. our freedom and our way of life is dependent upon a well-informed and educated populace. what you have to know is that you can make the unemployment rate anything you wanted to be based on what numbers you include and what numbers you exclude. you have to look at the labor force participation rate. that number has been steadily going down since 2009 and is now at a 37-year low. unless you understand those things, it is possible for slick politicians and biased media to convince you that everything is wonderful when your eyes tell

you something different. i am saying to people around this nation right now stop being loyal to a party or to a man and use your brain to think for yourself. [applause] dr. carson: that is the key to us as a nation becoming successful again. not allowing ourselves to be manipulated by people who think that they are the kingmakers. who think that they are the rulers of thought. they are not the rulers of thought. we, the people are the rulers of thought in this nation. other people cannot dictate it for us. we never allow anybody to take

the right away from us. we do that when we submit from silliness. the majority of americans were opposed to the so-called "affordable care act." they just rammed it down our throats and said, this is the way it is going to be. if you don't like it, too bad. that was never supposed to be the way that this country was designed. if we accept it, it will continue that way and it will get worse. we have to get the right people in place. we need, not only to take the executive branch in 2016, and when i say we, i'm not talking republicans -- i'm talking anybody who has common sense. [applause] dr. carson: we have to have

another wave election and bring in people with common sense, who actually love our nation and are willing to work for our nation and are more concerned about the next generation than the next election. that is what is going to help us. [applause] dr. carson: we also are going to have to concentrate on fixing the broken economy. $18 trillion plus in national debt. and we have representatives who applaud themselves if the deficit does not go up as much this quarter as it did last quarter. they are completely out to lunch. [laughter] dr. carson: we have got to drive that thing back down. it is our responsibility. you need to know who your representatives are. you need to know how they voted.

not how they said they voted. if they voted to keep raising the debt ceiling, to keep compromising the future of our children and our grandchildren you need to throw them out of office. [applause] dr. carson: $18 trillion. think about what that means. if you try to pay that back in a rate of $10 million per day, it would take you over 5000 years. we are putting that on the backs of people coming behind us. this will be the first year that the national debt exceeds the gdp. economists will tell you that when the debt to gdp ratio reaches 90%, at that point economic slowdown is inevitable.

we have been doing this for a while now. from 1850 through 2000, our economy grew at a rate of 3.3% at least, even during wars. from 2001 through 2014, it grew at a rate of 1.8%. that seems to be the new norm. you probably saw the headlines recently in the last quarter. it grew at like 0.2%. this is not good. i don't care how anybody tries to spin it. this is what happens when you have a gdp-debt ratio of 103%. this is what we have got to fix. we have got to fix it immediately. we cannot continue along that pathway. it will have dire consequences in the long run. i will be giving an in-depth economic speech in weeks and months to come with a lot of details about things that have

to be done. we need to fix it. we cannot just talk about it. how do we fix it? we have the most anemic economic engine the world has ever known right here in america -- dynamic academic -- economic engine the world has ever known right here in america. we cannot work it when we wrap it in chains in fetters of regulations that come out all the time. it does not work when you have high taxation rates. which are absurd. we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. and yet some of our officials sit there and wonder why people do work overseas. they obviously do not understand business. people do not go into business to support the government. they go into business to make money. [applause] dr. carson: we obviously have to

create an environment that is conducive to them making money. that means lowering the corporate tax rate, making it competitive. if we were really smart, we would do another big stimulus. you are saying, what? what did he just say? remember that big stimulus that we were supposed to have at the beginning of the obama administration? whatever happened to that? i know where we could get a big stimulus. there is $2 trillion of offshore money because they will not bring it back because it will be taxed at 35%. what if we give them a tax holiday and let them bring it back, repatriate that money? it won't cost us a dime. [applause] dr. carson: that is the kind of thing we have to start thinking about.

if you go to the financial advisor and you are in trouble they will tell you there are a few -- they will ask you for questions. what do you own? what do you know? -- owe? well, we only a lot -- owe a lot. what do we own? we own a lot also. just in terms of land and the mineral rights for it, we are probably at least $50 trillion. we own dams. we own levees. we own railroads. the government owns 900,000 buildings. 77,000 of which are being not utilized or underutilized. think about that. at the same time, the government

is leasing over 500 million square feet from the private sector, using your taxpayer money. it is totally horrendous when you look under the hood. you just want to shut it back down. [laughter] dr. carson: it is that bad. i want to tell you what we are going to do. if god ordains that we end up in the white house. i will to you what we are going to do. we are going to change the government into something that looks more like a well-run business than a behemoth of inefficiency. [applause] dr. carson: when i say we, i am talking about our team. when i started this endeavor, i am familiar with a man who has started over 30 companies, is extraordinarily successful. i asked him to put together the

rest of the team in order to be able to do this. his name is terry giles. where are you? [applause] dr. carson: now that we are transitioning from, you know, an exploratory committee, i have asked terry if he would take the lead in helping to select the people who will be able, who have had enormous experience with business and with making things work, so that we can transition our government from this inefficient thing that we have into something that really works and something that works the way it is supposed to according to our constitution.

dr. carson: we also have a great team. we have our -- who do we have? [laughter] dr. carson: we have our chairman , barry bennett. who never wears a tie but you will get used to seeing him. he does a terrific job. [applause] dr. carson: and, we have our director of communications, doug watts. who does wear a tie. [applause] dr. carson: and we have our treasurer and finance director, logan delaney. [applause] dr. carson: and we have our national spokesperson, dana

bass. [applause] dr. carson: we are going to be doing different things that you have seen before because it is not political. there are people who say, you cannot do this area you don't have experience. let me tell you something. i don't have a lot of experience busting budgets and doing the kinds of things that i've gotten us into all the trouble we are in now. i do have a lot of experience in solving problems. complex surgical problems that i've never been done by anybody before. [applause] dr. carson: i do have corporate board experience with 18 years with kellogg's. 16 years with cosco as well as a biotech company.

kandi and i have experience starting a national nonprofit scholars fund. nine out of 10 of those fail. ours is thriving in all 50 states and has launched several national awards. [applause] dr. carson: the point being that you can gain experience in other ways. it does not have to be just in politics. i can name a lot of people and politics with been there all their lives and you probably would not want them to polish your shoe. we need to be smart enough to think for ourselves. to listen for ourselves and in terms of a pedigree that we need -- i have to tell you, everybody has been telling me, are you ready for this. they're going to come after you with everything under the sun. they are going to try to say you are a horrible dr.. everything you can imagine. i know that. i expect that.

