. >> but i don't think it really signifies much because it is not like we are unilaterally disarming. we have a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. the problem is we have a lot of old weapons we don't know what to do with them. we have enough to kill the russians many times over. we are trying to fina way to bring the arsenal down. but we still have to modernize them. we can't just forget about them. there is -- in fact, we will spend a lot of money to modernize the nuclear arsenal. this is not going away. we will not be defenseless. i think obama has projected as on a trajectory toward a goal we are never going to get to, and he wants some credit for doing it. >> he said himself at one not happen this lifetime. >> that is where the politics will come into play. this is the first engagement of foreign-policy in this highly partisan environment that washington has become. we are going to see a whole different set of republicans coming to the forefront when this debate rages, because the senate does have to ratify this treaty. and senator richard lugar, some of the more moderate, especiall

and move on to unilateral, not multi-lateral sanctions. >> bret: meantime, charles, in iran, in tehran, president mahmoud ahmadinejad has been very bold thumbing his nose at the u.s. they have another parade there of showing off their military might and all of their weaponry over the weekend. and who continues to make the statements that he is not in any mood to negotiate or to work with the united nations, or anybody else. >> i think it really is a sign of his fanaticism and the fanaticism of the regime. they're not content with rejecting an obama overture. they insist on humiliating him and showing contempt. they've done it over and over for now a year and three months without suffering any consequences. in fact, on the contrary. the more he rebuffs, rejects and humiliates the president the more he opens his hand and continues to offer other carrots. now he is looking for sanctions which are rather weak. i'm interested in the memo and how gates is denying that it was a wake-up call. his denial said instead no, the memo presented a number of questions that contribute to timely decisio

will do nothing unilaterally to remove even these tactical nuclear bombs in europe which all the military and you know this better than i do are obsolete. we would never use those in the military operation but we are saying basically to pacify and make people feel real assured will leave them there so there isn't a unilateral production. the more difficult issue is the question and of the not so much with the u.s. isn't putting tactical nuclear weapons in the region so any kind of extended nuclear deterrence would be from the systems, the summer rains, the land base systems and the bombers in the u.s. and whether that would even be necessary or would be helpful at a time when you're still trying to persuade iran not to build a clear weapons in the first place and try to persuade iran's neighbors and the rest of the world to work with you to press iran. he then announced by the way we will use our nuclear weapons against iran if they don't stop trying to get them, i don't know how that would help the politics of it but i don't know also whether u.s. military planners was a bill would need

so nobody is advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament. but what we are trying to do is refocus, refocus attention to proliferation. one last comment here. let me remind you that the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty had embodied in it a tradeoff, a deal, a bargain. what it said was that existing non-nuclear countries signed up, committed themselves to remaining non-nuclear. but the existing nuclear powers committed themselves to a serious effort of nuclear disarmament. and in past nuclear proliferation review conferences, those non-nuclear countries have justifiably criticized the united states and other nuclear powers for not seriously pursuing their commitments under the treaty. but with the start treaty with the follow-on of negotiation that further reduce u.s. and russian nuclear warheads, and with a multilateral, potential multilateral, armed control forum where every nuclear state participates, we strengthen, i think, the barriers to further nuclear spread. and that's the logic behind the global zero concept. it's also the politi

is going to do nothing unilaterally to remove even these tactical nuclear bombs in europe which all the military -- and you know this better than i do. are obsolete. we would never use those weapons in a military operation. but we're saying basically if it pacifies and makes people feel reassured, we'll leave them there so there won't be a unilateral reduction. the more difficult issue is the question of the middle east where it's not so much -- where the u.s. isn't putting tactical nuclear weapons in the region. so any kind of extended nuclear deterrence would be from the systems, the submarines, the land based systems the bombers and the u.s. and whether that would even be necessary or would it be helpful at a time when you're still trying to persuade iran not to build nuclear weapons in the first place. and you're trying to persuade iran's neighbors and the rest of the world to work with you to press iran. if you then announce oh, and by the way, we'll use our nuclear weapons against iran if iran doesn't stop trying to get nuclear weapons. i don't know how that would help the politic

