tv Today in Washington CSPAN September 25, 2012 6:00am-9:00am EDT
the chief e-mails that are referred to even after the direction did not violate that direction, if they have been after that. to send an e-mail that said you're in trouble and expressed to mr. franks office who was the person who according to everyone is designated to work on behalf of this entity, if i would've communicated with outside treasure or fdic or someone and asked them to do something on behalf of one united i think will be a different conversation. i have to continue to go back to the timeline. i think it's very important in establishing that timeline to establish whether or not a directive was ignored, and then we have to talk about what actions were taken after that. >> like mr. latourette, it is not important to me as a consideration whether you were successful or you approached the right entity to evaluate whether you knew or should have known about the conflict.
and begin, and perhaps we'll have this deliberation. if we were to do -- if we were to accept your conclusion, i think that we would have to we visit the conclusion that we've already made, or that is in the report as to ms. waters adequate supervision of you. and mr. chairman, i will live at the. >> if i may respond to that. >> yes, you may. >> the first thing i would say is i've already on the record today acknowledged that it may been poor judgment to take that as an interpretation. i am in no way trying to say that the councilman did not give clear direction when the direction was given. i want to be clear eyed acknowledged on the record that may have exhibited poor judgment is my interpretation was that i should do it just for that one day. i've acknowledged that. there's not a question about that directive. but the remaining question still
remains, and i would ask any member or staff or outside counsel to affirmatively establish when the conversation happened and that i ignored that conversation. and that is something that the record is replete assisted not happen. so my concern is that the committee has laid out three violations that i use the office for my own personal gain, that i dispense special favors and that i brought discredit on the house without establishing the facts. and i think that's problematic. >> the vote on the floor has about five minutes remaining. so the committee will stand in recess and we will reconvene immediately following the votes. [inaudible conversations]
>> [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will reconvene. when we recessed, the members were in the process of being recognized to ask questions of mr. moore, and i would at this time ask the members if any of them wishes to recognize for the purpose of asking questions. if not, mr. moore, we have
agreed in advance and give you notice of our intention to give you an opportunity to give closing remarks. and so i will ask members one more time if anybody has any additional questions a wish to ask of mr. moore. if not, we will not recognize you for your closing statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me thank the committee for this opportunity. i think that it was an important and informative discussion. i learned some things, and i hope that i was able to clearly answer the questions that the members of the committee asked. the only final thing that i would say is that it's my hope that as the committee goes back and considers both the action it takes and the violations that he considers, that it does so in a manner that are properly
reflects the accusations that have been made. i am concerned, and one of the reasons why i came to this hearing was that after reviewing specifically the allegations that the idea again that i used the office for personal gain, that i dispense special favors for personal gain, and that i brought discredit on the house is of great concern to me. i do also recognize something that's been brought out to light in this conversation. the varying concerns of the members, and i appreciate those concerns, and we'll take those under advisement and make sure, moving forward, that those concerns are not or something that i take heed to but the rest of my staff and anybody else i come in contact with. so as i concluded, i just want to be clear that this has been a tough process for both me and
for the congresswoman, for our office and our constituents. i am glad come excited, encouraged it is coming to an end. i want to thank the committee for having the foresight and courage to employ outside counsel. i would like to thank the outside counsel for the work that was done. and thank all the staff of the ethics committee for the work they have done. again, i know that, you know, in battle sometimes you go back and forth but at the end of the day i hope the committee recognizes that i respect the institution. i respect the process, and more so, respect the process that the new committee has put in place in her to try to bring this matter to a close. >> thank you, mr. moore. the chair when i recognize the outside counsel, mr. martin, for his closing comments. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to first correct something in the record that occurred today. there's one statement was made
earlier that i made in this hearing. i previously stated that mr. moore testified in a reported interview in july 2012. that he thought he was supposed to stay out of oneunited matters but only for one day. i've gone back and review the transcript, and mr. moore actually said the following as quote, i mean, i believe my transcript says that i took her, meaning representative waters, conversation with me to mean that i shouldn't. there was no need to work on oneunited issues that day, or the nba issues that day. i can't remember how it was phrased that i know that that day was what the context was all about. that's the close of that quote. i would note, mr. chairman, that in his interview with this come he never indicated that statement was incorrect, or that he recalled things any differently now. i also said earlier that if mr. moore thought he was supposed to stay out of nba matters and representative waters did not limit that
direction to one day as mr. moore seems to now admit it, that mr. moore even more clearly ignored that direction by continuing to work on matters for minority banks, including oneunited, after he was instructed not to comment in my view the committee can properly consider both his testimony and mr. moore so changing version of this conversation with representative waters in determining whether mr. moore's recollections regarding what he knew and when he knew it are credible. if i may continue, as the closing, mr. chairman, and members of this committee. as your outside counsel we've listened to the arguments advanced by mr. moore today. mr. moore has made many of those arguments previously to this committee and to standing committee. in addition he has made those arguments during prior testimony before outside counsel. one of mr. moore's main points today is that we, as outside counsel, found that we could not
establish a clear and convincing evidence that mr. moore new of representative waters financial interest in oneunited in september of 2008, or that we established the date on which representative waters directed him not to work on oneunited matters. in fact, mr. moore started his testimony today by reading a line from my report to the committee. stating that we could not establish the date and direction from representative waters by a clear and convincing standard. but mr. moore did not read the very next sentence which we believe put that in context. that sentence states, nonetheless, there is evidence in the record to allow the waters committee to determine the representative waters chief of staff should have known of the conflict prior to that conversation. further, i report it was clear and i reiterate today that the committee is not required to
establish clear and convincing evidence of a violation of house rules in order to issue a letter of reproof will work that evidentiary standard is richer for sanction such as censure or reprimand in which the full house has to vote. as i've stated as is outside counsel to end the committee can properly issue a letter, if it believes space on the committee's view the totality of the evidence and mr. moore's credibility after so -- sufficient evidence to conclude that a violation occurred. outside counsel pleased that there is sufficient evidence in this matter. indeed, the committee could really find mr. moore's credibility is even less now than before this hearing started. when two key points. mr. moore appears to change assessment today when confronted with evidence and arguments that contradict his earlier statements. those points include mr. moore's knowledge of whether mr. foley
was a oneunited board member, which mr. moore previously denied knowing, but now admitting. and his admission that representative waters told him to stop working on oneunited matters and did not limit that instruction to just one day. that is a difference in his testimony. accordingly, we again stay for the record, should this committee to decide to issue a letter of reproval to mr. moore force actions in this matter, based on the committee's review of the to tell the of the evidence, mr. moore's credibility, we would agree with the committee's decision and we believe such a letter is indeed consistent with our findings as reflected in our report to this committee. thank you. >> thank you, mr. martin. before i recognize the ranking member, mr. yarmuth, for his closing statement, but me ask of any other members of the committee have a closing statement that they would like to make. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i will be brief, and this
doesn't have a lot to do with mr. moore, but there's one thing that's come out of this matter for me is, the full ethics committee needs to take a look and review the house on conflict. because i've been horrified that some things are committed -- permitted under the rules. this question of hats is really troubling because i don't think he did anything to enrich yourself, but it's an appearance. so quite frankly you are a lineal descendent of the fellow that owns stock. it's your grandfather. so sometimes you just have to go that extra mile to avoid even the appearance. and i think we need to address that in a rules change and make sure that people don't unwittingly do something that they have no intention of doing. but again, i appreciate your testimony today. i found it to be illuminating, and i thank you. >> let me ask of any other member of the committee has a
closing statement that they would like to make. if not, i'll now recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we close and return to executive session, i would like to thank all the members of the committee, particularly the republican members who have been appointed only for this process. and also to thank outside counsel and his cocounsel, and the staff of committee for an exhaustive process, but what i considered to be a very thorough and fair process. with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and i want to share his observation and agree with it, that this committee has worked in a nonpartisan fashion to address these issues. and we still have some work to
do after this hearing concludes, but i want to thank the outside counsel, the chief counsel and all the staff of the committee and members on both sides have put a tremendous amount of time and thought into this proceeding. one of the most, and i will now recognize myself for my closing comments. one of the most important functions of the ethics committee is to ensure that the house community gets accurate advice by which they can determine the course of conduct. and so we must make clear to everyone who made you this testimony that mr. moore's understanding of the rules is almost entirely incorrect. directly contradicts the clear guidance given to the community both in the manual and by our professional staff every day, and should not be followed by anyone seeking to avoid impermissible conduct. specifically, the manual, the last version of which was published in the spring of 2008, provides that a member may vote
