biological weapons, chemical weapons.never rid the world of the knowledge, but with a system of adequate verification, and inspection regime which will be very intrusive, and in an international enforcement mechanism, you are not going to be able to remove knowledge, but we believe, we are actually working on this as a high priority between now and our next commission meeting to elaborate, both a verification and an enforcement mechanism, would be capable not only of detecting any cheating but dealing with it. yes? >> i am with the washington post, conflict analysis at george mason university and abolition 2000. >> you have 3 business cards. >> they don't read them. >> this response to the other question, as a parallel process, as a complementary and supported process to bodies of knowledge and public transformation and second order change, this is wonderful work and i appreciate the publicity and imagery that you are doing. what about the enemy's? the body of knowledge in the field of conflict analysis and other processe

biological weapons, chemical weapons. there are, i think you never read the world of the knowledge. with a system of adequate verification of an inspection regime which would be very interested and in an international enforcement mechanism, you will not be able to remove knowledge. we believe and are working on this as a high priority between now and our next meeting, to be able to elaborate both a verification and an enforcement mechanism that would be capable of not only detecting any cheating but dealing with it. yes. >> i am diane. i am with "huffington post." >> you have. business cards. >> i have more than that. they do not pay me. this is in response to the other question. as a complementary and support process, and what is known as second order change, this is wonderful work. i appreciate the publicity and the imagery that you are doing. people asked about the enemies. there are fields of conflict analysis. there are other processes we could do also and not have to resort to think to resort to war. we can come up with nonviolent strategy is to work on the underlying issues a

not for weapons. north korea has change their course on that and many people believe that iran will. this treaty didn't exist until the early 1970's. host: the language of the wmd commission, the recommendation was that the next in ministration -- administration must drop the iran and north korea nuclear weapons program. guest: i think that is very important. we need the ability to defend ourself. 10 years ago, we had six countries with nuclear weapons, today we have nine and perhaps a 10th one, iran, knocking on the door. that is a critical issue. the iranian one is critical. no. 3 is difficult. the bush administration has tried to negotiate with them. host: north carolina on our democrats line. caller: about this terrorism thing, with this thing about north korea. when clinton was in the chair he made it clear to north korea that they would not get a nuclear bomb. he said we will newt you guys. when push came in the chair -- bush came in, he let them get the bomb. they have been talking for years. c

of nuclear weapons. we chinese, we believe nuclear-weapons have been created by human beings. one day, human beings know how to destroy it the nuclear arsenal. this is our goal. since 1964, china was proposing that to the world. we suggest to convened a global assemblage to discussed that, to reach the sort of agreement, then to ban forever nuclear weapons, destroy all nuclear weapons, so this idea, global zero, coincides with china's sinking. second point, we are living -- how to deal with the threat, the threat is felt not only by developed countries but by developing countries. we believe in that way, if we move toward global zero, a very positive move, as ambassador burt said, that makes the roads a fair. that is why, in my personal capacity, thank you. >> yes? >> according to -- you recommend united states to reduce the number of -- to 1,000. what brought you to this particular number? any particular reason? and one more question, if you look at the situation, the discussion that is going on in the

is iran closer to a nuclear weapon? how many more nuclear weapons has china built since 2001? these are all questions that must be answered. and the needs of our allies must be understood in this context. they are similarly concerned about the size of our deterrent as i noted before. we must engage in consultations with each of them about what u.s. nuclear force posture assures them of their security not what we think should assure them. and, we must understand what threats they need to deter for their security. we must understand whether they are concerned about russia's tactical nuclear weapons which russia insists absolutely cannot be discussed. if so, how do further u.s. strategic nuclear reductions affect the balance of forces between the hundreds oftant tall nuclear weapons the u.s. possesses versus several thousand nuclear weapons russia possesses. equally concerning is the fact the cart appears to be before the horse. i mean it appears we may be presented with a start follow on that compels a new nuclear posture with significant reductions. it does not explain how that

weapons. none the nonetheless it remains as it unfolds they move closer to the edge by the inevitability of the program by its technological dynamics. so even if they are not seeking nuclear weapons they are certainly moving closer to having the capability eventually of having nuclear weapons. that distinction however has to be kept in mind we are negotiating with someone who is in fact asserting they are not seeking nuclear weapons and we are not in a position definitively. we have conclusive evidence. that certainly complicates the negotiating process. it raises the question how do we negotiate, how do we negotiate on the subject? i think there is a school of thought some people are advocating with different degrees of commitment and degree in favor of insisting on some sort of preconditions perhaps the iranians ought to in some fashion make an act of goodwill regarding their enrichment or something to that effect. there is certainly morrill, is negotiating that we should move into the proce

