tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 30, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
talk about a pair of very important subjects. u.s.-prce relationship, in which he is talking about pessimism, and how thisquestion about impacts on taiwan, whether taiwan can take advantage of disruptions or relations. both of these elements, in my view, are quite important, important not only to the mainland and taiwan but to the united states. sorry, i have an alarm going off. as you know, it has been a difficult time in u.s. and prc relations, but we are about to joe a summit meeting in on
-- in hanjo, and maybe it is optimistic to hope too much, that at least the tone of u.s.-prc relations can be brought down a bit from where it has been in the last few months. i think right now, it is not as bad as it has been, but i don't think the fundamental issues have been resolved either. difficultere's a very situation across the street where -- across the strait where day oldday year -- 100 administration of the government have not found the formula for maintaining stability in that relationship. that comes into play. these are important relationships. the goal is to maintain
stability, to have as , anyructive relationships and all three legs of the triangle as possible. think this is not always easy. it will help guide us in thinking about how we might make our way forward. without further a do, let me introduce the professor from taiwan. thank you. >> thank you very much for coming this afternoon.
and i especially want to thank alan for his unselfish sharing of his personal network with me. thank you for your assistance during my stay here at the stimson center. today, i want to talk about the impact of rising pessimism, of thelly in light tribunal. i think of this kind of relationship currently viewed
should not require an immediate china harsher approach to tougherthe scholars and policy required in order to respond to china's more assertive behaviors or actions. or no action in the short-term should be beneficiary. minutes, iowing 20 will go through the following sections on the screen and the , the incongruent view
between america and china. the second part i would go through the trust and the film part,le and in the third the policy of patients. that is very much a concern. benefiter taiwan can from a deteriorating will be the cost of the relationship. regarding the relationship between china and the united states, i acknowledge most of
the persons i interviewed aboutsed strong concerns the future relations between the on thentries, especially field. i've heard different reasons for these concerns and different views for how washington can adjust its policy. the recent arguments of have basedhina policies failed on this pessimism toward and this illusion with china among think tanks in washington. sure and i will not go
into details about those comments that i will mention that i took from my interviews. this is an aspect turn to this quiet as to how this state is constituted and connected and ideas about trust. i will talk about these ideas first and go through how these ideas interact with each other state ofnce the patients in u.s. china policy.
i conceptualize the relationality -- you have this american western view and on the other hand, you have a chinese view and the cost includes the the confrontation occurs with different views of each other. this is the relationality i found among nationstates that reflects the process in each state and reflects certain values.
that links certain groups of nationstates in the wrong one and prior to community practices newcomers inys the this case, in this case, china, interact with the established community and its rules. between 1972, nixon visits china and at night teen 78, normalized relations that the united states changed its long-standing policy of isolating china to one of engagement, integration and assistance. this changei think represented an effort on the into ane to bring china
existing community of actresses with the expectation that china would accept those practices and act accordingly so as to maintain a relationship with the entire community. that is the american you. the you wanthand, to point out the chinese view of relationality that is different from the american view. it is multilateral in nature.
that means according to traditional chinese thinking, scholars to chinese explain this nature, so this ontological view to treat only issues and not nation states are related with each other. therefore, is it necessary for relatedtionstates to be through practice? it is not necessary. in modern times, china's relations with others are based on the sovereignty systems with both china and the united states force.part of a larger
more than one interviewee this reminder of howstructures change and -- yourd to avoid probably already know this metaphor. interviews were asked to comment on a south china seas are, quite a few people concerned about chinese assertiveness in asia. i think the answer regarding the potential for trust because
chinese assertiveness is viewed as having the responsibility regarding expectations for china. we have strong expectations on how china should pay. theunited states or interviews i come back to believe china should understand issuesown what kind of it should have for the good relations. explains the unhappiness i heard from most of my views regarding the chinese government ruling from the
i have found china has shown many behaviors or actions that u.s. cannot tolerate a top power in asia. china is not reaching that level of latino but no one knows if china will do so in the future. to sum up, whether china toually have enough power challenge the united states is less important than how such
.apacity is interpreted it's very different from the first type. the second is based on one parties judgment about what changes in the other parties material power. in my view, regardless of which , ie of trust is involved lost trust continues to be on the u.s. side if it will reach into a better strategy by those policymakers in washington dc.
