tv Bush Presidential Center Leadership Forum with President Bush and Robert... CSPAN April 29, 2019 4:11am-4:57am EDT
before the house judiciary c-span3, live on c-span.org, and listen free on the c-span radio app. >> now former president george w. bush and defense secretary robert gates discuss leadership. library anddent's presidential center in dallas. this runs 45 minutes. ms. dobriansky: good morning, everyone, and thank you, anna, for that wonderful introduction. i have to tell you, i am really thrilled this morning to have this discussion with two leaders, patriots, who really have served our country with distinction, honor, courage of conviction, compassion, and integrity. and i have to say that not only did they serve our country, but they continue to serve our country.
so we have a lot of issues to go to and discuss about leadership and about foreign policy and strategy. pres. bush: let me just say that after that introduction, we are thrilled that you are the moderator. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: indeed. indeed. mr. gates: the check is in the mail. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: i want to go first to the issue of america's role in the world.
let me preface it, if i may, by saying, it was winston churchill who delivered a very significant address at harvard in 1943. in that address, he talked about america's role in the world. and he said the following. he said the price of greatness is responsibility. president bush, how do you see america's role in the world today? pres. bush: first of all, gates is old enough to have been at the speech. [laughter] pres. bush: i am proud to be on the stage with both of you and bob. you should judge your president by the company he keeps. and i had a fabulous cabinet, and bob gates was an integral part of the team, and i want to thank you for your continued service. america, we stand for human decency, human rights, the rule of law, free press, free religion. it is ingrained in our soul. and i think it is in our interests that others practice an open, civil society for the sake of peace. one of the lessons of 9/11 is that how others live matters to our national security. a message that seems to be
getting lost on the american people as that moment recedes in our collective memory. i believe it is in our national interest and self interest that others live in free societies, and therefore america's role in the world has to be to hear the voices of those who are imprisoned, to hear those who live for religious freedom. if we are not willing to listen and engage, then it is unlikely that others will embrace the habits necessary for peaceful societies. ms. dobriansky: thank you. your freedom agenda certainly underscores that, both when you were president and now here at the bush center. pres. bush: yeah, you are right. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: i like that answer. secretary gates, how did you see it? mr. gates: well, very similarly. the way i would put it is i am very much an american exceptionalist. i realize that is old-fashioned, but i believe lincoln was right when he said "we are earth's last hope."
at a time of rising authoritarianism, i think it is important that america be a light under the nations as the defender of human rights, democracy, liberty, and human dignity. there is nobody else left. it is just us. and if we do not stand for those ideals -- and we are deeply flawed. we have a lot of flaws. but the world has always looked to america for this kind of leadership despite those faults, because we are unique, i think, in that we are always trying to overcome them and work at them. on a more practical level, i think the united states is the only significant source in the world for an international rules-based order, where it is not dog eat dog and every nation out for itself but trying to figure out how to get along, how to work together to address a variety of problems. and if the united states does
not lead, there is no one else to lead. if you look at other democracies, and some of them, like our best friends, the british, are in even more trouble than we are. so, i think that we have a unique role in the world, and as the president said, it is in our own interest to play that role in the world. just one final historical thought -- the notion that we can seal ourselves off from this responsibility i think is very naïve. who would have thought that the assassination of some austrian archduke in 1914 would have an effect on us, or the german seizure of a little piece of land from czechoslovakia in 1938 or a bunch of ragtag terrorists living in afghanistan in 2001. so, the notion that we can ignore the rest of the world and
just do our own thing i think is downright ignorant. pres. bush: can i tell one story? on september 12, 2001, the the japanese prime minister calls me and he says the united states and japan will stand shoulder to enhance our mutual security, and we will work to spread security to the ideology of the murderers. in a remarkable conversation. because 60 years prior to that, my dad chooses not to go to college but to fight the japanese. i bet in the late 1940's if somebody said "one day japan and