on legislation even if the legislation benefits only one entity which the member owns stock in. but the manual is clear that this is true only for decisions to vote. the manual goes on to state that the guidance regarding acting on behalf of a single entity does not apply to other official acts such as advocating or participating in an action by a house committee. and that is a quote. the manual states that such other actions quote, entail a degree of advocacy above and beyond that involved in voting, and thus a member's decision on whether to take any such action on a matter that may affect his or her personal financial interest requires added circumspection, end quote. the manual further states that quote, when every member is considering taking any such action on a matter that may affect his or her personal financial interest, the member should first contact the ethics committee for guidance, end quote. it is clear then that the
community should understand that mr. moore is incorrect when he says that as a legislator he can send a request for assistance to a specific entity in a matter in which is employing member has an interest. this demonstrates the next point that must be clear but. mr. moore has claimed that the committee must prove that he had a personal interest in a oneunited, as opposed to his employing member and grandparents. but all staff and members should take very clear note that it is not necessary that an employee such as mr. moore have a personal interest in an impermissible conflict of their employing member. it is clearly impermissible for staff to engage in conduct that their employing member may not engaging. this principle is addressed in the manual, and has been repeated by the committee on numerous occasions. therefore, there can be no question that the approximately $350,000 that representative waters might have lost had
oneunited failed is the relevant interest that makes any official action, including advocating for the assistance with the committee or other office clearly impermissible. finally, mr. moore has come up with a series of factors such as his motive which must be established to find a violation. again, mr. moore is incorrect and the entire house community must understand that the committee takes impermissible action seriously and will act with the appropriate response to prevent all actions which are impermissible under the rules, regardless of the voting. motive may matter in determining an appropriate resolution to an actual violation, but it is not the only factor that will be considered and it is not necessary for an action to be impermissible. finally, the record should be clear that mr. moore did not contact the ethics committee for guidance in this instance. if he had, the nonpartisan committee professionals would
have given them clear and an ambiguous guidance that he could not send e-mails in question and he could not take any official action to assist oneunited uniquely. if he had sought and followed that advice we would not be here. it is clear that representative waters understood this ruled herself, but whenever staff at any questions they should always call the committee for advice and guidance, and that is what we are here for. let me also comment on the observations of the gentleman from ohio. i agree with him that work needs to be done in this area to make this very, very clear, both in terms of education and for the house to take a serious look at the conflict issues with regard to ethics. but i do not think that should color the rules that are in existence now, and their relevance to the actions taken
by congresswoman waters and mr. moore. that is for this committee to deliberate on, and we will do so. mr. moore, we will consider your testimony here today, along with all of your previous testimony before the committee, and the materials you have submitted. when the committee has reached its final conclusion in this matter and prepared its written material we will file report with the clerk of the house and at that time we will make a public statement. with that i will ask the gentleman from kentucky if yes a motion? >> [inaudible] >> is there a second to that motion? second is made. is there discussion on emotion? being none, i will call for vote. all of those in favor respond by saying i go. opposed? the ayes have it. the vote is unanimous and the committee will stand in recess to reconvene in executive session.
>> [inaudible conversations] >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney and president obama will both address attendees at the clinton global initiative today. the meeting begins sunday with leaders in business and philanthropy. and secretary of state hillary clinton spoke monday. this year's meeting addressed poverty, health and the apartment. we will bring in mitt romney's remarks live at nine eastern here on c-span2.
than president obama's address to the clinton global initiative at noon eastern on c-span. >> new york representative bob turner and former new york city mayor ed koch last week talked about the jewish vote in the upcoming november presidential election. former mayor koch has been a vocal critic of president obama's policy toward israel. he still supports the president. but also discuss the wars in iraq and afghanistan and u.s. relations with the middle east. from fordham university law school in new york, this is about an hour and a half. >> we are here again once again in connection with this conference dedicated to examining the 2012 presidential election, and the way it may be being shaped by the memory of the holocaust and the policy of israel. and we can find no to more
interesting people to discuss this topic for many, many reasons. first, the former three term mayor of new york city, ed koch. [applause] people forget, i do not, but people forget that mayor koch act to start out in congress. so the discussion that watauga is not merely about his days as a member also he two, has run for congress and knows what that means. i think in this more recent vintage, mayor koch can be thought of as a kingmaker in guiding the jewish vote. many people, well, he may not agree to this but he may actually many people think of him as a barometer, kingmaker of sorts of whether jewish vote is headed. that's another reason to have them. and he made his own kingmaker
title, but to some degree our next guest, congressman bob turner, might say that the support that mayor koch had given to you was, in fact, helpful. >> it was beyond helpful. it was critical. >> let's so let's go back. a kingmaker, when it comes to -- [inaudible] >> bob turner is, in fact, a brooklyn congressman in his first term, a very decent and likable man. and a very much involved in his first term. is on the foreign relations committee, on the homeland security committee. you decided to get your hands dirty in the most difficult issues that face the united states. so we are happy to have you. it's important to remember that yes, let's have quick applause for bob turner. [applause] do you know why? he may one day become a kingmaker himself.
what we have to point out is acknowledging bob turner's election is that it requires for [inaudible conversations] across party lines. if you didn't know, bob turner is a republican in what would be otherwise considered a democratic district of brooklyn. mayor koch is not the first time -- and queens, you're right. so sorry. thank you for correcting me. but this is not the first time that mayor koch has crossed party lines. of course, remember, he voted for george bush in the second election, 2004. he actually famously said i don't agree with a single thing that george bush -- >> single domestic issue. >> with the exception of the fact that i think he is handling terrorism and a superior way. and that he was the most
important issue. in the case of the movements, support for bob turner, you and i did an event shortly thereafter in which you explained your support for bob turner and you said look, i wanted to send a message president obama that he didn't think he was sufficiently handling his foreign policy correctly with respect to isra israel. >> [inaudible] >> with respect specifically to support for israel. but then you said well, i eventually met with president obama and he very much solicited my support and decided to support him again. [inaudible] spent by want to step into because it it was apparently just last week that you delivered a speech at a synagogue on the eastside for rosh hashanah. >> and today, and michael goodman's column i continue the discussion.
the "new york post." >> you are yet again critical of the obama administration. >> i have never seen a perfect candidate, and i've never had a perfect candidate. i wasn't perfect. i will always speak out, but if you read the article today, and my other utterances, it has always been stated that i'm still on the obama train. and i will explain why -- >> we will definitely to to do that, but for specific think what you address last week was the question of the red line that -- >> not so much the red line. cannot expound? >> tell us what you said last week. >> okay. i was incensed as i believe every american was that what occurred in both egypt and libya. in egypt, the embassy was
overrun. by cops. the egyptian cops didn't protect the embassy. and libya the military, libbey military, libyan cops ran away. didn't protect the embassy. and in addition and worst of all was the fact that the ambassador was murdered, killed so to speak. i'm not sure exactly how, whether he was succeeded at how it actually occurred. along with three other consular personnel. that i did not believe that the american response was adequate. the egyptian -- strike that. the american embassy in egypt initially put out a statement which was denunciatory of the video that some muslims were saying was the reason for the
attacks, and was not sufficiently denunciatory of the egyptian government, in my judgment, then hillary put out a significant statement which was followed then by the white house repudiating the american embassy as state income and making a statement calling the egyptian government to task. in libya, we were more conciliatory because the libyan president had denounced the attack. but that's not adequate. i may, if the libyan government can't control its cops and its military and devise a protection for a foreign embassy, it's not a government. and we should be denunciatory and we should punish. i doubt there's a single country in the world, in western
civilization that wouldn't have immediately called back its ambassador in egypt, still possible, and certainly cut off or put in terms as it related to the 2 billion that egypt receives from the united states. and i'm sure libya receives money, i don't know how much, but i'm sure it does. it was even greater because the american ambassador in libya have helped the so-called arab spring. i know that the colonists and the times and elsewhere, all over. i said to myself, we are jettisoning people, they are not great people, but at least their friends are people who i am sure will out to be hostile to us. it doesn't make any sense. why should anybody trust us in
the future? i'm now talking about mubarak. we threw him under the bus. those with a background facts that cause me to react strongly. >> congressmen come your very much a beneficiary of a shift in jewish vote in your district, and queens and brooklyn. do you think that the events of last week, the it is the attacks in various countries in north africa and the middle east will result in yet a further ongoing shift of jewish americans changing their votes? >> i do, and i think a little more to follow. the shift in the special election indicated a distrust of this administration. and it was clear. you heard what he said. or what the administration said. we heard what state said. people didn't believe it.