and better conditions emerge. we need a reason policy of patients in u.s. policy relations. assure the mutuality, i ist to say the second effect to emphasize the idea of trust. trust is the most important aspect of producing a policy of patients. tolerate uncertainties so set -- as i to prevent mentioned earlier, u.s. trust in
its relations with china involves certain raw expectations. becomes a one way obligation that would be easily interpreted aschinese society as long they struggled to maintain a high level of trust and emphasize a better strategy. i think we did change the one china'st for misdirection. means this is a trust that
practice liberal democracy, free markets and autonomy in its civil society. in my view, i think taiwan will remain an eight sample of how diplomacy can still work when it d rules. on share is second part of the story power relationships that give the united states power to exert control over actions taken
by the taiwanese government. the promise to maintain the status will in these relations. it has immediately asserted the samed that means as taiwan independence. this kind ofue, as astablishes taiwan small power to be used as part of the grand strategies and not any in the first stories. is the potential
confrontation, these perceptions that occurred after 2010 because there is a strong sense in washington dc among that they have that perceived assertions they always offer different reasons to say they are not being assertive. they are perceived as being goertive because now you first and they explained to each other the justifications quite see, the united
fundamental province between the two countries is so hard to understand with each other that it's not about language rights that they can speak english with each other and they have high-level communications between officials but they still have upset and downs. it's always absent downs. that most ofnse the interviews i did, they tried to go for a powerful response to china'ston dc rising assertive behavior and i that shows losing patience
conditions in good and we can relationship between united states and cuba, but how about iraq? because the united states loses patience and tries to respond immutably, the code to intervene iraq. how u.s. example of and i hopes patience i answered your questions. about how doestion i define or think about current relationships, i
question.a very tough you give me two scenarios. the second one i cannot say trump isabout if elected. i was told that only under two , mr. trump will win the election. clinton was assassinated by someone and the second is there is going to be another 911 tragedy in new york. that's two conditions mr. trump will win the election. scenario, i think mrs. clinton is looking quite good right now, i think she's
doing very well and has a good chance to win the election. have consensus and if mrs. clinton one the likelyns, it is highly she will improve for enforce a pivot to asia policy. theory, not increase and not toplomatic mention economic role in the region in the asia-pacific. think that means the united
states government will be much more friendly toward taiwan and welcome taiwan to play an active role in the region. in my own opinion, i think it's toter for the new government try to emphasize. to emphasize the massive economic issues. to deal with taiwan's relationship with neighboring master policyhe the new based on
think taiwan can still pursue this piece policy but the government needs to substance ofhe peace policy in the region that can play. it is probably very abstract but that's the direction i just. a can think about policy in the region but they need to figure out how to articulate it and they need to emphasize economic performance.
has more patience than the united states. that's my observation. i don't think they tried to deal with this issue immediately. g20 tries to construct a chinatmosphere between and the major policy in the solvedut this cannot be overnight. observations, i think the chinese approaches to to the philippines or vietnam. directly to be negotiated
with the united states. for thethey will wait government. because right now, we have a new in the newin taiwan south china policy. the new government in taiwan tries to avoid dealing with the chinese government and leads directly to those southeast asia countries. i'm not optimistic about the result because i think of this
southeast asia countries and they are sensitive to the confrontation in mainland china. even for those countries like thathilippines or vietnam, does not mean they will have more willingness to cooperate, and that is the conclusion of my presentation today -- taiwan can benefit from its role from universal barriers. if taiwan tried to take advantage of the interior rating relations between mainland china there willted dates, be miscalculations.
