david hadley: it does not, really. cia,he reason is that the although was originally conceived as something that is going to be working with all of these different agencies and a central hub for intelligence to work through, it pretty quickly gets directed more towards covert action, towards aggressive activity against communist nations or potential communist nations in the third world or the eastern block during the cold war. and i actually argue that a part of the reason for that change is the nature of the press coverage. reporters who support the mission of the cia, or who cannot talk about its activities, they kind of give a certain amount of cover to people who want the cia to be a more active and aggressive agency. time there is an event that happens that is somehow against u.s. interests, the cia in its early years is getting blamed. why did you protect us? and so there are riots in bogota in 1948 and those disrupt a conference that george marshall is at. the cia gets blamed for not projecting violence in bogot

hadley: yes. a lot of arguments about intelligence -- a lot of the questions, i should say, we first really start -- really start going during these investigations. the questions today, the church and pike committees are looking at the cia, the fbi, and the nsa. and they really recognized that the biggest threat in terms of, you know, potential violations , youivacy do come from know, increasing electronic committee case and. but they are all sharing this idea that surveillance does change things. that's knowing you are under surveillance will have an impact. and that by having a surveillance program against the looking at an type of vietnam war protesters under the belief that they might be influenced by some foreign power in order to, you know, to work against american interests -- that cia surveillance could be damaging to the free expression of ideas. the cia also was helped -- was not helped by the fact that the name of the program was called chaos. a very negative connotation, even though th

hadley arkes: apart from the notion of a free election? if somebody who does not vote says, i have never voted, why should i be under control of these laws? you --arkes: if you might be under control of a family, and you did not elect to be in that family, either. it is a question of by and large, if we are with a notion of the consent of the governed in a population, it is still quite legitimate to say, shouldn't there be some kind of test for people who are going to be exercising that franchise for others, governing their life? knowd we expect people to something about what they are doing, expect them to be literate? we could be very demanding about this. say,certain point, people you should not be voting to put costs on other people if you are not willing to support -- willing to pay taxes to support those policies were self. these are all arguable. you could cut it any number of ways. we seem to have arrived at a position that no, we will not make somebody's formal education a requirement. some people with more advanced degrees sometim

hadley, what about you? hadley: my story is similar. i was a computer programmer in rochester, new york, and i had been applying to government positions because i wanted a new challenge. it turned out my neighbor was an fbi agent. our wives had been talking. work got to him and he said, i heard you were looking for a job at the government. he said, would you like to be an agent with the bureau? i said, what do you guys do? his reply is -- it's the same thing. i did not grow up with knowledge of the fbi, law enforcement. i'm first generation. my family is from haiti. he explained it to me and i said, sign me up. by gods grace, six months later, i was at the academy, checking my bags in. just like you guys, i said, what have i got myself into? [laughter] hadley: at that time, i had three kids, and i left them with my wife. we now have seven. [laughter] jeff: that will be for next week's panel. balancing family and the fbi. that is next week's panel at the newseum. ok. hadley: by god's grace, my wife is my biggest advocate, cheerleader, an

hadley. can you pull your microphone closer, please? thank you. >> i've lost my testimony skills. i apologize. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. to provide context for today's hearing, i would like, if i may, to describe briefly what appears to me to have been the underlying dynamic that lead to the recent confrontation between the united states and iran in iraq. in the fall of last year, iraqi citizens across the company -- country demonstrated in massive numbers. they protested what they saw as the corruption, sectarianism and ineffectiveness of their government. they protested the overweaning influence that iran exercises in iraq both directly and through iranian-backed militias. at least two iranian consulates in iraq were attacked and burned. demonstrations even in the shia south called for iran to leave iraq, chanting, "out, out, iran." beginning last october, kataib hezbollah began a series escalating attacks on iraqi air bases hosting u.s. forces. i believe kat

hadley, what about you? hadley: my story is similar. i was a computer programmer in rochester, new york, and i had been applying to positions with the government because wanted a new challenge. it turned out my neighbor was an fbi agent. our wives had been talking, and my amazing wife about looking for government opportunities, and he came over and said, i heard you are looking for a job in the government. i said, i can write you guys code. that is what i love to do. he said, would you like to be an agent with the bureau? i said, what do you guys do? his reply is -- it's the same thing. i did not grow up with knowledge of the fbi, law enforcement. i'm first generation. my family is from haiti. he took the time to explain it to me. i said, sign me up. by god's grace, six months later, i was at the academy, checking my bags in. just like these guys, saying, what have i gotten myself into? [laughter] at that time, i had three kids, and i left them with my wife. we have multiplied now to [laughter] seven. jeff: that will be for next week's

