this morning a development assistance when properly administered remains a bargain for united states national security. and for our own economic and moral standing in the world. even in the worst of times, the united states remains a wealthy nation with interests in every corner of the globe. foreign assistance is a key component of the united states national security strategy. especially since the tragic events of september 11th, 2001, it's evident that poorly governed states with impoverished populations can pose grave threats to our national security. nations that struggle with severe poverty and corrupt governance are at greater risk from terrorism and instability. wars and extended military operations are enormously expensive in lives and in dollars. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years fighting wars. and preparing for military scenarios in underdeveloped regions of the world. if properly targeted foreign assistance programs can mitigate national security risk and improve the united states' connections to peoples and governments. they may well save huge military expenditures d

so i respect and admire the united nations security council and the thing that is they do. but the fact is united states national security should not be governed by whether russia should veto the security coup sill. you have been over looked four times please go ahead. >> my name is tyler o'neal and my question is about turkey. with the act party successful in 2011. they seemed to have a shift toward islamism. do you think their interested being coincidental with the united states would change in that situation? >> i believe that turkey is one of our strongest allies in the world much less the region. but i voiced concerns at a breakfast at a u.s. turkey society that i continue to be worried about the jailing of journalists. turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world. i have been worried about intimidation of opposition parties and consolidation of w power in the hands of the prime mip ster and a man that i admire and respect a great deal. i worry about tendencies in turkey that transcend religious reason ares and that is a matter of great concern and we should concern and c

united nations security council. and the things that they do. but the fact is the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in the security -- united nations security council. you've been overlooked four times. please go ahead. >> my name is tyler o'neill with the washington freebie con. my question is about turkey. with the act party successful last year in 2011, they seem to have a shift toward islamist. do you think that their interests being coincidental with the united states would change in that situation? >> no, i believe that turkey is one of our strongest allies in the world much less the region. but i have voiced concerns as recently as last week at a breakfast with the u.s. turkey society that i am continued to be worried about the jailing of journalists. turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i've been worried about intimidation of opposition parties. i've been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister. a man who i respect and admire a great

law of the sea convention is a tool they need to maximize their ability to protect the united states' national security, with the least risk to the men and women charged with that task. this request is not the results of a recent reassessment. by naval authorities or the enthusiasm of a few naval leaders. the support of the military and the navy for this treaty has been consistent, sustained, and unequal. all the members of the joint chiefs support, advise, and consent. their predecessors, likewise, supported the convention. as it was wrote in the joint letter back in 1988, quote, there are no downsides to this treaty. it contains exes expensive term preserve u.s. maritime superiority. it also has vitally important provisions which guard against the dd dilution of fanavigation freedoms. end of quote. now, the military is not always right. but the overwhelming presumption in the united states senate has been that if military leaders ask us for something to help them do their job, we do our best to provide them with that tool. within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting. articles and statemen

first of all, it raises to the level of a serious crime, and it is really harming the united states' national security. we all ought to be outraged about this mccain: regardless of how useless these leaks may have been to the president these have to stop. the leaks have got to stop. >> cenk: outrage. my god, that would never have happened under an republican. john mccain takes it one step further mccain: our intelligence leaders under the administration say this is the worst breach that has ever seen. that's the really offensive. >> cenk: the worst breach ever seen. during the bush administration they leaked valerie's plam's name. i'm sure john mccain was just as upset about that? here's what he said at the time. i do believe that every american has the right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty approximating. karl rove has stated he did not do anything wrong and break any law. i take him at his word. hmm, not quite as outraged when there was an leak that endangered somebody's life. under the bush administration they had countless leaks. cybersecurity plan? wait a minute, i thought that was

united nations in new york. and now, former spokesman for the state department and senior director for policy affairs for the united states national security council, a former senior there. p.j., where are we on this crisis? >>guest: well, part of what you just reported is trying to raise the costs of russian sport to its client state, syria, to the point that russia begins to envision a syria without assad and there is some hint coming from mexico in the president's conversation with putin at least they got to that point. well, what happens the day after assad goes? as we go forward if russia believes their national interests are protected in syria a wider range of options become possible that do not exist at the moment. >>shepard: from what we have her it sounds our president was appealing to the russian president's ego say youing can still have influence, you need to act like a super bowl if you are a super bowl but the body language from the two of them afterward suggested they did not get much done. >>guest: they will never be buddies. the president struck up a relationship because putin is not his leader and i don't think that is rec