it is ok. don't worry, just listen to what is being said. i'm not even asking everyone to vote for me. i'm just asking people to listen to what i am saying and listen to what politicians are saying and make an intelligent decision based on your intellect. the real pedigree that we need to help to heal this country, to revive this country. someone who believes in our constitution and is willing to put it on the top shelf. [applause] dr. carson: someone who believes in their fellow man and loves this nation and is compassionate. somebody who believes in what we have learned since we were in kindergarten. that is, that we are one nation, under god indivisible with

liberty and justice for all. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

glory, glory hallelujah. ♪ glory, glory hallelujah. ♪ glory, glory hallelujah. ♪ ♪ his truth is marching on ♪ ♪ [applause]

[cheers]

[indiscernible] >> ben carson announcing he is running for president in 2016, joining the field of repelled can candidates. the numbers up on your screen for democrats. democrats and all others. we watch and reading the crowd. he talked about his mother, when he began his announcement today. his mother, the reason why he will be skipping a planned trip to iowa. the first one that was going to be kicking off his campaign, and instead going to dallas. she has had alzheimer's and he's going to skip that first

campaign stop in order to be with her. want to hear what you think about ben carson. we have a number of calls already on the line. we go to donna on the republicans line. caller: wonderful. we have been supporting dr. carson. his speech was fantastic. i'm grateful to c-span for running the speech. our family will be watching it again at 7:00 tonight. host: what did you like particularly about what you heard? caller: he speaks to the american people not like they are five-year-olds as a lot of politicians do, but as people who can understand what he is saying. what his policies will be based on facts and not political rhetoric. host: are you worried he is not a political person? caller: i think that is one of his strengths. because he is working the real world most of his life -- he spoke about how you can learn all kinds of skills.

i experienced that as a wife and mother. i think politicians get up sometimes that are just career politicians. host: donna in oklahoma. owing to go on to brooklyn, new york. eleanor is on the line. you're on the air. caller: i was very impressed with dr. carson. i have been following him since i first heard about him. he speaks the truth. he does not talk garbage like everybody else. i'm going to vote for him and i'm going to go out and work for him. host: that is a commitment. tammy, butler, north carolina. republicans line. caller: i and belated. -- i'm elated. i've been waiting for this announcement for some time. ben carson has the moral ethics. he has everything we need in a president. his mother brought him up right.

he knows that hard work will get you where you need to go. i am elated. i've been waiting for this announcement forever. [laughter] caller: that is pretty much what i have to say. i am so glad that he is running and i will be casting my vote for him and getting out and working for him. host: was there anything in particular from what you heard today or you of heard in the past that stuck with you? caller: just how his mother taught him and how hard work and it is not welfare that will get you there. at the end what he said, most people on welfare and up staying on welfare because there is no out to it.

that really stuck with me. he is a morally good man. i have been following him for some time. so glad. host: thanks for the call. douglas, richmond, virginia. caller: i truly enjoyed -- i'm a registered democrat. i have voted for one republican in my life, ronald reagan cost second term. i would love to work for ben carson and contribute to his campaign. so many things that he said make so much sense. he does not have the same opinions of professional politicians and i think that

speaks volumes. he is a man who has accomplished things through hard work and diligence and faith. i am a man of faith and it is so good to know that we have an opportunity to elect a man that has all those qualities. i just think he would be such a gift to this nation. host: thanks for the call. a democrat interested in the ben carson candidacy. the associated press. this is carly fiorina, former ceo of hewlett-packard and retired neurosurgeon ben carson launching their runs for president on monday, each with the potential to help the president to party win over --

the republican party win over a more diverse group. fiorina is likely to be the only prominent wanted to seek the gop donation with carson the only likely african-american. an opinion piece from the daily caller. then carson is a man with a lot to lose whether he realizes it or not, talking about how he is a different voice in the republican field. maybe he will have to sacrifice some of that for the candidacy. another here. "washington post." a lot of missions -- a lot of mentions about ben carson's mother. he is going to be going on to dallas after this. he was going to be stopping in iowa but that has been postponed. we just mentioned, carly fiorina announcing her candidacy. she worked for senator mccain on his 2008 presidential bid. she herself also ran for u.s. senate in california.

let's see her announcement that came across today. [video clip] >> i'm getting ready to do something too. >> our founders never intended us to have a professional political class. he believed citizens and leaders needed to step forward. the only way to reimagine our government is to reimagine who is running it. i'm carly fiorina and i'm running for president. if you're tired of the soundbites, the pettiness, the corruption. if you believe it is time to declare the end of identity politics, if you believe it is time to declare the end of lowered expectations, if you believe that it is time for citizens to stand up to the political class and say enough, then join us. it is time for us to empower our citizens to give them a voice in our government. to come together to fix what has

been broken about our politics and government for too long. we can do this, together. host: carly fiorina, announcing her bid the a you tube. ben carson, running for president. you can go online facebook.com/c-span. also on twitter. here is one. he is quite knowledgeable about what is going on in america. i think ben carson is the way to go. got bless america. margaret says , excellent doctor, idiotic human being. we don't need any more ultra white ring -- altra right-wing science the deniers running the free world. barbie, are you there with us?

go ahead. caller: yes. i was acquainted with ben carson when i saw the movie gifted hands. an awesome movie. every mother trying to raise kids in the inner-city needs to see this movie about his early life. i thought his speech was very good. i'm familiar with his permissions. what i found was missing today maybe because of lack of time, he did not talk about foreign policy. that is one of the big issues for me. economics of our country and stopping terrorism. we need somebody that can negotiate with our enemies and also with our friendly countries . i would like for you to have him back on and interview so that we can your more about his thoughts

on foreign policy. look at this movie. every family. it is an awesome movie about how a man that could hardly read with a strong mother that would refuse to say -- she refused to accept that her sons could not make it. host: we will take a look at that and also confront -- people can find our three-hour conversation with dr. ben carson . that happened many months ago but you can find it in the video library and take a look. three hours that we spent talking with dr. ben carson. find it in our video library. dale is on the line for democrats. caller: i'm an african american. i'm 63 years old. i can relate to dr. ben

carson. it is similar to our -- his story is similar to -- as a democrat i can support him. a lot of people are saying his moral character. what i would like to say to a lot of people -- the code word was common sense. we as a group of people know that once upon a time we as african-americans were the people that had conservative morals. we were the people that worked hard for what we wanted because years ago we were not dependent upon the government. as an african-american democrat come a 63 years old. i can relate to what he's saying. most of us of that generation can because our parents raised us the same way that ben carson's brother raised him -- ben carson's mother raised him. with godspeed he will get the