hadley is a founding partner of the rice hadley group. he continues to serve his country and co-chairs a bipartisan senior working group of the united states institute of peace addressing american policy in the middle east. he's an extraordinary american. steve, thank you for taking the time to join us today. [ applause ] finally, the panel will be moderated by our own professor. for peace and development, ladies and gentlemen, i think you are in for an intellectual treat. thank you for attending. [ applause ] >> well, thank you very much mrs. sadat, and thank you dean townshend for your support. dr. brzezinski, mr. hadley, it's my pleasure to host you in my home institution. i know i usually see you in washington and all these other places. i know for some of you this may be the first time to come to maryland, so welcome and we really appreciate you taking the time to join us. i'm going to go ahead and start asking questions, but before i wanted to explain why you're surrounded by such beautiful art. if you notice, and dr. brzezinski, be

hadley? >> i haven't, but my colleagues have looked at that issue, and they've seen that in a context of a multi-payer system -- and i need to come back to that in a second -- that if you cut the compensation of providers, they provide less care. but the caveat is that was in the context of a relatively small change within the context of a multi-payer system. they had other places to go. it's hard to know exactly how that would play out in the context of moving to a single-payer system. >> but you would agree if you cut the incentives, you're not going to have the physicians getting into the field to practice their skill if you cut their pay. i mean does that make sense? >> in general we would expect that fewer people would enter the medical profession, and whether that would result in a shortage of services would depend on the incentives faced by the people who remain and also the extent to which we have foreign-trained doctors. >> you agree if there's a shortage of physicians, that would me

and the first thing i want to talk about is what i called hadley's dictum. steve hadley, in a different context, gave what i think is the fundamental insight about , which is,processes they have to actually suit how the president takes on information, and how they make decisions. is so beautiful, and what i and what i envy so much in listening to the interviews from all of these people. because the nsc found a way to make it possible for the president to make a very difficult, very political to rock decision. about talk a little bit the civil civil problem. which is the secretary of defense. i think it came up in several peoples comments. i'd don't agree that the process was clandestine. secretary rumsfeld knew that the review was going on, he declined to participate because he did not agree with revisiting the strategy. in fact, one of the things i was most shocking to me was, in the aftermath of the attack on the samarra mosque, that is the moment of realization for everybody in the administration. that the strategy is failing if we proceed on this course

the third point, hadley's dictum. what is different between 2003 and 2006 and comes through so beautifully and pointedly in the interviews is that the president took ownership of the process and the president took ownership of the outcome. josh bolton, the white house chief of staff said, the president i saw at those war meetings was noticeably different than the one i saw in every other context. this is before the surge. the white house chief of staff said the president was deferential to the military posey views. -- militaries views. -- military's views. he did not have the confidence and rigor of challenge that he had in other circumstances. the president was solicitous of the military's views. all of this is before the process of the nsc set in motion. i agree with the white house chief of staff josh bolton. steve hadley deserves the credit for making the process amenable to the president to get him wider apertures of information. megan and peter deserve a lot of credit in this as well. i struggle to think at diff

and the third point, hadley's diktum. what is different between 2003 and 2006 and comes through so beautifully and poignantly in the interviews is that the president took ownership of the process and the president took ownership of the outcome. right. josh bolton, the white house chief of staff, said the president i saw at those war meetings was to me noticeably different from the one i saw in every other context. this is before the surge. the white house chief of staff said that the president was differenten shall to the military views and didn't have the confidence and the rigor that he had in other circumstances. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the same thing. the president was not directive. he was solicitous of the process set in motion. and agree with the white house chief of staff josh bolton that steve hadley actually deserves the credit for making a process amenable to the president to get him wider information and megan and peter deserve a lot of credit in this as well. but i struggle to think tha

pauline steals ernest hemingway away from hadley. he divorced hadley after having a son, john, and he marries michelle. after that, they go to key west and come on board in march of 1928. he fell in love with fishing. he fell in love with clarity of his writing how fast he was producing work. he knocked out the first rough draft of "a farewell to arms" in two weeks at key west. he thought, i need to write here. i need to finish here. they found a house for sale and body or $8,000 in 1931 and pauline converted this hayloft into his first formal writing studio. prior to that time he wrote on table tops, coffee tables, bar tops, or tables and restaurants for this was his first formal office. hemingway was a very disciplined writer, regardless of his indulgences. he woke up every day at 6:00 a.m. and would cross an iron catwalk that connected the main mansion to the writing studio. he would write feverishly from 6:00 a.m. and noon at noon time there was only time to do one thing -- fish or go to sloppy joe's. whether he went fishing or w