try to construct a relationship with mainland china. a is hard to play constructive role in the sayingcific, but i'm not the government should always the government of mainland china but i think they need to find new ways to try to improve the current situation between taiwan and mainland china. thank you.
think that's fair for the previous government because the president are for the republic of china. even if that's the birth of the previous government, after you accept the 92 consensus, there's you to negotiate they labored as an expert for negotiations. confident in the negotiation skills that i don't think you should be afraid of negotiation with people from mainland china.
trying to prove the current new not a meansn taiwan to accept the 92 consensus. a signal to one her to go back to the bilateral relationship. maybe you can take it as a joke because some people say it is impossible for mainland china to the taiwan by force but people in the new government should take it the and need to find ways to find people in mainland china, what does that closeecause we have very
action actually caused positive results were negative results -- or negative results were not. probably encouraging me to say taiwan needs to improve the taiwan, u.s. relationship first terms of the known dialogue. mentioned, taiwan can benefit a lot from practicing those international barriers about democracy, human rights, liberal societies. the role they are expected to
>> thank you. thank you very much for this very thorough presentation framework, but i am particularly fascinated your description of the incongruent views relationality between the u.s. and china, and was just thinking that on some level we can use that to describe the current , so maybeelations that is what leads to your description of patients on taiwan parts -- part as well. i am more curious, since we started talking about u.s. strategy in the region generally, and also taiwan's possible, whether you tried
and how itframework might affect china's relation , andnations in the region also what is the status of trust between china and its leaders in the region? >> -- [indiscernible] i think it is a very good question in terms that we also of,d that it is, kind ridiculous -- i mean, because china has tried many effort to show it goodness toward neighboring countries. taiwan, we know these
the diplomatic relations. the chinese government has these the bestand part of many of you know -- even in the neighboring countries, they are mostly about financial support issues. right now, you see these like in the and there are more and more people who are showing distrust with mainland china. more and more people worry about their future, making business with china's government.
have good relations with their people, different countries. so, it is a key issue. your question reminds me of observations i noticed. thank you. >> i am from the u.s.-korea institute. you had said in discussing american election, beijing is waiting and watching. he said he thought hillary clinton had a good chance to get elected, and i can't imagine donald trump elected, but my with whats to do with i hear from my children --
bernie sanders millennial voters. if you requested is elected, the presumption of some of the bernie sanders millennial voters is that hillary clinton is a hawk, much more confrontational , who isident obama somewhat confrontational adverse. with --her statements in hanoi on the freedom of navigation. looking -- look at her statements in 2013 with the japanese foreign minister. andwas about to step down said the islands were under the administration of japan and covered by the mutual defense treaty. now, i am not saying i agree but the bernie sanders voters resistant to voting for hillary clinton worry
she will have a margaret thatcher iron lady approach and she will not want to back down, and as you know, margaret thatcher sank the argentine destroyer. , so is it safe to assume that hillary clinton is elected president that could be a more confrontational phase down -- face down between the united states and china than there has been during the obama administration? hung-jen wang: they give her for your question -- it is very important here you are right -- it is absolutely right. the observation. how the clinton government will toughly play a much more
china policy compared with that of the current obama administration. i think you are right. actually, i just wrote a book an is -- published by -- advisor to hillary clinton just published a new book and come tod how clinton the idea of the important role of asia. can read the book to see more details, -- you can read the book to see more details, but originally, it to asia, revamp vot to asia,
rebalancing policy, was a good idea to put more resources from the middle east to asia because we should -- not only china, but asian countries -- south korea, japan, philippines, vietnam, so risinghey are promising, countries in asia, especially in terms of economic things. so, that is a good economic policy, originally. in the end, unfortunate, it was perceived by many people as a power targeting china's equal to the containment policy so, i think many -- the key point is those national security advisers to hillary elected,to convince
they need to -- if hillary clinton is elected, they need to advise -- actually, hillary clinton herself is much more assertive herself and her advisers who pull her back to a middle way to have more dialogue and communication and that will personalize relationships to countries that are very. -level ranking official communication is important between the two countries to that point is missing in the current obama administration. nownterviews tell me right the obama government actually compare with that in the george w. bush period. close,t have this high-ranking official
communication the conference. -- between the countries. that kind of information i was told by one of my interviewees. building up the initial relationship between two countries through personalized channels would be quite important. i mean, to clarify those means something to show their goodness. is kind of the way to event the possible -- prevent the from a newrsh policy government in united states. come up with a way to prevent that tragedy for happening. >> with the last question, going back to the response on the patients,aised about
i would like your reaction to -- the point that i would like to raise is that patients depends on the situation -- the ability to maintain patients. comparedple of cuba, iraq needs more -- and contrasting it with a rock needs more analysis. the -- we had gone through missile crisis and were facing that situation -- was not a threat, basically. it was a have a contentious political issue in united states, but it was not a threat to basic u.s. interests. at least that is not my impression. i think what happened in the middle east potentially was. i mean, a lot of people thought there was a nuclear threat involved, and then the whole stability of the middle east, which is viewed in united states as of central strategic importance. the same thing could be said about asia.
