iraqi state to eradicate that's something we can do and that's not something that's on a presidential election timeline. as long as it takes, as long as the iraqis need that support. the other thing that's going to be needed is the united states will need to act as a buffer and it doesn't want to play this role, but between the iraqi kurds and baghdad. during the war against isis, iraqi kurdistan has extended its territory by about a third, has seized almost all of the territories that were previously disputed between the krg and baghdad, and there's a real risk that the iraqi shiite militias will, once mosul is liberated, will turn their guns against the peshmerga and try and retake

kirkuk. there has to be a mediated diplomatic settlement to these territorial conflicts. we cannot afford to see iraq now on the -- having just retaken territory from isis but not tackled the root causes of the insurgency. we can't afford then to suddenly be distracted by this kurdish iraqi war over territory. and the united states is the power with the relationships, with the clout, with the international standing to be able to prevent actors from acting in an unrestrained way in this battle over disputed territory and to initiate a credible, internationally respected process for mediating these territorial disputes and that -- you know, that's day one after mosul is defeated. we need to make sure that we're

getting -- that, you know, the peshmerga and the iraqi counterterrorism forces and the federal police and the iraqi security forces are working so beautifully now, you know, together, to defeat mosul and then the day after, we need to get these forces away from each other and out of the disputed territories so that we can avoid that conflict from happening. the other great risk is that the shiite militias have in many sections of the iraqi population become very popular for defending iraq against terrorism and, you know, it's partly a function of how unpopular minute -- mainstream iraqi politicians are for being corrupt and performing extremely poorly, and

we've got provincial elections next year and parliamentary elections the year after, and there's a very real risk that pretty hard-line parties could do very very well in those elections, and i think something else the united states could be doing is helping to support, you know, moderate accommodationist inclusive iraqi leaders who are capable of delivering some of the kind of political compromises that are needed to bring about a genuine reconciliation in iraq and that are needed to address the root causes and drivers of extremism in iraq. you know to help them to better , connect to their constituencies. to better deliver on what their constituencies are demanding and to remain credible political actors in the face of what promises to be a genuine political threat from a pretty hard-line set of groups that are likely to set the reconciliation agenda way back, and that's something we can't afford to see

, but it's something we can help to tackle just by helping moderate political actors to perform better because they're underperforming so, so woefully right now. and the final thing that the united states can do and can articulate is that they can continue to act to rally global supporters together to help with the reconstruction of liberated areas. what we don't want to see is these liberated areas that have been devastated by air strikes and by the military campaign and by the ieds left behind by isis. we don't want to see these devastated areas, most of them are sunni areas. we don't want to see a second class or an underclass of iraqis living in very deprived , economically deprived areas kind of cut off really from the political system and creating the conditions where radicalism thrives.

we want to reintegrate these areas as quickly as possible back into the rest of the country. we want to get basic infrastructure set up, economic opportunities, education, and that requires resources the iraqi government is struggling to find at a time of low oil prices, and the united states has done a good job but can really continue to take a leadership role in this in gathering its allies and friends from around the world towards providing the resources that are needed and performing the kind of coordinating role in helping the international community to really invest in the sablization and reconstruction of areas liberated from isis, and i think those elements constitute a real vision for media to long-term engagement in iraq that's a genuinely positive one, that's helpful. it's something a lot of iraqis could buy into and help them make sense of what an american

role would look like and what it means and why it's something that would be of benefit to them. >> thank you for that. i wonder if i could ask you one question to clarify your position with respect to the other two panelists. i heard you say that the -- that the iraqi media has been penetrated by the iranians and that there's a tendency to adopt the iranian line on what the united states is up to. but i didn't hear you wave the flag of concern about the role more broadly of iran in dominating or extending its influence over iraq that we heard from your colleagues. do you share their concern? is that a major concern of yours , or are you seeing things a little differently? >> i am someone who believes that iran extends its influence where there is a vacuum and where the political costs are

relatively low, and we have made operating in iraq a very easy low cost, high reward political exercise for the iranians and once we articulate our strategy for engagement and we offer something to our iraqi partners on the ground and say, hey, we're not just going to turn around and leave in six months and leave you in the lurch, we're real partners who are offering a sustained alternative. you know, there are many iraqis who have great antipathy towards iran and worry about the level of iranian penetration and about what iranian interests are in iraq, but balancing against iran is very difficult when there isn't -- when you don't see a partner for balancing against iran with. and i think if we offer the united states as an alternative , and we make clear that hey, we're around not just for five minutes, we'll be here and we've

got your back and you can afford to be critical and you can afford to pursue your policyies -- policies without fear of iran , then i think the opportunity is there. i don't think the iranian role in iran should be something that scares off the united states from engagement. >> and so you are broadly in agreement with the also dhoor the job of the united states is to hold the ring around iraq and to help the iraqis needs@between them as they solve their own problems. ok, well thank you very much. mike, if i can come back to you, i think we've got a lot of agreement -- more agreement than i expected to hear in general picture of what the -- what the challenge is for the united states. i think there's also agreement with dr. younis made me realize there's broad agreement between the iraqi people and the american people that we're completely bewildered as to what

this election will hold and have no idea what the future is going to bring. it seems to me that if we were to follow the average viewer, this is being broadcast by c-span and the average american watching this is going to be listening to this advice and saying, what's the cost to the united states? what's the cost in dollars? what's the cost in military commitment? and one of the big take aways that we have over the last decade is that the desire among the americans to shoulder these costs is much less than some of us would have expected, with that thought in mind, could you talk to us? is there a way the united states can play the role that's being outlined here without a george w. bush-style reengagement with

100,000 or 130,000 u.s. troops? >> i think the most important thing is it's not the cost of the operation. let's say we went big and spent a lot of money on this. it would mean nothing if we announced we're leaving in six months. you can't build trust and relationships by saying you're going to do something and then leaving in six months, so i would associate trust and belief in what we're saying. i'd weigh that higher than any costs, so to the american people if you're watching this, the american people argue that if we don't address the iranian influence in iraq, we should just stop now because we're simply facilitating. i don't want to say the iranian takeover of iraq, but we are partnering with militias not only out of uniform but the ddr process which is so important, that's disarming, demobilizing

and reintegrating these factions like sistani will call for after mosul is liberated to reintegrate the militias, they won't stand out. they're going to be brought into the iraqi security forces, and i would argue that that doesn't work because that was done in 2005 when we brought in the badr core and moqtada al-sadr's core into the national police and the sixth and ninth iraqi army divisions. it will be rejected by the population if it is the securing force afterwards. so what i'm saying none of this works unless there's a commitment to be that long-lasting partner in iraq. when you look at iraq, there's three consistent foreign policies in the region, russia has the same foreign policy position it's had for 30 years,

