tv Book TV After Words CSPAN December 26, 2011 12:00am-1:00am EST
this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> it's one thing to learn about american history in the classroom. it's quite another to absorb these lessons up close and personal, with one of the 21st 21st centuries chief architect of american foreign policy. the leadership lecture series was established to -- to commemorate chuck cobb's birthday. join me in recognizing sue and chuck for 25 years of providing the opportunity to host insightful and provocative leaders from all walks of life. [applause] >> i also want the students to
thank them for very generously donatees 300 of secretary rice's very big book, which were given to the first 300 students who attended this year's event. [applause] >> now, the university takes no credit for doing this. i want to thank our very good friend, miss kaplan of books and books. the university met recently to talk about launching a partnership to bring speakers, and we heard we would get the opportunity to host secretary condolezza rice's first book tour event. this is the beginning of a very beautiful relationship. thank you very much. >> now, the cobbs have sponsored i've speakers, caspar weinberger, ross perot, david
stern, sue and chuck are serving their country and community. they're a formidable diplomatic corps that spans frock iceland to jamaica, to d.c. to tallahassee and miami. sue served as u.s. ambassador to jamaica from 2001 to 2005 during the same time when secretary rice served as national security adviser and u.s. secretary of state. governor jeb bush appoint herd secretary of state of florida from 2005 to 2007. she taught foreign services as co-chair of the u.s. department of states mandatory seminars for newly appointed ambassadors, and in an interesting twist, she hosted an alumna of stanford university where secretary rice is a very distinguished member of the faculty and former provost and the university of miami school of law. chuck cobb was the u.s. ambassador to the republican of
iceland during the administration of george h.w. bush, and during the reagan administration he served as undersecretary and assistant secretary for the u.s. department of commerce, where he was responsible for his trade development, export promotion and international travel and tourism, and he was appointed by florida governors jeb bush to serve on boards. sue and chuck serve on the board of directors on the council of ambassadors, chuck is a double graduate of stanford. he is a long-time member and past chairman of the board of the university of miami's board of trustees, welcome miami's diplomatic dynamic due, you're ambassadors cobb. [applause] >> thank you, president shalala.
dr. rice, ambassador cobb, guests, we're pleased to have all of you here. this whole thing is sort of unfolded around the interest of my husband in leadership. so, when we have been able to have outstanding leaders come through this area, we arranged to have the university of miami students and our guests participate, and that's been an extraordinary pleasure. this year, we have hit the jackpot. with condoleezza rice. we do have a relationship that goes back, as you know, i think, dr. rice was a provost at stanford, and is back at stanford now at the woodrow wilson institute. chuck and i spent eight years on campus at stanford. it was not because we couldn't graduate, but that's a different
story. and we have many mutual friends from our service in government and stanford and elsewhere. and of course, we also had the privilege of service to our country at very consequence shall -- consequencal times. i enjoy thinking about leadership also, and i think of dr. rice as the transformational leader. in fact i think of secretary shalala and ambassador cobb as transformational leaders and you might ask what are the common traits? vision, contextual knowledge. understanding the environment in which you're operating. communication and motivational skills. they're challenging but empowering. rock solid integrity.