we want nuclear-weapons, we are seeking nuclear weapons, and now we have nuclear weapons. that makes it much tougher to negotiate about an arrangement which includes nuclear weapons. the iranians are out of their seat, but maybe they are saying we are not building nuclear weapons, we don't have nuclear- weapons, our religion forbids us to have nuclear weapons. that provides a point of departure, saying to them, this is reassuring, but we have some legitimate doubts to question the degree of your commitment to these propositions. one might even be applied and say we have some reservations about your veracity, but let us use this as a point of departure anaiming at establishing a arrangements that give us reason to take these assertions as the truth. that then gets us into the discussion of what is still feasible in that regard. in fact, halting iranian enrichment is pretty much overdue, because they have advanced so far. the opportunity to negotiate with them have been wasted. perhaps that issue could have been addressed earlier when there enrichment program was at the very

we believe that weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons cannot be a source of security they pose a threat to the state, and a threat to this other states as well. therefore, we believe that the world will not enjoy security until we managed to eliminate all the stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions. in all states. and there are no nuclear weapons should refrain from trying to acquire them. proceeding from this, libya programs of weapons of mass destruction under the vision, libya is a party to making africa nuclear weapons free zone. it looks to the establishment of a nuclear weapon in the middle east region. we believe that the international community has wasted a precious opportunity that would encourage other states to get rid of weapons of mass destruction have libya began properly rewarded, and had necessary assistance given, particularly with regard with water -- to water desalinization, and the production of energy. the international community failed necessary and some of at the proper time to dprk, it did not make use of the situation of libya in a correct

we want nuclear weapons. we are seeking nuclear weapons. and, in your face, ha, ha, we have nuclear weapons. that makes it much tougher to negotiate, about an arrangement which excludes nuclear weapons. the iranians, perhaps out of the -- deceit, but, programs, in part at least truth fully are saying we're not building nuclear weapons, don't have nuclear weapons and our religion forbids nuclear weapons and in parted that says this is reassuring but we have legitimate doubts to question the degree of your commitment to these propositions, and one may even be more impolite and say we have reservations about your veracity, but, let us use this as a points of departure, aim establishing bona fide rangerments to take these assertions as the truth and that then gets us into a discussion of what is still feasible in that regard. in fact halting uranium enrichment is now pretty much overdue because i have advanced so far and the opportunities to negotiate with them have been wasted, perhaps that issue could be addressed earlier. when their enrichme

he started planning to gather in large cache of huge weapons, all kinds of weapons.the reason he was doing that was because of the soviet union was caught trying to get ahead and they were ahead. they started getting ahead of us in december 9th and by the time he took office they were way ahead and kept going further ahead. some people wondered why he didn't sit down and talk with them and his attitude was i will sit down with them when we have arms ready to go and that is what he did. he got enough strong weapons with him and finally said, look, you want to sit and talk let's do it. now, while he was doing that a lot of people got the wrong idea. i think that's it, but then when it turned around and went the other way i remember any of those people saying he had the right away. the summit else want to try something to? >> thank you. president obama right now has mentioned the desire to eliminate nuclear weapons and that kind of scares me. a country like israel without a clear weapons would be at the mercy of what ever happened to them, a lot of countries out there w

he started putting together a large cache of huge weapons, all kinds of weapons. the reason he was doing that was because the soviet union was trying to get ahead of us and they were ahead of us. they started getting ahead of us inecember 9th and by the time he took office, they were way ahead and they keep getting further ahead. some people wondered why he didn't sit down and talk with them. his attitude was i will sit down with themhen we have arms ready to go and that is what he did. he got enough strong weapons with him, he said you want to sit and talk? let's do it. while he was doing that, a lot of people got a wrong idea. but when it turned around and went the other way, i don't remember any of those people saying he went right way. you are right. somebody else want to try something? >> thank you. president obama has mentioned the desire to 11 nuclear-weapons, and that scares me. that would leave israel defenses, we can't trust south korea. did china eliminate all nuclear weapons? with his desire to do that, something obama could use to launch his campaign?

they will not be served by possession of a nuclear weapon. the last point i will make on iran, the supreme leader has said we don't want nuclear weapons. that is not what we are pursuing. i am happy to hope that that is true, but in international relations i cannot just based things on hope, especially when you see actions to the contrary. one of my famous predecessors, ronald reagan, said it pretty well when he said trust but verify. we're not even to the point yet where we are having those conversations with the iranians, but ultimately if in fact iran does not seek nuclear weapons, then it should not be that hard for us to have a series of negotiations in which the international community feels that confidence, and in which iran is able to is able to enjoy a whole host of economic and political benefits and gain some must -- gains much greater legitimacy in all of its other endeavors. >> thank you.

