the fed, precrisis, was an enabler and failed miserably as a regulator. when the crisis happened, they led in a way that was quite remarkable and, in many ways, helped prevent a second great depression. we have been very critical of the terms and conditions under which they did that. but the fact that they did that was incredibly helpful to the country. since then, you kind of get phase three of this, where you have qe and zero interest rates. they have tried to provide some support to can prepare the damage done. our view is they haven't done their job well on the regulatory side. they need to be much tougher with the too big to fail banks. host: how so? guest: for example, one of the key parts of the financial reform law that is assigned to the fed is for them to put in place what are called capital liquidity counterparty exposure rules. all of which are designed to

make the too big to fail banks actually safer, so they have more capital so they have to assume their own losses and they can't ship their losses to the american people. and most importantly, one of the most important powers given to the fed -- unprecedented power -- was that they are supposed to makes it that every too big to fail banks on wall street structures itself in a way that if it fails, like every other person and coming in this country, they would go into bankruptcy. the remarkable thing that doesn't get talked about much -- there is only one industry in the entire country that violates the most basic principle of capitalism, and that his failure. god bless you. get an idea, get a company, work your tail off, make your fortune, that is america and we want you to do that. but on wall street, if you are a too big to fail bank and you do that and you get reckless with

other people's money and you fail, you don't go to bankruptcy. you fall into the comforting arms of the american taxpayer. and that is wrong. it is the fed's job to make sure that they can do that and they go into bankruptcy. host: virginia, tom, a republican. caller: hello. i agree with a number of your -- your points, but i have -- i have issues with the. frank -- with the dodd frank bill. i live on main street, i am a real estate appraiser. during the collapse, i saw many of the regulations having various elements of the real estate industry making decisions , or making decisions that were profitable for themselves, but not necessarily good for the economy. you have -- and many of the -- the institutions that were making these decisions were,

quote, following the law. yet you can see it was a huge train wreck. i see many of these regulations right now in dodd frank. my industry, you would figure after the collapse that at least people on main street -- the ability to evaluate the properties for individuals to become important. however, my industry got so overregulated that close to 30% of the people left the industry and they were all the young people. the median age in my industry is currently 59. and we were supposed to have been paid a better fee, yet quite honestly, the very first elements of dodd frank, when they were implemented, placed a great deal of complicated overhead for us. and now, quite honestly, real

estate -- when i got into appraising, there was that saying, you know, everyone knew what the value of the property was. now, no one knows what the value of the property because there is such a widespread of value in neighborhoods and there is literally -- i mean, it has gotten better, but there was literally chaos. host: ok tom, have to leave it there. guest: tom, you make a lot of great point. and you know that when the subprime bubble was being inflated before 2008, appraisals were at the epicenter of many of the wrongdoings. as were real estate agents, as were these mortgage mills, the so-called originate to distribute mortgages. those massive fraud -- there was massive fraud and criminality in those activities where people who would never be able to pay back a loan were given in the

praise -- given an appraisal. it is true that the relay goossens -- that the regulations are in place to curb some of those excesses and abuses and outright illegal conduct. it is remarkable that we have to put into a law a provision that says banks should not lend money to people who can't pay them back. i mean, think about that. we needed a law for that. but that is because the incentive structure became upside down at giving loans and mortgages to people who couldn't pay it back and actually paid these mortgage bills and wall street a lot of money when they securitized them. it is important to remember that the law try to target these different areas. i am not saying that these laws are perfect. and it is not being implemented perfectly. but it is trying to get at these high risk behaviors and reduce

the risk across the board. sometimes it works better than a dozen other places, and you are seeing that. host: we will go to new york next. joseph, in independent. caller: yes hi. i did fall into that category. i wasn't able to pay back the loan that the banks gave me. at that point, i stopped making my mortgage payments because they wouldn't give me home improvement loans. they just, you know, it is probably because i couldn't afford to pay the loan back because i wasn't making enough. i didn't have enough finances in my regular income. it wasn't enough to get a loan, so -- now they foreclosed on it and i am living in my mom's house. this house is about to get foreclosed on, so i don't know what to do. host: all right. guest: joseph, unfortunately your experience is all too

common. the problem is that people were getting low to probably shouldn't have in the first place. but many americans who could afford alone did, yet they were hit by the senomyx of unemployment. the wave of unemployment caused by the wall street cash -- crash. caused by regulation and speculation by these two big to fail banks that got bailed out by the american taxpayer and the government. unfortunately, the american people want build out like the banks were bailed out. and that is the result. we have historically high unemployment and underemployment. when that happens, people can afford to pay their mortgages send their kids to college retire. all of those things happen and that is whether cause of the crisis is in the trillions of dollars. that is why it is really so important for people like you, joseph, and tens of millions of other people just like you, that is why we need financial reform

in place. that is why we need to make sure that these two big to fail banks can never do again to this country what they did in 2008. and that means aggressively implementing financial reform. host: waco, texas. democrat. go ahead. are you with a stucco -- are you with us? all right, let's move on. darlene in michigan. darlene. caller: hello. i was wondering, what are your thoughts about the transpacific partnership affecting the u.s. financial system? and do you agree with senator elizabeth worn in regards -- elizabeth warren in regards to the tpp? guest: that is a good question. trade is always a hot button issue for a lot of important reasons. that is who really benefits from these trade agreements. yes, the increase capital flows

and the banks are often the big beneficiaries. there is massive questions about whether or not the american workers are beneficiaries. and those questions have been along -- around for a long time. and trade just like nafta and others cause serious questions. recently, what do we have? this is the new thing and what senator warren is talking about. all of a sudden, one of the things the big banks on wall street and around the world -- are trying to use trade deals to essentially smuggle in deregulation provisions. it is bad enough that they are in washington beating the doors of people in congress and the regulators day in and day out to bend the rules towards wall street's way to get their wish list. they also do it in the foreign capitals, and now they are trying to do is do it in our

trade agreements. so the trade agreement have the historic problems of who really benefits and who really is harmed. we have this added couple of provisions that allow financial regulation or deregulation or financial laws to be challenged through trade agreements. senator warren, representative sander levin, and others in congress are fighting against to make sure that these trade agreements cannot be a church in horse to basically attack financial -- cannot be a trojan horse to basically attacked financial reform. we can't let that happen. host: we just heard from senator sanders announcing his bid for the presidency yesterday. he talked a lot about billionaires in this country. how big of a role does wall street play in the 2016 campaign? is a elizabeth warren the poster child for that effort? guest: well, i think if you look