unusual determination. and perseverance, perseverance, and perseverance, as you might guess i'm a greated a hirer of dr. rice. not quite as much as moammar gadhafi i don't have a scrapbook. but -- [laughter] [applause] >> i do have an enormous regard for dr. rice and am very, very pleased she is her, and to do her formal introductions, i'd like to invite ambassador cobb to the stage. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. thank you, president shalala and my wife for those nice comments. before i introduce condoleezza rice, i want to share with all
of you a favoritism i have, bias i have, and this bias is that i have a strong affinity for smart, strong, powerful, successful, and charismatic women leaders, and as evidence of that -- [applause] >> -- as evidence of that, i've been married to one of those ladies for 52 years. but a second -- [applause] >> but as second evidence of that, i had the pleasure to chair the search committee for the university of miami president, and our first choice, by far, was donna shalala because she had all of those skills. [applause]
>> and then thirdly, i'm on the board of the woodrow wilson center, and i had the honor to chair its search committee recently, and our first choice was condoleezza rice, who clearly has all those skills, as i'll talk a little more about in a moment. [applause] >> unfortunately, we couldn't get her away from stanford, and we couldn't get her away from writing this great book. and so we were successful in encouraging congresswoman jane harmon, who is a congresswoman from california, and also a very charismatic, driven, powerful, wonderful, smart lady. so, it's quite obvious, i think, from all of this, i really do have this bias, and for that reason it's really an opportunity and a pleasure for me to introduce the most
successful woman in the world, and i really do believe that. so, you've heart from my wife about leadership skills, and clearly condoleezza rice has all of those, but in my opinion, the most important leadership skill she has is -- i think all successful leaders have this -- is the ability to bring people together, to team-build, to seek a common ground, and no one has more skill at this than condoleezza rice. as national security adviser, as you all know, it's her job to bring really diverse personalities together, and so in her case, it was dick cheney, the vice president, colin powell, the secretary of state, and don rumsfeld, secretary of defense. really different personalities, really strong personalities, a lot of tension in the room, as you will read in this book, but
she brought a consensus, and under her leadership, and the president's leadership, they made some of the most important decisions of this century, and because of that great ability to team-build. now, she also used that skill as secretary of state. and dealt with some really tough problems, with palestine and israel on one hand, and then it was pakistan and india on another. and then day after day, countries that had really diverse and different fundamental differences -- again, no one was better at bringing everybody together than dr. condoleezza rice. at age 38, secretary rice was named the provost at stanford, and as you heard, that's our alma mater. she was the first woman, the first minority, and the youngest provost in stanford's history. she showed exceptional leadership skills at stanford, and since that time universities all over the country are trying
to get her to be their president, but, again, they were as unsuccessful as i was earlier of getting her. she is a leader with incredit include diverse skis. a convert pianist, sports affection indiana dough, and because of her leadership skills has been offered to be the commissioner of the pac-12 and has been considered the commissioner of the nfl and a lot of other sports franchises. she serves on the board of hewlett-packard, chevron, charles schwab, ran corp, carnegie, transamerica and many other boards and corporate and civic organizations. ladies and gentlemen, it's my really distinct pleasure, and no higher honor does this university have, handto have a leader with so many talents and experiences. so i present to you, the former secretary of state, and the national security adviser, condoleezza rice. [applause]
>> thank you. that was beautiful. thank you very much. applause praws -- [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> madam secretary, welcome. >> thank you. >> how long have been inviting you here? >> a few years. >> most of our questions today were submitted by students, and let me start with the first one. one or our students asked, how do i get to be secretary of state? >> good question. let me just start by thanking you very much, and i have known president shalala as secretary shalala and also as my friend, donna, and so thank you very much for having me here at the u. right? [applause] >> i want to thank my good friends, the cobbs, the
ambassadors cobb, for their service to the country and for their extraordinary friendship as well, and thanks to you, university of miami, students, for having me here. well, how do you become secretary of state? all right. you start as a failed piano major. that's how you start. i actually went to college to be a concert pianist. i stood studied piano from the age of three. and in the summer of my sophomore year, i went to something called the aspen music festival cool, -- school, and there were 12-year-olds who could play what i could play after only one year they were 12, i was 17. i decided i would either end occupy teaching 13-year-olds to murder beethoven or playing at nordstrom place, fine careers but not for me. fortunately i wandered into a
course on international politics and it was taught by madeline albright's father, and he opened up the world of diplomacy and eastern europe to me, and all of a sudden i knew i wanted to be a soviet specialist. so the first lesson of how to get to where i am, is you find something that you absolutely love to do, and so i would say to each and every one of you, find your passion. not what job you want. not what career you want. but what you're passionate about. what makes you get up every day and want to go and do that? secondly, if you're fortunate, your passion and your talents will come together, and i went on to become a professor at stanford, and i met, when i was a young professor in a seminar at stanford, man named brent scowcroft who had been the national security adviser to president gerald ford and would become the national security advise 'er to george h.w. bush. he took an interest in my career, and when president wish