as i told you, the how to control the weapon program, nuclear weapon program, how to control the ballistic missile program, there are two aspects. to stop the flow of materials goods which are needed for this, but also the flow of those things which means of obtaining finances for the nuclear weapons program. that's one thing. but also the flow of financial resources is also very important. so there are two aspects here. the continuing flow of the goods and supplies, and the financial resurses. and the financial resources is new in this area. but to go back to the inspection regime. there are several areas of inspection regime, primarily it would take place in territories or inspecting countries. ports, airports, and border control. all these places. i think this is according to this national regime and others is very clear. and the important thing is that all countries, including those countries like china and russia has agreed to this language of how -- the inspections. so long as there is good information of the suspishes programs for this prohibited activity contained in the cargo. >>

increasingly concerned about iran's growing power in the region, the possibility that iran may have nuclear weapons, the possibility that iran will continue to expand, and it has hezbollah allied with hamas in lebanon growing in power. it has hamas increasingly as a proxy on one side of israel. it has syria as a client state. is there any sense that egypt and perhaps even saudi arabia and some of the gulf states at this point would functionally ally themselves with israel against iran or is it that the enemy of my enemy can be useful but that doesn't make him my friend? .. i done of i completely by ed wood made that cover, i think it would be more of a fig leaf or anything but we know where their feelings are on the prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon and do whatever they can two hopefully for iran from achieving. >> i want to look for questions out there and make sure you have a microphone before you start to talk in moscow right over here if we can, start here. >> i have two questions. and the first is can you give some background on the fatah hamas negotiations sponsored by egypt which have be

testing to deliver that kind of nuclear weapon, that is a major concern. it is also the transfer of that technology or weapons to terrorist organizations or to nonstate actors that have to be a major concern. i heard you in response to senator kerry's question, talk about potential sanctions that would block the export of weapons. i really want to get a sense from you as to how effective we can be to make sure that type of technology is not exported to terrorist organizations or non state actors. >> we will do everything possible to monitor that situation. if we believe that there is evidence or an indication of proliferating activities, we will respond in a very strong fashion. this is a very difficult thing to do, obviously. it is one of the major reasons, not the only reason, but one of the reasons for the obama administration, the ultimate goal remains verifiable denuclearization, if the korean peninsula is denuclearization, there's no risk of proliferation, but we are not prepared and never will be prepared for a policy which only concentrates on prol

world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism will soon or eventually have one of the most terrifying weapons, and the basis of this special report is that we think the united states should do a lot more to prevent this disaster from unfolding and if iran does attain nuclear weapons, to take converted action with allies to contain and deter it. very quickly we realized it's not just the iran program in isolation, but as ilan said once iran opens this door, this pandora's box, there will be a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the middle east, and that's not exactly the most stable region to begin with. so i'll just quickly coover the ten recommendations we came up with in this report, and if you're watching at home it's available on our web site and also in our iran briefing room which is a web site attached to the heritage.org web site. our first recommendation was to adopt a protect and defend strategy aimed at neutralizing iran's nuclear deter rent. we need to strengthen deter reasons against the threat once it emerges by deploying enhanced missile defenses, especially to our allies in th

the plan would counter runs withiiran's weapon quest.t is part of a strategy to stop iran from obtaining nuclear weapons -- president obama plans to seek the creation of the first-ever international supply of uranium that would allow patients to obtain fuel for civilian nuclear reactors to limit the capacity to make bombs. "the new york times" has a story about "the boston globe" and their efforts to stay afloat. members of labor unions -- months of labor acrimony at the paper will come to a head today when members of the newspapers' largest union are to vote on deep cuts in wages, benefits and job security. if employees rejected it will cut their pay 23%. the union has vowed to challenge a unilateral reduction with federal regulators though it may not be able to block one from taking effect. that raises the prospect of continued conflict with the globe's owner "the new york times." caller: i am an old veteran from the korean war. i remember something that others do not seem to remember -- korea was cut in half of the 30th parallel by st

by the united states in the international community that it is now in nuclear weapons state. i am drawn to this conclusion because of statements officials have made to me over the last year and to virtually every american visitor to pyongyang. it is also based on the dprk's public utterances and actions with respect to its nuclear weapons capability. i'm delighted to have heard so many references to former secretary of defense perry's comments with respect to dealing with north korea as it is. i accompanied dr. perry on his historic visit and i could not agree with that assessment more for good dealing with north korea as it is we are faced with the following. jetsons the beginning of this year north korea has abrogated the 1991 north-south denuclearization accords, outsit iab instructions and walked out of the six-party talks and begun to restart its nuclear facilities ed pyongyang and is conducted yet another nuclear test and it has done so in contravention of its own formal commitments to denuclearized. the obama administration's response to this is then measured in, but f