so i respect and admire the united nations security council and the things that they do. the fact that is the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in the united nations security council. yes. you have been overlooked four times. please go ahead. [laughter] >> hello, my name is tyler o'neal with " the "washington free beacon." with the act party successful last year, they seem to have a shift toward islamism. do you think their interest is coincidental with the united states and that would change? >> i believe that turkey is one of our strongest allies in the world, much less the region. last week, there was a breakfast with the u.s. turkey society. i continue to be worried about the gm of journalists. -- the jailing of journalists. turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i have been worried about intimidation about opposition parties. i have been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister, a man who i respect and admire a great deal, but i also worry about tendencies in turkey

security council, the united states and countries want to do more. russia and china want to do less. as long as that split remains, there is a limit to what the national security can or will do. >>shepard: but john mccain and others suggest we arm the rebels. a nod to afghanistan could suggest to some that could be a losing proposition. >>guest: well, i would way look at libya, for example, where libya was awash in weapons and now just this week a militia group took over temporarily the tripoli international airport and you have had weapons spilling out of libya and that destabilized somalia and the neighborhood to the extent now you have rebel forces, some of them on the side of al qaeda who control territories the side of france. so, it is one thing to say am the opposition. but unlike libya which had a real opposition, they held territory, and they presented themselves as a viable alternative to libya the syrian opposition is not there. it could get there overtime and one thing hillary clinton talked about to the international community in turkey this week was trying to find ways to make the opposition more effective but trying to figure out who th

national security. and for our own economic and moral standing in the world. even in the worst of times, the united states remains a wealthy nation with interests in every corner of the globe. foreign assistance is a key component of the united states national security strategy. is specially since the tragic events of september 11, 2001 is evidence that poorly governed states with impoverished populations can pose grave threats to our national security. nations that struggle with severe poverty and corrupt governance are at greater risk of terrorism and instability. wars and extended military operations are enormously expensive in lives and in dollars. we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years fighting wars and preparing for a military scenario and other developed regions of the world. if properly targeted, foreign assistance programs mitigate national security risks and improve united states connections to peoples and governments. they may well save huge military expenditures down the road. this is one of the reasons why the defense department has been a strong advocate of a robust fo

even in the worst of times the united states remains a wealthy nation with interests in every corner of the globe. it is a key comcomponent of the united states security strategy. especially since the tragic events of september 11th 2001 with states with impoverished regulations can pose great threats to our nation. we have spent millions of dollars in recent years fighting wars. if properly targeted, it can improve united states connections to peoples and governments. this is why the national security, i strongly believe that no global superpower that claims to possess the moral high ground can afford to relink wish to prevent global disease. the promotion of economic opportunity and resistance to oppression. this set of ideals was reaffirmed to the sacrifice of our civil war and amplified during two civil wars in which the united states opposed the forces of aggression and conquest. our moral identity glows from thomas jefferson and abraham lincoln to the present day. i'm saying that no nation is more closely associated with a set of historic moral presepts and as an observer and global affairs, i believe this is a good thing. and i believe our mora

and that is, it has to be in the vital national security of the united states. two, we have to have overwhelming force on day one, and three, we have to have a very clear, well understood exit strategy. >> what about cutting the defense budget in order to balance it? >> as a former member of the cia, having served on a presidential commission to restructure our foreign intelligence agencies, we need to keep our military strong as possible. our strong military is our greatest defense against being attacked, but there are ways that we can reduce our costs in the military budget. right now, virtually every weapons system, which is approved, is laced, inner laced with earmarks from different congressmen or senators, they want this part manufactured over here, that part manufactured over here and all that does, ross, it increases the cost, delays the final delivery system of the weapons system and -- >> thank you. >> -- we can save money and deliver the weapons to our warriors in the field faster. >> thank you very much. peggy pekak has a question. >> do you believe

but the fact is, the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in the security u.n. security counsel. yes, sir? you've been overlooked, four times. please, go ahead. [laughter] >> hi, my name is tyler o'neal. my question is about turkey. with the party successful last year in 2011, they seem to have a shift toward islamism. do you think -- that there interest being consequences dent l with the united states would change in that situation? >> iblg that turkey one of our strongest allies in the world. many less the region. but i have voiced concerns as recently as last week at the breakfast with the u.s. turkey society that i am continued to be worried about the jailing of journalists, turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i've been worried about intimidation of opposition parties. i've been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister, a man who i respect and admire a great deal. i also worry about authoritarian send tendencies in turkey that far transsed islamism