the united states will stand shoulder to shoulder to enhance our mutual security," they would have said "you are a hopeless, idealistic person, naïve." and yet it happened. and one reason it happened is because there is a universality to freedom. people want to be free. it does not matter if you are a methodist or a muslim, they want to be free. and the japanese adopts a japanese-style democracy. and an enemy became an ally for the sake of peace. and the question americans must ask themselves is it can happen again. and i believe our collective answer is absolutely. unless the u.s. says that is none of our business how others live. ms. dobriansky: let's talk about iraq. pres. bush: thank you. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: this is significant. in your book, you said the most important part of your job as president was making decisions. and chapter 12 was on the surge. that truly was a difficult decision, but it was a wise decision. pres. bush: i agree with that. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: it was a decision not to pull our troops out of iraq. pres. bush: that's right. ms. dobriansky: explain it. pres. bush: why? because i thought we could achieve the goal of a functioning democracy in the
middle east and an ally in the war against terror. and i had great faith in our military to help us achieve our that goal. and i felt that a withdrawal during a difficult period of time in iraq would have emboldened an enemy which was still was a threat, in my homeland, andur have dispirited our military, particularly our families. it would have looked like it was a pure political decision, and that would have been a political decision. but i could not stomach the idea of people saying "george w. is trying to save his own political skin by making a strategic decision that would have weakened our standing in the middle east." remember, the iraqis had voted for a new constitution and voted for a government. and it worked. and one reason it worked is that secretary of defense gates
helped make it work. and so bob came on right as the surge -- it had not even been announced. i remember meeting with you in crawford, and he slid over from texas a&m. he was running the mighty a&m university. and we talked about the surge. and he was committed to making sure that america did not retreat from the battlefield again. you.yeah -- thank it was the right decision, and it worked. ms. dobriansky: it was a significant part of your book. pres. bush: yeah, a chapter. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: secretary gates, you implemented it. tell us. mr. gates: first of all, it was not only a wise decision, it was a courageous decision. what perhaps a lot of people do not know is most of the senior military did not agree. there were a handful who did, but most of the senior-most people did not think it was a good idea.
just a few points about the surge. first of all, i remember the president saying, you know, we are going to need a new commander. and he said, you might want to take a look at this general petraeus. and my mom did not raise an idiot. i looked at general petraeus, and i ran a few traps, and i came back to the president, and mr. president, i aeus would be petr exactly the right guy for this job. so, the president approved six brigades going in. that was about 20,000 troops. and a few days after he made that decision and authorized it,
senior military leaders came to me and said, we have really made kind of a serious mistake. we forgot about the enablers. i had never heard this word before, the enablers. well, it is the helicopters, the medevac, logistics, field hospitals, all that stuff. all of a sudden a surge of 20,000 became 30,000. now, just to give you a little flavor in terms of cost, on average, for every 1000 soldiers you send overseas, it costs $1 billion. ok? so, i am just going back to in the cost of this thing, both in men and money, is going to be about 50% higher than originally. so i told the military, ok, i will take my head in my hands and go tell the president what we have just had, what we just need to do. and he said ok, but don't you ever do that again. don't ever forget about the enablers. the second problem was finding enough troops. and this was the hardest decision i think i made as secretary. because the army came to me and
said we do not have enough troops with the current deployment rates that we have. so we either are going to have to cut soldiers' time at home or , or we're going to have to extend their tours in iraq and afghanistan. so, instead of a year it would be 15 months. and a young major working for me said, you need to understand, sir, you are breaking the rule of twos. because now the soldiers are going to miss two birthdays, two anniversaries, two christmases, two thanksgivings, and so on. and it was the hardest decision, because i knew how hard this was going to be on the troops and their families. the final point that i would make is that the democrats in congress were dead set against the surge. and having just taken control of the congress, devoted every waking hour to make us reverse
it as fast as possible. and so, all through the first six or seven months of 2007 we , we were fighting a constant rearguard action to prevent the congress from making us bring the troops home before most of them had even gotten there. and during the spring after consulting with the president, i petraeus and then made it public that i had asked for a report on progress in september. because i felt like if we got to summer, then i could tell it was important for us to hold the republicans, especially in the senate. if we had the summer, i could then tell the republican senators, at least give us until september. it is only 8-10 weeks from now. to see if this thing is working. the good news is we already had signs by may the surge was working and that it was having the effect that we had hoped.