seized cash, weapons, real estate, vehicles, the f.b.i. officials say that this ring allegedly distributed $22 million in cocaine. ironically there was not a mainly press event regarding the drug sweeps on which the attorney general addressed the media. and i guess what i'm saying, i know you well, we've been friends all these years, i have great respect for you, we may

guest: concerning weapons of mass destruction, clearly that is misjudgment.bush and all the other officials will have to continue to address that misjudgment of the weapons of mass destruction. donald rumsfeld did believe that report. of all the senior officials if he should have known better or at least question that intelligence more aggressively than he did. he tried to warn against believing too much in the conventional wisdom, not challenging enough assumptions and intelligence reports. he was very fond of disturbing to people the preface of a book on pearl harbor which warns against falling into this kind of conventional thinking and not challenging conventional wisdom sufficiently, and yet here was a case where rumsfeld himself did not seem to question is enough. host: moments ago we showed the picture it from your books of his meeting saddam hussein. guest: the meeting occurred in december 1983 when he says served as a presidential envoy richard when he served as the convoy president reagan to the middle east. he was instructed by the reagan administr

he was talking about weapons of mass destruction. boo, you all get scared. he participated in the writing of the document called "project for a new american century suzy which basically said we should dominate the middle east -- anything less than that pearl harbor type of event would not be enough to motivate america to go off and meet that agenda. guest: donald rumsfeld did not fire a general shensecky. actually, he did not fire any general. he only fired tom white, the army secretary. a number of people feel ihe should have fired more people. his successor bob gates has dismissed six senior officials. he did pull the rug out from under shensecky by allowing were to be publicized 18 months early of who he would be replaced with at the end of his term, but shensecky was allowed to serve out his term. it is no question there were many strains between donald rumsfeld and the the general, between other members of the joint chiefs of staff. they resented being sidelined by donald rumsfeld who could be very domineering. a number of four-car officers and other of

or elements of weapons of mass destruction to iraq or anybody else. so far there are no proceeds of this book to give to anybody. i do want to say though that a number of the calls understandably sound very critical of rumsfeld and i understand that and i think my book overall is quite critical and quite a tough on rumsfeld but it does attempt to provide a kind of a nuanced view of him because he is a complicated character and i think it's important to understand where he was responsible for things alone where there was responsibility to be blamed to be shared and where in some cases maybe he really wasn't the key person responsible. >> host: bradley graham's new book, "by his own rules" goes on sale today. thanks for joining us this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me. >>> bradley graham is a military foreign affairs correspondent for the washington post. for more information, visit washingtonpost.com. >>> this summer book tv is asking what are you reading? >> i'm charles gibson at abc news. the book on ibm most looking forward to this summer is

>> i'm not sure i've done anything with regard to weapons. i'm cognizant with the heller decision, but i don't think the department has issued any rules or regulations with regard to weapons. >> in terms of recommendations, it's basically your own record of what the best to propose the assault weapons ban. the comment that she made during your confirmation hearing was in fact that she would to a rigorous review of heller before recommendations were made. if you did that, what was your findings that cause you to propose a new assault weapons ban? >> i don't think i have said we need a new assault weapons ban. what i said is that we need to look at the situation we have, with the violence we have that is gun-related and, with measures that will effectively deal with that issue. >> on february 25 at a news conference, you said you are for reinstating the ban on assault weapons. my question is, the commitment to make to this committee, was that you do a rigorous analysis before you made any recommendations. i just want to know if you did this or

how to control the nuclear weapon program, how to control ballistic weapon programs, we need to stop the flow of materials which are new for this. but also, those things that aren't needed it for financing the nuclear weapon problem. that is one thing. but also, the flow of financial resources is also very important. there is the controlling good of the flow supply, -- there is controlling the flow of a good supply. back to the inspection regime. primarily, it would take place in the inspecting countries. airports, railway stations, all of these places. this is according to a national regime. the important thing is that all countries, including those countries like china and russia has agreed to this language. as long as there is good information of the suspicious -- to be contained in the cargo. what is going to happen? it is true that this resolution provided member states to inspect the cargo as if there is a suspicion of prohibited cargo. we need to have consent of the country. i think this is extremely important and effective, so long as the countries concerned have the willingn

by possession of a nuclear weapon. last point i'd make on iran, the supreme leader has said we don't want nuclear weapons, that's not what we're pursuing. i'm happy to hope that that's true, but in international relations i can't just base things on hope, especially when you see actions to the you see actions to the contrary. -- one of my famous predecessors, one of reagan, i think he said it pretty well. we are not even at the point of having those conversations with iran. hopefully, if iran does not seek nuclear weapons, then it should not be that hard for us to have a series of the association's. iran would then be able to enjoy a host of economic and political benefits in gains much greater -- with much greater legitimacy in all of its other endeavors. >> thank you. >> you already got a whole interview. >> we will replay the president's speech in its entirety at 10:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on c-span can', and tn quickly addresses from president obama. coming up after that, on america and the courts, the