i believe that unilateralism is to expensive. if elected, i will go with text messaging. i will text our allies just to say hi, and text our enemies when they are fighting. o.m.g., you are building a nuclear weapon? but you were doing it wrong, lol. this is the first time my son knew what i was doing. thank you very much. have a good night. [applause] >> joe wong. thank you so much, joe. thank you, mr. vice president, for being with us this evening. please remain seated while the vice-president departs the building. oh, you are not leaving? tonight's program was made possible by new star, the company that brings the world together. i thank them for their help in making this possible. our dinner was also not be possible without the efforts of a dedicated dinner team. this evening as a culmination of their phenomenal work. on behalf of the executive committee, i want to applaud the planners for their commitment to our association. a special plea to the washington convention center and to the caterer for their hospitality also -- for their hospitality. i hope you have enjoye

one of which the unilateral nature. we have got nothing for this.ean, the administration prospectively indicating how they believe others will respond to it. without any real historical basis for. we have not seen the united states has decreased its arsenal, russia has decreased its arsenal. we have not seen an abandonment by foreign nations to seek nuclear weapons and nuclear capability. so there's not a historical basis for the president saying this type of change that we would undertake will result in a safer world for us. the other issue is what this means that i think the president doesn't necessarily mean that he would not defend the united states with every available system that we have to the extent it would be necessary. to that extent, the foreign audience may find that the statement is received by them as meaningless, nations that don't know threat for the fact that we had a deterrence before and are not going to see a change. ever also have to focus on -- these are defensive weapons. we are talking about the threat to us. so i do have ve

combined with unilateral disarmament mindset. i think the term dangerous is legitimate to raise about policies and lack of understanding of reality in this administration. >> sean: when he would come back i want to ask about the -- all important midterm lex. we've got a tape of a harry reid rally. one attacking the tea party movement saying they can drop dead your reaction to that more with speaker gingrich on the other side of the break as hannity continues. thanks to the new venture card from capital one, we get double miles with every purchase. so we earned a tropical vacation in half the time. we earn double miles every time we use our card. ( shouts ) double miles add up fast so we can bring the whole gang. ( grunting ) awesome! it's hard to beat double miles. everyone knows two is better than one. introducing the venture card from capital one... with double miles on every purchase every day. go to capitalone.com. ( gasps ) what's in your wallet? wait up! [ male announcer ] we call it the american renewal. because we believe

the second is a unilateral obligation which president obama said a month after coming to office, at thend of august, we'll be down to 50,000 troops. >> is that right? >> you have to be testing assumptions. we have no idea what is happening day to day and the assumptions underlining that withdrawal are called into question. >> would you agree with that, ambassador crocker, given the level of violence now? fot just since the election, it was before the election as well. >> the violence is a concern but also predictable. the iraqis are tough people. i think they will withstand this. it's not the violence that concerns me so much as simply the tough politics of government formation. i think mr. allawi was optimistic when he said a government could be formed in two months. i think the more realistic deadline is the beginning of ramadan at the -- at the start of august. >> but that -- >> so i worry about a decision to have us down to 50,000 troops, perhaps in the same month that a new government is formed. >> and that's an extraordinarily long time, four months, five months until that day tha

have a unilateral statement? >> the npr is very explicit and referring to the fundamental role of nuclear weapons being for deterrents. there has been a lot of speculation outside of the government and there was a lot of discussion inside of how to frame that and how to describe it whether it be the sole purpose, whether we would forgo first use and so on. i think there was agreement within the administration that we did not think we were far enough along the road toward getting control of nuclear weapons around the world to limit ourselves so explicitly. there was general agreement that the term fundamental purpose basically made clear, and other language makes clear, this is obviously a weapon of last resort. we are also very explicit about that. we recognize we need to make progress in moving in that direction but we also recognize the real world we continue to live in. >> i am not aware of the statement but it is no surprise that the russians remain concerned about our missile defense program. we have persist

i particularly was hoping that obama would be able to do a series of unilateral moves that would not depend so much on congressional approval and we will see in the coming days, particularly in the next two weeks, i think we will see more views emerging from congress not just on start but on the nuclear posture review. >> do you anticipate when the president meets with the russian president that that will be a meeting to get the russians to sign off on sanctions? should we look at the chinese meeting as well as potentially face-to-face sign-off on sanctions with iran? we on that kind of timetable? should we consider that one of the central items of that agenda? secondly, what ever happens to the security council, the you think it would be likely and it possible to do it other component of sanctions? would europe be open to that question of should we anticipate that after what everett the security council does or does not come up with? lastly, almost every tree of this nature has been a conversation of the numbers. we have not talked numbers at all. are they not impressive or is it ab