george w. bush was elected he took me with him to be the white house soviet specialist, and i was the specialist at the end of the colored war, -- cold war, ad doesn't get much better than that. and the second lesson is find people who are interested in your career who can guide you and open up opportunities. we sometimes say i want to get there on my own. nobody gets there absolutely on your own there are always mentors, and there's another important lesson. sometimes we say you have to have role models and meantors who look like you. if had been waiting for a black woman soviet specialist mentor i would still be waiting. so your mentors, your role models can come in any shape, color, size, just find somebody who really cares about you and carolina about your career. the final part of the story is that when in 1990, -- the cobbs
came the white house and we were sitting together on the lawn of the white house, getting ready to take off for california, just me, gore chef, his wife, and the secret service, i thought i'm really glad i changed my major. so, if you find your passion, if you find people who will support you, if you work hard, and if you don't worry too much about what comes next, incredible opportunities do open themselves to you. finally, i think, get involved in politics at some point. find a candidate you like. work for them. ultimately that's really how i got be secretary of state. i worked for george w. bush, and i became his secretary of state. so, those are some of the thought is have. but the most important starts right now, find your passion. [applause] >> wonderful. >> let's talk about the organization of the decisionmaking in your role in
the national security council. that role was almost painful for me to read. it was herding cats. if you were to advise now, after your experience, in that job in particular, a president of the united states, would you suggest to them that one characteristic of the members of that team, whether it's the secretary of defense, treasurery, even the vice president -- would be gets along well with others? >> yeah. well, that might eliminate a fair number of people in washington. so, i'd be careful about that criteria. no doubt we have strong personalities, but i hope that i gave the impression in the book that they were debates about substance. these were not personal issues. nonetheless, we got along just fine until the most stressful times, and the most stressful times were around the war on terror and around iraq. and so perhaps the lesson is
that in so-called normal times, to the degree that anything is ever normal, in decisionmaking in washington, you can -- it is important to have different voices. you can even do with some tension, but when things get really tough, it is easier if people get along. and that, perhaps, is the lesson i would say to the president. a new president. you can do fine with personalities that may clash if things are going well. when they get rough, it's a lot harder. >> let me follow up on that question. if the -- it's the personality and also points of view. some black and white, some more nuanced. does the fact that each political party has kind of this big ten strategy -- does that need to be reflected in the foreign policy leadership or can you just bring people in to consult in i'm pushing you hard
on how you put the team together. >> well, it is a really fine line because if you put a team together where people have views that are too similar you get group think, and that's not a good thing. when i was secretary of state, i actually had a couple of curmudgeons on my staff who would challenge me about everything i wanted to do because i have always thought that if you're constantly -- this is true for you in school -- if you're constantly in the company of people who say amen to everything you say, find other company because you don't actually test your assumptions in that way. and so i would tend to err in the direction of people who do have strong views, who do express them, but who can also put them aside ultimately and find a way to work together. >> within the political party, both the republican and democratic party, they have people with widely different views. if you were actually advising a
president, you can't anticipate you're going to go through tough times. so, what characteristics of that foreign policy team? in past years we have had people on foreign policy teams that were lawyers but not necessarily the kind of substancetive expertise you have. >> that's very true. we had on our foreign policy team -- quite experienced foreign policy hands. vice president cheney had been secretary of defense and chief of staff in the white house. colin paul has been chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and deputy national secured adviser. i had been in the white house before. so we had a lot of expertise. i'm really to this day not quite sure why sometimes the personalities didn't gel, and i don't actually think it was observable before we got to washington. that's why i say i think it was the times that tested us. but i would say to a president who is choosing a foreign policy
team, think about talking to people about internal dynamics, and -- because it can get -- >> think about the team part. >> think about the team part as well as -- have strong views because strong views are important. you don't want a president who is just hearing one side of the story. think about at the team dynamics as well. >> let's talk about latin america, the caribbean. do you think it makes sense to focus on latin america and the caribbean as a region developing u.s. policy given the fact the the countries differ in stake of development and so many of them their issuesed are global issues. >> there's one sentence which i do think we want to think about latin america and the caribbean as a region. i would say even the western hemisphere, and there is a kind of narl affinity for trade policy. we do share some problems of
just the kind of transnational borders of trying to deal with trafficking in persons, trafficking in arms, trafficking in drugs. and so there are reasons to work as a region. i also think that since the organization of american states actually has a democratic charter, we should have a view of our hemisphere, your neighbor as being democratic. but once you get beyond those big categories, you realyear talking about countries thatter very different in how they interact with the globe. brazil thinks of itself, of course, as a regional leader but brazil is also one of the most important emerging economies for the whole global economy. it is one of the, as we call them, the bricks. one of the emerging economies with a chance to really structure how the international economy is going look going forward. when you think about countries