all the way. but it was a tough se way. and as i say, put a huge burden on our troops and our families. but we had a battlefield in iraq , but we also had a battlefield in washington. pres. bush: that's right. one thing i would like to note is one of the reasons why ultimately the pentagon agreed was because pete pace did a fabulous job of shepherding the military. i knew pete is here. he is the first chairman of the joint chiefs from the marine corps. no wonder we were successful. mr. gates: and he was my tutor. he taught me a lot. the first time i was secretary. pres. bush: now the board of the bush institute. ms. dobriansky: your leadership on the institute, respectively, both of you, was truly exemplary. another area where your leadership was exemplary was in regards to afghanistan.
both of you are very invested in afghanistan and ensuring that al qaeda's safe haven was not only obliterated, but you worked to ensure that it would not come back. talk about some of the profound decisions you had to make. pres. bush: first decision was , after 9/11, i recognized this was a different kind of conflict as opposed to previous ideological conflicts, where there was a capital and a standing army and air force and spies. we were dealing with an enemy that could only thrive if they found the soft underbelly of failed states. therefore, part of the doctrine had to be if you harbor terrorists, you are equally as guilty as the terrorists. and in this case the taliban was harboring al qaeda. we give them a chance to turn them in, but they would not do it. so when the president says something, he has to mean it. and i meant it. so the initial objective was to destroy al qaeda and its safe haven, and we did, thanks to not only the military but the cia. and it was an extraordinary effort. the interesting thing as i recall, tommy franks had trouble
getting the troops in, and the american people started getting real anxious. "when are you going to do something? when are you going to do something?" but there was like a fog in uzbekistan that prevented a helicopter from flying, and then there was this and that. but once we finally got going, the mission was partially accomplished. then the question is -- what is the role of united states? look, again, i understand americans are tired, and they are becoming isolationist. what i tell people is if you want afghan girls to suffer, like they did prior to the liberation of the country, then convince the congress and the president to withdraw the troops. in my judgment, it would be not in our national interest to do that, particularly since we are a nation that believes in human dignity and human rights. ms. dobriansky: absolutely. mr. secretary? mr. gates: most of the tough decisions that i had to make about afghanistan, frankly, were
in the obama administration. and we did have a problem when i first became secretary, the taliban had fled to pakistan and had used the years since we had ejected them to regroup and rearm with the help of the pakistanis, and they really came back to try and change the events of 2001. we first saw that really in 2005. but by 2007, they were coming back pretty strong. so, we tried to find more forces that we could -- i just described how scarce combat forces were, but we found a couple more brigades that we could put in in 2007 to try and deal with this recurring taliban threat.