message across. to shake up the african-american community to say go back to your roots. understand your foundation that was laid. our generation had a solid foundation laid by our parents. good luck to dr. ben carson. host: a number of republican candidates getting into the race. one more tomorrow expected. that is mike huckabee. he will be in hope arkansas making his announcement. 11:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. getting your calls on dr. ben carson making his announcement from detroit. marcel is on the line. a story a, new york -- astoria new york. caller: good morning. i just listened to the candidate

ben carson and i like a few facts about his speeches today. the fact that he concentrated on the economic issue. i think that is the most important thing for the country before he gets to the fact that the other lady before my supply -- before my reply said he did not address foreign policy. ben carson is a very american fellow. he believes in the constitution. he believes in god first of all. he believes the washington government can be changed. possibilities are indoor miss. -- possibilities are enormous. he is concentrating more so on

the economy because this is the strength of our country. being the fact that he is a surgeon, he knows how to program speeches in such a way that has to go first to our mind what is most important to fix the problems domestically then we engage in foreign issues. host: thank you for the call. we want to get a couple more people in. let's take a look at an article from the liberal mother jones. it says future president that carson wrote six books -- future president ben carson wrote six books. i find it hard to accept the claims of edging -- of evolution as it is to think that hurricane blowing through a junkyard could somehow assemble a symbol 47. -- a 747.

you can take a look. perhaps a more liberal slant but that might be of interest to some viewers as we take a call. frederick is in north folk, virginia. caller: thank you for having me on. i would never vote for dr. carson. as an african-american, he does not seem to know that welfare and other programs -- social programs are for poverty-stricken children and not for their parents. when he talks, he is talking to the parents instead of to the children. the children are not at fault about their state in life. if he had a strong parent like i did -- i'm successful in my own

right but i am not going to dare blame children for their state in life and not concentrate on good education. even if you still need school lunches, kids need to eat. it is not their fault they don't have breakfast in the morning. that is the problem i have. always what i have accomplished does not mean that someone else is prepared to accomplish the same thing. just be graceful. host: thanks for the call. a couple more calls here. betty in washington, d.c. caller: i would not vote for ben carson because i do not think he understands the constitution. the constitution, if it is correct, black people can't even vote. they had no intentions of black people voting so i can't understand why he can't -- why

he does not understand that. if i was going to vote for anyone in the republican party it would be rand paul. he is too hyped on the constitution. i wish someone would explain that to me. they don't even treat us as human beings and we could not vote and probably don't vote now because of that. thank you. host: thanks for the call. last call is going to be here from brian. omaha, texas. caller: good morning. my name is ryan gibson. i work for the department of justice. i have a message from my son earlier. he is on board the uss george washington. i am elated that i had the chance to -- that i have a chance to vote for a man that is

not a career politician. i look forward to seeing this man in office. host: thanks for the call. thank you for all of the calls. if you do not get a chance to weigh in, we will have the phone lines open tomorrow morning. every day, washington journal 7:00 a.m.. that will be here on c-span as well. let's take a look at some of the books that the candidates and potential candidates have written. what they've put on paper in the past. >> presidential candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. here is a look at some recent books written by declared and potential candidates for president. former secretary of state hillary clinton looks back on her time serving in the obama administration in "hard choices." in "american dreams," marco

rubio outlined his plans for economic opportunity. mike huckabee gives his take on politics and culture in god, guns grits, and gravy. in blue-collar conservatives rick santorum argues the republican party must focus on the middle class in order to retake the white house. in a fighting chance, elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career as an educator and politician. wisconsin governor scott walker argues republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country in "unintimidating." ed." rand paul calls for more bipartisanship in "taking a stand." more candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush. in "immigration wars," he argues

new immigration policies. in stand for something, john kasich calls for a return to traditional american values. james webb looks back on his time serving in the military and in the senate in "i heard my country calling." bernie sanders recently announced his intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. his book "the speech" is a printing of his eight hour filibuster against tax cuts. in "promises to keep," joe biden explains his guiding principles. ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in "one nation." in fed up, rick perry explains government has become too intrusive. another politician who is expressed interest in running for president is former rhode island governor lincoln chafee.

here accounts his time serving as a republican in the senate. carly fiorina, former ceo of hewlett-packard shares lessons she learned from her difficulties and triumphs in "rising to the challenge." bobby jindal criticizes the obama administration and explains why conservative solutions are needed in washington in leadership and crisis. in "a time for truth," texas senator ted cruz recounts his journey from a cuban immigrant's son to the u.s. senate. look for his book in june. >> a discussion of global risks. speakers include public and senator lindsey graham, former british prime minister tony blair and japanese foreign affairs minister yasuhide nakayama. this is about one hour.

>> good morning, everybody. thank you for coming and joining what is going to be a really interesting panel on global risk, of which there is unfortunately a surplus in the world today. we are going to cover as much as we can in the hour we have. i suspect we could take three times as long. some very brief introductions for people who do not really need them. starting on the end to my left general wesley clark, the former supreme allied commander of nato. a 2004 democratic candidate for president, and now the chairman of an investment bank. to my left republican senator , lindsey graham, a member of the armed services committee among others. and you said there was a 91% chance you would seek the republican nomination for president? senator graham: that would be 92%.

>> that number goes up for the panel. to my right is tony blair. the former prime minister of great britain and northern ireland. and to his right, the state minister of foreign affairs for japan, yasuhide nakayama. thank you all for joining us. let's dive right in. mr. blair, looking at the middle east and north africa, by my count, we have three failed states syria lebanon -- libya and yemen. all of them arguably in a state of civil war. in every case we see radicalism, isis and al qaeda. it looks to me like the region is in worse shape than it was a decade ago. is this going to get worse before it gets better? what can the outside world constructively do?