iran has the same position and the kingdom of saudi arabia has the same position. i'm sure turkey may have the same position as well. the u.s. position changes based on who's in office, and i've been told multiple times talking to iraqi sunni tribal leaders and peshmerga leaders that you're in a better position to be an enemy of the united states than a friend of the united states. you have more leverage as an enemy than as a friend. that's very concerning. the thing that i would -- as we're look -- looking at the election. looking at the elections of 2017, in that, the militias believe they have a mandate, they believe they are -- they protected baghdad, they kept baghdad from falling to isis, the media supports that narrative, they're operating outside government control. if a body criticizes them, they can have them replaced they are

going into the mosul operation because they want to. they need to be part of the liberation of mosul to claim success. that it was because of them that isis was defeated. we need to be watching the iraqi election because that election is going to either get us back into iraq to defeat the second and third iteration of isis or to basically go into northern iraq to protect the northern iraqi populations from what's coming from the militias. when i talk to a general defeaty, he said we can group, but their concern was that the hash em el shad di was built to not to defeat isis, they're concerned the shi'a militias are there to retake kiir cook and baiji,

other areas, and that's concerning because they carry the iraqi flag so if the peshmerga fire on them as they approach, it's treasonous. they're firing on forces carrying the iraqi flag. next to that iraqi flag is also a militia flag or a religious flag that sends a message to sunnis that we are coming not as liberators but we are coming to demonstrate we have primacy now. the message is not only to sunni iraqis but to the peshmerga and the kurds as well that we are coming to take back what we want and this is what you hear from the leadership of these militias, again, not the foot guys, they may be saying that as well but they believe they are joining something that is noble and right. the leadership. >> do you believe that we could frustrate those aspirations with a relatively light commitment of

troops. if i hear you correctly, you are saying the key is the political commitment and political consistency, and that alone will have a very beneficial effect absent a significant commitment of troops. >> i'm concerned about the footprint we have right now in that 5,000 americans are in iraq and 100,000 shia militia members are in iraq led by the same people that targeted americans five years ago. they made these threats. i don't think we can do the leverage part where we start to curb or reign influence, try to get militias to stand down without putting our current footprint at risk of being targeted. >> so the 5,000 troops we have there are hostages in a sense or potential hostages if iranian policy were to change. >> our footprint is constraining our ability to go after isis. and actually curb iranian influence. >> at the risk of putting you on the spot, how many troops -- >> 30,000 iraq's and syrians.

>> we're talking a commitment of 60,000 troops. >> doesn't have to all be u.s., just nato-led, u.s. led force -- that's u.s. led, because i don't think iraq wants it to be russia led. they are tilting that way if we keep disengaging. they are going to tilt that way. it needs to be a strong nato-led force that has the ability to say no, put pressure on baghdad, say no to iran and actually say we're here to give you the , political space to reconcile with your community so that you don't have these fanatic-type organizations to come in and unseat or take advantage of a disenfranchised operation that's being oppressed by its central government. we have that in damascus, baghdad. it's a recipe for isis, a recipe for instability.

when have you a sunni population center that used to look to the left and say americans are here to help us and now look to the west and say what are you doing, why are you tilting towards the iranian position in iraq and syria? >> thank you for that. mr. ambassador, do you agree with mike that the united states can fulfill the role you would like to see it play with a relatively modest commitment of force? >> yes, i think so. i am also i guess -- i'm aware -- first of all, i'm not a military expert obviously. he is. i'm not. but -- i think it is relatively modest. i don't think there is an appetite. i guess i'm the only one on the stage up here that doesn't live in washington or the environ. i come from the hoosier hot line as it were.

i don't think there is an appetite in the rest of the country for a large, long-term sustained presence in the middle east generally. anyway, not in iraq. but there has to be -- it has to be -- the american public will tolerate a policy -- support a policy that is explained to them in terms of american interests. that i think has been absent. what are the american interests? the withdrawal of the u.s. -- again, it's a complicated matter. aside from the military, the sort of political and intellectual withdrawal from iraq in 2011 leads to the rise of isil, which turns out to have all kinds of implications for vital american interests, not least of which is the effect that the refugee crisis it is in part causing is having on the

european unity project, which has been a cornerstone of american foreign policy since the days of dwight d. eisenhower. so these things are in the interest of the united states, aside from the fight against terrorism, which is a common fight to all -- to the civilized order. i think the american people could be on board that program. iraq has not been in the election at all other than who did or did not support and when. that's a fairly, shall i say, mundane debate. the interests, if any, and i think there are of the united states have not been debated at all. i think there are significant american interests ensuring that iraq does not become a sort of sustainable environment for terrorism.

>> doctor, are you in agreement? it seemed to be what you are saying. there are impulses or proclivities on the ground to work in a way that would further u.s. interest if the united states would just change its posture. >> yeah. i think saying the american people don't have an appetite for engagement has been a bit of a copout for this administration, which is really saying we don't have the appetite for engagement. actually it's about explaining to the american people what the cost of disengagement are. if you want to disengage you need to have an honest conversation about the risks to american interest in the world are and what the risks are to the kind of global order we've managed to build up.

so, are we prepared to cede the middle east to russian leadership? is that something in our interest? are we prepared to leave iraq and syria without having achieved a genuine and sustainable defeat of isis. the other thing when you're talking about cost is a relatively modest military and diplomatic and political cost in the short run can actually save you an incredible military cost in the long run, when you let instability take root and take massive swaths of territory and threaten not just regional allies but allies across the world and your self at home. suddenly then the cost becomes much more significant. so it's about assessing the costs of disengagement and a relatively modest investment out front can really pay dividends over the long run. >> can i ask you about the russian factor?

if you were to answer those people who say -- which includes, i think, donald trump, that the russians broadly share our interest in defeating isis, why don't we bring down into the security architecture of the region and work with them because they, and a lot of people as well, believe that the iranian interests are in alignment with ours. how do you respond to that ?>> >> the issue is that the united states fundamentally disagrees with russia and iran on what the root causes of extremism are. we believe that extremism is driven by unrepresentative authoritarian political policies that exclude sections of the

population that are oppressed and drive people into the arms of extremists and make the extremist narrative more and more popular and appealing. whereas the russians and iranians look at this as a problem of control. the state wasn't able to exercise sufficient violence to be able to contain this extremist population. so their entire policy for defeating isis is just bombing the hell out of aleppo. it's just the use of force, and they have no political strategy at all for dealing with what the drivers of extremism are. that's where -- look, we've learned this lesson a really tough way. we've engaged in iraq. we've engaged in afghanistan. and you know, you cannot kill an insurgency. you have to transform an insurgency. you have to reduce the drivers that inspire people to join