like, of course, obviously, the united states has a global row. but when you think about countries look -- along the pacific rim of latin america, they may connect more to the economies of asia. i was always struck when i went to something called the summit of americas which is about latin america ask the caribbean, and we would have discussions and chavez would take off and everybody would close their ears and whatever. but then almost a week or two weeks later we would go to the asia-pacific economic council, atec, and there it's the pacific rim countries of chile and -- of the pacific rim, all the way to canada and all the way out through japan and china and korea, and the conversation was different. about global trade and free
trade, and i actually always thought in that sense the countries had more in common with their asian counterparts than their latin american counterparts. >> is it how they see themselves in their stage of development? >> i think it is. you look at places like chile, now quite developed, colombia getting there. a country click brazil is interesting because on the one hand it's leading the -- one of the leaders in the global economy but with huge income distribution difficulties that keep it more on the developing countryside. if you look at the poorest countries in, say, central america, like guatemala, for instance, you're talking about places where you can't even reach the farmers in the highlands bay highway, and so their problems are to build infrastructure so they can join the 20th century economy. forget the 21st century economy. so you have radically different levels of development. when you think about the
radically different levels of development within countries. look at the north of mexico and the interior of the country. very different levels of development even within country. >> as secretary of state think of cuba differently than as part of the region because of the domestic politics and the relationship? >> i think we think of cuba differently because it is the one country that can't even take a seat at the table because it's not -- doesn't have a democratically elected president, and unfortunately we have height with cuba of castro's decision to install soviet nuclear capability that threatened the territory of the united states, highly antiamerican regime there, and so there are foreign policy reasons, principally that we have a different relationship with cuba. my hope is in the larger demomcrattization, the cuban
people can't be left behind. it absolutely has to be the case that when castro goes, the cuban people get a chance to elect their next government and not just handed to raul castro. [applause] >> that was a setup question. both the national security adviser and the secretary of state are look firefighters part of the time, get wind -- woken nip middle of the night. someone does something stupid in your organization or around the world. how do you anticipate the future? there's some evidence that while there was the basis for the arab spring or even others predicted the soviet collapse. how do you anticipate the future when you're in those particular leadership roles, for both the president, but more importantly, for the country, and how do you organization yourself to do that?
>> obviously you try to have experts who are keeping an eye on events, and in this regard, having embassies with people who really know the place and can get out into community, one of the things i tried to get foreign service officers to do was not staying in the embassy, not talk to other foreign officials but bet in the country, get a sense for what the conversation is on the street in the country. and that sometimes will give you a bit of early warning. secondly, on the arab spring we new something was coming. the freedom agenda we launched about the middle east, president bush had given his second inaugural address in which he talked about the need for there to be no man, woman or child who lived in temperature -- tyranny, including in the middle east. i gave a speech at the american university in cairo saying that
egypt needed to lead the resolution, and i remember seeing mubarak before the speech and saying, mr. president, get out ahead of this. get reforms started before your people under the streets, because what you could feel by being in the middle east, was the kind of seething anger that was growing against authoritarians who were corrupt, who were planning successions from themselves to their sons. you could sense that mubarak or ben ali in tunisia who were being told their people loved them but they didn't loved them. what you can never know is what is the spark. that the spark would have been a man -- a shopkeeper, self-emmow lating in tunisia is what you can't see. so you see the tensions gathering but you don't know
when it's going ignite and the best thing to do is expect it might ignite at any time and try to get ahead of it. so trying to get particularly our friends in the middle east to reform before their people were in the streetes, was our way of trying to get ahead of the -- what happened ultimately in egypt and tunisia and other places. >> talk about the collapse of the soviet union. you've were right there. >> peep would say, gorbachev is bound to fall from power. thank you, but when was the issue. because a general sense that things are going bad is not enough. people knew that the infrastructure, political, economic, social, of the soviet union, was weak. i went to the soviet union for the first time in 1979 to study language. i was there for an extended period of time and was a student of the soviet military, and i
had this image of the soviet military as ten fetal and i remember going into a store to buy some little thing for my family, and they were doing the computation of the prices on an an backus, and i hand seen an an cousins second agreed in alabama, and i thought this is not a very developed place. and you is that right to get a sense that something is really wrong there. so i think soviet specialists knew that the infrastructure was weak. it took, however, a true believer in kind of marxist ideology that it could triumph over the pack that people arees stonen and ukrainian, and gorbachev tried to reform and it then it collapsed. i can tell you that still in 1990, the soviet union collapses on december 25, 1991.
