tv Discussion Focuses on U.S. Policy Toward Syria CSPAN November 2, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
for those problems the constitution provides the solution with state representatives representatives in congress getting together and vote to pass a law to set national policy on the interstate issue agreed to give up a measure of their own solvency in favor of the uniform system. what happens when a state attempts to go back on that bargain by implementing a different policy thereby imposing externalities on other states? @examiner hamilton-- alexander hamilton said to solve this problem was the great and radical bias of the articles of federation. ..
a. >> when we speak of federalism we don't use it as merely a code for a blind pursuit of states' rights but rather seek application of the constitution spells the power between the state and federal government. and to be sure in recent years it's been more often than not the federal government which has been exceeding those bounds we must to lose sight of the fact federalism was made to restrict states as well. i think it's useful to have this view in mind would think about the legal and structural applications of the controlled substances act and states efforts to authorize marijuana production, commercialization and use. the states represented congress got together and agreed to ban marijuana for all users nationwide because it determine marijuana is the substance
injuries to the public south, and heavily trafficked between states. it was an interstate problem that states agreed needed a national solution. this agreement congress concluded entirety of the colorado allegation. it contained specific finding that stated the controlled local possession, growth and distribution of controlled substances was necessary to control the interstate trafficking of drugs. and so in the supreme court's decision it was premised on the idea that they could constitutionally prohibit these interstate activities because anything with exemption was undermined the ban on interstate trafficking. now certain states have chosen to renege by taking a from the steps great and marijuana market for the express purpose of profiting off of that billion dollar industry. all thall the while the mayor wo bring traffic to other states causing precisely the type of harm the states to congress were trying to prevent. it cannot be said what's taking place on the ground in colorado
and other states is what congress intended to happen when it enacted a complete and total nationwide ban. i get i think this creates a single situation where there exists an unresolved tension between federal and state law wilboth enjoy irreconcilable coexistence for the time being. this leads several courts with a host of questions to answer. can the state create a structure to the state and market made legal by existing federal statute? tested create a property interest in federal contraband? can take a profit objectivity is through tax revenue as colorado did even though the activities are banned by federal statute? and if the federal executive branch decides to acquiesce to such activity can't of the state seek to preserve the union under federal law and vindicate the national policy from which those states once enjoyed the benefit?
of course there are will establish ways to change national policy. it could be appealed. or if they decide to give a strong decided and unconstitutional for congress to make a local marijuana growth and consumption. were marijuana to be reclassified, which d.a. decided that's best not to do. the question is can the csa be dismantled by piecemeal nullification as state after state decides to part from the national labor policy. and other legal issues emerge as well as the professor pernell because the prohibition has been national policy for so long an entire legal structure has been directed based on the presumption erewhon it is by law alyssa. potential put state and federal is to remain many other leading pashtun legal questions arise. in banking, and taxation, and implement them in legal ethics. you can add to that in firearms in order to purchase a farm you
to go into law before the ask to ask you do you use illicit drugs? if you say yes, you can't get that firearm. in housing and public benefits you generally can use federally illegal drugs in public housing which causes a different impact on people who are dependent on federal benefits. this is a sampling of the many questions the federal judiciary will be forced to confront if the status quo on the coexistence of these conflicting state and federal laws is allowed to remain. of course, none of these questions posed much of the problem is the larger question whether our constitutional structure permits a state t to a from the authorized and licensed activity prohibited by federal law is answered in the negative. so it is the question about the nature of our federal system which is both the most interesting and the most pressing question of the legal issues surrounding marijuana confronts the federal courts today. >> that is why this is the great issue for our academics up here. i'd like our two professors to
react some of what differed from the other speakers. in particular i would appreciate your comments on the issue whether it's drug trafficking to other states, a rise in crime come if that's true, of what the data show in colorado and maybe some other externalities on social services such as growth in homeless does come if there's any data that would support that. once been the consequences of this new big market? >> maybe i can jump in on the externality point. i think there's a valid point that's been made. certainly if colorado or any other state legalizes marijuana it's going to have an effect outside that state. and that is a classic collective action problem. but there's a proper way to deal with that. in the past what congress has done is it's essentially free ride off of state law enforcement. state law enforcement has
handled 90, maybe with a 90% of marijuana cases. congress benefited. states benefit from that when colorado was policing its prior prohibitions. now call about under the states have no obligation to continue doing that. any more than oklahoma or wyoming have an obligation to expand medicaid or to ban firearms that the federal government prohibits that state law does not. the proper way for congress to deal with it is to pass new legislation, spending legislation that would ramp up federal enforcement. you can't force the state to go out and policemen are one of but nothing to states have done to prevent congress from stepping in and hiring thousands more dea agent, trying to replace the work that states use to due process for the federal government. >> before you begin your comments i would like to take some questions from the audience.
i know you are interested in the topic. after we wrap this up we do have some mic's interim so feel free to ask some questions. >> thank you for that. i'm not surprised i agree with my friend rob on this. you mentioned the csa can't be dispelled by piecemeal legalization of the states. the csa still love limpers the reason people operating growth facility interest interest in colorado is because the national law enforcement agencies have chosen not to enforce the controlled substances act and the national legislature has said at a force that cannot take place against medical marijuana dispensers. the federal government has the power and capacity to end of this experiment whenever it chooses. the reason it has not done so if i think a policy decision that the experiments in the state should be allowed to continue. the states are under no obligation to enforce federal law.
they are under no obligation to pass prohibition under their own state laws and they're under no obligation to leave those provisions in place. the thing we're really arguing about is as the oklahoma and nebraska breeze in the supreme court indicated, the only thing we're arguing about is the regulatory tax regime that others have put into place. the question is would they be better off if they were dismantled? the answer is almost certainly no, that if marijuana were legal but not regulated in colorado, i think i would have far more negative repercussions for oklahoma or wyoming or nebraska or kansas that our current regime. as your questions about measuring, it's hard in this area. so, for example, one of the things we hear is that compared to driving arrests have gone up in colorado. i have no reason to doubt that's true but it's important to remember that colorado little
agents are being trained now more than they were before to identify instances of impaired driving attributable to marijuana. much the same way the increased awareness of sexual assault during the 1980s might have been seen to less sexual assault, in fact the arrest rates would've because law enforcement was taken up or strictly as a concerned. and you saw more willingness on the part of law enforcement to take seriously those complaints and to prosecute within. i think we are seeing something similar with regard to this context. >> we are going to get a new u.s. attorney general in january in all likelihood. what do you think the consequences would be of an attorney general who made enforcement a priority with to some of the policy guidance that the state is operating under? >> i think that that is a question of political will and not one of law. clearly the attorney general has
the authority and responsibility to enforce federal law to the country. the attorney general and her predecessor have taken the position that there should be deference. there's nothing to prevent rather than section five fortitude, and which of wisely to medical marijuana, nothing to prevent a new attorney general from changing policy and attorney general chris christie might do something. >> he said colorado when his campaign, smoke them if you got them. because when i am president is going to go away. >> washington the audience? >> in colorado we've got 300 -- [inaudible] colorado a 300, maybe a little more, campaign cash in the marijuana business and yet the state takes its revenues that it receives from the marijuana business and puts it in the bank
i understand the legal labyrinth we're talking about but based on just the finances, isn't the horse out of the barn on this? isn't this going to be driven by financing market concerns and allow will be trying to catch up? >> i don't know if that was directed at me. i think look, i think you see -- >> it wasn't directed to you. >> you know, part of the reason that i mean the 64 was enacted in the preamble is in the view of the people it was a wise use of state resources to deal with this issue in this way. certainly tax revenue was a significant part of that. the bargain was, we take an industry that's driving in the shadows and bring it into a
regulated framework, and would take a slice of that like we would any legitimate business. i think apparently that public policy argument has been resonating. i think it will continue to expand. what i look forward to as a lawyer is when california finally legalizes recreational marijuana. i think it might decide to do this year. it had tested the waters before colorado took that step, and once the sixth largest economy in the entire world becomes a recreational state, i think it will be difficult as a legal, practical and as a financial matter to do what governor christie suggested he might do had he made it through the primaries, which is change course after really now we've got five years, or is longer than that, almost coming up on a decade and since colorado and other states have begun commercialize, regulated supply
chains for marijuana. i don't understand how you can clean the walk back to that and go back to 1990 5-4 states started going down this path. the other party they want and what you think is very fascinating about the way the csa operates and in a bit of response to deputy solicitor's comments and, the csa is commerce legislation to put that means is the csa operates against individual people. it doesn't operate against the state. and other regulatory frameworks in medicaid, for example, there are clashes between the states and the federal government all the time about what the laws me another should be permitted, whether not the state of living up to their end of the bargain. that's simply not have the 60 work. the csa says federal government, we will create crimes that you may enforce. states make one operate. they can enforce the csa. that's probably why we haven't
seen so much case law on the preemption issue and why it hasn't been flushed out the way it is and medicaid context where you've got constant interactions on that dimension. so it's a fascinating area. i don't necessarily agree the way it is played out this sort of contrary to notions of federalism. congress has an immense tools to tamp down federalism when it wishes to the it has huge budgetary muscle to wield against states when it wants states to do certain things that we face of all time as state officials. the csa as a different kind of legislation and that's frankly why i see this fascinating unresolved body of issues that oklahoma was pointing out, which i look forward to the resolution one way or the other. >> yes, sir.