at the polls, they also that the american people still correctly perceive wall street's too big to fail banks as a threat. and they also correctly understand that they have not been adequately regulated, which to that means they are not protected. remember, the american people suffered bad unemployment. those 23 million individuals in january 2010 who are underemployed or unemployed -- keep in >> we will break away from "wall street journal." it's alive every day at 7:00 a.m.ed road to the white house takes us to columbia, south carolina, to hear from hillary clinton who makes her first appearance as a candidate in the state speaking to a group gathered in columbia, south carolina, live coverage here on c-span. >> thank you all for being here today. today we are making history. today is the first time in history that a presidential candidate has attended any day

in blue proceedings. i'm so thankful that this has happened. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, secretary clinton and thank you to the people who made this day possible. this day is special because it is the beginning of a fabulous great year for south carolina democratic women. next year we culminate for the very first time in history, south carolina a deep south state, is hosting a federation of democratic of women's convention, yes, right here in south carolina. we're bringing it to you. [cheers and applause] >> i want to tell you how proud i am that i'm in the room with a dunk of democratic party activists, women and men who have come all over the state for this day in blue. many of you registered before this event before our speaker

today. i think you all suspected a couple of things, but i'm so proud to be here with you to stand before you and my partner in crime in the day in blue is representative guilda cobb-hunter. [cheers and applause] >> gilda cobb-hunter represents us and takes care of us all around. bosses us around and takes care of us. i am so proud and honored to introduce my friend gilda cobb-hunter. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much susean. those of you that know me know i start by saying hey y'all. it is so good to be here. let's give susan and the democratic women's council a big round of applause.

[cheers and applause] >> we really appreciate the democratic women's council partnering with the democratic legislative caucus in this year's event. we are extremely pleased to have colleagues come together from all across the state to engage and empower our communities and to make sure your voice is heard loud and proud. as all y'all know, there are not a lot of women in the south carolina house and we have only one woman republican in the south carolina senate. that must change. [cheers and applause] >> because we all know that the difference that change in the faces of our general assembly can make. women bring a unique and necessary perspective and in office will fight for things

that matter to families and all people. we are gathered today for our annual day in blue because all of us here believe that a woman's place is in the house and in the senate and also -- [cheers and applause] >> in case there is any doubt, also at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. [cheers and applause] >> speaking of dra address and the white house, as you know, south carolina is proud to host the first in the south democratic presidential primary and we are thrilled to have a very special guest here today.

some of you may know her. for us southerners it's important for you to remember that she has deep southern roots where in arkansas she is still considered a special favorite daughter. she served or as i should say, she is still considered a hometown girl. she served as our first lady of the united states, senator of new york and secretary of state and no matter where she served, she has been a tireless champion for women children, and families. south carolina, join me in welcoming hillary clinton to the palmetto state. [cheers and applause]

sec. clinton: well, this is so exciting, to be here with all of you and to be here for such an important cause to make sure that the democratic party and particularly the democratic women's council recruits and trains and fields more women for public office right here in south carolina. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: there are a lot of long-time friends here. i won't try to mention everybody, but i do want to thank susan and the entire board for d.w.c. i want to thank gilda who i think has been in the

legislature since 1992, started in elementary school and worked her way up. former governor jim hodges we're delighted he is here, thank you. [applause] sec. clinton: a national democratic chair, a state democratic chair of course, don and carol fowler, so happy to see them. [applause] sec. clinton: your candidate for the senate last time, joyce dickerson. thank you, joyce. [applause] sec. clinton: i was thinking on the way down here that i first came to south carolina as a young lawyer working for the children's defense fund started by your own south carolina native marion wright edelman from bennettsville. i came back many times to renaissance weekend going to

hilton head and then to charleston. made a lot of friends and had a lot of good time and am thrilled to be back. i'm back because i want to support you. you know the theme of this day of events is how do build a party and how to build a party that really respects and includes women and gives women in this state a chance to not only be at the table, but at the head of the table. carrying with them their democratic values and their life experiences and you're right, i am running to live again at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: but i don't want to be there all by myself. i want democrats elected from the local to the county to the

state to the federal level once again making the case that when democrats win, americans win. and so i want to say just a few words about what is happening to american families and what's happening with our economy because i have always believed fundamentally that when families are strong, america is strong. we have come through some really tough economic times. i looked at the statistics and south carolina has pulled itselfen as other places have as well, american families have made a lot of sacrifices. people lost jobs. people lost homes. people had to put college on the back burner, retirement on the back burner, but everybody just kept going. it took a lot of determination. across america we're beginning to see the results of all of that hard work. and i will say that there does

seem to be a pattern. democratic presidents and there are two in particular i'm thinking about over the last 35 years seem to inherit a mess of problems. have you noticed that? so then they have to dig us out of the ditches they find themselves in and put us back on the right attack. of course, i'm talking about little clinton and barack obama. [applause] sec. clinton: but, of course presidents don't do it alone. they do it with the american people. it's a partnership. today we are standing up again, but we're not yet running and we face a choice. are we going to hand over our country once again to the people and policies that crashed our economy before and that will shred the progress that we have made. well that's obviously the

right answer. [laughter] sec. clinton: but that's what this campaign is going to be about, because we're going to have to stand up to the people who want to keep the deck stacked in favor of those at the top. we're going to have to fight to make sure that the success of our country is shared across the economy and that more families have a chance to get ahead, not just to get by but to stay moving forward with the kind of confidence and optimism that has always marked the best times in america. you know it's time to make the words "middle class" mean something again. they should represent a solemn promise, that anyone willing to work hard can earn a decent living and a better life not just get by paycheck to paycheck. that's the middle class i grew up in. my dad was a small businessman,

when i say small, it was small. he ran a small drapery printing business. and he literally had a print plant with big long tables that had silk screens and sometimes my mother, my brothers and i would help to pour the paint in and take the squeegee and then we would caulk down the table and print the fabrics. then he would go out and sell them. it was a good decent middle class life that he provided to my brothers and me. and i am so grateful and there was never any doubt in my mind. in fact, that's what so many of us believed when we were growing up and the future seemed unlimited. of course, we had to fix a lot of things if the country starting with civil rights and human rights, but the opportunity ladder always was held out there. i just came from kiki's chicken

and waffles which i highly recommend. i was meeting with a group of african-american business wilmington and they were telling me -- businesswomen and they were telling me what they needed to build a better future. it sounded like the conversation i remember around my dinner table. that's what links us together, past all of the other differences that sometimes divide us. being middle class in america means that you feel in control of your financial destiny. it should mean that you have a little more so you can worry a little less. it should mean that you can invest in your future and the future of your children putting aside some for education, putting aside some for retirement. you should be able to go to sleep at night knowing that everything you have worked for won't be lost in a flash because of decisions that are

made or failed to be made in washington. and so therefore -- [applause] sec. clinton: -- i want to be a president who makes corporations live up to their basic guarantee that when workers help produce record profits, those workers should get a real share of the rewards instead of it all going to those at the top. you know the statistics. something is wrong when top c.e.o.'s learn 300 times more than the typical american worker. or here is my latest least favorite statistic, the 25 biggest hedge fund managers earn more than all the kindergarten teachers in america combined. what does that say about our values and the importance of preparing our children through education to make it in a very competitive global economy.