development of ocean floor resources that could contribute significantly to the united states energy and national security and create jobs, we need to ratify the law of the sea. and the state department for failing to approve a keystone pipeline. it provides clearer long-term benefits to job creation and energy security. in that case the president's delay is unnecessarily disadvantaging. the u.s. economy has concerns over thing that is not resolved. if the senate declines to have the law of the sea, i believe we will be doing the same thing. during this congress, they have been more sinful to senate

expressing our strongly held belief that the law of the state ratification would prove both to the national security interest and sovereignty of the united states and it goes back and gives the history of this thing and it has very, very strong language and signed by one, two, three, four -- nine of the top-level people who are in retirement. i'll ask that be a part of the record. >> without objection. >> and also i want to make as part of the record the reserve officers association. this was a letter that was that we have here and it's a resolution and it says, in conclusion the reserve officers association does not endorse the ratification and actively -- and it claims it's right and the territory was manifest to agree and it acknowledges that the united nations has authority over the united states maritime, territorial claims and the reserve officer's association concern is that the law of the sea treaty goes on and goes on and on. i ask also that this be made a part of the record. these are all retired people, and i think that is significant. i'll have to quickly go through this. it used to be a yes or no answer because there isn't t

united states. >>> leaks disclosed classified national security information war hot topic on the sunday talk showshe white house is lashing out at critics calling accusations a distraction. peter doses see has the latest. >>> president obama, did not declassify any information that eventually leaked out according to white house senior advisor. he declined to say this morning whether or not his boss will ever be interviewed by investigators. he said, let the two u.s. attorneys hand picked by the justice department do their job. >>> two u.s. attorneys will look under every rock here, this ought to be investigated thoroughly, and we ought to wait results of that. >> he said there is no need for an independent prosecutor here even though back in 2006, then senator obama, said quote a special council will ensure the public 's confidence in investigation and prosecution and help restore its faith in our government. that was six years ago today, joe lieberman echoed the sentiment. >> we do need a special council and we need a special council because a special council avoids any appearance of conflict of

law of the sea convention is a tool they need to maximize their ability to protect the united states national securityh the least risk to the men and women charged with that task. this request is not the result of a recent reassessment by naval authorities or the enthusiasm of a few naval leaders. the support of the military and the navy for this treaty has been consistent, sustained and unequal. all the members of the joints chiefs support, advise and consent. their predecessors likewise supported the convention. as seven wrote in a joint letter back in 1998, quote, there are no downsides to this treaty. it contains expansive terms which we may use to maintain forward presence and preserve u.s. maritime superiority. it also has the vitally important provisions which guard against the dilution of our navigational freedoms and prevent the growth of new forms of excessive maritime claims. end of quote. now the military is not always right, but the overwhelming presumption in the united states senate has been that its military leaders asked us for something to help them do their job. we do our best to pr

and that is it has to be in the vital national security of the united states., we have to have overwhelming force on day one and, three, we have to have a very clear, well understood exit strategy. >> what about cutting the defense budget in order to -- >> as a veteran, as a former member of the cia having served on a presidential commission to restructure our foreign intelligence agencies we need to keep our military strong as possible. our strong military is our greatest defense against being attacked. but there are ways that we can reduce our costs in the military budget. right now virtually every weapons system which is approved is laced, interlaced with earmarks from different congressmen or senators. all that does, ross, it increases the cost, delays the final delivery system of -- >> thank you. >> -- the weapons system, and we can save money and deliver the weapons to our warriors in the field faster. >> thank you very much. peggy now has a question for lieutenant governor dewhurst. >> lieutenant governor dewhurst, do you believe the united states should

national security. that is really the issue right now. we are very concerned because it seems that the president of the united states is being political about national security. this is what i think is very concerning not only to myself, but millions of americans across the united states. because the one area where you should never, ever, ever be political is in the issue of keeping the american people safe on national security. and revealing intelligence secrets. no one has ever seen this level of highly sensitive national security secrets revealed before. seekers have gotten out in previous administrations, but never to this degree. never to this level. so much so, danielle, that republicans and democrats agree from the lead democrat to the read republican all the way down to the newest member on the intelligence committee, we are in agreement. this is wrong, what's happening. it has to stop and clearly, there were some bragging that was going on when the information came out, that the president's senior political adviser -- this isn't his national adviser. this is his political adviser, who was sitting next to the shoulder, apparently in

