and massey was also one of those who got a serious change was taking place in the soviet union under gorbachev. so she strengthened reagan's desire which was also been reinforced by margaret thatcher, to engage with his soviet counterpart. in his earlier years, as president in his first term, reagan was not much interested in engagement with soviet leaders. although jack matlock has argued that before the end of that first term, reagan decided it was high time to start talking to his soviet counterpart, but as he complained these guys keep dying on me. [laughter] >> the book john paul ii, john paul ii was a hugely important relation to his relationship enfolded when he went there in 1979, this was a pivotal moment in the eyes of solitary. it was absolutely no accident or no coincidence, but direct relationship between the pope, the polish pope, first non-italian hoping for a half-century, on the sense that god was on their side. this was pretty crucial for the development of solidarity in 1980, 1981. however, no more than reagan's power was the pope's moral authority able to prevent t

the collapse of the soviet union is more predictable.ng one could have conjured for a couple of years. it strikes me as an event that one to plan for. -- it strikes me as an event that one could planned for. there is a continuation of the world economy. nato was extremely important in getting together with europe after the fall of the central front and the berlin wall. i never would have predicted that nato expansion would have gone to the degree of the crane detaching from the soviet union. -- i never would have predicted that nato expansion would have gone to the degree of the ukraine detaching from the soviet union. it would have seemed very unlikely. i am not going to cry about that. things happen in the world that tell us that we are wrong. policymakers and scholars are quite united on this. maybe they were not. but i do not know. those dealing with the day to day may have had a better perception i. it is critical when things that you believe turn out to be false. you have to deal with that and figure out where to go from there. >>

but it might be useful as a backup for a first strike against the soviet union. if you have a bad missile defense system and you launch an all-out nuclear strike on all of the soviet nuclear installations and you've got this sort of half-assed defensive might be good enough for what was left over after you had nuke all of their nukes, so that's the way the soviets thought of it. that was not imaginative. so i plame -- actually i blame gorbachev more than reagan for the failure at reykjavik because it was regan over estimating the value of this missile defense system. it was and gorbachev -- it was sent gorbachev. and i actually, once i had an opportunity to have a brief conversation with george shultz, reagan's secretary of state and put this theory. he completely agreed. he agreed that it was gorbachev overvaluing star wars and not reagan. so, reagan was not responsible for the fall of communism, not by a long shot. but the thing he did do that carter didn't do and that kind of conventional minded people were unwilling to do was precisely what i dismissed at this

a whole host of other reasons can explain the collapse of the soviet union.t none of them have the virtue of having predicted it. i then get into maybe a question that hasn't come up yet today, not how do we know when we're right about strategy or something like that but how do we know when we're wrong. and i think one of the most important aspects of trying to understand the world is to learn from our mistakes and learn from those times when we're wrong. there are a number of ways to figure this out. one of them is hagel cumming of history it slaps you in the face and you realize suddenly that your assumptions or your understanding of the world is in fact wrong. i think many people on the left on the world squail from 1989 to 1991 had a rude splap in the face from hagel's cunning of history. there are other exampleings, hour, where people get slapped in the face. a second way of thinking about learning how we're wrong is to use gorbechov's phrase, life will teach us. when he was forging ahead from 1985 when he came to power until 1991, he often -- people wou

the republics emerged through the whole soviet union, 1991 the soviet union dissolved and left behind for a nuclear states with large numbers of nuclear weapons. kazakhstan and belarus had 6,000 nuclear weapons. missiles and so forth. those states were impressed that they were nuclear powers. and ukrainian government said we're now in nuclear-powered and we can sit at the head table and we're part of the world stage and this is a very big deal. and an enormously important and i noticed achievement bill clinton's secretary of defense spent five years lobbying the ukraine and having dealt -- nuclear-weapons is a bad idea they're hard to take care avandia genoa to be a target on the american list in virazole list that will persuade you not to have nukes. he worked the complicated transactions were the deal was the ukrainians would return the nukes to russia and would provide fuel for the reactors in the ukraine and similar types of transactions the attitude was different. they wanted the nuclear stuff out. but after five years bill perry and day dedicated diplomats convince them to turn