today too many politicians who want to return to the same failed top-down economics are mouthing the words "middle class." but this is something you have to believe in and something you have to be ready to fight for. if those words are going to have meaning again they have got to be backed up by real solutions, not empty rhetoric. and those solutions have to speak to the ways that the economy has changed. today 40% of mothers are the sole or primary breadwinners in their households and more americans are working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. parents are rubbing home from work to get their kids home from school and maybe get them off to a practice or a rehearsal, they're squeezing every minute out of their 24-hour day with barely enough time to breathe let alone

relax. i remember when i was a practicing lawyer back in little rock and around 3:00 every afternoon, all of the women who worked in the firm were hunched over their phones kind of whispering into them. at first i didn't know what was going on. then i realized they were all checking to make sure their children got home safely. many people today can't count on relatives to pitch in because so many families are scattered across the country. now, i happen to be extremely lucky because my amazing 8-month-old granddaughter lives near me so i get to see her a lot, but nobody expects everything to come easy. that is not part of life, we know that. but it shouldn't be quite so hard to get ahead and stay ahead in america. so i do believe that everyday americans and their families need a champion, a champion who will fight for them every single day, not for some

americans, but for all americans and i want to be that champion. i want to get up every single day going to work for you, standing up for you, making a difference for you. [applause] sec. clinton: take the issue of equal pay. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: i don't think i'm letting you in on a secret when i say too many women still earn less than men on the job. and women of color often make even less and then there is the so-called motherhood penalty with many women taking a pay cut when they have children. all of this lost money adds up. for many families, we're talking about thousands of dollars every year. that's medicine that can go for rent or groceries or a new car or into the college fund. now, we could fix this if republicans would get onboard.

we in fact could fix this today, but they won't. in fact, one republican candidate for president dismissed equal pay as a "bogus" issue. another said congress was "wasting time worrying about it." one even said that "efforts to guarantee fair pay reminded him of the soviet union." and to that i say, what century are they living in? but thankfully, the american people know the truth and the truth is that when any parent is short changed the entire family is short changed. when families are short changed, america is short changed and therefore this is not a women's issue, this is a family issue and an american economic issue and here is what we should do instead to close the wage gap. first we

[applause] get the best gives women the legal tools we need to fight discrimination at work. i introduced legislation back in the senate in 2007 and cap sponsoring it again and a 10. well, it is time to get this on once and for all. second, we should promote transparency across so that women have what they need to negotiate fairly. you cannot stand up for even ok if you do not know whether you are paid equally. you remember the lily ledbetter case she did not know for the longest time that she was not paid as much as her male coworkers doing the same job. posting for jobs should come with salary ranges, and large companies should report on how failing or not they are

conference hitting workers, dale and female, -- on how fairly or not they are compensating workers, male or female. and the more we can bring it out from under the table to put it on top the more information we can have to advocate for ourselves and advocate for each other. third, we need to raise wages for the lowest-paid jobs in america. they are disproportionately held by women, especially women of color. we need to make it easier for more women to enter higher-paying fields like science and engineering and technology but i want to say something that a lot of people may not know, even in this room of activist and well informed democrats. in most states today

waitresses, bartenders hairstylist, and others who rely on tips are paid even lower than the minimum wage. some are paid as little as $2.13 an hour, and they are also more likely to face exploitation, wage theft, and sexual harassment. think about somebody you may know. think about a mom tried to succeed at work and give her kids the support they need with a job that pays her $2.13 an hour. and forces her to put up with some pretty awful behavior by clients or customers or bosses to try to get those tips to at least push it up to the federal minimum wage level. and finally, we need workplace

policies, like paid leave, and flexible scheduling that allow parents to take care of their obligations at home without sacrificing pay at work. now, it is no issue that we are up against some pretty powerful forces, political and economic that will do, say, and then whatever it takes to advance a very different vision for america. i am here to tell you. i am not afraid to take them on. you know, i have spent my adult life going to bat for children families, and our country and i do know how hard this job i am seeking is. i have seen it up close and personal. you are not going to catch me wondering what it is like. [laughter] clinton: instead i am spending

my time planning on what i am going to do for you when i get there. but just pull up the images in your head. all of our presidents come into office looking so vigorous. think about what they looked like on inauguration day, and then we watch them. they grow grayer and grayer, and by the time they leave they are as white as the building they live in. now, let me tell you. i am aware i may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but i have one big advantage. i have been coloring my hair for years. [laughter] mrs. clinton: so you are not going to see me turn white in the white house.

and you're also not going to see me shrink from a fight. i think by now people know i don't quit. so i hope you will join me. i hope you will help me build this campaign, make it your own tell your friends to go to hillaryclinton.com. sign up to volunteer. this election is not about me. it is about us, and it has to be about what we do together to restoreth a and confidence and optimism in the future of the country we love. i want to end with a story. some of you might remember we had a pretty vigorous campaign in 2008. and both president obama and i

worked really hard, and he won and i lost, and then i went to work to make sure he would win and i was so relieved, i was just so relieved when, finally november 2008 came around, and he did. and that a few days after the election, my husband or -- and i were taking a walk near where we live, and his phone went off, and he answered it, it was the president-elect, and he said bill, i want to talk to you, and i want to talk to hillary, and he said, well, we are in the middle of a forest but as soon as we get home, and he did. he talked about positions in the cabinet and economic problems he was all of a sudden being confronted with that he had not even been told about to the extent that they were, so bill talked to him, and he then

handed me the phone, and he said, i what you do come to chicago to meet with me, and i said, certainly, when? he said as soon as you can, and i thought he would want to talk to me about what i could do in the senate to support what he would be championing as president, so i went a few days later, go into this big office building, and i sit down with the president-elect, and he says to me, i want you to be my secretary of state. i said, well, mr. president-elect, i am flattered. i am honored and there are so many other people, and i gave him names of people i thought would be great secretaries of state, and he said, no. i have spent all of my time dealing with the economy. it is worse that we were ever told, and yet we have all of these problems around the world and i need somebody i can send out there to go out there and talk to anybody, and i want it to be you. i said, well, i can't tell you