>> the controlled substances act, the legislation that results in the scheduled of drugs, right, and since 1992, i think professor mikos said, the physicians in various states have had some kind of authority to recommend or, you know, the use of marijuana for individuals. has the drug enforcement agency thought about the rescheduling of the drug in the context of a variety of positions throughout the nation recommending it,
contrary to the dea's scheduling of it? >> i'll try to be quick. so there'd been at least three instances over the last 20 years where the dea has revisited the scheduling question. it has authority under the controlled substances act to move marijuana to a different schedule. on each of those occasions including just a few weeks ago and dea refused to move marijuana. i think the main reason is that the main difference between i.d.e.a. view of the drug and the state medical rogue states the of the drug is that the dea requires a different type of evidence. it does want anecdotal evidence. it does what practices by physicians. it wants to see large scale research study the effects of this drug and demonstrate the amounts the benefits of the drug. even though there's been a lot of research done on marijuana the last 20 years, that has meant anything, any scientific
research that's not the gold standard that the dea requires. so it's a constant refrain, show us studies. don't you show us anecdotes and practices from physicians. [inaudible] >> they moved away from -- schedule one. just a couple very quick things. sort of double blind studies that shows benefits of marijuana. it's more possible now that the dea has said they will make, people do want to grow marijuana for the purpose of engaging in that. furthermore, i will say the refusal of the dea to reschedule marijuana has consistently
upheld by courts that look at whether it's in d.c. or the ninth circuit. the final thing, a small point but you said since 1992, the opportunity to recommend marijuana to patients, that opportunity comes from the first amendment and not from the activity state. that's what the ninth circuit held. the decision was a physician cannot be precluded from recommending what she believes is a beneficial course of action to her client and a boroughs in that context from a number of abortion cases which said the doctors couldn't recommend that from the patient's. >> please join me in thanking our panelists for their presentations. [applause] >> more libra to the white house coverage today on c-span. president obama campaigns for hillary clinton at the university of north carolina in chapel hill. that starts at 2 p.m. eastern. polls over the last week show
donald trump with a small lead in north carolina. and donald trump will be hold a rally today in orlando, florida, at 4 p.m. where polls show a very close race as well with him slightly ahead in several national and state polls gathered recently by real clear politics. both campaigns are out with some new ads. we will show those to you and then learn more about
the presidential race in north carolina. >> putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing. >> when i come home and an estimate i go through the roof your. >> grabbed him by the -- >> when you are a star you can do it. you can do anything. >> more a kid is coming for to say there were sexual assaulted by donald trump. >> i will go backstage before showing it when it's getting
dressed. >> donald trump walked in while contestants some agenda 15 were changing. >> you see these incredible looking women. i would look a right into that ugly face. she ate like a pig a persons flat-chested is hard to be a 10. >> do you treat women with respect? >> i can't say that either. >> all right, good.
>> i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> our health care system is failing. >> with premiums increasing 74%. >> doctors like us now spend more time on paperwork and less time with her patients. >> donald trump is ready to change this. >> is plan creates a system centered on our patients. >> he will provide more choices with high quality at low cost. >> that's why doctors like us are choosing donald trump.
>> at the clinton foundation, 90%, 90% of all the money that is donated on behalf of programs of people around the world. speed and what did their own irs filings show? less than 6% went to program to nation's but 7.8 money was spent on travel, 12.4 million on conferences and over $34 million on salaries and benefits. if this is what hillary does with her own charity imagine what she will do from the white house. >> agile observer.com this is the headline. campaigns converge on north carolina in the final week before election day to join us on the phone from charlotte is jim morrill a reporter for the charlotte observer. thanks very much for being with us. white house carolina become such a battleground state? >> caller: it's a turn from a red state over the years to a purple state and part of that is due to demographic changes. he got a lot of people moving down from the northeast and a
lot of millennials moving to urban areas like charlotte and raleigh and the triangle. and the politics have become more moderate i guess. used 11 urban-rural divide with a lot of the old jesse kratz, people used to vote for jesse helms, used to be democrats are now republicans and a lot of them in rural areas and in the urban areas are pretty blue just like across the country. >> host: with the president making to this to the state this week, donald trump in north carolina on thursday, what is the message and who are they appealing to? >> caller: well, i think donald trump is appealing to the people that he has to appeal to most of his rallies to contact he's having a rally in a rural area near charlotte that is in the same arena where he's already had one rally this year. he's going back to his stronghold which is rural north carolina, again it's those jesse
kratz turned republicans who are the base of his support. i'm president obama is going to chapel hill which is in the heart of the triangle which is a college town, a lot of young people, young voters, and then he's also going to fayetteville and charlotte. fayetteville is also has some college presidents and, of course, military presence and a large african-american presents. we don't know but the venues are yet but this is a big urban area with a lot of comedy carried by 1000 votes four years ago. >> host: based on early find what indication do you have on overall turnout in north carolina? >> caller: turnout is high. there's about 2 million people have already voted. the people that look at this stuff expected there to be about 60% of the voters of the overall voters voting early either by absentee ballot or in person early voting. what the patterns are showing us
so far is democrats are a little under their 2012 performance, republicans are a little bit over the 2012 performance. and independence, unaffiliated voters are up like a third from what they were in 2012. so i don't think anybody's quite sure what that means. >> host: basin all the analysis that we've been following with regard to electoral college, the general sentiment seems to be that north carolina is a state that hillary clinton would very much like to win. for donald trump it's a must win state. you agree with that? >> caller: that's been the conventional wisdom. if clinton wins it it's really a flip of 30 electoral votes, right? 15 that she would've gotten and 15 that he would not have gotten which is, could be significant. and although lately you are hearing that he is other paths to victory come and maybe it's not as important. but we like to think it is an you know, he has certainly been there a lot.