in 1990 when we were unifying germany, i don't think anybody thought the collapse of the soviet union was a year away. >> one student wanted to make sure i asked about social media and how the foreign don't follows social media around the world and whether that's part of the intelligence-gathering. >> it is now. in fact when i went to state, i took with me someone from the white house who was very interested in what was then an emerging kind of social media. not yet any facebook or twitter. people were on internet sites all the time and chat rooms. so we started to understand better what was going on there. i also asked a former student of mine, a gentleman named jared cohen, who would later on go to work for secretary clinton. to go and start thinking about, did we want to even try to help people to use social media to
democratize? so he created groups of friends who would -- for instance, people who helped to overthrow terrorism in colombia, who could chat with people in the middle east who were trying to deal with terrorism. so we were starting to use social media. what i've begun to understand now -- social media is an accelerant. it's not the cause but an accelerant. what is interesting is what is happening with social media in china because the regime is doing everything it can to control the internet. it's terrified of the internet. in fact, packing into serveries to try to find that last human rights advocate who might be online, and apparently social media is going wild in china. and the regime is not so certain that maybe it's not a bad thing, that people have a way to vent
through social media. so, you remember the story of this young girl that was run over in the streets and people -- that exploded into the social media in china. but i would say to the regime, it's one thing to think that people will just vent. eventually they will vent and want to organize and do something about it. so social media, is going to continue to have a huge impact on how revel luigs -- revolution and how reforms take place. >> foreign policy experts years ahead are going to have to follow social immediate use. >> absolutely. >> plus our intelligence. >> i think it will be one of the most important sources of understanding the pulse of what is going on beneath government, because governments are not irrelevant by any means but populations are more empowered than they have ever been by social media. >> i have to ask you about iraq because one of the things you do is put a broader context and a
broader justification on the rereasons to go into iraq and you describe it, i think, as a kind of imminent security risk. my question is, first, how did you change the collection of intelligence information after your experience in iraq? because clearly there were real questions about how accurate the information was. >> yes. >> what -- the most important thing we did was to re-organize the intelligence agencies -- both as a result of the intelligence failure prior too 9/11 and the intelligence failure with iraq, because in the prior case, we had a wall between domestic intelligence, which the fbi did, and storm intelligence, which the cia did, and what happen they corrode as they did in 9/11, we couldn't talk -- they couldn't talk to one another in iraq i think we have begun --
>> excuse me. would you explain -- because many of the students may not understand why we have that gap between the fbi and the cia. >> the gap -- the wall, as i like to call it, was there for very good and legitimate reasons, which was we did not want our foreign intelligence agency, the cia, being active inside the country, and perhaps spying to use that word, on domestic events, on american citizens and so forth. so, the cia was kept to a foreign intelligence agency. the fbi, which operated under rules and laws -- think law & order -- the fbi was the internal intelligence agency. a few nights before 9/11, a telephone call was made in san diego by one of the men who would ultimately be one of the suicide hijackers, to
afghanistan but we couldn't track across the boundary because we didn't want the tracking of phone calls inside the united states by foreign intelligence. so would i liked to have known what he said a couple of days before 9/11? when we realized that, of course, we had been internal security problem, the attack on our internal security, we had to sew up that gap to the cia and what they knew about what was going on outside the country, and the fbi, and what they knew about what was going on inside the country, could talk to ewan another and that's what the so-called patriot act actually closed that seam. so that was one intelligence problem. the iraq intelligence problem was a little bit different but also structural. we had as many-depending on how you count them, between 15 and 17 different intelligence agencies in the united states. the defense department has one.