mr. blair: thank you for having me back. [laughter] always a heady conversation to begin with. let's try to take a step back and look at the big picture. what is happening across the middle east and north africa is that a combination of a toxic mix of bad politics and bad religion has created a situation i in which a dictatorship has been cast off. there has not been the institutional capacity for states to govern themselves and reach a new dispensation for governments in their countries and as a result of that, the people of these countries -- which is probably, by the way, for decent governments, the rule-based governments, tolerant societies -- all of these wishes

and ambitions have been squashed under the immense pressure of extremism, born out of a perversion of religion, and then combining with the fact there is these situations of instability, insufficient capacity of these institutions to govern. i think there are three things that are relevant to consider. each one requires a decision about where we go. the first is, when you are facing groups like isis, al qaeda, al-shabaab, boko haram none of these groups are capable of being negotiated with. you have to defeat them. we have to have the ability and capacity of a military stamp --

a military standpoint and using the lessons we have learned over the past 10 or 15 years to defeat them wherever they are. we've got to be prepared to answer questions and have the commitment to fight these people where they exist. that will sometimes be done in alliance with others and sometimes we will have to do it on our own. the second thing is, my view is that the problem is not simply countering violent extremism, it is countering extremism. the violence is born out of an ideology and you can see this ideology represented by theocracy in iran. represented by various groups in the muslim brotherhood and others. this ideology that is an ideology that seeks to suborn the society into a particular religion.

but my foundation does targets this issue. we have got to understand that around the world today, even in our own societies within europe, there is an ideology of extremism that is being taught and propagated to millions of young people day in and day out. my point is simple, if we want to deal with this issue -- guess you have to tackle the immediate, but you have to tackle the root cause, the education of the war sort given to young people. what is crazy about the world today is that we spend billions of dollars on security relationships when inside the education systems of some of these countries we are incubating the problem we end up having to defeat. what we should have in my view, a global compact on education.

which all countries agree to. it is part of your global responsibility as a nation to promote religious tolerance within your education system. the world today belongs to the people who are able to traverse the barriers of culture faith race and nations. that campaign for the open-minded view of the world is what we need to have at the heart of our policy long-term. what does the west do? here's the piece of good news in all of this. in each of these countries there are people who want the same things that we want. i actually think they are the majority. i would like to see us in the west. we should learn all the lessons of the 1015 the best all the lessons of the last 10 or 15 years. this is a struggle in which our own interests are connected and we need open minded people to

succeed. they will not succeed unless we are prepared to commit to standing alongside them. [applause] >> keeping with the theme of dealing with radicalism, i want to turn to the state minister. you have teacher mary experience of negotiating -- the extraordinary experience of trying to negotiate -- i think you learned in a difficult way what mr. blair just said. these are people you cannot negotiate with. you were negotiating with isis in jordan, representing the japanese government during the crisis in january when isis held two japanese hostages. unfortunately, both of them were executed, teaching is a hard lesson about the ability to deal with isis. can you tell us, what did you learn about this new form of terrorism in your interactions? tell us briefly, who were you communicating with?

minister nakayama: first of all, i would like to thank you, the milken institute for inviting me. especially my friend who is a professor. he introduced me here. i learned english from hollywood movies. from "beverly hills cop i." my english is not so good. >> no need to apologize. minister nakayama: arigato. 2001. we had a very big terrorist impact called 9/11. osama bin laden did those kinds

of horrible things. after osama bin laden type of terrorism, what is the difference compared to isis is terrorists need high technology. and this time isis using an internet communication tool, as tools. one of the hostages was mr. goto , who was a journalist. isis killed the journalist. now it is different compared to 17 years ago type of war. we had the war. if i make a sound in the 17 years ago war, it sounds like this -- [imitating gunfire] but now, only one click, one

click can destroy everything. so, what is the difference? the speed, no limit. no motor. so, terrorists, even one terrorist can fight against a nation. 17 years ago, nation versus nation. this is a big difference between the warfare type compared to the old way. so, we in japan negotiate with isis, i.s. this time, but it is very different because i have no cards. nothing. you see, big countries, we gathered and we decided. we never pay the ransom for the victim. we never negotiate with terrorists directly.

so, with these roles, it's -- with these rules, it's difficult to negotiate with no rules people. we play chess with each other. i am a good guy. i have a rule. you have a rule. -- you have no rule. you can take king and queen immediately. so, this is a game against a terrorist. and i really thank king abdullah of the jordanian government. the jordanian government and king abdullah really cooperated with us really strongly. including intelligence with a group they have formed. in the middle east, israeli, and the other occasions that the

-- but the most collaborated agency at the time was the gic. one thing i can tell you is if the jordan king said yes, other people said yes to me. it is negotiating between the king and i was the most important meeting at the time. and through the government of jordan, we can talk like a brother country. so we understand each other. i really express my condolences to a pilot captured the 24th of december. >> unfortunately it seems the lesson was proven you cannot negotiate with these terrorists in the end. >> they are only killers. they are not human beings. >> because we have so much to cover in a short time i want to change gears. thank you, state minister.

senator lindsay graham the united states senate will consider legislation regarding the president's negotiations with iran over the nuclear program. i know you have strong feelings about this. tell us what you expect the senate to do. but more broadly, the subject here is global risk. the president says if we don't do a deal with iran and there is no deal, and negotiations break down, that could lead us to war. i understand your position to be that the deal itself is risky. talk about that. >> the first thing to our japanese friend i understand you better than prime minister. [laughing] >> thank you. >> is it just me or does he talk funny? [laughter] so, what were we talking about? iran.

number one, the senate will overwhelmingly approve the corker legislation this week that says for the president to lift congressional sanctions we created he is going to have to , come to congress to get permission and that will get a lot of bipartisan support. as to a deal versus no deal. the president says if we don't get a deal it is the best chance of avoiding war. the consequences of a bad deal worry me more. if you like a bad deal, and a bad deal is if the sunni arabs felt like they needed nuclear ability to counter the persians army. the worst outcome is censoring -- is to turn the middle east into a nuclear arms race. i'm convinced that if we give the iranians too much capacity and how many people believe they have been trying to build a nuclear weapons program not a nuclear power plant? those that didn't raise your hand you should not be allowed

to drive in california. [laughter] so you have to know who you are dealing with. these guys lie and cheat and want a nuclear weapon to maintain their regime because they believe no one will bother them in the future. but the sunni arabs, unlike friends in japan and south korea will not tolerate, they don't feel like they need to go down the road. what is a good deal? a good deal is one to end the nuclear ambition of the iranians so they can have a small enrichment program, and have a nuclear power program that can never be used to make a nuclear weapon. a bad deal will be too much capacity in the hands of the iranians so the arabs feel like they need to match it. at the end of the day, i think a good deal is understood my