we have players, including stephen hadley, who will be speaking tonight. a truly great public servant which the director of the nsc under bush, i say public servant in days when that meant something and it really mattered. we respected people who hold these types of positions. we look forward to hearing from him tonight. and i think without even leaving the stage, i will get the first panel underway so that we can start this. if i was a college professor, i would say, get your notepads out. we will start with our first panel, and i want to invite the panelists to come up to the stage. tim sale from the university of toronto is going to chair the panel and lead the discussion. he works on nato, who has been in the news quite a bit. meghan o'sullivan, the kirkpatrick professor at the kennedy school at harvard, an expert on north america, among other things, and one of the officials of the trilateral commission. and peter feaver, welcome back to the hilltop. he is a professor at duke and director of the grant staff strategy program and former white house offi

of the president and steve hadley in bringing people along. not by convincing them or bulldozing them but identifying legitimate concerns and ways in which they could be mitigated. >> i was smiling because my friend and former colleague would have paid you $20 not to ask that question. that is my personal hobby horse. my job on the nsa was to be a dilettante working on many issues where i had no academic bona fides. but on military action, that was something i did know something about. the only article i wrote while i was working at the nsc was an article for sam huntington. i remember steve was like -- you're not going to write an article while you are working for me. i said i had to do it. he read the article and said -- that is so boring, no one will read that. go ahead. [laughter] had a precommitment academic theory on how civil-military relations ought to go and it was different from the way that sam huntington thought it should go. then come in the process of trying to i remember structure it to the extent that i could in the direction t

when he was in paris he went with his life, hadley. they met in chicago, both working for newspapers of the time. he married her. she had a trust fund income of several hundred dollars a month in the 1920's. that afforded him to be able to live and basically do nothing but write and socialize. people highly criticized him for those years. all you are doing is writing and socializing, you don't really work. who he socialized with, picasso, fitzgerald, gertrude stein, they became known as the lost generation. yet the instinct of knowing who to hang with. he is there in paris and hadley and friends, a fashion editor for "vote" magazine -- "vogue." he divorced hadley after having his son john and he married pauline pfeiffer at the catholic church in paris. in the celtic key west via an ocean liner and they come aboard in march of 1928. here he fell 11 fishing. he fell in love with the clarity of his writing, how fast he was producing the work. he knocked out the first rough draft of "a farewell to arms" in two weeks after arriving in key w

hadley shows this is a blurry distinction between policy and scholarship. you both are great examples of this. you have incredible academic training we had better academic careers but also your policy experience. could you talk about how we bridge that gap, whether we should bridge that gap? what academic scholars can bring to policymaking and what policymakers can bring to academia? >> okay. so, i thought one of the most revealing moments in the project was a statement made by dick that who is a dear friend and really distinguished scholar at columbia civil military operations. among other things he's really one of the giants in my personal area fields of study. and, we were at a workshop. we will work shopping his chapter. he and i were arguing over a statement or something. he revealed how much of a struggle it was for him to wrestle with these issues. in part because himself have been shaped by a scholar in the wake of the vietnam war. he was one of the first generation of scholars just as the vietnam was ending in the mid-to-late 70s. and of course hav

hadley here at the mansion. mrs. hadley was one of the youngest first ladies that lived here at the mansion. however, she chose to wait and have her portrait painted years later when she was in her 60s. the story is that her son john hadley did come in and see the mansion years later and remarked that he wishes mother had not waited until she was so much older to have her portrait painted and wished she had chosen a dress that did not look like a nightgown. mrs. hadley lived here at the mansion when in february 1911 lightning struck the old capitol building and it burned and she and her children were upstairs squadled in blankets watching in horror as the fire burned down the capitol building. this is a portrait of mrs. carolyn bond. carolyn bond was really important to the mansion in what she did and provided for all of us. in 1973 she opened the mansion to public tours trying to make the mansion available to all the people and children of missouri. we have around 70,000 visitors annually and the s doens have so far