and the message was sent loud and clear. for a while i think they got things together. in these recent attacks, what followed, we've heard the state department say we have taken every reasonable step to safeguard our staff. we have heard the quote from our ambassador suggesting that he was comfortable and these people love me. yet today we find out that's not true. he issued a statement saying he's very concerned about his own safety over there. so again, we have a big information gap, credibility gap in this administration and that's coming home to roost. this is going to go. >> may i say? today, "new york times" portraying the interview with the new egyptian president,
because what they egyptian president said in effect as i read, the united states wants to have good relations with the arab world and with egypt. in effect it has to jettison its special relationship with israel. that's what it said. and you know, when the united states took on the role of mediator between israel and egypt, it was understood that there is not only special relationship, there's and alliance. israel is an ally of the united states. and that the united states when it entered that position, the palestinians knowing that said we still want the united states because we know that no other country could get israel to ultimately allow a second state,
palestinian state next to israel because it needs the security that the united states would provide in the event it didn't turn out well, as many people think it wouldn't. because just look at the palestinian situation today. i personally am for a two-state solution. do i believe it's going to happen in my lifetime? no. to the israelis want it to? does. to the palestinians want it? i don't believe it. because if they did they would be at the table negotiating, but they haven't been for more than a year. and the reason, i believe, is that they think ultimately they can wait out the western world and ultimately have a single state in which they will overwhelm the israelis. that is why if you ask the head
of the palestinian authority, mohammed -- you ask him, do you accept a jewish state. not just the state of asia, but israel as a jewish state. he says no ethnic, i don't have to do that. let them will also. but that's the heart of this. that's the very heart of it. and if you're going to have to state, one is muslim, one is jewish. now, that doesn't mean that christians can't live in a muslim state. they do now, many on the west bank. although they have led to cuts of their muslim neighbors, so that now less than 2% of the arabs living on the western bank
our christian. at one time, they had a christian majority. they have fled, many of them have come to the united states. and the position of the fatah which is the majority government on the west bank, not in gaza, is that the people who left the sector now called israel should have a right of return. that would simply overwhelm the jewish state, and it will not happen. and everybody knows it will not happen with the consent of the israelis. it will not happen. so once again, while i believe, and netanyahu has said he believes in a two-state solution, i do not think that the arab leadership believes in and. and certainly on the gaza strip, hamas has a compass which still
says that every jew that enters the palestinian mandate after 1917 must be expelled. and have also declined to give up violence or accept any prior agreement. so for the arabs in my judgment it's a façade, it's a fake. >> congressmen, given what you just heard the mayor say, i expect you to some degree believe it, agree with him, do you think that president obama and listening to what mayor koch said, has ms. red the politics of the mideast? that he, we remember his speech in cairo in which he, never went to jerusalem after that are went to israel in which there's very much a unapologetic tone and
overture, and also remember there were these ongoing new year messages to iran, where the president was welcoming the new year for the iranian people, and in the end it doesn't appear that the united states has enhanced its credibility standing in the arab and muslim world after these conciliatory gestures. and you heard mayor koch speak so grimly of what he thinks the future would hold. do you think, what does your party think about -- >> well, we have not only a misreading but a strong headed mindset. in fact, the core of all of these administrations problems in the middle east. four years ago this administration set out to reset relationships, and by so doing with a personal diplomacy, the apology, et cetera, we would win over the hearts and minds of an
increasingly radicalized islamic world. well, we've seen the results of this, and we see a reluctance to understand what is really happening and to correct the course and get back on a sane policy. not only are we on too often on the wrong side of this arab spring, as it were, we failed to recognize the momentum that is being built and danger that it's posing. and we haven't gone into the iranian thing which -- >> we will definitely get -- >> i think this administration has dropped the ball, and seems incapable of changing their mind
to put this right. >> well, this mindset, this tactics in handling the middle is, in both of your judgment, does it change, the nature of the electorate, the jewish electorate in terms of how they will vote in the upcoming election? jews historically, it was always said about them, even in the more recent elections, that jews never vote their economic interest. so even as they move from immigrants, they became professionals, even still always supported the democratic party even though economically they could've been republican, and then, so that's one presumption, that this is why the democratic party has nothing to worry about, jews don't move off of that no matter how much wealth. and the other ideas that jews but with very much with israel in mind, that they want to vote for a candidate that supports israel. is that still true?
>> i'm not sure the poll, the poll on this issue of the position of israel and the voting pattern of jews shows that it's about the fourth issue down. that's my recollection. not exactly sure, but it's in that area. that's the young jews. we have forgotten that when the holocaust came, the children were taken to, and a million 500,000 children were killed in the holocaust. but they have forgotten that. and historically, jews have an enormous social conscience which is reflected in a biblical adage, justice, justice shalt thou render the safe the lord. why do they say the word justice twice? it is the response justice not
only for jews but justice for all people. that's why justice is repeated twice. i believe that. and it's an adage that i have lived my life but. >> and cheaply that jews have internalized that and that's one of the reasons why? >> absolutely. and i believe that when jews vote, democratic as they do overwhelmingly, as i do overwhelmingly, it is because of social conscience. they say to themselves there are lots of things that are important, medicare, medicaid, abortion, foods dance, taxing progressively the wealthy and so forth, and foreign affairs. those are the two partnerships so to speak. and on the issue of domestic manners, i don't know how you could be against the platform of
the democratic party on those issues. if i can just alluded to something that bob and i agree too, you know, when i, we're going to get into that part of passed, the race or not? >> yeah, of course. >> when i announced that i was going to take on the issue of sending a message to the president in this special election, there were only two special elections in the whole country, congress, and my friends, political friends said you're crazy, it's not possible. i said it may not be possible but of going to try it anyway. so i announced that i was going to do what i could to make this a referendum, sending a message to the president. i'm a democrat, i subtract -- i
expect to support them but i want him to know i disagree with the number of issues concerning the jewish community. >> you framed it as respecting the jewish community. >> that the first time i've used that word. >> the reason is, it's not an unimportant distinction because -- >> maybe not too forward, who knows? but in any event, i said i was going to leave that challenge. and i got a call from the democratic candidate, david, who i knew at the time, through the city council, and i had a good relationship with them. and he is screaming at me on the telephone, which i can understand. and i so david, this is not personal. not that that helps.
and he said i can be the message. i'm thinking to myself, you can be the message, that we send another jewish democrat to washington? no, that's not the message. the message is that we send a republican. and then bob turner, who i never met, called and he called me up and he said let's talk about this and see if we can come to an agreement. and i said please come up, and he came up. he's a very nice guy, highly intelligent. [laughter] >> but he is. i said to him, look, i can only do this with you on the following bases. i'm sending a message to the president of my party, and you have to be sending a message to the national leadership of your party that you don't agree with them on privatizing medicare, social security and turning
medicaid into a block grant. and i don't care about your other issues, but on those issues we have to have an agreement. and he said, he agreed with me on that. he doesn't agree with me. i would expect them to on every aspect of that, or of a whole host of other issues. but i wanted that made clear. and we agreed in writing that that was the key. and he kept his word and i kept my word. and he won. i think within an eight-point margin, wasn't it? i think it was. >> roughly. >> roughly. it was unheard of. there's 300,000 jews who live in that area. and it was the first time i think in 89 years that the congressional district didn't go democratic. so i got a call a couple weeks
later from bill daley, who is the chief of staff of the president, a wonderful guy. i mean, i know him very well. a brother of the former mayor of chicago. >> and the son of another mayor. >> right. not the son, grandson. >> right. >> and he said, i know you're coming to a party that the president is having for u.n. delegates at the 42nd street library. i said, i am. he said, would you like to talk to the president the fourth in? i said, sure, thinking to myself, who wouldn't? so he said, a half-hour early. and i came half-hour early, and the president came in, i won't give you all the details, but he said to me at the very opening, he said i don't understand why the jews are upset with me.