the soviet union, i'm sorry. the soviet union nato and baker says while that's a fantasy.s take an world of reality. in gorbachev keeps saying why do we think about this. so it comes up, but it's never really, it's never taken seriously in the west. and baker later then says to the public. you know, if russia embraces democracy and free-market we should include it. so that's an interesting open question. and where he finally came down in the book is i don't, i finally come down on nato expansion. you were talking a scholar's positions on it is that i can see two different cases for nato expansion said they lead you to different endpoints. either you say that nato post-1990 whatever it might be called has really become a development agency. as a political organization to help new democracies develop, become more like us to provide the most security, advice, and an acceptable game. that i find justified particularly because there are calls from the people of poland and the czech republic and so forth for it to happen. later as well. but then in that case they should be offer

1989 the cold war ends and the soviet union goes broke and can no longer support forces in the amoco led neighboring states and cannot support them so the threat of the neighboring countries begins to go away. ben he decides to change things. he decides to abandon apartheid and nuclear weapons by the time he made this decision south africa had assembled six. but in 1989 the clerk began to unwind the whole process two years later would be for florida parliament and said here's what they cost here is how many people are involved and they call on the international atomic energy agency. they agreed and they were taken apart they recycle the energy and south africa ceased being a nuclear state.

together the mujahideen that led to the overthrow of the soviet union but which the pakistanis feel we then walked away from helping them cope with, and they accommodated themselves. they went into a survival mode and maybe even solve some certain advantages flowing from those relationships and advantages that they were making lemonade out of lemons in order to obtain. i think your analysis is right, but we are dealing with a sovereign country that has a clear idea of who they think their overall enemy is, namely india. but who have slowly been convinced because of what's happened in sight of their own territory that they have to take action. and i think that will continue to lead to positive steps. >> thank you. senator feingold. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. it's an honor to have this distinguished panel of witnesses today. i am pleased the president said a goal for when we will begin

so there's no way to paint us as the soviet union. so that's very important. i think it's important to all of our coalition partners to stress our long-term strategic commitment with afghanistan. many of our coalition partners are there because they believe it's important. others are there because they believe that either the nato alliance or the relationship of the u.s. is another factor and i think that's very important. but stressing the consistencesy of our commitment, i think is the most key point. >> and general, you don't think that the deadline, 18-month deadline, affects the commitment in others, other nations? >> i believe if we put the perception of that, because, in fact, i don't -- i don't view july 2011 as a deadline. i stview that as a point at whi time the president directed we will reduce combat forces but we will decide the pace and scope of that based upon conditions at that time. so i don't believe that is a

government in afghanistan al lived the soviet union, barely. it's not a parallel, we want to spend a lot of time thinking about it. i do not think there is a downsizing the mission alternatives. if we go to appear counter- terrorism, it will not work. as an intelligence professional who spent a great deal of time trying to persuade people to commit treason, they will not do it if they do not think you're going to be around to give them the check when they come back from their mission. it does not work that way. >> this morning, ambassador benjamin gave an end -- gave an interesting talk. during the course of the 15 minutes he failed to use three words that you used in the first five minutes which were global islamic jihad. to what level was this broader ideological struggle, how this resonates within the current

alexander the great to the soviet union. i appreciate the job you're doing. and we want to try to give you all the support that we can here. as a member of the intelligence committee, i have little insight about some of the challenges that you have that maybe others don't know. but i would like to take my remaining time and yield to the gentleman from california, row backer. >> ten seconds. >> mr. chairman, it is my understanding that those who did not get a chance to ask questions would get five minutes. >> time for the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from tennessee. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> state your point. >> is that point that i just made not correct? >> the point -- mr. gallagher was entitled to five minutes. -- just listen for a second. i was told that he sought one minute. i am now recognizing -- i now

really by 1950, the fundamentals of our relationship with the soviet union were hammered out. it just delayed the reckoning with the inevitable. >> there was no way the system could compete. the soviet troops wouldn't be mobilized and such. a man named gorbachev not a very good answer to your question. it's a tough question. i think we need to subject our own assumptions to examination all the time i don't mean to say the mixed moment. the article in the book is a mixed response. . at some point, it had some potential to succeed. the slow boat. struggling to the team. he changes his mind. the first emersion everywhere but east germany, he realizes he can have a better option it's a massive shift. before then, it's so terrible. once you get this quickening of the teem poe, then you have to do thepre fab. i see the papers beg exchanged. it's hard to offer a differenting opinion i'm trying to look at the alternative patterns and why they would be viable. i try to be very careful we'd be better off asking would we be more free in taking russia to nate owe. i tried limitity to the m