but we are saying to make people feel reassured, we will leave them there so there will not be a unilateral reduction. the more difficult issue is the question of the middle east, where the u.s. is not cutting tactical nuclear weapons in the region, so in the nuclear deterrence would be from the submarines, lan-based systems in the u.s., and whether that would be necessary, or would it be helpful at a time when you're still trying to persuade iran not to build nuclear weapons of the first office and you're trying to persuade the rest of the world to work with you to press iran. if you then announce, we will use our nuclear weapons against iran if iran does not stop trying to get nuclear weapons area i do not know how that would help the politics, but i do not know if u.s. nuclear workers would say we needed to defeat iran. they would said we do not, in which case, why would you talk about introducing the now, because i do not know they would be reassuring in the middle eastern conference. i do not know how that would play politically and be reassuring, fan may be others have a better idea.

latin america was early on a dissenter of george bush's militarism and unilateralism.we saw dissenting from the war on-- the invasion of iraq and a number of other moves to institutionalize unilateralism. we also saw latin america take the initiative in trying to move beyond this extreme deregulation that crippled latin america in many ways during the 1990s. economic deregulation. when you see in other words, is latin america really grappling with the two problems that in many ways derailed the u.s. in the last couple of years. the militarism that took shape during the bush administration and the extreme economic deregulation. the united states is now just coming to terms with those two. latin america has had a year of trying to work through them and i think they have been paging enormous strides. >> rose: all of you are saying it is pulling away from the united states. why is that? >> i think there are a number of real structure reasons, global reasons you see. the united states no longer the sole creditor and source of capital for latin america. they now have capital

i would say that i particularly was hoping that obama would be able to do a series of unilateral movesthat wouldn't depend so much on congressional approval and we will see in the country is particularly in the next two weeks. i think we will see some more of use emerging from congress not just on start but on the nuclear posture review. whether there is satisfaction there. >> a couple filing said. do you anticipate that when the president's meets with president medvedev that will be immune to get the russians to sign off on iran sanctions similarly when presidents who comes here should we look in both those meetings as potentially face to face sign off on iran? do think we're on the timetable? is hard to know for sure but for those covering around this should reconsider that one of the central agenda's? secondly, what ever happens to the security council do you think it would be likely and advisable for the you or some other organization to do another component of sanctions? to think that's something we should anticipate after the security council does or doesn't come up with press la

for us it would be futile on the international stage to unilaterally say we'll put in place limits or cap-and-trade standards if we compete with the chinese. what does that say? teeeleven dain global warming? remicade all call it america warming. and if one's primary concern is global warming than look at the emissions on a global basis to make sure actions taken tuned just put america and american workers at a disadvantage instead make an adjustment and changes for the entire planet that is five the entire plan which readily end up affecting americans would end up with the largest in matters of energy that would say why build a new factory in america crooks why keep the factory going when i have to pay far more expensive prices for energy in this country? why not go to a other nations like brazil, indonesia tie-in end that don't have the cap-and-trade cost therefore i can be more effective and cost-effective. >> host: or what about american leadership or a role model? >> that causes the largest in vendors and bumper of which are china and other developing nations too simply smile and

obama would be asking for unilateral movement, which would not depend too much on congressional approval the next two weeks, i think we will see some more views emerging from congress, not just on start but on the nuclear posture review. >> do you anticipate that when president obama meets with president medvedev that it will be a meeting to get the russians to sign off on the sanctions? subsequently, the meetings here next week. it should we look at those meetings as potentially face to face a runoff on iran? i know it is hard to know for sure -- a face to face sign off on in iran? i know it is hard to know for sure. secondly, what ever happens to the security council, you think it would be likely end advisable for the you or some other organization to do -- for the e.u. or some other organization to do some other sanctions? and lastly, almost every treaty of this nation -- of this nature has been a combination of numbers. we have not talked about that at all. is that because the numbers are not impressive, or because it is about something else? >> on the round question -- the iran ques