-- by israel and the arabs, and if they say this is too much capacity then it will be hard to get it through the senate. and so i would love a good deal. and i will outline very quickly what i think a good deal will look like. any time, anywhere inspections including military facilities. if you do lift the inspection regime 10-15 years from now, whatever the date might be there is a certification the regime at the time and place is no longer a state-sponsor of terrorism. i don't think that is an unreasonable request. and they don't get a dime under sanctions relief until they start complying with the inspection regime. here is my biggest fear. they will not take the billions and build hospitals and schools but put it in their war machines. bottom line, congress will insist on reviewing the deal.

a bad deal will be one that leads to a nuclear arm race in the middle east and i hope that is not the kind of deal we get. >> thank you. [applause] gentlemen clark i wonder if you want to pick up on that and elaborate on the question of what a deal could mean for iran's role in the region. one school of thought you hear from the administration is a deal would put wind in the sails of the reformers, moderate the regime and open it up. perhaps be the first step towards a relationship with the united states and the west. another school of thought is the infusion of money and economic activity will go to iranian hegemonic activities in the region, go to hezbollah, allow iran to take sides in the civil war in the region. how do you see it playing out? >> i have to be careful how i answer because i am afraid graham will steal my license. [laughter] i'm very concerned about the

agreement. but let's put it in larger context. iran and turkey with facing off in a competition to see who can control the middle east. under the turkish president, there is a longing for the glories for the real caliphate and dominance of the whole region. as iran is more powerful, into syria, and now into yemen, they -- it sees the beckoning of empire. so you have to look at the nuclear agreement as one step in this. so i think senator graham is very right to be concerned about starting a nuclear arm race in the region. but i think regardless of how the agreement comes out you will have the turkish competition. -- the turkish/persian

competition. these nations are sly and clever and don't like the american definition of war. in america, we think it is war or peace. we are going to shake hands or drop a nuclear weapon and send in the marines in the 101st. in reality, this is armed struggle for regional dominance. it is playing out through the terrorist organizations. isis for example, when the united states says we will destroy isis, i don't think that is going to happen because isis is supported by countries in the region to wage war against other countries in the region. it is simply using terrorist and recruiting extremists, but it is an agent of government. now it is an agent in the same way frankenstein was created by human beings. so it has its own will and intent. in that context, we have to figure out now in this window of time between the announcement of an agreement to agree, and seeing the details, we have to

hope that secretary kerry and president obama take heed of the concerns being raised about this agreement. it is not too late to stand up and demand the kind of details that would help us restrain the nuclear arms race. it may not be too late to try to do something more in terms of bringing iran back in. this is my theme on this panel i tell you, i think we are greatly underestimated go's -- geostrategic risk. an agreement is going to open up iran and investment will pour in and iran will use its wealth as it sees filled -- it sees fit.

for self-aggrandizement. it will support bashir assad in syria, it will develop deeper ties with vladimir putin in russia, it will further squeeze the saudi arabian regimes in yemen and oman. there is no end to the conflict in this region. we are looking at decades of armed struggle using the symbols of religion going after the politics of identity, using the misshapen ambition of misled young people who believe they can find heaven by killing young innocent people. that is all part of it. we have to be wise enough to use the agreement to not only deal with the nuclear issue but try to address and shape the larger issues. this is not a region you can handle by u.s. forces. we put forces in and in my view

it is the biggest error every made by the united states of america. saddam hussein said if we attacked we would open up the gates of hell. well since he told us 15 years earlier we would have the mother of all battles lasting four days we didn't believe him when he said the gates of well, but when -- you realize these are issues that are much deeper, much stronger and more powerful than we can resolve with a hundred thousand men. >> to that point, hand on the question of diplomacy, mr. blair, i know you spend a lot of time trying to get what is left of the middle east peace process back on track. there was a time, if we were sitting 10-15 years ago, when we talked about the

roots of these problems, we would come back to the idea of some solution between the israelis and palestinians. now there is so much more happening, perhaps that alone would be a small step. but my question to you is does this remain fundamental to stability in the region? quite simply, isn't the peace process dead at this point? it often seems that way from the u.s. >> it remains fundamentally important. in my view, i am out there in the middle east twice a month now, so i am looking and studying it the whole time. it is important for reasons relevant to the broader conversation. the one thing, i agree it is going to be a long generational struggle, this process of change. but i do think we are looking at the middle east wrestling with the demons that at some point it was always going to have to wrestle with, and the one thing i personally think is the right

way of looking at the middle east today, is yes, you can look at it as a power struggle between interests. i think it is also important to look at it as a struggle between different sets of values. the truth is if you take a country like egypt, where the muslim brotherhood came to power, and then like it or don't like it, but 20 million people come out in the street and put them out. and now the new president is having to try to plan a way forward for the future. the truth is, the only recourse for a country like egypt is to reform its economy, reform its education system, to open up to the world and encourage a good relationship with all of its neighbors, including israel. so in the end, what has to happen in the middle east if

there is to be any future. you're going to remain with different trends in those religions. people are either going to have to take a basically open-minded view of the world or not. into that as it were, cauldron comes the israeli/palestinian issue. why is that important -- for obvious reasons, and for another reason. at the heart of the israeli-palestinian issue in my view is not a debate about where you put the borders and how you make the territories, or how do you deal with the issue of jerusalem. it is also a fundamental issue of culture acceptance. in this tiny strip of land are two peoples prepared to live side by side in peace recognizing they come from different cultures and faith. that is why for me it remains fundamentally important.

i think in the end the only solution is to have two states for two peoples. but i think the key to resolving the israeli- palestinian issues today lies in the region. and the one thing i would say that is fascinating and i put this thought out there. in my experience of the last month particularly. you will have to same conversation in jerusalem and the same conversation in most of the arab capitals and what is the worry that all of those governments have? the worry is extremism. the worry is the people who want instability and chaos and terrorism to prevent that cultural acceptance. many have to go through the process of reform. that is true. but i say to you, for the first time i am finding in the middle east, is there are people in

those middle eastern countries within islam, who are prepared to stand up and say we have got to go in a different direction for the future. and that is the one thing that gives me hope. if you could resolve the israeli-palestinian issue, think about the huge boost you would give to the forces of cultural acceptance and what a big blow you would deal to the forces of extremism. that is why it remains important. >> senator graham, do you think the peace process is dead? if you ran for president how would you talk about it? the conservative view is the obama administration pressured israel more than what is appropriate to reach a deal. do you agree with that assessment? do you think the peace process is a top priority? or is the larger conflict that has arisen taken more priority? >> for the prime minister and john kerry, quite frankly, works very hard to get the sides in a good spot to move forward.