energy department has one. state department has one. the cia has one, et cetera. the cia was one. the person who was in charge of all of those as the director of central intelligence, was also the head of the cia. so, we had this strange situation in which we had all this different intelligence reporting but obviously the director of the cia was human. he trusted his own intelligence agency more than all of these others that he was supposed to be over, and we found that some of the counterevidence about what was going on in iraq, weapons of mass destruction, programs, probably didn't get the airing and the hearing that it might have. so, we created the director of national intelligence, who is not the director of the cia, he is a separate person, to cull the intelligence, help the president understand when there are disagreements in the intelligence agency, and give more of a total picture of what
is going on. so that was the big reform that was made. >> you also have talked in at least one speech i know about the self-defense as part of the context for making the decision to go into iraq, and i really want to ask you, when you examined the iraq situation, and there was a discussion, did you look at other countries as well? because if you look at the list of justifications, you could put those on iran as well, and so why iraq rather than iran? and did you look at more than one country? >> we looked -- iraq was sui generis in our view, and it was unique because we had been to war against saddam hussein in 1991. he signed an armistice.
he was violating that armistice and was found to have been one year from a crude nuclear device. he used weapons of mass destruction against the iranians and his own people. the constraints put on him were starting to break down, including by the way, the fact that we were flying so-called no-fly zones to keep his air force on the ground. he was shooting out our aircraft practically every day. i can remember the president asking don rumsfeld, what do we do if he gets a lucky shot and brings down an american pilot? so we were in a state of suspended hostilities with iraq, not in a state of peace with iraq. 1998, president clinton launched cruise missiles against iraq, and the inspectors who were supposed to be keeping his weapons of mass destruction programs under control, left the country. so, he was different for his having dragged the reason into war several times, including us.
the fact he was continuing, we believed to build wind chills mass destruction, and, according to the intelligence agencies, had reconstituted his chemical weapons, reconstituted his biological weapons and he tried to assassinate president george w. george h.w. bush. he was shooting at aircraft and had mass graves, and as bad as iran was and north korea was, they were not in a category like iraq where there were 16 security council resolutions that said he was a threat to international peace and security. >> does that also account for the need to focus on the israeli palestinian issues, they're sue sault sue -- sui generis, and it is a key to a different kind of
middle east. nye student of international politics, from the time i was your age and in college -- which admittedly is a long time ago -- from that time when you took a course in international politics people started with the middle east know, volatile situation in the world and that's still true today. so people have been trying to do something about that for a long time. the israeli palestinian issue is one of the core issues that needs to be resolved to get rid of that volatility in the meddle east, and every administration has struggled with it. >> every administration struggled with it. >> do you see hope out there? >> i do. i describe in the book that up met, the prime minister of israel when i was secretary of said, and abbas, were pretty close to a deal, a very good deal put on the table by
upmeter. ummeter was in political trouble and abbas did not take it up, but the reason i actually wrote about it, want to suggest is not a hopeless cause. there's a two-state solution that is available but time is not on the side of either of them. >> i'd like to go back to the soviet union. given your expertise about the soviet union, how do you see russia delving over the next few years and do you think their importance in the world will continue to increase, perhaps even surpassing china? >> i think the russians are in trouble in terms of global standing. and i think they know it. russia is a -- the russian economy is 80% dependent on experts of oil, gas, and minerals. that's not a modern economy. and i'll tell you a little story about -- that shows how much that oil, gas, and minerals is linked up with personal fortunes, political power, and
the state. i was at the australian foreign minister's house one day. we withhaving a meeting about energy policy. and he was going around asking people about the energy policy. the russian says, well, we understand that our oil and gas fields are tech know chronologically behind but no foreigner will ever own russian oil and gas. he said we're going to buy the technology from western oil companies. and so i was -- had been a director of the chevron corporation, and i said, don't you understand that their advantage is actually in their technology. they're not going to sell you their technology. he said that a really good point. and then he said, are you still a director of chevron? i was the secretary of state. but in russia, dmitry medvedev, the deputy prime minister, was also the chairman of gas. so states and economy and