probably at fault and clearly did not want to allow the united states and nato to use military force unilaterally against serbia which was a traditional russian client. why was it wrong in your view for the clinton administration to move against what was received at the time as serbian aggression and atrocities against the muslims? >> guest: i think for the reason that you indicated the way that will stun was as we say counterproductive in the long run because if we have cooperated closely with russia to control the serbs, and we would have been able to do that if we had not started expanding nato to the east to their disadvantage, then i think we could've gotten more cooperation to keep milosevich the serbian leader under control or if not we could have gotten a vote in the security council to use whatever military force we could but by bypassing the u.n. security council making it look to the russians as if we were simply moving in to control of this entire area which had been part of you might say the russian traditional area of influence was simply i think the wrong message and it left us wit

we're not for unilateral disarmament. none of us are. but we do know that the longer this goes on, the possession of these weapons without a lock-wm down, without reducing, the chances of a detonation in an american city go up. >> abernethy: from terrorism. >> from terrorism. >> abernethy: now what can nuclear weapons do about terrorism? where does that fit together? >> well, frankly, we're talking about reducing strategic weapons in this start treaty, but there's also the lock-down of nuclear materials and the rest. that's what has to happen, and frankly, terrorists can get these weapons through nuclear materials from russia and elsewhere. and we know it's going to happen. the question is, can we stop it? >> abernethy: yeah, well, that's my question. what is your recommendation about how to prevent that? >> what most policy analysts in this town aren't doing is talking about engaging with religious groups internationally-- muslim leaders where i'm going to morocco this week to do just that-- for peace-making purposes. in other words, en

because there is very little you can do in this world that is important globally that is done on a unilateralbasis. >> you mentioned president was. i am a little bit like your mother. in fact, remember she has changed her mind. >> but, through the book, i got more appreciation for what he did in this particular situation. in fact, i read various economists, eloquent ones, adam smith or david ricardo or keynes and all of that but i had never heard a more eloquent statement that's distinctly summed up the economic world than george bush made in september of 2008 when he said in a memorable 10 words. he said if money doesn't listen up, this is going to go down. [laughter] i mean, it was like the gettysburg address, short but to the point. [laughter] as i read the book, i really did gain an appreciation for the fact that he understood what was going on and he understood what needed to be done. was there ever a time he went to them with proposals that he shot you down on? >> no, he was only surprised when i was surprised. >> what was the biggest surprise? one of the things i learned from warren is

i will not do so on a unilateral basis in a world as dangerous as the one in there we live in today. >> couric: finally, the president acknowledged his personal life is always under the microscope. it must get slightly annoying. >> ( translated ): you know, madam, if you don't want to be annoyed than you have to choose another job than my job. having said that, it's a wonderful job. it's part of modern life, it's part of the system, the way it is, it's not really worth wasting one's time on or ones breast on. in any case, there's not much we can do about it so we try to deal with it as calmly as possible. >> couric: mr. president, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. you speak french very friendly. is. >> couric: hardly. in other news, one week after the explosion at a west virginia coal mine, the last of the bodies are now being recovered. now the focus is shifting to how the disaster happened and who might be to blame. jim axelrod is in charleston, west virginia. >> reporter: at a memorial this afternoon, west virginia's governor tried to soothe the spirits broken by the na

several response to your premium is to the government's attention that you didn't have the legal unilateral right to descope, that's her legal position? >> i don't know about the legal position. i think it is from our understanding of our contract and our ability to do what we've got to do, we must have direction from the government, okay, to take those off, to take it off. >> now, bring cost-saving to the government is a contrary unto an award saving. >> yes, sir. >> and how much in the way of award fee has kbr got over the course of logcap iii on the basis of the criteria cost saving, proximally? >> sir, i don't know that. i'm a double-a to do that. >> do you know, mr. horn? >> for the life of the contract? >> just approximately. you have a ballpark figure. have you gotten any? >> yes, sir. >> can you hazard your gas? >> sir, i prefer to not hazard to guess. but i will be happy to get you the exact details and forward them to you. >> i'd like you to hazard to guess. >> are not going to make a guess because i'll be held accountable hor that guest of the cows come