the third thing i want to talk about is hadley's dictum.steve hadley, and a different context, gave a fundamental insight about government processes. they have to actually suit how the president takes on information and how they make decisions. that is what is so beautiful. let me talk a little bit about these. i don't agree that the process was clandestine. secretary rumsfeld knew the review was going on. one of the most things that was most shocking to me was in the aftermath of the samara mosque moment ofat is the realization for everyone in the administration that the strategy is failing. the secretary had a reaction that was an affirmation of the nature of the struggle, not that the strategy is failing. that is a window into why secretary rumsfeld was such an impediment to getting the strategy right. his fundamental job is translating the president's political objectives into military plans. much of the failure sits at his feet. condi rice says in interviews that they plan for the invasion was inadequately resourced. the secretary of d

hadley. thank you for your time today. your statement will be part of the formal record. make sure that mic is on and talk directly into it, if if you would. >> chairman womack, ranking member yarmouth, members of the committ committee. thank you for inviting me and my colleagues here today to talk about cbo's forecasts baseline cost estimates the house and senate budget committees are the scorekeepers for the congress crafting the budgetary rules. cbo prepares its forecast and baseline and cost estimates to help the budgetary committees carry out those duties. some people think the cbo makes the rules that we follow, but, in fact, most of the rules that govern the production of those products are set in statute. others come from house and senate rules, budget resolutions and the conference reports accompanied legislation. still others are in conjunction with the budget committee directly. some of the rules require cbo s develop estimates using specified assumptions. when that happens, cbo al

steve hadley is the editor of hand off. he's best known as a national security adviser, the second term of the george w. bush administration, and a capacity, the presidents way of foreign policy who directed the national security staff and ran the inter agency national security policy process. these days, steve serves on the national security advisory panel, the director of six central intelligence, department of the defense policy board and the board of the u.s. institute. steve, welcome back to the wilson center, it's good to have you here. [applause] >>, thank you very much, and thank you for putting this program together. let me start a bit on the beginning, which is the spring of 2008, president bush called in josh bolton's chief of staff and said, whoever follows me and to this office has a big challenge. we've got a war in iraq, a war in afghanistan, got the terrorism threat, and that was before we headed into the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression. what the president told josh is that he

speaker hadley is one of these. mr.eaker, i value your friendship and all the advice you have given not only with regard to the work of the legislature but also the invaluable advice you have given to the chicago cubs. thank you very much for your service to our state. [ applause ] again, thank you for your leadership. and ten more of your colleagues are going to be leaving at the end of the year as well. can you please stand so we can recognize you? senator dave bloomfield. [ applause ] senator kathy campbell. [ applause ] senator colby coash. senator tonya cook. senator mike lore. senator ken har. senator heath miller. senator bowe mccoy. senator ken shills. senator kate sullivan. [ applause ] thank you all very, very much for your service to our state. [ applause ] once again, our family here in the state capitol will have its moments of the session, no doubt. but i know when the ice thaws, the snow melts, the sports fans, including speaker hadley return to baseball, we will have accomplished much in this session for

churchill and hadley knew one another and hadley served with churchill in the cabinet during the war. churchill was asked of all the labor prime ministers who is, in fact, your most favorite. he cites hadley. so they remained cordial of course. hadley knew that churchill was coming to fulton in the united states to make this speech. ultimately winston churchill is vindicated in large measure because of rejuvenation in his political career in the iron curtain speech in zurich. by 1951 in the general election his party wins and he's prime minister for a second time in 1951 to '55 and is now again at the helm as the cold war is waging. so he lost in 1945. in some ways it permits him to say things like he said as a private citizen, if you will, though he's still the leader of the opposition. he rehabilitates his career as he did so many times during his young life. when he stood for election in 1951, he's back at the helm. if there's anything about winston churchill that we can admire, you can knock him down, but he'll always get back up. his perseverance and resolve is extraordinary, ext

although steve hadley said that he thinks some of the american people are becoming french. i was a little disturbed to hear that. with that, let me turn now to this extraordinary panel of experts and introduce them to you. first, let me tell you what we've asked them to reflect on and you'll find a remarkable similarity to the other themes of this conversation. this isn't every r everything we asked them to do. this is give you a feel for the kinds of things we asked them to give some thought to. where a free and fair democratic system would make resume for all religious actors is best for egypt and the other arab spring countries in the long run? second, whether a regime of robust religious freedom which we practice is an essential component of religious democracy, whether robust religious freedom is likely to moderate the liberal radicalism of some of the religious actors or is it to the contrary more likely to unleash the liberal radicalism? and then finally, here we move back into the area that we just discussed a bit in our keynote conversation, how can u.s. foreign po