these groups, and you have to give people political alternatives. that's why we're trying to invest in governance structures that can actually offer people the things that they demand from their politicians rather than just simply relying on a violence only strategy. >> ambassador, did you have a comment? >> two points. on the last one i'm not sure it's factually correct to say russians have been focused on isil to begin with. certainly in their first intervention, which began about a year ago and ended more or less in march-ish of 2016, they were, in fact, more or less targeting the members of the regime who are not isil. it's not even clear. it seems they bought into the strategy, russians did, of being able to say it's me or isil by allowing isil to sort of

survive. the other point the doctor got absolutely right is on the question of engagement and the false dichotomy that has been created by the administration in terms of engaging in iraq, you either send in 150,000 troops or you do nothing. this was your response in and 2011 the administration's response of what to do in syria and she's exactly right that by failing to calculate the cost of inaction we have far, seems to me, exacerbated the problem in syria. you have a similar calculus to make in iraq. what vladimir putin -- exactly what his strategy is is another story, today is another story. in the first russian intervention in syria, september, october 2015 that it and -- andnd it -- ended in march 2016, what

vladimir putin proved in that intervention at least is that it's possible for a foreign power to intervene with a limited strategic purpose to achieve that limited purpose at relatively low cost and to press the off button. the limited purpose, it seems to me, in that first intervention was to ensure assad did not fall. and he achieved that with virtually no significant losses in it, relatively minimal expense. again, you're far more experienced on military matters than i. that's a lesson i would have wished that those who always say, well, do you want 150,000 troops or remember vietnam in the u.s. administration i wish those people had learned that lesson a year ago. >> just to build on your point, there are others who say the use of military force is inherently counter-productive and also

refutes that argument as well, i think you'd agree. mike, i wonder if i could turn, we've got a few minutes left. everybody here flagged concern about iran in one way or another. i recently had a conversation with a very senior former military commander in iraq and discussed with him the role of iran in iraq. i posited the possibility that iran does not really want a unified iraq. it actually might be quite comfortable with a fragmented iraq and certainly an iraq in which the sunni areas are no longer really part of the political system. he, referencing other experts, dismissed this possibility out of hand.

it came back to me, one of the comments that the ambassador just made, about iranian interests. i wonder if you can discuss that a little bit. do you agree a fragmented weak iraq or assume they ultimately want to see a unified iraq. at least on that narrow area we have a shared interest. >> going back to 2014, i argued iran needs the threat of isis to stay in iraq. it needs the threat of isis to stay in syria. back to your point, the force is able to mobilize iraqi shia militias to go to syria. they didn't go to raqqah, they went to aleppo, other places, places that would shore up assad regime, go after u.s.backed

rebels. they were comfortable working with the air force already and some leader have actually asked russia be involved in the iraqi operations. fractured state in iraq. it wants to maintain leverage. one thing that kept al maliki and power was the threat of an al qaeda resurgence. it is always nice to say, keep me in power or they will come back. i don't believe that iran wants isis defeated in iraq, but i also believe it is balancing the political parties as they seek positions. if you just look at the motives, it's been to take over places, the sunni triangle, birth place of saddam hussein, take over

these places, punish in fallujah to protect shia fault line and allow everything else to just be pointed that way. >> to build up the militias, which they have influence over on the ground as opposed to unified iraqi military. >> they have influence in iraqi military as well. federal police, ministry of interior, they just wear uniforms. these militia members part of the hashd al-shaabi will brag i can wear the uniform of any military force on any given day. in many cases they have salaries from iraqi military and militias. at the end of the day they will break towards influence to nfrl shia political parties beholden now to tehran. >> mr. ambassador, do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. look, i collect maps.

and my oldest map, i think, is from the 16th century. i collect maps of the middle east. actually from iraq. my oldest from the 16th century. they got a little more expensive the farther back you go. i only have one from the 16th century. over the centuries you can see baghdad in one map will be part of the ottoman empire, next iranian, then the next it flips back. regimes, governments come and go and regimes interests remain the same. iraq is a battleground between great powers. it has been for centuries. with all respect to your senior former american commander, he ought to look at maps a little older than the ones the pentagon publishes today. these things have been going on in iraq for centuries. they will continue to do so, which goes back to my quoting robert frost about strong

fences. >> dr. eunice, do you want to address that or have anything else to say before i hand it over to the audience? >> i note a little caution about iranian intentions in iraq. i think that controlled chaos is maybe pretty beneficial. a situation where there's some uncertainty, a range of actors that all have a relationship with iran where you can kind of control outcomes is really beneficial for the iranian government. but actual disintegration of iraq is not at all in the iranian interest. the independence of kurdi -- of iraqi kurdistan has absolutely been a red line for the iranian government not least because this year we've seen a resurgence in the fighting in

territories, taking up arms again, and iranians suffering from their own separatist groups in their own kurdish region. the idea of having some separate sunni region in iraq that's supported by -- could be supported by saudi, see it as kind of talibanesque, that's not at all something iran is interested in seeing. >> but do you agree that that pre-2014 status quo of bombs going off in baghdad and creating uncertainty and some degree of chaos but not the threat of the total collapse of the state is in iranian interest? >> it's interesting because i think, 2013, i think the iranians would see as kind of the perfect state of iraq. but of course, you cannot have 2013 -- >> sorry, for our viewers at home, could you -- >> in 2013, you had a very

strong maliki government pretty -- that was pretty pretty shia dominated with marginalized kurdistan and marginalized sunni population. incredible iranian influence over the iraqi government. the problem is the iranians might think of that as their ideal, but you cannot have that without inevitable breakdown. can't have 2013 without 2014. i don't know if they have learned that lesson. >> not clear the iraq political class has learned that, either. >> that's fascinating. ok. with that, let's open it up to questions from our audience. the gentleman in the sport coat there with his hand up. could you stand up and wait for our intern? >> thank you. i'm an adviser to apec. my question is to follow up on what has been said on iranian influence not only for shiite militias, media, but government itself. i understand there's been a very

serious infiltration of iranian agents into various government agencies and security forces, intelligence. can you elaborate a bit more about what's going on? that's, i think, really threatening to iraq's future. >> and your question is to all of our panelists? >> yes. >> mike, why don't we start with you. >> my role in iraq, i was there from 2005-2010 in some capacity, was to look at the intelligence services, specifically iranian influence within those. the inis is what it was called at the time, basically former baathist intel service set up by the agency. it was very effective not only going after al qaeda but militias. the shia political party in iran , msnsa led by an iranian proxy.