by possession of a nuclear weapon. last point i'd make on iran, the supreme leader has said we don't want nuclear weapons, that's not what we're pursuing. i'm happy to hope that that's true, but in international relations i can't just base things on hope, especially when you see actions to the contrary. one of my famous predecessors, ronald reagan, i think said it pretty well when he said trust but verify. and we're not even to the point yet where we're having those conversations with the iranians, but ultimately if in fact iran does not seek nuclear weapons, then it shouldn't be that hard for us to have serious negotiations in which the international community feels that confidence and in which iran, then, is able to enjoy a whole host of economic and political benefits and gains much greater legitimacy in all of its other endeavors. >> ok. >> thank you. >> we're done. thank you very much. >> you already got a whole interview. thank you, everybody. >> what are you doing tonight? >> this past thursday president obama d

that's very bad if he chooses to do it just with weapons. but as colin powell put it very well, you can't eat plutonium. if he chooses simply to stand up to the other powers, simply to go for strength and not for prosperity, that's not a very good solution for him. and it's certainly not a good solution for his successor whenever that person takes power down the road. so kim jong-il needs to move. >> so if any of you can respond to this question. is there any danger at all that in -- just going back to the table and pursuing this other route which i think you have to do it 'cause i don't think you have many choices. what is the danger level with respect to the reward of that behavior argument? >> well, clearly what we want to do is reward good behavior. and you only do things where, as i suggested with one kind of series of steps, you only do things when they do things that you want them to and you structure the deals that way. the fact is we didn't always do that and that's a sad fact here. north korean behavior is inexcusable. what they're

is obvious and they are testing to try to deliver that type of nuclear weapon as a major concern but it's also the transfer of the technology or weapons to terrorist organizations or non-state actors that have to be a major concern. i heard you in response to senator kerry's question talk about potential sanctions that would block the export of weapons. i just really want to get a sense from you as to how effective we can be to make to where that type of technology is not exported to terrorist organizations or non-state actors. >> we will do everything possible to monitor the situation, and if we believe there is evidence or there is an indication of the proliferating activities, we will respond in a very strong fashion. i would know what this is a very difficult thing to do obviously and it is one of the major reasons, not the only reason that one of the reasons why for the obama administration the ultimate goal remains very verifiable denuclearization because if the korean peninsula is denuclearized then there is really no risk of knute werries asian but we will never be prepared t

security council resolution and said they will not give up the nuclear weapons program. can you, sir, about how you plan to proceed forward? did you talk about this with president obama? there's a continuing threat emanating from north korea and journalists are still being detained. what is your thought about that complex? did you talk with president obama about this? were there concerned about that industrial complex? >> has reacted aggressively to the new u.n. security council resolution, which was expected. of course, the north koreans may react by firing another round of missiles or taking action. we can't expect that from them as well. tom barber, north koreans must understand that they will not be able to gain compensation by creating a keifecrisis. this is a firm u.s.-korea cooperation an alliance that will not allow that. a recent security council resolution is not simply about words. if it is about taking up follow- up action and vigorously implementing the u.n. security council resolution. we will make sure we fully implement the u.n. security council resolutio

the first that north korea's possession of nuclear weapons represents a direct threat to u.s. national security interests and, two, that eliminating this threat requires a concerted diplomatic effort. and an effort aimed at determining whether north korea was prepared to make a strategic decision to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions and in return for things that the united states might be prepared to offer. in the past there were many times when american diplomats including myself had very serious reason to believe that such an arrangement was possible. and today, i am disturbed to report that this may no longer be the case. today, there are disturbing signs that north korea may finally have made a strategic decision about its nuclear weapons and that decision may be that pyongyang intends to keep its nuclear weapons and that the north will seek recognition by the united states and the international community that it is now a nuclear weapons state. i'm drawn to this conclusion because of statements that north korean officials have made to me over the last year and to virtu

the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology. we have a couple of countries that are aspirants for nuclear capability. the biggest concern is the technology. for that technology may be and can dad then fall into the wrong hands and when you get the nexus of that technology and extreme non-state actors, that is a very dangerous mix. that to me is one of the great concerns and will that proliferation take place in the maritime domain? that is one of reasons why i believe that is nations come together and engage in maritime security constructs and procedures, that the ability for us to understand what is moving on under and below the ocean, but the ability to share information with our friends and partners will be key and what will continue -- contribute to being a safeguard. with regard to china and the chinese navy, we did have the issue in the western pacific with one of our surveillance ships in the chinese fishing boats. it is interesting to note after that took place, i was on the phone with my counterpart for about an hour. t