the two toughest decisions i had to make, first in 2009, was the decision to relieve the commander in afghanistan. he was a fine general, he had a great career, but he was not the right fit for the kind of war we were fighting in afghanistan. and that is a very tough decision. it was also the first field commander that had been relieved since truman fired macarthur in the early 1950's. the second was persuading the president that we think, frankly, at the end of 2009, needed a surge in afghanistan , similar to the surge we had in iraq. the commander had asked for 40,000 troops. and we debated this for three months in the situation room. and we finally got an agreement. the president agreed to send
30,000 additional troops, and then we put the arm on our allies for another 7000 or 8000, so we came very close to what the commander had asked for. unfortunately, the benefits -- and they did have significant benefits, because these additional forces cleared out the provinces pretty well -- but we were kind of fighting with one arm tied to us, because the president had also put a deadline on for when we were going to leave. and one of the things that president bush and condoleezza rice and i all felt strongly about, particularly in the time of the surge in iraq, was no deadlines in terms of when we would begin to end the surge or when we would come out of iraq. because you are basically then just telling the enemy, all you have to do is wait us out. that was part of the problem i think in 2009, is when a firm date was established for pulling the troops out, it basically sent the message to the taliban
that no matter how much we suffer over the next few years, we got this thing, if we can just hang in there, we have got this thing. ms. dobriansky: what about the ongoing negotiations with the taliban that are taking now? pres. bush: the guy who is negotiating on behalf of the khalilzad, he was close to my administration, he is a good guy. bob and i were chuckling because the afghans are constantly
accusing zal of wanting to be the president of afghanistan, which is not like the best decision in the world for him to be aiming for. but bob knows a lot more about it than i do. all i know is afghanistan has got a democratically elected government. that at some point in time to be a part of any process in order for it to work. mr. gates: i would say that -- i think zal is a very good negotiator, a very good ambassador. he knows the afghans well. he is afghan himself, which is why they worry he wants to run for president, although why anyone would think that is a career-enhancing move, i am not quite sure. but i think that the key here is really sequencing. i don't have any issues with trying to sort out the main issues between the u.s. and the taliban as the first step, but as any part of a negotiated outcome, the afghan government is going to have to be a part of the process. and if we can get some basic issues sorted out between the u.s. and the taliban and then bring the afghan government into those conversations, because at the end of the day, we cannot walk away from those people. and they have to be part of the solution. we cannot just do this over their heads and pretend that it is going to have any good impact long-term. pres. bush: the other point i
want to make about both countries is it is not just the united states who is there. they were, like, 32 nations in the coalition of the willing. i think 34 in iraq. nato was very proud of its decision to join with us in afghanistan. so, there were other nations there. we ought to be grateful as a nation that they were willing to do that. ms. dobriansky: mr. president, this is just for you on afghanistan. i have to put this forward. pres. bush: ok, go ahead. ms. dobriansky: that is that first lady laura bush made history during your administration, when she delivered that weekly radio address on afghanistan, which was the first time ever that a first lady had done so. and she said on that radio address, the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women. she made three trips there, she is the honorary chair of the
u.s. afghan women's council, she has been committed to this. this is about global citizenship. isn't this the perfect example of that? pres. bush: it is. i was trying to give a radio i was sitting there all poised, and i felt the sharp elbow in my side. [laughter] pres. bush: move over, buster. laura knew she could be impactful as the first lady. she learned firsthand how impactful she could be because because after her speech, a lot of people wanted to be engaged in helping afghan women and girls. she gave great hope to people whose rights have been squashed. by the taliban. it was a defining moment in helping to define how our administration would treat people around the world. yeah, it was a good one. ms. dobriansky: and she certainly has made a tremendous difference, not only then but even now.