it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers. it never did. it is different. how you wrap your mind around that? what do you do? these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now. no one is going to give it to me or anyone. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question. let's go all the way back up here. i will add to what rick said. the political expression of conservatism is going to change. . . >> he was very impressed much a book by claude brown. a lot of it was about heroin use in harlem. he came out when he was running for mayor with some very anti- drug statement or proposal, and he got a postcard from milton friedman. he explained why this was wrong. this was something build lot about and wrestled with, and not just marijuana, he added an issue in the magazine called "the war on drugs is lost." it was a symposium. he was passing this judgment on the whole thing. i think his judgment was that yes, marijuana has that effect. they are not truly worse than alcohol, and we waste a lot of r

the collapse of the soviet union is more predictable.ng one could have conjured for a couple of years. it strikes me as an event that one to plan for. -- it strikes me as an event that one could planned for. there is a continuation of the world economy. nato was extremely important in getting together with europe after the fall of the central front and the berlin wall. i never would have predicted that nato expansion would have gone to the degree of the crane detaching from the soviet union. -- i never would have predicted that nato expansion would have gone to the degree of the ukraine detaching from the soviet union. it would have seemed very unlikely. i am not going to cry about that. things happen in the world that tell us that we are wrong. policymakers and scholars are quite united on this. maybe they were not. but i do not know. those dealing with the day to day may have had a better perception i. it is critical when things that you believe turn out to be false. you have to deal with that and figure out where to go from there. >>

it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers. it never did. it is different. how you wrap your mind around that? what do you do? these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now. these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now.

a whole host of other reasons can explain the collapse of the soviet union.hem have the virtue of having predicted it. i then get into maybe a question that hasn't come up yet today, not how do we know when we're right about strategy or something like that but how do we know when we're wrong. and i think one of the most important aspects of trying to understand the world is to learn from our mistakes and learn from those times when we're wrong. there are a number of ways to figure this out. one of them is hagel cumming of history it slaps you in the face and you realize suddenly that your assumptions or your understanding of the world is in fact wrong. i think many people on the left on the world squail from 1989 to 1991 had a rude splap in the face from hagel's cunning of history. there are other exampleings, hour, where people get slapped in the face. a second way of thinking about learning how we're wrong is to use gorbechov's phrase, life will teach us. when he was forging ahead from 1985 when he came to power until 1991, he often -- people would say how

the soviet union breaking in d.o.d. and uversity computers here in the u. some places ey've been doing this for decades. >> brown: wh does . schmidt do about that? >> we have a pblem here as a country because the only people who can reay compete with the intelligencegencys of big foreign countries a at n.s.a.'sut we're all with reason a ltle nervous about getting n.s.a.free reign in cyberspace. we're gointo have to sort out things iernally. what do we want o.d.and d.h.s.to do. what do want s.b.i.to do while regnizing it has the capabilities to play athe top of the lgue. >> brown: let me ask you brieflto come back full rcle to the financial institution, whatever itas. it something that average citizens have to fea >> no. >> is it somethinghat any of us shod be recognize sothing. >> we needo fear it. a ng-term cost to our econy is very damaging. the risk of the financial system, the greater e net, the ss of intellectual property. we p for research. other countries get the benefit. that not how to be competive. right now i do on-li banking. i don't worry about

the -- that's what the soviet union did. so the 15 states that comprise the soviet union became independent countries. you think about all the blood that has been shed over the course of this country to get the opportunity to create a constitution, to get the opportunity to govern ourselves. you go back to the letter that john adams wrote to his wife abigail after the declaration of independence was made public on july 4. he wrote that marvelous letter and i don't have it down veer bait imbut saying, we have within our grasp the chance to do what great philosophers and thirst have only dreamed of, to govern ourselves and not have this big massive government that controls all the areas of our lives. we will be free to make our own decisions about our lives. this is a day that should be celebrated with parades and picnics and he advocated of firing of guns. we do that with fireworks instead of bullets, which i think is a better practice, but he recognized how incredible a gift god, our creator, nature's god, all those referenc