you have a divided palestinian community with hamas under control and the west bank economy doing better and the security force is more reliable. and i don't know how you put the palestinian people back together again, but i would be a good start from negotiation point of view. you have a group of palestinians you could live in peace with, a group that want to drive into the sea and that is tough for israel. let me say this, if you had a clever president, about 5'7" -- [laughter] there is a historic moment shaping up in the middle east where the arabs and israelis are aligned unlike any time i have seen. they have two common threats. isil will cut their throat before they cut ours. these leaders in the middle east are in harm's way from radical

islamic groups. anything named al over the you need to watch for. the king of jordan, the king of saudi arabia, all of the gulf arab states, isil hates them as much as they hate you. and they are realizing this, general clark, that they have and they are realizing this general clark, that they have been feeding the beast. the idea of a shiite-persian march throughout the middle east scares the heck out of these guys. you have to common enemies to the arabs and the israelis -- you have radical islamist, one shiite and one persian, with the ability to take down the region. come together, start in syria. if i were president, the first guy i would go after is is assad. future a red line and it in bold and everybody.

you will never have an arab army go to syria justify i sold -- i sil. they are not going to give syria over who is iran's puppet. they want him gone. all hell follows when he leaves, but it was there anyway. what i think is that there is a unique opportunity to have an arab-israeli engagement that could translate to a meaningful dialogue that one day could translate to restarting the peace process a new. el-sisi is an interesting cat. the mubarak model won't work. to all my friends on the republican side who yarn for qaddafi and saddam to come back you have got to remember that we are americans. i'm never going to ask a young muslim arab, to live in a dictatorship for my convenience

anymore. i'm not going to ask your kids to live in a dictatorship for my convenience. there's two things going on in the mideast -- a fight for the heart and soul of islam, and i'm going to take sides. i'm going to take sides with those who won't kill us. that's most. there is a fight for how you govern the mideast. i'm taking sides with young people who are upset about the fact they're living in a country where a few get everything, on the day their born their fate is determined. in the middle is the vacuum created by american lack of leadership and radical in the field. how do you start the peace process? go to the arabs and say, listen, we'll be with you in syria, we'll integrate our forces. you are going to have the main battle force, but we are going to give capability to supplement your forces so we take isil, and assad down. here's what we want in return. stop paying these guys. cut off their money. oh by the way, let women drive. and sit down with the israelis and see if we can patch this up.

el-sisi has done a good job in closing the tunnels. so, every mistake has a consequence. we made finally on the republican and democratic side but i will say this, there's a historic opportunity here to create an alliance between former foes that could be transformational and jumpstart the peace process unlike anytime i've seen. tell hamas knock it off. no more arab support. michael: i have a question for general clark and i've been looking forward to hearing from him on. i want to get the state minister to add any concluding thoughts vertically on the question of what more we can do to fight these extremist that you have had the first tenant, with. you mentioned their use of information technology. do you think the world has caught up to that? has a strategy to deal with it? do you have any recommendations?

minister nakayama: of course, we have to -- strong ties, we have to harmonize strongly against isis or other extremism, and the important thing is -- how do you say -- i -- sorry. i forget the english. how do you say -- michael: an alliance, a strong alliance between -- does japan have a role to play with the west -- minister nakayama: all right. ok. for example, you're talking about iran, right? and i saw on the news, some drone or unmanned vehicle, over the sky, above the sky of iran and he dropped and they took the

body and they copied it. and they already made a really high-tech drone. and one thing i worry, i have a neighbor country called north korea. if the north korean, iranian and also pakistan -- if this triangle has the same kind of level of technology we have, then it will be our very big fear. i live in osaka city, the second largest city in my country. in my house, even i sleep, even i eat, even i taking a shower, only seven minutes if the kim jong-il push the button, the missile reach to my country. so, now the prime minister abe visiting washington, d.c..

michael: i like you told that thought. with comeback to asia and amended. -- we will come back to asia in a minute. thank you for the contribution. we'll come back to that subject because there's a lot to say. general clark, i want to ask you what i think is one of the hardest foreign policy questions in washington right now, how to think about the nato article 5 self-defense provision or the collective defense -- i'm sorry -- provision of the nato alliance in the context of what vladimir putin has been doing in ukraine. in particular the scenario which i've seen first hand, a couple of very senior foreign policy advisers to republican candidates who i thought did not have quite an answer that i could summarize for you. what happens if there is a sort of plausibly deniable russian intervention in the baltic countries, which are nato members. in which vladimir putin stirs up ethnic russians and you have a replay of what is happening in eastern ukraine, maybe not a full-fledged invasion but it's , clear to anybody that can

drive a car that vladimir putin stating something like -- that is tantamount to invasion. does that trigger article 5 of the nato treaty? does that drag the united states in? can you see a plausible scenario where there's a military conflict between american forces and russian forces in the next several years? gen. clark: the direct answer to your question is, if there's an attack on one nation that is a member of nato, it is viewed under article five as an attack on all. that's the treaty obligation. we brought this baltic nations in in 2002. i was very happy we did that. it was done in a big swoop and it was done without a whole lot of debate in the united states. it sort of got rolled in after 9/11. and they wanted to be in because they have seen the movie before. they know russia is going to come back and they know russia is clever. russia is already in there. russia is already undercutting their will to resist.

it very likely could start exactly as you suggest. they would be a demonstration. a statue is taken down in latvia. they don't like that. and russian citizens of latvia protest this. and then they say, well, the decision was made in the administration building. let's take over the administration building. some of the people who take over the administration building are in camouflage, green camouflage, and they are carrying -- michael: little green men. gen. clark: little stick men, who actually belong to russian special forces. and when you go to evict them, they don't get evicted because ordinary police don't do well against delta force, or the russian equivalent. so, nato has to think this thing through. you have got to have in the reaction force not a bunch of armored cavalry guys who can parade through eastern europe, although i'm all in favor of that right now. you need some special forces people on the sort of two-hour alert who can handle this

backed up by the equivalent of italian military police, and you need to have rehearsed and gone through the nato exercises the kind of automatic triggers that will let our political leaders quickly come to terms with the legal issues that will bring this forward. if we don't have this rehearsed, if it's not done in nato planning and so forth, there will be lots of confusion and questioning. are these really russians and can't we do something? when i listen to people talk about ukraine today, and i hear this from my -- many of my european friends, feel like i'm sitting at the league of nations in 1935 when the leader of ethiopia was asking for assistance, and people couldn't make up their mind and did nothing. today i hear people talking about president poroshenko trying to hold ukraine together in the face of russian aggression, with 9,000 russian troops inside ukraine, 55,000 on