whole reason for the rebalance was because there was a sense that the u.s. had not engaged sufficiently in the economic,re it political, diplomatic, and security interests were deeply engaged and were going to be for the foreseeable future, as far as you want it to look. so, the perception of many didle was that what china in creating these artificial islands was to raise a potential security threat to u.s. interests. the islandas building, construction on the artists, and the question of authorization or not. so, as you look the question of the ability you see
or the desirability of maintaining patients depending on the nature of the situation, and whether in fact, if you're just looking at the u.s., it is seen as posing a potential threat to vital u.s. interests? thank you very much. it is a really tough question. i think you are right. it depends on the situation, but in my mind, i think it also depends on one's willingness to .se one's capability maker, rely on a policy especially the leaders of the country, the leaders of the party both in china and the united states.
if they want to use this capacity immediately or not. maybeample, you mentioned there is much more deep analysis of the middle east and iraq, but if my information is correct, i know that donald rumsfeld was accused of making up a story actually, the country was find out to not have mass destruction weapons. rumsfeld refused to say he knew of these events. people -- if the people in the pentagon knew that iraq actually did not have these mass destruction weapons before
they launched a war with iraq -- actually, they just use patients to decide to do that -- that is always drawing attention for their own reasons and their own interests to want to respond immediately, and as you can see from the chinese side, i think itt is, kind of -- i mean, is depending on the judgment of the decision-makers. whether they want to exercise their power or capacity to deal with their situation. thesee the judgment about decision-makers, and so far you can see from the chinese side, even if you mentioned these artificial items, they also have these because they are not the first to do artificial islands.
of pushed china to way.nd in an -- equal way. for example, putting aside disputes and have common construction -- this is, kind policyolution of patient to try to solve the issues. to, kind of, avoid the sensitive political issues. i mean, that is, kind of, for ,xample to show you -- kind of an example to show you.
many people show you that the chinese leader has a different personality, and that means he iobably will not like -- mean, those people who have mush patients about the south china sea, about the taiwan issue. it always depends on the judgment. clintonple, hillary relies on judgment, having more patience to wait for better conditions to come or not. includesudgment information about the situation. one more question. wait until you get the microphone, please. >> from all of his interviews, is anyone offered you a more
optimistic view -- what was there a reason? it sounds so pessimistic. hung-jen wang: i think one or two people expressed as optimistic view with certain conditions. they would say as long as chinese government -- changes xi changess long as behavior, the party reforms itself, as long as the chinese democraticbecomes a party -- they have many conditions. honest, they will be very mutual. they do not talk about pessimistic or optimistic. most of the people i interviewed just answered that they have this pessimistic view, and for
those reasons you can refer to the two articles i mentioned to you. the new article in the new book about china's future -- those two pieces, actually they can give you more information to help people here in washington, d.c., they have this worrying, and what this worry comes from, and what the results for this pessimism is. that is the part i did not theion in my today, but point is mostly from 2010, 2000 risingat is received power from china, and declined power from the notices. that is perceived -- from the united states. that is perceived among think tanks from scholars in d.c.. mr. romberg: any more questions?