how moved i am, but i need to go back to the senate. he said, i do not want to hear from you until you say yes. [laughter] as is clinton: so i go back to the airport, get on the plane go back to new york, and i am thinking, the right thing for me is to stay in the senate. the people in new york at a rough time. i became a senator, and eight months later, we had nine/11 and i spent people trying to rebuild our city and protected, and i thought, i need to go back, so i called the president-elect, and i said, again, i cannot tell you how honored i am. i will support you in any way i can, but i need to go back to the senate, so i must say no, mr. president, and he said, i told you, i do not want to hear from you until you are ready to say yes, and i said to my husband, can you believe this? the president-elect has asked me to be president -- to be

secretary of state, and i told him no twice, and he said he is not going to give up until i say yes, and he said, well, if i remember, i asked you to marry me twice before you said yes. [laughter] mrs. clinton: you might stop and think. there is a pattern here. so i stayed up all night, and i thought, you know, suppose it had been the reverse, and i had been fortunate enough to win and i wanted some but he to be on my cabinet that i knew i could rely on, and i had asked the president-elect. i would have wanted him to say yes, because the country was facing some very serious decisions, so i called him back the next day, and i said, ok, mr. president, i am honored. i will be your secretary of state. and from that moment on, we began to talk and to work together. fast forward, my first trip, i go to asia in february 2009, and i go because i started calling

presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, they all said we did not really know what to expect, because nobody has been paying a lot of attention to us, and i said, well, that is going to change. the president and i see asiana a very important priority, and i am going to come so i was on my way, and one of the countries i was going to go to was indonesia, and i agreed to do both the private meetings with the leaders and the press conferences, the kinds of things you see on tv, and to do a lot of what is called public diplomacy, where we would reach out to people, and we would basically say, we care about you. we are back. we want to work with you. let's try to find ways where we can be partners, and send a different message, so i agreed to go on a show in jakarta called "the awesome show," and it was an early morning show, and it was unlike anything you see on our tv, and you see everything on our tv these days,

and people are jumping up and down and singing, and i am thinking, hopefully they are not going to ask me to sing and dance, but luckily they did not. they didn't interview, and then they said to the audience, does anyone have any questions, and they called on this person who said, i want to ask you something. we followed your election. i found that the people overseas followed our elections in many ways closer than some of us, and she said, we followed your election. it was really a hard-fought long election, because, as you know, our elections last forever, compared to other countries which have elections and you were saying bad things about him, and he was saying bad things about you, and all of a sudden, you end up as his secretary of state, and how does this work, and i thought, you know, this is a really serious question, because in a lot of places, you want against

somebody and you lose, your exiled or killed, not appointed secretary of state, so i thought there was a moment where if i could read my brain up, i could they something that could really reaching young people, because it is a nation of a particular young democracy, so i said, you are right. we ran a very hard campaign against each other. he won, i lost, and then i went to work or him because he and i shared many of the same positions about what should be done in the next presidency and then he won, and he asked me to be secretary of state, and i said yes for the same reason, we both love our country, and -- [applause] mrs. clinton: no matter how hard this election or any election becomes, we should remember that at the core, we can have disagreements, and we will.

we have different governing philosophies. we have different views about what works and what the evidence shows about what works for the policies. that is all fair game, but we should show more respect towards each other and we should remember why we are doing this because we love our country, and we want it to be the country of hope and potential for our children and our grandchildren that many of us saw come into being over the last decades, so as i run for president we are going to have some very difficult challenges. we will have disagreements. we will have debates, but i want you to know that i will be remembering what i think should be at the core of every political campaign, how we treat one another, and how we care for

this if we have been given, the united states of america. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] host: let's give her another round of applause. madam secretary, it is my honor and privilege to make you an honorary member of the south carolina women's council. i have a specialty piece of jewelry for you created by sally howard. the longtime history of this. we thank you so much for coming today.

[applause] secretary clinton: i love it. host: we appreciate madam secretary today wearing blue. [applause] madam secretary: should i go and say hello? do you have a program you have to do? host: excuse me. this concludes the program. thanks. [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] ♪

♪

announcer: wrapping up our coverage of hillary clinton with her first visit to the state since announcing her candidacy. you will be able to see her remarks again shortly on our website at c-span.org.

♪

♪

♪

announcer: hillary clinton's first visit since her announcing, and again, you can see her remarks on c-span.org. during her remarks come she talked about her time as secretary of state. there was an order requiring the state department to make public batches of the secretary's e-mails every 30 days, starting next month. the judge rudolph contreras also said particular targets for the agency to meet. it is about 55,000 pages. read more on political -- politico.com. there is more road to the white house, where we will take you to the hometown of rick santorum in

cap, pennsylvania. he is expected to say he is running. we will have that live at 5:00 and have that following with your comments, and then george pataki announces his candidacy and we will have that for you from exeter, new hampshire. and then debating the counterterrorism policy during the george w. bush administration with john negroponte, the director of national intelligence and you and ambassador, and amy goodwin participated. this is part of a series on the bush presidency, hosted by hofstra university. bernard: i am the dean of the college here, and it is my pleasure to welcome you both to the bush conference and to this plenary forum, which is entitled

the bush doctrine and combating terrorism. we have with us two government officials and journalists, academics, who will comment on the presentations. we have no formal academic papers at this particular forum but our participants will offer some remarks, approximately 10 to 12 minutes in length, and then there will be an opportunity for them to ask other questions, and then there will the opportunity for you to ask questions, as well. i'm going to introduce everyone on this panel as quickly as i can't, because we are more interested in what they have to say. -- as quickly as i can, because we are more interested in what they have to say.

the last two rector of central intelligence until 2005 -- the last two rector of central intelligence until 2005. there was the terror of prevention act. he continued in that position until may 2006. previously, the director had served as a congressman from southwest florida for almost 16 years. he was chairman of the committee on intelligence from 1997 until his nomination as eci -- dci in august 2004. he served as a member of the community authorizing the annual budget. during the 107th congress, mr. goss cochaired the inquiry into

the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001. he was the second director of central intelligence to have served in congress. john d negroponte is a distinguished fellow in grand strategy and lecturer at the jackson institute of yale university. prior to joining yield ambassador negroponte had in a distinguished career followed by many years in the private sector. he held government positions abroad and in washington between 1960 and again from 2001 until 2008. he has been u.s. ambassador to honduras, mexico, the philippines, the united nations and the rack. he served twice on the national security council staff first as

director for vietnam in the nixon administration and then as mpg national security adviser under president reagan. he also held a cabinet position as the first director of national intelligence under president george w. bush. carolyn eisenberg is a professor at hofstra, author of a prize-winning book on the american occupation of germany. she has written and spoken widely and has served as a consultant to several members of congress, and in 2004 chaired a task force on the u.s. occupation of iraq for a bipartisan coalition for a realistic foreign policy. her articles have appeared in the journal of american history history news network, diplomatic history, radical history review and she is presently completing a book entitled "never lose:

nixon, kissinger, and history." and then at the united states naval war college, serving as cochair of the oral history program and directing the ronald reagan oral history project. professor knott received his phd from boston college and is part of the united states air force academy and the university of virginia. he is the author of " alexander hamilton and the persistent of myth" and an examination on the use of covert operations by early american presidents. he is a co-author of the reagan years and at reagan's side insider recollections from sacramento to the white house. dr. knott's most recent book, on

the war on terror was published in 2012. amy goodwin is a producer of democracy now, a national, daily, independence, award-winning program, airing on over 1300 public television and radio stations worldwide. ms. goodwin has -- ms. goomdman has won numerous awards. she was honored with the 2014 if stone medal for lifetime achievement. she is also the first journalist to have received the right livelihood award, widely known as the alternative nobel prize for, quote developing an innovative model of truly independent, grassroots journalism that brings too many people the alternative voices that are often excluded by the

mainstream media. end quote. she was a recipient of the american women in radio and television gracie award and the nation prize for creative citizenship. her reporting on east timor in nigeria has won numerous awards, including the robert f kennedy prize for international reporting and the alfred dupont award. it is now my pressure to introduce the director. [applause] director: thank you very much for you we have just had a very refreshing session. with some students and some other folks in the audience who asked some very penetrating questions about the bush doctrine and our security and the threats, and i tell you that it is very stimulated for someone like me coming back here

to see people really interested in things that matter today and taking good questions under advisement, and willing to tackle some of the more controversial issues that we have got. i think to talk about the bush doctrine a little bit, you need to understand, it was really a change of a century. it was the beginning of new times, a new landscape, new challenges in a way that we had not quite expected, and not only that, we were dealing with some new thoughts, but we were dealing with some old machinery so the old institutions that had gotten accustomed to doing things a certain way certainly that would go to including some nations that were accustomed to having things happen in certain ways. it would go to organizations that involve many countries such as, perhaps, nato or the u.n.

all of a sudden, things changed, and people had to come to grips with a challenge. president bush, a few short months in his presidency, had to deal with that. starting out on the role of the chairman of oversight committee in the house that with -- that dealt with the ability to advise the president on what he needed to know, i can say that the united states of america was not fully prepared to give the president all of the best advice and best information that he needed to have to make the decisions that he needed to make. we were woefully -- nobody is blaming anybody for the peace dividend. that was a good thing we have, but the fact of the matter is we sort of let our hard down and the world continue to march

forward, so when 9/11 officially happened to us, it was a large large wake-up call, and we had to take stock very, very quickly, and we found that just about every cupboard we would look into had a certain amount of depletion to it or was just plain out right bear. -- bare. i remember asking how many air of speakers do we have that can help me and how my colleagues on this committee understand what is going on, and the answer was woefully few. with little things like that that opened our eyes very quickly, but i would emphasize in that period, the president understood that we needed to ramp up capability fast. in the intelligence world, you just do not go out and hire five spies. it takes time to recruit good clandestine service people, and

it is not done overnight, but the president committed early on to rebuilding our clandestine service overseas and our operational capabilities, and we do have the world's greatest intelligence organization in the world. we have certainly the world's greatest capabilities, intelligence capabilities in the world. what we do not have come at what we have not had consistency is the policies on how to use them, because we are a free, democratic, open society, and leaving that debate about where the line is between your privacy and your protection from the ability of the government to get information on you or about you is a debate that should go on and will go on. in our democratic, free, open society. we never want to be pendulum to swing at too far one way or the other. we want to be safe, but we do not want george orwell's big

brother looking over our shoulders every time we want to do something. president bush understood that very well and tried very hard to wind that balance and perpetually keep that in front of us on the hill so that we stayed between the lanes between serving the united states of america and keeping it safe on the one hand without getting into the private or the civil rights of citizens that we all represent. so i would say that the way it finally came out, if i had to give just a few words, is the hallmarks of the bush doctrine, once we saw what we were up against after the horrors of 9/11 were strength, commitment and engagement, and i think that the president did an extraordinary job of getting us energized at a time when there was an audience in the world that was listening and watching to see what the united states of

america was, indeed, going to do. i think the president was let down somewhat by the information he got. i do not feel that the intelligence community, as good as it is -- it wasn't as good then as i say, it had been hollowed out, and as wonderful as the men and women are in the intelligence community, and they are, they put out a great cap of vice, i do not think the president truly had all of the information he needed. i know he made statements he thought were true that turned out to be wrong because we had that information, and that is going to happen. we are always going to have victims if we do not have good intelligence, so this is a shameless call for everyone to understand. we need good intelligence at all times in our country, and we might get better decisions instead of making big mistakes. my time in the hill ended up with our review of what happened

on 9/11 and how it came to pass and you could point a lot of fingers at a lot of people and a lot of institutions and say this happened and that happened, but the fact of the matter is when you're talking about a three democratic, open society, we were just going about our business enjoying the wonderful land and the blessings we have. we probably should have been paying attention and not have dropped our guard, but we did and that was a collective decision we made as americans but we got back on track and started to do things. i went down to talk to the president, and he asked if i would be the dci after george tenet announced his resignation unexpectedly, before the presidential election. this is not the time as people would say, g, mr. president, if you happen to lose this election, i am out of a job.

maybe i do not want to do this. the fact the matter was i wanted to get out of washington. i had been in congress as long as i needed to be or wanted to be, so i was looking for an exit, and, unfortunately, i did not find it. i found a great challenge for the president of united states, and my job involves five things. first of all, i was dci. the last five dci's because some had concerns, they were losing control, and they wanted a tighter rein on it, so they decided some new architecture was nothing there, so the dci looked like it was what to be a short-term job, but it was nevertheless, a job that required managing 15 agencies in the intelligence committee not all of whom i have much control over. some had cabinet officers and very important chairman on the hill in charge of them, so this is quite a team of people that a person who has not got cabinet

level status has to deal with and supposedly manage. that was job one. job two was running cia, which was, as i said, needed to be rebuilt and rebuilt in a hurry. number three was fighting the war. we had a war going on. we did not know with the next step is going to be, whether we were going to get hit again or where it was when to come from. that was sort of an important job every day, and every day we met in the agency's war room and went over what was happening and then we have a whole question of the real problem of the agency's job is to advise the president, and that is done through something called the presidential daily briefing, and that is compiling the best information the president needs to have every given morning and to have happen hour of the president's ear every day is an extraordinary honor, but it is a whale of a responsibility. you are talking to the most important person in the world, and you want to get it right.