both candidates and their vice presidential nominees have all been over north carolina. it's been a busy year for all of us host the north carolina voters make a lot of choices. you have a hobby contested governor's race and the senate race has become far more competitive. >> caller: definitely. nobody expected this and raised to be that competitive because democrats, couple democrats who are more prominent turn down the race, and deborah ross who was kind of a little-known legislator from raleigh became the nominee. she's run a strong race, and it's pretty competitive. a lot of polls show it within the margin of error. we had a poll last week it came out children within two points of richard burr, senator byrd the republican. we have a very competitive could erase. >> host: give us a sense of the demographics of north carolina. when the returns are coming in
what would you be looking forward to determine trends on the presidential level but also in these closely watched statewide races? >> caller: i think i will be looking for turnout figures in the urban areas in the wake in mecklenburg county, raleigh and charlotte as well as winston-salem area and queensboro. and also the rural returns to see what the turnout is in those areas which is trump country. i think those are the areas and in the suburbs. if the suburbs are tending to be more blue than they normally are, that would be a bad sign for trump. referred a lot about suburban women, those of us will be an area to watch husband we will look for your report online at shah observer online and jim morrill who is a writer, thank you very much for being with us. >> caller: my pleasure. thank you, steve. >> on election day november 8, a nation decides our next president and which party
controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump and their surrogates. anthology house and senate races with her coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> after came up with this idea, i did research information because this is the case with a lot of pieces that will be done for this competition but mental illness especially. is a complicated issue but it's not black and white and it's a multifaceted that i had to research to get a base knowledge of what i wanted to talk about. obviously, there was a lot of, its so-called likud i can't talk about all inside the seven minutes. >> i had a broad topic and i thought it would be nice to have a focal point to focus on.
before even started doing for my parents, before what i got clips, before started shooting i researched this topic extensively. >> this is my dad's pharmacy. i talked to my mom and our colleagues and coworkers and, of course, did a lot of internet research. i actually went to the library. >> a lot of internet research to find more like fax and data and statistics about employment with development disabilities to see really what was going on. >> this is the information i got off of the internet came from government founded websites, so that's telling you that most of the information that i was getting was legitimate. ..
the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students in 53 teachers and the grand prize of $5000 will go to the student are a team with best overall injury. this year's deadline is january 20th, 2017. so mark your calendars and halt the spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to our website, students cam.org. live now to a forum on potential u.s. policy options and the area with specialists talking about the importance of defeating ices rather than removing syrian president assad. hosted by the center for national interests, live coverage on c-span2.
>> everything is being recorded for eternity. i am jacob powell from, the editor of the national interest. our cover story, the current issue is by robert kaplan who is a senior fellow at the center for new american security. and bob's piece is titled america's assad quandary. i was being very solicited of bob's welfare and choosing that and choosing that title as he strenuously implored me not to choose a click of a title such as we need to rescue assad or how to prop up assad. more sophisticated than not is an examination of the quandaries that america faces and the possible dilemma that would
result from an over attempt to oust a serious assad from power. as a commentator, and i'd invited the vice chairman at the center for national interest and former undersecretary of defense in the george w. bush administration to comment on bob's exposition of his essay for us. >> thank you very much coming jacob. it's a great pleasure to be here. bentley described the article. the article has a narrow principle which is that maybe things we can do. no-fly zones, no bombing zones and military experts can comment on that. one thing that we should not do is regime change or toppling the regime. you may say that is obvious. nobody is really discussing not.
the new cycle will shift. in 10 days we may be in a new cycle or inuit ministration will say it all options are open so to speak. a listed mapping that i wrote a piece. i also wrote the piece to point out some relevant characteristics of serious modern 20th century history. pointing out that it was assad's father who ran the country for 30 years, established order after 25 years of constant regime changes inside syria and had the prerequisite order in order to start creating a civil society in did not do that. and therefore, serious disarray really has its roots in the unenlightened authoritarianism whereas if you look at a country
like tunisia, which had very of might and authoritarianism from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s, where more money was spent on women's education and things like that in rural agriculture than on the military. one of the many reasons that tunisia had a happier post air in spring history in syria is because of the difference between enlightened authoritarianism in one case and unenlightened authoritarianism in another case. that today's issue of regime change. i have a rule that i've learned the hard way, which is if you intend to topple or invade coming you better be ready to govern. by toppling and invading, you heed moral responsibility upon yourself. once you remove authority, it is up to you to re-create another
authority. and because that is such an onerous enterprise, you better have public support at home before you do something like that. in this way, our negative experiences in iraq and libya are very germane to this issue of would syria be better without bashar al-assad. damascus is the city of about 1.8 million. aleppo is a thing 2.1 million. damascus is where it is very inconvenient because of constant roadblocks, because people have to buy food on the black market. lots of other negative things. one thing about damascus today it is fairly free of large-scale violence. if you were to topple the regime, then it would be your responsibility that you don't have just a total implosion and the whole city is divided up among various armed groups.
in the piece, and all the reasons why syria is different from the former yugoslavia. in the former yugoslavia caught a set of very unusual geopolitical moment when russia was weak from the systemic shock of the collapse of communism. so russia was my spot of a factor in the 90s than it is today. you didn't have competing outside powers to deal with in yugoslavia like the turks, saudis, iranians and others. you only had about six or so armed factions fighting in civil war, none of which are international terrorists. let me mention two others between the former yugoslavia and syria, which were not in the article but in a companion piece i wrote for "the wall street
journal." one is that in yugoslavia, richard holbrooke did not depose guiltless envelopes of. slobodan milosevic participated in the dayton peace accords. the most important thing is the crisis in yugoslavia was not connected to any other big global crisis at the time whereas the serious crisis is part of russia's near abroad along with ukraine, crimea and the baltic states in the black sea basin. russia looks at this whole region from the baltic state in syria as part of its organic near abroad may need that if you were to intervene in a demonstrable fashion militarily in syria, you better have a plan is 24 hours later they overrun his toenail or lap the. in fact this came up in a wargame i participated in last
february in washington 10 were at a time of heightened u.s.-russian tensions, the russians send a number -- a small number of armed troops into the eastern part of the baltic state, could obvious article v resolution interested they are embarrassed to escalate even as they are working behind the scenes to blackmail countries like greece and italy not to declare in article v. syria is connected to these other crises in a way that yugoslavia was. another thing that is important. we all use the shorthand of civil word to describe syria. i question whether that is too simplistic. syria may be more in the nature of the state collapse than a civil war. a civil war entails a certain level of organization.
just a number or a handful of parties fighting rather than dozens upon dozens. and a civil war is far less complex than what is going on in syria where you've had a two thirds state collapse outside of that area that bashar al-assad still controls and regional powers rushing in to carve up the carcass or at least trying to. even in the area that bashar al-assad controls, uses all these motley groups and militia to help him who are not originally part of the syria and stay. as civil war entails a more optimistic post-conflict scenario than the state collapse does. it is somewhat in that nature and i will stop here. >> thanks for that elegant and
concise introduction. vice chairman of the center for the national interest will now comment. >> .n. is quite the writer. one of the things i've always admired about him is that he present every day and in historical context, which is sorely lacking particularly in washington. let me embellish a little bit on what bob has said and do the same reasons why i think he's fundamentally correct. bashar al-assad's grandfather was an à la white shares. the reason he did, i once asked a very serious he is serving as a minister whether it was a true story and he said everybody in syria knows about it.