please. >> we have been focused almost entirely on east asia, but today the news is about a terrorist bombing -- bombing of a chinese embassy. ended,e cold war expected that the united states would involve in a war in for years? extending that is where we are. are we looking in the wrong 's future china security threats? hung-jen wang: thank you very much. it is another tough question.
think thetent i answer is yes. strategy, this. selfof -- we call this a prophecy theory -- i mean, the post. is what you better result of because of your better policy -- the strategy from the united states. is very impolite to say so, but i think it is wrong in terms of -- too many people, who have these bad memories about policies, especially those people in asia, they have these entertainment -- education systems -- is better memories
about world war ii, the chin thisty, interfering in intervening in domestic policy, people suffering a lot from isdom powers, even if it with good intention, such as human rights issues, you know, to try to promote a certain code, use of policies, but for some people in asia, especially china,are in mainland they don't like this universal variable applied to asia. that is the reason why they tried to promote these ideas to respect each other's sovereignty, but what they really want to say is to respect each other's cultural history, and different philosophical thinking is, and so on.
i think that is the main point. the reason why most of the chinese people -- they cannot accept, or they receive any goodness from the united states will be an intervention in their life or political systems. practice,ou go to most people would say yes. i think some people actually speak from the heart. because they have at least memories of the histories. i do not know if i answered your question or not, but it is a complicated question talk about a potential confrontation, not only between china and the united states, but many countries in asia and the wisdom
countries, actually. you have provided us with a lot of food for thought, and i want to thank you. i want to thank everyone here for coming. [applause] hung-jen wang: thank you very much. inc. you. -- thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
u.s.-china relations available in our video library on c-span.org. president'sd of trip to china. back in the united states on tuesday, the last tuesday in august, but there are primaries in a couple of states and we are focused this evening on a couple -- the arizona senate race, and the house is with debbie .asserman schultz in particular, we will have results, can sessions -- concession, victory speeches. keeping an eye on some of those races from twitter, kelly o'donnell with nbc has been following john mccain today -- caught up with john mccain and cindy mccain at their polling place in arizona. sen. mccain: thanks again. we voted. we are looking for a good turnout.
we have been inspired by so many of our young interns, well over 200 of them that have been working incredible hours, getting out the vote, and that is why we are very confident about the outcome today, and we towardrward to moving the election in november, but this group of young people has certainly inspired us. kelly: what you think of the biggest factors today? opponent isin's kelly ward, a practicing physician who says do you feel safer because 80-year-old john mccain has been in the u.s. senate for 30 years? in florida, debbie wasserman schultz's opponent -- here she is saying it is election day, touting some of her endorsements. is tim canova and
reporters caught up with him. mr. canova: a beautiful day. today.n is to win we have a lot of folks mobilizing all over the district. it is going great. >> how confident are you you have the support, the moment and you need? canova: i'm- mr. very confident it we have a lot of fieldworkers knocking the pavement -- pounding the pavement for weeks. it is a great grassroots campaign command is nothing like it. >> what do you see as the in portraits of this race? mr. canova: it is contrasting two different missions and models of what the democratic party is about. debbie wasserman schultz has been steeped in corporations and wall street backing, and has been looking after their interest and of the people of south florida.
our campaign is different -- we do not take money from corporate interests. none of our packs are super pac's. it leaves is free to represent the people. on issue after issue, we are here to address people's real needs. >> you consider yourself the underdog in this? mr. canova: welcome everyone does, but i think we are going to shock people today. >> with voting today, what are your hopes for getting people out to vote? mr. canova: i'm hoping for the solar amendment and getting people to vote on 4. we're asking people to vote by mail -- it is already a big turnout. i think it will help us. >> rain, whether? mr. canova: i took a quick look, and it sounds like the sun will be coming out today. the sun will be shining out on us. a new day will dawn for florida'. quite something else -- politics. >> anything else you want to add?