the borer. it's 21st century warfare with three levels of uavs, massive jamming, tanks we don't have any comparable equipment for. our armored -- antiarmor equipment, lindsay, doesn't go through their armor. and we need a real wake-up call to get us back to 21st century warfare where the russians are today. i hear people talk about this as -- we have to give vladimir putin a way out. he is such a nice man and he really just got trapped into this by the evil people behind him. and if he doesn't look really tough, maybe he'll be overthrown. no. vladimir putin is right today and russia is right today or someone like adolf hitler was in 1936. hillary occupied the rhineland and if britain and france had followed the dictates of the versailles treaty he wouldn't have gotten away with it and

maybe world war ii would have averted. putin crossed the greatest red line in post world war ii international diplomatics. -- diplomacy. he has invaded another country and seized its territory by force, and even though ukraine is not a member of nato, this has enormous implications for nato and european security. where we are, and i just want to say this because i'm saying that we in this business community are not understanding geostrategic risk. right now, angela merkel and the president of france, mr. hollande, are standing up for the minsk to agreement. but the minsk to an agreement is not being implemented. the russian forces have the densest air defense array ever seen in modern europe deployed in eastern earthquake. they are training and organizing the so-called separatist units which are 85% russian anyway. and they're building the

capacity for a third wave of russian attack. crimea is not economically sustainable without a land bridge connecting it through ukraine. so, we have got major forces moving. this is so urgent for nato to come to terms with this. michael: well, another really hard question is not just for nato at large but for washington, right now for president obama, senator graham, i want to ask you about another interesting policy debate. should we be sending lethal arms to the ukraine? there's a school of thought that , for instance you can send , javelin antitank missiles which you could call extensively called defensive, but putin would probably see them as offensive. i have had people in the obama administration tell me -- and i think you understand the argument -- those missiles would raise the cost for putin and you would have to put it bluntly, as they say, more dead russian soldiers coming back across the border. but my sense is that the president thinks that putin will simply escalate the conflict

, will get worse, spill over cross borders, and the germans are adamantly opposed to -- chancellor angela merkel as you well know. how do you think about that and where do you come down? sen. graham: there's bipartisan support overwhelming in nature for arming ukrainians. remember the budapest protocol? even though they're not a member of nato, in the 1990's, we said if you'll give up your 2,000 plus nuclear weapons we and russia and everybody else will guarantee your sovereignty. for the rule of law to be meaning anything, it has been trampled on. the consequence of letting someone do this, history tells you eventually where this goes. i'm not saying putin is hitler , but you are putting in motion a dangerous moment. yes, i'd arm the ukrainians and create a cost benefit equation that putin doesn't have today. but let's get right to the heart of the matter. without american leadership, all

of this won't get fixed. i love our friends in britain, but we have to lead. and nato's response to a world on fire is to reduce our budgets. so here's one thing you need to understand, for us to be effective against putin, against china, against isil, against iran, we're going to have to have the capability, the capacity, and the will, under sequestration, by 2021, we're going to have the smallest army since 1940. the smallest navy since 1915. we're going to gut our intelligence community. the fbi and the cia are losing people as i speak. this is insane. nato nations who spent over 2% of gdp on defense is down to 5%. our best friends in the world, the british, are debating how big their army and how capable their military should be. why in the hell should putin take anybody seriously? so here's what i would suggest. buy back sequestration.

don't forget the $540 billion. put it back into defense and nondefense programs like the cdc and the nih, which help us all and go to the plan to keep america from becoming greece. a strong america means it has to have a sound economy. 80 million baby-boomers will retire in the next 25 years and we are going to wipe out social security and medicare. if you don't do what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did, then our best days are behind us. if you can't do what reagan and what simpson-bowles calls for you're not going to have the , capability to defend this country. here is my advice about putin. rebuild your military. get republicans and democrats acting like adults, not teenagers, and put this country on a sound economic footing and let the enemies of this world know america is back and to our friends, you can count on us starting with the ukraine. michael: thank you. [applause] michael: i like that. good job.

michael: mr. blair. tony blair: i reckon i just come to 95%. [laughter] look, first of all, have to be very clear about this, what happened in ukraine is the first time that territory has been taken like that since the end of the second world war, in europe, and i think there are whole series of things that have just been talked about that need to be done in order to demonstrate our will and commitment and the fact that we have alliances we're going to adhere to and all of that i agree with. i just want to make one point about europe. europe has also got to understand that it's got a responsibility to deal with this issue properly and seriously and strongly. the fact is, one of the things that always troubles me about the world is when america and

europe are not standing together, clearly and firmly, in defense of the values they believe in. the world then becomes a less safe place, and you feel this wherever you go. and the truth of the matter is we know what the strategy of president putin is. i will say it's not very complicated. it's very simple. there is a desire, when he says he thought that the collapse of the soviet union is the worst thing that happened, that is what he meant. that is what he said. that is what he believes. now, what is necessary -- this is why i feel deep -- american -- let me talk -- someone who is british, but someone who also believes in a stronger. thus-- in a strong europe. europe's job is to be standing alongside america and facing up to this threat, and if we do not do that now and today and with urgency, it is going to get a lot worse than the time to come

and we will endanger a world order that we have put in place painfully with much sacrifice over many decades. this is a moment to be strong, to be determined, and to recognize what our values are and be prepared to stand up for them. sen. graham: can i just say one thing? michael: please. sen. graham: what would the world be like if putin had no gas? or we didn't need his gas? what would the world be like if fossil fuels were less influential than they are today? a rational energy policy where we find more here at home, buy oil from canada because it makes sense, but eventually go to a lower carbon economy, could do more to reset our foreign policy than almost anything. so, the reason the germans and the french are being at best indifferent and naive is because they're locked into having to get their gas supply from a really bad guy, and putin has a pair of twos.