i'm very supportive of their concerns. is a very affable, charming guy. and i believe honorable and i like them. i've liked him before, i liked him then, i like him now. and he spoke for 20 minutes, and then he said, your turn. and i had 10 minutes. and i won't go through the whole thing, but what i said to them, mr. president, you know, i would not have been so critical of you when you said, you have to go back to the 67 line, even though they are indefensible, and even though i don't agree with you. had you also made demands upon hamas, but you didn't. he left them out completely. you didn't say that she didn't have to deal with them until they give up their charter, give up violence et cetera. and he said, i'll never forget
it, didn't i? and i said no, mr. president, you did not. but he convinced me, and i thought to myself, i mulled it over the next couple of days am a i'm not going to stretch this out, convey, look at me. keep them wondering. i don't believe in the. if i'm going to do it i'm going to do it now. so i called up the people who were involved and i said, i'm on board the bus. and i agreed, they said we go to florida? and i said sure. we go to pennsylvania? i said i will go anywhere you want me to go. i'm not sure i can do that anymore because of my physical condition, which i told i'm happy to do billboards and robocall's and videos, whatever it is. i don't think i want to get in a
situation where i need hospitalization, and i have my own hospital. that i go to. so that's where we are. >> congressman, i it lay, within the last year or so, did an event with eric cantor, who is with the 92nd street, heavily jewish audience, it was packed. i didn't know there were this many jewish republicans. i don't know if they were all jewish republicans, but the place was packed. in this discussion one of the things he said, very surprising to me that more jewish americans don't support republican candidates, precisely because of our feelings about israel and a number of issues that are important to the jewish community. which i thought, he was genuinely baffled that look, i don't see how anyone can think that the democratic party is a
superior defender of israel than republicans. is that another reason why you might say in this election there might be more movement among jews for republicans than we otherwise would have expected? >> this is a tough one to figure out. it should be noted, too, that eric cantor told me about a week after the election, you know, bob, this is the first time a republican has won the jewish vote. not -- perry. so maybe something is happening here. i got some interesting advice as soon as i got into this. i hadn't been in politics very long, and the first thing i heard was you had to choose, you have great opinions -- >> three synagogues. [laughter] >> so that i've found is a truism.
the other as a look at the change in patterns, the wisest person i know in politics said the jewish vote is such conservative or orthodox, you can get anppeal to. come down, make sure you spell out your social agenda, you can get those. the secular jewish vote, a big part of new york city, their religion is socialism. but what may get them back in these israel -- is israel. and we made shift, 20% would be enough to win the election. the district is 33% jewish, perhaps more. 44% catholic, and then others. so the jewish vote, which
historically have been a block, now isn't, at least on these issues. >> do you think that could be mirrored in other districts or is it something uniquely yours? i will tell you another congressperson, i might mention to you but i haven't told the audience, debbie wasserman schultz. shortly after your election, and she said well, that was a freak accident. had nothing to do with the obama administration's treatment of israel. >> everyone in america who took that division. >> she said it had everything to do with the increasingly conservative nature spent she's in that job because she will say things like that. >> she was saying the jews that vote in your district are just naturally more religious and more conservative, and they are republican. >> but in prior elections always voted democratic. >> but if there is a common, right, that this is the most informed part of the american
electorate. >> your district? >> no, the jewish community. whether they're in florida or virginia or wherever. and that isn't going to go away. and i think as the election becomes more focused and the issues become clear, the divide will be more pronounced. >> mr. mayor, it is a little confusing when you think about the 2012 race, especially if israel is in your sidelines making decisions, confusing. on the one hand, you have what is clearly an icy relationship between the prime minister of israel and the president of the united states. it doesn't feel warm. it's not a feel-good feeling. on the other hand, you know, when it comes to military spending the i a dumb spending, this is not the first time that egyptian ransacked and embassy. they ransacked the israeli embassy. eight months ago?
the second time in a year in egypt indices are fair game eric and it was, in fact, apparently prime minister netanyahu called obama, and i assume it was the general at the time, and said look, do something about this protect these people. and they saved israelis. so people like debbie wasserman schultz go, she will routinely say, this is the best president in american history for his support of israel. barak says in terms of military spending, we have never gotten more support. but if you ask people on the street with the perception is, they have a very different reading of the feelings of obama to israel. >> the first thing is, i've taken the position, up until recently, that israel should not be an issue in the race because roughly the parties were both
supportive of israel. and for me, the battleground related to the domestic issues where there is clear cleavage between the two speakers but you don't think there's that much -- >> that has been my position. i don't think that anyone can rightfully say that president obama is the best president as it relates to -- i think reagan was myself. i think bush -- >> second bush. >> a second bush. but he is acceptable in my judgment, but i've become more critical for the reasons i gave earlier, at a don't want to have to repeat. but i hope to change them. i hope, i talk to people, and they know my views and i don't, i'm not reluctant. when a reporter calls me up, i tell them exactly what i think.
and i've never believed in off the record conversations because they always appear if they're interesting. may be under else's name, but they will appear. so i'm never off the record. i tell people exactly what i think, and i will be, the consequences of making errors. we are all human, but i'm not bad at this stuff. i have made very clear where i am. i hope to move the president in further support of israel, not that he is hesitant. he made a magnificent speech at the u.n. in support of israel. he kept the palestinian authority from getting independent state imposed by the u.n. egypt that. nobody else supported him on that.
he has done somewhat of thanks and i gave him all the credit for it. and the people who gave him his political start was the jewish community. i understand in chicago. so i believe went i'm talking but isn't doable, and what i said frank what does all this could be wiped out in terms of bitterness and so forth. if the president were to just say an attack by iran on israel will be perceived by the united states as an attack upon the united states, and we will respond militarily. now, i think he could say that about saudi arabia, to. in fact, when i made my statements i said he should make it in terms of both. because iran wants to destroy saudi arabia, too, which is an ally of ours. >> we're going to get to iran in the moment but congressman,
let's pick up a little on that. it's confusing if you watch both conventions, if you listen to the spokespeople for both parties. one will always claim that they are superior than the other in their historic support of isra israel. and so you have people telling us that republicans are stronger go the president has shown, and again, i've got, these efforts to thwart a separate u.n. effort of statehood. and maybe that's something president obama has not received enough credit for. again within a year i had both debbie wasserman schultz and eric data, both jewish congress persons, one republican, one democrat, both sang very opposite things. your party would do better in the white house for israel? >> i certainly believe so, and
we are getting to a very critical period. small things can mean an awful lot. when the president has not visited israel, when he snaps the prime minister, when he makes outrageous claims of the 67 border, et cetera, these have consequences. i think the boldness of some of the arab states right now at and direct consequence to the. ..
>> that's an interesting point, congressman. i wonder what the mayor would say about this. there are people that say it doesn't matter that there are a lot of nice photo ops with the president of the united states and netanyahu. does it matter whether president obama is eating that laugh full in jerusalem? >> yes, it does matter. >> okay. what you really measure is military support, diplomatic aid. >> part of it. >> there is a question about whether obama supports israel but might love israel. >> you don't have to love israel. i'm not asking obama whether he loves israel. does he believe it's within the interests of the united states to have a close relationship and sport that relationship which every -- and support that relationship which every president before him said is a special relationship, or does he
believe that in order to satisfy the muslim world that somehow, rather, he has to separate us from israel? and what bob said is absolutely true. when the president -- by the way, the president's people, i've spoken to some of his people, say there was never a formal request for a meeting. i believe them. i believe they're honorable people. so it may very well be to attack the president for not having the meeting is unfair. and he says that, my contact, said that the israeli who first said there was such a request had to walk that statement back. i don't know that if that's true or not, but i accept it as true because the people who told me this are honorable people.
i agree with bob that the most important thing is not to give the muslim world the idea that if they keep attacking the united states and killing us, that we're going to somehow rather throw israel under the bus in order to have a better relationship with them and, therefore, anytime we do something that enlarges the space between us -- obviously, the united states has an independent foreign policy, but it's in our interests to make sure that iran, if i can touch on it for a moment -- >> we can, but i want to -- we're definitely going to end up with it. >> okay. all right. iran is an enemy of both the united states and israel. we know that, and there are no muslim countries that we can count on. can you count on pakistan? can you count on iraq?
can you count on afghanistan? when the chips are down? obviously not. we have spent billions of dollars in iraq and afghanistan. they hate us! they're killing us. we ought to be out of afghanistan tonight! [applause] but instead, we're there, and our young men are dying. and we're spending $2 billion a week. and i read in the times that the reason we don't fix the capitol dome is that we don't have any money, and we just spent $850 million completing the american embassy in iraq. >> congressman, you were actually seated at, in your new position when prime minister netanyahu visited congress a
number of months ago. i believe you were, i believe at that point you were in that hall. and what we all remember about that day is there were at least three standing ovations, there may have been more, for an israeli prime minister who addresses a house of congress. many people who were supporters of president obama thought it was incredibly presumption white house even for the prime minister of israel even to be thinking he should be addressing the congress, and thomas friedman, columnist for "the new york times," i think he rescinded this later, but i think he had first said, well, those applause and standing ovations were paid for by the -- >> what an outrage. can i just jump in here a minute? [laughter] >> please do. >> you know what he said and has never apologized for? he urged the palestinians to engage in the third intifada and to throw stones a at israeli
soldiers. that was in the times in his column. i want to tell you, i was in israel in 1990, '91 when they called me up, the tourist agency, and said people are not coming because the intifada was on, the second intifada, and could you come and maybe that would convince people to resume tourism. and i met teddy kohler -- >> he was at that point the mayor of jerusalem. >> yeah, he was at that point the mayor of jerusalem. he said i want to show you the archaeological museum under the western wall which they had just found. he didn't tell me there was a general strike in the old city, so we're going through the old city, and he had no security. i mean, it was amazing. i had five cops when i was -- detectives when i was mayor.
he had nobody who protected him. and there were about 25 reporter, and we're going through, and suddenly there's a fuse lad of stones, i'm hit on the head, i'm bleeding terribly and, ultimately, i go to the hospital, and i have nine stitches in my head. so i'm telling you, if it hit my eye, i'd be blind. but tom friedman, who has never apologized for it, urged the palestinians to throw these stones at israeli soldiers. and then if the israeli soldiers defended themselves and shot people who were threatening them with life and limb, then undoubtedly tom friedman would be assailing those israeli soldiers for not being kinder. >> congressman, so if you, no doubt, remember that day, um, is the support of israel simply general written in the house of
representatives -- general win in the house of representativeses? is there a strategic interest in the united states to maintain the strongest relationship with the democracy in the middle east? >> i think the relationship goes from stregy to culture commonality of interests, and it's genuine, and it's both sides of the aisle. um -- >> because one of your early days in congress, it was reported as an incredibly special moment to see that many standing ovations. >> actually, it was before i got there. >> oh, it was before i got there. but you would have stood. >> absolutely. [laughter] during the campaign, i would have been jumping up and down, sure. [laughter] >> either of you think that the jewish electorate, the jewish vote has changed at all in recent times during the obama administration, and then i want -- the follow-up question to that so you can pick apart both of them, do you think that
the support among non-jews in the united states has changed in any way for their support of israel? >> okay. with respect to -- >> jews. >> -- obama's support by the jewish community when he ran, he got 78%. i think it went down ultimately after the election to 53%, and then it rose, and i'm sure it's over 60% currently. >> now. >> with respect to the american people, it's very interesting. democrats at one point, not too long ago, only 48% of democrats were supportive of israel. this is in the general population. >> right. >> which -- and at that same time, 85% of republicans were supportive. so there is -- [laughter] at that time a huge differencement now, it's begun
up, the democrats. it's gone up, the democrats. >> you're saying that the support among republicans is actually higher? >> has always been higher. >> higher for israel? >> yes. we're talking about the general -- >> among the general population, the percentage is higher among republicans. >> yeah. that happens to be a practice, gallup poll. >> congressman, that's a nice lead-in for you. >> well, i see a lot of forces at play right now. the leadership of the democratic party seem to have taken a harder left turn, a pro-palestinian platform is part of it and other things. there is a, um, a moderate democratic vote. there are liberals with sanity
who need a place to go. [laughter] >> we'll get to that, because i don't think everyone -- this is a term -- >> the republicans right now are not as welcoming to a large group that i think are a little dissatisfied or more than a little with the democratic leadership right now. also within the republican party, you know, we have our tea party on the far right giving us problems. and i'm kind of tea-ish, but dealing with them is not always easy. >> you don't go bowling with them. >> that's right. [laughter] so a lot of factors going on. >> why do you suppose the mayor's statistics are right, why do you suppose a higher percentage of republicans support israel than democrats among non-jews? why do you suppose that's true?
>> i think we see a commonality of interests from culture to strategy and the history. i think, also, we have -- we, republicans -- have an ability to look at reality. [laughter] this islamic revolution is serious business. >> they want to kill us. >> too often in the house or even in committee we talk, all here democrats, well, you have your presbyterians and your baptists, and you have your islamics -- no, we have different forces at work here. we need to be able to weigh this, see what's going on and listen to what they're saying. i've even said to the secretary
of state do what we hear when we, when they broadcasts on arab radio and television and their newspapers, are we paying attention to what they're saying? does it go into our policy? >> it's kind of pushed off. but, no, we're still dealing with real policy as you would korea and other places of the world, but there are other factors here that are not being -- >> interesting to me is that, again, today's times reporting the interview with the egyptian president, he says you have to accept our societal rules. i have no objection to accepting egyptian societal rules no matter how many i disagree with so long as they apply to egyptians. but when they impose them on other people or seek to impose
them on other people, for example, blasphemy. we don't recognize blasphemy as a criminal -- >> >> capital. capital offense. >> at all. and the united states freedom of speech, there is no criminal charge of blasphemy. but in arab countries they kill people, and in india they're going to charge a christian indian woman, hindu, because she's a sweeper, and she found some korans, she said, that were burned. so they're hold or her responsible. another country, i think it was pakistan, a couple that was charged with adultery. they buried them to their heads, and they stoned them to death. and they have a rule that you may not make a caricature or fun
of muhammad, and if you do, we'll kill you, they say. and the danish cartoonist is still protected by danish police. and the danish government suffers enormously in terms of trade because he had cartoons, and "the new york times" wouldn't even print those cartoons. i understand that, i'm not going to blame -- out of fear, undoubtedly. why should they print them, although it's certainly worthy of public notice, but it would endanger their reporters, and they wouldn't print them. other papers did. in france the paper just engaged and said we respect the muslim religion for them, but it's not for us. and yet the egyptian president, as i read the interview, expects us to end our first amendment liberties. >> if i may, we americans cannot
accept that they have their culture and we have ours. we stand for universal rights. we stand for democracy, the rights of the individual, freedom of expression. those are our values, those are universal values. i don't think we should back off those for one moment. when we say we support israel, those are their values as well as ours, and those that oppose them have a very different set of beliefs. and whether they're beliefs or they're just imposed upon them by corrupt political and religious leadership, i can't say. >> iran. well, before we get to that, i still want to end up with it. i want to talk about the 1980 presidential election because you were involved in that one as well. and there may be a parallel here, and it was -- i think it's
in your program that we would discuss it. historically, in american presidential elections 60% of jews vote for the democratic party, roughly 40% vote for republicans, and that has been consistent, certainly, since fdr perhaps. 1980 was different. ronald reagan was even with president carter. they each got 40%. and congressman anderson, i think, got 20%. and that had been, i mean, those numbers were just historic, that -- and it may or may not have influenced the race. but it did have a sort of post-camp david ethos. and specifically it had to do with yet another u.n. resolution in which the u.n. passed a resolution that, essentially, equated jerusalem as being occupied. and the occupation of that, of
jerusalem, that issue and carter, perhaps not strongly preventing that in the way that president obama -- >> not only did he not strongly prevented it, he directed the u.n. not to vote for it. how do i know that? because he called me up. i was coming back from china, and i was on the plane. and the captain comes over, and he says the president would like you to call him before you talk to the press when we land. so i said, okay. so when we land -- [laughter] when we land, i called up this number. the president took the call. and first a little chitchat, how was your trip, blah, blah, blah, okay. and then he says, have you heard about my problem? i said, yeah, i have, mr. president. he said, i need your help. and it was his position at that time, he said to me, i didn't know what was in that resolution.
he lied! how do i know he lied? because our delegate, mchenry, donald mchenry. >> right. >> publicly said he read the resolution to jimmy carter, and jimmy carter instructed him to vote for it. so that's how i know this. >> so there have been at least this one abhorrent presidential election in which jews voted the other way. do either of you think we might see that dip for 2012, or will president obama see that exact same hold he has on jewish-americans as a leader? >> i suspect that that support is eroding. new york is a very important state, tough to say what will happen here. but i think the president wins florida -- loses florida and
loses the jewish support at the level he needs to -- >> mayor, is this a possible revisiting of 1980? >> i believe president obama as candidate got the highest number of jewish -- 78%. >> yes. >> which was the second highest group, the first being 95% of all blacks. and the reason, it's not hard. you don't have to be a genius to understand why. people, not only jews, but others as well were so excited that we we would for the first e have an african-american candidate, president in the white house. i mean, aceps of great pride -- a sense of great pride. and i still think that that pride or a sense of feeling isn't something we can say based on our history and how it wipes out the part -- not from our
remembering, but in terms of what we did -- that we now have come to the point where a black man or a black woman or any other group could achieve that. so i think that he will not get 78%, but i believe that the president is going to win and be reelected, and i hope that the jewish community is part of that as opposed to being decried as having tried to stop him. >> let me, we'll talk about iran, we'll finish up with iran, we'll take some questions from our audience, and then we'll take another break. so there's a holocaust subtext to today's discussion. the weimann institution is largely dedicated to holocaust memory and respect to moral failure of nations that failed to act as well as moral righteousness, those who did, individuals who did. so i thought one of the lessons
of the holocaust -- that's what they tell everyone in grade school -- is when a madman says that he's about to kill everybody or kill a certain group of people, you take him seriously. >> i do. >> you're supposed to listen to people at the point that the congressman just said, when you hear things being broadcast in arabic stations, do we listen and internalize it and go, whoa, that's what they said, or do we just treat it as, well, this is the price you play to live in a world of global diplomacy. so president ahmadinejad has said numerous times that his intention is to wipe israel off the map. i don't even -- i don't know exactly, our resident scholar, whether hitler actually used words like that. there was no israel, but i don't think -- >> he said he would destroy all jews. >> he never actually said the final solution of the jewish question. >> what he said was if there's a war, we'll hold the jews responsible. i remember that speech. >> okay. >> and we will, and there'll be
an elimination. >> okay. so, you know, i think prime minister netanyahu at one point equated hitler with ahmadinejad. >> i think that's fair. >> some people in israel were critical of that. >> whoo i? >> i'm just saying -- [laughter] he's not quite that, he's not at the highest level of murderousness. >> i don't know how you distinguish between killing all jews and killing all jews within your authority as hitler wanted to do and almost did. >> so here if we've, in fact, learned 65, 70 years later some lessons of the holocaust, why aren't, why isn't the united states, why isn't the world taking president ahmadinejad more seriously? >> well, i tried to allude to it earlier, and i don't know if i got to it. i was shocked when "the new york times"' former editor of "the
new york times," bill -- >> keller. >> keller had an op-ed article in which he said why shouldn't iran have the nuclear bomb, and then we'll do what we did with russia, mutually-assured destruction. and president obama had said, no, we don't -- earlier -- no, we don't accept containment. we don't accept that they should ever get the bomb can and that we will contain them. not at all. we will not let them get the bomb. but to have the former editor-in-chief of "the new york times" propose that, i said to myself, this is munich, this is chamberlain, this is substituting israel for czechoslovakia. give 'em the bomb, let 'em destroy. we can contain 'em. what does containment mean? if they don't kill us here in the united states, i guess.
so i, to me, that was extraordinary. just extraordinary. now, i don't happen to believe that israel is going to do it on its own because there's such dissension in israel as to whether or not it's possible to do it on your own, and secondly, it was a sort of a tip of the hat as it relates -- related to that when prime minister netanyahu said it'll take six months before they get their bomb. well, six months is after the general election here. so i do not believe that there will be an israeli intervention on their own. i do believe that the president should say an attack upon israel and an attack upon saudi arabia by iran will be perceived as an attack upon the united states, and we will respond militarily. why they haven't said that, i
thought that i was the first one to come up with that suggestion. not true. senator inouye six months before, in january of this year, made the statement that that's exactly what we should do. and he's the chairman of the senate defense appropriations committee. so he knows where of he's speaking as it relates to the military ability of the united states. >> congressman, is what mayor koch said going far enough in your mind? there are some people who think the united states should even take a more aggressive approach which is to absolutely disable any possibility of a nuclear iran. >> we all know we are in the prevention policy, not containment. last november the open intelligence briefings suggested
that by september/october, the period we're in now, iran would have enough fissionable material to make two implosive at least type devices. weapons grade. and they were working on that end, and the sanctions, etc., was going to try to slow in this down. we know the number of centrifuges they're making and creating, and they have accelerated their program. they have not decreased it. the sanctions are what sanctions are supposed to do, working very well, but their end goal is to see that we stop them from doing what they're doing, and they're not. >> and you don't think -- >> so sanctions for that, that is their purpose, are failing. >> but what about waiting them out? >> well --
>> the idea that the sanctions will eventually work? >> well, we're dealing with a timeline. >> right. >> now, if the timeline originally was this time of year and now the conversations have shifted to a more sophisticated weapon than simply an implosive device and maybe we're six months away from that, the device that i mentioned could be put in a container or ship or something and sent to a harbor and do a great deal of damage. we don't want them to get to the point where they can do that. recently, prime minister netanyahu suggested he wanted to see the president. the president blew off that meeting. why? because he didn't want to hear what the prime minister was going to tell him. now, i don't know, but let's just think about it. what do you think he wallets to tell him? -- he wants to tell
him? here is the timeline, mr. president. by this date they're going to have it. we have to do something now. of we have to get the inspectors in there to see that they don't, we have to force them to take that material out. the president didn't want to have that meeting, he didn't want to hear it. >> what is the mood -- you're both on the senate, congressman, you're on the foreign relations committee and homeland security. we don't have hearings on this subject. these are colleagues of yours. what do the members of this committee think -- just that these are people for whom security is paramount and foreign policy is paramount. you'd think they've given this more thought than -- >> for in the topic is shifting more to the strategic and tactical, that there is a profound pessimism even with our allies, occasionally foreign ambassadors come in and chat with us, that this will be
resolved in a diplomatic way. >> they're pessimistic about that? >> they're pessimistic about it. >> so everyone thinks we're sliding into some conflict will take place -- >> confrontation, and it's coming soon. and there is talk on the consequences. i mean, this isn't -- we can't simply attack and go about our business. this is, will set off a whole chain of really unpleasant, long-term -- >> if a 15-minute amateur video that no one would have ever seen could set off ransacking embassies all across -- >> no. timeout. that -- the people that organize this can stockpile insults to islam. there are enough publications, cartoons, videos, internet access that they can pull out when they need it and say here's our latest insult, let's get to
the streets. i don't buy that for a minute that this was some spontaneous -- [applause] demonstration. >> but it is, you know, i hate to use the phrase -- >> and let me say in support of bob's point, how come it happened on the anniversary of 9/11? >> that's fooling no one except, again, our state department. >> but it does what it -- it's frightening implication is that this is merely a sneak preview of -- >> they want to kill us! this is like the through history there has been a effort by the islamists to resurrect the sultan at califate that would
run from spain to indonesia and include a billion, 400 million muslims who would be under the rule of a religious leader and have a theocracy instead of the secular states that exist -- >> so this would be a massive iran. >> yeah. >> all right. let's take some questions from the audience. oh, my god. i was shocked to see these hands. i didn't think anyone would have anything say. [laughter] wow. right here because the microphone and, please, don't start -- two things. very important, extremely important. no speeches, right? only questions. [laughter] and also, speak into the microphone. c-span is here. you should have your question recorded. >> c-span is here? >> oh, now she doesn't want to do it. [laughter] >> okay. >> all of a sudden she's shy. >> okay. basically, it's a question for response, okay? much of what i was going to say you have basically raised, and the question, fundamental
question is whether this administration really has a middle eastern policy. because my feeling is a good deal of the time the administration just ducks, okay? and you have mentioned starting out with the olive branch to egypt, an apology for the previous administration, starting out this way, you know? moving on to different, to doing, voicing maybe a few platitudes during the iranian efforts against the administration. it was very nonforceful, minimal. >> okay, the question -- >> going through, slotting the -- giving things to israelis behind the back, mainly the armaments. >> okay, and the question? >> i'm going to get to the question because one after another you've had, basically, no policy, what it seems to me, you know? it's just endless reactiveness.