mr. canova: just glad to have my parents out here. >> again, coverage of those arizona and florida races. with aes happy today story that is trying a lot of attention from federal and state officials. times" --ne in "your the "new york times" fbi director james comey had more to say about that at an event in washington. hacku mentioned the sony in one of the reasons it was considered a significant event was that it was a foreign entity attack a constitutionally protected speech. now we have confirmation that potentially foreign actors have conducted intrusion on to state issues, and how would you characterize a situation
like that and as we head into the november actions, is this something that would require immediate action on behalf of the federal government particularly dea just? thank you. it won't surprise you i will not give an answer that touches on any particular matter we are looking at. i will say this -- we take very seriously any effort by any after, including nationstates -- especially nationstates, that moves beyond a collection of information about our country and that offers the prospect of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country, whether that is an election or anything else. it is something they take very seriously and work hard to understand so they can equip the rest of the government with options for how to deal with it. availablethat event
at c-span.org. also later in the schedule -- the issue of hacking could be one of the many things members of congress talk about when they return a week from today. they have toertain take up the zika funding measure when they are back. also, expected work on defense programs and policy, and a federal budget. the fiscal year ends on september 30, a month from today. our congressional preview program is coming up on thursday night -- this thursday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. members of congress, meanwhile, on the campaign trail and in their home districts. in been keeping an ion many of them as they are campaigning, working in their districts, and literally working in the case of retweetings, here one of his constituents saying i found my congressman mark madden -- mark meadows bagging groceries at harrow supermarket. task task for -- a tougher in construction -- marc veasey
running the front end loader to work on the construction site there in texas. one former member of congress not apparently doing much work at all but enjoying the rest of the summer is former house speaker john boehner. >> and you can follow more congressional tweets and look where our members of congress list. coming up next, we will bring you a debate on the issue of national security and terrorism -- the issues of national security and terrorism. it includes author lawrence wright. we do want to let you know some viewers might find some of the language here offensive.
>> good evening and welcome to the village underground debate. let's make some noise. you will be presented with an expert panel on terrorism. now, let's hear from our moderator, karen greenberg. [applause] karen: in 14 years of doing panels on terrorism and 9/11, this is a first. i am very curious about how it is going to go. we can have a little debate about that at the end. in a few weeks, it is going to be 15 years since 9/11. the country, rightfully, is beginning to reflect on what these 15 years have been all about. this is a timely panel.
the question before us is different people have voices, has terrorism changed the american way of life? i think we will expand that a little bit tonight to talk about what did 9/11 do to the country as we knew it or as we thought we knew it? that is what we are here to debate. who knows? maybe we can come to a consensus on it. i want to start with a couple of caveats. if you live in new york, 9/11 changed at least the landscape. for us, this is something we live with every day visually. a lot of things have changed since 9/11, not just terrorism. the rise of china, the internet,
which is the big player we are not talking about tonight, and i'm hoping we will get to some of those issue so we can have a more expansive, perhaps less focused, but more interesting, debate. let me introduce you to our panel. to my left we have a canadian -- [applause] everyone will be moving there. he was attracted to extremism when he was young, many years ago in a prior century. later became, after spending time in syria in the late 20th century, has spent his life working to de-radicalized others. to work with others to understand what radicalization is about and how to counter
that. next to me is mia bloom. she has done spectacular work -- [applause] spectacular work on what we need to know about terrorism. what motivates them? her first book that got a lot of attention was on suicide bombers. she has a new book coming out. it is coming out next year called "small arms: children in terror." to my left -- to my far right is malcolm nance. he is known to most of you as a frequent commentator. he has written numerous books. he teaches counterterrorism,
worked in the field for 35 years. he has worked in iraq. he has a new book, considered by many as the bible of what isis is all about. it is called "defeating isis." [applause] finally, we have my very good friend and colleague lawrence wright, his book is out today. could not be more timely given the 15 year anniversary. it is a compilation of many things he has written on terrorism, extremism, counterterrorism.