i guess put it this way, start with this anyway -- in iran were to get nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, has that changed the equation for israel, hamas, fatah and the region? >> well, it puts israel in an automatic we position here is strengthens the hand of hamas, and knows it. >> basic impunity nosing that its big brother is standing behind them. the same ago for hezbollah and for syria, sudan want to get into the act which is also people overlook the iraq and sudan is also a proxy of iran. you've got these ponds that are surrounding israel and israel played a masterful game of chess to my chest was invented in persia and we can now see that even if iran doesn't get these weapons and has placed upon separately route is real, and it gets the nukes and all these factors into would they please and women even necessarily need to be a nuclear attack with israel, it could be just a toy of the missiles. the low to the 30,000 plus in their position and other 5,210,000 possibly chemical weapons in syrian hands and the homemade weapons that hamas buyers into southern israel whi

to nuclear weapons alone making keele? that the is a fundamental new relationship with us, japan and south korea that is a different story. but he can count on that, and he has seen that we have been reluctant to move that way and therefore, he keeps threatening us with the nuclear, but in the end if you look, why what we can't have a good explanation of the if we think it is just about nuclear weapons is, why did he limit his production of plutonium over these years? it is very hard to understand. it is very hard to understand why the north koreans have not tested missiles over and over again until they have reliable missiles. they certainly have the capacity to do that. something else is going on here and what i don't know is, is it still going on? we have to find out. >> ms. lindbergh, the notion of talking about prosperity in the year 2012 from his point of view, what was your experiences and side, what was your experience inside the country and your sense of his desire if you will, based on what you saw in working wit

they have not shown in the past any restraint in terms of exporting weapons to not only state actors, but also nonstate actors. so what we said is that there is a path for north korea to take. in which they are joining the world to community, becoming integrated in the world economy, able to feed their own people, able to provide prosperity for their people. i know that the republic of korea welcomes that kind of neighbor. and the essay there is a strong escort bond between the korean people's, that should be affirmed. but in order to take that path, north korea has to make a decision, and understand that prestige and security and prosperity are not going to come through the path of threatening neighbors and engaging in violations of international law. >> right now, north korea, there was a question about whether we fear an imminent attack by north korea. 60 years ago north korea invaded south korea, and they began a war. after that, there were numerous amount of threats leveled against south korea ever since. however, south korea, we have always been very firm in our response and alw

an enhanced inspection, prescribe goods such as weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missile parts. designation of new entities and sanctions, and within the u. n. security council, improved mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of these sections which i think is very important. so that outlines a range of actions that will take place, from which, in order to obtain relief, north koreans will have to comply with their earlier obligations. these measures will go forward. our strong preferences to engage serious diplomacy with north korea, this is not something the united states is doing on a unilateral basis, we are acting in concert with our 2 treaty allies and the republic of south coriander in concert with partners in the 6 party process, china and russia. >> what restraints are there, at has there been a rebuttal? is there a lack of prevention? is there some opening in the near-term? >> there has been no lack of communication of our concern and what we are prepared to do. north korea has been listening to some degree of confidence. we have had no effective response from n

or nuclear weapons they would not hesitate to use them. if you think about that, the amplifications, the ramifications can be devastating. the biggest threat to our way of life is civil war because it did have a devastating effect on how we -- our security, and many times we are frightened like that and we don't think logically, we reacted a very pessimistic way. businesses do not do well. our security in many ways he is tied to these places. the 9/11 plot was developed, people trained for it partly in afghanistan and in this country and germany. that is how extremist work. afghanistan was central to that. the argument is we should leave afghanistan in chaos or leave iraq in chaos, i don't think that is a good argument. our national security is tied to stable countries and particularly stable countries in that region. let's say we didn't go into iraq, saddam hussein was still in power, their neighbor and hated foe iran, developing nuclear weapons, you would think iraq would be developing nuclear weapons. would that provide more stability i

guest: concerning weapons of mass destruction, clearly that is misjudgment. clearly, that is misjudgment that rumsfeld and all of the other top officials in the bush administration are going to have to continue to address. , rumsfeld was coming did believe the intelligence report that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. but, i think, of all this in your administration officials, as i write in the book, rumsfeld should have known better, or at least should have questioned that intelligence more aggressively than he did, because he made a point always and head for years of trying to warn against believing too much in the conventional wisdom, not challenging enough assumptions and intelligence reports. he was very fond of distributing to people the preface of a book on pearl harbor, which warns against falling into this kind of conventional thinking, and not challenging the conventional wisdom sufficiently, and yet here was the case for rumsfeld himself didn't seem to question enough. >> host: moments ago we showed our viewers a picture that is not in your boo