pres. bush: yeah, she is still telling me what to do. [laughter] ms. dobriansky: that may be a good thing. pres. bush: yeah, it probably is. ms. dobriansky: anyhow, russia, we have to discuss russia. mr. president, i was struck by the fact that you have met vladimir putin more than 40 times during your administration. who is he? what are his goals and objectives? pres. bush: we became so familiar with each other, i called him vlad and he called me w. he changed when i was president. when i first got elected, russia was broke, and then the price of oil went up, and the real putin started to emerge. i think putin's ultimate goal is to reinstate soviet hegemony. he is playing a weak hand right now, because the demographics in russia are disastrous. he has consolidated power. he has not much pushback. he know how people say "man,
is popular," and i say "yeah, i would be popular, too, if we owned nbc news." [laughter] pres. bush: anyway, he is a zero-sum thinker. he is not a very good strategic thinker. they think what can we do to win. he thinks," what can i do to diminish america?" bob, i think i'm right about saying this, bob, is that an old playbook from the soviet era. it was to foment dissent in our country by supporting radical groups and creating consternation in our society for a period of time. it was close but it seems to be reemerging. and we have to make two things abundantly clear. one, our alliances are solid. imagine being a lithuanian and worrying about the u.s. engagement to nato and protecting them through article
v, and yet there are a lot of russian speakers in lithuania. so, our allies are being pressured by putin, and they have to know they have a strong ally in the united states. secondly, putin has to know he cannot mess in our elections. that any attempt to dispirit the united states democracy, there has to be significant pushback. and there needs to be a firm resolve by any administration to make it clear to putin that we understand your game, and you are not going to get away with it. ms. dobriansky: mr. secretary, by the way, before you give your response, i have to say you have done extensive academic work, russian history and looking at soviet foreign policy. i have been a reader of many of your writings, both outside and then also when you served at the agency. pres. bush: wow. is that a sleeping device? [laughter] ms. dobriansky: no comment. [laughter] mr. gates: it is a non-technical cure for apnea. [laughter]
mr. gates: i think you understand where putin is coming from, you have to go back to the collapse of the soviet union. and i think we in the west greatly underestimated the magnitude of the humiliation. because it was not just the collapse of the soviet union in 1991. it was the collapse of a four-century-old russian empire. and so russia's borders today , just kind of rapiwrap your this, russia's borders today are what they were before catherine the great became empress in the 18th century. moscow used to rule 300 million people. now it is 140 million and declining. and so, and then you had during the 1990's a period of extraordinary destitution and chaos, disorder, criminal activity, murders in the
streets, gangs killing each other, businessmen killing each other, and so on. this first of all set the need, which is, frankly, i think part of the russian culture for a strong leader, to restore order, to restore the economy, and so on. and that is the backdrop against which putin became president. i think from the very beginning he has had two basic goals. the first, as the president said, is to restore russia to the soviet union's place as a great power and a power that has to be taken into account in dealing with any problems around the world. and i think their involvement in syria and venezuela, in africa, this is all basically a
reassertion, "we are back and do not mess with us, and you have to take us into account." the second is a strategy as old as the russian empire and that is to create a buffer of either client states or frozen contacts on their periphery. we saw that in georgia, ukraine, moldova. i think, frankly, if the baltic states were not members of nato, i think we would be seeing it in the baltic states today. i think since the election in 2012 in which he felt, or believed, that the u.s. intervened against him when he was reelected president, and he regards anything that we were doing in terms of promotion of democracy, of civil society and so on, which was going on, began really during the bush administration, as interference in their internal affairs. and so, i think this newest piece is basically retaliation, and the determination to weaken the west in every way possible
through fomenting internal divisions. not just in the u.s. but in europe as well. and we have seen it in germany, in france, in italy. i think they were involved i think originally in the brexit vote. and to the president's point about the soviet playbook, the problem today is the technologies that are available through social media and the internet and cyber and so on are dramatically more effective than the tools that were available to the cia and kgb back in the cold war. and putin is using all of these against us to try and create, foment divisions among us, to interfere with the outcomes of our elections and so on. and i think we are going to be dealing with him for a very long time. his current term is not up until 2024. i think he will find a way to become, like president xi,
president for life. ms. dobriansky: it is one of the most serious challenges we have before us. certainly. last month, there were 49 immigrants who were sworn in as u.s. citizens here at the bush center, and you and mrs. bush made remarks about significant contributions of immigrants to our society. at the same time, you also noted that the center is very clear-eyed about the need to enforce our borders and protect our homeland. talk about this issue. pres. bush: first of all, if you have never been to a naturalization ceremony, i urge you to go to one. they are spectacular. moments of the greatness of america. people who have taken big risks to get here, people who started their own businesses, people who want their kids to have a good education.