he became one of a tiny handful of people who thought ronald reagan was too soft on the soviet union. he not only applauded the invasion of iraq, but thinks the war was a success. in fact, he doesn't even think it was a war. merely one front in a new world war against a force he refers to as islamofascism. is now calling for us to bomb iran. the liberals control everything. had i gotten past the gilligan's island yet? where was i? he is now calling for us to bomb iran and soon. and later, if you think the question and answer period is getting too timid, asking if waterboarding is torture. through his long political march to the right he's been puzzled that other jews did not come to the same conclusions that he did about liberalism in general, and the democratic party in particular. what liberals mean they see when they look at his country is in justice and operation of every kind, economic, social and political, mr. podhoretz wrote. by sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and even fact

it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers. it never did. it is different. how you wrap your mind around that? what do you do? these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now. no one is going to give it to me or anyone. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question. let's go all the way back up here. i will add to what rick said. the political expression of conservatism is going to change. . . i know at least as early as his run for mayor of new york in 1965. he was very impressed>> he was very impressed much a book by claude brown. a lot of it was about heroin use in harlem. he came out when he was running for mayor with some very anti- drug statement or proposal, and he got a postcard from milton friedman. an. he explained why this was wrong. this was something build lot about and wrestled with, and not just marijuana, he added an issue in the magazine called "the war on drugs is lost." it was a symposium. he was passing this judgment on the whole thing. i think his judgment was that ye

the soviet union would be an example. they were somewhat of a quasi- socialist state. it dissolved and has moved toward a close eye-democratic state. guest: there is something to that. this is something that political scientists debate. you see regime change is happening you do not see a smart writer of the libertarians in the late 1940's and 1950's who predicted that you will see a democratic states becoming socialist dictatorships effectively through a process of benign neglect as this day. took more and more of control the economy, you see socialism prevent i don't think you are seeing the same way of that happening now. i think we have seen socialist state becoming more democratic. that has happened in eastern europe and elsewhere. we see china where socialism has crept out of the economy and there isn't that much of a pure socialist approach that there yesterday. you see that happening without any real democracy coming into being, either. host: professor henry farrell, thank you for coming on the program. it is written about how the obamas are spending their vacat

so every time a party say the americans wants to reveal something about the atomic bomb to the soviet union at the same time that triggers automatically by the nature of international relations a set of questions and the soviet mines. the first is, is disinformation reliable? this that it would be is it complete? maybe this reliable but it is powerful. the third is why specifically this piece of information and not another one? the fourth one is why tell us thou? each of those questions starts a whole box of problems. the story here is also fundamental international. the soviet quest for a neutral-- only the united states had these weapons and it bears pointing out had them, had used them twice, and as a result every decision the soviets make about nuclear weapons is fundamentally couch chabron the fact that the americans have this monopoly and what they think the americans are going to do with it. at the same time during the monopoly in for a long time after almost every decision the americans made about atomic weapons or atomic power is by the fact that the soviets are trying to break tha

it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers. -- i am not going to give you the answer now. no one is going to give it to me or anyone. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question. let's go all the way back up here. i will add to what rick said. the political expression of conservatism is going to change. . . >> he was very impressed much a book by claude brown. a lot of it was about heroin use in harlem. he came out when he was running for mayor with some very anti- drug statement or proposal, and he got a postcard from milton friedman. he explained why this was wrong. this was something build lot about and wrestled with, and not just marijuana, he added an issue in the magazine called "the war on drugs is lost." it was a symposium. he was passing this judgment on the whole thing. i think his judgment was that yes, marijuana has that effect. they are not truly worse than alcohol, and we waste a lot of resources and generate a lot of hypocrisy and capricious law- enforcement by pursuing its offe

he has been all throughout the soviet soviet union -- at that time it was the soviet union and throughout the world and he has been saving souls. this guy was just fantastic. when he died just last week, he was only 57 years old. and i -- i sat there -- i actually sat there, i say to the chair, for four hours in one chair and it was -- i didn't think i would be able to do that because i'm not -- i'm normally not that patient, but as people started giving talks and the eulogies that were given, the best was saved until last. and billy joe doherty has been married for 35 years or so to his wife sharon. she gave the most beautiful, long speech about her life with billy joe doherty. then one by one, the kids, four kids, john, paul, sarah and ruthie, they stood up and they gave tributes. and i was thinking, my prayer is that when -- my wife and i have been married -- in two weeks from now, it will be 50 years now. and we have 20 kids and grandkids. by the way, we had all 20 kids and grandkids at one table at thanksgiving, something that many people are not aware is even possible in this day an