the tendency is to want to give the president the worst-case scenario and then to walk away but if you do that you may be do not give him the most likely scenario, so we were sorting out what could go wrong and what was likely to go wrong, and in those days when we were not sure, that was an extremely hard job. it took about five hours of my day every day, and that the last thing to do, congress did pass a law, and we had a new architecture, and i think ambassador and a party will talk about it, because he became the chief of that operation, and that meant that we had to spend some time readjusting how all of these 15 agencies work with each other. i do not think there is a human being in the world who could do this job. i truly don't. i said that in los angeles. i was widely harassed for it, but the truth of the matter is other people who try to do all five of those things while they were -- had similar thoughts

about doing them. i think that the good part of it all is that we got through it in a very same, american way that does credit to us all. we ended up on the right side of just about every one of those issues that we had to deal with. now, the last thing i'm going to say about the bush doctrine given the fact that we were at this time of change was, i think, president bush was so clearly aware of the fact that we were not necessarily dealing state to state any, that we were dealing with people who were outside of the conventional norm, and these people were ruthless troublemakers, and, again, i am speaking of radical fundamentalist. i am not addressing all of islam or muslim people.

i am talking about the radical fundamentalist who declared war on us and hurt us grievously because we had let our guard down. the president never wanted that guard to be down again, and he never wanted to give those folks a sanctuary, a place where they could train, where they could get money where they could make their plans, where they can arrange their travel, where they could manufacture their passports, put out their propaganda, and do all of that stuff. the president got back and he did something about it. he understood very well that the radical fundament was understood -- fundamentalists understood strength, respected strength and he also understood that they would take advantage of weakness and disengagement. he got that part absolutely right, and for that, we go him a great deal. thank you. -- we go him a great deal. -- we go him --owe him a great

deal. >> good afternoon. thank you. before going into our principal comments, let me pick up on a couple of things that director goss said, and one is a detail and an interesting one, and one is the president's daily brief and when we made the transition from porter being vain -- the dci, there was about a month or so where we went in to see the president together at 8:00 everyone he to brief him and one

thing i want to say about president bush, and this is now 2000 five, right question he has in an office four years. they know the situation very well. and it is kind of hard to give them a leadership profile, if you will, on somebody who they just saw the previous week and he was a particular good customer. george w. bush really was fascinated by intelligence. he absorbed it. he liked that half-hour that he

spent. i think he was one of the best customers of intelligence. that i have ever known. he had a dialectical style. and there were conversations about the issues for the material, or he would do that he felt he ought to. but i can remember sometimes he would bring in people with the addition of the radical articles that we would show him every morning, usually's or seven articles -- usually six or seven articles. sometimes he would do so called deep dive into a particular country of interest, or discussion of a leadership of a country whose leaders were both

important to us and particularly inscrutable, and we would do this deep dive, and he would get into the discussion and valued it a great deal, and we would bring young analysts from the cia or were ever to present their views directly to the president. it was a good experience for the president, and a good experience, maybe a little bit intimidating for some of the analysts, but once they got used to it, they accounted for themselves very well. not every president devotes that much attention, concentrated scheduled time absorbing their daily intelligence. we used to, when i worked with: powell, when i was his deputy, -- when i worked with colon

powell, we would just give him the president's daily brief, the book, and he was at his leisure to read it during the course of the day and then he would give it back to us at the end of the day. occasionally, if there was an article we felt we should highlight for him, we would do that, so different presidents have had different styles. president clinton apparently never met an intelligence briefer, and the was that famous issue about the crash on the white house lawn, and was a joke about jim woolsey trying to get to see the president. the second point i would like to make before getting to our topic

is that i thought that peter baker and others this morning made a really good point when they said that you really have to think of the presidency as dynamic, as evolving, and that essentially you have got two phases of the bush presidency. you have those first four years and the second four, and they were really quite different and they were different because of changing circumstances but also because of changing faces. condi rice moved over to become the secretary. she put priority than i may be taking a more diplomatic approach to a number of issues. vice president cheney became less influential, and perhaps some of this had to do with issues of health. i do not think you is necessarily as energetic in the second term -- he was

necessarily as energetic in the second term. and shortly into the second term, secretary rumsfeld left office and was replaced by robert gates, so the atmospherics were different, and i think that goes to the bush doctrine we are coming to now. but when i see the words bush doctrine and combating terrorism, i immediately think about the different justifications for the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq and i was at the new when when both of these wars were launched. the war in afghanistan, in fact, i was notified by a flash telegram on a sunday. i think it was sunday, october 6, 2001, seeking out the

president of the security council and asking for a security council meeting this evening to inform the council that we are going to be launching attacks into afghanistan in the exercise of our self-defense under article 51 of the united nations charter , and we dutifully did that that evening in the council, and i do not think we really had any argument from anybody as to the fact that we were retaliating against afghanistan, retaliating because of the 9/11 attacks. i think that was well understood both internationally and in our own country. there was an interesting footnote to that day for me, which, i think, was a harbinger of issues to come, and that was that the second part of my instructions said, by the way

you should also seek out the ambassador to the united nations of iraq. this is sunday, october 6, 2001, mind you, and you should seek him out urgently and basically read to him the following talking points, and the talking points were very tough. they said, and i am paraphrasing here and making it a bit colloquial it was if you, iraq saddam hussein even think of taking advantage of the situation that was created by our preoccupation with afghanistan, there will be held to pay. i will not fill in all of the blanks, but it was almost threatening in its language. now, this is 2001, and in retrospect even though i was involved in negotiating the resolution 1441 in the fall of

2002 that led to the reinstatement of an inspection regime in iraq, in retrospect, it was clear that we sort of had -- the administration had a rack on its mind -- had iraq on its mind right from the beginning. he explains what he meant about military operations against iraq as early as december 2001, and he had 12 subsequent meetings or telephone conversations with general franks between december 2001 and the summer of 2002, and i was not nearly as conscious of this at the time in 2002 when i was working on negotiating this inspection resolution. i thought we had more time to allow for an inspection regime

to work. well, as it turned out, that was more a matter of form, and it would appear that the decision had been made. exactly when? i heard reporters say in the earlier panel that we do not know exactly when. we are not entirely certain. it seemed clear to me the administration mind was made up. we were in fact going to invade iraq. that is really the issue on which turns this whole question of the judgment of the bush doctrine, preemption, and unilateral action. ironically, it is something of an exception to the rest of george w. bush's foreign policy

and he certainly evolved toward a more moderate stance, but it was such an important exception to much blood and treasure was 600 in iraq, -- was expended in iraq, it will, for a long time remain the major foreign-policy issue on which the george w. bush administration is going to be judged. beginning in the second term, mr. bush and his advisers held back into a more traditional foreign-policy approach, trying to avoid unilateral action, if at all possible. i was deputy secretary of state at the time. also, when i was director of national intelligence, rumors. it was almost can't,