they have stood in line, and they become citizens, and it is a spectacular moment. we had 1 -- we have had two -- i still had a little presidency in me, and knew the photograph that will be broadcast across the country, so i had two mexican americans in marine uniforms who had just gotten sworn in on my sides. and i was sending a message to the american people that there is a pretty harsh debate right now, but please do not overlook the contributions of immigrants to the vibrancy of our soul. going to get solved until the so,o get solved until the politics gets out of it. to me it is viewed as a political plus for both parties in congress. and it is sad because the problem is fixable. the laws need to be rewritten. the asylum laws need to be re-investigated. the border patrol needs to be bolstered. and most americans understand the need to enforce the border
, but most americans are more welcoming than what the vatican rhetoric has been so far. i'm a little discouraged about it. i heroically tried and miserably failed to get a bill passed in 2007. i still think it is the right model. and i know there is not only a human rights dimension to this issue, but there is an economic dimension to this issue. i think those of us that live -- or anywhere, for that matter, know that those of us who have jobs that require hard work, and sweating away in august in , americans are not willing to do them, but there are others who will. for the economic vitality of our country, we want to have a worker program. anyway, it is a tough issue. it clouds what has been so great about us as a nation, that we are able to assimilate. and i hope that the issue is just political, not a lack of confidence in what we stand for
and the ability to people to meld together. ianksy: secretary gates, what is the proper role of the military in this issue? mr. gates: first of all, when i became secretary we had several thousand national guard troops along the border. i actually was kind of cynical about it and had these discussions with president bush. these troops were there at the request of the governors, and the reason they want to the federal government involved is frankly because we pay for those troops being on the border rather than the governors having to find the money to pay for them. i think that the military can provide short-term assistance where there are civilian shortfalls.
whether it is in reconnaissance, or logistics, things like that. but i think it should be considered short-term. it is not the mission of the american military to be on the border, to guard our borders. that is why we have customs and border patrol. and so, where the military is filling a role, we ought to be strengthening the civilian agencies that are responsible for this long-term. so, i think if the military is needed, i think that they have to play that limited role. they cannot do law enforcement, they cannot arrest people. in most cases, they do not even carry weapons. so this is really about providing some kinds of support to fulfill short-term civilian deficiencies and capabilities. but it takes them away from their training. it takes them away from getting ready to the missions they are actually supposed to be prepared to fight.
so, i see it as a short-term fix, not as a long-term role. that is not with the american military is supposed to do. pres. bush: i agree with that completely. and by the way, we do not want to militarize our border, and we do not want to send the signal to mexico that they are an enemy. mexico is not an enemy, they are an ally. anyway, fine answer, secretary. [laughter] ms. dobrianksy: another area that both of you have spent time on, china. china is cast as a strategic competitor. china has been condemned for its predatory commercial behavior on behalf of both republicans and democrats, and there has been a call for strong action against china. what is the right balance for dealing with china? pres. bush: well, i think you just described it.
on the one hand, there are benefits for trade, on the other hand, china needs to be held accountable when they steal intellectual property. hopefully the negotiations going on right now can achieve that objective. what has changed since we were there is xi jinping. there would be seven people that required consensus among the seven, which is kind of a check and balance in an unusual way. therefore china seemed to be very risk-averse at being confrontational. president xi changes the dynamics and diplomacy. i believe that the united states, though, must make sure that our allies, japan, the philippines, south korea, and india, know that we stand squarely with them if china tries to encroach upon their territories. i happen to believe that not joining the transpacific -- whatever it is called, trading partnership, something like that.
was a mistake. by pulling out of it, it sent a signal to our allies that we were not serious about economic alliances, and it enabled china to gain a better market share from our allies relative to what we had. and so, the best policy ought to be to negotiate the best deal we can get and negotiate trade disputes through world mechanisms and strengthen our bilateral alliances. ms. dobriansky: do you have a reaction? mr. gates: really just to pile onto the president's comments about the role of xi jinping, the creator of chinese reform has an expression, hide your capabilities and bide your time.