>> have not said we need a new assault weapons ban. what i said is that we need to look at the situation we have and the violence that we had that is unrelated and come up with measures that will deal with that issue. >> on february 25 at a news conference, you said you endorsed reince starting -- reinstating the ban. you said you would do a rigorous analysis of heller before you make any recommendation. did you do that. was it an impromptu at this press conference? >> there is a firearms review that is ongoing. i will take into account the heller decision. the administration does not take a position with regard to the instituting of the assault weapons ban. >> thank you. at a few additional questions i would like to submit to the record. >> thank you. >> we will keep the record open throughout this week. >> i understand you had exchanges with senator gramm, feinstein, and call about prolonged detention. i urge you and the department to consider the various legal and policy concerns that are involved. i would say even with the kind of

is obvious and they are testing to try to deliver that type of nuclear weapon as a major concern but it's also the transfer of the technology or weapons to terrorist organizations or non-state actors that have to be a major concern. i heard you in response to senator kerry's question@@@@@@@ how effective can we be to be sure that that type of technology is not exported to terrorist organizations or nonstate actors. ? >> well, we will do everything possible to monitor that situation. and if we believe that there is evidence or that there is an indication of proliferating activities, we will respond in a very strong fashion. i would note that this is a very difficult thing to do, obviously. and it is one of the major reasons, not the only reason, but one of the reasons why for the obama administration the ultimate goal remains verifiable denuclearization. because if the korean pen ins la is denuclearized, then there is really no risk of proliferation. but we are not prepared and never will be prepared to settle for a policy which only concentrates on proliferation and ignores the root

and needs to put it together to the nuclear weapons. and we come to a point where japan comes officially as a nuclear power because of threat you are talking about. north korea is more worrying than iran. because that regime is opaque and arguably nuts. so it also presides over a country that's destitute. and one of the things it can do to raise money is to sell these weapons to interested parties around the world. and there are plenty of them. host: question from twitter, this gentleman wants to know, mr. will should be asked if he thinks that we is expand the war in afghanistan? guest: that's an interesting question, twitter is 140 characters? host: yes. guest: i have learned so much. anyway afghanistan is a problem, and we sentmore troops to make it 60,000. the new ew york police force is 20,000, and this is a nation with barely's central government in its history, effective that it runs from one border to another. i asked the secretary of defense some months ago whether it might be possible for the united states to achieve its objec

security establishments around the world that have grown used to living with and managing nuclear weapons. what i notice and i'd like to say it's as an american i'd like to say it's because of changing attitudes here but it's not just changing attitudes here. it's changing attitudes in many places. it is fascinating, though, in the united states that last year we had a presidential election where not only barack obama talked about the elimination of all nuclear weapons but people forget his republican opponent, john mccain, talked about nuclear reductions and john mccain recently reendorsed that as a goal. i think that's also true in russia. the fact that -- i know there were people who were skeptical about the possibility of getting the russian leadership to sign up to this as a goal but they have done so. so i think -- we're at one of these inflection points where i think people's minds are being changed. what we have to do is take advantage of that and come up with a serious plan for how you would achieve that. it's great when people, i think, feel a need for change. but you've got to

those actions undermine the aspiration of achieving a nuclear weapon free world. we hope that the government of the democratic republican north korea seized -- seeks a peaceful dialogue and armor -- and returned immediately to six- party talks. the resolution that we have adopted to join a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. that test paradigm has demonstrated the urgency for entry of the comprehensive test ban treaty. for this reason, mexico wanted this resolution to include a clear and unequivocal commitment by all member states. it is also imperative to remember that this action by the democratic people's republic of korea cannot occur in a vacuum. they take place in the context of a top threat to the community. thanks to the existence of nuclear weapons, the possibility that they may obliterate will remain as long as they are not completely obliterated. we must recognize the reason -- recent positive signals, some nuclear weapons have arctic -- contributions to the objective. we hope they may be materialized in the near future. we also hope that the 2010 re

we do not agree that iran -- that iran gets a nuclear weapon. there needs to be visible improvement here. germany and america will work closely together related to arms and we like to wish you, mr. president, the best in your trip to russia prin. we need russia. we want to forge a common bond wherever possible with russia and also china. we have done that over the years to the united nations and would like to see the continued. you have made important steps here in united states and through financial market regulation. you can see where these regulations me -- meet. we are very grateful that we are able with the united states, we now have to emerge and -- from the economies. this morning when i was in congress, i sensed this is a sea change. this points to the fact that the united states -- it should be not underestimated to come to a good, sustainable results during the conference. i have been in many debates in my country and european union. i know what is at stake. it is tricky when you try to come to certain common grounds. i wish you every