i've encountered individuals of great dedication serving on the ground, in the former soviet union andrnment have made this program work. we've shared many productive adventures in locations and circumstances that few americans have ever experienced. from snowy runways, former soviet bomber bases to biological weapons labs in georgia, from the chemical weapon destruction facility in siberia to submarine bases on the cola peninsula, from the former nuclear weapons test sites in kazakhstan to albania, it's been my privilege to support the professionals of the defense department and other agencies in reducing threats facing our country. i continue to be impressed by their commitment to the mission and their ingenuity in finding creative solutions to seemingly impossible tasks. much of this work has been done outside the public eye. this is not to say nonproliferation activities lacked public support. congressional votes consistently backed funding for the nunn-lugar and other proliferation projects. but few members of congress or american citizens fully understand the contributions that t

we were dealing with the collapse of the soviet union and the liberation of eastern europe. it wasn't like we were twiddling our thumbs at the time but the fact remains the united states turn its back on afghanistan and the irony is and i was talking two of the house foreign affairs committee yesterday, the irony is charlie wilson who was so successful in getting money for the cia to give to the mujahedeen as weapons to beat the soviets after the soviets left trying to get money for the civil side where he was able to get hundreds of millions for the weapons could get very small amounts to build schools and so on so that was the mistake, in both countries. >> thank you very much. thank you again for your service to the country and your stations with the committee today. >> thank you very much senator cardin. >> thank you very much and i also want to echo my sincere appreciation to all three of you for your service to our country. i tell you have the greatest confidence in your abilities and your commitment and i know you are doing your best and you are working together as th

i also don't think that afghanistan today is afghanistan of the soviet union or rock 2007.e president finds himself in a terrible situation. while the critics of the war are nancy pelosi democrats from san francisco, cambridge, and the new york city. all the supporters of the war are sarah palin republicans. it is a terrible place for a democratic president to be. the people he has to convince to support him are his natural constituency. sarah palin is just looking for the opportunities for him to screw it up. the politics of that are terrible for the president. >> you mentioned that we do not know where bin laden is. there have been reports over a number of years -- if he is not stayed in iran, calling back and forth to are wrong. there were reports in 2004 and other people had photographic evidence. that he and me -- he may have been there until january 2009. what about islam -- what about his ties to the islamic republic? >> i want to be absolutely explicit. the last time we had a solid piece of information about where osama bin laden was, was eight years ago. we do not

the soviet union would be an example. they were somewhat of a quasi- socialist state.t dissolved and has moved toward a close eye-democratic state. guest: there is something to that. this is something that political scientists debate. you see regime change is happening you do not see a smart writer of the libertarians in the late 1940's and 1950's who predicted that you will see a democratic states becoming socialist dictatorships effectively through a process of benign neglect as this day. took more and more of control the economy, you see socialism prevent i don't think you are seeing the same way of that happening now. i think we have seen socialist state becoming more democratic. that has happened in eastern europe and elsewhere. we see china where socialism has crept out of the economy and there isn't that much of a pure socialist approach that there yesterday. you see that happening without any real democracy coming into being, either. host: professor henry farrell, thank you for coming on the program. it is written about how the obamas are spending their vacatio

it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers. it never did. it is different. how you wrap your mind around that? what do you do? these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now. no one is going to give it to me or anyone. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question. let's go all the way back up here. i will add to what rick said. the political expression of conservatism is going to change. . . i know at least as early as his run for mayor of new york in 1965. he was very impressed>> he was very impressed much a book by claude brown. a lot of it was about heroin use in harlem. he came out when he was running for mayor with some very anti- drug statement or proposal, and he got a postcard from milton friedman. an. he explained why this was wrong. this was something build lot about and wrestled with, and not just marijuana, he added an issue in the magazine called "the war on drugs is lost." it was a symposium. he was passing this judgment on the whole thing. i think his judgment was that ye