a blue state in the christian state. looks along the mediterranean to keep the turks out in the air of doubt. i think that colors a little bit of what is going on here. the one wildcard that you didn't mention and give them books which is -- shows how so much of what goes on in the middle east is influenced by ottoman legacy. the ottoman legacy is critical here. you can go back to roman times. syria was part of a much larger province.
the turks who you didn't mention except in passing. they may go to tell off our end if the turks are bombing kurds inside of syria as well as pkk folks wherever they can bomb them, you begin to see why colin powell is right when he said if you're going to break it. we don't have neither the sense of history nor the cultural sand, and the divisions to figure out what the military calls phase for to have an answer to his question of what happens if assad goes. then you had the that the russians as bob says ra bear, what do you want to call it stretching it a little bit, but
they certainly on the long-term vested interest in syria. they have expanded from a small naval base to two air bases available to there as well. they're going to have a whole infrastructure, which by the way will save them money if they conduct operations because it's always cheaper to operate in theater than from home. just ask the u.s. military. so you've got that are as well and they are not there to push assad out. they keep saying they would like some kind of arrangement for all syrians agree on something and that is about as, i would say realistic as the american view that assad is going to leave. in other words, the two major protagonists both have unrealistic views of what should happen except that one of those protagonists doesn't mind if it
doesn't happen it and it is the mass, which is the last problem i want to talk about, which is america's position. we are still on record. he said regime change is a bad idea, which it is. does intend to work in many cases. maybe guatemala in 1953. eventually they paid us back. we are officially on record saying we want regime change. anytime we say we want assad to go, we talk about regime change and we have not withdrawn that. our credibility, which is i would say questionable after the war redlined affair and is also questionable because there is no doubt if you really want to claim that syria is going to need several hundred thousand troops to do it in the united states -- the american public is not interested in sending several hundred thousand troops. i don't recall that there is a presidential candidate currently on the ballot who supports that
idea. so the credibility isn't there. the policy still is. and so, i think bob has got it about right. until we figure out but we are going to do, we better not do very much. >> we at the first question you're at the center for the national interest with robert kaplan, senior fellow at the center for new americans for security, don zakheim, vice chairman of the center for national interest. our first question is from general boyd, the chairman of the center. >> great pleasure to have you with us as always. doug is ray. put everything into context. so i want you to help get us on the on ramp that leads us to what you describe as the leadership crisis.
>> i visited the small delegation for the people to be with bashar al-assad. when nobody else in the room except a note. by the way, he's the only senior political figure that i've met with in the last quarter century bitterly send a car to pick me up. got out, nobody other i was struck by your event at about the telex office and having no control exercised over you in
any dictatorship. that is unusual. it was true also drive into the city with an escort, with the police governor and guys with their little lollipops out the window trying to get everybody out of the way. there is no sense of fear in the traffic. they look at the to with you. there is a fear of an official entourage that cowher. none of that. it is a government that seemed very, very solid. not fearful of their population in any way. between 2006 in five years later we have the collapse of discovery.
help me get from dare to bare. >> first of all, general, you are referring to send being and tells you how old i am. this is in the early 80s to send this story. in syria it was easy. you go into any post office. nobody censored you or anything. and iraq another bat to stay with total control. they wanted to see a copy of it just typed out on a typewriter. so they were too oppressive and light and baptist dictatorships. one thing i've learned as a journalist is you have to make distinctions. some are better and worse than others. that is why i don't think this distinction between democracy and dictatorship gave to me there were all these great between us all along the way we go from extreme dictatorship to enlightened leadership to the pro-democracy and the other extreme liberal democracy.
many countries in the world fit in the middle somewhere. i think what may have happened to bashar al-assad is his original instinct may have been to liberalize when he first got into power. but of course the liberalization , even a very, very mild form entails risk, grave risks. it is based year than just keeping things the same because to change things means you're going to get a lot of pushback from the intelligence around you in a system like that. in your inner circle in the layers just behind the inner circle, there's going to be a lot of unease in pushback. liberalization can only happen with a very strong leader. is his position was in anyway tenuous, the best thing to do was to do not and, to keep the
regime the way it was. there was a great apropos book about this. even though it's about china, how he knew he had to liberalize china. the way to do it was not to open up the communist party, but to strength and because only an even stronger more oppressive communist party could allow the economy to open up to allow more freedoms and things like that. if this sounds contradictory, it isn't. this is what deng xiaoping's genius. bashar al-assad didn't have that. they keep the sentences he lacked the confidence to experiment with any of liberalization in the first eight or nine years of this rule.
>> assad sent his forces to work alongside fires in kuwait as you recall. it was quite remarkable but i was out there after two or two days later and photographing american tanks, french tanks in serious tags along the same side. when i was still in the pentagon, we were able to work out arrangements to look at his books to see how much money had moved from iraq to syria. this year in a master visited in my office and went around bragging he was the first guy in the the pentagon for mishearing embassy. so what happened? if you see the americans aren't leaving anytime soon and you don't know what else the americans might do, you might decide to double down for the same reasons bob just gave you.
if you liberalize, will the americans exploit that? >> you can have forces build up gradually over the years and decades that remain hidden but then an external event have been switched suddenly brings the mall to the surface. the external event was the year at spring that began in tunisia and spread like wildfire throughout the arabic speaking world. it was a link with event essentially. because of social media and all of that. so you had a challenge to the regime very early on and that was the breakpoint. the regime could have said they'll work with you for change this country. again, obviously with the lack of calm and that this was too risky a road to go down.
>> also, you know, the largest proportion of syrians are sunni muslim. from their hit, and although we as a heretic, a complete heretic. everybody in the middle east remembers everything for good or for bad. they'll remember what bashar's father did. i don't know if it's 20,000 killed. we didn't have cnn in those days. a huge number were killed, which means relatives, cousins, friends, all are bitter. as bob says, once there was an event, that was time. >> we have a question asked from barbara slavin of the atlantic council about bob kaplan's new cover story in the national interest, and america is assad
quandary. >> i accept a lot of your analysis about where we are with assad. we have a humanitarian crisis of extreme proportions going on in aleppo. we have crimes against humanity committed by this regime. so do we just sit by? do we have been passed and say this is terrible? how do we deal and this is to both dov and kaplan. how do we deal with humanitarian atrocities going on? >> just some history in 1988, saddam hussein killed about 100,000 kurds and george shultz and ronald reagan decided to do nothing because they needed saddam is a buffer against tehran. they felt terrible about this, but the records show that they did nothing.
so this is not unique this kind of a problem. also, all of the military intervention scenarios like no-fly sons, safe zones. and i've asked quite a number of military experts on this than they disagree. some say you can disagree. but one thing they all agree on that anything you do is enormously complex and risks a war with russia, risks shooting down a russian plane. and if you do that, then you better be prepared in the baltics, ukraine in syria itself. then you put it in russia's hands whether it's hard to war. no, it is heartbreaking. it's very heartbreaheartbrea king and there may be a military
solution, things we can do that i'm not fully qualified to say. i will let military experts make that argument. this is much harder than sarajevo to which is often compared for all the reasons i said earlier. it may have been used. 20 of 11. you could make an argument that the scope of operations was wider than in the risks were narrower so that it was easier. no one will ever know. but we are where we are. the russians are deeply, militarily involved. what i suggested in "the wall street journal" that because some of these crazies in my opinion were interconnect day. one of the first thing is to bring back on a permanent basis is to brigade combat teams in
europe that obama withdrew and suddenly increase the leverage in central and eastern europe and that starts the process to putting us in a better position to negotiate with actual leverage over syria with which the leverage we do not have now. >> well, the first day that you need to consider is the fact that it is not just assad slaughtering people. the other side has guns and so it's already different. it's very different than say rwanda where president clinton finally admitted they should could've done some theme. we talk about the hate radio and all of that that started this. you've got nothing like this here. people with guns who are supported by foreign countries that are our main man. it is not a purely humanitarian crisis number one.