united states. for all of us who worked and america's national security as an imperative to the security of this nation for the long term know how important that is. and so for us, the fact that we are now importing less than 50% of oil for foreign countries, it's something that we ought to celebrate. it's something that the american people want us to make sure is happening here in this country, and last year for the first t e time, oil imports went down to 4578%. which is a far cry from where we used to be at 60 on the way to 70 just a few years ago. now, if you look specifically at what happened just, say, in the last year, last year alone there was a 10% reduction in the amount of oil that we are importing into the united states of america. that's 1 million barrels of oil less a day. that were being imported into the united states. a million barrels less of oil that were being imported into this country. all of you here are very smart, because you're here at george washington university. so you can imagine what a million barrels of oil would look like. stack those 50 gallon, 55 gallon barrels from n

broader administration effort to paint a portrait of the president of the united states as a strong leader on national securityssues. >> senator john mccain expressing concerns, his concerns and others laufg the house intel against committee investigating the recent leak of sensitive information about the covert drone and cyber wars against terrorism by the obama administration. the president responded to those claims on friday. >> the notion that my white house would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. . >> jon: we talked a little about this last week, monica. the suggestion from senator mccain is that the president or president's people are trying to burnish his image as a warrior and a protector of the nation by releasing classified information. >> yes, and note that was not a full aisle denial. he said that was offensive, didn't say it doesn't come from my white house. the politicizing sensitive information over the last couple of years have been totally, totally outrageous and bad enough he released exfacto details of the osama bin laden raid. but in this case to leak

united states pacific command, i join my colleagues and my other combatant commanders in recommending that the united states aseed to the law of the sea convention. after careful reflection, i'm fully confident it will advance u.s. national security interests in the pacific command area of responsibility. as you know, this region is predominantly maritime. covers half the planet. it's home to three dozen nations. over 3.6 billion people. the world's largest economies. a significant part of our national economy. world's largest militaries. as well as some of the most important sea and air lines of communication. as the united states military executes our rebalance to the pacific, the convention is essential to locking in a stable, legal framework for the maritime domain that is favorable to our national interests and preserves our access to this critical region. and as a pacific power, united states must continue to lead the effort, maintain security in the region, which has defended freedom, enabled prosperity, protected peace there in that area for more than six decades. joining the convention will reinforce the united states' international leadership in the maritime domain. the convention specifically codifies the rights of fre

and that information is working against the national security interest of the united states.ave come to the conclusion we -- this has to be. >> laura: this is not a political issue. >> it's a criminal issue. >> laura: lives are at stake not just those helping us abroad but american lives. if we are not able to stop another attack. >> faith the work they do is kept confidential, secret. so we can continue to do the work that they do, number one. so i have -- it has to be -- this should really be a bipartisan effort. >> laura: do you think in your heart of hearts there was a political motivation and leaking of some of this operational detail operation? >> i think the investigation should be conducted in a way that it follows its logical course. >> laura: all the details seem to help the administration. make them look tough. >> bipartisan on nonpartisan investigator that has all the access to all the individuals. >> laura: nancy pelosi mocks those who believe that she says anyone who believes that is basically saying dangerous things. >> that's what i mean. there is politics on

that may well be the president of the united states. >> if the president of the united states has been authorizing people on his national security team to brief the "new york times" about highly classified programs people have a right to know. >> chris: we have to take a break. when we come back, after weeks of obama is your gather going off message, the president makes a gaffe pope. >>> we have created 4.25 million jobs, over 800,000 just this year alone. private sector is doing fine. >> the economy is not doing fine. there are too many many people out of work. housing market is weak and too many homes are under water. >> chris: that was president obama making a politically charged blunder and then having to walk it back less than four hours later. we're back with the panel. mara, on a scale of one to ten, ten being political annihilation how big a blunder was this? >> six. >> chris: that is serious? >> these blunders is not what is going to determine the outcome of the election. we are in twitter war era of politics. romney made a ton of these, fire people, my friends are masses car team owners. the point is this gaffe, it was