the soviet union seemed to be picking up, they were getting park place here and hotels and assets, it was like monopoly. cuban troops were running the portuguese empire in africa. that is so weird to say that now. it is likely colonization. cuban troops took over the portuguese empire when the portuguese gave it up in the mid-1970s. energy shocks, stagflation, all kinds of stuff. i think the mood was embattled. the mood changes when ronald reagan wins in 1980 but those first few years were grim. >> when you were asked "national at "national review" in those years you were experiencing his full charm which is a mixed billblessing. talk about that a little. >> the biggest blast of it i got, the biggest bolt was one day when he took me to lunch. i had been at the magazine a year and i was 23 years old. he takes me to lunch and he says, "rick, i have decided you will succeed me as editor. he also said when that happens you will all the magazine. -- own the magazine. i was flabbergasted. there was no preparation for this. no hands or anything i picked up. i had older colleagues. i asked hi

in the beginning of the cold war, it was a very warm confrontation between the soviet union and the united states with both sides jockeying for power. if either had a misstep we would have nuclear war the nuclear weapons do not just a story cities but ecological effects and block out the sun with nuclear winter and destroy the whole northern hemisphere in a war. and schrieffer and company prevented that from happening. >> is are there any bernards and the military right now? >> i hope so. i don't know who but i hope so. this man was famous within the air force and he became the father of a high a modern technology. when he died, there are 10 four-star generals in the united states air force and in nine of them marched behind his coffin and said she said we will not bury him as a four-star general but as a chief of staff and it was a moving locations. >> thank you so much.

the soviet union never killed three dozen new yorkers. they never did. it is different.just how you wrap your mind around that. what do you do? i'm not one to give you the answer now, and no one will get it this week. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question or two. i would add to what risk -- rick said. if reagan had run the goldwater campaign, he would have lost. if george bush had rerun the reagan campaign, he would have lost. political movement does not have the capacity to change with circumstance. so yes, it has changed, and that is healthy, to a large extent. >> which you discuss how mr. buckley got to the position we should legalize marijuana? >> he thought about drugs for a long time, at least as early as his run for mayor of new york in 1965, and he was very impressed by a book by claude brown called "man child and the promised land," about heroin use in harlem. and he came out with anti-drug statements and proposals running for mayor. and he got a postcard from milton friedman. it explained in post card length why this was

and the soviet union stopped doing it in the 1990's. too late to save the soviet union. and to a large degree, the destruction of the soviet union came from a disrespect from the power of peace and worship for the power of war. let's hope that we recognize that mistake and let's hope we don't repeat it in iraq and afghanistan, wherever the next war might be. in washington, d.c., you hear much discussion of leadership. everyone wants to claim that mantle. i'm a leader, she's a leader, i'm a leader. the kind of leadership we need right now very badly and that is the leadership that looks into future and recognizes what is inevitable and tries to make it come sooner. i have no doubt in my mind that one day the war in afghanistan will be over. i have no doubt in my mind that one day the war in iraq will be over. the question is when. we are the strongest country on earth, the strongest country that the earth has ever seen. we end a war when we decide to end a war and i submit to you that that time has come. there is no force on earth that will make us end the war. we have to

i do not think afghanistan today is afghanistan of the soviet union.eal with the situation we have. not with analogies to other places. i understand the question. >> [inaudible] the situation in afghanistan has the potential of along, drawn- out -- [inaudible] >> in terms of domestic american politics there is a great parallel. when the president finds himself in a terrible situation. the critics of the war are nancy pelosi democrats from san francisco, cambridge and new york city. the supporters are sarah palin republicans from alaska and arizona. that is a terrible place for a democratic president to be. the people he has to convince to support him are his natural constituency. he does not have to convince sarah palin. she is looking for the opportunity to say, you are screwing up. the politics are terrible for the president. yes? >> you mentioned that we do not know where osama bin laden is. there are reports that are very few. there have been reports that he has, if not stay in iran, going back and forth to iran. in 2004, there is a photographic ev