it was set up to mirror that organization. once we took the hands off in 2010 after maliki won the election, ins went away and they replaced it. you had former intel guys that were baathists, because they had to be baathists to get a job at the time. these intelligence officers went to ground in some cases, left the country, in some cases may have even joined isis in the beginning stages when it was a rejection of what was happening. my biggest concern was i literally saw units flip in 2005, the sixth and ninth iraqi divisions had a healthy balance of 55% shia, 45% sunni where you didn't have to keep track of the numbers. it was an iraqi unit able to do things in baghdad. within a year when general dempsey was in charge of the

reintegration of shia militias, both of those divisions went to 95% or greater shia with heavy militia infiltration. the one thing i will say about security forces and intelligence services, the only kurds participating in the isis operation are peshmerga units. they used to be -- there used to be kurdish divisions, battalions, iraqi army units, that has gone away. there used to be sunni battalions, brigades, sunni divisions. that has gone away as well. now we have a follow force of 150,000 iraqi military, predominantly shia and hashd al-shaabi. that is 100,000 strong. and you have peshmerga outside of the ministry of defense, but still listens to it doing these operations. so the intelligence services, if you want to target, you go to kurdish intel services.

if you want a good target against isis, go to some of the shia intelligence services but you're likely to get sunni military, the whole neighborhood is isis, let's destroy that. that's what we've seen in ramadi and other places. i was very concerned about that, not only the change in the structure of the security forces but also the intelligence services. more importantly, the shia political party influence that kept that in place. >> mr. ambassador, any thoughts? >> one real quick thing. prime minister abadi inherited security apparatus. it's still in place. it's the same one. it didn't go away when maliki went away. palqui obvious photographed with i photographed with a radio talking to these very forces, moving them around trying to discredit prime minister abadi. >> so can we say maliki did not go away and that he has tied a body's hands. >> he has the luxury of in the

-- of not being accountable for any of the chaos yet controlling a lot of it. >> would you say he's as influential as abadi, more influential? >> more influential. abadi is maliki circa 2005. maliki was a compromised weak candidate. prime minister abadi is him. >> mr. ambassador, do you agree with that assessment? >> no. the prime minister is weak. he is weak. it is true. i think in distinction with al maliki, al abadi has his heart in the right place. he came in as a compromised candidate when the united states was pushing for other individuals who were unacceptable to parties outside the shia alliance, including

kurds and allawi, so it settled on prime minister abadi. this is a real problem. what maliki did when he first took over was to sort of expel from the secretary-generalship of the party. abadi should have done something like that to maliki with respect to the state of law and he didn't. that was a political mistake. a lot of kerfuffle going on, the beginning at least engineered by maliki. it's a real problem. i think it's part of the iranian game again to keep the state of iraq weak. to keep the politics of the state of iraq weak.

this is fundamentally, i think, i'm going to go broader than your question. this is fundamentally the question we have to ask. what we don't know is what are people fighting for? there are certainly rank and file -- the the rank and file of the popular mobilization units and iraqi army, iraqi security forces as said, are clearly fighting for iraq. but some are not. they are not fighting for a united iraq. they are fighting to protect political turf. they are fighting to protect baghdad and points south but not the unity of iraq. we have squandered, the united states have squandered, iraqis have squandered the last 2.5 years by focusing so exclusively on the military aspect of this and ignoring wholly the political aspect. the military is a necessary but not sufficient element without getting the political aspect right, the political environment right.

we'll be back in this situation in two years and three years and five years. >> would you like to weigh in? >> i just said on the iranian point, i think it's less helpful to think of this in terms of iranian infiltration as thinking about iranian utility. part of the reason why iran gets to be so influential is because they offer things to iraqi politicians and military access that are useful. money. they really are helpful in gathering the votes together and helping to influence other actors and helping to build an alliance so you can get whatever your project is through the iraqi parliament. they are very influential actors in iraq but they are willing to get down and dirty and engage with iraqi politics on the level of individual politicians. figuring out what they want. they like doing some great congressional lobbying. it's not that nefarious.

there are nefarious aspects to it. but we can compete. we choose not to. there are people who will happily take u.s. help instead in building an alliance to pass something through the iraqi parliament that we think is actually in the better interest of stability in iraq. >> yes, sir? >> i really enjoyed the discussion. bringing it back a little bit to the u.s. election. one of the candidates, donald trump, has specifically said that he would take the oil, if the u.s. is involved. how much play has this received in iraq, that you actually have a candidate that says if we're going to be involved we take the oil? >> dr. yoonis, do you want to

start? >> i think that's what iraquis have always thought they were doing. that's a bit of a problem when pr is so bad they can't differentiate between some outlandish idea and often constructive policy of actually been. that's on us for not making it very clear what we've been doing there. >> you mentioned in your comments that the iranian narrative about us is the one that dominates in iraq i wonder if you would give details how the iranians depict us? >> an iranian narrative of what the u.s. is doing in iraq is building its empire in the middle east so it can dominate and extract resources and to maintain american imperial domination over the world and that iran is the leader of the resistance access -- axis that world seeks to resist american

hedge money. -- american hegemony. oil domination has always been a part of that narrative. ordinary iraquis, oil rich cities, they don't see investment in their schools and health services and see sewage on the streets. they are not seeing that money. it's going somewhere. they don't know where. it happens to be going into the pockets of corrupt iraqi politicians, not coming to the u.s., but for ordinary citizens it hasn't a difference. >> public discourse in iraq is often a bit more subtle than it is in the united states. i suppose an iraqi reaction could be, well, we knew that but it really shouldn't be said in public. [laughter] >> any thoughts?

i'll get you on the next time around. sorry. >> thank you. i was wondering, you of all explain why u.s. policy is not working. i'm wondering what should u.s. policy be? specifically, should that include nationbuilding, would seem to be implied by several speakers? if it does imply troops, the immunity question. finally, which of the candidates is more likely to implement such a policy? >> mr. ambassador, do you want to take a shot at that? >> it does involve state building. here i will invoke famously what

reputedly was put at the feet of colin powell pottery barn rule, that the united states dismantled state of iraq when it was wholly unnecessary to do so in 2003. it was an idiotic decision, singularly the worst decision made in iraq, at least. it does involve that. so i think that that's a part and parcel. look, a place the united states refused to engage in state building when it seemed the mission was "accomplished" was in afghanistan when the russians finally withdrew. how did that work out for us? here we are in the heart of the middle east, in an oil rich state, which if i'm right, if it continues down the path it has been on, if it breaks up, it will break up into, as i think i said, another somalia, except this will be a somalia where some of the factions at least will be able to sell oil, smuggled oil on the market, which some are doing anyway. there is a united states interest. as to which candidate, i can't really answer that question, because i haven't heard either candidate address -- we have had

a dispute between the two candidates as to what their thoughts and views were in 2003 and whether they were right or wrong in 2003, but i have not heard what they would do in iraq. there's been minimal discussion about syria, but none that i'm aware of on iraq. i can't address that part of it. >> mike, do you have some thoughts? >> the most important part is a commitment to stay not as a military force, but a force that continues to put leverage and pressure on baghdad. to engage and do the right thing. we have a very patient enemy and there are very patient actors in the middle east. they don't operate on western clocks. you tell the taliban you're leaving in five years, the taliban says the day after they leave, we'll attack. same with al qaeda and isis, patient actors in the middle east. the best way for us to do anything, if we're going to send soldiers there and spend money there, is not to say we're going

