bolten made those comments in washington. >>> chanting and colorful egyptian flags in san francisco where hundreds of egyptian americans and supporters gathered at united nations plaza. their message calling on egypt to reform its government, ensure human rights protection for its people. some egyptian americans have mixed feelings about the recent events in egypt. >> many say they are glad mubarak has resigned but some are worried about the uncertainty over what comes next. >> reporter: in this coptic orthodox church in hayward, mixed reaction to the revolution >> awesome day >> i wasn't sure if it was the right thing we were doing. >> so exciting, very emotional. >> we are not so excited because of the sudden change. >> reporter: right now the future is unknown as the country gets the chance to elect its own new leader. >> we are looking for nonreligious. >> reporter: he is afraid the new government could be run by extremists. >> we have a lot of strong personalities. >> reporter: egyptians in america and abroad don't know what the future will look like >> you can't wish the exact ameri

bolten in may, when we get to the point that this board decides they want to make an allocation of an increment to the special fund, we can look at more accurately how that goes -- ultimately, when we get to that point. chair chu: i understand that we have to finally give approval, but where does this sit administratively? the expenses for it, etc.? have we considered where that would be? because we would have to allocate with the tax payment would go. >> maybe mr. wagner can respond to that. >> madam chair, that is a good question. ultimately, it would go through the normal budgetary process outlined under the charter, so before we made any allocation decisions, we would need to look at exactly where the expenditure budget would be in how the mechanics of that would look in the budget, but i do not think we have gotten that far to determine exactly where that would sit. we would have to work with the comptroller's office and draft the appropriate legislation that would be submitted to the board. it could be at the department. it could be at the parks department. it could be at the ot

markets under the act, so at the time, and not least with the influence of people like john bolten, despitethe best effort that the u.k. power was not possible to get the americans to agree to those changes. there was a last effort made at negotiations between the americans and the iranians under the heart of the regime in rearl june or late may in 2005 shortly before the elections, but they were not successful, and, of course, iranians -- they are incredibly difficult to negotiate with. they never, ever close the sale, but that said, ultimately it was going to be possible to do a deal as had happened in the past if they saw there was nothing in it for them, and then you had ahmadinejad elected in the summer of 2005, and you're familiar with the rest. now, in terms of the future, nobody was for certain whether iran does have a nuclear weapons program. there is high level of circumstantial evidence suggesting that they do. my own judgment is that they were certainly trying to build up a capability for a nuclear weapons program, and they also have a missile system. it's leery whether they hav

whatever the wishes of richard perle or john bolten, these neocon a outriders of the administration tokind of change the whole world, there were realities and the reality was that of saddam hussein had complied with the 1441, the inspectors would have said that. it would have been public. the security council could of conceivably have had the debates it had in the early part of 2003. because we would have been celebrating a compliance. there would have been the inspectors all over iraq. as i say, but it is worth repeating, there would have been no responsibility of the u.k. being involved in military action at all and i don't believe that even if president bush had been ill-advised enough to want to go to the war he would have done so. what would be the cause of the war in those circumstances? when he himself had said, yes, they didn't like the regime and in the legal theory the regime change was their objective, but he made this case for the regime change on the base of the threat posed by saddam hussein. if the inspectors were then saying by the route which he, himself, president bus

whatever the wishes of richard perle or john bolten, these neocon a outriders of the administration to kind of change the whole world, there were realities and the reality was that of saddam hussein had complied with the 1441, the inspectors would have said that. it would have been public. the security council could of conceivably have had the debates it had in the early part of 2003. because we would have been celebrating a compliance. there would have been the inspectors all over iraq. as i say, but it is worth repeating, there would have been no responsibility of the u.k. being involved in military action at all and i don't believe that even if president bush had been ill-advised enough to want to go to the war he would have done so. what would be the cause of the war in those circumstances? whenhe himself had said, yes, they didn't like the regime and in the legal theory the regime change was their objective, but he made this case for the regime change on the base of the threat posed by saddam hussein. if the inspectors were then saying by the route which he, himself, president bus

ambassador, john bolten. he comments on the obama administration handling of the situation.mments about the u.s. relations to national security. this is about 25 minutes. ♪ [cheers and applause] >> thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you. well, it's a great pleasure to be here again today. i've spoken at almost every cpac since 18976 -- 1976, and i think this is the biggest we've ever seen. there is a good reason for that because we have a lot to do in the next two years. now, you've heard a lot of fascinating speeches over the past couple of days, but i want to shift the focus of attention here away from washington. we meet today as we have met these past several days in the midst of a real international crisis. we've seen in tunisia, egypt, jordan, yemen, and perhaps elsewhere, fundamental forces unleash in the middle east that will have a profound impact on the united states all of our vital interests as they develop. now, this is a fact of life for the government of the united states. foreign policy does not play out the same

whatever the wishes of richard perle or john bolten, these neocon a outriders of the administration tokind of change the whole world, there were realities and the reality was that of saddam hussein had complied with the 1441, the inspectors would have said that. it would have been public. the security council could of conceivably have had the debates it had in the early part of 2003. because we would have been celebrating a compliance. there would have been the inspectors all over iraq. as i say, but it is worth repeating, there would have been no responsibility of the u.k. being involved in military action at all and i don't believe that even if president bush had been ill-advised enough to want to go to the war he would have done so. what would be the cause of the war in those circumstances? when he himself had said, yes, they didn't like the regime and in the legal theory the regime change was their objective, but he made this case for the regime change on the base of the threat posed by saddam hussein. if the inspectors were then saying by the route which he, himself, president bus