it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers.it never did. it is different. how you wrap your mind around that? what do you do? these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now. no one is going to give it to me or anyone. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question. let's go all the way back up here. i will add to what rick said. the political expression of conservatism is going to change. . . >> he was very impressed much a book by claude brown. a lot of it was about heroin use in harlem. he came out when he was running for mayor with some very anti- drug statement or proposal, and he got a postcard from milton friedman. he explained why this was wrong. this was something build lot about and wrestled with, and not just marijuana, he added an issue in the magazine called "the war on drugs is lost." it was a symposium. he was passing this judgment on the whole thing. i think his judgment was that yes, marijuana has that effect. they are not truly worse than alcohol, and we waste a lot of re

but you see similar sentiments throughout the -- throughout eastern europe and the soviet union.one thing that emerged very clearly to me, and this is relevant more generally, not just to 1989, is that there is a real dichotomy between the people who caused the event and the people who shaped the reaction. the people who bring down the wall, end communism, solidarity, eastern protesters, gorbachev, reagan, they didn't shape the post-war. the e.c. is a big part of this. those should be considered as well, the euro is a big part of this story. s if gorbachev had gotten his act together with a number of east european leaders, who are pacifists, who wanted the lesson of world war ii to be that central europe should be permanent nently demilitarized, forever become a neutral zone, not just a neutral germany, but a neutral zone. the only crickcally elected leader was strongly opposed to east germany going into nato. his foreign minister resigned. if they had ever gotten their act together and come up with some coherent alternative that perhaps could have gelled. as they pointed out in

and i saw this in the immediate response of the soviet union which was to say 1989 is 1945.ar ii just ended, we are the four powers, we are going to have a four-power conference, we are going to have a peace treaty, and that's how we're going to resolve what has just happened. and briefly the other four powers play along. there is actually a four-power-only meeting in december 1989. it completely shocked both the east and the west germans who felt like they were being treated like a protectrate. there's a speech by a russian leader saying, well, we've just defeated the nazis, now we have to reconstruct germany. it's a little surreal to read. helmut kohl rapidly proposed his model which i've called revivalism. now, it's slightly different. it means building something that is informed by an older style but that is modernized, updated, something that thomas jefferson would have appreciated if you look around this campus, you can see very much how he admired roman architecture. so helmut kohl decided he needed to counter this notion that it was 1945 and that he didn't matter, an

after all, the communist government in the afghanistan outlived the soviet union, but only barely.a parallel i think we want to spend a lot of time thinking about. i don't think there is a downsizing the mission alternative. i know there's a view out there let's go to pure counterterrorism. it won't work. as an intelligence professional who spent a great deal of time trying to persuade people to commit treason, they won't do it if they don't think you'll be around to give them a check after you complete your mission. it doesn't work that way. >> this morning, ambassador benjamin gave an interesting talk and during the course of his 15 or so minutes, he failed to use three words that you used in the first five minutes of your talk, which was global islamic jihad. i'm curious from your advisory perspective to what level was this broader struggle, how did that resonate in the current administration? there seemed to be a pushback at looking at the problem through that lense. >> i'm saying whatever i want to say.Ñi he is a very good friend and colleague and he's now in the administratio

they have been confronted with occupation by the soviet union and then by foreign al qaeda fighters that used afghan land for their own purposes. tonight, i want the afghan people to understand america seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. we have no interest in occupying your country. we will support efforts by the afghan government to open the door to those taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. and we will seek a partnership with afghanistan grounded in mutual respect. to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave and to forge a lasting friendship in which america is your partner and never york patron. -- and never your patron. third, we will act with the full recognition that its success in afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with pakistan. if we are in afghanistan to prevent the cancer from, once again, spreading through the country. but this same cancer has taken root in the border region of pakistan. that is why we need a strategy that worked on both

. >> it rings memories othe late period of the collapse of the soviet union when vaclav havel in czechoslovakia organized s movement and got dissidentto speak up against the rulof the communist party. china learned lessons from tt period of 1989991, they studied and found a lot ofas wrong from china's perective. they put emphasis economic grow in exchange for no expansion ofndividual personal freedoms -- ceainly no polical freedoms. >> warner:ould you say that's the basibargain, miss holm, at the chinese government is trng to stri with the chine people? "we'llive you a lot of economic growt and more economic fedom, but in return, do not challengeur monopoly on por"? >> i thinkhat's in part a very good stament of the bargain that was struck, pticularly st-crackdown of the june 4, 19 crackdown. that is, make mone yes. democracy,o. the importance of charter0is beyond a pition to what doug paul just said -- arter-08 presents a cogent anysis of the last almoswond years of chinese hiory and enumerates a -- almos100 years of chinese history d enumerates a list of human-rights disasters andhis has all