it is embedded in this larger war. simple. on the no-fly zone and say so generally, what i've heard from the military is something pretty straight forward. it is not just that we would shoot a russian plane down. it would be a game of chicken. the russians could deliberately send a plane into see what we would do. if we don't shoot them down, once again it's another red line. if we do shoot them down, that allows prudent to justify whatever he wants to do because we shot him, not the other way around. and then there's the question, the russians but their artillery raid outside the faith so and they are in hot pursuit of somebody who attacked them and fire artillery at this stage the period would've we going to do? it's not simple.
we didn't have to go back as far as 2011. the obama administration had no idea what to do. they could've done something before russia came in. russia hasn't been there in five years. russia has been in there about two years. so where were we too in a half years ago? two mannitol crocodile tears quite frankly. >> break here. >> i actually agree with russia's engagement [inaudible] this question is for both of you, but they resolve the conflict and i'm happy with the
humanitarian situation that is building on europe as a result. if exposing the weakness -- military intervention outside the soviet union is a bit of a big deal in terms of u.s.-russian relations. they are challenging america. it might escalate the relationship -- [inaudible] >> i will reiterate. the next president, one of the first things they have to do is to increase our leverage to moving troops back to europe because that we could do without precipitating war. i would also say to the russians, look, there are real costs to you tried anything in
the baltic states at this point. once we do things like that, it is not to go to war with russia. it's to have more leverage in the date didn't mean anything before. militarily there may be some creative things we can do in syria. this needs to be stopped out and fleshed out. the options are very narrow and the risks are very, very wide this juncture. >> first of all, i've been arguing for several years in print that we should move troops back. we need a battalion in each of the baltic states for starters. have a brigade in poland with another brigade headquarters of one of the baltic states.
the russians are clearly sensitive to operations in the baltic sea. i would increase them. i would increase our exercises with the swedes. so i would do all of that. and then i would tell mr. putin, there are three fundamental issues. you are concerned about all of this so we are doing. we are concerned about ukraine. we're both concerned about russia -- syria, excuse me. you've got interests, we've got interests. it is doable, but only if mr. putin takes it seriously and he does that. he may have reason to not. he may be wrong. i don't think personally is wrong. if you travel anywhere around the world, credibility -- the chicago cubs 10 years ago. and so, we have a serious problem. can we restore that credibility?
yes, we can. if you think about it, ronald reagan restored america's credibility awfully quickly after general carter lost that election. it's doable, but it has to be done. >> steve levey at the rand corporation. >> i think you are fundamentally right. it is totally contrary to american policy -- [inaudible] but i think the one thing to be a little careful about today this theory and russia abroad is not delete -- [inaudible] what is dangerous is dave said out of control over syria.
[inaudible] what i wanted to say though is that if you look at what the russians position, is the position who said what are you going to do if you get rid of assad. what are you going to do in his place? we can't answer that. what they are very concerned about his situation will be worse and they are right. especially at that time when they decide to intervene, isis was in a better position. they will be taken over and some
jihadist regime. if we think about what they say and they think if we had their sense at that time to sail right, let's talk about this. we understand what you're saying, we would have been better off or we could have been better off. you ask how did it all collapse, how did it all happen? again, it starts with the area to sprague, the arab awakening. but what that did when protests broke out in march, heir to one -- sent his employees to see
assad and suggested from erdogan did he think about some reforms, very modest that could be leave and would therefore allow. and of course, erdogan was extremely concerned there would be a spillover effect from the protest. this went on to this summer right up until the end of august when they made the last visit. each time he came back and said assad agrees with you.
he never did. september came and erdogan being very egotistical and so forth, its protége had done what he was told. then you have the situation that they decided to overthrow. with obama, it is true. they both said erdogan and obama , assad has to go. but no one said when and how. so that was just left there. to this day continues to make
the overthrow of assad demand strategic object to and has fought tooth and nail until recently to try to sabotage u.s. suffers and the coalition. let me hand and asking a question, which is how i completely -- [inaudible] i think the baltics and things like that [inaudible] at a fixed area. we should do it for our own reasons. they will have an effect in
syria. so they come back to the place. and let's see. >> let me try to address some of that. because mr. erdogan has always had the thinnest of skins and never for goods and never forget and now of course he thinks he's the co-leaf anyway. this is not going to end, even if we patched it up with assad, it will not end with turkey. one of the things we have in mentioned in part of what you are saying if assad goes there's a threat to all the other weeds. you may have a bigger humanitarian disaster that was
got today because it is not at all clear that any will remain alive. these are ancient hatreds. some people believe the sunni and shia are not each other's throat and that isn't the problem in the middle east except when you type to shia and sunni. so you've got that factor as well that assad sees himself ultimately is the one who can forget. it does go back to the point i made at the very beginning about the string of state that people with religious professions that were not arab muslim. and so, that is a major or as well. if you want to do something to solve this problem come you got to bring the iranian said. there is no way to avoid it. you know, i have some real issues still with the iran deal, but the deal is fair and it
would be nice if the iranians were good citizens for change. you're not going to get them to be good citizens if you don't talk to them. >> up caps-on is going to respond as well-paid senior fellow fellow for new american security. for anyone tuning and camara discussed in this new cover story in the national interest magazine called america's assad quang tri. i did mention in the essay so some of the risk to a sudden regime collapse would be as i put it some ethnic cleansing of the alawites which also see an essay protect carried away. back to the roots of what you are saying, you know, the history of the turks and how we are threatened and why didn't he
liberalize. this goes back to the fundamental insecurity of the syrian state. it was a cobble together a group of sectarian and regional interests. i talk in the piece about how elections and 47 company 1049 and 54 broke down and do is this deep down in security as syria, also of iraq and libya paid to a significant extent accounted for their greater hostility to israel then say morocco attorney showed. is rove real states that didn't require an outside hatred to keep them together to the extent. again we are back to the basic insecurity of the state itself, which was a factor and the older
assad not liberalizing and the younger is not liberalizing. when you look at the russians today, they don't want to deal inside her is. they are moving an aircraft carrier into the eastern mediterranean. i would say this is the russian mir abroad. they may not be the nearer brought to the baltic states in ukraine which were part of the former soviet union, but it is one step removed the eastern mediterranean. >> we now have a question from the publisher of the national interest, dimitri k. sign. [inaudible] my question rather than comment will indicate the century because -- [inaudible] i completely agree with what you said about syria and thank you so much for this. you also said some interesting
names about the positioning in the baltic states. i hope before we do that, we would do one of six. forever but the white house would tell that we are fully committed to the baltic states and should be prepared to die for them. [inaudible] and he was a shared by intelligence services, backed up, then by experts as a way we would want. few would understand that this
is now complete. but there is no way to set up in russia. this would stop negotiations with russia from the position of state. i doubt you find any [inaudible] that would be prepared to provide such assurance. it is not like and why. i of course do not expect the vladimir putin would send russian troops to balkan states. i don't expect him to do it now anyway. i also don't expect however do you think this entirely benign in defense of development. 70 miles from the oscars -- [inaudible] i also expect the baltic state
would be emboldened and that their position in russia which has a growing influence in shaping diplomacy would become harder, which may contribute between the west and russia. but also expect the russian imposition would decide to put in putin's place that is approaching -- [inaudible] the russian opposition but he calmed the intelligence security mindset which connect to our actions. i connected disability that of course would not be across the
border. in estonia and ludwig. just like they mentioned it is not just russian, but was elected on a russian speaking ticket. before he became an elective this which is considered more nations -- [inaudible] [inaudible] is demonstrated in ukraine's lower six, short of an intervention. so that is my question to you. actually, i will surprise you. if we don't position that, we
would not be able to access from a position stance. ronald reagan had -- [inaudible] because you could part there and also even when committing there, he secretly as you know right in the hospital, and [inaudible] if you are in my view a secured diplomatic geopolitical coulter, also an honorable way out at no way out and would also give them some steak.