to leave until something is accomplished. when i say that, trust is built to the point where u.s. leverage is continuous. it's not fleeting. >> a very dear friend of mine is a retired american general who always says on this question that with his kids, he never had an exit strategy. he had a long-term engagement strategy, which moderated as they got older. i think the analogy works pretty well in iraq. you can't treat iraq as you did in 2003, and certainly not with what you could have done but didn't when there were 150,000 troops, american troops there. but simply kicking them out the door and saying, well, i hope you don't starve in the streets hasn't worked terribly well. and it did not work in afghanistan. >> dr. younis. >> i would make the point we're

currently engaged in iraq with an international coalition that is doing heavy lifting, making significant contribution. mosul is liberated, -- it is about using the weight of the international community and the coalition that has been built up pretty painstakingly to support the goal of defeating isis, to persuade those actors to stay on board to stabilize the country. >> we passed over ed back there. >> yeah. i'm here at hudson, senior fellow. i would like to ask the ambassador if he could expand a bit on what he sees as the actual way of going about the state building project. you've mentioned that the

current constitution and current government is certainly weak and seems to be somewhat hanging on by its fingernails. one possible way of looking at the iraqi's fate in the future would be going down the regionalization route and say, ok, there will be a sunni region, as some sunnis were interested in before. maybe even more than one region in the shia area so basra has a greater sense of its ability to control its own future and so forth. that would be one way of trying to rebuild the iraqi state. i get the impression it's not your preferred way. i'm just wondering, do you have any other way of looking at the question of how to rebuild the iraqi state and what that would begin to look like. who are the people this would rest on? >> what you're talking about, the arrangement in iraq, which i

think may be gaining some traction. unfortunately, i will say in iraq. let me preface my remarks by saying that i understand that the kurdistan region of iraq, to the extent it remains in iraq, occupies a special status i'm -- and that i am not advocating the reintroduction of sort of the centralized state with respect to the krg. that's an important point to keep in mind. having said that, we have been in a phase, if i may use an analogy to the american -- to american history, in the articles of confederation phase where a government in baghdad

has been created, which is fundamentally devoid of all powers. it may -- it didn't work 250 years ago in a continent separated by two oceans from meddling neighbors. it is not working in the middle east in a country surrounded by hostile authorities -- powers, sorry. powers. i would say to the kurdish leadership, the greatest threat -- again, please keep in mind the prefatory remarks i made about the krg, i would say to kurdish leadership the greatest threat that the kurds have faced since 1991, but in any event

since 2003, was not from baghdad but from isil, which arose because of a weak state, weak at every level, including level of politics and the sort of political environment that i've spoken about. a baghdad that's too strong as was the case for too long under the rule and perhaps before i in baghdad that's too strong, as was the case for too long under baptist role and perhaps before, i understand is unacceptable to many players in iraq. but a baghdad that's too weak has resulted in 2014, and we're still dealing with that and potentially could be dealing for years with the consequences. there has to be an intermediate point. so a stronger -- we need a constitutional arrangement that creates a more cohesive state. that builds state institutions.

we have not only not built the physical infrastructure of the country since 2003, i'm talking about the part of baghdad -- part of iraq controlled by baghdad, i'm not talking about krg, before isil and before the crash of oil prices, there was a tremendous amount of building that i have seen myself. in the area south of krg, we've not built school, hospital since 2003. in addition, as a state we have stateilt a single institution over that period of time bringing us to this sad state we are in. i think you have to create a not a centralized federal government but a federal government that actually has some power, that actually can

act as a focus of cohesion and unity of the stage. is going to have to be the last word. >> we are already over time. for those of you with questions, you will have to wait until next time but i am sure our panelists will answer some of you after we conclude here. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> on the ballot in california on tuesday, issues from school funding and political spending to the death penalty, done ammunition sales and even a question on condoms required for poor and stars. joining us on the phone from

sacramento is the bureau chief for the l.a. times. us.k you for being with 17 questions. 17 propositions on the ballot. how long will it take for voters to cast their vote? longer than it has recently. california has had on ballots in the past but we have not had a statewide ballot this long in 16 years. we have a lot of new voters in california who i think will be surprised when they pull open this ballot. some are already voting by mail. it is a long ballot covering a number of issues, taxation, crime and punishment, some n iche issues. there is a lot of homework that california voters have to do. california voters like the direct democracy process. this could be a test of that affinity for it. >> john myers, highlight if you

could who is getting the most attention? >> at the top of that is proposition 64 which is the effort to legalize marijuana. colorado and washington state have gone and washington state have gone ahead of california. californians rejected the legally said -- legalization of pot in 2010. it was criticized as not being well thought out and did not have institutional support. this one is different. not only is it more thought out, it is a 17,000 word proposal to change the law and legalize marijuana but it has some pretty big backing. the state governor supports it. the cofounder of facebook and the founder of napster has put a lot of money into it from silicon valley. prop 64 is the marquee. after that, i would point to a couple of tax measures, and increase in the tobacco tax, an

extension of higher income tax rates on the most wealthy. there is also a measure to reform prison reform paroles championed by governor brown. i think those are really the focus of the campaign. as you said, there are 17. >> let me focus on some others including proposition 58 dealing with english proficiency. what is this about? education bilingual measure. a goes back to what california did in the late 1990's. california voters said they wanted to and bilingual education, english only for students learning english. this is a -- this is a reversal of that. a full undoing of what voters did about two decades ago. allowing school districts to make the decision to offer bilingual programs. california has changed.

the immigration face of california has become more nuanced. >> turning to proposition 62 dealing with the death penalty. on that question, what will voters decide? >> simply whether or not to make all capital punishment cases instead of life in prison including the more than 700 people on death row in california. there has not been an execution in 10 years. prop 62 would repeal the death penalty. it may not pass. california voters, even though they have changed their minds on a lot of things, this is a harder sell for them. they rejected the repeal of the death penalty if you years ago. >> and on proposition 67 which would ban plastic bags -- what is the issue there? >> these are the single use

plastic bags which environmental groups say are a big problem in waterways and in other places, including landfills. a lot of california cities are ready have their own bag ban. this measure would extend that to the entire state. some communicate he's -- some communities would feel a difference. part of the california direct democracy process. we now have a narrow definition of a referendum. this is a law that the legislature passed and the governor signed and this was the bag industry attempting to overturn it. they are asking the voters if they support the law or reject it. at this point, it looks like voters will want to uphold the law. >> let me focus on two more. proposition 53 gets into the weeds on the issue of revenue bonds. do voters fully understand what they need to decide and why voters should decide this issue and not elected officials.