is a unilateral action on behalf of the president. it goes to the base.he president has set a world without nuclear weapons wanting to go to zero. and said it being a human value statement, it is a process where she is looking at how he cannot translated into any u.s. policy and then how becomes a to-do list. each step along the way is a signal for what the next step would be. this does have some concern that we should address, but one of which would be of a unilateral nature and we have nothing for this. they are indicating how others will respond to it without any historical basis for it. the yen states has decreased its arsenal. -- the united states has decreased its arsenal. this is not a historical basis, this type of change that would result in a safer world. the other issue is what does it mean it does not mean he would not defend the united states with every available system we have to the extent it would be necessary. maybe the foreign audience would find this statement received by them is meaningless. we had a key terrance before are not now goi

they are all about so you say forces would be in some sense futile on the international stage to unilaterally say we are going to put in place limits on cap-and-trade standards if we are going to compete with the chinese. what does that say to the world about our commitment to limiting global warming? >> guest: well, they don't call it america warming. they call it global with warming and if one's primary concern is global warming then you have to look at what the omissions are going to become a global basis and make sure actions that are taken don't just put america and american workers at a disadvantage but instead make an adjustment in changes for the entire planet. that is why the president's cap-and-trade plan, which would only end up affecting americans and american employers, would end up with lets say the largest emitters, the largest users of energy would say why build a new factory in america? is a matter fact why keep the factory in america going when i'm going to have to pay far more expensive prices for energy in this country. why not build it in nations like rizzo, indonesia, ch

nobody is advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament. what we are trying to do it is refocus attention to proliferation. one last comment. let me remind you that the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty had embedded in a trade-off, a deal, a bargain. what it said was that existing non-nuclear countries committed themselves to remain in non- nuclear. the existing nuclear powers committed themselves to a serious effort of nuclear disarmament. in past nuclear proliferation review conferences, those non- nuclear countries have justifiably criticized the united states and other powers are not seriously pursuing their commitments under the treaty. but, with the start treaty, and with a multi-lateral potential forum where every state participates, we strengthen the barriers to further nuclear spread. that is the logic behind the global zero concept and it is also the political logic, i think, behind the obama administration's efforts to link the new start agreement with its goal of non-proliferation. >> i am susan cornwell with reuters. ambass

the president then used when he unilaterally and abruptly canceled the agreement we had with the polsand the czeches to build a missile defense system that would precisely be designed to shoot down intercontinental rocket from iran headed over to the united states. so that rationale now collapses. it looks as if the iranians are on a faster track. and the rocket test you show, the one in february where iran put up a rocket and satellite in space, that had a mouse on it. you remember at the time, i pointed out that iran is not exactly the leader in rodent research. it was showing its reach in being able to hit any country on earth. that was a two-stage rockrocket. intercontinental you need a three stage to hit the united states. but that is coming. we know it's coming. why the administration would cancel a system in europe that would help us, why it's reducing the number of ground space launches in alaska, that would shut down a korean rocket, and why it canceled the airborne laze cheselaser, t single most prominent technology for shooting a rocket on its way up, which is much better t

unilateral statements are what they are. these are still being negotiated. the the statement by one side that is not influenced by the other. they are part of the treaty package. in our case, there are no limits or constraints on this. >> you said that those statements are still being negotiated. >> each side will make an adjustment over the unilateral statements and what they will say. >> if this passes the history, you have what happened in the start agreement. we ended up aggregating this treaty. the statement was that we use this for missile defense. we did not. >> is this going to undermine the treaty? they understand that missile defense is somehow frozen -- >> nothing that we have said shows that this would be constrained or frozen. >> given this focus on the zero- option, and given the fact that they have significant cuts -- the question is rising is whether the united states is actually able or willing to defend them the way that they expect to be defended. and that will lead them to believe that they also need nuclear weapons. this will be an incre

the secretary has made clear, we think that the parties have special responsibilities not to take unilateralactions that complicate-- they should take actions that promote negotiations. they should not take actions that complicate negotiations but that is our position. as to how that applies to the actions of the mayor i'll leave that to the israelis. >> but do you regard his comment as a complicating factor? >> i would simply say say that israel and israeli citizens have special responsibility as palestinian authority and palestinian people have special responsibilities. that would include the mayor of israel, the mayor of jerusalem. >> that was not my question. my question is does this complicate your attempts to get the proximity talks started? >> i am not going to comment on the mayor's specific comments. obviously this issue involving actions on the ground have the potential to complicate proximity talks that we hope will lead to the direct negotiations. we have made that clear. inner lateral actions weather made it the government to level or at the citizen system level have an impact.