so beautifully written. you should read this one. we are doing a lot of things tonight and one of them is celebrating the publication of that book. let's get started. [applause] let's get started. we will start with the big question. i will try to bring it down to smaller questions. if i can see you, i will do a q&a. the big question is -- has terrorism -- is terrorism or has terrorism changed our way of life? i will start with malcolm. i would not say it exactly like that. i will not say anything.
go ahead, malcolm. malcolm: i will take less than a few minutes to discuss the issue. is terrorism -- has terrorism changed our way of life? i am a black guy. [laughter] you might have noticed. who speaks arabic. you can pretty much figure out what i did for 35 years. before 9/11, even though i was deeply involved in some of the activities leading up to 9/11 -- i am sorry. these microphone things, i usually wear them. i ran an al qaeda simulation group for several years.
i was outside the pentagon and saw an airplane fly into the pentagon on the morning of 9/11. up until that point, terrorism was a very tangible but remote quantity for the american public. something that you heard about every once in a while. it was not really into the first attack that may or may not of been attributed to al qaeda or the iranians, in 1995. even within the military and the department of defense, even beirut, when it happened, killed all cia operatives in that
country that day, nine people. having a meeting inside that building. even the beirut barracks bombing, the second american embassy bombing. these things did not have the impact on american society. until about the 1995 bomb. those of us who were in counterterrorism operations, we all knew something was very wrong, right? everybody would go back to this continuum, that was a fluke. the day after the american embassy bombing in 1983, the first thing i was told about the guy who drove a truck into the side of the building and blew it up was it was a disgruntled person who had lost family in the lebanese civil war.
the next thing that was said about it, it was a fluke. leading up to 1995, no one really cared. even the first world trade center bombing in new york city, a guy who was an early al qaeda ringer who had been assigned to a special mission with amateurs here to blow up the first world trade center and make the building lean like five degrees. he was also a guy who ruined a great period of my life. it took years before we actually captured him. just one of those things. anyway, that guy is british. until we suddenly started realizing we needed to protect our armed forces and when needed to protect the nation from what was growing in the early 1990's. the global jihad movement. that is all we knew it as. by 1996, it was turning to form
a little bit better. the fbi had renamed the gjm. the global jihad movement. that is all we knew it as. by 1996, it was turning to form a little bit better. the fbi had renamed the gjm. the organization of the headquarters of the holy war, which they called for short al qaeda. while we were starting to deploy people overseas and get a firmer
idea of who al qaeda was in 1996, 1997 we had the kenya and tanzania embassy bombings. that is when things started to change for the american public. and then we had the attack on the uss cole and the 9/11 changed everything. i was outside the pentagon on 9/11. i was literally sitting right next to the lincoln memorial staring out at arlington cemetery and i saw an airplane fly over the sheraton in arlington. the plane just glided right into the building and blew up. i meet people all the time who swear to god that did not happen. 9/11 truthers.
i went over to the crash site and i worked that site, helping people all day. that was the definitive event. the fight of united 93 defending our nation in flight, giving their lives to save the united states capital. this is beyond pearl harbor. pearl harbor, we could expunge it with a war. we are in a longer war and the dynamics are changing much more rapidly and we are having so much blowback from what we are doing. no one is going back to september 10, 2001. our way of life is never going back to that place. we can strive to make ourselves better. we can strive to resolve these issues. the fact that you are all here in the room tells you how deeply
things have changed. i could not get five people unless they were sent to me on orders with the dm -- with per diem. now all of you will listen to us because our way of life has changed. can we change it back? no. can we manage it to make it more useful? can we determine all of the crosshairs that have occurred? i blocked the hell out of september 11. i knew exactly what was happening that day. as soon as i saw the second airplane fly into that building. i ran into the third cruise missile.