particularly on lost it, for some reason, that we were going to attack iran. i know from internal discussions nothing was further from our mind i do not think mr. bush wanted to add to the issues of litany -- and litany of problems we had. the issue was more trying to contain its nuclear development program through either diplomacy, or by economic sanctions, but i do not think military action against iran was ever seriously,, and a related point, there was talk at the time about israel taking such action against iran, but we have to remember that any kind of a two eliminate iran nuclear

capabilities would involve a major military action and it is not a one-off thing the way israel bombing the iraqi director or the syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 was. i think there is serious question as to whether given factors of distance, number of facilities, where they are located, so forth, whether israel would even have that capability. so, i, for one, i not sure i would elevate the one major unilateral and preemptive effort that the president took in iraq to the level of doctrine so we will have to see how history treats this issue over time, but

i think it was a reaction to the circumstances that arose after 9/11, possibly some legacy issues from having the bush 41 administration having dealt with iraq as well, but i think by the time the president had handed off power to his office, to president obama, i think you can point to a number of examples where mr. obama felt very comfortable carrying on the policies is as it bequeathed him. thank you. [applause]

professor eisenberg: i'm hoping i can find a microphone i can use. i would like to welcome them for being here today and to assess appreciation of your willingness to come and talk about the. i do not know that it has been openly acknowledged here, but the reality is that very few members of the administration have actually been talk about these issues, so i really especially appreciate your presence here. some of you might have forgotten being firestone's introduction. in case there is any confusion i want to make it clear i am not now, nor have i ever been a member of the bush administration. i thought you might a confused that. i am an historian at the

university completing a book on the nixon administration, before the ipo they really long book on the cold war. for both those spent thousands of hours reading classified documents. in the documents has a lot of. seriously weird for wanting, and there are certain impressions that you get some of them are pretty obvious. one is that very often public officials say thinks to the public that are not true. actually, i have to say, sometimes i reading something in a document that is secret, and then i look at present nixon or secretary kissinger, and they come and say the exact opposite that they said one hour ago.

i'm always amazed when this happens. sometimes, officials are not truthful, or they exaggerate, or deceive themselves, or they can be misled by advisers. from reading all these documents, the most important impression that i have gotten -- i have been struggling on how to articulate it -- is when you look at the deliberations of people at the very top level the use of language, and have a way of talking -- sort of a national security vernacular -- that has the effect of actually insulating them from the human reality that they are talking about. somehow, that does not even enter the room. you can read minutes of meetings and memos about cambodia, laos south vietnam, or wherever, and what is happening in those places is like a million miles

away from what is going on in this room. one of our speakers earlier was talking about the president at the top of his game, with all the information that he needs to have. bush was familiar with all the world leaders. actually, i think bush would have benefited from going to a village in afghanistan, which we accidentally bombed, and talking to the people there. i think it would have been helpful to him and our country. those deliberations at that high level have the effect of making those realities may obscure to the people who are sitting in those rooms. it also has the effect of generating a kind of grandiosity by the people in those rooms who have a tendency to say things that are actually fairly simple, and make them sound profound. i think investor negroponte was getting -- ambassador mega party was getting at that.

"the bush doctrine," i am not entirely sure what it is. i tried to look it up online. one, the military of the united states needs to be stronger than any other in the world. two, we need to retain the right to attack any country. three, we not be bound by the pressure of allies or the united nations. four a threat does not have to be imminent to attack the country. boiled down to the essentials, we are the only world superpower, and we can do what we want. this does not originate with bush. this goes back to 400 bc. one group told another comment you know as we do, right in the world is only in question

between the equals of power, while the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. my initial point, that is the bush doctrine -- that it is much less than what meets the eye. that does not imply that it is meaningless. what it signaled was a newly aggressive militarized foreign policy, which came into its own after 9/11. we are told that is what the american people wanted. how brilliant of president bush to stand in the middle of the rubble on ground zero with a bullhorn and yell, i can hear you, and soon the whole world will hear from us. there was another choice on an 9/11 and a different mood in new york city. i cannot make generalizations about the whole united states,

but what i can say is i was in new york during the entire time. the city of new york was still sad, incredibly compassionate. everywhere, people were seeking to help one another. we will hear about apple corps -- that bull horn for an eternity. i want to tell you a little story about my book the neighborhood, right across from the world trade center. our homes were covered in ashes, but our neighborhood was diverse with muslims, christians, and jews. the arab-american families in our neighborhood reached out to a synagogue and proposed a candlelight vigil to honor the dead, first responders, and pray for peace. it was organized very heard in the -- hurriedly, and it was unclear how many people would

come, but when the moment arrived, hundreds of people came streaming down the streets. it sounds like kind of a corny thing that a professor might bring up in contrast to the harsh realities of fighting terrorists out to destroy us. to shift grounds for a moment, in opting for war, invading iraq and afghanistan, creating secret prisons in locations around the world, torturing detainees insights around the world -- there was nothing very realistic about the way the bush and administration responded to 9/11. keeping us safe from terrorism -- we all think that is important, which illustrates the choices that were made. i will give another story. i want to talk about firehouses,

the ones in my neighborhood, just across the river from the world trade center. the trucks were called in right from the beginning of the attack. they drove across the brooklyn bridge and rushed into burning buildings, and help to save hundreds of lives. many of our firemen died and those buildings collapse including one of my friends. what happened a year later is that our firehouse closed because there was no money in york city to pay for firehouses. they did not have enough money to keep them open. meanwhile, the bush and administration was sending millions of dollars to iraq in suitcases, for which there was never any accountant. the unbelievable sloppiness of handling this money, millions disappearing into iraq, millions to pay warlords in afghanistan millions to private contractors -- schools never built and hospitals never finished.

but, not enough money for firehouses, and frankly not enough for our veterans' health services either. what does that say about keeping america safe? whatever it meant, the bush doctrine found its culmination in the war in iraq. a war of choice. for the purpose of saving us from weapons of mass destruction which it turns out did not exist. this episode is now described as a fake, a failure of intelligence. we did not know that the weapons were not there, we did not know the invasion would cost so many lives, we did not know that we would spend more than $1 trillion to. people make mistakes, but in this instance, people did know

these things. there were weapons inspectors in iraq saying, wait, there might not be anything here. there were military people saying, we cannot run an operation like this on a shoestring. there were middle east expert saying over and over again, if you try to occupy this country -- these warnings were ignored. those kinds of people never made it into the stuffy room where they prevailed. can i get some water? thank you. and so, the results -- what are the results of this realistic choice -- i would say, unrealistic choice? according to the watson institute of brown university, iraq cost is $1.7 trillion, with an additional 490 million owed to our veterans.