if countries unilaterally decide to have nuclear weapons and break the non-proliferation treaty, then we need multi- lateral action with all of us working together. we are nuclear weapon states. we can make a huge difference in the reduction of nuclear weapons overall, if we can persuade countries not to have nuclear weapons in the first place or force them not to have them, if we can then have a reduction in nuclear weapons all round. but i don't favor nick's proposal which would unilaterally abandon our nuclear deterrent when we know iran and north korea and other countries are trying to get -- >> all i'm saying is, i don't think we should kid people into thinking we can either justify or afford 100 billion pounds over 25 years on a nuclear war system --missile system, which was designed explicitly to flatten st petersburg and moscow at the press of a button. i think the world has moved on and i think you two need to move with it. we're not in the cold war any more, and we shouldn't be spending billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on a cold war missile system when, as nick said in

we will call out israel, they take unilateral steps that are unhelpful.lled out the palestinians where they took steps on the ground that creates tension. we're doing the things we've always done to encourage ultimately a resolution, get to the substance of a negotiation so we can reach a peace agreement that's in everyone's interest. >> miles to go before we sleep. then the matter of had hamid ka. i mean he's talking about joining the taliban, later he says he wasn't going to. it doesn't appear like things are perfectly in drive, especially not with the afghans. >> well, president karzai is the legitimate leader -- >> you said legitimate quickly. >> he is the president of afghanistan, recognized as such by the afghan people. we have made clear to him, he has a significant role to play here in going forward. we have at the national and local level, there are clear things -- >> shepard: his brother's in the heroin business. >> we have concerns about his brother. >> shepard: he's in the heroin business, isn't it. >> he's -- >> shepard: the heroin that goes

that unilaterally decided to regulate co2 to give it total control over our energy economy.l control over waters. is there not an iota respect for federalist structure of the country? >> bret: are these fair questions? >> they are and they need to be answered and figured out. oberstar says is it not his intent. now he has to write a bill for that. >> if this were to pass and become law you talk about not only expanding the clean water act of 1972 but expanding the commerce clause in. if the court comes in and finds the new law is constitutional, which, you know, given the way the bench is trending you can make this a meaningless provision. >> bret: there will be i guarantee you no other news organization that covers this particular aspect of this bill. in the overall umbrella of concern about federal power grab, this fits in the narrative. >> the individual mandate of healthcare, which is also excused away or under the commerce clause which will be a brand new novel original and incorrect interpretation. the liberals understand they have a window of 2009 and 2010 they have a

20 years worked with him on and off for good during the second time i tried to shape a number of unilateral cease-fire three of them fell apart pro very tough time. very bloody and after mr. arafat i decided i would continue i went out to me tomas and hezbollah to shape the understanding of what i call political islam and using them as a great middle ground of the muslim world of political islam, the moderate to open the region to provide a way of shaping american policy. >> host: why did you decide to spend so much time in the middle east tour israel in particular? phillips like you have been there more than 30 times. >> guest: you go to our region and fall in love with it. people interesting. the politics enormously complex in factory try to keep from going to other parts of the world but i went to vietnam a couple times and thought if i come here much more i will fall in love with this part of the world diamond real trouble. politics are very real threat to every single day it pulls you in and it has pulled me in and thousands and thousands of americans. i am just one of them is a place

there has been criticism by the majority in the administration and the congress about the unilateral control of the presidency for a period of time by the republicans. i am concerned about the current return of structure of the current non-bipartisan arrangement. just as you are writing their and characteristically, given a little bit of credit, to the fact that prior to your signing in, union you were going to have to work with the house of representatives controlled by another party -- you knew that you were going to have to work with the house of representatives controlled by another party. and yes, the president signed it. but he would have nothing to sign if it had not been advanced by congress. it, but he would have had nothing to sign if it hadn't been advanced by a congress with the house of representatives controlling the purse strings, republican by a republican majority. : >> in 1997 the republicans and democrats worked together in a bipartisan fashion. and the house of representatives for the reasons you described to arrive at a balanced budget agreement, which carried fo