how would you topple our stronger departure but diplomatic initiative to russia. >> my answer is yes. because i think as bob has indicated and as we all know, if you only have a military policy come you don't really have a policy. war is frankly made it very clear. it's the political lens. the military as a means, not an end. i think it is very important that we put ourselves in putin's shoes and understand the art of a fan. you've kind of done that. frankly, we have a dilemma as well. it is too late to argue now whether nato should have asked candidates quickly purchased
many countries. that is fair. we are who we are. and so we're back to the kind of dilemma they used to post a list of the 90s. would you trade los angeles for taipei. so would we trade austin for rita. unfortunately or fortunately, take your choice. this is where we are. unless you believe that nato is no longer of military alliance but his political alliance, if you believe it is a political alliance you are in a completely different place. if you believe it is military alliance, guess what, if somebody wants to go after we got, we've got to be prepared to do whatever we need to do. either way, whether it's a battalion for what we have now which our companies, i saw you think the russians could overrun them just as the berlin brigade.
the berlin brigade was on the border of east germany. let's not talk about borders here. if we are going to have our credibility, this is what we have to do. but it is not a sufficient condition. it is simply a necessary condition. what is required as well is a willingness to talk to the russians in a way that they don't feel we are mistreating them as they felt throughout the 90s. even george w. bush didn't talk to them that way and he had walked away from the abm treaty by the way. yes, terribly important and we have overloaded our national security capability of the defense department, which the defense department does not like it that is not their job. their job is not to be a bunch of striped suits. that is a striped suits job and they have fallen down big time.
it's a combination of a lot of things. i'm not sure i disagree with you. >> now we have a question from the associate of national interest all jay saunders. >> thank you, jacob. you both are in general agreement of not ousting aside. i want to play devils advocate in price each of you on it. of course, the obama administration takes the position that while it is transfixed's president that is provoking the conflict, and i don't find that extremely persuasive but that is the position of the u.s. government. someone could make a somewhat more subtle argument that would link up to some of the things that you said, bob.
you made a case that it's not a civil war, that it's a great town of the theory of state. but if i say well, okay, breakdown of the serious state. then the solutions is having a stronger serious state, it is assad capable of doing that? that is actually an open question and wouldn't it be better actually to have someone else in the drivers seat and syria who could really build a stronger state and through that kind of resolve this problem. >> well, i addressed that in the piece. nobody really knows if assad is the state, whether the whole institutions would collapse without his presence.
go back to why he became the successor to his father in the first place, which was only had end this person and the various factions of the state. so unless you can guarantee they are an independent institution, then you have no business toppling them. i would guess that the russians and iranians have a much more sophisticated knowledge than we do. i suggest whether there is a state if he is removed end if the russians are fighting so hard to keep them in power. and even to the point of committing human rights violations with all of the bad publicity that gets bad and all of the risk entailed in what they're doing leads me to suspect that russia feels we
haven't supported the regime in damascus since the late 1960s just to take a risk on whether there is a state or not if the ruler is removed. >> let me give you a coupler you a coupler spring practice on this. first of all, bashar was not want to rule. boswell, for some reasons people still think is mysterious. so that may to some extent explain why bashar is less self-confident than the old man wise. that is number one. number two is to say that assad is the cause of the civil war. so let's understand that via. gadhafi's presents was the civil war. i would argue that iraq is much worse because of saddam's
actions. and by the way, if you want to talk about long-term insurrections, if i were approved and i would say those be an 30 years. if not with the united states is doing with colombia? what's the difference. >> i know you're playing devils advocate, but i sure hope the devil had a better argument than the one you made. >> way to question down here. can you identify yourself? [inaudible] >> i'm going to try and combine them be the devil's advocate because if i shared most of your analysis of the witch is very and very testing, if you keep assad and all the important underlying refugee crisis and the crimes against humanity, and
decided that you have de facto countries. even if you don't pay attention and you just try to focus on bashar al-assad, is nt at the core of this hair with them and be existing of the isil movement. what you saw, even if you decide that's forget about trying regime change. let's keep them where he is. you still have a de facto country and i agree with you when you say that military is a key aspect for which purpose. when you talk about the safe zone, is that the kind of practitioners were one part of the country would be protected
with russians from the -- [inaudible] i don't see the solution. what is the purpose? >> well, look. even if you say it is not assad personally, it is clearly the alawites. you're not talking about getting rid of one guy. but his mistake number one. if i knew a solution that would be a lot richer than i am. but it does seem to me there's no solution without talking about the russians and iranians and the turks feared event to bring them in as well. you've got to bring in the major players. you may have to bring in the saudi's. as well. but we are talking to the saudis obviously. we are not talking to the iranians. not to the extent that we showed. it is not clear to what purpose because as long as our formal policy is to get rid of assad,
we are counter to where some of these other folks are. you've got to set the ground rules. you have to have expected ground rules before you can play the game. we do not have a set of ground rules to lead the russians, the iranians, turks, saudi's can all subscribe to at which point there can be some kind of negotiation. that i think is a major part of the problem. but some are saying you've got to get rid of assad some ottawa, others say you've got to say because you don't have anything better come you haven't been to ground rules yet. >> i would say first of all when the uprising began initially in the spring of 2011, it was an uprising against the regime, against assad. ..
various groups to fight specially harder for every patch of ground, so, you know, that's why getting rid of assad i don't think tends war because i don't consider it a civil war. i consider it a state collapse which is different, but i think the way forward is to openly state and, you know, the u.s. is not going to turn 180-degrees and say you want assad to stay. what a new american leader can say is dealing with assad as a
person as the leader is way down on our priorities now. what's up on our priorities is slowing down and limiting the fighting. you know, getting the fire, the fighting itself on a lowered temperature and we are going to talk with the iranians, we are going to talk with the turks, with everyone involved, with the russians to see, you know, maybe we can set up an alternative system and the parts that are not under the regime control. limiting or slowing down the fighting is first priority and regime change is way down at the bottom of the list. >> let me add one more thing, if i may. if you want the turks to play, you to sort out the turks and the kurds. that's an issue that has to be sorted out. by in large, if you look at it, everybody is against isis. everybody. there's nobody that supports isis.
and so there is some commonality there. the question is how do you build on it because the russians are against isis for their reasons, the iranians are for their reasons, the turks are for their reasons, assad is for his reasons. so there is something to work with but you've got to, as i said, take that and that maybe become the foundation of the ground rules but that's insufficient to be the ground rule all of by itself. >> thanks, it seems that, i guess, about a week ago assad received western journalists and presented himself in the light that you sort of -- the picture you painted. he wanted to be the reformer, he
we wanted to reform but he spoke apparently about, you know, extremists that are battling him and destroying syria so he couldn't proceed. so is there a way -- that seems to be the administration, the obama administration has been -- has shift today that not assad must go now but solve the war and stop the fighting. it seems like they have gone there already. what are the -- you know, what are the possibilities of getting back to in negotiation where you would or how do you do that where you could ultimately hold assad call his bluff in a sense and say you want to be the reformer and now you have to do that?