basically lie low while you are getting stronger. and the second pillar of his approach was to prevent the rise of another mao. ever again. so, the structures he created, term limits for the president, age limits for the bureau and others, were intended to prevent that from happening. and it was sustained up until xi came along. in the first case, what xi has done is say we have an alternative model of governance, and the way countries should be organized, and our authoritarian state capitalism is the way to go. and you see these democracies are all paralyzed and cannot get anything done, but look at us. so, he goes out and brags about what they are going to do and in technologies in 2025 and china 2050, and asserting china's military role in the south china sea and things like that, that have, frankly, alarmed almost everybody. the second piece of it was
getting rid of all of those limits that do not fit in in terms of leadership. making himself president for life. this basically destroys the notion of elected leadership, and frankly, means he is totally responsible for everything that happens in addition to having all the authority. but the problem with that is there is nobody who is going to come up to him and say you are headed down the wrong path, you are making a mistake. when a leader does not have anyone whispering in his ear, this was a mistake or this is the wrong thing to do -- and this was one of the safeguards of the collective leadership approach to decision-making. it did not stop the reform from going on, but it made sure that things were held in check, if you will. so, i think what has happened and what has changed since we were in government, is that you now have the business community as well as other countries, the business community in this
country as in other countries, all increasingly concerned about china's approach. and frankly, a new attitude towards china after 40 years. and i think the key, i think, for us and for our leadership is figuring out -- i think we have a long-term competition with china ahead of us. in many respects, it may resemble the cold war. but we have to make sure to try and channel it into competition, and avoid becoming adversaries. and with the risk of military confrontation. and that is going to take pretty adroit leadership, both in beijing and in washington. pres. bush: two points. one, that is the reason why it is important for canada and mexico and the united states to find common ground to bolster our respective economies, so that we can better compete with china in the long term. and secondly, china has got enormous demographic
difficulties as well. remember, they had the one-child policy? it turns out most families that had one child wanted it to be a male. you have an aging and declining population and a lot of men, and very few women, relatively speaking. so, i do not think china is to be feared, because i believe our future is much brighter than theirs. but i do believe, as bob said, that we can exploit, wisely exploit the consternation that is now rising around the world of china's aggressive policy. ms. dobriansky: we are at the end of our session, but i want to stick in a fast one, because there is breaking news about the arrest of julian assange. can you give a quick reaction? pres. bush: yeah, you were like a spy. [laughter] mr. gates: two words. about time.
pres. bush: yeah, i don't have any sympathy for the guy, either. ms. dobrianksy: i thought it would be a quick reaction. mr. gates: snowden is next. closebrianksy: i want to by saying eleanor roosevelt said "he who is not willing to take succeed in life." the two of you have taken a lot of risks. in the positions you have held, and they have benefitted the lives of so many. please join me in thanking both president and secretary gates. [applause] ms. dobriansky: now may i draw your attention to the video screen. thank you. today, the carnegie endowment
for international peace hold a discussion on the trump administration's policy toward iran. at 12:10rage begins p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on "the communicators ," a conversation about privacy and internet development with mary stone ross and daniel weisner from the m.i.t. international policy -- internet policy research initiative. are higherhe stakes now, because we are talking about playing internet capabilities, which is the ability to assist or in some cases unilaterally make those decisions about people. mary: i am a lawyer. i have met so many different policies, and they are clearly not meant to inform the consumer about how the information is
collected or used. we need to have consent about how we're using the information to make a decision. >> watch "the communicators" tonight on c-span two. 10:00 a.m.y, at eastern, attorney general william barr will testify before the senate judiciary committee on the mueller report, and on thursday, at 9:00 a.m. eastern, he will testify before the house judiciary committee live on , and listenpan.org on the free c-span radio app. on friday, and a reprint founder and former's -- panera bread founder ron shake spoke to the business community. this is about one hour.