sure, says jonathan patz-- the former soviet union will have a longer growing season, but he says losers will outnumber winners. >> a majority of agricultural areas will suffer, and the adverse effects will outweigh the beneficial effects. >> suarez: in developing nations, the increase in temperatures could affect the ability to be economically productive. as the world's poorest people try to work themselves out of poverty, the climates they live in are making it harder to work hard. dr. tord kjellstrom studies the effects of climate on work. >> and as the only way to protect your body from overheat and heatstroke, which may even kill you, is to actually slow down work. it means you are less efficient in the work you do. and you get less income. if you are an agricultural worker who is cutting sugar cane in nicaragua, for instance, you will produce less sugar per day if it's very hot and you get paid less. >> suarez: rising heat levels, according to kjellstrom, is an added tax on the poor, who must work longer hours in the hot months to maintain meager incomes. new seasonal patterns will

i read the paper and it was called democracy in the soviet union by bill clinton. promptly forgot about it. years later i'm here in washington, the washington bureau, working at time magazine, national editor. i get a phone call from dr. pelchinsky. and he said people are calling me and want to interview me about -- for the washington post-about bill clinton. and i remembered bill clinton had been a student. said that's great. and he said should i give them that paper? i had forgotten about the paper. and i paused and said, oh, yeah, that paper. so i think quickly, democracy in russia, and remembering that paper, it was taken out of context and some of it was taken in context would not have been too good during that campaign in which republicans were already criticizing him for going to russia, and i realized this would derail his campaign, why russia is really a democracy, had come out. so i was hit with the moral dilemma die tell this nice, wonderful, sweet old professor, yes, give out that paper to any reporter. so finally i said, well, dr., i don't know what yo

beginning of the revolution, but the first were largely like what they did at the first, through the soviet union, through poland, their first links, and connections and interactions were there. in 1988, that was when cuba finally started to become connected outside of that context. and over the next few years, they made a number of negotiations, first with canada, then with the united states on and off, and this was laid out in a number of publications, again sketching this history, but essentially, there are two types of negotiations. one was with the canadian government, and through canada, and this was set up in the early 1990's, 1991, 1992, and it allowed every night for all of the emails in cuba to be sent over the telephone lines from canada beginning at 11:00 at night until all of them went through, into the morning, and that went on for years, but canada was paying for it. the cubans in their negotiations said they really could not foot the bill for that, in canada did, but that ran out partly because canada stopped paying for it -- and canada did. cuba ended up getting connected through

this book that in the beginning of the cold war, it was a very warm confrontation between the soviet unionand the united states, with both sides jockeying for power. and by the site had made a misstep at that time, we would have had nuclear war and the end of the northern hemisphere. these weapons don't just destroy cities. they create ecological, they block out the suns, you can nuclear winter. you destroy the whole northern hemisphere in a war between the two sides. and schriever and company prevented that from happening. >> arthur bernard schriever's in the's in the military right now? >> i would also. i don't know they are but i would hope they are. i think the air force -- this man was very famous in air force and he became the father of the modern high-tech the logical air force. this is not a book, not about technology. it's about people. and when he died, there are 10, four-star generals in the u.s. air force. nine of them marched behind his coffin. the chief of staff at the time said we're not going to bury him as a four-star general. we are going to bury him with the chief of sta

but i did read the paper and it was called democracy and the soviet union by bill clinton. probably forgot about it. years later in here in washington, washington bureau, working at time magazine said the national editor coming back and forth. i get a phone call from him and the great reporters started calling me and wants to interview me for the "washington post" about dell clinton. i said well, that's great. and so he said should i give him that paper? i'd forgotten all about the paper. i said yeah, that paper. so i thought real quickly. democracy in russia and remembering that paper sentences taken out of context and frankly sentences taken in context would not have been too good knowing that campaign in which republicans robert criticize him for even having gone to russia. and i realized this would derail his campaign if why russia is really a democracy his paper had come out. so i was that without moral dilemma of do i tell this nice, wonderful, sweet old professor gas, give out that paper. so finally i said, while dr. kochanski i don't know what he should do. however