united states navy recognizes the battle of midway annually and remembers the proud maritime heritage and traditions. members of the united states navy are extremely proud of their contributions to our nation's securitynd now take time to renew and build upon our obligation to preserve our rich naval heritage and history. we recognize the need to carry forward the legacy of the many heroes of the battle of midway that have spoken to our sailors and to the public about their contributions to the navy and our nation. where as, we view the challenges of the future by understanding the importance of our past. now, therefore, i, jonathan grainearth, chief of naval operations by virtue of the authority vested in me do hereby proclaim 4 june, 2012, battle of midway decoration day and remember those who have led their way through bravery and sacrificed to make ours the world's greatest navy. in witness hear of, i have set my hand on this 4th day of june in the year of our lord in the 236th year in the united states of america. signed jonathan

this has hurt the national security interests of the united states. now, either "the new york times" was like when they say the kinds of things they put in there were -- they received from people in government and had it confirmed by people in government or, in fact, they are telling the truth. if you look at the level of detail, if you look at the decision making that is articulated in here, described in here it has to come not just from midlevel officials but from higher up officials. that's what's so concerning to me. politically, you look at it and say why would someone do this? it doesn't advance the interest of the united states. it does make a more personal political positive for the president. so i'm not saying the president did it, but somebody did it for a some reason. they didn't just seek out "the new york times" or someone else to let them know for no reason whatsoever. i presume there was some motivation involved. i happen to think that is the grossest kind of political nonsense that harms this nation and we ought to get the bottom of it

talking about leaks involving two of the most sensitive programs in the united states government, which really -- national securityepends upon. they were leaked with thousands of words and stories in the new york times. it's clear from the stories that this came from the white house. came from the national security council, came from the situation room. for the president to say that he's outraged and how could anyone say this would happen -- and that annoys me when he says "my white house." it is the people's house and he should know that. but that shows the type of arrogance here. to say he is shocked by it. how come he said nothing until john mccain stood up and took him to task. then he says he will do something and eric holder is appointing two u.s. attorneys -- >> jamie: first of all, you are quoted as saying that, you have chapter and verse of these top programs, not incidental ones and you have been quoted as saying it has to come from the top. do you have facts to back up that statement? >> vifacts -- based on what is in the new york times stories, they have quotes from the president, so it has to be someb

national security. that is really the issue right now. we're very concerned, because it seems the president of the united states is being political about national security. this is what i think is very concerning not only to myself but millions of americans across the united states. the one area where you should never ever be political is the issue of keeping the american people say on national security and revealing intelligence secrets. no one has ever seen this level of highly sensitive national- security secrets revealed before. secrets have gotten out in previous administrations, but never to this degree, never to this level. so much so that republicans and democrats agree, from the lead democrat to the lead republican, all the way down to the newest member on the intelligence committee, we are in agreement, this is wrong what is happening. it has to stop. clearly, there is some bragging that was going on when the information came out, that the president's senior political adviser -- this is not his national security adviser -- sitting next to his shoulder, apparently in the room when the president is making the decisions about who will be

to really consider their responsibility under the constitution, with regard to the national security of the united states in giving their advice and consent to treaties. to make a long story short, they wanted to hear the details. they delved into the inspection regime, in ways i never would have predicted. they delved in -- a lot of the tension went to the budget side, and the concern about the budget for the national nuclear security administration and so forth. but to me, it was very impressive how much they wanted to understand the details of the treaty, and how it would improve our national security, our confidence with regard to what the russians are doing, and their strategic arsenal, and overall enhanced predictability with moscow. so my view is, this is the time we need to get the word out there about what the ctbt can do for us, what it will do to enhance our national security. we need to ask all those concerned, both inside and outside of government on capitol hill and elsewhere to take a serious look and be ready to listen, to get some questions answered and to debate. but we're not asking an

national security staff, the homeland security staff, the fbi, the national security agency, the department of homeland security in an interagency process that is aimed at strengthening cyber security across the united states. we also have a variety of bodies and boards in which these government agencies sit with the ceos of the major communications internet service providers, and the like. to build the sort of cooperation that we need between the public and private sector to better protect our electronic systems from attack and from theft. i think everybody in this room knows this is an enormous challenge. and it's a high priority for the administration. >> thank you. moving on then, i'm very interested in the stem education initiatives. would you please elaborate on how the stem initiatives you discussed will be utilized in our individual districts? >> i think going through the individual districts would be a great challenge. both change the equation, and the parent to innovate strategy, have a specific focus in scaling up models that have proven to work, to a much wider variety of locations. for example, under the change the equation initiative, they have a program to transfer to 100 new sites around th