stephen hadley former national security adviser during the george w. bush administration mod rates this hour-long event. >> good morning, everyone. good morning. my name is nancy lindborg, i am the president of the u.s. institute of peace and i'm pleased to be able to welcome everybody this morning for a very special program. i'm glad the weather cooperated to let us continue with this morning. welcome to everyone who braved the sort of pseudo weather event to joining us this morning. we are pleased to see the members of our international advisory council and welcome to those who are joining us by webcast. as many of you know, usip was founded in 1984 by congress, dedicated to the proposition that peace is a very practical undertaking, that it is absolutely essential for our global security and that it is eminently possible. so usip works with partners in conflict affected countries around the world with governments, civil society leaders, women and youth to equip them with the kind of tools and learnings and information that enables them to work to pr

hadley on responding to some of your questions that you may have. to understand the peace offer that president generously made last month, let me first provide the context. three things are important in that context. number one is the threat that we are commonly faced with. this threat imnates comes from criminal networks and state sponsored of terrorists. it's not just a threat against afghanistan. it's a threat against the region, and by extension against the entire global community. so the starting point for our discussion, when we analyze the situation in the region, we must understand that this is a common threat from a common enemy which calls f calls for a shared mission and responsibility. it's not just the taliban and the other network we are fighting. increasingly we see foreign fighters associated with at least three categories of terrorist networks. the global terrorist networks, such as al qaeda, isis, the regional terrorists such as imu, atim from central asia and china, and pakistanial terrorists such as taliban and pakistan and moham

we would sometimes write reports and go see steve hadley. steve, this was before we started the formal review, are you guys sure about this? we said we have really done the work and talked to all these people and this is months of work. we are sure. and i never knew where you stood until the very end, because you held your cards very close. the only time i had ever heard steve say about word, he said you better be damn sure, because think about what you are asking the president to do. and he was right. and steve not only drove us, he drove the entire interagency once we began the review. so if we did this, we were all certain that this was the right thing to do. and i feel that that was the right process. i have concluded after working in three administrations that these decisions of war and peace, the model is the surge review. and it is the opposite of what we are seeing now. the night the president made the speech on january 7, we were in steve hadley's office, myself, i think megan, and we watched the speech on tv. we had done a poll wit

, steve hadley, national security adviser. very well. condi i'd worked together on the bush 41 nsc when i was deputy security adviser and and i had, as i said, i had known steve since 1974. so i was going in to work with a couple of people that i really knew well and knew. there be any backstabbing, knew that we would work together productively as a team. one of the things that i was committed to that would be easy with condi was. i, i had observed over much of my career, most of my career, the secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, not didn't get along mostly, didn't like other and sometimes really hated each other and and often were not even on speaking terms and and so i was determined and. i've always felt that poorly served the president. so i was the term and condy and i would have a positive working relationship i also had the other my other approach to it was you when you're the secretary of defense you never have elbow your way to the table. you got all the people, all the money and all the want all the weapons

the third point, hadley's dictum. what's different between 2003 and 2006, comes so beautifully and poignantly in the interviews, is that the president took ownership of the process and the president took ownership of the outcome. josh bolton, the white house chief of staff, says the president i saw on those war meetings was, to me, noticeably different from the one i saw on every other context. this is before the surge. the white house chief of staff says that the president was differential to the military's views, that he didn't have the confidence and the rigor of challenge that he had in other circumstances. the chairman of the joint chief of staff says the same thing, that the president was not directive, he was solicited of the military use. all of this is before the process that the nsc set in motion. i agree with the white house chief of staff, john bolton that steve hadley actually deserves the credit of making a process amenable to the president to make -- get him wider aperture's of information and make it i

steve hadley is the editor of handoff. he is best known as national security adviser second term of the george w. bush administration. he was the president white house foreign policy advisor, he directed the national security council staff and ran the national security policy process. these days, among many other roles come he serves as the national security advisory panel for the director of central diligence -- intelligence, department of defense policy board and the u.s. institute of peace. welcome back to the wilson center. it is good to have you back here. [applause] steve: thanks for putting this program together. let me start beginning on this book, which is the spring of 2008, president bush called in his chief of staff and said, whoever follows me in this office has a big challenge. we have a war in iraq, afghanistan, the terrorism threat. that was before we were headed into the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression. what the president told josh come he wanted the upcoming transition to be