what we have decidedç unilaterally, we are going to stop testing. nuclear weapons. this man, as commander in chief, is effectively said we are not going to take further advancements with space. not just intelligence, surveil license and reconnaissance. also not put -- surveillance and reconnaissance. >> sean: churchill, chamberlain, peace in our time. carter vs. reagan, peace through strength, trust but verify and the appeasement policies of carter.ç for the prism of that history where does barack obama stand? >> one of the misstatements he made this week reaffirmed by his secretary of state hillary clinton, both ever saying, we are going to be the dominant military force as we've always been. i hate to tell them this. in 1941 we were not the dominant military force. it took us two years to gerd up to fight world war ii. -- first offensive operations in world war ii after pearl harbor didn't begin until august of 1942 we lostç every battle leading up to that we can't afford to lose the battles today. >> sean: senator mccain says the u.s. keeps poi

my belief in and my belief now is that one from in this business cannot unilaterally withdraw from the business and maintain its ability to conduct business in the future. running a security business is a lot like running a baseball team. where none of the players have contracts. and people can lead any day and go to another team. and if you are not engaged in business, people leave the institution. and so it is impossible, in my view, in the leveraged lending business for you to say to your bankers, we're just not going to participate in the business for the next year or so, until things become a little more rational. you can't do that. and expect that you will have any people left to conduct business in the future. >> okay. if i could, just one more minute. there are several issues it seems to me that if we, i'm going to ask him and if we don't get a chance to answer them, i would ask you to try to respond in writing because there has been a lot of discussion about a whole variety of forms of arbitrage, which were engaged in by the principal financial institutions that are coming bef

include did not want to allow the united states and nato to use military force unilaterally against serbiawhich was traditional russian enclave. why was the wrong interview for the clinton administration to move against what was perceived at that time as serbian aggression and serbian atrocities against the muslims? >> guest: i think for the very reason you indicated, that the way it was done was, as we say, counterproductive in the long run. because if we had cooperated closely with russia to control the serbs, and we would have been able to do that, if we had not started expanding nato to the east, to their disadvantage, then i think we could have gotten more cooperation to keep milosevic, the serbian leader, under control. or if not, we could've gotten a vote in the security council to use whatever military force we could. but by bypassing the u.n., bypassing the security council, making it look to the russians as if we were simply moving into control of this entire area, which had been part of, you might say, the russian traditional area of influence, was simply, i think, the wrong mes

had he, instead of charting his own course, engaged our traditional allies, had he not been unilateral but multilateral, he would've had more international support. he would have been more effective even if you chosen to go into iraq, and above all, he would have been guided away from the errors he made. and when he spoke about our traditional lives, obama meant the europeans. and when he meant the europeans, he really meant the germans and the french. and even backing his campaign, obama chose to campaign in berlin. and that was really an extraordinary thing that he did but he was trying to transmit something to the american public. which is that bush has led the united states into isolation, internationally, and he, barack obama, wanted to in that isolation, to restructure the relationship between the united states and the rest of the world, by which even frequently the french and the germans. but that's the heartland of europe so that's not necessarily a bad thing to want. barack obama became enormously popular in europe. to the point where even the norwegians had heard of him and g

the gaza withdrawal is a good example where the israelis acted unilaterally with israelis refusing to negotiate with palestinians the we that might have uncovered the moderates. even now today though there are plenty of israeli-palestinian contracts going on not at that negotiating level but i assure you there are lots of contacts going on even now. we want to see negotiations start as quickly as possible. elliott, your article today all process, no peace. i guess we are afraid no process means more war so we want to get back to the negotiations. >> the thank you. my question to ambassador feltman is director controversy all decision from the electoral commission by disqualifying more than 500 some of them sunni heavyweights. is there any american plan to rectify the situation and maybe lee can, and how the united states can provide any system will eckert if the u.s. has to go back every time for an election over the president or to please the iraqi elections. >> who's singing that we believe that the iraqi elections should be conclusive that there shouldn't be some sort of a trumped

without unilateral actions to cut off iran's gasoline, no other sanctions policy is serious. we it we have a chance to remove a great danger to the security of americans and israeli children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, the chair of the foreign operations subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chair for your leadership on this very important issue, and i want to express my strong support for h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act that mandates tighter sanctions against the iranian regime. with its continued defiance of the international community and the clock ticking on their nuclear capabilities, now is the time for action. this week iran announced testing of various missiles and weapons capability. u.s. officials have said that iran could develop a ballistic missile capable of strikin