i heard the fourth cruise missile crashed in pennsylvania. that is called asymmetric warfare. that is the enemy doing judo with your -- exploiting your weakness. granted, the only thing that is going to stop this from happening in the future is our lack of imagination and superseding our lack of imagination through education. rhetoric, stupidity, shouting at people, banning a religion only creates more terrorists. [applause] which is another way this
country has changed irrevocably since 9/11. there were mosques in the united states before 9/11. that is the way things are these days. your education starts right here with lawrence wright. what more can you get out of me? [applause] lawrence: do you want me to go next? karen: i want you to talk about the irrevocable part. lawrence: a friend of mine in the audience said, are you here for the terrorism or the comedy? [laughter]
i will do what i can. i will tell you a little story. when i was in high school, in 1965, in dallas, texas, i had a date and i did not have any money. we went to the airport. the airport is still called love field. we walked out on the tarmac and we got into an american airlines flight that had just come in from paris and we sat in the first class section. the stewardess brought us a snack and we pretended to be cosmopolitans and we went up to the faa tower. open the door, it was unlocked. hey, kids, come in.
we watched the planes circling the airport. that america is dead. terrorism killed it. most of the people in this room, they do not know that america or are too young to remember what that was like. in my lifetime, that was the america i grew up with. yes, all of these changes that we have had to make in our society in terms of security and defense and the intrusions into privacy, these are horrible compromises in the way of life we were accustomed to living. and maybe those are prices we have to pay. if we forget that america, i think terrorism really will have won in some profound way.
i had to do a number of interviews and when you go into an office building, you get your picture made. if you are in philadelphia and you want to visit the liberty bell, you have to take off your shoes and belts. this is not the way it used to be. the memory of that is disappearing. we have to hold that as our north star to where we want to go, where we want to return once again because that was precious. that is what our founders created for us. we cannot let that go. if you think about our founders, they were fighting against the superpower of that era and they came up with the constitution that had all these freedoms
built into it. we have to remember who we are and what we stand for. [applause] karen: this is the side of it has changed our world. you guys did a great job as far as the geopolitical framework. it is up to you to tell us how terrorism did not change our way of life. i cannot wait to hear this. mubin: i did an impromptu survey of the people here. i wanted to say that it is good to be debating, having this
discussion in the first place. has america changed? for sure, the world has changed. it has ripped our world apart. it will remain so for a long time. is it a threat to the american way of life? i remember where i was on 9/11. to be able to hear that and know that. federal agent o'connor, they did a lot of the forensics at the pentagon. tuesday morning, i was driving to my workplace. my story starts in 1995. i will be very quick.
born and raised in toronto, indian family, went to koran school in the evening time. by daytime, i am going to public school. a caring, nurturing environment. by the time i got to middle school and high school, i was not bullied. we were the cool kids. the cheerleaders were our friends, so cliche. i had a house party. my parents were gone. my uncle walks in on the party. he completely freaked out, of course. i had defiled the home. people pray here.
as people fled the home, i thought, how can i make this right? in 1995, i was in pakistan. i had a chance encounter with the taliban. i saw some bearded robed guys. some religious guys, i want to talk to them. they had machine guns, ammunition belts. ok. and the group that i was with -- and a political group -- i would defend them from accusations of the conveyor belt -- i'm sure people use that as a front. they said no to change the world you should pray and be more
observant muslims. this said no, you do it with this, and he picked up his ak-47. he said we will come we are fighting them now. we will come to power it when i got back in september of 1995, the taliban did what they said they were going to i took that as a validation of their worldview. i fell into extremist groups in the global jihadist movement. it was this idea of this grievance-based ideology. ideology without grievances does not resonate. and grievances without ideology are not acted upon. in 1998 i get married. i have a polish wife. [laughter] she is a convert. i went to high school with her -- anyway. 9/11 happened. i hear on the radio a plane has hit the building.