>> i will, i will. so i think, essentially, the question is -- >> essentially the question. >> right. we'll start with the congressman, that this woman's saying she doesn't think the obama administration actually has a foreign policy, certainly consistent when it comes to toing with -- comes to dealing with the middle east. >> i think their inconsistency is in lack of policy. we've been getting political slogans and not policy and solutions -- >> also, can i just -- one other thing, if you need to leave for whatever reason, could you, please, go out the back? because it's rude to our guests. go ahead. >> so our failings in foreign policy, what is the plan to address the budget where we are borrowing 42 cents on the dollar? what is the plan to salvage social security and medicare which we know is unsustainable? what is the plan? >> so you saying that the --
>> no. we've had enough of hope and change, and now we're getting forward. >> okay. >> we need something more. >> i think the question that the congressman i think the answer is -- >> highly political answer, but -- >> right. the domestic policy inconsistencies have also emerged. okay. over here, and a question. question. wait for the mic. here we go. >> okay. my question is, should the jewish population, jewish voting population be satisfied with the fact that the christian evangelicals are in our corner when it comes to israel? i heard pastor hagy on tv saying that jerusalem should, indeed, be the capital of israel, and i said, gee, this guy's really great. then he said, and with the resurrection of our lord and savior he will be the ruler of jerusalem. i nearly hollered.
>> so you heard this, right? >> i heard. >> so this woman says there's a mixed bag with the evangelical support. >> i don't -- yeah, jews are afraid of evangelicals, like you are afraid of them. >> [inaudible] >> i know -- all right. okay. let me tell you how to handle it. i think the evangelicals are terrific and very supportive of israel and should be encouraged. and the fear that is off expressed by -- is often expressed by jews is, you know, the evangelicals believe that before christ can come again that the jews have to accept him, or they will die. that's the general exposition. and my response to that is this. if there, i say to someone who raises it, if there is a report
in the land that the me messiahs here, seek him out and ask him if he's jewish, because he must be jewish biblyically of the line of david -- biblyically of the line of david. [laughter] and if he is, then say: is this your first visit or your second visit? [laughter] now, if he says it's his first visit, then the evangelicals will convert to judaism. if he says that it's his second visit, then we should convert. [laughter] [applause] >> you always sum it up perfectly. [laughter] now, the -- >> do you have any evangelicals not necessarily in your district -- >> not in brooklyn and queens.
[laughter] >> any evangelical support financially that came from another part of the country that -- >> as it turned out, we get no support financially either, even from the republican party. sadly, we have this -- and it's more pronounced in the's lammic world -- in the islamic world, the end of days -- and a lot of people think this is coming soon, and they could kind of help it along. this is some very bad reasoning. and what's coming out of iran is far more frightening than anything coming out of alabama, believe me. >> okay. let's move -- no, i feel like we -- let's go back up there, and we'll come back down. we will not miss you, ma'am. one of those gentlemen up there. there you go. good choice. nice shirt. >> this question, this question is for mayor koch. i heard you when you supported
bush, you said that i don't agree with him on his foreign policy -- >> no, i don't agree with him on a single domestic issue, but that his position in support of opposing terrorism is far better than kerry's who thinks that terrorism is a form of criminality. >> yeah. you also said that you don't agree with him on most of the issues, but you did it, as far as israel is concerned, you felt that you supported israel -- >> you're not quoting me correctly, although i happen to believe he was very supportive of israel. the quote is the one i just gave you. >> and the question is -- >> then when obama ran, you said that you were supporting obama because of the fact that you heard that he would be good for israel. >> that's not what i said at all. [laughter] >> okay. >> i mean, you know, i get quoted -- >> okay, okay. >> what is the question again? >> what's the question? >> you said now that was one of
the biggest mistakes that you ever made. i heard you say that. >> oh, please. what's your question? >> all right. the question is, are you now supporting obama? >> yes. >> you are? >> i said that at the very opening. >> from the beginning. >> what is the reason why you're supporting him? >> you want me to give -- >> i think he already did. >> i did already, but i'll just very briefly. because i believe that there are whole aspects of issues to be considered, and on domestic issues -- and i won't go through it again -- you can't compare the democrats and the republicans. and i am, the democrats are so far better on, you know, medicare and medicaid, social security, abortion, taxing of the wealthy -- >> you said that. >> i said all of that. >> i know. >> and with respect to his position on israel, i hope to move him to mine. >> great. try this gentleman over here. and -- we'll come back. i will come back. you know what? i feel like i wasn't clear the
first time. questions, not speeches. we don't need a recitation of what people have said in the past. questions. just get to the question. >> you had mentioned that, the fact that ehud barak said that united states is assisting israel with all their military cooperations, a sign that president obama is not so -- is good for the tate of israel. is it possible that there's been some pressure that was applied to the israeli government, maybe ehud barak in particular, and also is it also possible that israel's being placed in a particular position where they have to say some positive statements to, for the obama administration because they have to hedge their possibility that he may be reelected? >> okay. so this gentleman, mayor --
congressman, you'll answer it anyway, but so you'll know, the question is when ehud barak said that a the united states under obama's administration has been at least with respect to military expenditures and cooperation has never been -- >> intelligence as well. >> right, intelligence, sharing intelligence information has been terrific, this gentleman wonders, speculates that maybe there had been pressure in israel for there to be a positive statement. >> i happen to believe that ehud barak is an honorable man and that he would not say that if he didn't believe it. i believe he believes it because it's true. >> congressman? >> i think the level of military support at about three billion has been fairly consistent for quite a firm of -- for quite a number of years now, and the intelligence services have, indeed, worked very well together. when mr. barak issued that statement, it was probably
before the joint israeli-american exercises were canceled in the gulf which was a shocking surprise to the israelis, i think, and a detriment to our joint efforts. so i would take what was said there, um, and factor that into it because that was before -- >> we'll try something, how about this gentleman in the middle, and then we'll come back to you, all right? >> [inaudible] >> we had the first two were ladies. [laughter] >> all right. well, you'll be next, and -- >> you can tell this is a jewish crowd. >> my question -- >> let me, what are my cautionary words again? >> my question is i'd just like to hear a response -- >> microphone, sir? >> i'd like to hear a response to the statement this morning by hank sheinkopf, what you think of that, and that is that he said given the location of the jewish vote and the numbers that he didn't think it was going to be at all significant in this presidential election.