we -- i am saying we, i should say the war -- killed at least 135 iraqi civilians. as many as 5 million iraqis were driven from their home. the decision to invade iraq can be counted among the most disastrous in modern history. i have to say, it is a little bit incredible for me to hear about what great of a customer was president bush in the context of the truly disastrous decisions that he made with the horrendous human cost that was involved. one last story. on september 12, 2001, rescue workers pulled out a 30-year-old woman, the last one to be saved from the devastation. while most of your too young to remember, as those last people

were pulled from the rubble, it was an incredible moment. one person was saved. people wept when they pulled that one person from the rubble. why was that? one of the things we learned about 9/11 is that every single person's life is important and precious. that points to the tragic legacy of the bush doctrine. the bush administration, and the unbelievable way that they never caught osama bin laden, but did immense damage. we are still living with that now. the responsibility for the mistakes no longer rests with us but with all of us in the audience. if we forget, or minimize the gravity of the mistakes that we made over those years, people

will continue to make those mistakes on into the future, and many more people will die. thank you. [applause] prof. knott: i, too, i would also like to thank hofstra for hosting. thank you for coming today. let me begin by saying that the accusations frequently leveled against this president are certainly nothing new. people will tend to criticize the sitting president, whether he is a member of their party or not on partisan grounds.

putting that aside, i would say that george w. bush has been subjected to some of the worst demagoguery, and unfortunately comes from a number of my scholarly comrades, especially historians and law professors, who consider themselves expert on the presidency. i find this particularly disturbing, in that historians are supposed to wait for documents to come out. they are supposed to wait for oral history interviews to be conducted. you're supposed to wait for memoirs from both domestic political figures and foreign leaders as well. they're supposed to do the unsexy work of going to an archive and spending lots of quiet time looking up for an -- looking up boring documents. unfortunately, far too many historians abandoned objectivity

and seemed unwilling to place bush's actions into historical context. i'm speaking about historians who were saying in 2005-2006 that the bush administration was one of the worst in history. i'm not saying that he is the best by any stretch. hurricane katrina, the economic collapse, the war in iraq -- there are a number of issues that need to be put into the equation when assessing a presidency. at the very least, my scholarly comrades had the obligation to wait until the presidency was over before declaring that it was the worst over. i would argue that now, it is still very early to make sweeping judgments about any presidency. just as a reminder, after harry truman's departure from the white house, he was still a very

unpopular figure, and certainly in scholarly circles, eisenhower was considered a rank mediocrity. nonetheless, this narrative, which also suggests that vice president cheney was pulling the strings -- which is a myth -- persists to this day. again, i am referring to my fellow scholars who do not do the actual reading, besides the op-eds of "the new york times." those same people who criticize george bush celebrate the presidency of john kennedy. they also, many of these folks but not all, celebrate the presidencies of franklin

roosevelt who use the fbi as his private detective industry and tried an american citizen in a military tribunal. to make matters worse, many of my fellow activist scholars abandoned the precepts of their craft, as i said before, by making the judgment prior to conducting a single interview. i think that this deep scholarly animosity towards present bush and vice president cheney was the result of the fact that president bush was the first to face a series challenge to american security since the enactment of a new regime, post-watergate, post-vietnam reform, designed to curb the imperial presence.

these reforms had the effect of enhancing the power of congress, the courts to check the executive. a scholarly community produced a sort of permanent hostility. since the founding of the nation, the courts and congress have deferred to the executive branch on issues, but that tradition began to a road in the 1960's and 1970's, rightly so in many cases. the courts expanded their role in the national security arena and the courts would frequently allied themselves with congress in order to check the executive branch. in a sense, bush and cheney tried to play by the old rules by the pre-watergate, pre-church committee rules. in 2014, we can at least say that they appeared to have lost in their effort to restore the

system back to its pre-frank church and watergate committee role. let me warn you, history can be fickle. at least in regards to bush's war on terror, i believe that someday they will become seen in more favorable light. i do not expect that to occur fast. i do not ever expect bush to emerge in the top 10 list of presidential greatness, whereby the way, harry truman resides. if we want to talk about truman -- talk about torture, we can have a very lengthy debate about truman's use of intelligence sources in the cold war. if we want to look in cases of waterboarding, rendition, we also need to do history justice and re-examine the presidencies of harry truman, for instance,

or jfk, or any number of progressive presidents, who unfortunately are often cut a lot of slack by my fellow academics precisely because they are progressive presidents, not conservative presidents. george w. bush's low standing among academics, my fellow academics, reflects in part the rise of partisan scholarship the use of history as ideology and a political weapon, which in my view means, a corruption of history. again, i do not believe that george w. bush was a great president. in fact, he will probably come out at some point as a below average or average president. but, the conventional wisdom regarding the presidency of george w. bush, i think, is misguided, and revisionist accounts of this presidency, at least in regards to

national security policy is overdue. i will leave you with this. we are not far from the world trade center site. put yourself in his position or feet on september 12. ask what you would have done. i know what he did, either that day or the next. he told his fbi director and his attorney general to do whatever it took to make sure that this did not again. i would have probably said the same thing. thank you. [applause] ms. goodman: 9/11 was a defining moment.

the question was, what did iraq have to do with 9/11? if you asked yourself as the last speaker suggested what would you have done on september 12, why would you attack a country that had nothing to do with this horrific attack on the united states? just today a report has come out from the nobel prize-winning international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war. they have done some touch -- calculations. they released a report saying this investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has directly or indirectly killed around one million people in iraq, 220,000 in afghanistan 80,000 in pakistan, a total of around 1.3 million. not included in this figure are further war zones, such as

yemen. the figure is a proximally 10 times greater of that than which the public and decision-makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major ngo's, and this is only a conservative estimate, they write. the total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below one million is extremely unlikely. one million deaths in iraq in the last bit more than a decade, in a country the bush administration said they were going to say, that would, as they famously said, cheney and rumsfeld, greet u.s. soldiers with flowers. vice president cheney said, we are going to liberate the people of iraq. sadly, the bush administration

exploited 9/11. the blueprint for what happened, and i think it is important to go back, even not so far in history, was drawn up years earlier by the project for the new american century. i am reading from my first book "the exception to the rulers" -- a think tank was formed in 1997 to promote american global leadership. its founders are a who's who of the neoconservative movement which seamlessly morphed into the top officialdom of the bush 2 administration. donald rumsfeld, vice president cheney's chief of staff, elliott abrams, among others.

the members had a reputation around washington and explained by a retired cia analyst as was talked about earlier the presidential daily brief. mcgovern did it for vice -- president george h w bush but he observed when we saw these people -- he is talking about the members -- coming back in town, saying all of a sudden, the crazies are back, mcgovern said that while died