answer the second part first. think california, we have a healthy tradition of activist who want a particular issue a particular way going directly to the voters. if you look at this list of 17 measures, a number of the proposals never came to the state legislature. as long as you have the money to file the document and gather voter signatures, you can get on the ballot. that is what happened to prop 53. you had one wealthy agribusiness industry who wants voters to have to approve more bond sales. arereview -- revenue bonds what this is about. it is an arcane topic for voters but voters in california typically like to say they want a voice and things. prop 53 would require them to approve large revenue bonds in the future. where this gets practical is what it might mean.

approve new have to financing for the high-speed rail project in california which had lost a lot of popularity. it might mean voters would have to approve the construction of a massive water project. that is a big deal. water in california. this could be the practical impacts of prop 53 even though it is a pretty arcane topic. >> does that also explain proposition 60 dealing with health requirements for adult film stars. >> it does in that it was not a proposal that the legislature heard. brought it this way or one of the issue to be dealt with. requires the use of condoms in the filming of adult movies and penalties for movie producers who do not follow those roles. this is spearheaded by an activist group in los angeles. think they need

to weigh in on this, we will find out after the ballots are counted on election night but it is a narrow proposal. it has gotten attention because it is an unusual topic. addition must some local communities have additional questions on the ballot which means it will take even more time for those voters to cast their ballots. >> exactly. in san francisco for example, you have an additional two dozen local ballot measures after the 17 statewide measures. the great question for political campaigns and political scientists is what do voters do when they are faced with that. do they get exhausted? do they vote no on everything? there is one theory that voters get more angry as they go down the list. it is difficult for a lot of campaigns to get attention in that and the oxygen has been

sucked out of the political season even here in california by the presidential campaign. we know who will win california on november 8 in the race for president but it has been hard for a lot of efforts to get attention. i do think that on tuesday night, that it will become of to see what voters will do. >> it will be quite a day on tuesday. john myers joins us from california. thank you for explaining this. >> you're welcome. unfoldan, where history daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today to your cable or satellite provider. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump made a campaign stop in hershey, pennsylvania and spoke for just under an hour.

the next welcome president of the united states, mr. donald j. trump. [cheering and applause] ♪

rump: this is amazing. unbelievable. thank you very much everybody. this is amazing. we have 7000 people outside trying to get in.

four days, we are going to win the great state of pennsylvania and we are going to win back the white house. we are going to win it back. unbelievable. look at this. maybe because i went to school in pennsylvania. maybe that is the reason. my kids went to school in pennsylvania. a smart place, pennsylvania. real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing obamacare. it has just been announced that the residents of pennsylvania are going to experience a massive, double-digit premium hike. no good. in the great state of arizona, where i just left, premiums are going up more then 116%.

pennsylvaniaes in are losing obamacare insurers next year. luck negotiating. it will be terminated. careill have great health at much less expense. you will be paying a fraction of what you are paying and you will get really good stuff. premiums are surging on obamacare. companies are leaving. insurers are fleeing and doctors are quitting. and adaptable's are through the roof. you have deductibles that are 12,000, 13,000. and yet hillary clinton wants to double down on obamacare and make it more expensive. she also wants, by the way, to raise your taxes very substantially. i am asking for your vote so we can repeal and replace obamacare and save health care for every

family in pennsylvania and our country. [cheers and applause] we're going to do it, folks. we are going to win pennsylvania big. i hear we set a new record for this building. and by the way, i didn't have to bring j. lo or jay-z, that's the only way she gets anybody, i'm here all by myself. i'm here all by myself. [applause] mr. trump: just me, no guitar, no piano. no nothing. -- weow what we do have all have great ideas and great vision for our country, that is what we have. i know we have two great

congressmen here, tom marino and lou barletta, where are they? no, we love them, they are great. real change remains restoring -- real change also means restoring honesty to our government. as you know, has anybody heard? just a little rumor. just a little rumor, i think a couple of your heard. -- i think a couple of you have heard. [chanting "locke her up"] trump: the fbi has reopened its terminal investigation into hillary clinton. they are also conducting a second criminal investigation into hillary's pay for play corruption at the state department.

last night it was just confirmed that the 650,000, can you believe that number? the e-mails they discovered include brand-new e-mails not previously seen by authorities, likely they will be classified information, loaded. however, the reports also show the political leadership at the department of justice is trying very hard, as hard as they can, to protect hillary clinton from the fbi. [booing] mr. trump: i salute the fbi for taking the steps. remember, john podesta, her top person said hillary clinton has bad instincts. wikileaks.

bernie sanders said she has that -- she has bad judgment. bad instinct and bad judgment, why are we letting her run for president? why is she running? bad instincts. sanders was running against or so he says that judgment. podesta was with her all the time and he puts in an e-mail that hillary has bad instincts, that is not who we want for president. then you have president obama, and set up getting jobs, instead of taking care of our military, instead of beating isis, he is out campaigning all the time. he should go back to the oval office and go to work. [applause] she created an illegal e-mail

server to shield her criminal activity and then she illegally destroyed 33,000 e-mails after receiving a congressional subpoena. the key word is after. so she gets the subpoena, but congressional subpoena, you don't get any better than that, and she said you better get rid of these. she said it was about the wedding and yoga, remember? 33,000. i have a feeling the 650,000 will do nicely. if she were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. this will go on for years, folks. if she ever got into the oval office, hillary and her special interests would rob our country blind.

my contract with the american voter begins with a plan to end government corruption. [applause] i want the entire corrupt washington establishment to hear the words we are all about to say, when we win on november 8, we are going to drain the swamp. [applause] mr. trump: i keep telling people, i hated that expression, it is so hokey, and then one group heard it and they went crazy, another group heard it, and we had a big rally in florida and they went crazy about it and now i love it, it is true. it is very accurate. at the core of my contract is my plan to bring back our jobs. the great state of pennsylvania has lost almost 40% of its manufacturing jobs since nafta, a deal signed by bill clinton and supported by crooked hillary

clinton. one of the most amazing statistics i've ever heard, something i thought was a typographical error, america has lost, not 700, not 7000, which i assumed it might be, has lost 70,000 factories since china entered the world trade organization, another bill clinton and hillary backed deal. we are living through the greatest job theft in the history of the world. tyco laid off workers in harrisburg and carlisle and moved their jobs to china, india and mexico.