and we got a full house. and i would make the purpose of my presidency, if i ran, to get an energy economy started in this country and throughout the world that would be less rewarding to thugs, dictators, and killers. michael: you wanted to add? tony blair: there are measures we can take of the next few years with an immediate impact around energy supply that would relieve some dependence on russian energy and that is undoubtedly the big guy mention into this whole issue. michael: sure. gen. clark: i want to follow something senator graham said. i really think you're absolutely on the right track on this thing. we've got all the hydrocarbon resources we need to be totally energy independent and to export and lead the world forward, and take over these energy market

that exist right now. we also have the technology to move away from hydrocarbons as we have to do in the future. and we desperately need a national energy strategy. it is not about the oil industry. it's really about the future of the united states of america. when president eisenhower created the national defense complex, and everyone quotes and saying, beware of the military industrial complex, but it gave us the technology we needed to be safe during the cold war. we need a military industrial energy complex that will make us safe in the 21st century. the greatest commodity traded in the world is oil. it's done more to build civilization and conversely destabilize civilization over the last 40 years than any other single factor, and if we could get our democrats and republicans to work together and put together a sensible policy that would let us exploit hydrocarbons now, all else, take

over these markets, $50, $60 oil, still making money on fracking. do it. and then put the benchmarks in in the ten-year, 15-year 20-year period to move us entirely away from hydrocarbons. we would make the 21st century a whole lot safer for everyone. michael: if we have time at the end, we'll come back to climate change and i want to talk about asia where there's less violence and extremism then we see and other regions, but a whole lot of risk. it may be the place where there's the most potential for mayhem, but fortunately so far not realized. state minister, your prime minister will be addressing the u.s. congress on wednesday. we're at the 70th anniversary of world war ii. clearly what looms large in the japan-washington relationship, the tokyo-washington relationship right now is china and uncertainties about china's ambitions.

its territorial claims, the tensions it's had with japan over disputed territories, the air exclusion zone that really raised tensions a couple of years ago. talk about, if you would, what is your assessment of china's intentions right now? what is the threat that you think it poses to stability and security in the region? minister nakayama: i think -- thank you very much. i think, in fact prime minister , abe visiting d.c. right now, but also he met with xi jinping. michael: the chinese president. minister nakayama: exactly. we talked a lot, and it was very steady meeting. and really kind of like very peaceful meeting compared to military issue. michael: compared to a couple years ago, the relationship is

better. minister nakayama: exactly. and we also focus on their budget for military budget, defense budget, for them. the increasing 30 times the budget of -- michael: 30 times. minister nakayama: of armament and the budgets of defense, of the pla, and also they are maybe -- you already no, but they launched their satellite to space base and then they also destroy the satellite. it's already done. they already made the technology. even we in the japan, and the u.s., the strong alliance, and we a lot of rely on the space field, using satellites, without using satellites we cannot launch a missile or move the soldiers. if the china pla missiles to our

satellite, then what is happening? michael: china is already preparing for space war. minister nakayama: i think. also we have to create the , technology, maybe we can launch the -- not the big satellite but the small satellite within three days. not using a rocket but using aviation, and then fly through -- over the space, and also even china doing cyberattack to all the world. so, even the nation using a country using a cyber technology to attacking the other states. so, not just isis, not other terrorists. so in that sense we have to reset our minds, ourselves there is a new type of war or there is a semi war already begin. and i attend the meeting of the

netherlands, which is cyber conference, and i heard there is a new type of cold war in cyber space. in 1970's, 1980's, we had the cold war against soviet union and the u.s., and we western countries. but now in the cyber space there is another cold war beginning. one is our side. the internet field is free and it is very convenient to our marketing, economy, everything. but china and russia, they want to control more precisely as a human or citizen level. and that is a freedom, world of internet, or a communist again. so -- michael: they're clamping down on their own societies and also threatening other countries through cyber war. pardon me for interrupting, but

we are running out of time. i want to transition to north korea, which has according to the u.s. government conducted , one of the most dramatic cyber attacks we have seen against the sony corporation and all the e-mails that came out. very briefly because we're running out of time, what is your assessment of north korea's intentions? some days, it seems that kim jong on temper tensions for attention. -- tantrums for attention. and there are days where it seems like he is capable of cataclysmic tensions in the region. minister nakayama: we had an abduction issue. they take our citizens, they kidnapped, and we get them to release our hostages to north korea. and also, i told about the missile issue, and also the korean peninsula is still cold war is going on.

even 1989, the berlin wall has destroyed, but not 38-degree line. there still exists. so, i personally want to the great britain or the united states or have six party talks with the big countries to have more focused on 38-degree line how to make real peace in korea peninsula, and also -- michael: you think real peace is possible. minister nakayama: i hope so. i hope so. and we have to ask the north korea, would you like -- if you like to open your door, which side are you going through? u.s. side, democratic side, or the china, communist side? which way you going to choose? we need to -- candy stick and carrot. task the real answer. because we don't know what kim jong in his thinking. and we just worked through the media, what is -- michael: guessing at his

intentions. forgive me for interrupting. we have three minutes for two subjects. you could spend an hour each on. very briefly mr. blair, you said in 2013 there's no longer any serious doubts in the mind of serious people that global warming is a serious problem. are there any serious solutions or serious action being taken in your view? are we doing enough? tony blair: there is an immense amount being done, and the solution, very simply, is the development of the science and technology that allows us to consume sustainably. there's no way that these hundreds of millions of people who are emerging from poverty in africa and india and china are not going to consume. they want a high standard of living, the same standard of living as us. the only answer to doing that is to be able to devise a solution through science and technology that allow us to consume sustainably. my view is the single most important thing of the paris negotiation's that are taking place later this year is that

instead of trying to make the best enemy of the good, we get together the best possible deal we can at the moment, given the obligations the countries like the u.s., like china and others are entering into, voluntarily get that and put that together and set a clear framework for the future where business and industry are able then to develop the science and technology that is going to allow us to consume in a different way. this issue is a long-term issue and it remains absolutely fundamental and important for the future of the world. michael: a quick question for each of you. senator, do you agree with the assessment that there is no longer any serious doubt that global warming is a serious problem? sen. graham: our friends in britain are backing off the cap and trade. it is driving up energy costs. i think greenhouse gas effect is real. i don't think it is the biggest threat to mankind. a nuke the in the hands of the

ayatollah trumps global warming. but having said that, would like as a republican, to come up with an environmental policy that does what basically general clark talked about, find as much fossil fuels within our reach from friendly sources as possible, but over time set emission standards that are pro-business in nature to move the economy one day from fossil fuel dependency to more cleaner sources of fuel. there's the place for coal there's a place for gas. but from a republican point of view, we're -- this is -- we need to be better stewards of god's planet and need to have a rational and environmental policy that is pro-business. from a republican point of view, young people buy into the fact that the planet is heating up and manmade emissions are causing harm to the planet. to the american young people, if you're worried about the environment, count me in. my goal is to pass on to you a stronger economy, clean air and clean water and create jobs in , the process. michael: