tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 28, 2015 4:22am-5:21am EST
went on september 11, 2001, they understood that the world is facing you terrorists. the attacks at the beginning of the year and paris also work very, very upsetting, and i know that many demonstrated on the 11th of january, along with millions of other french people, they said that they refused to give in to the terrorist threat. they knew that france is the frenchf no other people, people go if they are called my duty to protect the weak and not to dominate. these women and men were a youth therance, the youth of people who cherish culture, their culture, that is to say all cultures.
among the victims of the bataclan theater, many have become professional musicians. this is the music that the .errorists could not stand it was that harmony that they wanted to break. it is a joy that they wanted to kill with their bombs. well, they will not stop that. the best way to respond is we more, calledn "concerts and shows, continue to st.o our stadiums and in denis, we will participate in all major sports events. emotions.are the same it is beyond our differences, our different color skins, believe of religions because we
are a single, one single nation based on the same values and supported by the same values. what do the terrorists want? did they want to divide us? oppose us to each other? cause strife? i assure you they will fail. they cultivate death, but we, we have love. love for life. those who fell on november the 13th, where the whole of france, teachers,ournalist, drivers, engineers, architects, carpenters, photographers, civil servants, advertisers, salesman, artist. they comfort all the professions in france, all the talents of the world.
for themselves, their families, and their country. it is by remembering their faces, their names but also their hopes, joys, which have all been destroyed that we will take action. , hatred that killed people in theill past, london, madrid. the enemy is fanaticism which wants to subject than to an inhuman -- to subject man to an inhuman order, a perverted islam which goes against the message of the holy book. that enemy -- we will conquer that enemy, we will assemble the strength of the republic with their weapons, those of democracy, and with our institutions, and with the role .f law in this fight
we can count on our soldiers who are committed to operations in difficult conditions, and syria, iraq, and we can count on our police officers and our justice ,ystem, who behaved admirably in order to neutralize the terrorists. we can rely on our parliament to conduct all the measures that we are required to defend the interest of the country in a spirit of concorde and respect for basic freedoms. above all, we can count on each frenchman and each frenchwoman to show vigilance, the vigilant, show resolution, humanity, dignity. we will fight to the very end, loyal will win by being
to our very idea of france. an art of living, the will to be together, live together, belonging to the nation, a sense of belonging to the nation, confidence in our collective destiny. i assert here today, we will not change. we will be united. united on the basis of our essential values. i would like to pay tribute to the families parried the many gestures made by anonymous french citizens who visited the places of the tragedy to light the candle or lay a wreath and leave a message. if i seek a word to describe this land of solidarity, it is
the word fraternity, brotherhood, which is part of our motto, the republic's motto, what about mobilization of our public services to save and support are victims? to support the survivors, those who are close to those who suffered, the health care officials, their admirable actions show what we are. a country which shows solidarity . everything that has happened since november 13 shows the of the of the awareness challenges facing the country. 13se who fell on november embodied our values and our duty not give in ever to , and although we
may feel anger, we will use that energy to feel our determination to defend liberty on a day-to-day basis. the will to turn france, make friends into a great country -- make friends into a great country proud of its history, or a of life, culture, and reputation, it's universal idea and respected even further that our country inspires across the world every time it is heard. i will not forget the images from all over the world of people paying tribute altogether to the sacrifice of those who fell in paris as if the whole world was suffering from this. the patriotism that is showed arey, with the flags, which
proudly displayed, the spontaneous bleeding, the crowds -- the spontaneous singing, none of that has to do with revenge or rejection of others. are symbolizes our union, resilience, resistance against the negative, that asked against s against france. in spite of the tragedy, the bloodshed, it sticks the principles of hope and tolerance. hurt byall been deeply this ordeal. the families to begin with, all french citizens, whatever social ordealon, origin, this has made us suffer deeply, but it will make us stronger.
let me say that i am very confident in the next generation. before this generation, other generations, when they were young, suffered or deals that forged the identity. the attack of november 13 remains in the memories of the youth of today as a terrible initiation into the hardness of the world, but also as an invitation to face up to the ofld by inventing new forms commitment. i know that this generation will our heritage and it will have the courage of fully taking charge of the future of our nation. the unhappiness which the tragedy which has affected november 13 will give this youth
a great task. liberty does not call for revenge. it calls for being served. i salute this new generation. they have been struck but they're not afraid. enterprisinged and as those who we are mourning today. they will know how to live up to these high . in spite of the tears, long live the republic, long live france.
syria and efforts to find a political solution to the syrian civil war. >> thank you, mr. speaker. david cameron: i said i would respond personally in extending british military operations to syria. i have tons of today and copies of my response have been made available to every member. the committee produced a comprehensive report which asked important questions. i also try to listen carefully to the questions and views expressed by the members on all sides. i want to try and answer relevant questions today. they are different ways of putting them, but they boil down now,is -- why, why us, why is what we are contemplating legal? where the grand troops -- the
ground troops to meet our objectives? what is the strategy that brings together everything there doing? is there an end to the conflict and is our plan for what follows ? so let me deal with each question directly. first, why? the reason for acting is the direct threat which i thought poses to our country and our way of life. and have attacked paris, the likely blowing up of the russian plane with 224 people on board. they have already taken the lives of british hostages and inspired the worst terrorist attack against british people on the beaches of geneva. crucially, they have repeatedly tried to attack us right from britain. in the last 12 months, our police and security has disrupted no fewer than seven terrorist plots, every one of which was either link cap isis
-- link to isis or inspired by the propaganda. it is in our national interest to take action to stop them and that means taking action in syria because it is their headquarters. y s? -- why us? our first job in this house is to keep the british people safe. ,e have the assets today that and we can significantly extend the capabilities of the international coalition forces. that is what recent why members of the international coalition, including president obama and resident h -- president hollande, have made it clear that they want britain to stand with them in joining airstrikes. these are our closest allies and they want our help. partly, this is about our capabilities. that's reassuring and iraq, they can carry out dynamic targeting,
where our pilots can strike the most difficult targets at rapid pace and with decision. and they can provide vital got a winning their support to local forces on the ground. we have the precision system that enables us to strike with minimal collateral damage, something that even the americans do not have. the part of an are turning to aircraft is currently gathering 62 the coalition's entire tacticals in iraq and being equipped for strikes. in addition, our drones are providing a to 30% of the intelligence in syria but are not currently able to use their high precision systems. we also have the ability to sustain operations, not just for weeks, but it necessary, once into the future. esther speaker, we have these capabilities, but the most important asset of the question,
, is more fundamental. we should not be content with outsourcing our security to our allies. if we believe that action can help protect us, then with our allies, we should be part of that action and not standing aside from it. from this moral point comes fundamental question. oure will not act now, went friends and allies of france haven't struck in this way, then our allies in the world can be forgiven for asking, if not now? when? and that leads to the next question, why now? the first answer is the great ourer that isil poses to security, and there are additional reasons why action now is important. look at what has changed, not just the attack in paris, but the world has come together and agreed to you and security --
u.n. security decision. good.ld defeat isil for as i explained yesterday, we cannot wait for that to be complete before we begin acting to degrade isil and reduce the capability to attack us. let's be clear about the military objectives we are pursuing. yes, we ought to defeat the terrorists by dismantling their networks, stopping their funding, targeting their training camps, and taking out those plotting terrorist attacks u.k., but there is a broader objective. as long as isil can have the caliphate in iraq and syria, it'll be a rallying cause for extremists all around the world, and that makes us less safe. just as we reduced the scale and size of the so-called caliphate in iraq, increasingly pushing it out of iraq, so we need to do
the same in syria. another reason for action now is that the success in iraq in squeezing the so-called caliphate, is at risk for failure to act in syria. this reporter is not recognized hamper our efforts if we stopped at the syrian border. when we come to the question, why now, we have to ask ourselves whether the risks of inaction are greater than taking action? act is a we fail to day when they can grow stronger. that is what all the advice i have received, military advice, diplomatic advice, and security advice all says yes, the risks of inaction are greater. some of them ask specifically, if they could make britain more of a target, so let me tell that
the judgment of the director general of the security service and the chairman of the joint intelligence committee is that the u.k. is already in the top tier of countries that isil is targeting. the only way to deal with that we are the is to address the threat we face and to do so now. me turn to thet question of legality. it is a long-standing constitutional convention that we do not publish our formal legal advice, but the document are published to date shows a clear legal basis for military action against isis in syria is that it on the right to self-defense as recognized in article 51 of the united nations charter. it may be exercised individually, where it is necessary to the uk's on defense, and collectively in the defense of our friends and allies. the main basis of the global coalition's actions against isil in syria is the collective
self-defense of iraq. iraq has been government, one which we support and help, and a solid basis of evidence to conclude, there is a direct link between the presence and activities of isil in syria and ongoing attacks in iraq. isondly, the assad regime unable and unwilling to take action on the continued attack on iraq or the attacks on us. it is clear that isil's campaign against the u.k. and our allies have reached the level of armed attacks, so force can be used in self-defense prevent further atrocities being committed by isil. this is further underscored by the adoption of you a -- u. , andcurity council's 2249 we should be clear what it says.
all five members of the security council came together to agree unanimously. the resolution states that isil, a global antitutes unprecedented threat to international peace and security. it calls for member states to take all necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks committed specifically by isil." it says, quote, "eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of iraq and syria." turning to the question of which forces would assist us, in iraq, the answer is clear. we had the iraqi security forces and the kurdish. in syria, it is more complex. as a report in publishing to date shows, we believe around 70,000 syrian opposition fighters, principally the free syrian army who do not belong to extremist groups, and with whom we can coordinate attacks on isil.
in addition, there are the kurdish armed groups who also show themselves capable of taking territory, holding territory, and relieving the suffering that the civilian population had entered under isil control. the syrian kurds have successfully defended kurdish areas in northern syria and retaken territory around the city of kabani. they have proved capable of defending territory and they stopped isil's attempts to capture the border with turkey and seeping into the province. the southern front of the free syrian army has consolidated its control over significant areas and has worked to prevent terrorist from operating. these people that i have talked about, they are ground troops. they need our help. when they get it, they succeed. in my view, we should do more to help them from the air. those who ask questions about
ground troops are right to do so. the full answer cannot be achieved until there is a new syrian government that represents all of the syrian people, not just sunni, shia, and others.ns it is a new government who will be the natural partners in our fores to defeat isil good. we cannot defeat them simply from the air and military action alone. it requires a full political settlement, but the questions of how we wait for the settlements before you take action? my answer is, no, we cannot. if this is part of an overall strategy, the answer is yes. first, our counter extremism strategy means we have a comprehensive plan to prevent and foil plots at home and also the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat we face
. second, our support for the diplomatic and political process . we should be clear about this process. any across his house rightly not have all the key regional players around the table, including iran and russia, and without seeing iran and saudi arabia sitting around the same table with america and russia, as well as france, turkey and britain, and all of us working for the transition to a new government in syria. the third color is the military action i am describing to thegrate isil and reduce threat they pose. it is working in iraq and i believe they can work in syria. the fourth is a major humanitarian support, but more crucially, longer-term stabilization. at many times, the britons have ,iven over 1.1 billion pounds by far the largest commitment of any european country, second to
the united states of america, and this helps to reduce the need for syrians to attempt the perilous journey to europe. the conference i'm hosting with germany and norway, and the u.n. in february will help further, but they are asking whether there will be a proper post conflict reconstruction effort to support the new syrian government when it emerges. britain's answer to the question is absolutely yes. i can tell the house that britain will be prepared to contribute at least another one billion pounds for this cause. all these elements, counterterrorism, political, diplomatic, military, humanitarian, they need to happen together to achieve a long-term solution syria. this is a process, not an event. i am clear it can be achieved through the military assault on politicallso requires
transition. i am also clear about the sequencing that needs to take place. mr. speaker, this is an isil first strategy. what are the and goals? the initial objective is to damage isil and reduced capacity to do harm. i believe this can lead to its eradication. rise andedicted isil's we should not accept it is impossible to bring them to an end. they are not what the people of iraq and syria want. they do not represent the true religion of islam, and they are losing ground in iraq. we are not naive to the complexity of the task. it will require patience and persistence. i work will be not complete until we reach our end goal, having governments in iraq and syria which can command the confidence of all their. in syria, that means a government without assad. ll iteris,can ki
but only good governments can kill terrorism. this applies to iraq and syria. as a discuss all these things, people want to know that we have learned lessons of previous conflicts. whatever people thought of the iraq war, terrible mistakes were made in the aftermath of dismantling the state and institutions of the country, and it was -- and he will never make those mistakes again. the political process in syria will in time deliver new leadership and that is what we will support. we're not in the business of dismantling their faith or institutions. the state institutions have been hollowed out after 40 years of dictatorship. when the dictatorship went, institutions collapse, but the difference between libya and syria is we have firm international commitment from the backers of the future syrian government at the vienna talks. the commitment is clear to
preserve and develop the state syria and allow a new representative government to government from its people. this -- i have attempted to answer the main questions, why, legal,, like us, is it what other ground forces, what are the strategies, what is the endpoint and the plan for reconstruction? complexhis is a highly situation and then no members on all sides will not questions which i look forward to trying to answer this morning. one will be about the confusing situation in syria with regard to russia's intervention. let me reassure the house that the american-led their operation center is a memorandum of understanding with the russians and it enables the of the contact and pragmatic military planning to ensure the safety of all coalition forces, and that includes our brave pilots. another question will be about whether we are taking sides in the sunni versus shia conflict
-- this is not the case. isil is a predominately sunni organization, but they are alike. them i vision for the future of syria, as with iraq, is not met sectarian entity that one government in the interest of its people, so we wholeheartedly welcome sunni and shia majorities at the vienna talks and their support for international action against isil and toward the diplomatic solution in syria. the house will also want to know about the financing of isil. the documents include intercepting smugglers, stealing borders and enforcing sanctions to stop people from trading with isil. they can generate income through the control of territory. while we are working to squeeze finances wherever we can, it is the back of territory which will ultimately couple the finances.
to complex questions are these -- will action pretty abrupt transition -- bring about transition? i believe the answer is yes. there cannot be genuine tradition without making it their territorial integration of syria, and isil denies the integrity. it helpsying isil moderate forces and they will be crucial to the future. second, our view that assad must go helps isil or does this is a picture? the advice i have is we will not beat isil if we wave that ultimately assad must go. it is fight for the long-term stability of syria. in the end, it comes back to this one main question -- should we take action?
all of those who say that ultimately we need a diplomatic solution and transition to a new government in syria, the are right. working with a new representative government is the way to eradicate isil in syria for the long-term, but kelly wait for that to happen before we take military action? i say we cannot. clear, they will not be a vote in this house unless there is a clear majority of action because we will not hand the publicity to to isil. -- publicity tube to isil. military action is not the whole answer. proud as i am of our incredible service men and women, i will not pretend or overstate the significance of our potential contribution. i will not understate the complexity of this issue, nor the risk that are involved in any military action. mr. speaker, we do face a
fundamental threat to our security. we cannot wait for political transition. we have to hit these terrorists in their heartland right now, shake ourt not responsibility for security or hand it to others. throughout our history, the united kingdom has stood up to defend our values and our way of life. .e can and we must do so again i commend this statement to the house. much, mr.very speaker, and i would like to thank the prime minister for providing an advanced copy of his statement which i got earlier today. attacks the despicable in paris a fortnight ago, the whole of paris would agree, our first priority has to be the security of the people in the future. when they consider the prime minister's case of military what he proposes
strengthens or undermines our security, must be front and center stage of our minds. the islamic state group has imposed timeliness terror are millions in iraq, syria, and libya. all that they stand for end to is contrary to everything that we have struggled for for many generations. there is no doubt it poses a threat to our own people. the question must now be whether extending the u.k. from iraq to syria is likely to increase or decrease the threat? whether it will spread the terror campaign in the middle east? with that in mind, i would like to put seven questions to the prime minister. first, does the prime minister believed that extending airstrikes to syria, which is already being bombed by the united states, france, and russia, will make a significant military impact on the ground which has so far seen isil gain new territory?
be a warxpect it will winning strategy or does he think other members of the original coalition, including the gulf states, canada, and australia, are halting the participation? second, in the prime minister's view, the air campaign against successful without ground forces, if not, does he believe the kurdish forces are syrianlatively marginal army would be in a position to held territory and take it back when the air campaign was successful? is it not more likely that other strongest jihadist and medical forces would take over? third, without credible or accessible ground forces, isn't the logic of an intensified air campaign western boots on the ground? candidate rollout british ground outes to syria -- can cable
british ground forces to syria? number four, does he believe that 2249 gives unambiguous authorization for u.k. airstrikes? and what coordinated action with other un member states has there been under the terms of the resolution to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from isis in the territory it currently holds? and in the absence of any coordinated un military or diplomatic strategy, does he believe that more military forces over syria could increase the risks of dangerous incidents, such as the shooting down of a russian military aircraft by turkish forces this week? fifth, how does the prime minister think an extension of uk bombing would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the syrian civil war, which is
widely believed to be the only way to ensure the defeat of isis in the country? sixth, what assessment has the prime minister been given about the likely impact of british air strikes in syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in the uk? and what impact does he believe an intensified air campaign will have on civilian casualties in isis-held syrian territory and the wider syrian refugee crisis? finally, in the light of the record of western military interventions in recent years, including in iraq, afghanistan and libya does the prime minister accept that uk bombing of syria could risk more of what president obama called unintended consequences, and that a lasting defeat of isis can only be secured by syrians and forces from within the
region? >> can i thank the gentleman for his questions? i very much respect his long-held views about these issues and his quite correct caution before committing to any of these actions. but i do believe there is a good answer to the seven absolutely legitimate questions he asked. first of all, in terms of extending air strikes, whether they be a significant military impact, what i tried to give in my statement was a flavor of the specific things we think we would be about to do. but in many ways it is worth listening tour closest allies,
the americans and the french want us to take part in not just for the cover that provides, but because of the capabilities that we bring. i have been listening very closely to what they say. yes we would make a military difference. absolutely right to make this issue of ground forces. i would guide the house that there are obviously many who want to play down the existence and the role of the free syrian army information is that there are at least 70,000 forces that are able to help. we can see the help they have been given that including the examples i gave in my statement. let me give an assurance, we are not deploying britsh combat forces, we are not going to deploy british combat forces. we think that would be counterproductive. that is one thing we have all collectively learned from previous conflicts. we do not want to make that mistake again. there was a resolution that contemporary february.
we should continue to support all those measures. as explained in the statement, there is a confliction between what russia is doing and what the coalition is doing. what happened in turkey is we have to get to the bottom of that. we have permission to overfly turkey's airspace, and they are our ally in this conflict. what we are planning will help with transition, and i think the answer to that is a very strong yes. the intention is to do deny the integrity of syria.
i would also make the point that when we look to the future syria in is going to meet the involved of moderate sunnis in the future of the country. the more we can help them, the chance to transition is yes then important question about the impact of action on the threat level to this country. i cleared my statement was the chairman of the joint intelligence committee and the head of mi5. we are already at the very highest level we can be in terms of threats from isil. this is about learning the
lessons of iraq. we have now this architecture of the joint intelligence committee chaired by a very senior official who has that independent view. i cleared every word of my statement very clearly with them. on the issue of civilian casualties, which is important, i believe the truth of the matter is this. in a year and three months of the action we've taken in iraq there have been no reports of civilian casualties. we believe we have some of the most accurate weapons known to man. i think extending our activities and to syria is likely to reduce civilian casualties rather than increase them. finally, he asked about unintended consequences. he can have a big debate about the action we have had to take around the world. in my view we have to recognize that this poisonous narrative is a battle for our generation. we see it in nigeria, we see it in somalia. we can see it in our own country.
combating with everything we have got, such as argument and all those things together. i believe we thought through the consequences of his actions. i think it is worth remembering that this american president, who saw that part of his role was withdrawing america from some of these foreign entanglements than trying to take a different approach to these actions, he is not only firmly behind american action in syria, he is asking america's oldest friend and partner to help out in this final work. >> i thank my right honorable friend for responding so, principally to the report. i also think the chancellor for responding positively. part of the committee has concern early from the region around i saw for this statement. other colleagues are completely -- are requiring regional perspective, part of our inquiry into the coalition against isil, as was our initial report which addressed the narrow issue of
british airstrikes over the area. how did that narrow issue that the bigger questions, and one the coalition have the strategy of achieving against isis? does he agree with the senior leaders we met in the region that getting the politics right in both a rock in syria is the immediate and overriding priority, and we must not lose focus on baghdad? the committee will discuss its collective view early next week. we will want to report on these prospects of success. is he aware that in the light of vienna, and his response to the committee that it is now my personal view that the country would be best served -- they should play fall role in the coalition, to support and shape the policy, and the eventually ideological defeat of isil? >> thank you for coming back to
be weapons in the house today. thank him for what he said today. he is right that any action we take less a nested in an overall strategy, which i've tried to set out today. the politics of the region are crucial in our understanding of this. most important of all, trying to make sure that iraq makes progress to being a more pluralistic and solid country. the politics and the action in my view go together. i will come to the committee in the house in two months, and i'm very happy to come back anyway if we decide to go ahead with this action.
briefing, and we expressed our thanks to keep us all safe. please share the concerns of everybody in this house and in the country in the terrorist threat. the s&p strongly supports the national initiative agreed in vienna to secure a cease-fire in syria. he transitioned to stable government and cantering terrorist groups. we believe these aims will be agreed through agreement. how will we get this cease-fire? and how are we planning for the long-term reconstruction and stability and support? i asked two questions about syria which the prime mister did not answer so i would like to review them today. how will be secure peace on the
ground in syria? i quote, "which ground forces will take hold and administer territories captured from isil?" how will the u.k. plan long-term stability? how much, as i asked yesterday, does the prime minister estimate the total cost, and does he think the amount of his statement today will be sufficient? two years ago he urged us to bomb the opponents of crisis in. that probably would have
strengthened this terrorist organization. today he wants us to launch a violent campaign without effective ground support in place for a fully creative reconstruction plan. the private distress asked us to consider his plan. we have listened closely. however key questions posed by the foreign affairs select committee remain unanswered. and unless the prime minister answers these russians satisfactorily, the scottish national party will not vote for airstrikes in syria. >> cap i thank him for paying tribute to my national security advisor. i think he is right that what is wired is political agreement and the long-term reconstruction of syria.
my argument is not to disagreement with that. my argument is that as well is that we need to take action now to help protect us against the terrorism that we have seen on the streets of paris and elsewhere. he asked to questions about how we are supporting the negotiation initiative. we're playing a full part in the foreign secretary, but also funding the work of the united nations envoys who are trying to bring the parties together. who are the troops on the ground, and they are the free syrian army, they are the kurdish forces, and worth that makes it a more complicated picture than iraq where you have the iraq security forces. but these forces we can help them to take and to hold ground and to relieve suffering. you have seen that with what has happened around. important progress can be made. i was very afraid in my statement. of course the true arrival of ground forces awaits the arrival of a new government in syria. that is the best way long-term to eradicate entirely isil. do have that partner. but again the question comes up and we wait for that to happen before we take some action that
will do great isil and great its capability to do us harm? you asked about the long-term reconstruction of syria. we have one of the largest budgets and anywhere in the world. we would be prepared to commit one billion pounds to that sort of reconstruction. the whole world would come together when there is a new government in syria. there are syrian people desperately wanting to go home. they will get the support in britain, but they will get the support of the whole world. >> the prime minister has made a compelling case for alice of both sides of this meaningless international border at the moment. but also for the political process that we can have a voice in of bringing the americans closer to the russians and the saudi's and the turks closer to the radiance. but does he accept that we have to look for whatever agreement can produce stability and a more peaceful situation? and we may have to prepare ourselves for something that falls for short of what a liberal western democracy would look like? is it not the experience of the arab spring that goes straight to democratic elections that does not produce a resolution? evan the agreement is going to have some unpleasant things be involved and not just those who would naturally be our allies? other people may have to be involved because the big enemy
is isil, which is dangerous and which is not possible to engage in any political negotiation? >> i think my right honorable friend speaks with a great amount of wisdom. he is never been an unquestioning supporter of military action and the things through carefully. what he says about the transition that needs to be taking place fall short of some of the democratic norms we want to see. of course that is likely. when i say that i believe assad cannot be part of the long-term government of syria, that is a political preference -- not a statement of political preference but of fact. do i believe that a transition
in syria will produce some perfect democracy, of course it will not. but it might give us a partner with which we can complete the obliteration of isil and make it safer. >> may i remind him that two , the u.s. refugee policy. producers discuss the cia in the crosshairs which talks about the innerworkings of the cia and includes interviews with call for directors of the agency. this is hillary clinton. i want to thank you for letting me speak with you about it issue that is central to our children nature and critical in our fight to restore our economy. solving our nation's health care crisis. >> there is no prescription or
role model for the first lady. >> the future is something that is there every day. it is something that we make. possibilitya good that sometime in the next 20 years we will have a woman president. asshe experienced many roles first lady. they have been political partner since law school. she has endured food from scandals, including his impeachment as she considers a second bid for the white house. hillary clinton, the sunday original series influence an image. examining the public and private lives of those who fill the position of first lady. tv onrican history