it's a wonderful weapon. it just has a terrible defect for a weapon. no enemy. no military mission. it will never be fired in anger. it is bad enough that the committee by only a 31-30 vote undercut this president's effort to begin to apply fiscal discipline everywhere. sure military is important, but health care is important. and highway safety is important. and local police are important. all of those impinge on our life and all must be dealt with with discipline in the fiscal area except military against the past. i was particularly disappointed when the rules committee because of some in the leadership decided not even to allow us to debate it. a major initiative of the new president to curtail excess military spending is overturned by one vote in committee and we are not even allowed to debate it. i have to say to my republican friends, it is clear to me their interest in open debate is selective. they are for open debate anything they want to debate. they were opposed to this amendment coming on as well. there is no consistency or principle let's have open debate. let's get wh

we will not accept north korea as a nuclear weapon state. in in short, mr. chairman, diplomatic outreach will remain possible if north korea shows an interest in abiding by its international obligations and improving his relations with the outside world. if not, the speak -- to the united states will do it must to provide for our own security and that our allies. we will work with the international community to take defensive measures and to bring pressure on north korea to abandon its nuclear and missile programs. the choices for the future art north korea's. thank you again and for inviting me to testify today. before i respond to any questions you might have i would like to mtion an important humanitarian matter that is unrelated to the political and security issues i have just addressed. and the conviction and sentencing this past monday at two american journalists in p'yongyang. as secretary clinton has said, we appeal to north korean authorities on humanitarian grounds to release these two women and return them to their families. do to privacy act cons

they work on weapons. land mines, non-legal weapons, these are some things that they follow. we have children rights division. they would follow a child soldier issues. then you have other divisions such as the emergencies division that i am in. sweet are the guys that go in at a moment's notice, about 24 hours' notice, we go into a war zone and try to work in an active conflict zone. when we are there, we're trying to research, expose, and change to research, expose, and change what isno carrierringconnect 120 >> we are trying to save lives as the war happens. i want to show you what that is like in the field. we are able to have stunning successes in improving people's situations in these conflicts as the war is going on. >> she said that the planes were flying overhead. they were throwing out a lot of little bombs. we're going to go and see what is left behind. we had been trying to get into the district for a number of days. the russians had erected numerous checkpoints. it was very difficult even to get into the city much less the area that was the russian occupied zone.

, land mines or nonlethal weapons.hese are some of the things that they follow. we have a children's rights division that looks at children's rights worldwide so, for example, in burma they would follow child soldier issues working with the researchers in burma that we have. then you have other divisions such as the emergencies division which i am in. and the emergencies division we are the guys who go in a moment's notice, about 24 hours notice and we will go into a war zone and try to work in an active conflict zone. and when we're there, we're trying to research and expose and change what is happening as the war is being fought. and we are looking not at one side and saying, look at how bad you're doing and look at these great guys. we're looking at all parties to the conflict. we're looking at how ever actor is acting in that conflict. how they are impacting the civilian population. and we're trying to -- as the war happens, save lives. so i would like to take a moment and turn to a video to show you all what that'

a nuclear weapons' capability. i don't know if the diplomatic strategy will work. you guys don't know. i don't know if we can get the international committee to do the kinds of things it can do to stop iran and force the regime to change its behavior in this area on the issue of terrorism and all the other issues we have with iran. but let's try a policy that's different than the one that was a total failure for the past five years. we said we won't engage until they suspend. they kept enriching. we said we'll sanction all we can. we caused annoyances. those sanctions didn't work. now we are trying to get the world serious about it. give it a few months to try and work. i urge that this eviscerated version of the bill i'm sponsoring in this motion to recommit be defeated and you don't wipe out the whole state department authorization bill. i'm not going to yield to you. and vote no emphatically on this thing. this is a very important bipartisan issue. mr. burton: the chairman won't yield for one question? the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question

enhanced inspection act provisions for ships suspected of carrying prescribed goods such as weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missile parts. designation of new entities and goods for sanctions. and with than in the u. n. security council itself, improved mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of these sanctions which i think is very important. and so that is i think outlining a range of the actions that would take place, will take place and from which an order to retain -- obtain relief the north koreans will have to begin to comply with the earlier commitments and obligations. >> and if they don't? >> these measures won't go forward. as i stressed our strong preference is to engage in serious of active diplomacy with north korea and this is not something that the united states is doing on a unilateral basis. we are acting very much in concert with our two treaty allies, japan and the republic of south korea, and in concert with our partners in the six party process -- namely china and russia. >> was -- what restraints are on at this point diplomatic route to being pursued