ge conductivity laid off 102 workers in middletown and moved their jobs to china, vietnam and singapore. code i moved jobs to china. another laid off 145 workers and moved their jobs overseas. a trump administration will stop jobs from leaving america and we will stop the jobs from leaving pennsylvania. [applause] the theft of american prosperity will end, it is ending. if a company wants to fire their workers, leave pennsylvania, move to another country like mexico, which is taking so many of our companies, and ship their products back into the united states where we will soon have, by the way, a very strong and

powerful border. [applause] we will make them pay a 35% tax on those products coming in. [applause] you know what is going to happen, right? they're not leaving. and if they do, we will make a lot of money. but they won't leave, they won't leave. a trump administration will renegotiate nafta, and if we don't get the deal we want, we will terminate nafta and get a much, much, much better deal for our workers. we will also immediately stop the job killing transpacific partnership, another disaster in the making. as part of our plan to bring back jobs, we are going to lower

taxes on american businesses from 35% to 15%. [applause] we will massively cut taxes for the middle class, most importantly. and by the way, hillary clinton is going to raise taxes vary substantially. you saw that during the debate. who won the debates? [applause] she kept saying she is working on debate prep, for weeks, she is always working on debate prep. if she is from working on the stuff for 35 years, why does she needed debate prep? a week and a half before the debate, she was at her home, why isn't she leaving? she is working on debate prep, i felt guilty. how much did she have to learn? that was just an excuse to rest and go to sleep, believe me. by the way, to friends of mine,

and have to tell you, they are incredible -- i don't know where they are. a great couple, do you know about their son riley? are they around here somewhere? come up here if you can. do you mind? come on, tell the secret service, believe me they are ok to come up.

that would be the surprise of all time. these are incredible people, their son recently passed away in a horrible accident. he was the biggest supporter i had, a young guy, beautiful guy, a most popular person there was. he was just very special. if you would like to say a few words -- riley. he was their son. say a few words. [applause] >> this is for my son. we are from new jersey, a very small democratic town. we are registered independence and we vote for the person, not the party. my son was killed memorial day weekend coming home from the jersey shore on the garden state parkway.

my son was a late in life menopause baby, a gift from god, he was only 19 years old and my only son. i have three wonderful daughters. riley loved mr. trump. he was obsessed with mr. trump. [cheers and applause] when there were 17, he said mr. trump is the nominee. when there was one nominee, mr. trump, riley said mr. trump would be president. [cheers and applause]

in riley's obituary, mr. trump was mentioned because riley loved or loves mr. trump. his funeral was over 200 cars, he had very dedicated friends, there were signs, flags for mr. trump. riley's grave marker has mr. trump name on it because he loves america. [applause] a very good friend of my son's wrote mr. trump a letter expressing all about my son and asked mr. trump if he could just mention my son on the campaign trail because it would mean so much.

when mr. trump received the letter, he tweeted, god bless riley, and -- [applause] a motorcycle group put on facebook that they were donating a brick with riley's name on it for the wall. [cheers and applause] when mr. drum received the letter, he wrote us a very heart moving, personal letter regarding family and riley. we never expected to hear from mr. trump. we do not know him and he does not know us from adam. he does now. within weeks, within weeks of

the letter, we received a phone call from his office asking if we would take a phone call from mr. trump. [cheering] we were watching fox news and mr. trump was in florida. he was sweating profusely in an airport hangar complaining of 140 degree weather. we watched him leave the stage, and within minutes our phone rang. it was mr. trump. he is amazing. he spent a good amount of time on the phone and it was very personal, i will not share what said, but i will share that mr. trump said that if it costs

millions, he would give everything he owned if it would bring my riley back. [applause] what kind of man is this? what kind of man who is running for the highest office in our land, the president of the united states -- [applause] he takes out the time from his campaign to call us. god does bless us. now, all you mothers out there, i want you to put yourself in our shoes for one minute.

you fathers, too. i want you to please, please vote for mr. donald trump in my son's honor. please. [applause] she does a good job, doesn't she? [applause]

oh boy, i did not expect that. we will dedicate this evening to riley, ok? that takes courage. hard to go back to the economy after that, right? thank you, that was so beautiful. thank you. thank you. thank you. we will unleash american energy, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. we will put our miners back to work and our steel workers back to work.

you know what has happened to your state with respect to miners and steel workers, and hillary wants to do the opposite, we will put them back to work and they will be happier than ever before. my infrastructure plan will help places like the pennsylvania turnpike. it needs some help. we spent all these millions all over the place and we cannot fix potholes in the pennsylvania turnpike or anywhere else. our country is going to hell. unbelievable. you look at the infrastructure of our country. we will also rebuild our inner cities. they are so bad. the african-american community,

the hispanic community, people living in the inner cities have been treated so unfairly, they have been run for years by people with the wrong ideas. you can get shot walking to the store for a loaf of bread. they have the worst education and no jobs. you look at unemployment rates of african-american youth, you look at it, it is 58%. and i say, give me a chance, i will fix it. i actually go, what the hell do you have to lose? i will fix it, we will all fix it together. it will be a great thing, we have to fix it.

we are going to fix it, we are going to fix the inner cities. we will become a rich nation once again. but to be a rich nation, we must also be a safe nation. 550% increase in syrian refugees, and that is over and above the thousands and thousands that are right now pouring into our country under obama. her plan will import generations of terrorists, extremism and radicalism into your schools and throughout your communities. you know what is out there. when i am elected president, we will suspend the refugee program. [applause]

and we will keep radical islamic terrorists the hell out of our country. [applause] you know, standing and watching and looking at this incredible spirit to the tiny corners of the room. thousands and thousands of people outside watching big screens. anybody want to switch places with them? i say isn't it sad that the most dishonest people there are -- the media -- they don't show the crowd. it is sad. they never show the crowd. they never show the crowd. today, obama had a purpose and

-- obama had a protester. the protester, even though the protester we found out, wikileaks will pay $1500 to go into our rally and be violent, right? in chicago, they badly hurt policemen, other people. our people can take her of -- take care of themselves. when there is a protester, the only time the cameras go, the only time they pick out a protester is when it is a negative thing. obama today, in front of the much smaller crowd than this by

the way -- [laughter] there was a protester and what happened was they would number the cameras on him. they put the cameras on obama. he was talking to the protesters, screaming at them. if i spoke the way obama spoke to that protester, they would have said he became unhinged. you have to go back and study and see what happens. he spent so much time screaming at this protester and it was a disgrace. he should not be there. i would love to see them go outside -- this arena is massive. i would love to see them with the thousands and thousands of people. [applause]

look at the cameras. they do not move. they are right here. they do not move. they do not want to show it folks. they don't want to show it, but they aren't happy. they see the polls. we are leading in ohio, in iowa, in north carolina. we are leading in new hampshire. we are leading in florida. i think we are leading in the great state of pennsylvania. [applause] i love you, people.

you will go home and you will not see the crowds. hillary has 300 or 400 people. what a joke. a trump administration will secure and defend the border of the united states. we well build a great wall. build a great wall. [cheers] mr. trump: who is going to pay for the wall? 100%. they don't know it yet. honestly, they do know it.