because of the location and the likely vote. >> i never heard it pronounced before. is it shine could have? >> so one of the leading pollsters has just indicated he didn't see the jewish vote would mange much of a difference. >> he's a very able guy, it's a matter of opinion. >> okay. >> the largest concentrations of the jewish vote in new york, they may be decided -- >> is there any question that new york's going? >> i'm not ready to write it off yet. >> all right. [laughter] >> that's the first time i heard you say something that stupid. [laughter] >> all right. that woman, to prove that we're gender neutral, and then we'll come here. i know, we're going to come --
can i just say something? you were the have a really -- you better have a really good question. >> not only that -- >> the greatest question ever. >> can i say something? she intimidated you. >> she scared the hell out of me. >> may i take us all back to -- >> a little closer. >> one of our topics is the holocaust? >> i'm sorry -- >> one of our topics is the holocaust. before we get into too much about votes and politics in the u.s. can you -- you touched upon that when you mentioned munich. there was ample evidence in europe and america of hitler's intention before the first concentration camp was built. what is it that american jews do not understand about the rampant propaganda all over the middle east? muslim schools among the clerics, among their government that they want to get rid of the
jews as they did before from the territories? from what they consider their uma, their caliphate. and if we have no answer, what can we do about it? >> i'm going to start with the mayor, i don't know if you heard all of it, but you touched on this early on. you said, you know, younger jewish-americans, they don't seem to get the concept, and this woman -- she wants to go back to this, she's saying what is it about what we're hearing, the noise and chatter in the arab-muslim world that specifically among younger jewish-americans or younger americans period that they're not just ignoring it, but perhaps an unfamiliarity with the history of -- >> oh, i think that's totally true that young j well,ews todat know the history of the holocaust, and it's quite
regrettable. but you should understand that the goal of islamist has historically been the destruction of western civilization, and the forced conversion of populations all over the world to islam. the sole exceptions would be christianity, christians and jews if they accepted the supreme si of islam over their own religions. so this is a fight that has gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years and will not be over for many years to come. my fear is, you know, we lead the good life. they envy us, they hate us. why? because we have an extraordinary
civilization. and we want to live, we don't want to die. they believe that if they die killing an infidel, they are lifted to heaven and have the services of 72 virgins. that's -- i didn't make that up. [laughter] that's their credo. and when you look at some of the not the koran itself, but the other holy books in islam was quoted by the mufti of jerusalem who was upset because he was criticized for using it, that muhammad said, look behind that tree, there's a jew behind that tree, kill the jew. i'm paraphrasing, but kill the jew is his language, not my language. and nobody cares! i mean, you don't take him seriously. why not take him seriously? they didn't take adolf hitler seriously. they thought it was a moment in
time that would pass, and it didn't. >> all right. let's -- i have a promise, and this woman -- [laughter] and this woman promised us an incredible question. >> i just want to say this is 36 people asked me this question, and i'm asking you this question, mayor koch. my husband and i, who's sitting there not with us together, we spent the summer in israel because we were lucky enough to have a 19-year-old grandchild make -- [inaudible] on her own -- >> okay, it's got to be a question. >> the question they gave me, and they all gave it to me, was given obama's record you could you put him into office a second year when then he can do anything? so how -- i have to say this -- [applause] >> and i will tell you, i heard your question.
>> mayor koch, how could he be sporting obama? >> that was a pretty good question. >> the question, and it is a factor as it relates to many, many, the vast majority, i believe, of jews in making their decision. which is, when the election is over and the, president obama can no longer run again, will his support of israel given prior to his election be kept as a commitment, or will he spurn the jews? is that's really the heart of it. and there's really only one answer for people like me. i believe he's an honorable man. if i believe he's an honorable -- >> you may not. >> i believe's an honorable man -- he's an honorable man. and if he makes the commitment, i believe he will keep it. it's as simple as that. >> all right. let's take one more question. ..
>> do you believe that the obama administration and his policies are not taking, intimidating in the stands? they are busy are not scared of us. >> this is the mirror image of your point. your point was president obama should say that an attack on israel as an attack against united states. this young man says an hour ago
the ap just reported one of the generals in the republican army of the iranians has just said that any israeli attack against iran will be interpreted as an attack on america, and that their embassy -- >> he said that a couple days ago. >> they would then be vulnerable to our retaliation [talking over each other] >> that's not news. it doesn't shock me. the iranians, if they were able to queue up and every israeli, that's not to stop them from trying to kill and destroy every american. so at this moment they have the means and all probability to deliver a missile, certain, that's in all probability, certainty, to destroy israel which is a small country, maybe two or three nuclear bombs could destroy the whole place. they don't have that capability with respect to the united states. but once they had it, i have no question but they would use it.
>> congressman? >> if israel attacks, i believe the iranians will attack us. we saw 21 countries in riot, revolt. we will see something like that. we will see a cause of action here. we have a hezbollah network in south america, a colony of over 30,000 people in the area of brazil, argentina and paraguay. we have operatives working for hundred 50 in venezuela. we have a training ground now in bolivia, efforts in the war, et cetera. if there is an attack we better be prepared. it's going to be worldwide. >> let's try that gentleman over there. right there. >> remember, it's a question and
into the mic. >> mr. mayor, when you said that president obama should say an attack by iran unofficial -- >> israel and saudi arabia. >> would result, it would be an attack on america and america would respond. is that already not too late? should not be attack be on iran before we develop the capability to attack israel? >> very simple. this is not a gotcha situation. the fact is that the president has already said that we will not permit iran to get a nuclear bomb. he has said that. hold it. what i am saying is -- that's what he has said. and those very words that's what he has said. now, the united states will decide for itself when it's appropriate to stop them, israel
has a different point of view. the united states has a different point of view. but what i have said is totally different than that. and just as important. >> let's try, truly the last question, this woman. all, i did. i will have to get both of you. [laughter] >> is that all right? these two women. you know, one thing is true. people come to this conference are motivated. they are here, nobody is a sleep. some of that was created by our esteemed guests. >> congressman turner, what is congress doing? i am actually petrified that president obama will be reelected, despite what they are saying. what can congress do to rein in
some of the things that he is done, or is the executive power so -- >> like what? >> okay. groveling in cairo is number one. groveling. not the way he said he was apologetic. sorry. he was groveling. and the truth is that the muslims understand strength. they do not understand weakness, and they take advantage of weakness. and sending the new years cards our birthday cards to aquatint shot is the most ridiculous thing and/or but that's not a. i want to know what congress can possibly do -- ahmadinejad. what does congress do to help? >> what would happen in this woman's most worst nightmare? >> first of all we have to hold the house, which i expect will happen, and we have over 40 bills, many of them are limiting
aid to egypt, to other arab countries. until they do certain things or respond in a certain way. medicine is sitting on these right now. we can, even next year, the next house, can limit appropriations. but that's limited. senate still has approval on treaties, and the president has executive power. but if you look at past history in polls, the demographics, the president should lose 54, 55 to 45, 46, and republicans may take control of the senate with four or five seats. and the republic will be saved. thank you very much. >> all right, last question for
this woman and then we will say goodbye to our guests. a question. >> just a question. and a couple of days it will be john cook four, wednesday. ahmadinejad will take the platform at the united nations. general assembly. and my question is what recourse, what actions can we be taking similar to canada shutting their embassy in what can the united states do with regard to the international court of justice? there's talk right now about recognizing the fact that he is on a genocidal path. his calls are genocidal, and that is against a member nation of the united nations. how can we as america do something to ensure that iran is thrown out of the united nations and set off course? he can't be given platforms like this. he is now the secretary for the next three years. >> if i understood it, your
position is how can the united states get iran thrown out of -- do you realize iran just held a meeting where 40 countries went to -- [inaudible] >> i thought it was 40. but even more important, 120. and you are suggesting that somehow the president should organize the assembly so it will throw iran out? listen, you will forgive me. you will forgive me, but it's ridiculous. we pay dues but we don't decide how countries will vote. and in the -- thank god that none of the votes in the assembly are mandatory in terms of being carried out. that has to be done through the security council where we have a veto. but to suggest that we go down