politics and personal fortunes all linked up together. by the way, there was a fair amount of political violence, too. now that mr. putin has decided he is the once and future president of russia, i think that the chances that russia is going to break out of that and build on other strengths it might have, including a very smart population -- those have receded, and i think unfortunately russia will not find greater strength in the international economy. it's an economy that is dependend on the price of oil. >> what what's the lesson of the arab spring. >> authoritarianism is not stable. if men, women and children don't have way to change their circumstances peacefully,
they'll do it violently. when we were in romania, we learned of a moment -- the dictator of romania and in 1999 he was ex-orting the people for what he had done for them, and all of a sudden one old lady yelled "liar." then ten people, then 100 people, that 1,000 people, then 100,000 people and he realized he better get out of there, and instead of delivering him to freedom, the young military officer delivers him to the revolution and he and his wife are executed. that moment is when fear breaks down, their an old lady yells "liar" or a soldier turns his gun away from the crowd, refuses to fire 0, a tank is turned away from the crowd and all that's left between the dictate juror
his people is anger, and that's what you have in the arab spring and that's why why athor tearanm is not stable. >> what do you think about leading from behind as the multilateral coalitions -- idon't mind multilateral coalitions eye. sorry, leading from behind is an oxymore ron. you don't lead from behind. and i actually think, as some in the white house might be sorry they used that phrase. >> let me ask you about a domestic issue. i actually share you view and had conversations with president bush about the failure of immigration reform. how serious do you think that issue is for the next presidential debate we have? >> it is essential.
there are a lot of thing about the ute that are not admired but one thing that is overwhelmingly is our national myth. doesn't matter where you came from. matters where you're going. that led people to come here to be part of that and it's why we have asian americans and mexican americans and we have german americans and indian americans. it's because people -- the most ambitious people have wanted to be part of that. now, i don't know when immigrants became the enemy, but if we don't fix this, we are going to undo one of the greatest strengths of the united states. because the only thing that keeps us from the demographics of europe and japan is immigration. and so i am major proponent of comprehensive immigration reform that -- [applause]
>> -- that first and foremost recognizes we have people living in the shadows and we have to deal with that. we're not a country that actually wants people to be afraid to go and take their sick child to a hospital. that's not the kind of country we are. and i worry that the states, because the federal government has not acted, are starting a patchwork now of immigration policies when really what we need is a federal policy that is true to ourselves, true to our laws, but also true to the absolute fact that the united states of america is well-served by the great number of people that we are. >> three quick questions -- [applause] >> -- wind this up. >> next fall, let's pretend, you have been invited to be the
moderator of a presidential debate. the debate's theme is foreign policy. what is the first question you will ask both candidates? >> do you believe that america has an exceptional and unique role to play in the world? or is america just any other country? because if america is just any other country, then you have no right to ask the american people to sustain the sacrifices we have, and to play the role that we have on behalf of the international community for now better than 60 years. and so why is america exceptional? [applause] >> second question is, even though you're not responsible and can't officially wake you up anymore, what keeps you up at night in foreign policy? what are the things you worry
about that we ought to worry about? >> i worry about the list of terribles, iran, pakistan. i worry about mexico. i think that we don't pay enough attention to what is happening on our southern border, and if you live in california or new mexico, you know that the drug cartels own a lot of that space between northern mexico and the southern border of the united states. it's very dangerous. last year there were -- two years ago 5,000 kidnappings and murders of officials, mexican officials. probably twice that in the last couple of years. so very dangerous. but what mostly keeps me up as night is the request question whether the unit is going re-affirm and somehow do the internal repair that we need to do to lead. i worry that we can't seem to get our entitlements under control. i worry we can't get our budget deficits under control.
