tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 9, 2011 1:00am-6:00am EDT
years. born in 1943 -- that is before the great partition of india and pakistan. his earliest memories were being on that night train, traveling to pakistan as it was being created into a country. he lived with 18 people in a two-room apartment. the move to turkey where he learned turkish. the move to turkey where he learned turkish. he was not a model citizen in a high school. he has three teenage boys. it was in the military. chief of the army staff, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he became ceo and then president of pakistan. there have been been six assassination attempts. he has fought in two wars.
he has two daughters. two dogs. it is only with the dogs that life as been fuller and more exemplary. let me begin with that odd, bloodless coup. 1999 -- your overseas. >> yes, i was. when i returned, i was traveling on a normal commercial flight. 300 passengers and crew. 90 of them were school students. as we approached karachi and came down to about 8,000 feet, the pilot called me to the cockpit. when i went there, he told me we would not be allowed to land and had been told to go up to 21,000 feet. they said to get out of pakistan airspace.
that was quite a shock. i presumed of this must involve me. why else would the second quarter be passed? we rose to 21,000 feet. initially the pilot said we could go into the gulf or to india. it was unimaginable for me to land in india. therefore, we rose to 21,000 feet and was told we did not have killed to get to pakistan now prepared -- pakistan now. a conversation between the pilot and the air traffic controller started.
he was taking five or six minutes because he was passing messages to the prime minister of pakistan. it was taking a lot of time. i told him to land in karachi. there were five tenders on the runway, therefore, we could not land. the lights had been switched off. >> i kept going until he finally said we don't have fuel, they allowed us to go to a recovery airfield. action took place on the ground. their army acted -- i was not in contact at all. the pilot, a message from the
air traffic control costs from an army general. he instructed me to come back and land. i went back. half way, he said we have just enough fuel. when we landed, we only had eight minutes of fuel. when i landed, i was in charge of pakistan. >> how many of us have had bad flights and not had it worked out this well? let's move forward to 2004. there is a global poll taken. the president is the most popular relent -- president in the world. the relationships were strong. you were publicly supportive of president bush and the united states and the world -- the war of terror.
polls in pakistan today show that the united states is used as the no. 1 external threat to the country. policy makers had very acute concerns about the way pakistan is going. if it is a good ally. the best thing we could understand after a few minutes of talking to you is, what went wrong? when you were president, did you already see the relationships slipping away between the united states and pakistan? >> i think my time, there is no doubt in my mind we had a degree of trust and confidence. i believe relations between states had a lot to do with interpersonal relations. i had a relationship with president bush and colin powell.
we could call up each other and talk directly. colin powell used to say, let's talk general to a general. used to be very straight talking. i wonder if that exists now. betty confidence is not there. -- maybe confidence is not there now. >> what you think the united states does not understand that makes pakistan not trust us? what do we not understand about why they are upset? >> i don't want to go into too much detail with the minutes that we have pared. between 1979, we were with the
united states to fight against the soviet union. then in 1989, suddenly the united states decides to quit. when that happens, there was a strategic policy -- sanctions on pakistan. this was seen as extremely negatively of the people of pakistan. we have been used and then betrayed. this is a feeling of the people of pakistan. >> is there feeling like that today? >> yes. >> we know this has happened. we were all alone. we were funding for ourselves. the taliban came up in 1996 in pakistan was all alone funding for its all. contents 9/11 in the united
states -- now people are asking how do we know we will not be betrayed again? this has a historical past. until 1989, everything was happening to pakistan. we are planning to leave in 2014. that has its impact on the people again. now, pakistan has to think -- i am not speaking on behalf of the government, but my personal view is that certainly there must be some analysis going on what will happen in afghanistan if the united states leaves and
unstable afghanistan. are we returning to the situation where they were buried in every ethnic group was fighting each other? or are we referring -- are returning to 1996? one of the two situations will certainly be there if you leave an unstable afghanistan. we have to be very conscious about what we are putting in a situation which is unstable. we have to analyze all of this and the impact on pakistan. >> i think it is hard for americans to understand the frame for which so many pakistani is the this
relationship. let me do this over. the significance of india. what is the concern that pakistan has, and is its largest concern, do we not understand that? >> yes. i would not imagine that you don't understand. i can say that he show a lack of concern. we have fought wars. i strongly believe it has to be resolved. i am a strong believer that we have to resolve our dispute and have peace. we have been called in india that i am a man of war because i have fought two worse and i am a military band. -- i am a military man.
i have only been saying that i am a man for peace. i understand the averages of war. ravages oftasnnd the war. therefore, i understand how much he suffered in war. therefore i am a man for peace. >> having said that, it has only been in the past decade since independence, this has been happening all over these decades. this must go. ' we must resolve our dispute. net in the latest of the past three or four years, dismissed manifistation in afghanistan. india is trying to create an anti pakistan afghanistan. >> why? what is its ambition?
>> its ambition is to weaken pakistan's budget to have a week -- a weak pakistan so that it can be dominated. so it does not have any confrontation. >> it's not a military concern, it is a trade -- yes. >> i think dominating a country or moving against the country does not mean they want to take over pakistan. i don't think that can happen. they helped bangladesh get independence. they have not taken over bangladesh. it implies dominating foreign- policy, dominating the economic policy, their trade and commerce.
that is how you control or dominate other countries. >> where does this problem right in your concerns? is this the largest concern that you have? >> it's not such a great concern. we know that afghanistan's intelligence, their diplomats, their soldiers and the army, security people, they all go to india for trading. pakistan and i had offered them training free of cost in pakistan for all of them. not one man has come to pakistan for training. they go to india. therefore, this is what we must understand it must come. india and the united states must concern the concern of what is happening in afghanistan.
i would say that the united states needs to understand pakistan's sensitivities. i see there is a lack of concern for pakistan's and sensitivities. >> let me switch is a another way and telling you to its -- two issues we don't understand. the first is where osama bin laden was found. if he was there for five years -- and we don't know he was there for five years -- he would have been there during your presidency. explain what you don't believe the army dislocation. >> it is terrible. let me admit it is a terrible thing that happened. has to be clarified by pakistan. people i know of do not believe
that there was an issue of complexity, that is the issue. was pakistan, pleasant or was it negligent? i personally to all my analysis feel it was not complice it. why do i say that? first of all, if you go there for five years, that means two years of it was on my tie. if anybody believes it here or not, i did not know. therefore, there is no complicity. there was no complicity in those two years. wasn't think there complicity because, first of all, nobody in that area new met osama bin laden was inside. all of the pakistani television
channels which are very independent -- all 50 or 60 of them -- have interviewed people a round. not one of them had ever said they knew osama bin laden was in sight. he is not using any communication. you are banking on human intelligence. that was not the case. secondly, a lot of people here think that this house has such high walls. i seen this on television. i have not seen the house physically. i don't see on television with all honesty that this is anything unusual. i don't see that house to be anything unusual. it is a slightly bigger house than an average house. i don't see anything unusual in this. certainly, there would have been some security around.
would he be left alone and guarded by anyone, free to come and go? why would he not be used as a bargaining leverage or chip? why would i have not used it as a bargaining chip in my time if i knew this man was there? therefore, another point -- people mr. reid that this was a small town. it is a tourist resort. people go and stay there in hotels. it is absolutely open. anybody going to the mountains goes through there. the training centers are open for people to go and come use it as open. therefore, it was not
complicity. it was a terrible case of negligence which must be explained by pakistan. white was there such negligence? - why? we must not believe it was complicity because that would be very serious. maybe we are not together in the war against terror. >> because we are out of time, let me explain that he is under an arrest warrant in pakistan but intends to go back in march of 2012 and intends to win the presidential election in 2013. i will be returning to my office where i will be very busy with important things. thank you so much for coming.
>> thank you. >> and now for something different, we have had a lot of very accomplished and famous people, there have been many friends in the room. there is overlap here in that chris is one of my friends in washington. i met him when i first arrived more than 30 years ago. chris, will you come up? chris is going to give us his take on politics and movies and many other things. somewhere in there, can we stand? can we handle the truth? >> thank you, margaret. should i stand or sit? thank you all. the lights are terrible.
>> mike. >> i don't control these things. >> push the button. >> can you hear me now? commercial. you know, i have been interested in politics for about 60 years. i have been fascinated by the cultural difference in the two political parties. they tell you a lot about predicting the future -- the past and prologue. it was 1952 when i started paying attention to politics in this country. i noticed a cultural difference in the two party. would you watch the conventions of television, they used to carry gavel-to-gavel every four to five days. usually there was a woman
standing behind the podium with those glasses that had the chain holding them on her. she had them on the chain. she was very orderly. she would say in a high voice, what the delegates please clear the aisles? you would hear this all week long. at the democratic convention, the you know what happened after she said that? nothing. democrats are table hoppers. they don't clear the aisles. they don't obey. they are disorderly. they do what they feel like doing. they enjoy life. you watch a republican convention, when the person at the podium would yell what the delegates clean the house -- clear the aisles. they did it. that is the difference of the two political parties. a bill to a movie in america and -- go to a movie in america
and it tried to go early. be there 10 minutes early at the movie theater. look at all the people that are there 10 minutes early. they may have a small candy bar for their refreshment. they are all republicans. if you want to pull them, go ahead. wait until after the ads are finished and all the trailers are done, all the previous. the movie has started and the theater has gone pitch black and you feel somebody trying to push past the. -- trying to push past you. they will have trash cans of popcorn. they will be mumbling happily something about what time did it start. they are all democrats. this is our country. if you want to predict the next election and how it will go, think of the republicans as an orderly crowd. they are organized.
the republicans are an organized political party. they are like a country club where the knights of columbus or the elks. if they have to a chair for next year, they look around and mothball long -- among themselves and say, whose turn is it? whose turn to be president? that guy or woman gets the job next time. democrats are like kids at an urban playgrounds. poor kids with just the ram and -- the rim and no net, they see who has the hot hands. who is the kid hitting the baskets. he gets the ball. first time out, never met ticket before. -- never met the kid before. if he has the hot hand, you give him the ball. the guy gets the ball and the
democratic party who has the hot hand. you feed him. they played winners by the way, the one who has the best gets the next time. the republican party -- i have been watching them since i was 6 years old. from 1952 until 2004, three names of been on the republican ticket and every year but want -- the same three names. they are predictable. nixon, bush, dole. they are a predictable party. they brought back exciting bob dole 22 years later and upgraded him for president because he was so exciting. nixon was a political grave and came back. john mccain after the destroyed
him eight years prior in south carolina, they brought him back and ran him. a revenue when you are old and -- they run you when you are old and tired and have been there. democrats on the other hand kill their when did. carter? who? mondale? who? al gore had to go grow a beard and a live in a cave. you are not forgiven in the democratic party. the past is prologue, it is romney. it is his turn. if you want to predicted based on history, it is romney. one other possibility. this could be a year, 2012, just like 1964 -- the republicans went wild. it could be one of those crazy phenomenal years when they do something very unrepublican.
i have reminiscences, i have been reading revival's about what was going on in 1964. the unpredictable popping up of candidates. the weird phenomenon of herman cain in moving toward number one. the decrease christy melodrama -- the chris christie melodrama of this week. the mitt romney phenomenon where he can't get past 25%.
is it tissue rejection? is this an outside think coming into the body politic that has to be pushed out? i crave the excitement. i hope this is one of those years. this is why i think romney may not be the nominee even though he is clearly the want. -- clearly the one. and 1 million years, mitt romney would never go to a tea party meeting. looking forward knowing all that he knows now and how he has to win this thing, he would not go to 80 party meeting. -- to a tea party meeting. he is not a tea party died. -- he is not a tea party guy. he was asked weeks ago if he was a tea party guy, he said they do not have a membership. he refuses to repeat the creed of the tea party. obama is a socialist. he will not get in bed with them. he thinks he is better than them. he thinks he is establishment,
and he is. look at these weird things where people sound exactly alike and no one else sounds like that. why do i pay attention to these things? so here is the question for 2012 for those who try to predict based on culture and manner and behavior of the past. there is one way president obama gets reelected, and i see no other way for him to be reelected given our history and the way we are basically baseball managers as voters. baseball managers does not dislike one pitcher or like another pitcher, he just looked out and sees how they are doing. we are the baseball manager in this country. when they are not getting the other side out, this slowly walked out to the pitcher's mound and they ask for the ball.
it is the great american tradition. if the pitcher had a pretty good day but a bad inning, they cheer him loose. people like george herbert walker bush a great deal, but they just decide they cannot put out the other side. you don't have it anymore so they put the other guy in. what they ask for the ball from barack obama or not or let him stay in, that is the question voters will ask themselves next time. for me it comes down to this for barack obama. he has to strongly compellingly, and successfully focused his campaign coming up, the debate coming up, the election coming up, not on who caused the mess we are in right now, not on how badly it is, but on what he, barack obama, can do if he gets four more years.
what he can do with the treasure of four more years. he has to talk about that and sell that. we all know in this room is not his fault. we all know in this room is not all the republicans' fault. it is about the future. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. we have steve clemens interviewing henry kissinger. something happened to his foot -- is it a torn ligament? we thank you for doing that. [applause] i know you were expecting walter isaacson in here.
walter is a biographer of steve jobs. we know about the sad news of steve jobs's death. dr. kissinger was sharing with me that he had agreed to speak with walter, but he was predisposed to the 30-year war ending regarding that book. >> there is a difference between my wife's attitude and mine. i declared a few years ago -- my wife when hundred years old. it is not yet over. [laughter] >> as we know, one of your main passions has been to think about u.s.-china relations in
this strategic road map. i am inclined to do what steven colbert did and say you have a new book out -- what is it about? >> it is such a confusing title. [laughter] >> he won the nobel prize in 1973. you had such an accomplished and storied career. you need to members of china's release than anyone else. i am interested in how you see china today. we have the sixth generation of leaders about to take over this next year. recently, army analysts looking at the national security strategy report issued by president obama last year set a america is in strategic -- said
america is in strategic contraction. i would be interested in seeing where we are going, where is china going. if you could buy stock in china, which stock would you buy? >> i would not accept the proposition. that will get us into a situation with itself producing prophecies. economically, china is obviously growing. it is hard not to admit we are in a strategic contraction when we withdraw from afghanistan
and i iraq and when the national contention seems to be developing against american military abroad. to some extent it was necessary. the challenges, is it possible for these two nations to develop a relationship which insures each side's concern for national security and contributes to the challenges, many of which are unique and unprecedented. that is the fundamental challenge of the relationship. if we get ourselves into the frame of mind of a potential key military confrontation, then every other country around
china in the world -- don't you think we are making assist today? you could feel finance ministers, heads of states were coming in and out of beijing. you just don't get that energy. >> it is inherent in the tremendous economic growth china has had the past two decades. it is a growing, but we have to distinguish between what is part of the chinese design, and fundamentally, it is different from the cold war situation. the soviet union had no influence where they did not have armies.
it is the diplomacy depended on its military capacity. the chinese approach to foreign policy is not made primarily on military practice. therefore we first should not conceive primarily in terms of a contract challenge. secondly, we have domestic issues we must deal with. if the united states is not a dynamic country, then we can not rectify the situation that you described it.
if you look at the elements involved, it is one thing to look at the chinese growth. if you look at the changes of generations that occurred in china. if you look at the problems associated with a rapid growth that is occurring in a political framework that was created several decades ago, when you consider that the impact of the culture and all of these things are coming together, it is wrong to think that china has no problems domestically. >> i once asked the chinese minister of foreign affairs when i was visiting, what is china's grand strategy. he told me, they do not need a grand strategy as long as a americans are distracted in
small middle eastern countries. to a certain degree, the world has been fairly good. they have been accepting the power of china has been investing in infrastructure. they seem to be focused on porting resources around the world. they don't seem to trust the future quite as much as the european and an american model. does the united states need to worry that it is the last normal economy. state capitalism is the new -- does the u.s. have to worry in that circumstance? >> one has to think about what the impact -- the impact the occurs today is the
globalization of the economy and the nationalization of politics. the impact of the global economy has to be dealt with by national units. china being the largest economy of its kind, it therefore has a tremendous impact. i would not agree with the foreign minister that china does not need its strategy. when you agree with him or not, they are strategic thinkers. they have approached strategies -- they have a word for which there is no english word which reflects the bundling of all the elements that are relevant to the problem and the momentum
that simply requires all of these things. the mere fact that i need for sentences for one chinese word shows a difference in approach. >> let me ask you -- i read this book which i very much enjoyed. there were a couple of moments where i wondered whether henry kissinger was still henry kissinger. was henry kissinger -- we talked about the concept in this book called strategic trust press is -- versus a system of strategic threats. as i learn from henry kissinger, sometimes not imagining the world you want but the world you have, have you become sentimental about china? >> we now have a republican
version. i -- how you define -- i believe and i have not changed my philosophy that for foreign policy you need a correct assessment of the principal elements that are shaping the perception of nations of each other, the sense of security, you have to decide -- you have to understand they have an element of equilibrium. otherwise, every issue turns into -- that is my basic view. conditions have changed. when the soviet union was the
other major power in the world, we were dealing with a country that faced its impact on its military capacity. confronting us in each decade with some military crisis, i think conditions have now changed. the chinese in the world in which we live is not so dependent primarily on the balance of military forces. without military balance, you cannot have any other foreign policy. if i were to describe what is the chinese objective, the historic chinese objective is
the fear of the surrounding countries uniting and bringing pressure on china. what is the american concern with respect to asia? we do not want to see asia under the domination of one country. that is what we fought world war two about in asia. now if we deal with is primarily with military containment, then we are stimulating the basic tier of china. it will bring him about a
reaction which we will not accept. i believe it is in the best interest of both countries to see whether it is possible to develop a cooperative approach in the face of a challenge which we can both define. it has always been -- and at the result was that if the leaders in 1914 had known what the world would look like in 1990, they would have done something else. i want us to try to do something else -- i say at the
end of the book, as a historian, am i optimistic about this? i said, no. it is their task. is not something we can do a lot. therefore, it requires both sides for what can be done. >> we have one last question. i would be remiss in not asking you to think through if he were the president's national security adviser or secretary of state today, looking at america's situation. if i think back to the time or richard nixon inherited your white house, you did not come
in at a time of great global confidence in the united states. it was great doubt about the direction in america was going. opening to china which she once told me was made a lot easier with russians along the border, he once joked that maybe the russians -- >> that would not have happened without it. >> you change the global gravity with the normalization of china. he changed the way the world look at the united states and you showed that the united states was having a defining effect on the international system. is there a china out there today other than china itself? is there an opportunity for the u.s. to change the way global gravity works and to demonstrate that we still have an ability to be the primary shaper of the international system?
>> if there is, i have not discovered it. i think there is a different problem right now. there is not anyone move that i think we can make. i would hope somewhere in this process, the sort of debate that is going on now in this country gets lifted to a higher level. i would hope some kind of national unity with respect to some key objectives develops. there has to be a very effective for policy not because you have super leaders in every generation but you had a steady and reliable foreign policy. we can be leaders by our
performance now. we cannot be leaders might do we want dramatic thing that changes everything anyway. i cannot think of what that move would be. >> on that clear and optimistic note, dr. henry kissinger. thank you very much. [applause] >> next we have the former vice president and liz cheney. i would find the toughest interview possible if my daughter were to interview me. >> this is an interesting and
important opportunity. it is an enviable opportunity for anyone. you get to compare frameworks. i think as many people know, joe biden is a very distinctive and important vice-president. dick cheney has had one of the most powerful, distinctive, and somebody to use the office in many ways others had not. i once was talking to walter mondale and written a critique of some issues going on. walter mondale took credit by saying his was the first office in the white house. it had grown at the time. when i was in the middle east
last year, we see the world a bit differently. cheney had been a senior official in the state department. he worked closely in various republican campaigns. we can to conversions with the importance of talking about national security decision process. that may bore a lot of people. that is not who is up, who is down, who has been stabbing someone in the back. to keep personality out of it and had a productive discussion about the structure of decision making and how it led me today. even though list cheney is known by her father as the c e zero of -- ceo of this important book in my time, a personal memoir, i will be the hall monitor. i will not intervene.
this is not a normal engagement of a journalist with a challenge. there is obviously important ties between them. i also want vice-president cheney to fess up on what he did not agree with on his daughter's management of the book. please welcome vice-president to dick cheney and liz cheney. >> i thought i might start. you mentioned vice president biden was here a little while ago. i understand he said president obama has fixed the economy. i wondered whether he would say if you agree with it. >> is all his. obviously, we have serious economic problems. joe and i disagree on a number of things and that would be one of them. i don't think the economy has been fixed. i think it needs pretty radical tax reform and reduction in regulations and so forth.
i don't see the administration putting forth a policy at this point that will do the job. >> do you see given the state of the economy, given the state of paul, a pass to president obama and 2012? a >> i think he will have real problems. i think somebody suggested to me the other day that president obama may be the jimmy carter of the 21st century. he will get one term and he believed under similar circumstances to what happened in the carter administration with leaving the economy in pretty rough shape. >> back to the book, during your time as vice-president, he took some pretty heavy criticism. does it bother you?
>> well, when your former vice- president, no. they were up against jay leno and david letterman. you really need to have a pretty thick skin. my approach was -- my concern was, we had some special problems on my watch prayed every administration does. in our case obviously, it was the war on terror, it was the aftermath of 9/11. it was the need to pursue some very aggressive controversial policies because that is what we honestly believe was necessary in order to protect the country. i would argue it worked. we got 7.5 years that nobody thought we would without a another mass casualty attack against the united states. that involve things like enhanced interrogation techniques, the terrorist surveillance program, and things that broke china, creating controversy that some people disagreed with.
my job to some extent was to be the point man on some of those policies. at the same time, a lot of them were classified -- important elements were classified. you could not talk about them in a public setting. the criticism is what it is. i took my fair share of shots. i did not feel personally abused. maybe once or twice. [laughter] >> some have said even in light of the success in your national security area, particularly of the bush administration, the most effected or one of the most effective national security teams that we have seen in recent history was the bush 41 team. would you may agree with that?
maybe talk about what people see that being particularly effective. >> i should probably defer to henry kissinger on who had the best team. i think the three of us worked well together. partly because we had all worked together before. if you went back to the 40 years, jim and me had been there. there is already a well established a set of relationships. there were a couple of other roles that we were bound by. we got together every wednesday morning when all three of us were in town for breakfast. staffs of the various departments quickly learned that if he wanted to get something done or decided, a good way was to get it on the agenda for the wednesday meeting. the also knew we were talking to each other all the time.
it cut down the amount of noise inside the system. i think it cut down the number of leaks that would have otherwise occurred. jim and brent and i -- nobody accused jim baker of not leaking. we worked hard to avoid the kind of conflicts that would come out of that. i think we were successful. >> the best job you ever had? >> the best job i ever had it? each one was different and unique. if i had to pick one out that was right at the top of the list, working for ford obviously, after watergate being vice president of the united states. all of those had a lot going for it them.
i would have to say if i had to just pick one, i would probably say secretary of defense. >> why? >> because of the association with the u.s. military. at the time that we were there, i had the opportunity at the end of the cold war, the berlin wall came down. we were able to do pretty remarkable things with our military forces. plus, the opportunity to work closely with the men and women of the u.s. military was really remarkable. >> when you look at the 2012 state of candidates, what gives you hope and what worries you? >> how does she do it?
>> i might have asked that one. >> i have not endorsed anybody yet. i have stated very carefully away from the contest. they don't need my advice. if they do, i would give it to them privately. i would not say publicly. i think these next couple of months will be very important because they are going to be the opportunity for us, the public, the voters to get a look at them. i think there is a lot yet to be proven out in terms of confidence, capability, experience, the ability of various candidates to deal with tough issues, especially in the national security area. the economy is so dominant as a political issue at this point that is what everyone is focused on. i am concerned we do not lose sight of how important it is. we maintain vigilance in the global war on terror.
we not to do permanent lasting damage to our national security capabilities as we go through this budget process. i think what is driving the debt are the entitlement programs and the fact we have not dealt with social security and medicare on a long-term basis. you cannot save enough out of the defense department to solve the debt problem. if you take too much out, it will do serious damage. what i took over as secretary of defense we had 18 active divisions in the u.s. army. today we have 10. there has been a pretty dramatic restructuring, if you will, over the last decade or so -- last 20 years really. there is no cold war for still out there. maybe a few systems out there. i don't think there are big savings to be had in defense.
i am very worried if we get into the sequestered that is pending, if they do not come up with an agreement, we could end up doing serious damage. i want to know what the candidates think about that proposition. i want to know how they proposed a deal with the defense issues and the budget question going forward. >> when you look at the national security set of dishes, you said just last week that president obama ought to apologize for some of the criticisms, in particular his statements about us abandoning our ideals in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. can you explain a little bit? >> they denied it. >> i think they admitted we said we abandon our ideals pretty dull think that is out of bounds. >> what i was responding to, i brought up the subject of the
president's speech in cairo in 2009. i was asked by the interviewer how that fits. i looked at it in the context of the draw on strike on allah walkie. -- anwar al-awalki. there was a situation when he went to cairo he did announce that we sort of overreacted to 9/11, that we had walked away from our ideals, that president obama had been the one to brought an end to torture and ordered that there not be any torture implying that we were torturing and we were not. in light of the fact that they are obviously pursuing fairly aggressive measures, which i support. i think they did the right thing with the drug strike. nonetheless, they are at a point now where they have
executed an american citizen with a missile strike. you laid alongside our enhanced to irrigation program, i thought maybe they might want to reconsider the criticisms they have less less back when they went to cairo in 2009. >> ok. >> did i leave something out? >> well, i guess. we can talk about it later on. when you look at the five republican presidents, he worked closely with four of them. which was the best? >> obviously, i'm not want to answer the question. >> i hope she does not give up. >> what i am struck by is i look back over that when we
were doing the book. as a political scientist i was trained to look for common threads and problems and things across administrations or across congresses. as i look back on it now, what i am struck by always is the extent to which there were vast differences between administrations. we focused on the man in the oval office. focus especially on the man and the all office. they all brought a different set of experience to the oval office and have their own strengths and weaknesses based on what they had done before they ever got there. they also all found it necessary during their time office to deal with unanticipated situations. if you look at our last administration, george w. bush's the administration, there was a speculation about homeland security for 9/11, but 9/11 changed everything and
dominated the agenda during the last 7.5 years in office. when you think about what the first bush administration had to do with -- dramatically different. we did not anticipate that we would end up sending half a million men and women to the gulf to liberate kuwait and push the iraqis back into iraq. those kinds of things, every single administration and some with those surprises. in the nixon administration, you never would have bet the richard nixon would impose wage price controls on a free economy. democrats a bet that he would never do that. they gave him the authority said they did yell at him when he did not do it. of course, he did it. i was a part of that and i did not put that on my resume.
>> if you allow me one. >> best secretary of state you ever worked with. or worst? [laughter] >> i'd have, for different reasons, two. one would be the gentleman you just heard from henry kissinger. i say some very nice things about henry in my book. and the other would be jim baker. a very different kinds of individuals, but in terms of dealing with the problems and issues of the day, i think henry. and the thing that i was always -- that was remarkable about dr. kissinger, and he is still here. that is why i am saying all these nice things about him. when you think about the conditions he had to operate under. it is the only time in history
we ever had a president resigned. under threat of impeachment. and dr. kissinger, secretary kissinger went through that process, manage the transition in the national security arena very credibly. remember, i remember the first thing gerry ford said after we knew nixon was going to resign was, he went in front of this house in alexandria and announced that secretary kissinger would continue in his current job. he did not say whether the rest of us had job. but henry was squared away. but to have managed affairs to the process and data as ably as he did with the difficult problems we faced as a nation at that point. end of the war in the vietnam and the detente with the soviets and the opening of china. that was our remarkable set of accomplishment under the most difficult political conditions i can imagine.
>> if i may, this is unscripted, but given the opportunity. my colleagues at the aspen institute have brought in such a diverse group of political players, everyone from vice president biden to dick cheney to valerie jarrett. in your role, the thinking of the national security decision making structure that you build, because there has been some critique that you and secretary donald rumsfeld at the time to cover a process that was broken at. people can debate whether that was good or bad and the time. it may be inaccurate, but there has been focused on the question of how to get the structure right as opposed to who was president or what their views may be? when you have such complex problems and so many players, can you talk a little bit about how ford did it. how george w. bush did it. and what is your fare and hopefully friendly critique of the obama decision making and
does that matter? >> we spend a lot of time, talking about structure. sometimes when you get into trouble, for example, the reaction to 9/11 when we went out and sort of reorganize the intelligence community. thenot sure structure is problem. there is a great tendency to think we can move the boxes around on the chart, shift or transfer authority for one place to another. i come back to something i mentioned earlier. i am overwhelmingly convinced that what makes it works are the individuals in these slots and the relationships they have with their colleagues. it's not enough that you know the others involved. it is whether or not you have worked together. we benefited in want -- we
talked earlier about 41's day. that we'd all work together previously. that was a big help. we ran into problems initially. we had an opportunity to support a crew in panama. noriega was in power. we -- by the time we got our ed -- act together, the crew had failed. the coup plotter had been killed. noriega was back in power. we had not worked as a team. we do not do a good enough job in the transition of getting the new team together and getting them to look real world problems and go to some exercises, place in war games, go back and look at the previous times when we had to use power. what happens in the transition
is to bring in the new crowd and to brief them. scare the hell out of them. you sit down and say, this is how you unleash america's nuclear inventory of the world. that is a very sobering brief. odds are you are not going to do that, hopefully, during the course of your administration. what you do not get is any sort of word during that period of transition of getting your key national security players together and having them actually go back and look at what their predecessors did, paul up three or four hypothetical, have somebody set up a couple of good games and let them get used to functioning with each other on the problems that will run into. i am aware -- that has not happened in administration. >> one liz-like question.
is there anything you'd redo? >> before you ask the question, talking about training and processing and exercises, how much of your past experience, in particular, the continuity of government exercises, did you think about on that morning of 9/11, when you were suddenly in the bunker faced with a nation under attack? >> it had a big impact. it turned out it had been very useful. as part of a lot of the programs -- they are still classified. that is one place where we actually had done some exercises. it was one of those things that clicked in that morning. most report was to make sure you did not have all of the
leadership bunched up in one spot so that our adversaries could decapitate the government. that is what the president stayed away for awhile that morning. i was in the white house and we had denny hastert to a safe location because he was next in line to the presidency. >> do think that is why you're able to focus so much on the specifics that needed to be done, as opposed to the trauma of the fact that we are under attack? were you able to set aside the emotions? >> the other thing it was important was getting the planes down. norm manetta played a very important role there is the
secretary of transportation. >> he is here, actually. >> he did great work that morning for as. those were our purpose -- getting the planes down so that we could tell which ones had been hijacked, because we have conflicting information. we were told there are six. turned up there were four, but we did not know that. the other thing was to make certain we had taken the steps to guarantee the survival of somebody who had a legitimate authority as president of the united states should that happen. >> do you what to ask another question? >> a liz cheney-like question. if you get a chance to redo our take a different step that you took, what might that have been? do you have any regrets about anything done in a different way? >> do i have any regrets?
um, i've mentioned. you want something from my time as vice president. >> you can broaden that. >> in the first chapter of my book, i talk about my misspent youth. i redo some of that if i could. on balance, we got -- under difficult circumstances. obviously, i believe very much in the policies we pursue. with respect to what we needed to do to keep the country safe, as i said, from my perspective, it worked. we achieved our objective. at some price in terms of my reputation or are standing in the polls. under those circumstances, you do not -- politicians like to be loved, obviously.
and then that is important. >> do you feel loved? >> my grandkids. liz is responsible for 9 of them. i think, if i had to choose, i would rather be respected. that meant that some of the things that we had to do have to be done that even though we knew there going to be controversial. and you cannot operate under those conditions without breaking some china. i'm sure we did. but if i had to do it over again, i would. >> were you secretly running things? >> no. >> really? >> let me tell you one story that will tell you how much power and authority i have.
we had a dog named dave. we used to take him up to camp david, which was my undisclosed location. he loved it up there chasing squirrels. one morning and to come down to the dining room were the cabin is and the president's office and so forth. and walked in, and there was barney, the president's scottie. looked a lot like a squirrel. until the president said, barney -- >> that's just been tweeted. >> barney took off. and davey took off, chasing around the dining room table. they made a couple of circuits at the table when i heard the president, he stepped into the room and said what the hell is going on? so i grabbed dave.
he loved to eat. got him a doughnut. i drove up to the cabin where we were staying and got him inside. 50 minutes later, there was a knock on the door. it was the camp commander, navy capt decked out in his full uniform. he said, sir, until further notice, your dog dave is banned from laurel lodge. the president never said a word to dave. and that tells you who is running the show. it was not me. >> are you sure that instruction came from the president and not some other cobol? >> and the captain was not happy to be transmitting messages. it worked out are right and the end. nobody got hurt. >> i think we can close by having you tell, what were the most important lessons to learn from me as we were working on this book together? i am sure there is a long list.
>> well, you had one rule that tried to abide by. if in doubt, take it out. >> no. my rule was put more in. >> one of the great satisfactions of the book was working with liz. >> can you divulge your biggest argument over the bucket? -- book? >> no. because we left it out. >> there is something remarkable about having your eldest child interested enough and how you spend your life to have them sit there for two years and listened to you tell them war stories. that is basically what we did. it really added enormously to the satisfaction of the product and the project. and i would not dream of doing
another book without her. we have not signed on to do any other books. were still resting up from the last one. it really was, it made when liz was willing to sign on and be my co-author. >> thank you so much for joining us. liz cheney. [applause] back over to margaret. >> i hope you found that an interesting experiment in interviews. i will be taking suggestions for next year a father daughter and their views. maybe someday we will get mahlia and sasha to do president obama. we're going back to our regular programming.
we will do another political panel. we have dave from slate. to fill in for capra from abc. during the presidential news conference. chris matthews has agreed to stay on. welcome, chris. charlie. we are going to pull up an extra chair. just choose. are you all miked? >> david, slate. >> ok, good. i think we will need one more to your attention.
let me go over here. so, it will all be spending christmas together in the morning. -- des moines. i look forward to that. the primaries are moving closer to christmas. soon it might be thanksgiving. so we lost chris christie. we lost sarah palin. she does not want to be shackled by the presidency. she was to be free to work on fox and get the questions ahead of time. [laughter] >> maybe we should have bristol ask her questions. >> we can bring thomas and caroline. reset the table on the republican primary. >> hi look at as 2/3 of the republican party is really conservative and 1/3 is the old-fashioned republican party. this 2/3 that is that
conservative, they want rick perry. or someone like him. whether it is him or michele bachmann. they want someone who represents the conservative movement and a big way. but this is really, the next six-8 weeks are critical for rick perry, because he has to show -- does he have the capacity to grow and develop beyond a candidate who has been enormously successful in a one- party state. after all, texas is a two party state. what is the republican party and the other is the tea party. if rick perry grows, matures as a candidate, i think this nomination is his. on the other hand, if he does
not and he does not show that capacity for growth, and if the differential between say how mitt romney does against president obama versus are rick perry does against president obama, if it gets wide enough, at that point republicans have a heart versus hope. >> you have republicans acting as if anybody can be obama no. is far enough down. can they take the goldwater- type risk because they want to break with tradition because the tea party ascended. do they go with a guy who is in line? >> yeah. i look at the usual map, since tim russert were doing so well. it will probably be ohio. there are guys with propellers on their heads that work for
obama that think that they can skip the usual order of the dance with the one that brought you. i do not know how you win a colorado if you do not win ohio. i think europe to start with the labor democrats. if those angry white people that were big coats to football games, i do not know how you win. here is my value judgment. they should not win. they do not represent the people there were going to represent, they do not deserve a second term. you have to represent the middle-class, working person who is disappointed in the economy or you have failed. the idea that you go for the more educated person, that is the theory they have now that they can reach people. mark penn will argue that there is more people making over $100,000 and that will vote for obama. what about the people making 50? that is the american people you're trying to reach as a democrat. bottom line -- i think the
republicans right now would have a competition in ohio with perry. i think the republicans would vote. the democrats would not vote. the minorities would not vote. the young people with the vote. obama has to get them checked out. right now if lands ohio to rick perry. and virginia and north carolina to perry. by the times the republicans show their flaws and gets their break. i believe in luck. barack obama is the luckiest person i've ever heard of. because he ran an illinois against two people with marital problems and he ended up with alan keyes. they brought him to run against him. he had the nomination before he had the senate seat. he did defeat hillary clinton which was a tough campaign, but he had a lot of things going for him. he ran against john mccain when he is over the hill. i think if he runs against mitt romney at full strength, i would bet on mitt romney. if he runs against rick perry
right now, he would lose to rick perry right now. next year, against rick perry, that is a could raise. that is a pick in sports terms. >> let's pick up on the obama. he is now looking like a populist, fighting for the guy who lost his job and ohio. the vice president was telling him this morning. very fiery. the $5.00 fee for bank america. we're out there for you. no more bipartisan. we are all in this together democrats-republicans equal. he is blaming republicans. is that an obama that can win a place like ohio? is he going to be ever more feisty? >> he can do better. there are economic realities he has to deal with. he has to confront a situation where unemployment -- if we believe goldman sachs -- it will
be 9% unemployment by election day. i think they are grabbing whatever looks good. i'm surprised to hear the vice president and anybody in the administration talked and warm terms about the occupy wall street protesters. this is an untested. these are guys that were all there three weeks. i was in new york over the weekend. these are a lot of the harry at argus, the kind of guys that get arrest when the wto is in town. they embrace them faster than the republicans embraced the tea party. i think they are doing it because they do not quite understand why populist anger went for the right immediately. february, 2009, populist anger was right wing. so i think they have tried a few things to capture the anger that they probably believe is progressives and bonds of them,
not to the party of mitt romney. >> right. so perry is the person left to embody the. we have trump, palin, bachmann, a that have gone away. herman cain is that a place to park a vote until you're waiting to fall on love with mitt romney? >> i think it is a safe place to hang out. there is a lot of that. i know the times when into this today. there is a certain legitimate question of seriousness here. what comes first? your book tour order presidential campaign ? when is the last time you're coming back to new hampshire -- mid november? >> he let go. it is not a book tour. >> i sat next to him on a plane. >> interesting guy, smart guy.
if you are not taking your campaign seriously, why should i? >> so chris, we've seen bad debate performances before. the next one is october. if mitt romney wins 10 debates, -- he's the suitor that comes to the date and she does not want to marry him. >> i do not think that she wants to date him. she wants to marry him. >> i'll change genders. they just don't like him. mitt romney is happy. they're not. his wife astounds me. 16 grandchildren and a happy person.
most guys looked at a guy and they look at the wife, she is happy. he is a cool guy. they do look at it that way. if she is miserable, and it looks like there is something that happened in that marriage, then they do not like the guy. that is my theory. i am getting into the real psychology here, but i do think these things through. i think people like -- he's got six replicants as kids. it's lds, it's whatever. he's never had a hangover. he has never had a bad day. he is happy. look at the tea party. they're angry. they've got facial hair. they have bad hair cut. they smoke. they're angry people. they talk about the cause like it is the civil war going on. sobor has nothing to do with
them. he is not part of that purity has no problems with black americans making it in this country. he is none of that anger that a lot of them have at the grassroots edited. he is not mad at people with good degrees. he has good degrees. he is not resentful. he shares none of their feelings about america. that has to matter. peggy noonan who is a friend of mine has on occasion come along and written the reagan speech for someone who is not reagan. and i remember in your lens, i was crying like everybody else when bush gave that wonderful speech about being in an articulate guy, but rarely american. if she could give mitt romney a heart for 45 minutes. >> an implant. >> and it will work because the republicans want to believe he is one of them. it will take a transplant with this guy. he is not one of them. are they going to outsource their nomination to a guy that is not one of them? i do not think they want him.
rick perry, they will route for. rick perry wins one debate and there will be ready to crown him. >> so welcome. so, chuck todd, nbc. jake, abc. the best. so, we've come up with one theory is mitt romney too happy a guy? >> to get elected? >> it gets his theory that was? who can get that angry vote. chuck? >> i think his challenge -- i have this theory about the election. when we change presidents, we want more of a stylistic change then sometimes a substantive change. and if you looked recent history, when we switched
parties, we have almost gone stylistically more than we have gone substantive. so obama was a stylistically different person, type a personality than president bush. president bush on the moral front stylistically different than clinton. reagan-carter. we can keep this going. stylistically, i've been -- what i cannot read my head around as i think mitt romney has to get over this idea that it will seem like too much like obama stylistically. the pragmatists in the room. he almost campaigns on it a little bit. i am in the private sector. sometimes facts change. you have to be able to change. is he going to able to stylistically be similar to the president and is that what the country wants? or do they want something different, something more of a brasher personality? i think that is what the obama
campaign was worried about not just with chris christie, but with rick perry 1.5 perry after the second debate of this idea that, the brash personality, the starker change . the brighter personality change might be more appealing to swing voters were concerned about -- they do not see the president leading in their minds. they are frustrating. nothing gets done but they think, how come you cannot do it? >> is obama's personality changing to the pressure kind to match the rick perry, to pick up on the anger? by the end of this he will not be mitt romney, he is obama 3.0 and he's angry about what is going on in the country. >> the calculation by the white house is that the great conciliator has failed. that does not work and that he
needs to draw distinctions. that is what this jobs bill is about -- drawing distinctions. how it's paid for, all of the tax increases on corporations and wealthy americans. so you are seeing more of a primary obama then a general election obama. i think the issue with mitt romney is, first of all, i do not think the tea party has substantive issues with him. they don't trust him. i ran into a republican official the other day and she was convinced that the anti- abortion or pro-life community will rally behind jon huntsman. >> the problem with him is that he announced he was running. if they were -- if he were not in the race, he should be announced to his running.
>> he is the other one on the stage that is running a general election campaign. >> he looked presidential. he looked like he could be on mount rushmore. he looks electable. is that where the republican party is? is the angry group and the republican party angry enough to nominate the guy who is not looking so angry? >> i want to pick up on herman cain. some people have been trying to say is he a protest vote? but herman cain is not an elected official. and a businessman. he is actually -- there is frustration with anybody that has been in political office and in the political class. so the more you look like you're not part of the political class. i see why herman cain is getting -=- >> is this real? >> i do not think he is putting together the campaign to make it real. you have to do something with
it. but i think there is an opportunity there. i think there is an opportunity for anybody who can prove some sort of effective leadership say, in the business community, who came out of a non political class and said, and enough of this. what i would say is the same version of donald trump. the joke was before a sane version of ross perot or a successful version of donald trump. there is a question about how successful he is. i have invited donald trump attacks. >> you are fired. >> more of a fred smith. somebody who is just totally a had a good track record, who isn't connected to washington and is not connected -- there is something about herman cain that is tapping into that part of the republican party. >> rick perry gets a piece of
that by --in all this other things, trying to be non- washington. >> i think he and herman cain are ideologically matched with the tea party candidates. i do not think one of them is angry. herman cain is not an angry guy. >> he's not. is the tea party ascendant, has it peaked? let me go around. >> it is a part of the republican party. we named it. it named itself, but it has always been there. this is the populist conservative part of the republican party. there is a populist aspect of the democratic party that every once in awhile rises up and uses its influence and picks its head up a little bit. there the question is, how responsive and how powerful of the force are they and the primary? is that waning?
we'll see. there are establishment republicans are betting it's waning. >> i don't think it's waning. this is not a new strain of the republican party. ultimately, it is not a majority of the republican party. so it will be powerful, but it will not be the be all and end all. >> of money people sitting on the sidelines seemed to be moving to mitt romney. paul singer. those who don't want the arranged marriage are nonetheless seeming ready to walk down the aisle with mitt romney. >> they are, but the tea party has lots of money. the three main party groups, i think last year they raised $59 million. david koch will continue for
funding one to the hilt. the financing. this is romney's to lose after christie dropped out. until monday night, rick perry has a chance and a debate about economics to prove that he will not stumble over and knocked the podium down if he debated of barack obama. he raised more money than mitt romney this quarter. we pay more attention to the money these guys raised than we do to the super pacs. people that have a grievance and a lot of money can mess with this for quite awhile. >> so alec baldwin's head fell on the podium playing rick perry. mitt romney can win them all and not get above -- put the 25% in perspective. which is mitt romney's cap so
far. >> you are looking at a very large field at a lot of people doing window shopping. i think now the singing somewhere over the rainbow and pining for a new candidate, that period is over. i think these guys will sort -- the republicans have to make some choices now. my hunch is we've got two candidates that can raise a lot of money and have the durability to go really far. i think it will be fight kind of like obama-clinton. it will start off with a big field with joe bidens and dodds and bill richardson. two guys in going the distance. rick perry has a natural advantage because he is closer to the center of gravity of the party. on the other hand, if he does not close the sale and terms of being an electable general election canada to be able to give the voters between the 30
yard line, i think mitt romney will be a republican nominee. if i had to bet, i would bet on mitt romney. >> will go around the table. we'll never had a huntsman moment. it's romney-perry. >> i do not think we are at the playoffs yet. the other title or less at stake -- the debates of the next couple of times will be about the conference title. instead of attacking mitt romney who is the front runner -- the western conference, the tea partiers will fight it out. herman cain thinks he can be president. he is taking crazy shots, real tea party comments that suggested he thinks that he can win this in a fluke. bachmann will be going after rick perry. as long as they are going after
the western conference title, they will not take on mitt romney yet. the danger is that that conference title will not be decided through next march. that people like herman cain will stay in it, maybe to sell books. michele bachmann will stay in it until for filing deadline. i think that is in june. and maybe rick santorum walt stick in there, which will mess up the western conference so that rick perry cannot unite the west against mitt romney as he goes into the tough contests in iowa. i think that is why mitt romney is the favorite in the republican party. >> skip ahead to vice- presidential candidates. senator marco rubio said he would not accept the nomination . what would romney or perry need to do in their vice presidential nomination?
>> i am not ready to leap ahead. we don't know what mitt romney looks like it after $30 million is dropped on his head for being a flip-flop on conservative issues. let's see what that looks like in 60 days, and then we will have an easier time. i do believe -- i buy into the fact that this anti-washington fervor that is up there, the disgruntled democrats and disgruntled moderate republicans. had christie whitman who was singing the praises of the third-party entity. i think they will have a vacuum moment, if they get their ballot access, and they might. they have enough money to do that. there are a lot of lazy moderate politicians in washington, who wring their hands after they leave washington. executors' talk about, how broken the senate is. what would you do? you give them a free pass?
i get to run for president without being in a primary. there is a lot of twists and turns with this. it will probably be obama- romney. this is a weird environment. let's and not immediately assume we're in for a traditional 2004 type of race and we could have some weirdness going on. >> we want anything but a traditional race. isn't perry going to have to do some self correction of his own on immigration? if he does the flip-flop, he will have to keep qualifying that. you don't have a heart to his core constituency? >> he has tried to back off that thing. the problem for rick perry. the republican party has a history of nominating a moderate on immigration.
the problem is that rick perry's path to the nomination is lined by people who have a much harder stance on that issue, on illegal immigration, not just immigration. and that is problematic for him. but generally speaking, i agree with chuck. if i had to bet now, i'd bet on romney, but nobody has voted in an actual contest. we do not know what mitt romney will look like. and we do not know what kerry can look like. i still think he has great potential to be a strong nominee -- and we do not know what rick perry can look like. wass's analysis interesting. i think it is possible that could ruin perry's chances. he's a first seed in that. >> can we call it the southern
conference instead of western? >> palin started it. >> he could sweep. it is not as though rick santorum, michele bachmann and herman cain are unbeatable. it is impossible to imagine rick perry consolidating the conservative base. to answer your vice president question, i do think -- the republican party has a fairly strong bench right now. there are people opting out, whether it is mitch daniels, chris christie. you have the newcomers like susanna martina's, sandoval in nevada. they have a strong bench. the democrats do not have a strong bench for 2012. we will talk about that in four years. >> with seconds left, around the horn once. >> i think it has to be a protestant. >> is it going to be the happy protestant, mormon? >> the mormon thing has to be
dealt with, evangelical. >> you show up your weakness. that is why mitt romney's list is totally different from repairing's like. -- rick perry's list. i agree with jake. there's a huge list to pull from. whether it is rob portman, if you are rick perry, would be a good one. mitt romney has to go south. i think mitt romney does have to go protestant probably. >> he cannot have two cults. >> i'm going to disavow everything net chris said. >> to balance the more men -- to have the morning, we need the angry protestant. >> i think we will hear about bobby jindal. he had one bad speech. bill clinton had one bad speech.
he's better than we saw him two years ago. >> fat chance. >> we have short memories. not angry. >> you got louisiana to start with first of all. >> one proof, i think your v.p. more and more, you are seeing more president of canada is coming around to the idea of using your vice-presidential pick to send a message about how he will govern. >> sarah palin? >> i believe marco rubio. look at the track record of failed vp candidates. it is a murderer's row right now. sarah palin, john edwards, how did that work out? kemp, joe lieberman.
it is not as if anybody is political fortunes got better after doing it. >> republican sens they can win. i do not disagree with them. >> i think it will take a happy more than because he is electable. >> the rubio -- why should he use his political standing to shore up somebody else? i will be shocked if he is the nominee. >> i thank you for rushing here. >> in case you did not know, president obama had a press conference. we had to rush here. nine questions, 75 minutes. it might be his longest word to question press conference going. i asked three questions, so i cannot blame him. 2. 5. >> in between, the two of you had 5? thanks very much. >> margaret, congratulations and thank you.
we have made it to another washington ideas for . -- forum. in five minutes, we're starting the planning for next year. i am steve clement. i wanted to say a word. in these sessions, we bring in 70 different people. we had former vice president dick cheney, vice president joe biden, former president musharaf with david bradley. a lot of experimentation -- daughter-dad teams. we will think about that. whether that were not carried we will kick down the road. i want to say thank you to all those who stay with us. i want to thank all of the c- span viewers and those of you watching on line. i want to thank margaret carlson and shelby coffey, two of the best partners and putting this on. and also the president of atlantic a lot. >> i thank you.
thanks so much for closing this out in the year before the election year. thanks for a much to our underwriters, allstate, bank of america, comcast, siemens, united technologies corp. and the university of phoenix. it took a lot to put this on across these days and we appreciate your support. thank you all for being here to the end. we hope to see you next year. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> what to you think we should do for the student competition? ♪
>> you do not need the best video equipment. cameras to a good job of capturing video. so don't let that stop you. if you need help, go to studentcam.org. >> i find it useful to read the rules very carefully and then make a checklist of what you need to do. the process becomes clear once you start. >> another great thing is that you could work alone on a project or you can work in teams. if you're a good writer but not handy with a camera, get a friend to help out. you will increase your chances of winning. >> you do not need to be an expert at video production to make this work. you can use your parents, other students, teachers, and c-span as resources for you. this process is a fun and rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anyone can do this.
>> the senate is expected to vote on president obama's jobs to go. in his address, he urged passage of the plan which he says will grow the economy, provide tax cuts, and send thousands of americans back to work. we will also hear from the chairman of the policy committee. he offers his viewpoint on the jobs bill and talks about the effects of government regulations on job creation and trade agreements with panama and south korea. >> next week, the senate will vote on the american jobs that. it is a bill that will put more people to work and put money in the pockets of working
americans. it will provide our economy with that jolted needs. this is not the time for the games or gridlock. the challenges facing the financial markets could have real effects at a time when the economy is already fragile. this could help guard against another downturn. this is not just my belief, it is what independent economists have said. not just politicians, independent experts who do this for a living and have said that this bill will have a significant effect for our economy and a middle-class families. if we do not act, the opposite will be true. there will be fewer jobs and weaker growth. a negro who was thinking about voting against this bill needs to explain why they would explain something we know would improve our situation. if republicans think they have a better plan, they should prove it. one of the same independent
economists just said that their ideas would not mean much for the economy in the near term. if their plan does not measure up, the american people deserve to know why it republicans do not like about this plan. you hear a lot of republicans say the one of the most important things to do is cut taxes. the american jobs that would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. if you're a small-business owner, you get an additional tax cut. right now, hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters have been laid off because the state budget cuts. this bill will put a lot of these men and women back to work. right now there are millions of laid-off construction workers who could be busy working on our roads and schools. why would we not want to put these men and women to work
rebuilding america? the proposals in this bill are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts. if we want to be able to compete with other countries for jordan -- jobs to restore a sense of security. we have to rein in our deficit and live within our means which is why this bill is paid for by asking millions air -- millionaires and billionaires to pay their share. some say this is class warfare. i see it as a simple choice. we can keep taxes as they are for millionaires or we can ask them to pay at least the same rate as a plumber or a bus driver. in the process, we can put teachers and workers back on the job. we can fight to protect their cuts or we can cut taxes for every worker and small-business and america. we cannot afford to do both. it is that simple. there are too many people working for us to do nothing. the economy is too fragile for
us to let politics get in the way. the people who represent you have a responsibility to do what is best for you. not what is best for their party or what is going to help them win an election that is more than a year away. i need you to keep making your voice is heard. i need you to remind these folks who they work for. i need you to tell your senators to do the right thing by passing this jobs bill right away. thank you so much. >> i'm from south dakota. for months, my colleagues have been saying that president obama has made our economy worse since he took office. this week, he even -- even he admitted that the american people are not better off than they were four years ago. since his inauguration, there are 2 million more people unemployed, 6 million in poverty, and 13 million more on food stamps. our federal debt has increased by 39%.
that is more than four trillion dollars. because of this additional debt, every man, woman, and child and now owes $12,000 more than they did on the day president obama was sworn in. president obama's policies are damaging our economy and his proposed solutions are not serious. his latest bill is so flawed that senate democrats are rewriting it, not to grow jobs but to improve -- improve their political standing. it is a rehash of the same ideas he has already tried combined with a huge tax increase. this is a cynical ploy that is designed not to grade jobs but to save the president's own job. this cannot continue. there are common sense things that we can do to give america of the freedom and the certainty to create good jobs. we can finally implement the free trade agreements we have negotiated with panama and south korea.
95% of the consumer's level outside the united states. washington should be doing all i can to lower trade barriers and help americans sell more products to those customers. these three deals will boost u.s. exports by more than $12 billion. all of that means a new u.s. jobs, 70,000 of them as a result of the south korea agreement. i was glad to see --
numbers released last night. are you there? guest: yes, i am. host: tell us about the poll numbers that came out last night. guest: this is the establishment, the real poll of new hampshire done by the university of new hampshire, the most credible that we have got. we partner with t television station here. no real risk but -- surprise about who is in first place, a release sizable lead in this state. he has never been second place since we have done this poll. he got 37% support britain next place is a surprise, herman cain, who has 12%. herman cain has obviously bee rising nationally in the poll. but in new hampshire, he is only
been here once, shaking hands, and that is how can it rises in the polls. so we're scratching our heads as to how he is in second place. but good for him. third is ron paul. ronaul with 9%, who has always had a strong contention here. -- contingent here. he has been second place in recent polls but ithere. jon huntsman, rudy giuliani, who was getting some smoke signals in new hampshire that he was running for president even a couple of weeks ago, and it is more difficult for him to jump in now. the takeaways from this poll is, number one, romney is dominant. but we always knew that. and he dominates everywhere
among tea party republicans, to democrats who a voting in the republican primary, or independents. his hard to see where opponents will attack him. their real contest has been for second place and we will see herman cain in the spotlight has basically every presidential candidate will be in new hampshire this week, starting tomorrow, really. herman cain will have the spotlight. the other person to watch i rick perry, a guy who comes in with a lot of buzz and momentum , and our last poll w in july, he was at 4% then. he is at 4% now. and then michele bachmann, who had the opposite finding that herman cain did. herman cain went from 2% to 12%.
she went the opposite way. she went from 12% to 2%. she says that her focus is not on new hampshire. clearly there is one poll that you have to realize and taken, the fact that only 11% of folks in new hampshire say that they know who they are going to vote for. the converse means that 89% of the state of likely voters in the new hampshire republican primary are undecided. new hampshire always makes up their mind very late. the contest is wide open. that is encouraging news for mitt romney's competors. host:, james pindell, you tell us that new hampshire voters make up their mind very late, but the new hampshire primary could come earlier than usual.
tell us the current situation of when they will try had the new hampshire primary and how that relates to the iowa caucus and the other primaries and caucuses that follow new hampshire. guest: the decision from the republican nional convention of the four early states, all of the rublican national committee said this, and florida decided to move up their primary to january 28. that got the calendar into a tizzy in the last couple of weeks. the republican national committee never punished florida so therefore every state will have to move. the situation is that you head -- you have january 28ith florida, then southarolina said that thewould have the saturday before that on the 21st.
in nevada, they have caucuses and decided they would have them on the saturday before that, which is juary 14. new hampshire is squeezed with our state law, and we have not stated -- set a date yet. host: inde "wall street journal," but they said theate was possibly january 3 is you mentioned. the new hampshire primary is generally a week after the iowa caucus. guest: generally a today. host: so that would be january 11? guest: usually is on a monday night, but there is a state holiday. so new hampshire has two options here. one, a deal could be made that
it that bad a move as their primary back to -- nobody moves back to january 17, then new hampshire could go on january 10 and everyone is happy. if it does not move, then it may well go into december. host: you were talking earlier that herman cain had only been in new hampshire once. tell us about the frequency of visits by the other candidates and whether you see more visits coming up as the primary gets closer or if more visits may affect how people are ranked in terms of their popularity among republicans in new hampshire. guest: he has been here one since august. he was here a lot before that. but you cannot explain his recent rise in polls, given his
lack ovisits. most candidates have spent -- i uld argue that the seismic experience of the ames straw poll in august, that is certainly true for mitt romney has such a strong lead, spending a lot of time. jon huntsman, as you know, says he is all in in new hampshire. even moved his national campaign headquarters here. even lesser known candidates like much -- buddy roemer have moved to the state. gary johnson has also basically moved to the state, and you're finding a number of candidates spending a lot of time here. most of them, practically all of them are in the state of the next few days. host: james pindell of wmur-tv in manchester, new hampshire,
sarah palin said that she was not running, and chris christie. what was the overall reaction to those two candidates? guest: very few people nted chris christie to run in new hampshire. he was basically a washington and a new york story. people are interested and like him, but it was not a lot of buzz. norganizing of a draft chris christie effort. sarah palin has never been popular in new hampshire. she would have skipped the state. we did include her in the poll because she was ming her decision. she was at 3%, in between newt gingrich and rick santorum. host: james pindell has been on the phone from manchester,
satellite radio. another public service created by the nation's cable television industry. now in our 15th year. >> >> , a joint hearing on u.s. policy towards mexican and central american criminal organizations. the meeting focuses on a bush era policy that provides assistance and equipment to fight drug trafficking and organized crime in the region. this is two hours.
>> i want to thank everyone, especially our witnesses for joining us today. after recognizing myself and the ranking member, mr. engel, for five minutes each on our opening statements, chairman mccall and keating for their opening statements, we will proceed directly to hearing testimony from our distinguished witnesses. the full text of their written reports -- written statements will be inserted into the record. without object in, the members may have five days to submit to the record. after we hear from our witnesses, individual members will be recognized for five minutes each for questions. i now recognize myself five minutes for my opening statement. two weeks ago, for expert
witnesses testified in this hearing room. two experts explained that and insurgency is raging along our southern border. the other two focused on the fact that violence and crime in mexico have taken a unique turn and the u.s. response has not followed. all agree that the situation has evolved and fragmented into violent, criminal control over parts of mexico. it is clear that today mexico represents a unique situation requiring the development of its own specific classification to successfully combat the authority of this expanding criminal control. today i will continue to make the case that mexico is facing a criminal insurgency. the attack on the state are clear. the criminal organizations are capturing the allegiance of the
population through economic and social programs and, as they undermine institutions, they have no desire to replace them. this makes the insurgency in mexico more of a threat to democratic governance then we have seen in any other insurgency scenarios. furthermore, these transnational criminal organizations are deploying increasingly gruesome terror tactics to carry out their threats. the potential threat of criminal organizations controlling our southern border creates grave national security and economic implications for the united states. in 2007, the united states started funding the merit initiative to improve the situation in mexico. unfortunately, we face more extreme threats and violence from our border region today than we did four years ago.
the merit initiative has been successful in two areas. first, establishing a deeper cooperation between the united states and mexico. that is clear. two, removing a major drug kingpins in accordance with the goals of the mexican government. unfortunately, the game has changed. the reality in mexico is that u.s. assistance has lagged while the traditional cartels evolved into a diversified transnational criminal organizations perpetrating insurgent tactics to protect their assets. after four years of the merit initiative, our border region with mexico is more violent today than it was four years ago. a reduction in violence, while maintaining a full attack on the criminal organizations and strengthening the institutions to prosecute and punish them, is required in order to regain
control. this is the basis of the counter insurgency strategy that i outlined in the prior hearing. the united states should support a targeted, yet comprehensive strategy that works with mexico to secure one key population center at a time in order to build and support vital infrastructure and social development for lasting results. the counterinsurgency measures must include one, and all u.s. agency plan, including the treasury department, department of justice, cia, immigration and customs enforcement, the state department, and others to aggressively attack and dismantled the criminal networks in the u.s. and mexico. two, once and for all we must secure the border between the united states and mexico.
doubling border patrol agents, fully funding and delivering on the needed border protection equipment, such as additional unmanned aerial vehicles, and the completion of a double- layered security fence in parts of the border. 3, we must take steps to ensure local populations support the government and the rule of law over the cartels, such as by promoting culture of lawfulness programs. as i stated before, the current u.s. policy with mexico does not seriously address the national security challenges we face. it is time that we recognize the need for a counter insurgency strategy that can combat the evolution and resilience of mexico's criminal organizations. this is a severe threat and requires a serious response. i look forward to hearing from our experts from the department of homeland security, the
department of justice, and the state department on how the situation on the ground has evolved, the impact on u.s. personnel and their activities, and tactical ways to squashed this criminal insurgency. i now would like to recognize him mr. keating for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding today's subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to jointly examine this very important topic. our combined presence indicates the extent to which we take the security of our southern border seriously and i look forward to looking. -- to working on this topic. we are here today to examine the progress of the merit initiative and how effective it has been.
the brutality of -- the brutality has overshadowed a number of facts relevant to our discussion today. as we seek tangible solutions to the increasing levels of violence in mexico, let us remember that those -- the mexican military is not always impartial. yes, mexico is an ally, but we cannot take battles between at the drug cartels and mexican law enforcement in black-and-white. with minimum controls for corruption in mexico, it is difficult to say who exactly is committing the crime. in two widely publicized cases cited by the john f. kennedy center for justice and human rights, two indigenous women
were raped by soldiers and the mexican army in 2002. however, to this day, the state has refused to admit that these women were raped. after nearly a decade, these cases were finally transferred to civilian court, but these two cases are not isolated incidences. the national human rights commission has received more than 5000 complaints about the alleged abuses by the military since the abuses by the drug gangs began in 2006. i note this not to discredit our allies or the initiative since both of them have led to reform of the mexican judicial system, but for the purposes of this hearing, i go into this hearing
with a complete picture of what is happening on the ground in mexico and what president calderone is up against. at a time we are all tightening our belts, we must monitor funding to the mexican military closely. i strongly support the training assistance we provide the mexican military and police along with stronger oversight mechanisms. the u.s. and mexico have made strides and developed a strong working relationships with field agents patrolling both sides of the southwest border. more than 17,500 border patrol agents, 1200 national guardsmen, are cleared for deployment along the border and more than 250 immigration and customs enforcement agents are securing the border. certainly this does not mean
that incursions along the border do not exist. more work has to be done. however, this is the highest number of personnel ever to protect our border in this region and this number represents a step in the right direction. more efforts and resources are deployed along the southwest border than before. at the end of 2011, the u.s. will have invested almost $900 million in training to advance the merit initiative and to assist our neighbors south of the border. since fiscal year 2008, the u.s. has contributed approximately $1.60 million over all to the initiative while mexico has allocated $26 billion. furthermore, up a new effort is being implemented to strengthen institutions by offering training and technical assistance. i hope the advances in the merit and initiative are followed
along with efforts to strengthen our borders as opposed to making them more barbel with strangled budget cuts. although we need to be incredibly weary of the money that goes to the mexican government, this is not the time to decrease the number of border patrol agents. that will make the border less safe. i urge both of my -- may encourage my -- i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. much progress has been made. i am interested about hearing the documented results of participation in this program, which with proper oversight can lead to a real success. it is vital that we work closely with our diplomatic and federal agency personnel to ensure they have the resources they require to continue partnering with mexico to fulfil the roles of the merit initiative while combating crime and injustice on all sides.
i yelled back. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman. i would like to recognize mike mccall bar his opening statement -- mike mccaul for his opening statement. >> i want to thank and the ranking members for participating. over the past five years, more than 40,000 men, women, and children have been brutally murdered by insurgents, including 12 mayors and gubernatorial candidates, u.s. citizens, and law-enforcement officers. local governments are harassed and intimidated while the bodies of those who stand up against these terrorists are hung from bridges and tossed into the streets. i am not talking about al qaeda or the taliban, i am talking about the acts of the mexican
drug cartels. mexican president calderone declare drug -- declared war on the cartels when he took office. he said it was a challenge to the state and attempts to replace the state. he said in response to the recent casino royale fire, " we are facing true terrorist." in 2008, the united states lost the initiative to assist mexico in its war with the drug cartels. over $1.50 billion has been appropriated. today, only a third has been delivered. according to reports, the initiative lacked the central goal is to perform its measures and accountability. this raises serious issues. what is our strategy and plan to help mexico when this war? is it now time to move beyond
the merit initiative? what did the federal agencies need from congress to accomplish this mission that we all agree is so vital to mexico's national security, but two hours? the united states efforts need to be reexamined. there have been threats and attempts to kill u.s. as -- u.s. citizens and federal officials. i had the privilege to travel in the with our troops in iraq and afghanistan, but during one visit to el paso, i requested to go into juarez. the state department could not guarantee my safety. the cartels have not only breezed our borders, but are now creating safe havens across the border including in my home state of texas.
this is the conclusion of a recent report by general mccaffrey. they also say the cartels are using prisons and recruitment centers and cities in the united states for the drug operations. both of these generals will testify before my subcommittee next week. additionally, a recent report from the department of justice reveals the drug cartels operate in more than 1000 cities across the united states. 1000 cities. the control the distribution of most heroin, marijuana, methamphetamines, and other narcotics. they are a threat to national security and should be treated as such. i introduced legislation requiring state department classify drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations similar to what president clinton did in colombia. this would prosecute individuals who provide any assistance.
the legislation must also be tied to fighting the cartels are both here and abroad using every means available. the drug cartels and to intimidate and coerce the civilian population. they do affect the conduct of the mexican government and threatened the national security of the united states. if you look at the definition, this is the very essence of terrorism. there is a real war happening along our border and the enemy is covertly infiltrating our cities. we must take this threat seriously and take sizable action. i want to point out a few more events. the gulf cartel dump two truck loads of 35 bodies at a busy intersection in the coastal city of veracruz. the most discover -- the most disturbing -- five severed heads were placed in a sack and placed outside a primary school.
the cartel's threatened to -- threatened teachers if they did not pay money. they are terrorizing the population. i submit to you these drug cartels are terrorizing the schools and the children in those schools. with that i yield back. >> thank you, chairman mccaul. haleh like to turn to mr. engel for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first say i welcome all the witnesses here, especially my friend bill brownfield. it is good to see all three of you. i am happy you are here. i want to thank chairman mack for taking oversight and am very happy to be here today. there is no more important
relationship to the united states and latin america than the one we have with mexico. we share a border almost 2,000 miles long. we have a rich and intertwined history we have deep cultural connections. yet come up today, serious challenges and problems extend to both sides of the border. in the last several years, the drug trade, which had been -- the drug trade has moved north. it is taken hold million mexico. as i said in the first of these hearings, i want it to be clear that the united states stands with our friend to the south in the fight against narcotics trafficking. mr. chairman, i am disturbed by the criminals are ravaging communities in mexico and elsewhere. we are in complete agreement that their actions are illegal
and hideous. i am not sure we could call them insurgents and terrorists. i am not sure that accurately describe what is going on in mexico. dod defines insurgency as the overthrow of a government using armed conflict. dod defies terrorism as a calculated use of unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence to invoke a fear intended to curse government or society in pursuit of goals political, religious, or ideological. the drug gangs are, i do not believe, have political, religious, or ideological goals. they are criminals trying to make debt -- trying to make money. it is not exactly terrorism. i am -- it does not make it any less awful. we, in the united states, have a
real stake in trying to get at them and trying to defeat them. mr. mccaul examples of what these people are capable of. we have a very important state. i mentioned before about the definition of terrorism because i am concerned that if we put these groups on the terrorist list, the gun dealer who supplies them weapons, the drug dealer who buys their drugs, can be prosecutable under terrorism laws. it would be very hard to add them to the terrorism list. it raises very difficult questions we need to explore. it does not mean we have to go after them any less. in fact, we need to do everything we can. i raise this because i think it is important before we jump and call them terrorists or
insurgents. i think we need to be careful. among the other questions i would like our witnesses to discuss today are whether we are doing enough at home to reduce the demand for drugs. i have said many times when in chair this committee that if we did not use the drugs and there would not be a need for these people to do what they do. how can we slow the illicit flow of weapons into mexico? i i think we should discuss that today. is the assistance moving fast enough? we had a problem with that in the past. that is important to concentrate on. finally, how are u.s. authorities coordinating on the border with mexican authorities? mr. chairman, i am happy we are having this hearing. i think these issues are very important. i think our goals are identical. we need to see that these criminals and these thugs are brought to justice. we need to stop it.
we have a stake in it at just as much as mexico does. i yield back. >> thank you. i would now like to introduce our witnesses. first, the honorable william brownfield. he is the assistant secretary for the bureau of international narcotics and law affairs. he served as u.s. ambassador to colombia from august 2007 until august 2010. before serving in columbia, he served as u.s. ambassador to venezuela and chile. welcome and thank you for being here today. second, mr. rodney benson. the is the administrator of intelligence for the drug administration. he served as special agent in charge of the atlantic steel division where he directed and led federal drug enforcement
operations throughout the state of georgia, north carolina, south carolina, and tennessee. additionally he served as special agent in charge of the seattle field division. third is missed mariko silver. she is the assistant secretary for international affairs at the department of homeland security. she served as -- she served with governor janet napolitano in the state of arizona. before joining the governor's office, she served as special adviser to the president and director for strategic projects for the office of president at arizona state university. thank you all for being here. i would now like to return to ambassador brownfield and
recognized him for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking members, members of the foreign affairs and homeland security committees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i have a written statement for the record, which i have submitted, and would like to offer a bridge -- a brief oral summary. i do not intend to spend your time describing the origin, in a tree, and purpose of the merit initiative. you know them better than i do. this has been more of a partnership between two governments than a traditional foreign assistance program. the congress has been genesis jarrett -- generous in funding it. the initiative as delivered some concrete successes over the last four years. since 2009, more than 33 high-
level cartel leaders have been removed or arrested. this compares with one in the preceding six years. thanks to the merit initiative, the mexican government now has 14 additional helicopters, hundreds of sophisticated, non intrusive inspection suites of equipment, and more than 150 canine teams. more than 52,000 mexican police and prosecutors have received some professional training under the initiative. by the end of this year, we will have delivered more than $900 million worth of equipment and training to mexico with more than $500 million delivered this year alone. there is no doubt in my mind, ladies and gentleman, that the united states is better and safer today thanks to our support of the initiative.
but ladies and supplement, it is in transition period where we once focused on delivering equipment and goods, we now focus more on providing specialized training. for four years we concentrated on building strong, a federal institutions. we now concentrate more on state and municipal institutions. we will initially focus our support in northern mexico where the violence is greatest and where we have shared border security interest. mr. chairman, the initiative was not engraved in stone. it is a living strategy that is modified, adjusted, and corrected as circumstances change on the ground and we learn lessons. some of those lessons came from the united states congress and came from some members in this very chamber is a valuable idea
to integrate our efforts against illicit drugs, organized crime, and terrorism into a unified, holistic approach to support the initiative. we have learned lessons from other theaters of operation around the world that can and should be integrated into our efforts. but, mr. chairman, there are two lessons we did not have to learn because we already knew them. the first is that merida is a cooperative agreement between the u.s. and mexico with the government of mexico in charge of all activities within their territory. if we do not work together with the mexican government, we accomplished little for either the american or mexican people. second, as i learned the hard way during my years in colombia is the lesson of strategic patients. i am an optimist, mr. chairman,
and i believe we have already made serious progress under this initiative, but it took our two nations years to get into this situation and it will take us some years to get out of it. i thank you mr. chairman and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. mr. benson is recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, honorable chairman, ranking members, and distinguished members of the homeland and security committees. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on a subject of critical importance. i have the privilege of serving as the drug enforcement administration's chief of intelligence. during my 28-year career, i have witnessed firsthand the evolution of a mexican drug craftiness -- drug trafficking organizations.
market today. from my from a supervisory position on the southwest border and from my position as special agent in charge of offices as perverse as seattle and atlanta, i have witnessed a remarkable spread of mexican influence throughout the united states and around the world. currently, we enjoyed unprecedented levels of cooperation and coordination with our mexican counterparts and greatly appreciate the unwavering commitment and leadership of president calderone. mexican secuty forces against a formidable enemy. dea has benefited with working
with better equipped and better trained police officers and prosecutors. they administered the division of technical material and educationasupport to our tireless partners rulting in the dismantling and fracturing of several dto's and encouraging partners in mexico to go forward on law enforcement reforms. information sharing between our two nations with the goal of capturing mexico's most violence and prolific traffickers has never been robust. as thee groups splintered into legalist factions, we see the surrogate bosses lack not only the discipline of their elders and former leaders, but the international connections and influence to realize the accustomed level of profit. some might call the resulting behavior anarchy, and dea recognizes that extreme,
seemingly arbitrary criminal violence begs a label when some of the violence is directed at government officials, police officers, soldier, and civilians, and despite groups resorting to tactics like bombs and beheadings, this is just greed and rivalry. the members of the desperate organizations areot fighting in the nam of ideology, philosophy, or religion or for political power and influence, but to eliminate competition, settle scores, and increase profits. extortion, kidnapping, oil pipeline theft, prostitution, carjacking, robbery, and media pie ranking piracy bolster drug revenue and are the activities of organized crime. funding from the merida initiative was critical in the transformation of the federal
police agency and the training of police officers and prosecutors at our levels. in june of last year, our lawmakers passed some of the most effective antimoney laundering legislation in the country's history, and the results of our bilateral efforts acclaim a portion of the estimated $18 billion to $39 billion of drug profits crossing our border are improving exponentially. proving the effectiveness of mexico's states tantamount for its success. it's inhis area of remarkable cooperation that u.s. efforts have been matched or exceeded by our partners in mexico. we're committed to our partners and must continue to support endeavors to bring security to mexico and its citizens supporting the merida initiative and president as well as the next administration in mexico 1 the only option. thank you, again, for the privilege of speaking to you on
beha of the men and women of the drug enforcement administration, and i'll gladly respond to any questions you might have. >> thank you very much, mr. benson. ms. silver, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. first, i want to thank you for your continued support and for the opportunity to speak to you today on the merida initiative. its inception in 2007, and secretary napolitano supports merida funded programs. while the state department has responsibilities for dispersing funds, dhs and other partners participate heavily implementing specific programs.
this approach is consistent with the didn't of state development review which states, "given the national security implications of security sector assistance, state will express the department of justice, homeland security, to implement state programs involving tornado terrorism or capacity building and other industries, and we're pleased to provide that with mexico." there's types of engagement that coast guard and others had had in particular to the merida initiative. we work on training to procuring qimght paid for by the initiative. we believe dhs's use neck skills contributed greatly to the merida initiative. i want to note that merida initiative marked a change in the nature and extent of mexico on security and law enforcement issues.
we saw this at the policy level and the ground. as part of the shift, it led to a significant rframing and reorganization of much of our bilateral eamingment. it's now framed around four pillars. we focus on pillar three, creating a 21st century border. during the state visit, president obama and calderon noted the work accomplished under pillar three. their joint statement set a policy vision articulating that, "the 21st century border must ensure the safety and security of residents and communities along both sides of the border." they affirm the interest of mexico and the united states to allow entry into the countries of people who pose a threat to national security. the 39's board of vision shows the need to manage the border and manage it in a holistic
fashion. this policy vision requires moving beyond guarding the line between the united states and mexico. the border and interior are linked as was pointed out. at the board enand interior should be kemp complementary and coordinated using all agency counterpart. it's necessary, but this should be more of a comprehensive approach. through this approach, we need to engage domestically at the board earn and abroad to secure the united states. we also need to leverage opportunities working with the foreign partners to intercept and utilize threats before they reach the u.s. border. there's more places and more countries interconnected with networks in trade and trfl every day. it means vulnerabilities or gaps
anywhere across the gobe, and our neighbor mexico, have the about to affect activity thousands of miles away, here in the united states. it must include efforts to secure global and trade efforts. this highlights the importance of collaboration and tribal governments as well as private sector partners. it's built on approach to ensure beth academic competitiveness and national security. we cannot let commee grind to a halt. dhs supports the -- from the congress, and your support of the merida initiative. the united states and mexico are closer now than we have been. while challenges remain, there's a strong foundation of cooperation to build. we look forward to working with congress to achieve the goals and with our mexican partners. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i'm happy to take any questions you may have.
>> thank you very much, ms. silver, and i now recognize myself for five minute questions. first of all, let me make this perfectly clear. the people of the united states and of mexico have a very shared interest in this. the people of mexico and the people of the united states have similar desires, and that is for the ideas of freedom, security, and prosperity. this hearing today is to get at some of the questions about where we've been which have been documented, but have we diagnosed the problem correctly, and what do we do moving forward? first i have a baseline question here for all of you, and hopefully i can get a yes or no. i know that might be difficult for some of you, but please try.
have the drug cartels in mexico evolved in their criminal activities and level the violence since 2007? ambassador? >> i'll start, mr. chairman. they evolved, but they are smaller, more numerous, more diverse, and as a consequence, they are a different kind of strategic and tactical problem to address than they were four years ago. >> thank you. mr. benson? >> and, yes, chairman, we've seen that evolution expansion, some of the cartels splint oring, and then essentially more criminal groups we're targeting. >> thank you. >> i concur with that. they are more fragmented. there's on the ground small group, and the law enforcement challenge is different. >> okay. ambassador brownfield, according to the cia, and i quote,
"insurgent activities include k guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and political motivation like propaganda, recruitment, and international activity." do you agree the cartels in mexico are engaging in the activities listed by the cia? >> it's a label, mr. chairman, but i will not question whether certain organizations are doing certain things, although to be honest, i can make the same comment about organizations in the united states as well. >> but you don't deny that the cartels are engaged in guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and political mobilization such as propaganda, recruitment, and international activities? >> i accept that individuals of some organizations are doing sometimes in some places this activity. i do not suggest it's systematic nationwide or institutional. >> well, it's -- let me just -- we can go to -- we have a slide
here. guerrilla warfare. there's examples of federal police officers attacked in mexico. next slide. terrorism -- you have a gunman killed 52 people and burned the casino in mexico, and i believe the president, himself, indicated that that was terrorism. political mobilization, you have a candidate for governor who was assassinated in june 2008 -- or june 28, 2010. you have political protests increasing awareness surrounding the war on drugs, and, again, then you have next slide, propaganda and recruitment. you have cartels holding -- happy children's day, and at the same time, recruiting and offering better pay and health care, so i would go towards that, and then there's international activity wch we
have all talked about here today, so i'm having a little of a 45rd time understanding the reluctancy in saying that the activities that the cartels are showing do fit the definition, the cia talks about activities as an insurgency. >> i don't question your facts, mr. chairman, nor your motivation. you and i have exactly the same objective in mind here. if, on the other hand, your asking me do i see exactly the same thing here as in other parts of the world we described as insurgency, they are different. >> i'm not asking about other parts of the world. i'm asking specifically about whether or not the cartels are partaking in insurgent activity as outlined that w just did. the last question here. the department of homeland security and department of defense are addressing trafficking in the united states
and border protection progms, but separate from the merida initiative. wouldn't it make since to have a coordinated u.s. strategy to meet strategic u.s. goals in mexico? ambassador, if you want to take a shot at that. >> sure, although, we have to work our way through, just as you do when you are melding what your subcommittee does with what mr. mccaul's subcommittee does, we have to address the issues of a domestic issue like a foreign issue, but the answer to your question is yes. >> thank you. do you agree there's an evolution in the violation by the cartels? you can agree that there's been insurgent activities in mexico from the cartels, and that we need to have a coordinated u.s. strategy to meet the strategic goals. mr. benson, do you agree with that? >> chairman, i think right now, we have a very robust inner agency targeting effort.
as we target mexican organized crime he, and that intelligence that's generated is shared very timely to our counterparts in mexico, and our goal obviously being to impact that largest piece of the organization as possible, and we can want to do that as the ambassador mentioned on some of these captures that we had over e last couple of years, unprecedented targets that's created these small out groups has been a great stress. >> thank you, and my time expired. i'd now like to recognize mr. engel for five minutes for questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, again, i don't want to get into semantics, but it's important that we define these things. i nt to read something that mexican ambassador wrote on
april 11th of this year in the "dallas morning news," and i quote him. "these transnational organizations are not terrorist organizations. they are very criminal violent groups that are well structured and financed. they pursue a single goal. they want to maximize profits and do what businesses do, hostile takeovers and pursue mergers and acquisitions. they use violence to protect their competition from other competitors as well as from our two governments efforts to roll them back. there's no political motivation or agenda whatsoever beyond their attempt to defend their illegal business. misunderstanding the challenge we face leads to wrong policies and bad policymaking. if you label these organizations as terrorists, you will start to -- u will have to start calling drug consumers in the u.s. financiers of terrorist
organizations and gun holders providers to terrorists." starting with ambassador, can you drug abuse the implicaons of labeling the mexican dto's as terrorist groups. do you agree? >> he obviously is a very wise man, doesn't speak for the united states government or for me. he does speak for the government of mexico. i think his reasoning is pretty sound, congress mapp, and that is to say we have to -- we have to look through just the label, and we have to think through at the implications of the law would be. i agree with virtually all of the sugstions that the facts are consistent with the label. i then say that is only half of our job. the next half is to assess what is the implication of us making this determination? it does have plich nature? what does it give us that's more than we have? these are the questions that i
think we should ask as well as whether the specific agents of this organization, in fact, are consistent with the acts of an insurgency or terrorist organization. >> mr. benson? >> as targeted operations in the northern border, across the soheast, the northeast, it's been targeting organized criminal gangs, cartel representatives, and linking that back to those leaders back in mexico. we do clearly show in intelligce that we generate here in the united states, and we target -- they are clearly taking direction from their leadership south of the border. >> so is the ambassador right? do you agree with the statements that i road that he wrote?
>> as a career special agent, i view those mexican trafficking groups as organized criminals, organized crime. >> from our perspective, we view them as organize the crime. -- organized crime. it's less the label, but what the label implies operationally for us, and for us, the law enforcement tools we have are best suited to the job we see at hand. >> thank you. the original statement jointly issued by the u.s. and mexican governments in october of 2007 and the merida initiative, and i remember i well because i chaired the subcommittee then. it said that reducing demand in the united states is a major go of the program. without demand in this country, it's clear that there wouldn't be significant narco-criminal problem in mexico, colombia, or elsewhere. since fy of 2004, reduction
increased to 2 billion, buthy not do more to increase demand for it in the u.s.? are we lving up to or original commitment to fight demand? if we don't deal with demand at home, aren't we treating the symptoms and not the disease, ambassador? >>'ll start on this, congressman, although, as you know, i look externally opposed it internally. obviously, it's a simple mter to say if there's no demand, there's no supply because you're not supplying any demand. it's much more complicated than that as we know. we have been addressing this internal drug consumption problem in the united states in a serious way for nearly 50 years. we have not been sitting on our hands. we spend more money on this than any nation on the planet. it is intreg grated into our policy, and i offer a foreign affairs suggestion as well, and that is let us not assume that when the day arrives that we
have solved our drug problem, the foreign drug supply problem is going to disappear. it will not -- evidence exhibit number one is u.s. cocaine demand has reduced some 50% over the st six or seven years as the production of cocaine disappeared 60%? no, it has not. the producers sought out new markets, and it goes to new locations. they are in it for the money, and they will create new markets if other markets are denied to them. >> my time is up. i don't know if anyone want to jump in quickly? >> somebody have a quick answer to this? >> i would just say that every agent in the off time, i mean, is that constant time frequently where agents are going to our
local schools and many, many outside events on demand reduction because that obviously is an important component looking at the drug abuse problem in the u.s.. >> thank you, mr. engel. >> thank you. >> i now recognize mr. mccaul for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you. i commend all three witnesses for your dedication and service to the count in a very challenging time. i think we don't pay enough attention to this issue. i know, ambassador k you're the expert, and you've been on the issue for decades. you're ambassador to colombia, and we recently went down to colombia to visit with the president down there to talk about what warton didn't with plain colombia, and president clinton designated the farq as a foreign terrorist organization. this is more than just a label. it's not just a label. it's a designation that provides
authorities. it's a designation that provides tools to combating them by freezing bank assets in the united states, but prosecuti with a 15 year advancement to anybody who aids and abets a terrorist, by allowing us to -- unlike the kingpin you just go after the head, this allows you to go after the body of the organization, and in addition, it's not just a person in the united states. it can be a foreign national which i think is critical. jurisdiction is beyond the united states, and i justmented to -- just wanted your experience, ambassador, and being down there in colombia, and watching that successful operation, tell us how this foreign terrorist organization designation, can you tell me whether that was helpful? >> very fair question, mr. chairman, and i'll offer you a couple observations. first, i have absolutely no objection to having placed the farq, eln and the militaries on
the fto list, and participated 234 that procs in 1999 and 2000, and i believe 2001. it was helpful to the extent that it got at their support network. i don't think it had a direct immediate impact on them inside colombia because the guys in the camps and jungles were not worried a great deal about their designation, but their external support structure was, in fact, affected, and, in fact, their external support structure was small enough that you were able to verify who they were and go after them. that was helpful. being able to call them terrorists was helpful. being able to assert every time we talk about the hostageshey were keeping in jungle camps and referring to them as terrorists was helpful, being able to say, we, the european union, the canadians, and there may have been another government had all put them on the same list was
helpful. i don't deny it. it was helpful in colombia, and i do not, and i said it once, and i'll say it again, you and i have exactlyhe same objective. the question is how are we going to get there. >> i think that's a fair assessment. the definition under deral law 1 -- is to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government by extortion, kidnapping political assassination. you know, when i look at what's going on down there, it seems to me they fall squarely within that definition, and i wanted to, i mean, maybe it is semantics, mr. engel, but this law would provide special authorities to help win the war. he described the violence in the country as a challenge to the state, an attempt to replace the state. that sounds like more than just ornized crime.
in the recent casino fire, he says that we're facing true terrorists, so mr. benson, i appreciate everything you do at e dea, and your agents, particularly down, you know, in mexico and central america. i mean, they are really in the line of fire. in your testimony, you have under here, the threat to governance, the threat to governance. those who organize finance and control drug trafficking thrive in areas where government control is weak. they are looking as the al-qaeda and taliban does for failed states. i argue guatemala is on the verge of being a failed state. in mexico city, 25 farmers' heads were cut off the other day. they are looking for safe havens and looking to manipulate the governments. more troubling is the fact these
murders were done to intimidate the population and influence the government, to intimidate the public and influence the government. again, going back to the definition under the law, to intimidate and influence. they terrorize civilians and the mexican people. there's no question about it. the example of the school bus, trying extort money from teachers and throwingheads in the front of the school. yeah, this is beyond some al-qaeda's worst tactics. there's a problem down there, and i guess the debate we're having is how best to handle that. i want to allow you, mr. benson, to respond. >> they want to instill the fear in the public to prevent the government from increasing their
operation tempo and targeting. the government is having that continued success, and the are reverting to these vicious acts to instill that fear, so in my opinion, we need to keep that operational tempo going forward both in the united states and in moment koa what we're -- mexico what we're doing now, and those successes we've highlighted, 23 -- if we continue hurting the leadership simultaneously with the information going back quickly, that will result in positive success down t road. >> i agree. the partnership is key. i don't know if we have a second round. are we? okay. for the record, i'd like to put in the record the response to the news to the letter described by mr. engel that these are not just businessmen making money. they are mor than that. they are killers, and they do terrorize, and with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman mccaul, and i'd like to recognize mr. keating five