>> first of all, the most interesting thing about that interview he gave to a group of journalists which went live yesterday at "the new york times", this morning with the new yorker is the fact that he held a meeting in the first place and the fact that he held a meeting in the first place after about a month ago taking a walk-through to downtown is he feels himself in a position of strength that he did not feel, say, six months ago or a year or two ago. the fact that he would invite in journalists, you know, to me this is him saying, look at me, i'm still around after five years. you considered me a goner, dead at the international criminal court in 2012 or '13, guess what, i'm still here. so to me the fact of the press conference or whatever you want to call it itself is much more important than anything that was
actually said in it. i mean, this is his normal point of view that all i want is stability and there are these horrible people that are trying to topple me and unfortunately that leads to violence, and i think what he's trying to telegraph because he's not going to say i'm a war criminal. he's not going to say that. i think what he's trying to telegraph is that, you know, if you really want to -- if you really want to accelerate decision in syria, you have to come through me, i'm going to be around guess what around five years. he said he's here to 2021, to a new election, whatever that means. you know, what it means is i'm president for life and american presidents come and go and -- and they have thrown everything at me the last half decade and i'm still here.
and so i think there were some things diplomats do but they cannot talk about it openly and i think maybe one of the things that will happen down the road and in the next year or two is they'll be -- will try to get into a situation where we are perceived to have more leverage with the russians and the russians know this and we can talk more meaningfully with the russians, with the iranians, with others in the region and maybe secretly through a back channel with assad. and you know, that's where it might go if assad's perception of himself of being in a much better position now than a few years ago turns out to be accurate. >> i think it is accurate and i will tell you why. he's not just representing the aloies. you heard bob mention the christians. it was the middle of summer.
it was hot as hell. you could tell who the christian girls because they were wearing two pieces showing a lot of skin. no worries no problems. christians have always looked to assad for protection, why? because they are a minority. the jews, the whole tradition is you support whatever country you live in. they're not an issue, they support assad. the kurds have actually been supportive of assad so you have them as well and that leaves the sunnis and the sunnis are not united against assad, not at all. he's not really a token. the reason he's not a token is because a lot of the merchant class, a lot of the others support assad and he brought stability and that's what they want. if the entire sunni population wanted him gone, he would be gone by now. that wasn't enough to keep him
in power, combined with the russians and the iranians, i think it is. >> our next question is from the former managing editor of the national interest, he is now running something called the john qui in, -- quincy adams society. john alan. >> yeah, my question kind of gets to this issue of interests and escalation which is -- which isn't the fundamental problem in syria and also in -- with any of the proposed appointments in eastern europe that the balance of interest is on russia's side, that their interests are deeper and therefore they can credibly threaten escalation and that at that point our leaders would think, wait, there's a real cost that we can pay here, this is certainly a serious game and that we would be force today back down essentially? >> yes, and i would make an
analogy between china and north korea on this score. remember, we broke -- syria and other arab countries broke diplomatic relations in 1967 or about and it was nixon and kissinger who reestablished those relations in '73, '74, since then, we have had a correct relationship with syria but russia's relationship with syria was never correct, it was close, it was intimate, it was deeply intimate, it wasn't to the degree of being a satellite state like in central eastern europe but it was nevertheless i -- intimate since the post 1967 war era. so russia has more skin in the game in terms of its interest, never mind the troops it's got, syria is much more important to
rishia than syria to the united states. just like north korea is much more important to china than north korea is to the united states because of the north korean regime to collapse, you could have 2 million refugees into chinese within a few weeks, say. so the chinese may -- may find it interesting when americans talk about a more low calorie version of north korea, more reform in north korea. the chinese say that, oh, that's very interesting but you have no risk there. we have a risk. it's similar with the russians in syria. >> you asked about syria and europe, first on syria, one other point to bare in mind, who are our closest allies on that part of the world, israel and jordan. the israelis have been quiet and the reason is they all want stability.
old man assad gave them stability. unstable syria is a threat to jordan and their biggest worry is who crosses the border from syria and what kind of people are they and they undermine the delicate and from those prospectives getting rid of assad is not a guaranty at all unless you can guaranty stability. the american interest may not as be strong as syria as the russian interest is, but the american interest, if you believe that jordan and israel are america's allies is for a stable syria which is why i think our policy has been counterproductive because we have not supported the stable syria. >> and also i would add that assad keeps southern syria to a limited relative degree more
stable than northern syria and that's the part of syria that's close to jordanian and israeli borders. i think one of the most important points i make negotiated by henry kissinger in the wake of 1973 war between the assad regime and the israelis were defacto, unacknowledged peace treaty between the two countries. after that, they there were red lines and israel would bomb or slap in the face syria but would never lead to anything. prevented the plo in what was the lebanese left from taking over lebanon during the civil war partly because he didn't want to be dragged into a war with israel at the time. it ended up supporting the christians. so israelis are very cognizant
of this history and they know that -- they know that they may not like assad but they're afraid of things being worse and having an uncontrollable southern border. >> beyond that, i remember when rabine came back as prime minister, is syrians knew that i knew him quite well and they reached out to me and do you think he can do business with assad and i asked rabine and he said, yes, they weren't able to consummate anything in that respect but nevertheless as bob just said the fact that the border was so quiet for so long allowed both leaders, both leaders to think that maybe something could happen even if it didn't. in europe as i said earlier, we are in a different situation here. if we are not seen to be committed to going to war for the baltic states we destroyed nato, why? because they are part of nato.
unless you want to expel them from nato, you're stuck. you may not like it, you may regret that you brought them in, whatever. irrelevant. it's where we are. i think we have to face the reality and i don't think people want to face that reality. you don't want to think about death, you know it's coming an you don't want to think about it. it's the same kind of thing here. we have committed ourselves to defending the tinny little states, pure and simple. >> i need to -- i need to ask the final question because bob is a very important man. he has an appointment at the pentagon to help fix american foreign policy. >> the pentagon fixing american foreign policy, what's wrong with that sentence? >> there's no evidence on this panel or even among many of the questions. it's been very realistically
oriented and john alan gave a question reminding how we can be when we express ourselves in these terms. i wanted to conclude on a more hopeful note and put our panelists, distinguished panelists on the spot. if you're add -- advising the new president, what's the first thing they should do if they're going to do something about syria? >> i would -- i would announce that we are doing a policy review that all options are on the table, i would signal that we maybe moving troops around, various places, maybe another carrier to the region, carrier -- not a carrier but submarines
into the baltic sea and then i would also reach out to the russians and say, we want a proper relationship at the same time that we show more strength than the obama administration did. >> i'm more or less in the same place. i think that i wouldn't make too detail a public announcement about what i'm going to do other than to say that we really have to review our policies with respect to syria, but then i would quiet i will go to the iranians, the turks, the saudis and assad and who did i leave out? iranians, turks the saudis, i think i've got them all, the russians, of course, and say to them, we really do need to talk and we need to talk amongst just ourselves and no one else and the most important thing is i will tell anybody in the administration if you leak it, you're fired. >> safe and cautious, prudent
>> our video library will have this available later today. turning to the presidential campaign house speaker paul ryan was a telephone guest on the hugh radio this morning. >> just think about this. this is what i keep telling young people who didn't experienced the 1990's like you and i did. this is what life is like with the clintons, there's always a scandal and always an investigation. you never know what's going to happen next. they live above the rules and outside the rules and this is what they do. this is not a one-off event. this is a consistent pattern of behavior over a lifetime of the
clintons in office, so why on earth would we want to go through that again, why would we want to repeat that? do really want to knowing this have a person coming to the white house utmatic under suspicion, under investigation? >> polls show a very close raise with him, slightly ahead in several national and state polls recently gathered by real clear politics. mr. trump and hillary clinton are out with new campaign ads.
>> putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing. when i come home and dinner is not ready, i go through the roof. grab them -- they let you do it. you can do anything.
>> more accusers coming forward to say they were sexually assaulted by donald trump. >> i will go backstage before a show and everyone is getting dressed. >> donald trump walk intoed the dressing room while contestants some as young as 15 were changing. >> you see, incredible-looking women. i looked her in the fat face of her. >> do you treat women with respect? >> i can't say that either. >> all right. >> i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> our healthcare system
is failing. with premiums increasing 74% in 6 years. >> doctors like us now spend more time on paperwork -- >> and less time with our patients. >> donald trump is ready to change this. >> his plan creates a system centered on our patients. >> his approach will provide more choices.
>> with higher quality at lower cost. >> that's why doctors like us -- >> are choosing donald trump. >> great
american pac is responsible for the content of this message. >> at the clinton foundation spent 90%, 90% of all the money that is donated on behalf of programs of people around the world, but what did the clinton foundation irs filing show, less than 6% of money spent went to program donations but 7.8 million were spent on travel. 12.4 on meetings and conferences and over $34 million on salaries and benefits. if this is what hillary does with her own charity, imagine what she will do with the white house. >> on election day november 8th, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for a coverage of the presidential race including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump and their surrogates and follow key house and senate races with our coverage of their candidate debates and speeches.
c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> in the kentucky u.s. senate race debated questions on a variety of topics including combating the opioid epidemic, raising the minimum wage and the student debt crisis. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> welcome to kentucky tonight, good evening i'm bill goodman, tonight we will discus the u.s. senate race. our guests are jim gray of the democratic party and rand paul of the republican party. we invite your questions tonight. ask questions on twitter at ky tonight ket and send an e-mail at ket.org, use the web form at
ket.org/kytonight. please inclyde your first and last name, town or county on all messages. gentlemen, thanks very much for being here on the ket kentucky tonight forum. give me the number one and most important issue facing the voters and citizens of kentucky and what you would do about that issue in the united states senate? >> you know, i kind of jokingly will tell people sometimes that number one, number two and number three is the debt. we boaro a million -- borrow a million dollars a minute. 1% growth now and historically we have grown at 3%. for every percentage point of growth last it's about million jobs. we are about two million jobs short right now because of the burden of debt. i think it also threatens the
undermine the country and the foundation of the country where interest rates rise and i remember buying my first house at 11%, the debt would become unmanageable. i just don't think it's a good idea to borrow for daily activities. you would try to pay for that out of your income, you wouldn't borrow money to do that. we are paying for our daily existence as a government. it's not just the 20 trillion-dollar debt, we also have a 7 trillion-dollar short fall in social security, 40 trillion-dollar deficit with medicare and some are still saying, the debt is not that big a deal, deficits don't matter. i think they really do and to be a sound country, to be a country that is great and growing, i think you have to have a balance budget. we should have a balance amendment to the constitution because both parties have let us
down, republicans and democrats have let us down with spending and the compromise in washington usually is to raise spending for both. so i think we should try to get it in order ourselves but i think we also should mandate that we do it through constitutional amendment as well. >> mayor gray i'm going to ask you about number one issue but i want you to comment on the debt being senator paul's debt issue? >> i'm glad you asked that and perfect on halloween night because rand paul is starting with halloween scare tactics, that's exactly what it is. he wants us to believe that his wildest theories and philosophies are the remedies for everything. and they're not. i know. i've been there. they will not build the first bridge, they will not build the first highway, they will not build the first factory, they will not create a job. i know because i've been there and it's like dizzy dean said, what he said was, if you've done
it then you're not bragging. >> the debt is of what concern to you? >> of course. >> do you think the debt is important to move america forward? you have been quoted to saying it's not a major issue. >> what i said that debt tied with equity is what makes a business run and what makes -- it's what also makes a country run. today investors are making investments in our country through our treasury and bonds and they are being sold at some of the lowest rates ever in decade. that tells you there's confidence in u.s. economy. there's a lot of confidence in u.s. economy. that's why the interest rates are so low. the deficit is that it's 50% of what it was when ronald reagan was president, so of course, we have to work on this but my formula is to make investments in our country from world war ii, the interstate highway system, after that the space program which led to the
innovation of our country and the world ever since. >> senator paul, response. >> i think we can build things in our country. i think adding to the debt is not a great way to do it. i think that we ought to look at and make difficult decisions and one of the things in washington that we need to do is say if we are going to spend it on bridges, which i'm for, spending on roads, which i'm for, where should we take it away from instead of adding to the debt? we spent a hundred billion dollars on infrastructure in afghanistan. i would take a significant amount of that money and build bridges here at home and instead of building bridges in afghanistan, pakistan, let's build them at home. i would also look at foreign aide, we have $30 billion of foreign aid, 70% is stolen off the bat. you know the family in egypt they are worth $10 billion, mostly stole from tax payer. i say let's spend that here at home.
the third thing that i would offer for infrastructure, encouragingment to american companies to bring profit back home. there's about two trillion dollars in profit overseas that hasn't come home. we lowered the rate for 5%, this was a bipartisan issue back then. president obama voted for it, $300 billion. there's two trillion out there and i have a bipartisan bill with barbara boxer that would lower the rate for five years and we would take that money that comes home and put it into the highway fund. now, i think this is a great example of how we could work together. i called president obama on this and he was on air force or so some where but he took my phone call, i used to be for it but i'm no longer for it but that's a disappointing thing. if we can find democrats on working with us and let's encouraging and i think that's a perfect solution on trying to fix the shortfall. >> mayor gray, you have talked
about the infrastructure, crumbling roads and bridges, how would you pay for it? >> we are a trillion dollars short in infrastructure by 2020 and i have said that infrastructure is number one on the priority list. and also advanced manufacturing, building advanced manufacturing, building infrastructure, building small businesses and building the middle class. this is the only way that we grow ourselves. i've always said when you're green you grow and when you're not you rot. let's start with making investment that is going to be federal investment. now, i disagree with senator paul because i believe the federal government can make these investments. now, we can also give tax credits for what's called public-private partnerships. so we engage the private sector and engage the public sector but let's think back in history. after world war ii, after the great depression we always
worked ourselves out of adversity and the country wasn't afraid to make these investments. >> mayor gray, what's your first and most important issue for the voters and citizens of kentucky and if elected as the united states senator, how would you handle that issue? >> jobs, jobs, and jobs. we are not growing our economy at the rate it should. just this month we grew at 2.9%, that's better but we are not where we can be for the middle class to get a leg up in life. the middle class is the backbone of america. we've got struggles across the state. we have got struggles in eastern kentucky, we've got struggles in western kentucky, we have struggles in coal country. i know a lot about this because i spent my lifetime, a career in the private sector and growing a business that today employs thousands, has employed thousands over time. has grown through the factories that we have built, more than 20,000 people a day go through