i met with the president of mexico and we will have better relationships with them and china. we have a trade deficit with china of almost $500 billion a year. think of that the they told us we are building a massive fortress in the middle of the south china sea. we have no relationship with china and yet they rip us. the largest bank in the world and so many other things. we will have a great relationship. i am angry at our leaders for allowing so many different countries to rip us off.

that is who i am angry with. does anybody have any doubts? we will have a better relationship with most of these countries. they don't respect obama. we should not be doing that. we have to be working. we are better off if he does not work. we are better off we have received the first ever endorsement and it has been reported that as a result of our

open voters, violent cartels have spread to all 50 of our states. more than 90% of those arrested are here illegally, thank you very much. they are killing innocent americans. threatening schools and totally destroying communities. a government that will not protect its people is a government that is unworthy to lead. [applause] secretary of state hillary clinton allowed thousands and thousands of the most dangerous and violent criminals to go free because their home countries would not take them back. they bring them to their countries and very intelligently countries say we don't want those murderers, drug kings, gang members. they bring them in and the country is saying we were not taking them back. she was head of the state department and said bring them back.

we will never bring anybody back. if they come back, one year in jail. if they come back a second time -- five years in jail and 10 years in jail and they won't be coming back. very few. we capture them over and over. we let them go. there has to be consequences, folks. hillary supports open borders. strongly supports sanctuary cities like san francisco. kate was murdered by an illegal immigrant. this illegal immigrant was

deported at least five times. thousands of americans would be alive today if not for the open border policies of obama and clinton. this includes americans, like josh, whose mother i have gotten to know. josh was a student at a high school. he was murdered at the age of 17. his body was set on fire. he raped a young child. an illegal immigrant.

he had been arrested for aggravated assault numerous times. a trump administration will end this. we will protect american lives. we will cancel all federal funding for sanctuaries. immigration illegal and dismantle every last criminal cartel in this country. the local police know every one of these people. they have to put up with them

every day. when we win, you will have a government on your side fighting for your community and protecting your family. we will also repeal the obama, clinton defense sequester and rebuild our badly depleted military. that means new resources. i talk about mosul. we had mosul. it was the way we got out. we had it. it was all done, but clinton

and obama did that crazy get out. so they took mosul back. we were hearing about taking mosul back and i said whatever happened to the element of surprise? just so you understand -- who benefits by us getting mosul? the $1.7 billion in cash we gave these people, a number one terrorist nation. they humiliate the sailors and our country. not going to happen.

it will never happen with me. i promsie you. we go into mosul. we want to get isis leaders. if you want to get them, you don't talk about it. you get them and have the news conference later. whatever happened to the element of surprise? they are chopping off heads and doing things -- not since medieval times has anything like this happened. during this time, hillary is

saying -- what the hell did she let it hard for? isis is in 32 countries. we have people in leadership's that are grossly incompetent. we are going to change it fast. i'm honored to have the endorsement of more than 200 top generals and 22 medal of honor recipients. we had more people last night and tonight although if you include the people outside, we may have them.

hillary clinton brought death and disaster to iraq and empowered iran and unleashed isis. they have spent $6 trillion on wars in the middle east and now the middle east is in far worse shape and more dangerous than ever before. we send our troops to foreign countries to defend the borders but our politicians refuse to defend.

that will change on november 8. that will be a big day. a trump administration will never ever put the interest of the foreign country before the interests of our country. ever. all of the people of the united states, i say to you, it will be america first. >> usa, usa, usa.

mr. trump: it is time for change and time for new leadership. we need it. we just cannot have four years of obama because that is what we are getting if we do this. four more years, it is isis running rampant. no borders, bad jobs. you heard what happened just two days ago. it is a disaster. they are all bad jobs. it is no good, close. we cannot have it. can you imagine -- as all these great admirals last night. i saw these unbelievably brave recipients.

i said how would you feel to have clinton as your leader? can you imagine these people taking orders from her? think about what we could accomplish. we will have the biggest tax cut.

we will cancel every illegal obama executeive order, protect religous liberties. provide school choice and bring an end to common core. we are bringing our education local. support the incredible men and women of law enforcement. today in new york city, two policeman were horribly shot. on.oes on and on and our secondg to save amendment.

we will appoint justices to the united states supreme court who will uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. it is time to cut our ties with -- with theies failed policies of candidates past. we are the movement of the future. we are the movement of the future. this is a great movement. this is a movement that has never happened before in the history of our country. history, there has never been anything like it. i understand how the system .orks i understand it as well as anybody understands. i was on the other side. i was enjoying it very much. i love our country. and it can no longer work that way. longer have a

country. i went from being an insider to an outsider wow. i became a serious outsider. we are all outsiders and that is the way we like it. it is a movement like it has never been seen before. even dishonest people, they say some of them, say it is a single greatest political phenomenon they have ever seen in this country. [cheers] it is. that is why we cannot do anything that is going to stop it. we have to get out. pennsylvania, you are so important. penceody says if you win of mania, you are going to win -- if you win pennsylvania, you're going to win. pennsylvania!

[applause] we are doing great all over the state and i believe we will do well in philadelphia. i love philadelphia. don't disappoint us, philadelphia. we will do great things for philadelphia. there is so much about pennsylvania that is so important. get out november 8 and vote. we are fighting for every parent who lost their child to gangs and drugs and violence, we are fighting for every community whose jobs have been ripped out and shipped to other countries. we are fighting for every american who believes government should serve the people, not the donors and special interest groups. i am asking you to dream big because with your vote and can you believe this? we are just four days away. you will get the change you have been waiting for for your entire

lifetime and folks, it is not going to happen again. it is not going to happen in four years. this is it. this is it, folks. four years, it will never -- it will never, never ever happen again. last chance. together, we will make america wealthy again, we will make america strong again, we will make america safe again, we will make america great again. thank you, god bless you, everybody. go out and vote. thank you. ♪

>> ♪ you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes need ♪ht get what you ♪ i saw her today at the

reception a glass of wine in her hand herew she was gonna meet connection at her feet was her footloose man you can't always get what you want always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you might find needet what you down to the demonstration

to get my fair share of abuse we're going to vent our frustration ♪ look at the 2016 campaign advertising. we begin by looking at commercial ads aired by donald trump. after that, web videos produced by the hillary clinton campaign. mr. trump: our movement is about replacing a fair and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the american people. has trillionsent of dollars at stake in the selection. for those who control power in washington and the global special interest, they partner with these people that don't have your good in mind.

establishments trying to stop us, it is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have led our country drive. the political establishment has brought about the destruction of as factories and our jobs they flee to mexico, to china, to other countries around the world. structureobal power responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working-class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities. thing thatying -- can stop this corrupt machine as you.

the only force strong enough to save this country is us . people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment as you, the american >> the dish has touched off a firestorm. the shockwaves are global, political and financial. saudi arabia put nuclear weapons. >> donald trump saying he would allow russia to run roughshod over the east europeans. >> donald