i worry about immigration policy. i worry about the fact that in k-12 education i can look at your zip code and tell whether or not you're going to get a good education, and that's not just wrong. it is actually probably going to undo us more quickly than anything the chinese could ever do to us because if we have people who are unemployable and will be unemployable, they'll have to live on the dole because they have no other choice. we will continue to have a situation in which only #% of the people who take the basic skills test to get into the military can pass it. it will indeed pull us apart as a country faster than anything else, and if we're not confident and on mystic in one country we won't lead. so that's probably the one that really keeps me up at night. >> here's my final question. if you have a choice between running for the senate in california, being a university
president, or being head of the national football league, what's your choice. >> no contest. i used to want to be the commissioner of the nfl. i told roger goodell, when i was struggling with the iranians and russian every day, your job looked pretty good, but from northern california, doesn't look so good anymore, and these days -- and i have to say, these days being a university professor at stanford university, where the stanford cardinal are having quite a successful season you know what those special seasons are like. you have had plenty of them. let us have one. that is the greatest job in the world. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you. >> that was fun. for more information about condoleezza rice visit hoover.org and search her name.
>> we have this book called the deal from hell. what it's about basically and why should we care, especially why should people watching as far away in bangor maine, portland, maine, new york, why should they care? >> the book talks a lot about the differences between journalism today and journalism when i start ode. when i got into the journalism, the newspaper business, it was really largely controlled by families. not all of them were angels but they really had a kind of a public service mantra they followed, and it basically was -- no one could ever have put it better than mike kohls, a leading member of the family that owned the first newspaper i worked for, the des moines register, and mike always said the only thing a newspaper
really has to worry about is that it's if the public respects it. if you have readers, you have advertisers and that's the main source of income and revenue for newspapers. so you really have to be respected by the public to be a successful business. then around the 160s and the 70s that got turned on its head when the families wanted to get out of the business and started selling off their newspapers, and a lot of times they sold them to people who -- corporations owned by stockholders and the people who ran the corporations had a duty to journalism but also had a fiduciary duty to stockholders, and as -- first things were fine because we had a lot of money rolling in and it was easy to balance those two things. then sometime after september 11th, that changed, and we began struggling with
revenues, and as we tried to maintain the profit margins, can which was considerable, we began cutting and we began diminishing our journalism, and i suspect all of us are guilty of subordinating the interest of the public to fiduciary duties to produce the returns that wall street and others expected, and i really think that led us down the path to where we are today and in the case of the tribune company that led them to bankruptcy court, and a great institution that was a fixture is today an institution in trouble, and i think it has -- it's an institution that -- all newspapers like it, are -- i don't think people understand the fundamental role that newspapers play in giving voters and people in a democracy the information and news they need. and they're under stress today
and i think it's a trouble can -- it's troubling to me, troubling to a lot of people, and i think -- so everybody i think should care about the story, not just because it's about me and not because it's about the chicago tribune or the l.a. times but it's about journalism and that's something that is site drool a democratic society. >> the book is called "the deal." it's about two deals. the first comes in the year 2000 and involves the purchase by tribune company, venable chicago based own over several dozen very respected television stations and newspaper, purchased the los angeles based times and new york times. give us the economic backdrop at the time. the newspaper industry backdrop and the remarks neal for
dr. racks neal, -- rational -- and the cereal killer, like cheerios and smart dots -- tell us about him and why he was critical to the tactics and strategy in executing this deal. >> i think the deal with sam is always the deal from hell and the tribune made a is to be in purgatory first when it both the times mirror. it was -- you know, basically the atmosphere at the time was buy or be bought, and aol and time warner had just merged, and things were going quite well. and so when the tribune decided to buy this, things looked pretty good. the future looked bright. we paid a lot of money for it, and it was -- and the way the deal was structured is we bought the company, even though mark
willis, the cereal killer, the ceo of times mirror -- he used to be the cochairman of general mills where they made all the cereal, and the staff of the l.a. times -- if the staff of the l.a. times had done as well with journalism as coming up with nicknames we wouldn't be here. they nickname him mark the cereal killer because he came in and started cutting things, cutting staff, and closed the new york news day, and he got that name. when the tribune bought is, mark willis didn't know that the tribune was buying the company. they bought it when he wasn't looking. just kind of a nice little backstabbing drama that played out in place where they literally made drama in los angeles and because they were trying to do the neil secre